Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Euro Deathwatch Diary

by eurogreen Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:57:44 AM EST

Little quick and dirty diary to commemorate the Day when the German Constitutional Court broke the back of the Euro.

Or not. Stay tuned...


Liveblog on the Guardian, from which I lift the following press roundup of prognostication :

Eurozone crisis live: German court rules on euro bailout fund | Business | guardian.co.uk

Germany Spiegel newspaper says there is "great nervousness" ahead of the ruling, which it dubs "Die 700-Milliarden-Euro-Entscheidung" (The 700-billion-euro decision):

Hardly anyone expects the three women and five men [judges] will rule the ESM is unconstitutional and stop the permanent euro bailout fund completely. But the question is what conditions the court might require.

German tabloid Bild asks: Was ist, wenn das Bundesverfassungs-Gericht heute NEIN sagt? (What if the Federal Constitutional Court now says NO?). If that happens:

World stock markets could collapse, [triggering] the beginning of a global economic crisis.

Our own Kate Connolly writes:

All eyes are on the constitutional court president, Andreas Vosskühle, who will deliver the historical verdict at 10am local time on Wednesday. Vosskühle, a quietly spoken 48-year-old lover of abstract art who eschews the limelight, is believed to support the growing concern in Germany that too much power is being ceded to Brussels. He once said the citizens of Germany "shouldn't one morning wake up and find out that the people they elected have nothing to decide anymore"

The BBC's Gavin Hewitt points out that the Court ruling has already delayed the implementation of the ESM by two months:

On Wednesday the eight judges of the Germany's Federal Constitutional Court will put on their red robes and deliver key verdicts on two of the eurozone's new structures. Some say it will be the most important decision in the court's history.

Reuters agrees that the Court will probably impose some conditions on the German government:

Transferring too many powers to European institutions could be seen as violating a post-World War Two constitution and legal tradition that emphasises the sovereignty of parliament, intended to safeguard democracy after Germany's Nazi past.

The court may ask head of state Joachim Gauck to attach a reservation to the treaties addressing concerns about respecting Bundestag powers to limit German financial liability.

The Financial Times says today is "Decision Day" for the bailout fund, and suggests several conditions that could be added:

Previous judgments have insisted on closer Bundestag control over EU legislation, but that has now been largely established. An alternative restriction to answer the complaint of "unlimited" German liability would be to require Mr Gauck to attach a proviso limiting Germany's total exposure to the €211bn approved by the Bundestag.

Another suggestion made by the plaintiffs is that the court should insist on a termination clause being written into the treaties, allowing any member state to give notice to quit the agreements. If Germany were to insist on that, it would give other countries the right to abandon the fiscal compact and its German-inspired cast iron rules for budget discipline.

Finally the judges could set out limits on any further steps to provide German guarantees for its partners, such as jointly-guaranteed eurozone bonds.

José Emmanuel Barroso's annual State of the Union Adress, live from 9am Euro summer time. (As if anybody cared what he says...)

Also, Dutch general election today, which could provide a crucial push in the direction of expansionary economic policy if Labour end up with the advantage.

Display:
The clock is ticking...

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:06:56 AM EST
"Hark the hour of ten is sounding ..."


-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 08:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
@TheStalwart
German Court Is In Order And The Decision Is Being Introduced http://read.bi/RGyOUH


If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:07:40 AM EST
@TheStalwart
Is this guy going to read the entire decision?


If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The ruling will appear here, in English (when?)

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:08:34 AM EST
tomorrow. We will be quicker.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:10:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The German version of the press release is there now. Translation usually takes a day.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:50:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:56:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:09:09 AM EST
Voßkuhle is reading out the different complaints.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:11:37 AM EST
"Deathwatch" is greatly exaggerated, of course. And the court knows that the core of our problems is political, not judicial.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:13:43 AM EST
Voßkuhle is now reading out who of the complainants is present. You are patient, I hope.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:14:37 AM EST
If someone is not present, what happens?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:16:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
nothing.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
@FGoria
German court says Germany must ensure German liability to ESM does not exceed E190bn without approval of lower House of Parliament - CNBC


If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:18:07 AM EST
SZ:
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat den Weg zum Start des Euro-Rettungsschirms ESM freigemacht - allerdings nur unter Vorbehalt....
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:18:38 AM EST
Okay. What I expected. Gauck can sign, the thing is ratified. The Bundestag's participation must be guaranteed. The sum of Germany's payments and guarantees mustn't be unlimited.

