Free-As-In-Beer Electricity In Greece?

PolygamousRanchKid writes New Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras will lay out his radical left-wing government's policies in a speech later on Sunday, firmly rejecting any more austerity forced on his debt-strapped country by its euro zone partners. In his first major speech to parliament as premier, Tsipras is expected to say that Greece wants no more bailout money, plans to renegotiate its debt deal and wants a "bridge agreement" to tide the country over until a new pact is sealed. A second part of the speech will touch on his government's social and fiscal policy over the longer term and is likely to repeat pledges for such things as a rise in the minimum wage and free electricity for poorer Greeks. Which gets me to thinking: with free electricity, wouldn't that be a great business opportunity, to build a cloud of servers in poorer Greeks' basements? Maybe that is the real plan behind the free electricity idea.

Comments

Bitcoin/altcoin/shitcoin

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see people starting to mine Bitcoin as well as other shitcoins a whole lot in Greece should this come into effect.

Re:Bitcoin/altcoin/shitcoin

[Paradise Pete]

I could see people starting to mine Bitcoin as well as other shitcoins a whole lot in Greece should this come into effect.

Typically the way it's done is to still run the meter, but up to a certain threshold it's very cheap (or free in this case). It works well. Where I live, many people's electric bill is just a few dollars per month, while mine is a bit more than $100 because I run an air conditioner and several computers.

Re:Bitcoin/altcoin/shitcoin

[T-Bone_142]

Exactly my first thought as well. Plus the government can steal your BTC next time the do a bail in and raid everyone's bank accounts.

Re:Bitcoin/altcoin/shitcoin

[HornWumpus]

You RTFA?

GTF out! We don't like your kind at /.

Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

How many failed socialist experiments do we need to see before it's written off as a failure?

I suppose as long as there's 1 more sucker, it will keep working.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ozduo]

There will always be people who want a share of OTHER people's wealth. True socialism where people share their wealth (australian aboriginees great example) works but it is a disincentive system and a quick trip back to the stone age.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[reboot246]

Oh, they'll keep trying because of all the "dumb masses" who elect them hoping for free stuff.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[The Real Dr John]

How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people, and the fruits of labor are distributed much more equitably here in the US? What is so much better about CEOs making 500 times as much as their office workers, than having some kind of rational basis for compensating workers, when it is the workers who are doing all the work? I am very tired of the failed, trickle-down capitalist experiments in the US and Europe, and will be very interested to see how much better Greece does when they don't tow the austerity line (austerity for the workers, or course, not the wealthy).

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Half-pint HAL]

How many failed socialist experiments do we need to see before it's written off as a failure?

I suppose as long as there's 1 more sucker, it will keep working.

How many failed capitalist experiments (the great dust bowl, tobacco marketing, the credit crunch) do we need to see before it's written off as a failure?

Funnily enough, TFA does not talk about free electricity at all....

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Half-pint HAL]

There will always be people who want a share of OTHER people's wealth.

I'm trying to work out which side of your equation is the employee, and which side the employer....

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to

I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure. Though the number of failed socialist experiments on the other hand...Icarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Venezuelan, Cuban, the Paris Commune...actually the list would probably be big enough to make a book, so I'll stop there.

when it is the workers who are doing all the work?

I remember when I watched the documentary about Tetris, I think it was Alexey Pajitnov who said that in socialism they pretend to pay you if you pretend to work.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[rtb61]

The opposite is feudalism where a minority own everything and we are rapidly heading there. What kind of failure does that lead to, a rather lethal one be careful what you wish for.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

Greece will be better off in the sense that they won't waste their money on useless things anymore and focus on necessities instead of nice-to-haves, but that's simply because they won't be able to afford anything else. The Euro has allowed Greece to go deep into debt, and the things they bought weren't the right things and all in all too much. "Austerity" is really just an attempt to make them stop overspending and start using their resources wisely. Anybody who thinks Greece should be able to spend like they did before the house of cards came down on them, and it's Germany's fault that they can't, is delusional. Greece was a poor country and will be a poor country again. There is no shortcut. The Greeks have to get their shit together, and I believe they can, because they can work and they're not untalented, but it seems they're really not motivated and prefer to blame Germany.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[TWX]

That's what always cracks me up about the arguments made for or against a form of monetary policy, people argue against a fringe extreme without actually looking at what the goal is.

Very few conservatives argue for the complete abolition of all social services and safety-nets such that everyone literally is on their own. Sure, some do, but not the majority.

Very few liberals argue for the complete abolition of corporations and the ability to accumulate private wealth. Sure, some do, but not the majority.

All we're arguing is to what degree we limit the accumulation of personal wealth, and to what degree we provide social services. I happen to agree that corporations should not have so many individual rights as they currently enjoy, and I also believe that corporate officers that have subdivided their companies up into small entities to attempt to limit liability should not be free to do so. I also believe that there should be limits on the amount of financial assistance offered to those unemployed that have children, and that many things that qualify for assistance should not do so, and that continuing to receive benefits should be somewhat contingent on proving that one is making a concerted effort to find work.

I'm sure that some disagree with me. That's fine. I don't want to hear how some view that could be interpreted as possibly relating to mine is bad, I want to hear about how someone's different idea and its merits, and after we've established pros, let's look at cons.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ganjadude]

capitalism may be a crappy economic solution, but its still the best one we have to date

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Jane Q. Public]

How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people, and the fruits of labor are distributed much more equitably here in the US? What is so much better about CEOs making 500 times as much as their office workers, than having some kind of rational basis for compensating workers, when it is the workers who are doing all the work? I am very tired of the failed, trickle-down capitalist experiments in the US and Europe, and will be very interested to see how much better Greece does when they don't tow the austerity line (austerity for the workers, or course, not the wealthy).

CEOs shouldn't make 500 times as much money. But that has almost zero to do with actual capitalism. It has A LOT to do with corporate-government revolving doors and "crony capitalism", which isn't actual capitalism.

Real capitalism works, when it is allowed by government to work. History shows us this very clearly. It i the best system ever devised, and it works fine as long as government keeps its damned hands off, except where truly necessary (such as antitrust law).

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're forgetting that the CEO has to put his neck on the line in a big way to get any business off the ground - with the possibility of complete bankruptcy." -- only if that CEO founded the business and made it successful -- after that the CEOs are playing with other people's money and generally have golden parachutes if they screw up. I have to tell you, some of those CEOs which lose billions make it look pretty easy -- any of us could do that.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[saigon_from_europe]

It is one thing when we speak about company founders. But there are many CEOs, CFOs and other tom managers that never too any risks and became CEOs/CFOs/whatever. The most problematic part here is that CEO actually does not actually suffer from his own decisions. If company goes bankrupt due to CEO's bad decisions, CEO will be able to live quite comfortably to the end of his life (in some cases, his kids as well + several generations), while the worker will end homeless and his kids would become beggars. So the real risk is with workers, not with the top management.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Jane Q. Public]

I think their philosophy is bizarre on its face, and I don't understand why people would fall for it.

