251–260 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ECB is printing money to give out loans to itself?
Every central bank does. If you think the ECB is bad, take a look at Japan. Unfortunately the entire "global financial system" is based on this. But don't call it a ponzi scheme or Serious Economists will tell you why it is totally sustainable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at certain EU members friendliness towards Russia, several other states shall be kicked out...
You’re confusing the EU with NATO. Trade with Russia was obviously positive for the EU, as can be noticed from the economic damage and energy availability crisis.
Addiction to cheap resources prevented politically sustainable energy sector development. On top of that, it's likely that corruption was involved. Which is cancer that tends to cause more corruption in semi-related parts of the system. Once politicians sell out, it's much easier to bend them again. Be it pure greed or blackmailing.
This is great for German exports. Expect to see more Mercedes Benz in the streets of America. It generates some inflation as imports are pegged to the dollar(somebody mentioned that it is hedged, it is just by some extent), but overall is actually good for the economic block. The EU needs to export to survive. The EU has been fighting a possible deflation for most of the 2010s, this is actually not so negative as peo…
Currency devaluation is basically demanding that workers do more for less. That's great for companies, if those workers accept it and don't jump ship. However some of the brightest Germans I know are in the process of emigrating. They are tired of lockdowns and inflation and everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let the Russians bomb and invade Washington State and we'll see how the dollar does.
A better analogy is if China invaded Mongolia and the US decided to cut trade. Ukraine is not part of the EU and the EU decided to take a moral position and live with the financial consequences that go with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While the military help that the EU is giving Ukraine is great It seems adequate. Europe is helping Ukraine and putting pressure for a quick end to the conflict. The real question is why is the US helping so much to the point Ukraine is refusing to negotiate. Part of me thinks it’s actually advantageous to them to weaken both Russia and the EU.
If the US were to face Russia in a conventional war, there is a serious risk of nuclear escalation between the world's largest nuclear powers. The current conflict presents the US with an opportunity to weaken Russia by supporting Ukraine, do so with international support, and without contact between US and Russian troops. KILLING AND DEATHS OF PEOPLE ARE UNACCEPTABLE. FIGHTING SHOULD BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY AND PERMA…
I agree with that in principle but I honestly can't see how to achieve that in practice in this situation. Russian leadership currently doesn't seem to care about internation rules. They believe themselves to have a sacrosanct right for greatness and the right to rule and bending to any compromise would be utterly unacceptable in that framing.
I don't think this as an absolutely Russian problem; it's the problem of super-powers that are no more (but still kinda are). I fully expect a similar situation to happen in the future when American will only be a shadow of the power it used to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better analogy is if China invaded Mongolia and the US decided to cut trade. Ukraine is not part of the EU and the EU decided to take a moral position and live with the financial consequences that go with it.
Not a great analogy, because refugees from Mongolia would not flee to the EU the next day.
Mostly another self imposed problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No big sector has seen similar level of YoY growth like tech. STOXX 600 is almost flat for last 20 years. While S and P 500 and Nasdaq rose 5-10 times over that period. While tech is not everything for the economy, it seems tech is everything for economy growth in past 30 or so years.
That tech stock growth doesn't translate to any benefit for the average citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you break that circle? I think it’s intrinsic to the models. The U.S. pays top performers better. But the average European has a more-stable lifestyle. The same regulations and labor protections that grant that stability slow down growth, so apart from an internal restructuring it’s tough to see the situation changing.
There is also a hub effect aside from pay. Shannen has all the electronics companies because it is a huge where you can buy anything. A hub can happen randomly outside of policy, like a crystal growing in solution (and it can also be triggered if there isnt one, like dipping a string into super saturated cooled solution). Remote work is kind of in the process of dissolving the crystallization for software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if the Russians bombed Washington State, the rest of the US would actually help defend it by attacking Russia. While the military help that the EU is giving Ukraine is great, it is far below the level that the other states would provide Washington. I know that isn't exactly your point, but you can't say that Ukraine is as intrinsic to the EU as Washington State is to the rest of the US.
> While the military help that the EU is giving Ukraine is great It seems adequate. Europe is helping Ukraine and putting pressure for a quick end to the conflict. The real question is why is the US helping so much to the point Ukraine is refusing to negotiate. Part of me thinks it’s actually advantageous to them to weaken both Russia and the EU.
Ukraine should not negotiate with a terrorist state. The US and the UK are making the correct choices for once. Maybe they finally learned something from WW2?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because the euro zone is a scam. Rich countries in the north especially Germany put in place policies akin to dumping and were shielded from the effects it should have had on their money by the economic gap with the poorer countries in the south. Southern countries found themselves handicapped by an overvalued currency. Meanwhile politicians in the north refused any form of transfers and keep popularising the…
It’s not! Currency fluctuations don’t allow for global trade. That’s why after WW2, the Bretton-Woods system was established with fixed exchange rates. After that came to its end, Europe created a new system. Rates were not pegged to gold but to other European currencies (only 2% deviation allowed, 6% for Italy and Britain). That created a problem for countries that couldn’t keep up with the German economy: Stabilizi…
> Currency fluctuations don’t allow for global trade.
I’m glade to learn every country in the world with their own currency can’t participate in global trade. Obviously fluctuation is not an issue for trading.
I’m guessing that by the pegging to each other you are mentioning the ECU and European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Its goal had very little to do with trade. It was mostly an attempt to avoid speculation and large monetary fluctuations which made debt management more costly for countries. It collapsed extremely fast and the southern countries were amongst the first to exit the system for reasons which are very close to why the euro is so poor for them.
> The solution: a common currency. Germany gave up the privilege of getting paid for their strong currency so weak currency countries could stay in the system.
A strong currency is detrimental to a country export. I’m not even addressing the rest of the paragraph as it doesn’t make much sense. Why are singling Italy by the way? The problem is the same for Spain, Portugal, Greece, in some measure Ireland and even somewhat impact France.
You are also completely failing to address the distortion of the German economy which are a large part of the issues especially after Hartz IV. If you take a look at the German wage levels, saving rates and trade balance, you will see that their money should be much stronger than the euro is.