Well now that the Leftists won in Greece lets see how yalls Utopia pans out

[RALPHEY BOY]

the Greeks may have created Western Civilization but for the life of them they sure as hell cannot figure out Debits and Credits and Budgets... 170% Debt to GDP..


http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/25/inve....html?iid=Lead


Greek stocks and government bonds fell, and the euro dipped, after the anti-austerity party Syriza swept to victory in national elections, setting the stage for a clash with its international lenders.
The euro hovered around $1.12 against the dollar, after earlier falling near the 11-year low reached last week after the European Central Bank announced a massive stimulus program. Greek stocks dropped more than 3% in early trading, while the country's banks were harder hit. Yields on Greek 10-year government bonds rose to 8.7%.

Syriza's victory was fueled by populist anger over severe austerity measures that critics felt prioritized payments to creditors over an economic rebound in Greece.
Greece accepted its first bailout in 2010. Since then it has received €240 billion ($277.8 billion) in emergency loans from the European Union and International Monetary Fund to rescue its battered economy. In return, the country agreed to deep cuts in government salaries, tax hikes, a freeze on state pensions and bans on early retirement.
Five years on, the broad economic picture is improving. But life for many Greeks is much worse. Unemployment has soared and wages have fallen even as people are working longer -- all of which fueled demand for change.
Alexis Tsipras, the Syriza leader who will be the next prime minister, has pledged to roll back austerity measures. He will govern in coalition with the Independent Greeks, a small party that also opposes the tough bailout terms.
Analysts say his choice of coalition partner raises the likelihood of a major clash with Greece's international lenders, and the risk of an eventual exit from the eurozone -- the Grexit scenario.

On the campaign trail, Tsipras said he would cut taxes and force Germany and other creditors back to the bargaining table to renegotiate the terms of the bailout package. He said restructuring the debt would allow the Greek government to increase spending and boost the economy.
European leaders oppose this plan, and still maintain tremendous leverage over Greece. Athens needs an infusion of cash to make an upcoming bond payment, and the country's banks need access to cheap financing from Europe's central bank.
"The vote is a mandate for renegotiation on debt and a plea for an end to austerity," wrote Kit Juckes, at Societe Generale. "With Mr Tsipras sounding so belligerent, markets will ponder what a 'Grexit' would do for European assets (unambiguously bad for the euro) and what concessions on Greek debt would do to other highly indebted economies."

Meanwhile, Greece's debt continues to grow. Net debt was around 130% of GDP in 2010 according to the IMF -- now it's close to 170%. The economy has shrunk, so the debt ratio has increased, meaning it's only getting harder for Greece to rid itself of debt -- it may be nearly impossible.

[i'va biggen]

If you don't live there WTF.

[RALPHEY BOY]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

If you don't live there WTF.

we live in a Global Economy now, if you had not noticed.
this is not good for anyone regardless if you live there or not.

I am curious to see how the Leftists plan on paying back billions they borrowed??

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

we live in a Global Economy now, if you had not noticed.
this is not good for anyone regardless if you live there or not.

I am curious to see how the Leftists plan on paying back billions they borrowed??

+1

[WTF]

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

Meanwhile, Greece's debt continues to grow. Net debt was around 130% of GDP in 2010 according to the IMF -- now it's close to 170%. The economy has shrunk, so the debt ratio has increased, meaning it's only getting harder for Greece to rid itself of debt -- it may be nearly impossible.

You do realize that the major driver of our debt is Defense spending?

How is that a Liberal thing?

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

we live in a Global Economy now, if you had not noticed.
this is not good for anyone regardless if you live there or not.

I am curious to see how the Leftists plan on paying back billions they borrowed??

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

we live in a Global Economy now, if you had not noticed.
this is not good for anyone regardless if you live there or not.

I am curious to see how the Leftists plan on paying back billions they borrowed??

Let the EU worry about it we got problems of our own.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1

Good book. But....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...0505.drum.html
There are broader downsides to globalization too, but although Friedman managed to write tellingly about them in Lexus, they are addressed only briefly and with little passion in World. In fact, he reprises one of his pet theories from Lexus, the “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention,” which states that no two countries that both have a McDonald's will ever go to war with each other. In World, it becomes the “Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention”: No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain like Dell's will ever fight a war against each other.

What's startling about this isn't the theory itself, but Friedman's admission that he didn't even start thinking about it until the late 1990s. After all, this is an idea with a long pedigree. Scholars have noted for decades that liberal democracies almost never go to war with each other, and as far back as 1910 Norman Angell famously—and with famously poor timing—wrote that the spread of mercantile interconnections had made conflict so irrational that large-scale war was henceforth futile. He had logic on his side, but that didn't stop large-scale war.
But whether Angell was wrong or just premature, Friedman doesn't address the issue even in passing. He simply writes as if this were a brand new insight of his own. Is this because he really thinks it is? Or because he figures his readers aren't interested in long dead history? There's no telling. But for readers who are familiar with this history, Friedman's lack of curiosity about it—in a field he's so obviously enthusiastic about—makes it hard to take him seriously. It's unclear why Friedman seemingly ignores the rich literature available about globalization, satisfying himself instead solely with his own brief interviews with politicians and corporate chieftans. In the end, it's not so much that Friedman is wrong about the importance of globalization and connectedness—he's not—it's that without that broader perspective, his writing is shallow and forgettable. He's playing Chopsticks on a Steinway.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Let the EU worry about it we got problems of our own.