(A) Essentially renege on your debt.

(B) Promise to give away free stuff to everybody.

(C) Neglect to mention where any of the money will come from, other than Nazi war debt, or maybe the printing press.

Yeah, right.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[complete loony]

How many failed neoclasical economics experiments do we need to see before it's written off as a failure?

This isn't about outright communism, it's about fixing the capitalist mistakes of the last 50 years quickly. Mistakes made by ignoring the role of private debt in the economy. Allowing the financial sector and bad economic beliefs to control the money supply.

Greece's government is insolvent. They can't honour their debts, so how are we going to deal with them? Lend them more money so they can pay the interest and delay the inevitable?

Their population is unemployed. How are they going to earn enough to pay their personal debts? Slavery? How does taking more money from the poor through austerity measures help them?

The system has already failed. The people have cast their vote for change. Be thankful they haven't elected a fascist, power hungry government like the last time we saw this level of unrest in Europe.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[geoskd]

interested to see how much better Greece does when they don't tow the austerity line

Unfortunately for the Greek people, the money was already spent / stolen. Now the only thing left is the bill...

Getting it back is not simple because the wealthy have long since devised complex legal system to allow them to keep their ill-gotten booty, chief among them being limited liability

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Kjella]

How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people, and the fruits of labor are distributed much more equitably here in the US?

The problem is that you always end up trying to compare apples to oranges, how important is an engineer compared to a doctor compared to a plumber? What does job performance mean? Or is it just work is work, it all pays the same? That's one way to make sure nobody wants the hard jobs or to work hard. Same goes for services, what's more important my healthcare plan, your kid's education or my dad's pension? Nobody has an objective standard of fairness and trying to assign value by committee will fail as a thousand special interests tries to drag it this way and that.

Another important factor is that assigned values can't deal with fluctuations in supply and demand, if there's a shortage of pork and an excess of beef prices will adjust to even it out, you can't just demand it keep a certain price by fiat unless you want empty shelves. Which is not to say that the paycheck is the biggest where it's most "deserved" or "useful", but the capitalist system does a pretty good job at directing talent to the well-paying jobs and distributing non-essential scarce resources.

You could do a lot within the capitalist system just providing special tax benefits to the groups you want to support. But chances are you'd have to take them in taxes from somebody else. It wouldn't really work any better or different if you take away the money, somebody would be grabbing compensation from one group and giving it to another saying here, you deserve it more. And then ones who just got deprived would scream bloody murder. It's not hard to find faults with the market economy, but it's not hard to find faults with the plan economy either. In other words, explain a better system that'd actually work in the real world with selfish people who want to game the system.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

> How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people, and the fruits of labor are distributed much more equitably here in the US?

The great thing about living in a Socialist nation is that everyone can be poor, no matter how hard they work.... Except for party leaders, of course. They get there by political schmoozing rather than convincing others to give them money. No, I didn't say the rich here earned it, and some of them certainly do sucker people out of money, but the average case is better even if the worst case might seem worse.

> What is so much better about CEOs making 500 times as much as their office workers, than having some kind of rational basis for compensating workers, when it is the workers who are doing all the work?

In a Capitalist nation, you can work to get ahead. In a Socialist nation, you just work for less benefit. They sucker you into replacing the rich people with political party leaders and dragging everyone else down. There are only a handful of CEOs, anyhow. The people who will really suffer under Socialism are those who worked hard to get good, white-collar jobs.

> I am very tired of the failed, trickle-down capitalist experiments in the US and Europe, and will be very interested to see how much better Greece does when they don't tow the austerity line (austerity for the workers, or course, not the wealthy).

It was really nice of them to give away other peoples' money. Why do they assume that they can force other people to give away the fruit of their (or their ancestors') labor? How is that different from stealing with a fancy name?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

Greece will exit the Euro, get its own currency again, maybe default on the debt (which won't be necessary immediately because most of it is put off for a long time anyway, and Greece hardly pays any interest). The rest of the Eurozone will have to deal with the default when that occurs, but it will be manageable. And the Greeks will have to make do with whatever they produce and trade, because nobody is going to lend them money. Not being able to borrow does not equal having no money though, so Greece will have few resources, but not none. Self-reliance will be a harsh lesson, but at this point I think it's unavoidable.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should get your facts right?
Neither in Russia nor in China socialism is considered a failure, actually both countries where not even socialistic.
In both countries however capitalism is considered to be a failure.
Or what do you think why poverty in Russia, inequality etc. is in the rise?

Same for Cuba and Venezuela. Care to explain why Cuba is a failure when health care and education are on a much higher level (and much cheaper) than in the USA albeit being under a boycott and other sanctions from the USA the last 70 years?

Finally: capitalism and socialism are two complete different dimensions. China shows clearly: you can have both. Wow, surprise.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Fire_Wraith]

How many of those CEOs actually started the company, and put in that risk? A CEO is by no means the originator or owner of the company, after all. How many just came along after, and were hired to run things, only to make ridiculous amounts of money even if they wrecked the company in the process? That's what's ridiculous.

For every Steve Jobs, there's a lot more John Scullys. Carly Fiorina was certainly no Bill Hewlett or Dave Packard.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Wrath0fb0b]

How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people, and the fruits of labor are distributed much more equitably here in the US?

What if it didn't matter how the fruits of labor were distributed so long as the number of fruits grew faster for each individual? That is, what if society was not a zero-sum game involving distribution of a set supply but a question of setting up the rules for maximum growth of the total?

I, for one, would rather consume 50-units in a community of individuals making 100 each then just getting 25 in a community making 25, even if the latter was distributed more equitably. To be fair, this is a point that a lot of people differ on - I've had some people earnestly believe that the disparately of consumption is itself an evil that's worth paying the price of making everyone worse off on an absolute scale.

[ Note that none of this suggests that unbridled capitalism is the best at growing the average consumption power. The history of capitalism is full of crony deals and other market perversities that ended up making everyone poorer on the whole (even as it made some individuals rich). Ultimately this is distinction that I think we need to abide -- are people getting rich by making everyone better off (e.g. by giving people things they actually want at a price they are willing to pay) or are they getting rich at the expense of others. ]

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[TWX]

I think that certain irresponsible people on the Right have done a very good job of smearing the word, such that a lot of poor and lower-middle class voters demonize the concept of being liberal when it's more likely that liberal policies would actually personally benefit them more than corresponding conservative policies.

