The countries you're listing are tied close enough that none of them are interested in an even weaker/failed Euro but that doesn't mean we lump them in with the Eurozone. I don't think I have to point out in how many ways the comparison to the USA is flawed.
Pretty much, although it isn't only the banks. House-owners also can't afford to drop prices; they'd take an unaffordable hit and are obviously quite anxious to avoid that. Defaults are up still, but not by as much as was feared I think.Originally Posted by Aurora148
As for rental: I just moved in the UK (two weeks ago) and had to find a new place to rent: I found a decent apartment within a couple of days looking around, at pretty much the same rent for a very similar apartment in the same type of location. This was the case with pretty much all the apartments I was shown, from different agencies as well. Anecdotal evidence no doubt, but as far as I can tell there has been next to no movement in the rental sector at all, not where I was leaving, and not where I was moving too. Perhaps it is the specific 'band' I'm in, but with all these stories about massive rent hikes about I expected to be pretty much shafted ...
Whether this is the calm before the storm I don't know, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but for now it seems to me the rental market is idling just as much as the rest of the UK economy at large ...
You what? The majority of UK trade goes to eurozone countries and many of our companies have subsidiaries there, same for Sweden and Switzerland, so how are they not affected? And no it's nothing like saying the US is that closely tied to the Eurozone.Sweden, the UK, and Switzerland are nowhere near as closely tied to the eurozone as Denmark. Suggesting as much is one same level as suggesting the US is as closely tied to the eurozone as Denmark. It is basically on the same level as your earlier statement that the EU ultimate goal is to bring about a united states of Europe. Which is to say: pretty much retarded ...Sweden, the UK and Switzerland are also closely tied to the eurozone but you're not suggesting they're a part of it.
And given that the EU has, over the years, created single currency and central bank, unified its workforce, reduced barriers to cross-border trade, introduced regulation is a vast array of fields, created an effective head of state and a quasi-foreign minister. It has done this by continuously persuading member states to give up bits of their sovereignty and the EC is now suggesting, once again, that giving it a bit more can sort out this current problem (and most likely it can resolve the issue if it's agreed). I don't really see how it's retarded to say that the EU is moving towards greater and greater integration that might one day result in it become a large federal state. It's not exactly a new theory Bart and there's plenty of evidence to indicate this is the direction in which the EU is moving.
No one with any brain is interested in an even weaker/failed Euro, and that includes even the US.
But comparing the 'closeness' of Denmark to Germany/Eurozone with the UK (and Sweden and Switzerland) is nonsensical. Denmark actually has quite large problems to deal with, to basically the same level as Austria I'd say. But both these countries can 'stand in the shade' because of the protection Germany's robustness affords them. In fact, the same can be said about the Netherlands. Denmark may still have the DKK, but as long as it moves virtually in sync with the Euro, and as long as Denmark's economic and financial prospects are still viewed through the prism of Germany's economic and financial well-being, we can just as well lump it in with the other 'core' EU countries (aka German satellites).
How anyone can put the UK (or Sweden or Switzerland) in the same satellite category as Denmark is quite beyond me.
I see your rewriting this into "the UK will be unaffected", which is not even close to what I said. That's your strawman argument, so I wish you good luck in demolishing it.You what? The majority of UK trade goes to eurozone countries and many of our companies have subsidiaries there, same for Sweden and Switzerland, so how are they not affected? And no it's nothing like saying the US is that closely tied to the Eurozone.Sweden, the UK, and Switzerland are nowhere near as closely tied to the eurozone as Denmark. Suggesting as much is one same level as suggesting the US is as closely tied to the eurozone as Denmark. It is basically on the same level as your earlier statement that the EU ultimate goal is to bring about a united states of Europe. Which is to say: pretty much retarded ...Sweden, the UK and Switzerland are also closely tied to the eurozone but you're not suggesting they're a part of it.
And given that the EU has, over the years, created single currency and central bank, unified its workforce, reduced barriers to cross-border trade, introduced regulation is a vast array of fields, created an effective head of state and a quasi-foreign minister. It has done this by continuously persuading member states to give up bits of their sovereignty and the EC is now suggesting, once again, that giving it a bit more can sort out this current problem (and most likely it can resolve the issue if it's agreed). I don't really see how it's retarded to say that the EU is moving towards greater and greater integration that might one day result in it become a large federal state. It's not exactly a new theory Bart and there's plenty of evidence to indicate this is the direction in which the EU is moving.
My point is that because of its closeness to Germany you can just as well lump in Denmark (without the Euro) into the 'rump' Eurozone you'll be left with if/when the PIIGS fall out of the Eurozone. There's simply no need to set them apart to the same degree as you would the UK.
