Let's ignore for the moment what led to this current mess within the Eurozone. You point out, correctly, that Greece is too poor to service its debt. And yes, for the German government to do whatever is required to get back their loans is to be expected. However, Greece was incapable of servicing its debt five years ago. Yet the subsequent programs, all supported or even demanded by the German government, reduced Greece's ability to pay back at least portions of its debt. At the end of the day, goods and services are what it's all about. And by dismantling the Greek economy, nevermind the Greek society, they actively undermined what they publicly claimed to be working for: a self-reliant Greek economy, capable of financing the needs of Greece. And capable of paying back what is owed.

The question inescapably poses itself: was it done intentionally or are they blinded by ideology?

One doesn't have to be as far left as I am to see that it didn't work, doesn't work, and never could have worked. Even the likes of Krugman and Stiglitz are perfectly clear about it.

Varoufakis, as you note, has been just as clear about this at least since late 2010, when he published the first draft of his Modest Proposal with Stuart Holland. There was a very good discussion about it in Austin in 10/2013 under the topic "Can the Eurozone be saved?" Participants included Varoufakis, Tsipras, Flassbeck, Holland and Galbraith, amongst others. I submitted a short clip back then.

His argument that Germany won't see a dime when Greece is shoved off a cliff, as correct as it is, never had any bite to begin with. The German government, and large parts of parliament, are operating in a parallel universe, economically. Over here, mercantilism is the road to success. Monetarism works. Surplus good, deficit bad. Saving good, spending bad. Everyone should have a current account surplus.

It's horseshit by the gallons, and it's the official economic policy of the largest economy in the EU.

And we're not even getting into the political aspects of it. Throwing a member of the EU into debt bondage, suspending its democracy to please the gods of the market... that's a travesty and a half. Yet it's also inevitable if they insist on going down the road of neoliberalism.

Worst of all, Greece is just the canary in the coal mine, as Varoufakis likes to point out. Greece had plenty of issues before they joined the EZ, but when they chose to adapt the same currency as a much larger economy hell bent on competitiveness, which is the favorite euphemism for Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour policies, they were doomed to be crushed. The rest of the PIIGS are next in line, unless this whole mess explodes beforehand. Maybe Rajoy's Franco-esque repression techniques fail, maybe le Pen wins in 2017, who knows. Maybe Schäuble finds the 100k of bribes that he conveniently forgot about back in the '90s and chokes on them.

Last but not least, 208 billion Euros – that's the projected current account surplus of Germany this year. That's 208 billion Euros of debt foreign economies have to accumulate, so that the German public and private sector can run a combined surplus of €208b. That's the elephant in the room. Systematic undercutting of the inflation target through suppression of unit labour costs and a dysfunctional focus on exports.

Greece accumulated debt in a foreign currency (Euro). Had they been using a free-floating currency with Greece as the sovereign issuer, it would have been much less of a problem. But that's a different discussion.

You brought up retirement benefits. These benefits have been a major talking point over here in mercantilistic Germany. Unfortunatly, a lot of inaccuracies crept into the debate over time. A closer look reveals that it's not as black and white as it is made out to be. One point at a time...

The effective retirement age, if we look at OECD stats, is basically the same for men in Greece and Germany. The age of 56 is often thrown around as the expected average retirement age for workers in Greece, but that's only for the totally messed up public sector. The average for the private sector is significantly higher, as the OECD numbers indicate.

Yet the size of retirement benefits is even more controversial. There are, in fact, some very dubious practices going on in Greece, which result in rediculous retirement benefits for a select group of people, even at very young ages. Decades of nepotism, that's what it produces. But even so, pension expenditure as a % of GDP was not significantly higher in Greece before the GFC than in Germany. When Greek GDP collapsed, expenditures as a % increased, naturally. Some have gotten absurd benefits, but the majority got a pittance. And as if that wasn't bad enough, Greece doesn't have a social safety net, unlike Germany. There is no welfare. Many people have to take early retirement at reduced benefits to have any income at all.
So I'll say it's bad in Germany. Last decade's changes to our retirement system have a metric fuckton of people (~40% of workers) heading straight into poverty when they retire. It's social security for them, and nothing else. Still, it's bliss compared to what the plebs in Greece now ended up with.