It saddens me when issues like race, sexual orientation, and abortion, issues that probably won't personally affect the vast majority of voters, manage to be used as wedge-issues to get voters to vote against their direct interests.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Drethon]

US is is one of the worst for income inequality but Greece and UK aren't too far behind in that category.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Jane Q. Public]

Bahahaha yeah, back to the good ol' days of slavery and child labour!

Go kill yourself, libertarian filth. Capitilista scumbags can't be trusted to operate ethically, what you propose is a regression to slavery. People like you should be rounded up and placed into camps.

What a bizarre, delusional world you must live in. Clear evidence of what I stated is all over the history books. Have you ever read one?

But then the quality of your reply speaks volumes, all by itself. There is little I could say that would make it look any worse.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[AchilleTalon]

Did you read the article? Or even the summary? Or you are another one of these writing comments just because they can? It is free electricity for the POORERS GREEKS not for everyone. Hence, it is equivalent to food stamps or other kind of charity for the poors. Nothing particularily socialist here.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[plopez]

Socialism? Or Stalinism? Germany is socialist and people do work and they do get paid.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[drfred79]

Ancient Greece, capitalistic democracy. Super uncivil. /sarcasm

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[lucm]

How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people, and the fruits of labor are distributed much more equitably here in the US? What is so much better about CEOs making 500 times as much as their office workers, than having some kind of rational basis for compensating workers, when it is the workers who are doing all the work? I am very tired of the failed, trickle-down capitalist experiments in the US and Europe, and will be very interested to see how much better Greece does when they don't tow the austerity line (austerity for the workers, or course, not the wealthy).

Somehow I suspect that if you were offered a CEO position that pays 500x more than the office workers, your position would change. There's something about wealth redistribution that is significantly more attractive when you're on the receiving end, or at least on the sidelines.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ScentCone]

Neither in Russia nor in China socialism is considered a failure

Well, let's see ... by "Russia," of course you mean the "Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics," right? Oh, right ... that union of socialist countries under a central socialist government failed miserably, and destroyed itself. Russia, on the other hand, isn't an example of failed socialism, it's just a good old fashioned miserable totalitarian state that's busy looking to invade its neighbors to make up for its crappy management of its own resources and industry. And ... China? Complete failure of socialism. How can you tell? Because they're clinging to it the collectivist crap in name only, and relying on market economics to produce the prosperity they want.

In both countries however capitalism is considered to be a failure.

No. Without market economics, Russians would be even worse off than they are now. Capitalism failing? Whatever shreds of it they're allowing to function are the only thing producing any shred of prosperity there. And failing in China? It's capitalism, and only capitalism, that is powering that country. Capitalism is working there despite the oppressive, putatively socialist tyranny that otherwise attempts to control the culture there.

Care to explain why Cuba is a failure

Ah, now I see. You don't actually consider poverty, being imprisoned for saying the wrong things, being killed or imprisoned for trying to leave and other socialist delights to be sign of failure. You have some very strange standards for success. Would you feel more successful here if we took away your internet access, threatened you with prison for criticizing politicians, made you subject to a family that has run the country at the point of a gun for decades, and which you'd feel so desperate to leave that you'd risk drowning in shark-infested waters, paddling to the US in raft, and hoping your own country won't jail you for trying? And Venezuela? Really? You must try very, very hard to avoid actually paying attention to what's going on there. If you insist on being that ignorant, please don't do anything that might risk other people - like, voting.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[TWX]

Where?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually Germany is not socialism. nor are most other european counties, like one of the parents up claimed.
Arguable Scandinavia is navigating a middle way between socialism/non socialism.
However americans have a retarded idea what socialism actually is.
Universal healthcare? Socialism! (Rofl, it is a basic human right! China had that 4000 years ago, so had Egypt 6000 years ago)
Unemployment insurrance? Socialism!!! Rofl ...

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

All of the above countries have met at least one of the commonly accepted definitions of a failed state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to before corporations are no longer people

What do corporations have to do with capitalism? They are a creation of the state.

Who should dictate how much a CEO can make? You?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

Germany is socialist?

HMMM Go on....

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

If by benefiting them you mean would support policies where the government forcibly takes resources from other people and gives them to the poor... I don't think this has a track record of 'digging people out of poverty'. Quite the opposite.

And it's morally abhorrent.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

Why do we need antitrust law? Please look at Tom Wood's great courses and talks on this topic.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[angel'o'sphere]

After a few lines it will start sounding racist. It is not. The post will be long, but it is worth to click on 'read more'. (It is really worth it, for the last anecdote)

Disclaimer: I know a lot of greeks. I have a few greek friends. I have been in Greece often, can not remember how often, perhaps like 10 times. I had a room mate for 10 years who was greek, I played basket ball and one mate was greek, he invited our team to tournaments in Athens. That was actually the first time I was in Greece, around 1992.
Another disclaimer: all stories (except about the blinds and the windmill frauds) are stuff I have experienced myself. Yes that includes the 'pension fraud'.

Greece never was a poor country. It simply had a 'low exchange rate' from their Drachma to the DM/EUR.

In comparison to germans every greek is RICH! They OWN a flat in the city, Thessaloniki, Athens or whatever AND one or more houses at the sea, on an island or at the mountain site. Basically everyone who lives close to the sea has one or more boats. And and and ... (they got OWND, when they could not get their greedy mouthes filled enough)

The problem with the greek is very simple: they are cheaters/tricksters/fraudsters. It is kinda their national sport. They rip off tourists, EACH OTHER, the EU, whomever they can. The current situation is just a massive backfire of their idiotic philosophy of life.

How do you make a greek, you best friend? Catch him while he tries to cheat/trick on you! By that you get his respect!

If you agree to an insane price in his shop he registers you as an idiot, gives you a business card of his relatives restaurant, then calls him and describes that likely a few idiots to rip off come next days.

I guess there are plenty of people pointing out their insane tax regulations ( the richest greeks pay no taxes) ... so I skip that.

Fraud that I have out of german newspapers:
1) an island with 6000 inhabitants had about 3000 blind people. Health insurance payed extras for the 3000 (money for the guide dog, a helper in your household ... whatever). A few years ago they made an investigation. Surprise: no one was blind on that island.
2) they got a few hundred millions EUR from the EU to set up a wind park on an island. Actually, they did that. But they never connected it to the grid. Turns out, the contract with the EU did not require that. The greeks simply shrug and wonder why the EU does not pay no more.
3) illegal construction is everywhere, including fire clearing (burning century old oil groves). The background is: if you have the first level of the house built and it is inhabited, then regardless of missing building permit, fire cleansing (was a thunderstorm anyway) or bad construction, the authorities can not legally break it down anymore.

