Most right wingers I know these days are frothing at the mouth about Europe. It makes sense if you stop and think about it for a moment as it flies on the face of the basic foundation of their "enlightened self interest" ideology. Countries banding together and creating a single currency? Sheesh...might as well start stocking up on the canned goods. If only the markets were allowed to work on their own and government would stay well out of the way, they foam.
Yet, a closer examination of the current woes in Europe reveal a far more complex situation. What a shock. First of all, there's this.
World stock markets, glimpsing hope that Europe might finally be shocked into stronger action, staged a big rally. The Dow Jones industrial average in New York rose almost 300 points. In France, stocks rose 5 percent, the most in a month.
Wait, STRONGER action? I thought markets only responded favorably when governments were laisez faire and shit. So what sort of "stronger action" are we talking about?
One proposal gaining prominence would have countries cede some control over their budgets to a central European authority. In a measure of how rapidly the peril has grown, that idea would have been unthinkable even three months ago.
Allowing a central European authority to have some control over the budgets of sovereign nations would create a fiscal union in Europe in addition to the monetary union of the 17 countries that share the euro currency.
HOLY SHEE-IT!! A central European authority? JAY-SUS H. JOHNSON!!! Time to add a fuck load of guns and ammo to the bunker. There is no doubt in my mind that we're going to start hearing an uptick in paranoid shrieking from this side of the pond about the "Amero."
And I'm still wondering why the free market wants stronger government action.
The problem in Europe has always been that they have a monetary union but not a fiscal one. Certainly, this monetary union has added strength to the idea that economic cooperation prevents military confrontation-something the continent sadly knows all too well. But having a monetary union isn't enough. A fiscal union (as we have here between our states) is also important. If you're going to have one, you have to have the other and that's been the mistake all along.
Now, it's no problem to debate whether it's in their best interests to even have both. On the one had, the EU's combined GDP is greater than ours. On the other, however, decades old squabbles and ancient tax policies seemingly make working together impossible. And there are a myriad of issues in between that warrant serious thought.
Where I draw the line, however, is the paranoia about control. Honestly, it's not even warranted. If there's one thing that this entire crisis has proved, ineptitude, not totalitarianism, is usually what prevails these days when it comes to interstate unification. I mean, we're still working out the kinks on ours out, right?
30 comments:
Most right wingers? I notice you don't cite any, imaginary or otherwise.
It's sad that had you not seen this issue through your kaleidoscope, it might actually have served as an interesting point of discussion with, heaven forbid, the finding of common ground. Instead you start off (start off) by throwing mud. I realize that's your shtick and all, but…
On the proposal of a central authority gaining prominence…are those elected officials proposing this? I would think the people would want a say in the matter, particularly as allowing a central authority to curb spending in say, Greece or Italy, by removing (insert popular service here) seems like it might provoke a little resentment.
What is the 'stronger action'? Cutting spending? Well, I'd hope so, considering what their spending levels are at. And spending more judiciously would of course be a step in the right direction (see stock rise). You'd think our Super Committee would consider that, since it was, ya know, formed to cut spending.
As the Euro has been around less than 15 years, stating that "the problem in Europe has always been that they have a monetary union but not a fiscal one" doesn't seem quite right…particularly as one could make a case that creating the Euro in the first place causes a lot of problems.
I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to agree that "economic ccooperation prevents military confrontation", either. A quick Google on "Germany Russia economic relations" yields a weekend's worth of reading and we know how that turned out. This is not to say it cannot be done, just that countries negotiate in their best interests and one countries best interests may not be another's.
The paranoia about control…haven't seen much, but my experience has been that European nations like their sovereignty and may not been keen to lose it to a bureaucracy in Brussels.
Most right wingers I know these days
In other words, no one who ever posts here - but I'm going to gripe about them and expect you to listen. Helluva way to open a dialogue there M. I mean really, what is the point?
The Stock Market may respond positively but the overall economy may not respond positively over the long term. This central authority should take action against the structural problems that led to the mess in the first place. Just bailing people or countries or companies out may make day traders on the stock market jump up and down but if the structural problems remain, it will just amount to kicking the can down the road.
In other words, no one who ever posts here
Take a look at Kevin Baker's post today and tell me again how I'm off on this.
Last, good point and I think that's what they are trying to do. Whether they succeed or not in implementing it and doing it well is another story.
Take a look at Kevin Baker's post today and tell me again how I'm off on this.
How often does Kevin comment here? Once again, TSM is not "right-wing", it is libertarian. I know you can't get it through your thick head, but those are not synonymous. Sheesh!
Well, he left a comment a couple of weeks ago. But, hey, maybe you're right and he and his readers are not the norm for the right. Another case where I'm happy to be wrong!
Another case where I'm happy to be wrong!
