Last I heard, they intend to create their first experimental plasma towards the end of this year, once they pass the final inspections and receive their operating permit.

By the way, the project is 100% publicly financed and run by a non-profit association of German research institutes.

Apparently, Gidiot is about to offer his own Victorian version of what our local buffoons instituted under the label "Schuldenbremse".

Wall of text incoming. Again.

Sorry. Again.

tl;dr:

Debt relief right away was proposed, was neccessary, and was skipped to protect the European financial system.



You are 100% correct, we both are as convinced as one can be that a disorderly collapse would have been much worse for Greece. Might have turned it into a failed state, if things went really bad.

But the situation in Greece at the time the Troika got involved suggested a textbook approach would work just fine. Greece was insolvent, no two ways about it. A debt restructuring, including a haircut, was required to stabilise the system. Yet it was decided against it, thereby creating an enormous debt bubble that keeps growing to this day, destabilising everything.

Why?

People in Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin knew in May of 2010 that Greece cannot service its current debt, nevermind pay it back. I remember rather vividly how it was presented to us, as it stirred up a lot of dust in Germany. They pretended as if the problem was a shortage of liquidity, even though they knew it was in fact an insolvency. And to provide an insolvent nation with the largest credit in history (€110-130b) is... well, we can all pick our favorite in accordance to our own bias: madness, idiocy, incompetence, a mistake, intent. They threw Greece into permanent indebtedness(?), and also played one people against another. People in Germany were pissed, still are. Not at the decision makers, but the Greek people.

Again, why?

Every European government, pre-crisis, drank the Cool Aid of deregulation, particularly with regards to the financial sector. When the crisis hit, they had to bail out the banks, a very unpopular decision in Germany, given the scandalous way it was done (different story). Like I pointed out before, when Greece was done for, German banks were on the hook for €17b+, and the French for €20b+. So no haircut for Greek debt.

It gets even better. The entity most experienced in these matters is, of course, the IMF. But IMF couldn't get involved. Its own regulations demand debt to be sustainable for it to become involved in any debt restructuring. Strauss-Kahn had the rules changed in a very hush-hush manner (hidden in a 146 page document) to allow the IMF to lend vast sums to Greece, even though they knew it would not be payed back. Former EC members are on record saying the Strauss-Kahn decided to protect French banks this way as a part of his race for President in France. So they changed IMF rules and ignored European law to bail out German and French banks, using the insolvent Greek government as a proxy.

Several members of the IMF's board were in open opposition. The representatives of India, Russia, Brazil and Switzerland are on record, saying this would merely replace private with public financing, that it would be a rescue package for the private creditors rather than the Greek state. They spoke out in favor of negotiations of a debt relief.

And if that wasn't bad enough, there's an IMF email, dated March 25th, 2010, that was published by Roumeliotis, formerly IMF. They put it very bluntly:

"Greece is a relatively closed economy, and the fiscal contraction implied by this adjustment path, will cause a sharp contraction in domestic demand and an attendant deep recession, severely stretching the social fabric."

Even the IMF, who chose parameters according to their own ideology, thought the European program to be too severe. That's saying something.

All that is just about the initial decision. The implementation is another story entirely, with unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats telling a democratically elected government what to do. There are former Greek ministers on record, telling how Troika officials basically wrote legislation for them. Blackmail was common, bailout money held as leverage. The Memorandum of Understanding was to be followed to the letter, and the Troika program was as detailed as a government program, so they really had their hand in just about everything.

The specifics of the program are a discussion of their own, with all the corruption going on. The Lagarde list (2000+ Greek tax dodgers) was held in secret by order of an IMF official – that alone should trigger major investigations. The nationalisation and sell-off of the four largest Greek banks, or the no-bid sale of the Hellenikon area to a Greek oligarch – all enforced by Troika officials.

The haircut of 2012, ~€110b wiped out, came two years late. As a result, it didn't hit any German or French institutions in a serious way. Most of the debt was in the hands of these four largest Greek banks -- NBG, Piraeus, Euro, Alpha – who subsequently had to be recapitalised by Greece to the tune of €50b. Cut by 110, up by 50 right away. Banks were nationalised and shares later sold again, at 2/3 the price. Lost another €15b, because the Troika demanded the sale to appease the markets.

The legal aspects of all this are nightmare-inducing as well. They violated numerous European laws, side-tracked parliaments, used governmental decrees, etc.

Let me just say this: when they forced Cyprus to give away two banks' branches in Greece for a fraction of their worth, Cyprus lost €3.5b, at a GDP of €17b, and those two banks went belly-up. It was pure blackmail, do it or you're out. Piraeus Bank received those €3.5b, and its head honcho had €150m of personal bad credit wiped clean right then and there, all at the command of the Troika. Those €3.5b had to be taken from ordinary folks by "suspending" the deposit insurance, perhaps the most stupid decision they had made so far.