My experience.
4) If you fly to Channia on Crete, your plane lands like 20km outside of the city. Just in time there is a bus that brings you into the city, a normal landline bus. If you enter the bus they don't sell you a ticket. Trying to convince you that the bus is 'special' and you need to take a taxi/cab. Usually there is a luggage compartment below the bus, with your luggage. While you are arguing with the ticket seller, someone will throw out your luggage onto the road. No chance. When you get out to collect it, the bus departs and you have to take a cab.
Second time I knew the drill. Took my luggage inside, was anyway only a small and a big rucksack.
The ticket seller tried to throw me out by force! 'Unfortunately' a greek living in my hometown who was in the same plane told him, he knew me. So suddenly the ticket seller sold me a ticket for like 20cents our day money. On the other hand, it had not looked good if a 25 year old tourist punches a 60 year old ticket seller into the face.
5) After or during my basket ball tournament my team, like 12 people plus trainer plus some relatives of our greek team mate where for a long long long ni

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

It wasn't wealthy greeks who spent the money that put greece in debt. It was the government.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Livius]

What is so much better about CEOs making 500 times as much as their office workers

The catch is that there are always examples of truly gifted CEOs who, on the basis of both supply and demand and the value they bring to a business actually are worth the exceptional salary they earn.

Of course, the other 99% of CEOs who 'earn' the inflated salaries think they deserve that kind of compensation but actually don't; most of them add nothing to the business or do so only by chance.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

Are they? From what I've seen, they make the US look socialist in comparison. No minimum wage, German labor unions try to form a bond between management and employees as opposed to soviet style thuggery of US labor unions, they're even more in favor of austerity than the US by far...what's so socialist about them? Other than the high taxes, maybe, but lots of very capitalist countries have high taxes.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

You sir are correct.

Non-free market systems can't even answer simple questions like "where should this factory be located" and "how much should I price this" or "how many of these widgets should I make." or "how well did I do last year?".

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

Sure, I'll see you at the job interview for CEO. Glad to know someone else can do it too.

Re: Can't eat what you don't grow

[StillAnonymous]

Their sole purpose was to prevent a default until most of the debt was in public hands, were it can be contained, and that's obviously a matter of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses".

Knowingly lending to a bankrupt entity who has no way of paying it back is fraud, plain and simple. Those debts are fraudulent and the lenders don't deserve them back.

Greece is a sovereign country and decides for itself what it spends its resources on.

Not exactly. When the IMF and ECB gets involved in lending to countries, there's strings attached. Unless you tell them to go to hell, they start dictating policy. It's the Banker's Coup.

Apparently they've decided to leave the path on which the rest of the Eurozone was willing to help them.

"Help"? They weren't trying to help them. They were looting them to the bone. Just like the banks are trying to do to other countries, and what they did to the public in the USA's sub-prime mortgage debacle. Bribe the politicians to agree to whatever you want, then load 'em up on debt that nobody could possibly pay. Now you get to run their country. Sell off all of the country's assets to your corporate buddies at fire-sale prices, and force them to convert their State owned businesses into privately owned ones, such as Water Works and Electric Company. Leave 'em with their pockets turned out on Baltic ave. while you skate all the money back to Boardwalk.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

As I mentioned somewhere else, all of these countries have met at least one commonly accepted definition of a failed state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[zr]

> If company goes bankrupt due to CEO's bad decisions, CEO will be able to live quite comfortably to the end of his life

if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.

ultimately you have to look at it from a different perspective.

a CEO job isn't an entitlement. much like a surgeon. someone would have to walk a long hard and at times perilous career path. relatively few make it to the top of the piramid.

which makes for a limited pool of quality CEOs. supply-demand. simple as that.

market won't shell out money for no good reason. market does its job as long as its free. and,

btw, the opposite is very much true as well, the only way to check/balance prices (including labor) is free market.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

You make a great point. The risk is huge, for the large number of workers and families invested in their business.

Maybe that's why you want to make sure you get the best person for the job and to do this, you have to pay what the person's talents are worth. What that might be? Well if you think you can dictate that figure you're smoking some whacky toebacky.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

No No, they have said where the money will come from, don't strawman them.

They're going to force europe to lend it to them and they'll pay it back "when their economy grows". haha.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

of your 3 examples. The dust bowl and the credit crunch were not caused by voluntarism / capitalism.

Taking the credit crunch alone, why do you think all those risky loans were made? Because the government forced banks to lend below their standards and also got in the lending game to the tune of what, 80% of all the housing loans in the US are owned by fanny and freddy.

Please.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[angel'o'sphere]

Most of your post makes sense, but here you fail (like most americans who simply get the idea of 'supply and demand' wromg): Another important factor is that assigned values can't deal with fluctuations in supply and demand, if there's a shortage of pork and an excess of beef prices will adjust to even it out
If you have that situation, people will try to replace traditional porc in dishes with beef. That has a slight effect on porc prises, which will surprsingly drop a bit. Despite the fact: supply is low and demand is high.
The opposite effect it will have on beef. Despite the surplus and the low price of beef, because the demand is increasing the beef prices will rise. Farmers will likely throw beef away, call for government etc. instead of letting the price drop to get it to the people.
The people lose. Pork is to expensive, and beef does not really adapt to the market needs/demands.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Your.Master]

No, he doesn't.

Way to completely miss TWX's point.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[alvinrod]

I wasn't aware that the German people owned the means of production or that private property was abolished.

Don't confuse Socialism with a Social Democracy. One tends to end in utter failure. The other tends to actually work quite well.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[JonathanR]

Capitalism isn't the problem. State-sponsored capitalism is the problem. Those who accumulate the wealth should bear the financial burden of protecting the wealth. Currently, the most egregious accumulations of wealth (by absentee owners) have its protection subsidized by the middle class taxpayers (financing the law enforcement and judicial system) and the general obedience of a polite society (indoctrinated into accepting nebulous property rights, such as IP).

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Half-pint HAL]

I was addressing the GP AC's simplistic argument in his own terms.