Nothing to see here.

by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:19:26 AM EST
What orifice did the Constitutional Court pull the €190bn figure out of?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's in the ESM. The court says this sum must not be exceeded.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's 7% of GDP, or 5-700bn Eurozone-wide. Is that even good enough?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The ESM says Germany's share is 190 billion, unless they need more. Then the share will automatically rise. Not automatically says the court: only the Bundestag can decide the sum will exceed this limit.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:32:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
hang on. 190 bil must not be exceeded because it's what the parliament has already approved, right?

So the parliament could approve another, arbitrarily big figure, rendering the ESM viable. If it wanted. And until it does, the ESM will be reputed unviable. Am I right?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:31:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right.

Important Voßkuhle quote: This is--and remains--the task of politics.

by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FT Alphaville
12-Sep-2012 09:14 - GERMAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT SAYS REJECTS COMPLAINTS AGAINST ESM/FISCAL PACT AS LARGELY UNFOUNDED


It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:21:23 AM EST

https://twitter.com/StephanEwald/status/245798673471119360
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:23:21 AM EST
@OlafStorbeck
Constitutional Court: cap on German liabilities has to be mandatory under international law. #esm
Does that require a change to the treaty as already signed and ratified by other countries?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:30:43 AM EST
Good question. I suspect not. They will just add a note to the small print.
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:40:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And when they insist that Germany must have veto (through the German representative in the ESM board), does that mean everyone else must have veto, too, or a weighted voting system resulting in veto for some subset of countries including Germany?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 04:55:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The German Constitutional Court has to decide if a piece of German legislation (here: the law of ratification of the ESM) is compatible with the German Basic Law.

Naturally the rights of the Portuguese parliament are defended elsewhere. What did you expect? Do you want to transfer the task of defending the democratic rights of all Europeans to a German court?

by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:20:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I mean is, that kind of thing cannot be a footnote to a treaty signature. It's like saying the voting rules at the European Council are a footnote.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"This is--and remains--the task of politics."
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:33:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I want to see the political reaction from the rest of the Member States when Gauck signs and writes underneath "but we have veto power, by the way".

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:35:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He will sign and write underneath "not interested how the rest of you get the permission to spend money, but we will ask parliament".

Arguably this is veto power when it comes to exceeding the sums of the treaty. Politically a protest against this will be impossible: are you against parliament's power? Advocating absolutism? I guess nobody wants to argue that.

by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Should be federalised to the European Parliament, IMHO.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:47:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How high is their budget?
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
EU budget is 1% of GDP.

ESM capital is 7% of GDP already.

Just so we're clear what's important.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:54:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here I am comparing a stock with a flow... <facepalm>

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:59:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No soup for you!


-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 08:05:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So we federalise the right to spend money that the EP doesn't have. Seems to be symptomatic of the problem.

Wait, I've got it: the EP must get the right to socialise banks. Then they have the power of decisions.

by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is all so much nonsense. Why don't we just strike the prohibition of monetary financing of public debt and be done with it?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't really want an answer to that, do you?
by Katrin on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:08:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because then Germany will have to invade Poland.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 12:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Germany will send the ratified treaty to the treaty depositary and append the demanded reservations and declarations.

The treaty itself is unchanged.

If an ESM governor wears his other hat as a german finance minister and reports about ESM matters to the parliament, the ESM could complain about a breach of the confidentiality clause. And Germany could then point out the declaration on the interpretation of the confidentiality clause annexed to the treaty.

Voting: Below 190 billion of german obligations nothing changes. Above 190 billion a ESM decision could be ignored by Germany because of the reservation declared. Other countries could not do this, because they haven't declared a reservation.

We should remember though that under the ordinary voting rules nothing besides the colour of the meeting room can be decided against the german (and french) vote anyway.

     

by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:38:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right. From the ESM treaty
Article 4

2. The decisions of the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors shall be taken by mutual agreement, qualified majority or simple majority as specified in this Treaty. In respect of all decisions, a quorum of 2/3 of the members with voting rights representing at least 2/3 of the voting rights must be present.

