The gov't will always have varying degrees of "business" when it comes to things like this. And it will always change, because of varying interests. Private industry is largely responsible for why marijuana is illegal now. So you can't really treat gov't as this outside, independent authority, because it's going to respond according to enough voters or through lobbyists who are, effectively, us. Gov't is just caught in the middle between those various forces.

Shit changes though. Just look at cigarette smoking. Cigarettes used to be pretty harmless, until business got ahold of it and added all sorts of shit to it. Not only that, but it really wasn't that long ago that you pretty much had to smoke if you wanted to be socially accepted. Now the tables have turned. Smokers are pretty much shamed now. If you want to blame gov't for that, fine, but again, as I said before, we are the gov't. either through votes or through lobbyist influence.

You can look back at past gov't decisions and make judgements, sure, but that's hindsight. There's always going to be this dynamic of "Gov't should regulate X, but gov't shouldn't regulate Y" and every person has a funny way of evaluating such things and they don't always reflect reality, but some do.

But even when something is legalized like marijuana, there's always going to be some sort of regulation, like now, it's being regulated through taxation. Cigarette taxation is also a thing. A bartender acts like a regulator when they cut you off from drinking. Don't like it? don't drink there then.

..And the Trillion taken late on a Sunday night from the nation with threats of apocalypse to clueless representatives so the failed bankers could still have their million dollar bonuses makes all taxation a pale shadow..

I think to be more fair to Germany, the way I see it isn't that German's are complaining about their own benefits being poor by comparison. I don't even see it as German's complaining that Greece's was too rich by comparison. Your point of Greek spending it's money as it wishes stands.

I think the very legitimate side for Germany is that if Greece wanted to borrow German money for those benefits that Germany would like to see that money someday paid back. More over, if Greece is now too poor to pay that money back and is asking for even more loans to scrape by, Germany isn't exactly an ogre in demanding some spending/taxation changes from Greece first so there is some hope at least the new loans will be paid back.

Greece's current finance minister doesn't even seem to deny much of this. Rather in accepting it, he points out that in spite of these debt obligations from the past, if Greece is forced to abide by them, the resulting collapse of Greece will similarly do nothing to help pay back the debts that are outstanding. Basically that Germany and other creditors are going to take the loss regardless, and maybe it's in everyone's best interests to find a road where Greece doesn't become a failed state.

So, Greece borrowed more money than they could pay off and had a bad economy.

Part of the problem is with something like the united states sharing a dollar is that spending on social programs and taxation are still centrally determined. Setting up the same assistance for the poor and retirees across the states is a given. In the Eurozone though, Greeks were retiring earlier and with better benefits than the Germans, for a long time too. It is kind of hard to blame Germany for being reluctant to keep lending money to Greece when Germans are working till much older and getting much less in return.

If we take for granted the need for cost cutting, it would be only logical, if not an outright neccessity in a democracy, to leave the details up to the local representatives. Payment of X Euros expected by mm/dd/yy, figure it out yourselves.

Why do it any other way?

Well, you know the three most discussed possibilities as well as I do: shock doctrine, an attempt to force Syriza to commit political suicide, and bureaucratic automatisms.

During the first stages of this facade, I would have put my money square on shock doctrine. The measures are just too damn beneficial to the "there is no society" kind of thinking. It's horseshit, economically, and tremendously damaging, socially.

Replacing Syriza with the Old Guard seems quite appealing, given the behind-the-scenes deals with the nepotistic elite as a means to facilitate a smoother transitition once those pesky commies are out of the picture. The vitriol against Varoufakis is just staggering in this regard. News of the World got nothing compared to what our respectable media has hurled at Varoufakis and Tsipras.

My take on the automatisms on the other hand is rooted in how our politicians and our public has been arguing this entire time. Neoliberalism is the gospel, dissent is heresy. Privatisation is good, cutting wages is good, flexible labour market is good, taxation of wealth is bad, deficit is bad, surplus is good. They drank the kool aid, they are in it hook, line and sinker.

And as a result, the diagnosis is always the same, and so is the treatment. And fuck me for using this ass of a metaphor, given how the language used is the most subtle means of manipulation. "Rescue" the Greeks, "drowning" in debt, "tighten your belt". How about: food only on five days a week, grandma gets to croak on diabetes and your baby boy dies of diphtheria.