Social democracy is the norm in most of Europe, with most people protected by a welfare safety net, and it has proved a good balance between pure market capitalism and pure state socialism. The issue in Greece, Spain and Italy is that the austerity measures are forcing those countries out of the continental European model and more towards the more market-oriented approach of the UK and USA. The current Greek government is trying to reestablish social democracy by instead targeting the real problem of corruption and greed in the rich. The problem with previous governments was that they were run by the corrupt and greedy rich, and hence weren't willing to address the issue.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Half-pint HAL]

capitalism may be a crappy economic solution, but its still the best one we have to date

Nope. Capitalism and socialism are both incomplete. Calling one more important than the other is like suggesting that your car's axle is more important than its pistons -- both are needed for the car to work. Pure capitalism is impossible, because in a truly free market, monopolistic practices win; but capitalism needs competition -- therefore we need regulation, hence not true free-market capitalism. Pure socialism doesn't work because a competition-free environment does little to encourage incremental improvement.

The balance is social democracy, where governments protect consumer interests and provide a welfare safety net that benefits the rich by preventing the poor turning to crime. Where government money and regulation is used to guarantee sufficient infrastructure to stimulate economic activity (just think how much wealth generation is lost by the lack of broadband provision to parts of the US that the telecoms cartels don't see as profitable, for instance).

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.

Punish a rank and file worker, they lose their job and are lucky to get another one as it's a black mark to be fired. Punish a CEO, they loser their job but potentially (depends on the company) have already been paid millions and are possibly given a severance package of millions more. That's not much of a punishment, even if it's a black mark that prevents them from being hired anywhere else.

a CEO job isn't an entitlement. much like a surgeon. someone would have to walk a long hard and at times perilous career path. relatively few make it to the top of the piramid.

Which can mean being better at back stabbing, scapegoating, and blame shifting than anyone else. Just being it isn't an entitlement doesn't mean that their activities to reach their goal as CEO matches anything to do with being a good CEO*. Compare that to surgeons who are actually trained to be surgeons.

which makes for a limited pool of quality CEOs. supply-demand. simple as that.

It's not as simple as that because...

market won't shell out money for no good reason. market does its job as long as its free.

No, it doesn't. Board members composed of many CEOs set the salaries of individual CEOs. And then they use the salaries of those CEOs to justify why their own salary should increase. Meanwhile, the actual owners of the company (the shareholders) rarely have much say in the process. Honestly, do you think if all the CEOs salaries were doubled or halved it'd change much of anything in the process? I don't. The major factor involved aren't market forces but collusion forces.

* To make an analogy, being a good CEO by standards of most large multinational conglomerates seems in the same scope as being the winning contestant on a season of Survivor. I don't think one would reasonably say that the winner in each contest is actually the best at their stated job classification and the limited pool of possible competitors along with circumstances largely outside their control have more to do with it.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

If by benefiting them you mean would support policies where the government forcibly takes resources from other people and gives them to the poor...

No, that's not remotely what's being suggested. It's a fantasy to believe that direct wealth redistribution is a policy of liberals, Democrats, or socialists. What is considered is ways in which government can provide group protection of people during unemployment periods, means for groups to have more effective bargaining power when engaging companies**, government-based buy-in to various necessities of life and living that would otherwise fall upon individuals or companies to provide*, restrictions on what companies can do when it comes to pollution, restrictions on direct or indirect punitive action upon people trying to engage in group action for their own benefit (including attacking other companies), etc.

Btw, unions have went a long way of "digging people out of poverty" and their weakening over time has done much to enlarge the wage gap. But, yea, let's ignore that or history before unions (or federal regulation of money, btw). *sigh* You really should suffer under a deflationary period to understand things.

* Here I'm thinking mostly of health coverage (because it's a hot topic in the US), but it just as well applies to road way construction and repair, driving licensing regulation, drinking water treatment requirements, etc. And you'll note how exactly and to what proportion each member of society buys in varies. Funny how few people talk about car insurance and moral hazard.

** This is the closest thing to the claim you make, and it involves a recognition that workers should have the right to bargain for the profits a company makes as part of their own wages. If a CEO of company X can make 10x the salary of a CEO of company Y purely on the profit margins or inherent sales figures on the widgets company X makes, it stands to reason workers at company X would seek a part of that profit margin as well even if their job is no harder than workers at company Y. The greatest reason this doesn't normally happen under normal free market standards is there isn't sufficient fluidity to worker movement and there isn't sufficient improvement in worker efficiency to justify 10x the wages. In the end, the owners, the CEO, and/or the workers are enriched at a rate disproportion to effort or effectiveness of their labor and without some ability to confront and power to manipulate their wage at all, it ends up being companies that favor a select few managers over the many workers when it comes to salary rates, usually under things like kratocracy or nepotism and the like..

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[jhol13]

Wow, what a punishment for a CEO, being fired with a million dollar golden parachute.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[phantomfive]

China? Complete failure of socialism. How can you tell? Because they're clinging to it the collectivist crap in name only, and relying on market economics to produce the prosperity they want.

Strictly speaking, they're attempting to copy the Singapore model of a directed economy. And it hasn't entirely been a failure.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[phantomfive]

How do you make a greek, you best friend? Catch him while he tries to cheat/trick on you! By that you get his respect!

That's a good tip.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[TWX]

Revolution is a result of to many of a population feeling that they're being exploited mixed with leadership that helps motivate them to take action. The motives of the leadership can always be questioned, but without that large disaffected population there wouldn't be much in the way of an army for those leaders to make use of.

The internal revolutions in France, England, Russia, Germany, China, Vietnam, and a whole host of other countries all were built on this kind of social unrest through wealth and opportunity disparity. In some cases (like Germany) the group holding the population down was cited as being external (through the terms of the Treaty of Versailles), but for all of the rest, the 'existing order' had taken too much for themselves to the point that the population couldn't ignore it, and wouldn't reform, so revolution occurred.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Bartles]

Neither the former Soviet Republic, nor the current Russian Oligarchy are Capitalist. You don't know the meaning of the word.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[TWX]

And I'm sure that if push came to shove, those people would not be at the front of the revolution, despite their hawkishness.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Kjella]

I glossed over a lot of details there but the basic point was just to say you can't sell what you don't have or what the market won't buy. In certain cases you don't want to dump product into the market as it'd destroy the margin on your sales and in some cases you don't want short term profit at the cost of long term market share, sometimes you have committed costs and there's all kinds of collusion and game theory to deal with. I was just pointing out that dictating prices doesn't imply you can dictate production with the stroke of a pen. I'm not sure I buy your logic though, you claim pork prices will drop yet that pork is too expensive? You're contradicting yourself. Shortages always brings gouging.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ScentCone]

Russia did not 'destroy' itself.

Right, the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics did. It was formally "dissolved" because it had completely come apart at the seems, was bankrupt, and had earned the hatred of all of the countries it had be ruling through force.

Ask a niw living russian what was better. The new multi billionair will say: now. Everyone else says: then.