Why did they do it? Because Greece was more important than Cyprus, and Cypriot banks were involved in shady deals with Russian oligarchs. Still illegal, and massively so.

Edit: I cut my post in half and it's still too long.

@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.

Um, you do realize the Patriot Act reduced restrictions on the use of power right @GeeSussFreeK ? A patriot act on the rich would allow them greater flexibility in how they continue to drain the economy and environment of whatever remains.

Also, using the word "attack" when talking about the rich is simple rhetoric. Rational policy that redistributes some of the wealth (as one example) is not 'attacking' - it is something that would benefit everyone.

What sort of campaign finance reform would you support btw? Do you like Lawrence Lessig (and others) idea of publicly financed elections via a constitutional convention?

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/4/as_states_take_on_citizens_united

"On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors." S&P

That ought to be interesting. Though for the time being, funds and insurances won't start selling bonds en masse, simply for a lack of alternative AAA-rated assets.

Ah, well. The theatre continues ...

If there was nothing to bribe for, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. And if you think making something illegal when billions of dollars are at stake, I refer you to the drug war. It is easier to bribe a couple thousand people than a 300million, capital hill will always be the place you want to go for getting your way in a centrally planned society.

But the idea of not being able to contribute to people who share your point of view sounds highly hostile to the very base of liberty. Banning "experts" in the field from serving on regulatory boards creates dumb, albit, less corrupt legislation. I wouldn't know the first thing about regulating manure, if I was forced by political pressures to pass manure legislation, the first place I would look is to insiders, which gets us exactly back to the place we tried to escape from with making ignorant people form legal guidelines we all must follow. Just imagine if everyone on the board of medicine hasn't practiced medicine in 10 years...how much in the world changes in 10 years, even more so in medicine.

I think your cure isn't a good one, but I would fully want to discuse a change to the understanding of what it means to be a corporation.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.

So you think bribery in government must be tolerated because you think that 3 specific laws on the topic is "a lot"?
You realize corporations are gonna buy a lot more laws than three, don't you? How much money will you have to put up to keep yourself "free" from them?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.


So you think bribery in government must be tolerated because you think that 3 specific laws on the topic is "a lot"?

You realize corporations are gonna buy a lot more laws than three, don't you? How much money will you have to put up to keep yourself "free" from them?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.


Exactly. That's the tell-tale sign of a central planner, isn't it?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.

I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).
As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.
Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.
But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...


Your version of freedom has a lot of bans.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.


I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).

As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.

Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.

But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Upvote for discussion.

Obama DID try. He didn't have the power to keep his promises, just like Bush Senior didn't have the power to stop congress from voting in new taxes.

The only promise that he had the power to keep was the one to go with public financing, and he'd probably still be a Senator had he not broken that promise, which put him in debt to big business, which forced him to censor himself in public, which prevented him from being able to sell his case, which cost him the faith of his constituency, which demoralized them and caused them to not vote, which led his party to lose to other candidates funded by big business whom were more loyal to their benefactors....

Disgusting.

The West Virginia coal mine where an explosion killed 25 workers and left another four unaccounted for in the worst mining disaster since 1984 had amassed scores of citations from mining safety officials, including 57 infractions just last month for violations that included repeatedly failing to develop and follow a ventilation plan.

The federal records catalog the problems at the Upper Big Bra More..nch mine, operated by the Performance Coal Company. They show the company was fighting many of the steepest fines, or simply refusing to pay them. Performance is a subsidiary of Massey Energy. Another Massey subsidiary agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal and civil fines last year and admitted to willfully violating mandatory safety standards that led to the deaths of two miners. The fine was the largest penalty in the history of the coal industry.

The nation's sixth biggest mining company by production, Massey Energy took in $24 million in net income in the fourth quarter of 2009. The company paid what was then the largest financial settlement in the history of the coal industry for the 2006 fire at the Aracoma mine, also in West Virginia. The fire trapped 12 miners. Two suffocated as they looked for a way to escape. Aracoma later admitted in a plea agreement that two permanent ventilation controls had been removed in 2005 and not replaced, according to published reports.

The two widows of the miners killed in Aracoma were unsatisfied by the plea agreement, telling the judge they believed the company cared more about profits then safety. After the deal, the Massey subsidiary pledged a renewed focus on safety after the fines were levied.

But Bruce Stanley, the attorney who tried the Aracoma Mine accident case, had doubts. He told ABC News Monday there are a lot of similarities between the Aracoma mine and the one involved in this week's tragedy, and he has concerns about Massey's checkered track record on safety issues. Data kept by the Mine Safety and Health Administration show the Upper Big Branch mine has suffered three worker fatalities in last 12 years.