Correct, the EU's problems can be our gain. On a micro level travel to Europe will be much cheaper! I love this exchange rate dropping.

[RALPHEY BOY]

Originally Posted by WTF

You do realize that the major driver of our debt is Defense spending?

How is that a Liberal thing?

where did I mention the US?? What does your post have to do with the news about Greece's inability to rein in spending.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Good book. But....

There are broader downsides to globalization too, but although Friedman managed to write tellingly about them in Lexus, they are addressed only briefly and with little passion in World. In fact, he reprises one of his pet theories from Lexus, the “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention,” which states that no two countries that both have a McDonald's will ever go to war with each other. In World, it becomes the “Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention”: No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain like Dell's will ever fight a war against each other.

What's startling about this isn't the theory itself, but Friedman's admission that he didn't even start thinking about it until the late 1990s. After all, this is an idea with a long pedigree. Scholars have noted for decades that liberal democracies almost never go to war with each other, and as far back as 1910 Norman Angell famously—and with famously poor timing—wrote that the spread of mercantile interconnections had made conflict so irrational that large-scale war was henceforth futile. He had logic on his side, but that didn't stop large-scale war.
But whether Angell was wrong or just premature, Friedman doesn't address the issue even in passing. He simply writes as if this were a brand new insight of his own. Is this because he really thinks it is? Or because he figures his readers aren't interested in long dead history? There's no telling. But for readers who are familiar with this history, Friedman's lack of curiosity about it—in a field he's so obviously enthusiastic about—makes it hard to take him seriously. It's unclear why Friedman seemingly ignores the rich literature available about globalization, satisfying himself instead solely with his own brief interviews with politicians and corporate chieftans. In the end, it's not so much that Friedman is wrong about the importance of globalization and connectedness—he's not—it's that without that broader perspective, his writing is shallow and forgettable. He's playing Chopsticks on a Steinway.

Friedman's examples of the 'interconnectedness' are worth remembering. For example, he tells about how a patient is given an MRI at some hospital in the U.S. Those images are outsourced to a doctor in Mumbai for evaluation and diagnosis, and then returned to the patient's doctor the next morning; thus, expediting patient care. That doctor in Mumbai works for a fraction of the cost of an American doctor. That's one American job gone.

Another example Friedman gives is closer to home in Colorado. Friedman relates how one employee sitting at a computer monitor at home can handle drive thru orders for five or six hamburger joints. That's four or five more jobs gone.

Yep! Every time the costs for labor increases, the more innovative employers will become to eliminate expensive labor.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

where did I mention the US?? What does your post have to do with the news about Greece's inability to rein in spending.

Gimme a break the only reason this was brought up was because of the word leftist . If the other party had won it would not be worthy of a thread.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

we live in a Global Economy now, if you had not noticed.
this is not good for anyone regardless if you live there or not.

I am curious to see how the Leftists plan on paying back billions they borrowed??

First you say we live in a global economy then when our debt is brought up and the driver of it, you ask what it has to do with Greece. wtf?

You are talking out both sides of your ass now. Until you correct that problem , I will waste no more time on your nonsense.

I will give you a hint though...EU's new QE.

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

where did I mention the US?? What does your post have to do with the news about Greece's inability to rein in spending.

here is how it works. We have a dedicated revenue stream in Social Programs. We have had to borrow to pay for Defense spending. At some point , when we can borrow no longer like say Greece and we have to cut say Social Security payments to pay off this debt , you'll see how we are similar to Greece. The good news is we will probably be dead.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Friedman's examples of the 'interconnectedness' are worth remembering. For example, he tells about how a patient is given an MRI at some hospital in the U.S. Those images are outsourced to a doctor in Mumbai for evaluation and diagnosis, and then returned to the patient's doctor the next morning; thus, expediting patient care. That doctor in Mumbai works for a fraction of the cost of an American doctor. That's one American job gone.

Another example Friedman gives is closer to home in Colorado. Friedman relates how one employee sitting at a computer monitor at home can handle drive thru orders for five or six hamburger joints. That's four or five more jobs gone.

Yep! Every time the costs for labor increases, the more innovative employers will become to eliminate expensive labor.

Which is why this fence building talk is stupid. There really are no borders....

Once Big Business was able to connect with this global pool of cheap labor....wages in this country were going down and income inequity was going up. Which has proven true over the last 30-40 years.
Freidman should have written on that!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Which is why this fence building talk is stupid. There really are no borders....

Once Big Business was able to connect with this global pool of cheap labor....wages in this country were going down and income inequity was going up. Which has proven true over the last 30-40 years.
Freidman should have written on that!

An actual, physical fence might be stupid, but closing the border and expelling deportables to protect what few jobs remain, isn't. As you and Friedman have noted, competition is keen enough as it is.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

An actual, pgysical fence might be stupid, but closing the border and expelling deportables to protect what few jobs remain, isn't. As you and Friedman have noted, competition is keen enough as it is.

IMHO..that would cost more money than jobs it would save.

Competition is good right? Government telling business what to do and who to hire is bad right? At least that is what I have heard for the last thirty years!