Which "then" were you referring to? A "then" when the Soviets were still making some of the people in the country live only a bit less miserably by raping the surrounding soviet block countries? Are you really holding up the Soviets, who killed off millions of their own people in order to reduce the number of mouths they had to feed, as a picture of success?

Yes, the current Russian middle class could be a lot happier. But they're being kept from the benefits of pan-European and other international trade because their current dictator has managed to get their economy isolated from lots of the prosperity they'd otherwise have. Blame Putin - he wants (as he's said) the USSR back the way it was, running all of eastern Europe. But those countries don't want to live through that hell again.

Oh, that is not capitalism, that is corruption! Wow ... care to explain THEM the difference?

So, your personal opinion is that the Russian people are too individually stupid to understand the difference between being ripped off by corrupt officials and doing business between two parties that each want to? I'm sure the average Russian would really appreciate your condescending opinion of their intellect.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Bartles]

Germany sure has a lot of State Owned Enterprise for a country that's not Socialist.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[sg_oneill]

How many failed socialist experiments do we need to see before it's written off as a failure?

As opposed to the trail of wreckage from freemarket austerity?

But for that matter, why are you talking about socialism? Free power isn't socialism (Unless the power generators are owned and ran by the workers themselves) its just free power.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[PapayaSF]

Care to explain why Cuba is a failure when health care and education are on a much higher level (and much cheaper) than in the USA albeit being under a boycott and other sanctions from the USA the last 70 years?

I always love it when defenders of Cuba portray the US boycott as a negative for Cuba. Have you forgotten that you are the one claiming that capitalism exploits people, and that communism is more efficient and fair? So what if we're not exploiting Cuba with our evil capitalist free trade? That should be a good thing for them, according to leftist economic theory, and allow them to become richer, right? But the fact is, in the 1950s, Cuba had the highest per capita income in Latin America. Now it has the lowest. If you want to blame that on the fact that we aren't practicing capitalism with Cuba, go right ahead!

As for their supposedly wonderful health care and education systems, according to what? Cuban government statistics? LOL.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[zr]

would you have ovechkin only get paid if his team wins the stanley cup?

i get your frustration but it simply not how this world works.

if a company wants a competent CEO they have to negotiate compensation on an open market. if the board agrees to a golden parachute well.. that means it was the only way to get this particular CEO.

not happy with the deal? pass. see how your company does with someone who agrees to work on contingency.

in any event, the outrage about "fat CEOs" is completely misplaced. CEO compensation is by far not the problem with today's businesses. corporatism is. which, btw, largely about lobbying and other government level corruption.

luckily in this (usa) country its "baby-corruption" compared to what happens in some other countries including the one discussed in TFA.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[mjwx]

Actually Germany is not socialism. nor are most other european counties, like one of the parents up claimed.
Arguable Scandinavia is navigating a middle way between socialism/non socialism.
However americans have a retarded idea what socialism actually is.
Universal healthcare? Socialism! (Rofl, it is a basic human right! China had that 4000 years ago, so had Egypt 6000 years ago)
Unemployment insurrance? Socialism!!! Rofl ...

So what Greece is doing isn't socialism?

Here's my problem with "but OMFG socialism" and "socialism ruined everything" arguments, the people who make them wouldn't know proper socialism if it came up and threw them onto the spears of the soldiers. Socialism to them is a byword for "something I dont like".

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[mjwx]

You could do a lot within the capitalist system just providing special tax benefits to the groups you want to support. But chances are you'd have to take them in taxes from somebody else. It wouldn't really work any better or different if you take away the money, somebody would be grabbing compensation from one group and giving it to another saying here, you deserve it more. And then ones who just got deprived would scream bloody murder. It's not hard to find faults with the market economy, but it's not hard to find faults with the plan economy either. In other words, explain a better system that'd actually work in the real world with selfish people who want to game the system.

Neither system is perfect is the reason western nations (and most successful economies) are mixed economies. Neither capitalist nor socialist in their entirety, rather using a mix of the two. How much gets mixed in and where it's applied is a matter of some debate.

A 100% capitalist state has never existed, unlike 100% socialist states that do exist and are abject failures. There's a reason for this. Pure capitalism fails for the same reason as pure communism. It relies on people believing the exact same thing. Communist nations enforce this by gunpoint, the closest a capitalist state came to this was fascism and that was stopped in short order. The problem, as you so eloquently pointed out is that selfish people who want to game the system exist and the closer to pure capitalism/socialism a system gets the easier it is for these people to game.

The reason we keep using mixed economic systems is not just because they're the best solution we've tried, but also because the more extreme you get the more despotic the government is required to be in order to enforce it. If a pure capitalist state existed, it would look a lot like North Korea, except the leader would have Donald Trumps hair cut.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[periklisv]

"All Greeks own many houses".
"All Greek fish sold are from Thailand"!
"All Greeks own yachts"?!
"You get thrown out of buses"?!?!
... and of course, all Greeks will steal from you, cheat on you, etc, etc
That's the most complete collection of negative comments I've ever read online, kudos to you for collecting them.
However, compiling a list of negative press releases (like the 3000 blind people, which was a great scandal here as well) and putting some anecdotal self experience, is far from describing the truth. Enough with the "greek sterotypes", even the German don't believe them
I'm not sure what kind of spoiled rich Greek friends you have, that can obviously spend enough to travel abroad and play basketball and whatever, but I assure you that the *vast* majority of people here are struggling with 30% true unemployment and 500 Euros wages. Old people are suffering with a 50%-70% cut in their pension. Disabled people where stripped off their benefits overnight. Gas and heating prices went up 50%. Electricity went up at least 20%. All these along with a 30%-50% increase in taxation *of the poor* (and 0% increase for the rich). This is the actual austerity, and not some bull*hit about people "forced to cut down on spending". Just take a look at the numbers of people immigrating, committing a suicide, dying of heart attacks etc over the last 4 years. Do you really think these where people frustrated for losing one of their yachts?

The true problem of austerity was not that people where "forced to cut down on spending". It's that the state was forced to cut down on spending and find revenue by means of heavy and irrational taxation (insane actually). This had the obvious impact of putting the economy in a deep depression, thus leading the state into having to borrow again, leading to more heavy austerity measures etc. So we've ended up now with an economy 30% smaller, unemployment went from 10% to 30%, people have lost their jobs, their houses, their hopes, their lives and what for? , only this time it's not the private sector that holds it (european banks), but they have traded this with European state loans (see: european people's money). The new government doesn't promise it will "continue the policy of spending". It has promised (and we'll see if it manages that) that it will revert insane austerity measures. For example, cutting the basic wage from 750 Euros to 580 Euros was a measure that not even the employers wanted: They knew that this would drive the economy even more deep into recession.