Yes, I had a fucked up day. The discussion in parliament about the "Greek problem" was a disgrace and high treason of the humanistic ideas that are supposed to be the foundation of the European Union.

The devil is in the details, isn't it?

For instance, what kind of guaranteed minimum income are we talking about?

The context they used (automatisation, labour supply) suggests to me something along the lines of an unconditional basic income. If that's the case, it cannot be compared to a minimum wage at all, since it has effects that go far beyond the labour market and the income situation. It's a massive reshaping of how we organise society. And it becomes a pain in the ass to even conceptualise properly once you talk about how to finance it...

A minimum wage, no matter how decent it is, doesn't even put a dent into the disparity between income from labour and income from capital. It makes life less horrible for those it applies to and it somewhat curtails the welfare queens among corporations who like their wage slaves being paid for by society. Yes, I'm looking at you, Walmart! Still, on its own, it does very little about income inequality, and nothing at all about wealth inequality.

How would I address income inequality?

In German, the words for taxes and steering are the same: "Steuern". If you want to steer the income towards a more equal distribution, taxation might be the easiest way to go about it. Treat all forms of income equally in terms of taxation. Or go one step further and treat wages preferentially to support employment.

However, redistribution will only get you so far. So why not address it at an earlier stage: distribution. Mondragon serves as a successful example of how a cooperative structure puts democratic checks and balances on the wage structure within a corporation. One person, one vote puts the lid on any attempts by higher-ups to rake in 300 times as much as the peasants on the factory floor.

Yet it doesn't do anything about the inequality between wages and capital income. Even a combination of progressive taxation and fixed income-ratios doesn't do much about it. Especially since non-wage income can evade taxation in a million different ways and most politicians in every country in the world seem more than eager to protect what loopholes they created over the decades.

So what's my suggestion? Well, progressive taxation of both income and wealth, living wage plus job guarantee, support of democratic structures at the workplace, international pressure on tax havens (which includes my own fecking country). Realistic? No. But neither was our welfare system until it was implemented.

Perhaps it's against the constitution (either fed or state) to take away the power of government to determine taxation rates. That would make sense, otherwise the public would obviously vote to limit/remove taxes and the government would go bankrupt. Well written initiatives can work, poorly written one's often get struck down.

If you truly like this site, why do you constantly and consistently denigrate it in your comments?
I would bet that at least 90% of internet trolls would say the same thing...'I'm not a troll, I just hate (or-"have to hold my nose at posting" of 'X') most everything and everyone on or about this site and I'm going to tell you about what I see as it's problems and foibles daily. I have every right to express my opinion.'...yes, you have a right...but they way you go about it makes you a troll, IMO.

If I went to a right wing leaning message board and, daily, told them what misguided morons they all are, and how the site is worthless because it's nothing more than a bastion for the idiot right and all the misguided, America hating morons in it, I would be a troll. It would be obvious that I would not be intending to change minds, only to insult and lambast those I disagree with.

Please to explain...how are you different in the way you post here?

EDIT: Ultra left DOJ!!!! I was rolling on the floor at that one buddy, good one.
Almost as funny as you calling yourself "conservative"...what you are is a neo-con...which means you want to return to a past that never existed...a "new" (imaginary) past you wish to conserve...therefore "neo-con".
I am actually an old school republican, which are fiscally 'conservative' (which means we try to conserve our funds by spending them wisely on programs that save money as a whole, like upkeep of infrastructure...not the same thing as removing all spending/taxation)
-and a social liberal (Yes, real republicans are (were) anti-war, anti-corporatist, anti-religion in government, pro-environment, pro-freedom to choose your own morality, actual thinkers. Regan changed all that 180 deg. Now I have NO party that represents me. It's hilarious to hear you guys call me a "lefty" over and over!)

@RedSky

Selling assets and, to a certain degree, the reduction of public employment is an unreasonable demand. There's too much controversy about the effects it has, with me being clearly biased to one side.

Privatisation of essential services (healthcare, public transport, electricity, water) is being opposed or even undone in significant parts of Europe, since it generally came with worse service at much higher costs and no accountability whatsoever. Therefore I see it as very reasonable for Syriza to stop the privatisation of their electricity grid and their railroad. There are, of course, unessentials that might be handed over to the private sector, but like Varoufakis said, not in the shape of a fire sale within a crisis. That'll only profit the usual scavengers, not the people.