And no, the 'aim' of the EU was never to create a 'united state of Europe', nor was it to become a 'large federal state', as you now put it. Most of the things you mention, just as most of the policies from the EU are focussed on greater collaboration between the different sovereign member states, mostly for economic and financial gains. The creation of a supranational government with sovereignty over the member states was, is, and never will be on the books for the EU, there's no one who'd ever accept such a radical (and doomed) direction or policy (and there was never a big conspiracy to bring it about through the backdoor neither).
It doesn't matter how you rewrite, rephrase, backpedal or obfuscate: the notion that the integration within the EU was all along aimed at the creation of a united state of Europe is simple wrong (if not downright retarded).
Look, you were the one that erroneously placed Denmark in the eurozone, not me. You can lump Denmark without the euro into your "rump" if you wish but it's not part of the eurozone now, and won't be if the zone is split in two either.I see your rewriting this into "the UK will be unaffected", which is not even close to what I said. That's your strawman argument, so I wish you good luck in demolishing it.You what? The majority of UK trade goes to eurozone countries and many of our companies have subsidiaries there, same for Sweden and Switzerland, so how are they not affected? And no it's nothing like saying the US is that closely tied to the Eurozone.Sweden, the UK, and Switzerland are nowhere near as closely tied to the eurozone as Denmark. Suggesting as much is one same level as suggesting the US is as closely tied to the eurozone as Denmark. It is basically on the same level as your earlier statement that the EU ultimate goal is to bring about a united states of Europe. Which is to say: pretty much retarded ...Sweden, the UK and Switzerland are also closely tied to the eurozone but you're not suggesting they're a part of it.
And given that the EU has, over the years, created single currency and central bank, unified its workforce, reduced barriers to cross-border trade, introduced regulation is a vast array of fields, created an effective head of state and a quasi-foreign minister. It has done this by continuously persuading member states to give up bits of their sovereignty and the EC is now suggesting, once again, that giving it a bit more can sort out this current problem (and most likely it can resolve the issue if it's agreed). I don't really see how it's retarded to say that the EU is moving towards greater and greater integration that might one day result in it become a large federal state. It's not exactly a new theory Bart and there's plenty of evidence to indicate this is the direction in which the EU is moving.
My point is that because of its closeness to Germany you can just as well lump in Denmark (without the Euro) into the 'rump' Eurozone you'll be left with if/when the PIIGS fall out of the Eurozone. There's simply no need to set them apart to the same degree as you would the UK.
And no, the 'aim' of the EU was never to create a 'united state of Europe', nor was it to become a 'large federal state', as you now put it. Most of the things you mention, just as most of the policies from the EU are focussed on greater collaboration between the different sovereign member states, mostly for economic and financial gains. The creation of a supranational government with sovereignty over the member states was, is, and never will be on the books for the EU, there's no one who'd ever accept such a radical (and doomed) direction or policy (and there was never a big conspiracy to bring it about through the backdoor neither).
It doesn't matter how you rewrite, rephrase, backpedal or obfuscate: the notion that the integration within the EU was all along aimed at the creation of a united state of Europe is simple wrong (if not downright retarded).
Also, I'm not rephrasing or backpedalling. You are utterly naive if you think that there aren't people who envision the EU as one day become some sort of superstate. It might not be in the EU's stated goals but the EU itself is just an institution created along this path that Europe has been taking for more than half a century. There's only two ways it can go, one is to fall apart and the other is to come closer together so not really sure how you can say the later (which has been the general preferred response to previous problems over the last 50 years) is retarded when it has plenty of historical precedent to back it up.
Last edited by Smuggo; June 27 2012 at 01:39:21 PM.
Seems to be alot thats beyond you:How anyone can put the UK (or Sweden or Switzerland) in the same satellite category as Denmark is quite beyond me.
1. Brevity
2. Admitting to a mistake
Haha, I love the bit at the end when she gets a little patronising and calls him Jeremy, his response being;
"Do you ever think you're incompetent?"
She was so unprepared, the whole interview gets off on the wrong foot because she refused to answer a simple question about when the policy changed. I'm not overly familiar with UK politics but I guess it relates to how she is percieved? Shes young and female so perhaps this plays into it as well.Haha, I love the bit at the end when she gets a little patronising and calls him Jeremy, his response being;
"Do you ever think you're incompetent?"