However, even all those beautiful OECD stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. Germany has a working bureaucracy. Everything is documented. Greece is a mess. Therefore, all comparisons are guesstimates at best.

Finally, as long as the Greek economy produces enough goods and services, it is for them to decide how to distribute their wealth. If they want a lavish retirement system, so be it. Our governments opted to create a true underclass of the working poor, and gutted a retirement system that made it through two world wars unscathed. If German retirees want to bitch about their benefits, it should be aimed squarely at our governments and their intentional deconstruction of our social welfare state.

So as a relative newcomer* to the backcountry, here's my $0.02:

They were incredibly lucky.

Going into a gully like that after a snow storm is a "terrain trap" where even a small slide can accumulate very deep snow. Getting buried under 2-3m is bad, but 10m+? Unless you have the world snow shoveling champion team in your party, you're dead.

Good on them for carrying shovels and probes, but where were their transceivers? The article states that the victim had his transceiver with him but the others didn't. A single transceiver is about as useful as a prick in a nunnery.

The only reason that guy is alive is he managed to stick his ski pole above the snow. Without that, by the time they find him, they're not rescuing him, they're recovering the body.

Most importantly, they knew it was a sketchy line and they went anyway (and altogether.... jesus.... spread the fuck out... no-one gonna rescue you if you're all buried).

Right there, that's the fatal mistake. I know guys who have hiked for 6 hours to get to a run, looked at it and turned back. If you're not sure, don't go. Even if it means climbing back out.

So to sum up:
unsure about conditions: don't go
the entire party doesn't have a shovel/probe/transceiver each: don't go
if you absolutely have to go: one at a time and aim for a safe spot

/sermon

I'm being a bit of a prick on this. It's really easy to criticise, but I've been there and I know that powder fever takes hold. But *nature hates you and wants to kill you. Keep that in mind.

* I've been side-country riding for a few years, but started splitboarding last year.

Generally such microwave have heat builtin exhaust vents.

If you are using your stove/oven a lot(like in a restaurant or prepare at least 3 meals a day there), then perhaps it's more prudent to keep your microwave elsewhere. In my last apartment I had my microwave above my stove for 13 years. Other than cleaning light grease accumulation from the front once a year(or even rarer), no problems at all.

the situation in st louis did not just pop up out of thin air overnight.the tensions between the poor community (mostly black) and the police has been a festering pressure cooker for almost 15 years.

a particularly venal chapter in the st louis police archives is the RNC of 2008,for anybody to absorb some context on the militarization of a police force.

the tinder has been accumulating just waiting for the match.
mike brown WAS that match.
this is not new nor original.
it has happened before.

and as @lantern53 has pointed out:it is the chain of command that sets the tone of how that police force performs their duties.so if those in charge are authoritarian douche nozzles,that attitude tends to trickle down to the everyday cop on the street.

cops by their very nature are authoritarian due to their vocational choice.they respect the chain of command and the authority it represents.to follow orders is to be a "good" cop.

so i do not understand the ridicule that lantern is receiving.he is offering his perspective AS an actual police officer.i am not suggesting that he is right NOR that his opinion somehow exonerates the st louis cop JUST because he is a cop but rather we should listen to someone who actual IS a cop.

there is absolutely ZERO evidence that lantern is a bad cop.we simply do not know how well,or poorly,lantern is at his job.

there IS evidence,however,that lantern tends be a tad racist,authoritarian and contradictory.lantern may be a poor debater but that does not make him a bad cop.

though his defense of zimmerman does reveal an extremely poor judge of character.(seriously lantern?that dude is a full fledged cunt).

but i get it @VoodooV,
lantern is easy pickings.
a right wing authoritarian conservative commenting on a mostly secular left site?
its like shooting fish in a barrel.

sometimes lantern brings it on himself...i know.
his poor debating skills coupled with an almost embarrassing understanding of history and government makes him catnip to someone like you.

its
just
so
easy

i disagree with lantern,pretty much always and i agree that sometimes his biased rhetoric should be taken to task,if only to clear up the bullshit.