Similarly, public employment. There's good public employment (essential services, administration) and "bad" public employment. Troika demands included the firing of cleaning personnel, who were replaced by a significantly more expensive private service. And a Greek court decision ruled the firing as flat out illegal. For Syriza to not hire them back would not only have been unreasonable financially as well as socially, it would have been a violation of a court order. Same for thousands of others who were fired illegally, according to a ruling by the Greek Supreme Court.

Troika demands are all too often against Greek or even European law, and while the previous governments were fine with being criminals, Syriza might actually be inclined to uphold the law.


On the issue of reforms, I would argue that the previous governments did bugger all to establish working institutions. Famously, the posts of department heads of the tax collection agency were auctioned for money, even under the last government. Everything is in shambles, with no intent of changing anything that would have undermined the nepotic rules of the five families. Syriza's program has been very clear about the changes they plan to institute, so if it really was the intent of the troika to see meaningful reform the way it is being advocated to their folks at home, they would be in support of Syriza.

Interventions by the troika have crashed the health care system, the educational system and the pension system. Public pension funds were practically wiped out during the first haircut in 2012, creating a hole of about 20 billion Euros in the next five years.

I would like to address the issue of taxation specifically. Luxembourg adopted as a business model to be an enabler of tax evasion, even worse than Switzerland. In charge at that time was none other than Jean-Claude Juncker, who was just elected President of the European Commission. He's directly involved in tax evasion on a scale of hundreds of billions of Euros every year. How is the troika to have any credibility in this matter with him in charge?

Similarly, German politicians are particularly vocal about corruption and bribery in Greece. Well, who are the biggest sources of bribery in Greece? German corporations. Just last week there was another report of a major German arms manufacturer who paid outrageous bribes to officials in Greece. As much as I support the fight against corruption and bribery, some humility would suit them well.


As for the GDP growth in Greece: I think it's a fluke. The deflation skewers the numbers to a point where I can't take them seriously until the complete dataset is available. Might be growth, might not be. Definatly not enough to fight off a humanitarian crisis.

Surpluses. If everyone was a zealous as Germany, the deficit would in fact be considerably narrower, which is a good thing. Unfortunatly, it would have been a race to the bottom. Germany could only suppress wage growth, and subsequently domestic demand, so radically, because the other members of the Eurozone were eager to expand. They ran higher-than-average growth, which allowed Germany to undercut them without going into deflation. Nowadays, Germany still has below-target wage growth, so the only way for Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy to gain competetiveness against Germany is to go into deflation. That's where we are in Europe: half a continent in deflation. With all its side effects of mass unemployment (11%+ in Europe, after lots of trickery), falling demand, falling investment, etc. Not good. Keynes' idea of an International Clearing Union might work better, especially since we already use similar concepts within nations to balance regions.

Bond yields of Germany could not have spiked at the same time as those of the rest of the Eurozone. The legal requirements for pension funds, insurance funds, etc demand a high percentage of safe bonds, and when the peripheral countries were declared unsafe, they had nowhere to go but Germany. Also, a bet against France is quite a risk, but a bet against Germany is downright foolish. Still, supply of safe bonds is tight right now, given the cuts all over the place. French yields are at historic lows, German yield is negative. Even Italian and Spanish yields were in the green as soon as Draghi said the ECB would do whatever it takes.

The current spike in Greek yields strikes me as a bet that there will be a face-off between the troika and Greece, with very few positive outcomes for the Greek economy in the short run.

QE: 100% agreement. Fistful of cash to citizens would not have solved any of the core issues of the Eurozone (highly unequal ULCs, systemic tax evasion, tax competition/undercutting, no European institutions, etc), but it would have been infinitely better than anything they did. If they were to put it on the table right now as a means to combat deflation, I'd say go for it. Take the helicopters airborne, as long as it's bottom-up and not trickle-down. Though to reliably increase inflation there would have to be widescale increases in wages. Not going to happen. Maybe if Podemos wins in Spain later his year.

Same for the last paragraph. The ECB could have stuffed the EIB to the brim, which in return could have funded highly beneficial and much needed projects, like a proper European electricity grid. Won't happen though. Debt is bad, even monetised debt during a deflation used purely for investments.

Not sure of the relevance of how long I've "believed" there is climate change happening? I'd argue as just another laymen nobody should be putting any stock in my opinion based on my credentials in any way. Compare what I say is in the actual IPCC reports, to what is actually and honestly in them for yourself instead. To the strict and bare question, I don't really know how long, more than a decade though to be sure.

