Man, I lost my bet with the wife!
Oh, well....good news about world economy I guess...
There's six hours when still it could go wrong
General / Off-Topic Effect of US Default on Frontier/ED
- Thread starter Herik
- Start date
There's six hours when still it could go wrong
I just read that the French private banks are the most exposed in Europe with U.S. bonds. More than $ 190 billion
In the worst case, french government would save these banks ...
Thing is the European nations bailed out the Irish, Italian, Spanish and Greek nations. Now those governments borrowed heavily from banks which leant money that didn't exist. Now if those banks weren't paid (the countries defaulted) then the banks would be in trouble themselves. So the government's stepped in bailing out the indebted nations. Now we don't have that kind of money available so we borrowed it in the form of 20 and 30 year bonds from the banks that had taken the IIGS debt.
Pity our kids as the IIGS nations won't miraculously become economic powerhouses and be able to pay back the billions owed and the austerity measures taken in the UK has reduced borrowing but not eliminated it (and we are still paying billions back in interest) so we are facing a massive recession in 20 years time.
Pity our kids as the IIGS nations won't miraculously become economic powerhouses and be able to pay back the billions owed and the austerity measures taken in the UK has reduced borrowing but not eliminated it (and we are still paying billions back in interest) so we are facing a massive recession in 20 years time.
Yes, Vihreät is quite annoying bunch. Though rest of the government is no better. Read the Financial Times article where our imbecile of a PM declared that Finland will always come pay debts of corrupt SE countries when they come ask for cash?
Vihreät (the green party) hasn't really been populistic at any point. Rather, they have been the the underdog for most of their existence. I was mainly referring to Perussuomalaiset (obnoxious enough to call themselves True Finns) who use people's fear of the unknown and appeal to their base emotions to gain popularity.
Vihreät has always been populists. Cheap populist propaganda with green tint. Realistic ideas they may once have had are long gone and replaced with whatever is this weeks favourite Green Scare.
And your definition of populist fits better on parties who form the government. They have constantly used scare tactics that Finland HAS to pay debts of #insert name of country who screwed up their own economy# or ELSE...
Reality is, that else nothing would happen. Greece would bankrupt and go to drakhma, similar fate for Portugal. Germany, France, USA, UK and rest would have to finance their banks when defaults turn their debt papers into toilet paper.
And then it is over.
Do you know why PS is so popular? Because rest of parties have stopped thinking benefit of Finland and Finns, instead trying to score high on some kind of "coolest kid on the block"-lists.
Same is everywhere. Traditional parties have track record for trying to hide the problems under the carpet instead of dealing with them. Problem is that eventually piles grow so big you can't really hide it anymore. That is why new parties pointing out at the issues are getting popularity. People are not stupid enough to think that carpet treatment solves problems.
Somewhat wrong place to argue about this, but I just want to say that I do not disagree with you. But rather than seeing PS as some sort of a savior, I see them as just a symptom of the corrupted political system that western countries in general have.
Unfortunately, representative democracy is not really a good way to govern a nation for many reasons. And even complete democracy (everyone votes on every issue) would fail because people simply do not know or understand the issues at stake very well (nor do representative politicians, for that matter).
That scary thing is that no one's come up with any better way to govern a country...
Unfortunately, representative democracy is not really a good way to govern a nation for many reasons. And even complete democracy (everyone votes on every issue) would fail because people simply do not know or understand the issues at stake very well (nor do representative politicians, for that matter).
That scary thing is that no one's come up with any better way to govern a country...
Which reminds me of an old protest song:
The quote though is apt ... When I was in the UK I used to vote for the lesser evil as to be honest they were all corrupt and <expletive>
The main advantage conferred by democracies (parliamentary, constitutional, republican etc.) is that they tend to not attack each other with lethal force. It's a bit like a club (the membership sort, not the heavy; the heavy sort is the type non-democracies use on each other, on democracies, and democracies use on those who aren't).
Last edited:
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Hmm. I would've thought that it was more like they give voice and political agency to their citizenry. Could be wrong though.
No, but you're right - democracies tend not to go to the mat with each other.
You're notHmm. I would've thought that it was more like they give voice and political agency to their citizenry. Could be wrong though.
The former is influenced by the latter.Now of course I am trying to think of an instance when they did. Is there an exception to prove the rule?
We celebrate losing to the colonial Americans, and have largely forgotten about doing alright in the rematch against the fledgeling democracy. Make of that what you will.
Oh Andrew, can we really describe either side in those periods as democracies as we know them? Where's my vote for starters?
But celebrate is indeed the word. Poor France.
I'm not always sure that's a good thing. It seems that modern parties don't really uphold any clear core values. Rather they are willing to support any cause that they can in order to get more votes and become more popular. It is difficult to find a politician who isn't willing to bend every which way at the behest of his/her campaign supporters. Someone who is open about his/her values and willing to stand up for them.
With the current system in most countries you vote for a party that roughly represents your views. But then when they're in power they end up making decisions you don't like. Problem of course being that some of those decisions are necessary. You may not like a tax hike or a benefits cut, or a march to war or a change in environmental policy, but the politicians are the ones stuck there with the balancing act to perform. It's easy to criticise from the living room, but the fact is all of us would be just as poor at running countries. When making decisions on such a grand scale it is impossible to not screw up somewhere or sacrifice the good of some for the good of others. No one will ever be happy.
It used to be that governments could run propaganda campaigns to make everyone think they're doing a good job. In the Age of Information this no longer works, and the best the parties can do is sling mud at each other or at some invented enemies.
This has all gotten rather off-topic mind, especially since the US default has not happened (as, quite frankly, it could not have happened - too many important people have a stake in the US government rolling on).
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Lol. I remember reading about how President Madison and his wife fled so quickly when the British troops entered the city that they left dinner on the table in the White House. When the British troops entered the building they reportedly sat down to eat, not wanting such a good meal to go to waste.
Indeed. That's one of the reasons I've never sought a position of power. I would die under the stress of trying to find the best possible solution out of many.
However, I'm not very convinced that all politicians have the common good in mind when they make their decisions. Some certainly do, but when you mix them up with people who don't, it becomes a mess for everyone.
"The more cooks spoil the broth"
Lol. I remember reading about how President Madison and his wife fled so quickly when the British troops entered the city that they left dinner on the table in the White House. When the British troops entered the building they reportedly sat down to eat, not wanting such a good meal to go to waste.
They toyed with a plan to burn the place down afterwards, but decided on balance that it wasn't sportsmanlike. A good nosh up makes you feel generous, and the decor was nice.