Greece Watch...

Post by **clv101** » 01 Jul 2015, 22:37

johnhemming2 wrote:
3rdRock wrote:A very sad end to what looked like a promising campaign to fight back against inequality.
It was a campaign for Greek Pensioners to get more than Slovak pensioners paid for by the Slovaks (inter alia).

Yes, but that's just one detail of a far deeper, more complex situation.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 01 Jul 2015, 22:49

clv101 wrote:Yes, but that's just one detail of a far deeper, more complex situation.

It is one detail of a complex situation.

Within that complex situation there are people who are suffering who I would not wish to suffer (looking at the situation prior to Saturday). There are also people whose standard of living is funded from outside Greece,

Since Saturday as a result of the incredible foolishness of the Greek Government things have got a lot worse.

An option when Syrizia was elected was to go for a new currency. That, however, takes time.

Even if the ECB don't require a bigger haircut on Greek sovereign debt the Greeks are in a big mess.

NBG-A
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3 ... sAG_6Kf4Cw

Is an example of preference shares in a Greek Bank that are still being traded on a market outside Greece.

Without looking at the balance sheet of a greece bank and considering how much is greek sovereign it is difficult to work out whether the banks are now bust or not.

However, the situation could be that not only are the preference shares gone, but holdings over EUR100K are gone and given that the Greek Governemnt underwrites holdings under EUR100K those could have difficulties as well.

They won't be gone completely, but with an increase in non performing loans as a result of Varoufakis' stupidity that could add to the problems.

I really don't think there is an example of a government being this foolish with financial issues for some time. (obviously the hyperinflation cases are bad, but this government could do that as well).

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Jul 2015, 23:07

johnhemming2 wrote: I accept that the Greens align themselves with Syrizia and Podemos. That is one of the biggest reasons I disagree with the Greens.

My view is that if there are fewer resources available in any given circumstances then a form of austerity will be needed eg cuts. To me this is a mathematical truth that does need any proof beyond the basic rules of mathematics.

Of course we live in a finite and therefore resource-constrained world, but that is no excuse for the inequitable division of resources. Let's have cuts for the richest first and the poorest last. The maths is certainly clear.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 01 Jul 2015, 23:14

There is a certain kind of person who, for reasons of personality and/or social conditioning, tends to do okay in systemic structures. These are essentially company men who make good managers within such existing structures. And so, for the most part and for most of the time, their behavioural strategies work. However, when they don't work or, even, prove counter productive, is in times of major systemic change. This is because, as the stresses of change become ever more apparent, such people are psychologically disposed to entrench themselves deeper in terms of their systemic responses.

Psychologically speaking, you are clearly a company man, Mr Hemming. I'm sure it's served you well to this point.

Post by **clv101** » 01 Jul 2015, 23:26

johnhemming2 wrote:My view is that if there are fewer resources available in any given circumstances then a form of austerity will be needed eg cuts. To me this is a mathematical truth that does need any proof beyond the basic rules of mathematics.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone here needs convincing that we are living in an increasingly resource constrained world. What I think gets people worked up is just who and where the cuts are felt.

Just a few recent examples from the UK: Royal Mail privatisation enriched an already wealthy minority. Pensioner bonds, transferred public money to those already wealthy enough to invest. Help to buy ISA, again transferring public money to those already wealthy enough to save/invest. Cutting billions from welfare is specifically targets poorer rather than richer folk. Why was child benefit means tested before pensioner benefits? We're literally giving public money directly to millionaires simply because they are old?

The prevailing situation in the western world since the 'economic crisis' is one of increasing inequality, the wealthy increase their wealth with the poor getting poorer.

Does it have to be this way? Is it possible do devise a political solution where the majority of the losses are felt by the wealthy instead of the poor?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 01 Jul 2015, 23:36

It doesn't even matter if, after all cuts are made more equitably leading to the rich contributing to those cuts far more than they currently do, the final equation means the poor do not suffer appreciably less than they are currently. None of that matters, in the end.