Wealth redistribution is basically any form of taxation. Moving money from entity X to entity Y for justification Z.

@dannym3141

Broadly speaking, I tend to subscribe to the view that capitalism is the worst economic system anyone ever invented, except for all the others. There are plenty of problems with it but also practical solutions that could be implemented. Pining for a better system is great, but this quasi-vague revolution that Brand is espousing is as almost guaranteed to be as direction-less and short lived as the Occupy movement.

Take campaign finance reform, of what I'm familiar the Mayday PAC in the US is proposing a voucher system where either (1) each voter is given and limited to a set amount tax refund they can spend on campaign contributions or alternatively (2) there is public finance for something like a 10 to 1 matching system for smaller donations. That seems like a good solution to the problem. It's not perfect though, as speech via the media (TV, internet) would still be wielded disproportionately by those with power. But it's a start. More transparency on where donations are coming from would also help.

I'm no fan of inequality either, but it's a far more difficult issue to grapple with. If you approach it with taxes, the problem is you need global coordination. A single country raising taxes will just see incomes shift elsewhere particular the highest percent who are the most mobile. There needs to be some kind of standard on taxation globally as to whether it is incurred where it is earned or where the company is registered, otherwise you have companies like Apple paying next to nothing because they avoid it in both countries (known as the double Irish, although this has now been eliminated it's a good example).

Should investment income be taxed higher? Probably, I'm not too well informed on this subject but it certainly entrenches established wealth. Should there be an estate-like tax of sorts that limits wealth passed on through generations? Perhaps, but it seems like a band-aid of sorts and a double dipping on what should really be collected through income tax in the first place.

I'm all for public services where it makes sense to provide them publicly. I don't like political cronyism either. But solutions need to be practical. Eliminating tax avoidance by multinationals is good policy because otherwise these companies paying virtually no tax intrinsically sets up barriers to entry to smaller competitors which is terrible economically and leads to monopolistic behaviour and higher prices. Targeting finance with a specific tax probably isn't. Business will just shift globally and countries like the UK will lose out more than they gain.

We broke away from the British Empire primarily because of taxation without representation and now here we are some 200 odd years later doing the same exact thing to our own territories.

The American government has no sense of irony, apparently.

Canadian from Manitoba checking in here. Things like crutches, prescription medications, and ambulances are out of pocket expenses. Got something like diabetes? Expect to be spending a lot of money every month on drugs.

For life threatening emergencies or even broken bones and stitches our system works great for people, and no worries about going broke, you just go in anyways. Our federal and provincial taxation levels though are also much higher than in the US and a large percentage of that is spent directly on health care. I don't know what level of health insurance that amount would buy each Canadian, but it is important to remember that the Canadian healthcare system is NOT free.

I must say I do prefer the Canadian system to the American one. Largely on the basis of not seeing working class families being financially destroyed by life threatening and uninsured medical conditions.

I can't just say that though without pointing out that our Canadian system has it's own serious flaws. I know of people with back injuries putting them off work until they can get surgery, and that surgery being a waiting time for them measured in years. They flew down to the states to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket to get the surgery in weeks instead, and were financially ahead too over those two years since they could get back to work. Patients showing symptoms that might indicate major heart conditions or other illnesses who would get an immediate MRI or other expensive diagnostic in the states straight away will routinely wait months in Canada.

That is all just a long winded way to say the Canadian system is far from perfect and has very serious problems and flaws in it that are negatively impacting peoples health and financial well being too. It's no magic bullet.

> ""Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work."

More private school wisdom? So sad. I actually grew up in a colony.

> "They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please)."

They were upset about a 3% tax dude. 3%.

> "Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept."

This from the guy who says he pays little in taxes?

I can't speak for them, but I know quite a number of folks who would find it quite laughable that you think that you contribute your "fair share" to the roads you use as compared to that which they contribute relative to their use of the roads. But I guess that you can convince yourself of anything with enough confusion.

""'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.""

Like I said, you may enjoy your station. Some statists are actually benefitting from the system.

Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work.
There were many non-British in America, from many different places, when the British colonies were established. They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please). That's what the private schools taught me.
Oh, then I guess you're writing to yourself...I'll stop responding now unless you direct a reasoned question at me...as you've repeatedly implied you would.
Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept.
'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.