but you take it to whole new levels voodoo.
you follow him from thread to thread and chastise and belittle him and THEN act all hurt and shocked when he lashes out at you!

seriously?thats like poking a grizzly bear in the face and then crying when it rips half your face off.

you use the exact same tactics choggie used,but at least he was entertaining.

you are just a bully.
a hypocritical,sanctimonious bully.hiding behind the skirts of others who may find lanterns comments distasteful (which they certainly can be).this is a cowards path and just like all bullies,you rely on the silence of others to continue your persecution of someone who does not have the support of an entire site.

i find your lack of humanity disturbing.
and i will not be silent.
your actions do not deserve respect but rather ridicule.

Sounds like a very large simplification for something. You can't honestly think that the reaction was due to one single incident? And if you're sensible enough to realise that, are you genuinely suggesting that the black community is appropriately represented in prison and crime statistics?

Try and avoid racism when you reply.

I think you're living in a dream world. The abolition of slavery is only a generation removed, do you really think that many of these people have had the same opportunities as you have? Whether it be by design, by accident or what have you? I imagine your close ancestors were allowed to accumulate property and status in a way that their ancestors weren't.

That's not a recommendation for guilt, merely that unless you've lived their life in their world you have absolutely no idea what it's like, and you will only ever understand childhood and development (which form your opinions and beliefs) from your own perspective. So don't be too quick to judge others for their situation. I'd like to see how you fared if you grew up in the same environment.

You make it sound so simple to vote for black people... as though it's that simple, as though the democratic system in USA and UK alike isn't riddled with corruption, where money is power, and everyone is opposed to changing the status quo? How many of those in power know what life is like in a black community, to know what the problems are and how deep the divide runs between them and the councillors for their place of residence? ... I've got so many criticisms i don't know where to begin. You've got some points, but they're buried.

I for one welcome our robot overlords. If anything, we need to make the transition ourselves. Being organic is pretty lame. Firstly, we are extremely high maintenance. You have to eat, drink, sleep, breathe, pee and poop on a regular basis. Exercise and a balanced diet are also necessary if you want to delay health issues. Our bodies are incredibly frail and can break in so many ways. Once they do break, they are incredibly hard to repair. Then there's aging. When we're born, we're effectively useless. It takes over two decades of training just to turn us into productive members of society. But after that point, our bodies deteriorate and eventually shut down irrecoverably. All the knowledge and skills we've accumulated throughout our lives disappear just like that. Speaking of knowledge and skills, it takes way too long for us to learn stuff. Becoming a master in any given skill shouldn't take years of practice. It should take a quick download.

The sooner we figure out how to digitize our minds and transfer them into robotic bodies, the better.

Absolutely. I don't mean this in the WWF sense of "fake," but certainly in the sense that the players are obligated to fight as part of the show, know this, and don't really want to hurt one another. They're cooperatively putting on a show to get the spectators riled up. It's not stage fighting, but it's not real fighting either.

The main point regarding this video is that two men of that size and athleticism in the same situation, were they not holding back almost entirely, would kill each other in short order. Even so, I'd agree that they're hitting hard enough so that they're risking unnecessary brain damage over the longer term, which is why I think it's cruel. As they say about boxers: it's not the big hits that do them in, it's the accumulation of all the little hits.

Of course, there is a part of me that likes the fights too, but I personally would prefer ice hockey without them.

There's no such memo.

"He's talking about people with more money than they can possibly spend looking for more tax breaks so they can accumulate even more wealth that they're never going to spend."

This is just stupid. Sorry to say. People don't just hoard billions of dollars under the mattress.They spend it. They buy bonds, stocks, assets, goods, services, investments, start businesses or expand existing ones, advertise, do all sorts of things with it.

"unlike those billions sitting in off shore account."

In the case of money sitting in off shore accounts, first, it is being spent by the banks that are storing it. Second, it is also invested in overseas businesses, like Apple stores in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe or paying dividends. And third, it would not be there moving so slowly if not for government taxation which incentivizes a lack of flow. To the extent that it does not circulate (and I contend it flows much more than you allege), the stagnation is the result of yet more government-caused distortions.