"One can only hope that the level of criminal neglect evident at the Aracoma accident was not repeated at the Upper Big Branch mine," Stanley said Monday night.

After the Aracoma accident, Massey Energy released a statement that said the company "is a recognized leader in safety innovation and performance and remains committed to working with federal and state agencies to fully understand the causes of the accident and to prevent a similar occurrence at Massey Energy or elsewhere in the future."

Monday night, Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship released a statement saying, "Our top priority is the safety of our miners and the well-being of their families. We are working diligently on rescue efforts and continue to partner with all of the appropriate agencies."

The company is well known in West Virginia, in part because CEO Don Blankenship grew to become a fixture in state politics, doling out thousands of dollars to candidates he favored – most of them Republicans. In 2004, he spent millions on advertising that attacked a West Virginia state Supreme Court justice, leading to the election of challenger Brent Benjamin.

Massey had a $70 million case before the state Supreme Court and, once elected, Benjamin made the controversial decision not to recuse himself because of Blankenship's support of him and to hear arguments anyway. Another member of the court hearing the case was Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard. He later recused himself after photographs surfaced showing that he vacationed with Blankenship in the French Riviera.

When an ABC News reporter tried to interview Blankenship about the possible conflicts in the parking lot of a Massey Energy office in Belfry, Ky., Blankenship became agitated.

"If you're going to start taking pictures of me, you're liable to get shot," Blankenship told the reporter before grabbing his camera.


Blankenship later told the Charleston Daily Mail he couldn't recall making any threats. "Quite frankly, I don't know what I said except that I know I'm never loud, vulgar or rude to strangers," he said.

The conflicts surrounding the state Supreme Court saga triggered a cascade of changes, including a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that called on judges to recuse themselves when major donors come before them in court, and a vote by the West Virginia legislature to adopt public financing of judicial campaigns.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/west-va-coal-company-deadly-explosion-fined-millions/story?id=10293691&page=2

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab4_1270570649

I have to agree with WP on this one. The vast majority of everybody's complaints here would be solved by stronger controls on politicians that would reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of lobbying. It is the money changing hands in Washington DC that is the root of sooo many problems, both with corporations and with government itself.

Personally, I'm for separation of money and "free speech". One person's or corporation's massive coffers should not give them "more" free speech than the average citizen. Elections should be publicly financed so that politicians cannot be beholden to a small number of donors, or potential donors.

On the topic of the video, Bank of America is not stupid. If it was more profitable to help those people out of debt, they would be doing it. They run off statistics, and not compassion. If it weren't for the apathy of the average citizen, this fact would put them out of business. But the average citizen doesn't care. *That is why this video is important for everybody to see.* If we want to see change in the way business treats people, we have to raise awareness of the cold cruelty that they perpetrate "within the law". It's the only way to effect change.

US per capita spending...

You're not quite getting what I'm talking about. It is not logical that American per capita spending equates price or quality. And yet that's what you're assuming with health care... "The US spends more - ergo it should be cheaper and better." But PCS is nothing more than a measurement of how much spending is taking place normalized in a specific way. Economically speaking, that doesn't mean anything except that the US market is bigger.

Now - stick with me... The American health care market is half-publicized already...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Since over 44% of our PCS is publicly financed then following your logic we should observe that public health care PCS has been stable while private health care PCS has skyrockted, right? After all - if your assumptions are correct then the government will have controlled PCS better than the private market.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/MainText.3.1.shtml
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090714_HPPv7n07_0709.pdf

Well, clearly that hasn't happened... Some actually say Medicare/Medicaid have gone up faster than private PCS. Others say it is about the same. Regardless, even the CBO does not by any stretch suggest that public PCS in the US is decreasing while private is increasing...

"Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow as a share of total spending on health care—as the assumed rates of excess cost growth for those programs under current federal law slow less quickly than does the rate for other spending on health care"

"The assumed rates of EXCESS COST GROWTH slow less quickly..." That's a very 'government' way of saying that their excessive costs here to stay. One could spend days discussing just exactly how the intrusion of the government public-funded health care has been the driving agent that has forced PCS higher and higher. But I digress.

There is no plan for the US government to take over the health care industry and there never has been

Getting angry at the facts doesn't help you make your case. HR3200 very clearly creates a public health care option, forces citizens to buy it, and systematically dismantles the ability of privately offered insurance to compete. That's the only plan being discussed here. Obama is the one that is lying through his teeth. He knows quite well that his plan will force over 70% of people currently on private insurance into his public option by 2015. At that point, the government will have a monopsony. Every plan, public or private, will be a mirror image of the government's public option, which will be controlled by government dictating price controls for medical goods and services. You can jibber-jabber all you want about that not being socialism, but painting the short yellow bus white doesn't make it an ambulance.