...

  1. The adoption of a decision by qualified majority requires 80 % of the votes cast.

  2. The adoption of a decision by simple majority requires a majority of the votes cast.

  3. The voting rights of each ESM Member, as exercised by its appointee or by the latter's representative on the Board of Governors or Board of Directors, shall be equal to the number of shares allocated to it in the authorised capital stock of the ESM as set out in Annex II.
So assuming shares in proportion to GDP, Germany can only be overruled in simple-majority voting. Which means
Article 9

  • The Board of Directors may call in authorised unpaid capital by simple majority decision to restore the level of paid-in capital if the amount of the latter is reduced by the absorption of losses below the level established in Article 8(2), as may be amended by the Board of Governors following the procedure provided for in Article 10, and set an appropriate period of time for its payment by the ESM Members.
  • and
    Article 23

  • The Board of Directors may decide, by simple majority, to distribute a dividend to the ESM Members where the amount of paid-in capital and the reserve fund exceed the level required for the ESM to maintain its lending capacity and where proceeds from the investment are not required to avoid a payment shortfall to creditors. Dividends are distributed pro rata to the contributions to the paid-in capital, taking into account the possible acceleration referred to in Article 41(3).
  • So that's the extent of the new veto powers?

    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:46:47 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    "5. The adoption of a decision by qualified majority requires 80 % of the votes cast."

    So if the german representative isn't present, the ESM board would barely have a quorum and could get to 80% of the present votes without Germany.

    But of course this not being present is quite far-fetched.

    And then perhaps in this situation:

    >ARTICLE 25
    Coverage of losses

    1. Losses arising in the ESM operations shall be charged:
    (a) firstly, against the reserve fund;
    (b) secondly, against the paid-in capital; and
    (c) lastly, against an appropriate amount of the authorised unpaid capital, which shall be called in accordance with Article 9(3).

    2. If an ESM Member fails to meet the required payment under a capital call made pursuant to Article 9(2) or (3), a revised increased capital call shall be made to all ESM Members with a view to ensuring that the ESM receives the total amount of paid-in capital needed. The Board of Governors shall decide an appropriate course of action for ensuring that the ESM Member concerned settles its debt to the ESM within a reasonable period of time. The Board of Governors shall be entitled to require the payment of default interest on the overdue amount.<

    by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:22:04 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    if the german representative isn't present, the ESM board would barely have a quorum and could get to 80% of the present votes without Germany.

    Hmm, if ever German GDP exceeds 1/3 of Eurozone GDP, then the ESM can have an empty chair crisis.

    Currently, Germany and which puppet statelets could deny the ESM a quorum?

    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:26:38 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    But you need another unanimous or qualified majority to change the voting rights and capital shares.

    one third: 33.33%.

    Germany = 27.1464%   
    Austria = 2.7834%
    Belgium = 3.4771%

    = 33.4069%

    or

    Germany = 27.1464%   
    Netherlands = 5.7170%
    Slovakia = 0.8240   

    = 33.6874

    by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:38:58 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    No. It is not unusual to ratify an international treaty with reservations and declarations.

    As an (unrelated) example the UK and the convention on the right of the child:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#United_Kingdom

    "The United Kingdom ratified the Convention on 16 December 1991, with several declarations and reservations, and made its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 1995. Concerns raised by the Committee included the growth in child poverty and inequality, the extent of violence towards children, the use of custody for young offenders, the low age of criminal responsibility, and the lack of opportunities for children and young people to express views. The 2002 report of the Committee expressed similar concerns, including the welfare of children in custody, unequal treatment of asylum seekers, and the negative impact of poverty on children's rights. In September 2008 the UK government decided to give up its reservations and agree to the Convention in these respects"

    by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:27:12 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but veto power through a unilateral declaration after everyone else has signed?

    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:30:31 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Let's see. Germany has veto power anyway.

    But let's assume the german representative is absent or he votes yes. And then a decision of the ESM obligates Germany to pay more then the 190 billion.

    As far as the ESM is concerned, its decision is valid.