What specific corporation or individual do you claim does not invest its surplus money? Name one.

For starters, corporations need to either invest their profits or pay dividends.
So, again, who are you referring to specifically?

Even if they have some money in the bank, the banks are investing that money, lending it out, etc. So again, who specifically are you referring to?

As I've said before, ignorance may be bliss, but thankfully, we don't all have to be as ignorant as the least informed among us.

I'd wager you missed the memo that austerity collapses governments and societies. . . every time it's been tried.

And secondly, @radx said the massive accumulation of wealth, not earning a buck or two. He made that point glaringly obvious. He's talking about people with more money than they can possibly spend looking for more tax breaks so they can accumulate even more wealth that they're never going to spend. That, in itself, is harmful to the economy. Someone earning a few bucks mowing a neighbors lawn is not. Money is actually transferring hands, unlike those billions sitting in off shore account.

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

First things first: I read the article you linked as well as three others by the same author, given that he's teaching at a nearby facility. His article "The Three Types of Austerity" was quite enough to know that I'll never see eye-to-eye with him, or anyone of the same views.

"[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that does not match my perception of reality, given the absolute abundance of (financial) resources within the eurozone. It's a lack of demand for investments that's the problem, not supply. Savings are at record highs, investment is at an all-time low.

So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here, ever. It's utterly pointless. Same for the gold standard vs fiat, inflation good or bad, or any related discussion, really.

Instead, I'll try to reply to unrelated statements.

------------

"Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?"

I know nothing about the situation on set of The Wire. My assumption is that it involved the regular amount of abuse of labour, including unpaid interns.

------------

"Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to)."

Well, good for them. But I don't see why you drag them in here. You made a set of rhetoric questions aimed at hypocrisy by David Simon. I pointed out my view that any possible hypocrisy is dwarfed by the point he made vis-a-vis guilt/Perkins/watch/whatever.

------------

"Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?"

Feeling guilty about the discussion amongst the establishment regarding, for instance, the minimum wage. He finds it questionable how one can argue against giving a fella at Burger King 10-12 bucks an hour without feeling guilty for it. That's the disconnect we're talking about. When extremely wealthy individuals deny even the crumbs to the folks at the bottom.

Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. It was aimed at the demand for tax breaks and subsidies for extremely profitable corporations or extremely wealthy individuals. I would feel ashamed for any demands to my benefit if a) I didn't objectively need them and b) they would come at a detriment to others in worse situations than me.

Since I'm arguing from a different economic perspective than you, a shortfall in tax income (aka tax breaks) to me means either more taxes at another place, probably from weaker entitities who can't afford to buy their own representative, or a cut in essential services. I operate under a very broad definition of human dignity and see it as the first and foremost objective. Food, shelter, health, etc for all -- which might just be a reason why some people refer to me as a "pinko commie".

------------

"Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?"

He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand. The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates into demand. For an economy that depends on the circulation of goods and services, a massive and non-temporary accumulation of debt or savings (same coin, different sides) in the hands of single players (be it state, corporation or individual) chokes up the system. Less demand, less investment, less growth.
Accumulation is all fine and dandy if it translates into economic activity, but given the pathetic % of GDP that is being invested, despite mountains of unused cash that are forced into financial shenanigans looking for profit, I'd say it is dead weight and a drag.

But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was probably hogwash to you.

------------

To answer your question: a human being and my great contribution to society is my charming personality, of course.

And with that, I bid you adieu. I've had long-ass discussions about Snowden/surveillance and other topics that led nowhere and I'm not interested in having one about economic theory, especially not in a second language. The floor is all yours, including the last word.

"it just sounds like a return to feudalism."

How so specifically? An agrarian culture based on farmland ownership?

It sounds to me that your imagination is getting the best of you. Creative, but not at all what I am describing. Somalia is a failed state, and a socialist failed state at that. However, as you know, things from medical services to life expectancy to infrastructure to child mortality to crime all dropped in the 20 years in which Somalia had no functioning government. Things got better not worse. Why do you think that is?