What matters, for the sake of social cohesion, is that the poor can transparently see that the rich are not getting off scott-free. That whatever pain is to go around, goes around equitably. Especially so, given that it is predominantly the rich who composed the shitty tune and built the rackety stage on which the rest of us have all been compelled to dance.

Post by **clv101** » 02 Jul 2015, 00:27

So this is worth another listen, from May 2012:
Analysis - Preparing for Eurogeddon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bwm1h

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 02 Jul 2015, 03:15

Little John wrote:It doesn't even matter if, after all cuts are made more equitably leading to the rich contributing to those cuts far more than they currently do, the final equation means the poor do not suffer appreciably less than they are currently. None of that matters, in the end.

What matters, for the sake of social cohesion, is that the poor can transparently see that the rich are not getting off scott-free. That whatever pain is to go around, goes around equitably. Especially so, given that it is predominantly the rich who composed the shitty tune and built the rackety stage on which the rest of us have all been compelled to dance.

What would keep the rich from just moving to wherever in the Euro-zone the tax burden on the rich was the least leaving the poor to carry the whole burden in Greece?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 02 Jul 2015, 03:46

vtsnowedin wrote:What would keep the rich from just moving to wherever in the Euro-zone the tax burden on the rich was the least leaving the poor to carry the whole burden in Greece?

I am assuming you are deliberately attempting to be a cliche here, yes?

Okay, I'll take your post seriously......

1) Seize and turn over to state ownership all physical assets on the UK mainland of any UK national who attempts to make arrangements to avoid paying their fair share in this country

2), If (1) doesn't focus minds, a spell behind bars will.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 02 Jul 2015, 08:25

clv101 wrote:Does it have to be this way? Is it possible do devise a political solution where the majority of the losses are felt by the wealthy instead of the poor?

The Treasury did an distribuitional analysis of the impact of all the government's policy changes. That included the increase in CGT on the more wealthy, the increases in Stamp duty on higher value properties etc.

I wrote about it here:
http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... althy.html

You should note from this that the top 10% (the richer households) are paying a lot more in terms of tax than those lower down the expenditure analysis. Chart 2D in the document (which I have not extracted) does the same calculation by income decile and comes with the same conclusion (the rich are paying more tax as a percentage of income - notwithstanding the change in headline rate).

In other words on an aggregate factual basis you are wrong. Only if you focus on a selection of the coalition's policies can you justify your argument, but if you take everything into account it is not true.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Jul 2015, 09:06

Tory government makes rich poorer and poor richer. Yeah, yeah.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 02 Jul 2015, 09:18

These are figures from the Lib Dem/Conservative Coalition. It challenges your world view, but that does not mean that it is not true.

Meanwhile greece is moving towards fuel and food shortages as a result of the government policies of Syrizia.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 02 Jul 2015, 09:37

Greece is an object lesson as to why governments "bail out" banks. Actually the governments don't bail out the banks they bail out the bankers customers by part nationalising/investing in the banks.

More recent legislation means that the preferred debt holders and then other creditors including depositors "bail in" the banks rather than the taxpayer.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 02 Jul 2015, 09:40

And you were a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 02 Jul 2015, 10:08

biffvernon wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote: I accept that the Greens align themselves with Syrizia and Podemos. That is one of the biggest reasons I disagree with the Greens.

My view is that if there are fewer resources available in any given circumstances then a form of austerity will be needed eg cuts. To me this is a mathematical truth that does need any proof beyond the basic rules of mathematics.
Of course we live in a finite and therefore resource-constrained world, but that is no excuse for the inequitable division of resources. Let's have cuts for the richest first and the poorest last. The maths is certainly clear.

Clearly, there are resources and resources being talked about here - physical and financial. For Greece and billions of others, it's more about financial inequality than fossil.

Cuts are needed in both areas of course - the financial ones not where the troika demand.