So, please, check your facts before posting condemns about a whole race, just because you got cheated and had a fight with a bus employee on a crowded island in a crowded season.
I could write much more, about how German businesses funded corruption in Greece, How Germany benefits from the Greek crisis, etc, but it's pointless; You people will always believe that it's "the Greeks' absent mindedness" that is to blame about the crisis, that they had it coming, and that it will never happen to your country. Good luck.
Ah, and by the way, during my trips worldwide I've met literally hundreds of people who h

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Germany has a minimal wage since January 2015:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-german-minimum-wage-rings-in-happy-new-year-for-millions-2014-12

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Anonymous Coward]

You are asking the wrong question. What you should ask is "how many failed socialist regimes can be attributed to socialism itself?". You can have a hundred men fail to invent mechanical locomotion, but that doesn't prove horses are superior.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[umafuckit]

There's something about wealth redistribution that is significantly more attractive when you're on the receiving end, or at least on the sidelines.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem and that something shouldn't be done about it.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[TehZorroness]

You understand there's a difference between Socialism and Communism, right?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[AmiMoJo]

When Americans think about socialism they imagine an extreme form that is basically communism. When Europeans describe a country as socialist they mean it has free-at-the-point-of-need healthcare, some redistribution of wealth, a reasonable benefits system, strong worker protection laws, strong consumer protection laws etc. In other words the people have power to make a society that suits them, not corporations or some other group.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[AmiMoJo]

Well, let's see ... by "Russia," of course you mean the "Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics," right?

So by your logic democracy is a failure because just look at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Congo?

Hint: If it has "socialist" or "democratic" in the name, it probably isn't. The USSR was communist, an extreme form of socialism, in the same way that the DPRK is an extreme form of democracy where there is only one party and only one choice of leader so they don't even bother having a vote.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[AmiMoJo]

Racism is generalizing about an entire people, and implying that there is something inherent about them that makes change impossible or failure inevitable. Often these claims are backed up with anecdotal evidence, and claims that the speaker knows many people from that group and isn't being racist. So, while I don't think you had any malicious intent, your argument and conclusions is actually pretty racist.

Greece, like all countries, has problems, but they are also undergoing huge changes and reforms so I don't think generalizing in this way is sensible or helpful. Aside from anything else it is way too early to tell if their new plan will work. The majority of posts here are just ideological arguments, centred on the claim that simply because the strategy is socialist it must inevitably fail, despite the fact that socialism has been working well in Europe for 50+ years.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[dunkelfalke]

Matter of fact yes, USSR was very much a success, compared to its predecessor. The backwards Russian empire that was a century behind the developed world was transformed into a comparatively modern country that was finally able to feed itself (the last famine was in 1947, USSR was dissolved in 1991), while Russian empire had famines every 10 years or so. They've put the first man into space for fuck's sake, just 15 years after the most devastating war in the world's history!
Life expectancy at birth in 1960 was twice (!!!) of the life expectancy in 1900.
Could have been better if there was no need for fear of yet another foreign invasion.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[dunkelfalke]

Even so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

75.9% of Greeks own real estate. But only 53.3% of Germans do.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[vlad30]

Socialism assumes that we will all work just as hard as the next person however this is not the case most people only work just enough to get by. You can see this with most workers once they have some money to spend it is difficult to get them to come to work. until they run out.

Democracy assumes we are all smart and will vote in the best leader however it fails in that most people are dumb and self-serving and vote in the person with the biggest promise.

Capitalism assumes that all people are smart and work hard and will generate wealth but most people are dumb lazy and self-serving.

In all 3 economic/political systems we didn't let Darwinism to work and eliminate weak, stupid, and lazy

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[YoungManKlaus]

right, its so much better to have unemployment in the 20% range and starve your own people so companies can make profits.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[AmiMoJo]

It seems to be a cultural thing. Even in the US there are some CEOs who accept a much lower pay gap, and in the far east it is actually pretty normal and excessive pay is seen as a bad thing.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[AmiMoJo]

if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.

LOL, oh the humanity! When a CEO is fired they typically have a golden parachute and a nice fat pension that is protected from any screw-ups they make. Even if they failed to get those written into their contracts it doesn't matter, they are still rich and won't have trouble paying the mortgage next month. Their friends will find them another comfortable job, no worries.

I don't see the CEOs of all thoe failed banks begging on the streets or flipping burgers. One poor guy lost his knighthood, how terrible. Sir Fred no more, what a harsh punishment. Now all he has left from his time as a failed banker is a few million pounds in cash and a measly £400k/year pension.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Antiocheian]

I'm not going to reply to most of your statements because they are too stupid to deserve a response (eg. all Greeks own flats and boats) but I'd like to comment on these three bits that prove you are not to be taken seriously:

4) If you fly to Channia on Crete, your plane lands like 20km outside of the city. Just in time there is a bus that brings you into the city, a normal landline bus. If you enter the bus they don't sell you a ticket. Trying to convince you that the bus is 'special' and you need to take a taxi/cab. Usually there is a luggage compartment below the bus, with your luggage. While you are arguing with the ticket seller, someone will throw out your luggage onto the road. No chance. When you get out to collect it, the bus departs and you have to take a cab. Second time I knew the drill. Took my luggage inside, was anyway only a small and a big rucksack. The ticket seller tried to throw me out by force! 'Unfortunately' a greek living in my hometown who was in the same plane told him, he knew me. So suddenly the ticket seller sold me a ticket for like 20cents our day money. On the other hand, it had not looked good if a 25 year old tourist punches a 60 year old ticket seller into the face.

That reminds me a story when I was traveling from Amsterdam to Hamburg (another example of rich Greeks who travel, right?) and the ticket inspector would refuse to accept my ticket which I had bought at a travel agent instead of the train station. Of course my ticket was valid and when the inspector called the offices (muttering some German words about Greeks) he then realized he was wrong and yet he didn't apologize. Perhaps our inability to communicate in English was the reason. But in your case, the problem is that the ticket seller actually gave you a ticket, instead of calling the authorities. Why ? Because you were not allowed to to carry a big rucksack in a "normal landline" bus.You are only allowed to bring luggage that you can carry by hand. This is an important regulation to allow passengers to safely travel by bus. But I guess the threat of a 25 year old tourist punching a 60 year old person is too much to handle.