No, it's because a lot of Conservative MPs had privately said they were being told to support the previous policy to increase fuel duty up until just a few hours before the announcement was made that it would be dropped. If she had been honest it likely would have been revealed she only found out the policy position had changed on the day, if not just before it was announced in Parliament.She was so unprepared, the whole interview gets off on the wrong foot because she refused to answer a simple question about when the policy changed. I'm not overly familiar with UK politics but I guess it relates to how she is percieved? Shes young and female so perhaps this plays into it as well.Haha, I love the bit at the end when she gets a little patronising and calls him Jeremy, his response being;
"Do you ever think you're incompetent?"
This would indicate why she appears so unprepared. Also, people are pretty annoyed that George Osborne sent her in front of Paxman (who is well known for this kind of thing) instead of going out there himself.
you're not listening, the elected political elite have been giving away sovereignty, whenever the pesky proles vote no, they get to vote again and that process is repeated until the desired result comes out the other end.European countries have been continually accepting less and less influence for over 50 years. I'm not sure why you don't think they will continue to do so, especially when the alternatives pretty much see the EU falling apart, despite having been largely beneficial for member states. The trend since WW2 has been closer and closer integration. There have been bumps in the road, and this is a big one, but the EU has consistently become a stronger institution over time.
Also your argument about smaller states having less influence doesn't really hold up. The USA had similar issues to deal with when it was founded, and hence you have the upper house, the Senate, where each state elects two representatives so each state is equally represented in the legislature regardless of how populus it is. It would be perfectly possible to enact a similar system in Europe. We've already moved towards having an EU executive head of state with the president and some other roles I can't remember right now.
And lastly, the forces outside the EU need to be considered. Larger countries such as China, India, the US and Russia dominate world politics today and European countries individually can't wield the kind of influence in international relations that they once did and this will only get worse. As a single bloc they are far stronger and more able to protect the interests of this continent.
you might force the horse to the water, but you cannot force it to drink, the union has been steadily declining in popularity in northern Europe for the last twenty years, to the extend that its no longer possible to gather public support to ratify treaties, the Lisbon treaty was put to a public vote only once in ireland, and rejected in the first round, what's more startling and painfully obvious is the complete lack of legitimacy of the Lisbon treaty, it may have the political elite's signature but precisely because there was no vote on it held, it lacks proper public support among many of the countries who are actually funding the party itself.
given the make-up of the European parliament, i beg the differ. countries such as mine have a tiny voice split between the members of the national parliament, we don't have enough seats to even represent a single member of every major in parliament, and then there's the continued attempts to move the distrubution towards a population-distrubution model, while that may well be more "fair" it's also going to make sure the smaller nations have no say at all.
not that the European parliament is actually relevant in the first place, the power the union does hold lies mostly with the commission, making the actual parliament more or less a farce outside smaller and often borderline irrelevant matters.
its still for sissies compared to surströmming tho.
same all across scandinavia, i cant get a loan to buy a apartment like the one i am renting, but atleast it's non-profit public housing so the rent wont go full retard due to some landlord's greed.Problem now is that unless you have parents who can provide collateral for your loan you literally can't save enough money to keep up with the price increases. And whats even worse is that I who own my own flat gets loads of tax deductions based on the interest I pay on my loan while people renting end up paying a lot more in taxes then me. And that is money that they should have been saving to afford to buy a place.Norway has a huge oil industry and has made a number of significant field discoveries in recent years so it's bound to be performing really well.
So unless you have wealthy parents or got in early you are basically fucked when it comes to the housing market. This is because you have rules saying you cannot loan more then 75-80%(can't remember exact value) of the value of the house. which in turn was put in place to make sure that people who cannot afford to buy didn't. While totally disregarding how much income the people actually have.
European Exchange Rate MechanismNo one with any brain is interested in an even weaker/failed Euro, and that includes even the US.
But comparing the 'closeness' of Denmark to Germany/Eurozone with the UK (and Sweden and Switzerland) is nonsensical. Denmark actually has quite large problems to deal with, to basically the same level as Austria I'd say. But both these countries can 'stand in the shade' because of the protection Germany's robustness affords them. In fact, the same can be said about the Netherlands. Denmark may still have the DKK, but as long as it moves virtually in sync with the Euro, and as long as Denmark's economic and financial prospects are still viewed through the prism of Germany's economic and financial well-being, we can just as well lump it in with the other 'core' EU countries (aka German satellites).
How anyone can put the UK (or Sweden or Switzerland) in the same satellite category as Denmark is quite beyond me.
only reason the DKK is tied to the euro, it's literately a cabinet decision away from going independent again, and with a very flexible labour market and a abundance of small/medium sized companies (by international scale) "retooling" is less of a challenge than it would be elsewhere.
a euro collapse would hurt like hell, but recovery would be no more than 2-3 years distant, the close running with Germany makes a lot of economic sense but it's not the only option.