    As far as Germany is concerned, German is not obligated to pay until the Bundestag concurs.

    by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:43:26 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Court lets Germany ratify bailout fund with conditions | Reuters

    (Reuters) - Germany's Constitutional Court said on Wednesday the country can ratify the euro zone's new rescue fund and budget pact as long it can guarantee there will be no increase in German financial exposure to the bailout fund without parliament's approval.

    Ruling that an injunction against the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and fiscal compact was largely unfounded, the court said one condition for allowing ratification was that any increase in German liability beyond 190 billion euros must first be approved by the Bundestag lower house of parliament.

    It also said ESM decisions must be submitted to both houses of parliament for approval, rejecting a confidentiality clause in the treaty.

    by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:00:08 AM EST
    rejecting a confidentiality clause in the treaty.

    Ooh good news! ESM transparency is a Good Thing, methinks?

    It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

    by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:03:52 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    I think the confidentiality clause in the ESM is mostly a problem of phrasing. It obligates the employees, directors and governors to confidentiality about ESM matters.

    As far as the employees are concerned, that is routine. But the governors are the finnce ministers of their countries.

    And a literal understanding of this clause would prohibit them to inform their governments and parliaments about the decisions of the ESM.

    So the demand of a certain interpretation by the court is just common sense .    

    by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:19:53 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    mmm except that something submitted to a Parliament for vote is no longer confidential at all.

    It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
    by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:50:18 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    The Court's decision in English.

    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:49:56 AM EST
    (so far, only excerpts)

    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:52:12 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Judgment

    holds as follows:

    The applications for the issue of a temporary injunction are refused with the proviso that the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (Bundestag printed paper (Bundestagsdrucksache - BTDrucks) 17/9045, pages 6 ff.) may only be ratified if at the same time it is ensured under international law that

    1. the provision under Article 8 paragraph 5 sentence 1 of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism limits the amount of all payment obligations arising to the Federal Republic of Germany from this Treaty to the amount stipulated in Annex II to the Treaty in the sense that no provision of this Treaty may be interpreted in a way that establishes higher payment obligations for the Federal Republic of Germany without the agreement of the German representative;
    2. the provisions under Article 32 paragraph 5, Article 34 and Article 35 paragraph 1 of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism do not stand in the way of the comprehensive information of the Bundestag and of the Bundesrat.


    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:53:21 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    So the Euro lives for another while yet.

    But it is doomed, because Germany believes it pays more than it gets.

    Probably because the effects of the exchange rate and the export of inflation from Germany to the periphery are harder to quantify than 190 million. Although strangely, the purported inflation from allowing the ECB to actually act as a real central bank seems to be precisely costed in the German mind.

    <shrug> nothing to see here, move along...

    by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:40:13 AM EST
    It's a breathing space, and the proverbial can is kicked further down the proverbial road.

    It does create the possibility that a post-Merkel administration might be more favourably disposed towards not nuking its own customers.

    Also, nice legal footwork saying 'Constitutionally it's up to the other guys, not us.'

    by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 08:10:18 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    I guess you're right - the ray of hope is that the Bundestag can vote for a bigger contribution to the ESM, so if the political wind were to shift, the ESM could turn into something useful.

    But, it's a big if...

    by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 08:11:29 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    What the shit hits the fan, fanatics become pragmatists.

    (I saw that recently somewhere)

    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    It is time to quote the sacred scripts:

    "The battle's done and we kinda won, so we sound our victory cheer, but where do we go from here?"

    Buffy, Once More, with Feeling

    by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:44:45 AM EST
    From the Social Democrats in the European Parliament: S&D Group welcomes decision by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court
    Commenting on the court's decision, S&D Group President Hannes Swoboda said:

    ...

    "The Court has clearly defined the limits set out by German fundamental law. This demonstrates the need to work carefully to prepare the EU and its national constitutions for a new, effective Europe.

    "In addition to a European constitution we also need to adapt national constitutions. However, all of this requires time and we must start a profound and far-reaching debate with European citizens about the future Europe we want."



    If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
    by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:07:38 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Many thanks to all participants.
    I'm learning much more than I wanted about things I had no idea bout.


    -----
    sapere aude
    by Number 6 on Thu Sep 13th, 2012 at 08:07:30 AM EST


    Display:
    Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]