It's not a pyramid scheme. Although it does reward early adopters for taking a risk, eventually price should stabilize at a real world value (as opposed to a dollar value. As long as we keep printing dollars, the real world value of a dollar will decrease. The value of a bitcoin should always increase relative to the dollar).
> (Germany) seems to be doing much to force the Greeks into performing hideous acts of financial restraint, after the Greek economy imploded like Microsoft Vista. The more insensitive might therefore wonder whether German companies might have been more logical targets.
Germany is forcing Greece to accept punitive austerity measures that will throw more people out of work, worsen its deficit/debt situation and further depress its economy.
Why Germany is insisting on fiscal policies that will actually frustrate its own efforts to bail out struggling Euro economies is anyone's guess.
"Austerity" is a media invention. Or what does "austerity" mean for you? The word is probably the most used word in the crisis, which is never explained by facts. What are those "punitive austerity measures"? This is not a rhetoric question, I'd like to know.
Germany (and others, Netherlands, Finland etc.) want taxes to be paid (could end the crisis real quick) and structural reforms to prevent bottomless pits and enable growth in the future.
Greece was not able to take 15 billions EUR over the last years of infrastructure money from the European Union because of a local administration that just does not work and is extremely corrupt. The European Union was supporting Greece growth with money for innovation projects, infrastructure money etc. over the last decade, but Greece was not able to run the necessary projects.
I was managing European IT projects 10 years ago. Poland did show how to take EU money and prosper. They were on EVERY IT project I was part of, payed every company and university that took EU money additional money, helped get projects into Poland etc. They did everything right, now - and it was of course not only EU money but a very strong spirit and enthusiasm in Poland - they prosper from what they did since they joined the EU (and before).
The crisis is kind of sad for Greece, because their productivity grew strongly in the last 10 years (contrary to Spain or Italy) and the crisis is often attributed to "lazy" Greeks.
(The structural enhancement fonds for Greece was 20 billion EUR from 2007 to 2013, Greece was not able to take 15 billions from the fonds up to 2012)
For growth in Europe: The next structural EU fond for getting countries with lower living standards to EU level will run from 2014 to 2020 and contain 466 billion $.
I guess it's easier for people to run with the "austerity" story, as a story with victims and villains sells more magazines and blog posts. But it's sad that none of the facts get written about. And it's even sadder that this spills over to HN.
Yanis Varoufakis, who left Greece and we now know him here as Valve Software's economist-in-residence, gave a good explanation what austerity will mean for Greece. Not to mention where the German taxpayers' money is really going. (http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S120621)
If by "get your shit together" you mean "maintain a functioning economy and get your deficits under control", austerity is exactly the wrong approach to take.
Greece has, at various points, implicitly and explicitly, threatened to default on its borrowings.
So why should any lender with half a brain want to throw more money into the fire unless there are strings attached?
I don't understand the dichotomy. In the mortgage crisis in the US, we ask, "Why did the banks keep lending to these people who couldn't afford to pay it back?!?" Yet, in the case of Greece, we're angry at the lenders for not lending more and more.
Tell me, are you lending to Greece? Have you loaded up on Greek bonds? They're paying something like 25%! Great return! Unless, of course, you don't think you'll ever see your money...
I find the dynamics of the expectation of countries having to bail other countries in the Eurozone out quite interesting. Normally, inside a nation, say France, you have wealth distribution since politicians and the public can, through taxes, take money from the rich people in order to help the poor. This works where the notion exist that it's fair, because the rich are rich because of luck or power, or whatever. Now it gets interesting where you get the same dynamic in the Eurozone, where the countries that can't manage their economy well because of their bad policies, corruption, incompetence, etc. want countries that do manage their economy better to bail them out. It gets extra interesting, since Germany is a country where wealth is not something that was created because of imperial conquest or the likes, or because of abundant natural resources. They lost a war, and half of it was even under communist rule until two decades ago. They achieved their wealth, and Merkel in particular don't see having to pay guilt tax on that achievement as making any sense.
If you ask your parents for money, they might give it to you at first. If you keep asking, they might increasingly make it less attractive for you to accept the money. Free money is attractive, money with serious strings attached is much less so. Germany doesn't want Greece to take the money, they want them to not need the money.
Alas, HN isn't the place to debate international politics. That's just my take on it.
Sure. But the proposed measures still must make sense. For those willing to risk their money first and foremost. Otherwise those (with the money) will just shrug
> If by "get your shit together" you mean "maintain a functioning economy and get your deficits under control", austerity is exactly the wrong approach to take.
You're assuming that Greece's spending helps to maintain a functioning economy. That's arguable.
"Get your deficits under control" requires increasing revenues and/or decreasing spending. Maintaining Greece's spending choices does not address the latter and if it addressed the former, they wouldn't have deficits.
Germany would love to devalue the Euro, for the same reason basically every country is trying to devalue their currency (US, China, Brazil, etc). They all think it will help their manufacturing sectors by increasing outputs. Unfortunately, not all currencies can simultaneously devalue.
Relative to other currencies, sure, but within the EU (and any euro-based market) more euros would decrease buying power & devalue the debt (much of which Germany owns). Neither of those effects are beneficial to them.
But in total, it would be beneficial. Probably not popular due to the irrational fear of hyperinflation that is prevalent in Germany for historical reasons, but beneficial.
I'm not sure why. Devaluation would give the PIIGS some breathing room to get their internal affairs in order, and the worst Germany could expect is some inflation. That seems like a better risk than watching Greece leave the EU and triggering a wave of other defections.
No country is "defecting" the EU. Some talk about leaving the EUR. But even the larger leftist Greece parties do neither want to leave the EUR (which enables them to survive) or the EU. Why should countries - "poorer" ones - leave the European Union when it spends billions of EUR every year to increase the living standard of those countries and spends billions mostly on agricultural subsidies? The European Union has been a large money transfer project in the last 20 years.
Printing money and creating inflation has never historically been found to be a good idea. Germany are not forcing anything on these PIIGS countries, but if they want money they need to make some changes that will get their economies back in shape. Otherwise why would Germany lend them any money if they are just going to fritter it away like they did getting themselves into this mess.
Decades of inept economic, infrastructure and education policies by incompetent leaders has put them in this place.
Germany, meanwhile, has dealt with a the huge unification problem with its formerly communist sister, and they have prospered, so just maybe Greece and the other bankrupt sovereign states should listen to Germany and take the bail out with their conditions.
If you look at it from a bigger picture level, what's happening is that you have a bunch of countries that have a terrible history of running their affairs that are hanging on to the idea of their sovereignty, despite the fact that a more united federal system would be better. Economics is driving Europe into a United States model, where a federal policy making system of government helps prevent this kind of gigantic screwup by Greece and co.
The policies that Germany is forcing on other countries prevents inflation in Germany. If they were willing to accept a reasonable amount of inflation, the situation could be eased for the majority of the EU countries.
The industry will never come up with a cure because there's more money in chronic treatments.
At the same time, why do we even need diabetes technology? Just go on a low-carb diet. My grandma was borderline diabetic a year ago. She was getting very worried, so I was finally able to convince her to try it and now her test results are great.
Even if you're a type I diabetic, this will manage your symptoms although it won't cure you. Check out "Good Calories Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.
I'm not sure low-carb is necessarily effective for people with serious insulin dysregulation. I'm pretty sure for Type 1 in particular, avoiding carbs is insufficient (you also require insulin injections). Personal bias: Dad has diabetes, caused by pancreatitis, and although minimising carbs led to some weight loss (not that he is/was overweight), it has no impact on his blood sugar.
The latests theories point to gluten to cause a leaky gut, that causes complex foreign molecules to enter the bloodstream, and as some molecules are similar to our own, this causes the immune system to attack some cells in our body. The cells in the pancreas that make insulin are one of these.
The bad news is that if you have Type 1, you can't be cured, and need insulin for life.
Meat is not bad for the environment. Factory farms are indeed terrible, but they're not the only way to raise animals. On the other hand, grain agriculture is beyond fixing See http://lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm for a great intro.
Meat is also healthy. Grains are not. See any of these
Thank you for making this point. A lot of the other commenters here start by stating that meat is definitely bad for you and then go on to make some point about the article based on that initial premise. It would seem that meat may in fact be quite good for humans to eat and it's really disturbing how ingrained the idea that meat is bad has been drilled into our entire society.
No matter how you slice it (no pun intended), raising an animal for human consumption is a net energy loss. AFAICT, it's just a mathematical fact. Unless you have magic cows that photosynthesize, you are taking resources that could have gone toward supporting a human being and instead using them to grow an animal.
I mean, if you're happy with your Neo-Atkins Diet, that's cool, but enough already with this looking down on people who don't eat as trendily as you do.
Also, keep in mind that modern grain agriculture is 100% dependent on fossil fuels.
Back in the day, animals were raised on the farm along with vegetables. The animals ate the cellulose (inedible to us) and scraps and created protein. They also created fertilizer (today it is synthesized from fossil fuels and wreaks environmental havoc - the Dead Zone at the mouth of the Mississippi is mostly caused by nitrogen runoff from farms) and ate bugs, so there was no need for pesticides.
I can't cite an authoritative source but I think the idea is the amount of unforested, undeveloped grassland on the planet is nowhere near enough to support the current meat intake of the world population. There are actually similar issues with organic vegetables too.
Of course if people wanted to eat much less meat, and if there were a lot fewer people, things might work better sure.
That's probably true. However, like I said above, our agriculture is also unsustainable. Most of the increase in crop yields over the past few decades have come as a result of fossil fuel-based fertilizers. Without oil yields would plummet. Overpopulation is the problem.
Ideally, animals should be raised either on land that's not suitable for agriculture, or on the farm, eating the inedible plant parts and providing more of a closed-loop ecosystem.
Also, I just want to make it clear that I'm not trying to bash vegetarians. Just the opposite - I think it's great that people care. Eating ethically is very important to me. I've given it a lot of thought, and that's precisely the reason I eat local pastured meat.
There's a doctor named Paley in Florida who specializes in lengthening limbs. I've talked to many of his patients and their parents.
Most doctors, when presented with a child who has one short leg, recommend amputation (the difference in length causes hip and back problems down the line). I'm sure the doctors could easily find out about Paley if they looked into it.
The parents I've talked to are the few who have refused to accept that they have no choice and have done their own research. My heart aches for the kids whose well-intentioned parents didn't question their doctor.