And are you going to continue to be happy being wrong, or are you going to learn from it (and perhaps be sadder but wiser)?
Well, good luck with all that. I'll continue shorting the Euro, TYVM. If individual countries aren't very motivated cut their own budgets, I have a hard time seeing how an even stronger centralized authority is going to make much of a difference.
Never sad, juris, if most of the country does not embrace the...ahem...ideas (and I'm being polite) presented in that post, then I'm a very happy guy. When the only tool in your toolkit is the apocalypse.....
Hap, it's not necessarily stronger as it is actually having one. If you are going to having a monetary union without a fiscal one, you are going to have problems.
[sigh] You just never miss a chance to miss the point. Let me spell it out for you: libertarian is not "right-wing"/[insert flavor-]conservative. That is the question I was asking - will you continue to be happy (by being wrong) or will you finally get it into your head the difference.
I know, it means you would have to transcend that binary system in your core - but for some unknown reason I actually believe you could do that. Despite your every effort to convince me of the error of that particular belief.
>If you are going to having a monetary union without a fiscal one, you are going to have problems.
Remember, the root problem is that several of the countries want to spend a lot more money than creditors are willing to lend to them. That whole deficit funded welfare capitalism thing. It's not clear to me how having a fiscal union magically makes that problem go away.
I get what you are saying, juris, and actually share many libertarian views. I think that all drugs and prostitution should be legalized. Gay marriage is also something a libertarian would support or, perhaps, the state not being involved in marriage at all. Obviously, abortion is as well.
Where libertarians are conservative, however, is the Rand nonsense and laissez faire economics. So, there is some crossover with both sides.
I think we are trying to make two different points here, though. Mine is that I'm happy to be wrong about Kevin and the people who post on his site being in the mainstream of conservative thought...the mainstream of anything for that matter. If they represent an insignificant percentage of the population, then my caterwauling about conservatives is way off and I'm a happy guy!
Hap, well there is clearly going to be a change in how money is spent but recall that Greece also has a revenue problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02evasion.html?pagewanted=all
It's not just the spending...again.
I'm happy to be wrong about Kevin and the people who post on his site being in the mainstream of conservative thought
This is why I have been so puzzled and amused by all the hostility the last few years directed at libertarians. We aren't mainstream at all. What makes this most ironic is when the bitching comes from someone who is equally out of the mainstream (but apparently does not realize that).
Yes, libertarians made common cause with Republicans because there was some overlap - and the Republicans talked a good game about smaller govt. Well, I think we can all agree that Republicans really aren't for smaller govt at all - and look at how desperate they are to marginalize Paul and Johnson in the race for the Presidential nomination. They are fair-weather federalists (as the Dems are learning to be) - and all that really matters is winning and having power. This (amongst other things) makes the Dems and Repubs quite interchangeable.
Of course that will all sail right over the head of a garden variety TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE cheerleader.
It's not just the spending...again.
Yep, you are a moron. But we already know that. It is ALWAYS spending that is the problem when revenue is X and you spend X + Y with Y being any number above X. Geez you can't get easier than that.
I think most of the hostility that I have for libertarians comes from the simple fact that, like socialism, this ideology only works in compartmentalized situations (drugs, prostitution, gay marriage). It's not a system of government that works on a large scale because of human nature.
And your characterization of me is way off. I'll agree that I am more mainstream but that's only because I'm center left. I have no patience for far left or far right folks, the latter of which run the GOP these days. Now, if you're telling me that this is not the case and their numbers are not that great, then I should relax and not worry, right?
Geez you can't get easier than that.
We've been over this and I've stated that it's ridiculous to consider running the government like a business. Essentially, I don't believe in balance budgets and I have proven without a doubt that history shows they aren't necessary. You have to let go of that tunnel vision, dude and look at the bigger picture. What are you going to say when we cut spending (and we clearly are going to do that) and the growth of our economy stagnates or slows even more than it is right now?
It's not a system of government that works on a large scale because of human nature.
Right, because the only reason you don't do drugs is because they are illegal. The only reason you don't rob, rape or kill is because the law says not to. Certainly it is human nature for some to do those things, regardless of legality or consequences. It is equally human nature for most not to. But you remain committed to that idea that you have to force people to behave themselves.
In fact our federal govt was established on pretty libertarian lines - the govt did not reach anywhere near as far into our lives as today. And, even where there were "blue laws" - they were state or even local.
I'll agree that I am more mainstream but that's only because I'm center left.
Actually what makes you more mainstream is your lack of governing principles. That center-left nonsense is what pushes you to the outskirts (given that center-right is more accurate of the country as a whole). That is precisely why your knickers get so knotted up about "far-right" and "right-wing", which are pretty much interchangeable in any post of yours.
your lack of governing principles.