Saying a free market would be like Somalia is like saying that a government-regulated market would be like North Korea. There are other issues to consider.

Libertarianism does not posit that a free market automatically means a perfect or even a great society. But it does posit that a free market system will ease poverty, increase wealth, and ensure peace at a faster pace than a statist one. At whatever level a culture/society starts at, they will improve and be better off in a free market rather than under state rule. Somalia started off in a mess, caused by its failed state circumstances. You cannot seriously expect to go from one day to the next, eliminate the state, and expect that overnight all that damage will sort itself out just because now -- a day later -- there's no state. You have to rebuild and accumulate wealth over time. And Somalia did remarkably well considering the mess it started from.

A society like the US, which is much better off (for the time-being!), would improve even more, rather than deteriorate, with less or even no government. But of course, if a meteorite wipes out DC overnight, that does not mean overnight improvement. After all, the government has wiped out many private institutions that would need to be in place to take over from the government in providing the services they put out of business.

On the other hand, the road towards more state control (which you, strangely continue to support and defend) leads to more deterioration of the society/culture. The US is doing better because of all the capital it accumulated during the century in which it functioned under little government intervention with regards to its economic matters. That wealth has been badly squandered, and now Americans are living off what remains, slowly but surely bankrupting the country though more government interventions, currency inflations, needless war, bailouts, surveillance, ad infinitum.

But make no mistake: whatever wealth the US as a nation has came about though free exchange in commerce, and was not the result of government regulation. The more government interferes, the slower the growth, until now it has reached the point where there is no growth, only debt. (The Treasury should be renamed the Department of Debt, because it has no money, only debt -- just like a majority of Americans.)

In sum: Somalis are improving. Americans are not. Whoever you are, I assure you, you started off in a much better place than the average Somali did. But look at their rate of change!


EDIT: Somalia also did not have a "free market" when it came to warlord gangs. Unless people had a choice as to which warlord to hire for protection or not, then that is not a free market when it comes to protection services. If allegiance to a particular warlord was voluntary, then you could more honestly make the claim that they had a "free market." Still, the situation is improving. And I think it would have improved faster had there not been the (UN-fueled) expectation of a future centralized government, had the UN not been financing groups towards this end, and had they not been incentivizing gangs to fight each other for position in a future "government."

There is nothing "free market" about forced conscription. I don't know why you would even say that.

One of your problems with relying on published medical reports as the go-to source for medical education is the nature of the beast and her supporting interests (pharma companies, corporate HR concerns) and another is the success or failure of bi-polar self-medication with various chemical cocktails of choice from first-hand experience with sufferers. Depending on the severity of an individual's diagnosed level of manic-depression, some are able to cope just fine with what has always worked, as long as addiction or excess is kept in personal check according to the influence they have in their interpersonal relationships to society.

Have had plenty of friends who were able to cope just fine, others who let themselves go-MOST, have preferred self-medication over the doctor/guinea-pig relationship, but as more data is accumulated and more walking lab subjects are used in experimentation, they'll get better and better or so you'd like believe, as the gods-little-g of the Babylonian medical experiment put more and more problem herd animals into their respective categories and cages of dependency.

Cannabinoids DO work their wonders for bi-polars. As with ALL sufferers of brain chemistry problems, support from loved ones is key.

This started long before 9/11, that attack just "created a threat" where every congressman was willing to hand out every right that people had accumulated to that day. NSA tried to stop 128bit encryption back in the 90s when the first rumors started circulating in tech community. Encryption was seen as a "threat" to national security. Sound familiar? 9/11 gave NSA the money to do what they were after, at the time they wanted it the most. I've known most about their goals for 15 years, just never thought it was going to be this bad so soon...

NSA used the basic principle of internet, which is trust between nodes to route data from A to B in the most efficient manner possible. In the future, this means that the open architecture has to be stripped in favor of trusted, fixed nodes. That means the end of net neutrality. It also means congestions, traffic jams, huge blackouts when regional nodes go out. And it's the end of freedom in the surface web and the absolute end of deep web.

We are screwed unless this system is taken out NOW and made in to the list "crimes against the humanity" at International Courts. A year from now is too late.