Last edited by Liare; June 27 2012 at 05:45:46 PM.
More commonly they just don't vote at all, suggesting they don't really care that much.
<3 Paxman.
It's not that big a problem in the UK. Now that the yoof of today are finally, finally getting over their snobbery around place names, things are actually quite alright for new buyers. Obviously not the days of a year's wages for a 2 bed terrace that previous generations grew up with, but as long as you're willing to look beyond the most desirable areas you can easily find stuff in whatever price range you fancy. It's led to the rapid gentrification of many areas, like south manchester or parts of north and east london. The big problem isn't prices, which have fallen substantially, but access to mortgages. Banks just aren't willing to lend.
Rental prices in central Leeds havent changed in ten years. If anything you can probably negotiate a slightly lower rent now.Pretty much, although it isn't only the banks. House-owners also can't afford to drop prices; they'd take an unaffordable hit and are obviously quite anxious to avoid that. Defaults are up still, but not by as much as was feared I think.
As for rental: I just moved in the UK (two weeks ago) and had to find a new place to rent: I found a decent apartment within a couple of days looking around, at pretty much the same rent for a very similar apartment in the same type of location. This was the case with pretty much all the apartments I was shown, from different agencies as well. Anecdotal evidence no doubt, but as far as I can tell there has been next to no movement in the rental sector at all, not where I was leaving, and not where I was moving too. Perhaps it is the specific 'band' I'm in, but with all these stories about massive rent hikes about I expected to be pretty much shafted ...
Whether this is the calm before the storm I don't know, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but for now it seems to me the rental market is idling just as much as the rest of the UK economy at large ...
statistically 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang repping
She's not perceived at all.
The full story is that since the budget in march, there has been a 3p fuel duty increase planned for august. The opposition oppose this duty increase, not because they favour tax breaks for drivers, but because it forces the tories to justify taxing their target demographics, and they oppose the fact that the fuel duty hike was being used to fund the top rate tax cut. Even on the morning of the announcement, conservative MPs were getting their bits of paper telling them to defend the duty rise to the hilt on the basis of austerity and deficit reduction. It's a relatively small amount of money for most people (what's 3p on a car full of petrol, £1.50? £50-100 on the year?), but cutting fuel duty is a biig vote winner because almost everyone benefits, and it raises serious dollar for the treasury.
And this is where the politics starts. Right up until the morning of this announcement, ministers were peddling the above information, that it's a relatively small amount of money for most people and would bring in the exchequer anywhere up to "£1.5bn". Then, the PM has an absolute nightmare of a week after he stupidly criticises a comedian for tax avoidance, and suddenly, in these "times of austerity", that "£1.5bn" fuel duty rise, supposedly essential to balancing the books for the rest of parliament, is suddenly a £500mn tax cut, with no linked spending cut. The chancellor has, on a whim, decided to spend half a billion quid of thetaxpayers'bank of england's money on petrol.
So, this is obviously big news. Half a billion quid is a lot of money. The entire deficit only amounts to about £90bn or something, and the announcement of this effective cut (the duty has been costed into the rest of the year) came on the same day that the government announced borrowing for the month came in the best part of £5bn over what they'd targeted.
So, a lot of money spent on a day of bad economic news by a chancellor whose plan is generally under fire from all corners of the country. Newsnight is the UK's prime daily news and analysis show (apart from, you know, the news, but newsnight is way more in depth). While expecting the chancellor to turn up to such a program is usually a bit much, you would have at least expected a senior minister.
Instead, we get Chloe Smith. She is a complete and utter unknown. She's been an MP for three years and she suppsedly got the job she's in (economic secretary to the treasury, the fifth most senior post within her department of, err, six) because the PM felt worried there weren't enough women getting serious jobs in government.
And then she didn't even try. She rolls out standard lines like "our top priority is reducing the deficit" to try and justify a half a billion quid's worth of tax cut.
All the while, the chancellor is allegedly wining and dining his mates back home. Her being slaughtered like that by Paxman was a direct challenge to the chancellor, one the rest of the british press has gleefully taken up. She's just a nobody, a sacrificial lamb, and she knew it.
Last edited by elmicker; June 27 2012 at 08:55:06 PM.
Some fuel for "general bank haters":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18612279
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a4479f8-c...44feabdc0.html
Here is a list of some other banks that are under investigation for libor manipulation:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab563882-4...44feab49a.html
Anyone paying attention to what Barclays has been done for recently?
The invisible hand amirite?
sent from a fone
Anybody get fired?
The question should be whether sizeable numbers of people will go to jail over this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks