Europe - The Barbarian Invasion has Begun.

[DrZoidberg]

I'm sure Greece will be fine. But blaming them for this, as if they could have fixed this prior to the crash is ignoring everything we know about human nature. We're a bunch of stupid monkeys in love with group-think.

These toads had their chance to turn down the latest bailout and start Tabula Rasa - as you say was needed. But guess what, no, they voted for the EU bailout cash to keep the gravy train going!

For this, they should be kicked out of the EU, and Tsipras out of the Syriza party for selling it out.

That wasn't what happened at all. The everyone Greek in street felt that Papandreau is the guilty party. They felt that, "why should I pay for his mistakes". I think it's important not to confuse Greece with an actual person sitting down and taking rational decisions. There's a wisdom and an idiocy of crowds.

Also, the reforms are very harsh. They're so harsh that they risk hindering Greek bounce-back. Obviously the EU isn't their parents and don't owe Greeks patience. But... it might be in the EU's interest that Greece can at some point pay it back.

They also might be bitter about writing off Germany's loans from Greece after WW2. Just to be nice. And now the Germans aren't feeling as generous when the shoe is on the other foot.

I'm not saying Tsipras is Jesus or that Szyriza isn't a good thing. I don't think it is. But I think you're making it way too easy for yourself when you just shift blame onto Greeks just like that. It's complicated.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

I'm not saying Tsipras is Jesus or that Szyriza isn't a good thing. I don't think it is. But I think you're making it way too easy for yourself when you just shift blame onto Greeks just like that. It's complicated.

If Syriza were worth their socialist salt then they would have voted to pull out of EU, not go down the neo-liberal capitalist route - hence , they are no different from all the other bourgeosise liberal parties of the West.

 

[angelo]

But somewhere down the road someone has to pay. The government can either pull it's spending back now or later, but it must start sometime soon.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not saying Tsipras is Jesus or that Szyriza isn't a good thing. I don't think it is. But I think you're making it way too easy for yourself when you just shift blame onto Greeks just like that. It's complicated.

If Syriza were worth their socialist salt then they would have voted to pull out of EU, not go down the neo-liberal capitalist route - hence , they are no different from all the other bourgeosise liberal parties of the West.

Politicians lie?!? Surely you jest.

Tsipras was just a populist riding on his good looks. He told them they can have the cake and eat it. They voted for him. He had no plan. He was just making it up as he went along.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But somewhere down the road someone has to pay. The government can either pull it's spending back now or later, but it must start sometime soon.

For Greece it's more serious. Step one is to figure out a way to collect taxes that actually works. Greece has a way better economy than what the books show. That's the problem

 

[Bomb#20]

It's a lot cheaper to keep a Syrian alive in a refugee camp in Turkey or Lebanon than it is to set him up in a new home in Sweden. However much money the Swedes are willing to spend in order to save Syrians' lives, they'll save more Syrian lives with that money if they spend it on refugee relief closer to the refugee source.

Yes, it is initially cheaper to keep a Syrian refugee alive in Turkey or Lebanon (not on the long run though - keeping them in refugee camps basically means to make sure they won't become self-sufficient ever).

Keeping them in a refugee center in Stockholm basically means to make sure they won't become self-sufficient ever. Of course they can leave and look for a job, but then they can leave a camp and look for a job in Turkey or Lebanon too. If they try it in Lebanon they'll have the enormous advantage of already speaking the local language; and in Turkey there's already a well-established Arab community that has lots of small business owners who might hire them. And a refugee who gets a job in Sweden is a lot less likely to be self-sufficient than one who gets a job in the Middle East -- subsidies from the Swedish state don't go away just because you have a job.

But even on short timescales your logic only works if there's a fixed amount of money e.g. Sweden will spend regardless. That's just not the case. It's so much easier to rationalise things as "not our problem" when they're happening a few thousand km away.

I.e., Sweden will spend more if the problem is on its territory. True. How much more? As much more as the cost ratio?

Depends on how you do that math. It's of course always cheaper to move the refugee to a place where he/she can get on with their lives and get a job. Generate an income. Than lying on their backs staring up at the canvas of a tent. If you only sum the cost column then yes, it's cheaper at the source. But if you sum both columns then no.

For that reasoning to get the right answer, it's not enough that he can get a job. The argument only works if he does get a job. How's that working out for you?

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, it is initially cheaper to keep a Syrian refugee alive in Turkey or Lebanon (not on the long run though - keeping them in refugee camps basically means to make sure they won't become self-sufficient ever).

Keeping them in a refugee center in Stockholm basically means to make sure they won't become self-sufficient ever. Of course they can leave and look for a job, but then they can leave a camp and look for a job in Turkey or Lebanon too.

I don't think they're legally allowed to work in Turkey, or for that matter to leave camp without permanently loosing all claims.

If they try it in Lebanon they'll have the enormous advantage of already speaking the local language; and in Turkey there's already a well-established Arab community that has lots of small business owners who might hire them. And a refugee who gets a job in Sweden is a lot less likely to be self-sufficient than one who gets a job in the Middle East -- subsidies from the Swedish state don't go away just because you have a job.

There's a thing called taxes.

But even on short timescales your logic only works if there's a fixed amount of money e.g. Sweden will spend regardless. That's just not the case. It's so much easier to rationalise things as "not our problem" when they're happening a few thousand km away.

I.e., Sweden will spend more if the problem is on its territory. True. How much more? As much more as the cost ratio?

Evidently yes.

You ignored the par where the lack of funding on the ground actually triggered the exodus in the first place.

 

[angelo]

But somewhere down the road someone has to pay. The government can either pull it's spending back now or later, but it must start sometime soon.

For Greece it's more serious. Step one is to figure out a way to collect taxes that actually works. Greece has a way better economy than what the books show. That's the problem

Certainly has an excellent exporting food capacity in olive oil, Kalamata and many other variety of olives, stuffed vine leaves, halva, bacalava and many other goods. Most of Greece's olive oil production is bought by Italian olive oil producers who then refine it and flog it off as Italian olive oil.