Display:
So, according to you German neuroses are incompatible with both inflation and taxes. They don't appear to be incompatible with bailouts for the German banks or with collapse of GDP in other European countries. Why do dangerous neuroses have to be countenanced?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 09:12:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the bank bailouts were presented as absolutely indispensable to avoid immediate apocalypse, and the costs were never made clear (remember how much emphasis there was on how these would be "interest carrying loans" and the like) - and they are still massively hated by the populace.

Here, the stabilization fund has similarly come at a time when it was the supposed alternative to some kind of collapse, but it's been sold as a sign of duty (to the European ideal) rather than a vital interest, and the (much more certain) profitability of the loans has been underplayed.

And note that in the two cases, the interests of the financial world are radically opposite - in the case of the bank bailout, the markets had no interest to continue to cause unrest; here there is the obvious benefit of cost cutting across the board, lower wages, pensions etc, and the added bonus of bringing down to size the European social model.

Collapsing GDP in one country is unlikely to touch the citizens of another that much, unfortunately.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue May 18th, 2010 at 09:59:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series