And we're back to ad hominem...sheesh.
Lack of governing principles? Really, juris? Just because I don't buy into the arrogance and hubris of libertarians and actually think that the federal government has done vastly more good than harm doesn't mean I don't have any governing principles.
Lack of governing principles?
I thought you took pride in that - that pragmatism was your guiding light. You don't believe in ideals or principles because they get in the way of deciding, case by case, on what is good.
What on earth could Jefferson have meant when he said the govt that governs least governs best?
has done vastly more good than harm
What better illustration of what I just said about pragmatism? Never mind that stuff about roads and good intentions.
Take a look at Kevin Baker's post today and tell me again how I'm off on this.
Huh. I just did, and as usual you either completely misunderstand what he's talking about or deliberately misrepresent it. Sometimes you're just deluded, other times you're a liar. It's hard to tell which is operative in this case.
I'm still wondering who are these "most right-wingers" that are supposedly "frothing" and where are they doing all this frothing? Clue for the clueless: being pessimistic isn't "frothing" by any rational definition of the term. And as juris just pointed out for the umpteenth time, Mark, you reflexively lump in practically everybody who's not a Progressive (and likely Progressive who aren't Proggy enough for you) as "right-wing", which is a category error that someone who claims to be a teacher should know better than to commit. Actually, you strike me as very tribal and bigoted, much like ancient Greeks for whom all non-Greeks were "barbarians". But what would I know, being a "right-wing" sucker of corporate cock?
>Essentially, I don't believe in balance budgets and I have proven without a doubt that history shows they aren't necessary.
So I'm curious Mark - in one form or another, the PIIGS in Europe look like they're going to have to balance their budgets or default. All because they spent more than they took in. (Your link about Greek tax evasion is disingenuous - even if tax evasion is a horrifically bad problem, it isn't as if that suddenly crept up on policy makers. They have been spending more than they take in for years: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/government-budget)
And yet you still don't "believe" in balanced budgets?
You guys are hilarious when you talk about Europe. It's like Christmas has come early, right?
I think you are once again simplifying a very complex situation regarding how they are going to deal with their debt. They have a monetary union but not a fiscal one and that's the origin point of all of the problems. Of course, you think it's spending because you don't like government spending and that's why you refuse to examine how screwed up their revenue gathering is and has been. It's a combination of both that are the problem here and now Europe has to decide if they are truly one or not.
I'm not sure where we can go on the whole balanced budget thing. You're not likely to budge on this even in light of historical facts so what's the point?
You guys are hilarious when you talk about Europe. It's like Christmas has come early, right?
Oh bullshit, Mark. I don't see anybody happy about impending crash.
You know, if you applied the same standards of speech to yourself regarding conservatives or libertarians that you think should apply to non-blacks speaking about blacks (or even just talking about things that might be about blacks, but does in fact apply to yobs of any color), then perhaps you could be well advised to STFU about what you imagine them to be thinking? It's not as if you have a track record of anything but serial fusterclucks in that regard anyway. But it's a bullshit standard to begin with, so trying to be intellectually consistent in applying it is bullshit, too.
I think you are once again simplifying a very complex situation
Hmm, that reminds of me of someone talking about higher tax rates and their relation to economic prosperity.
They have a monetary union but not a fiscal one and that's the origin point of all of the problems.
Stupid demos, not going along with the elite vision of a continental government. Hail Caesar!
Of course, you think it's spending because you don't like government spending and that's why you refuse to examine how screwed up their revenue gathering is and has been.
What part of govt spending as a percent of GDP do you attribute to the failure to collect enough revenue? I guess if it isn't 100+% it must be okay - since you have never said "that is too much" with respect to govt.
Larry, one long ad hominem..snore...
juris, see my post today.
There wasn't a single ad hominem there, you nitwit. The only thing that might be considered one is where I claim that you don't really have a fucking clue what conservatives, libertarians, or any of the other "Others" that frighten you so much, actually think. But that's simply a fact. Pointing out that your arguments are wrong and indeed often make no sense is just a verifiable fact.
And that's a hoot coming from you, the absolute fucking King of ad hominems. Sheesh.
Your post today answers none of the above, except perhaps that once again you equate higher tax rates with greater general prosperity.
Pining for your Golden Age again is all that is.
There wasn't a single ad hominem there
followed by
you nitwit
Hilarious. Hmm...let's see
ad hominem: adjective: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
It's not as if you have a track record of anything but serial fusterclucks in that regard anyway.
Uh Huh.
Mark, you fuckwit, I wasn't attacking your character instead of your argument. I directly addressed your so-called "argument" and then properly addressed you according to your demonstrated intellect. A direct insult is not an ad hominem, you fuckwit.
Post a Comment