After or during my basket ball tournament my team, like 12 people plus trainer plus some relatives of our greek team mate where for a long long long night dinner. We ate like maniacs for 4 or 5 hours and drank wine for minimum 2 more hours. Needless to say: the dishes where excellent, we could not really stop. Usually we just ordered like '3 of those and 4 of that and 5 this' and simply shared it and took something different the next order. Trust me, the end bill was less than $20, perhaps only $15 for each of us. We drank ca. 6 hours the most expensive wine of the house. (Makes no difference for a 'fucking rich german' if a liter of wine costs 75cents or 110cents ... how much wine are you actually going to drink?) [...] Point is: we had a bill of perhaps $300, in our days money. The amount they tried to cheat us over was less than $5. Whats the point?

The point is that you are clearly confused. The most expensive wine in the house, even in the lowliest Greek tavern should cost $100 a bottle at least. If you stayed 6 hours, drank wine for 2 hours and had "excellent dishes" and you've paid $20 each, then 1) You've robbed the tavern or 2) You didn't realize that you had actually ordered the cheapest wine. Even so, you've still robbed the tavern.

two years ago we where sailing around the Cyclades. A german boat and two chartered greek boats. The german captain attempted a joke. "We have a problem!" - "What is it? Do you need assistance?" - "No, it can't be helped!" - "What is it?" ... "The beer is empty!!". Bad bad bad joke. Note: that was a normal 'fun call' on channel 16, no distress/mayday/SOS. 2 hours later a greek coast guard patrol came along. Insisting they had heard a 'we have a problem' call. After talking a bit they or

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[periklisv]

From the same link:

• Romania: 96.6%
• Lithuania: 91.9%

• [...]

• Bulgaria: 87.4%

I guess this makes them all rich nations that ought to pay more etc.
And I'm tired of the Greeks-vs-Germans comparisons, as if we have to blame one or another. It's the politics that's wrong, and that has nothing to do with people themselves.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ScentCone]

Matter of fact yes, USSR was very much a success, compared to its predecessor.

So, as long as we ignore that whole "Stalin" thing, and stick with comparing it only to the same sort of misery that other previously feudal arrangements also had, it was just great? The USSR failed because the way it was spending the resources it was pillaging from others at the point of a gun was unsustainable. How can a system you have to use the threat of murder to keep people who are desperate to flee it be considered a success?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Alioth]

The Greek government got you into this state in the first place, with the full, willing complicity of Wall Street who helped hide Greece's massive debts (which should have disqualified it from joining the euro). Unfortunately the EU in its headlong and breathless rush to get the euro under way didn't do their proper due diligence. Greece is now paying for these mistakes.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[dunkelfalke]

What else do you want to compare it with? Every other comparison would be apples-to-oranges. You can only compare it with what came before or what came after. Matter of fact, of all the former soviet republics only one has somewhat higher standards of living than before. Besides, you act as if Stalin was in power 1917-1991. But this sort of delusion is common to Americans, some of them asked me whether Hitler was still the head of state in Germany - in the late nineties.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[dunkelfalke]

Bad comparison. Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria all were ex-Socialist countries. All real estate there was previously people-owned, so they had the right to privatise their flats for free or almost free in the early nineties.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ScentCone]

You can only compare it with what came before or what came after.

False dichotomy. You can compare it to other things that happened (or are happening) at the same time and which work better. The point isn't to compare the Soviet's reliance on the use of force to temporarily prop up a cruel and staggeringly inefficient system to czarist Russia, the point is to compare it to other countries that flourished at the same time without having to regularly kill desperate people who were trying to escape from it in order to lead a happier life.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Chrisq]

I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure.

You might not say that if you lived in Greece, from their viewpoint what has happened to them is an example of its failure.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[dunkelfalke]

Not false at all. Different countries had completely different starting positions and completely different things that happened to them after. But if you talk like that, why don't we compare USSR to Zimbabwe then?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[tmosley]

If "working" is spending 50,000 years in a place and never even entering the stone age, then I would hate to see what your definition of "failing" is.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[tmosley]

Corporations are not capitalist, they are corporatist, ie fascist. Corporations are created by the state and given special immunity from courts (shareholders aren't personally liable for the actions of their company) and further given a sociopathic mission statement (maximize profit at any cost).

I really wish people would learn to use words in a clear manner rather than conflating polar opposite economic systems.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[gnupun]

What is so much better about CEOs making 500 times as much as their office workers, than having some kind of rational basis for compensating workers, when it is the workers who are doing all the work?

But should a janitor in a successful company A, make 5 times what another janitor in an unsuccessful company B is making, even though though both of them perform the same exact task (theoretically speaking) that requires the same amount of time and effort? I think not, that would promote a sort of lottery system.

If CEO's salary is to trickle down to workers, it should be based on the value of their work. For example, creative marketing and technical contributions that increase company profits over a long time should be trickled down, but common jobs should have the same salary structure.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[umghhh]

Euro allowed Greeks to go deep in debt only the same way as any currency allows debtors take up debt. The actual problem lied in smoke and mirrors of Greek gov trying to trick others and in readiness of lenders to be misinformed.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ScentCone]

We're not comparing countries, we're comparing market economies to centrally run collectivist economies. It makes more sense to compare the USSR's progress and failure during the 20th century to something more like Canada or the US. One system is unsustainable, killed millions of people, and stooped to threatening the lives of people trying to run away from it, and the other system is where those people were running to.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[dunkelfalke]

No it doesn't make any sense at all. USA and Canada both were much more modern and rich countries in 1917. Russia on the other hand was badly beaten in the first world war, had a civil war, was invaded by foreign armed forces in 1918, was invaded by Poland in 1919 and was almost destroyed in WW2. USA and Canada, on the other hand, weren't, their infrastructure was intact and their human losses in both world wars were ridiculously small. Technologically Russia was at least 50 years behind USA in 1917, the life expectancy was 25 years lower. By 1960 a parity was reached. Soviet Russia started with a 24% literacy and ended with 99.8%. All that is a huge success in my book.
There were enough people from poorer countries trying to get to USSR because the standards of living there were higher than in their home countries. That is a normal process.
Basically you comparing a spoiled trust fund baby with somebody who started piss poor and even though that piss poor guy was able to rise quite high, since he wasn't as rich as the trust fund guy at the end, he was a loser in your eyes. That is a very childish view, to be honest.

Oh, and by the way, speaking of threatening the lives of people trying to run away from it, USA currently incarcerates almost as many people as Stalin had in his worst years. Good job, I say. That is what I call freedom you can be proud of.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[sociocapitalist]

Somehow I suspect that if you were offered a CEO position that pays 500x more than the office workers, your position would change. There's something about wealth redistribution that is significantly more attractive when you're on the receiving end, or at least on the sidelines.

No doubt true in much the same way that royalty and nobles didn't (and don't) share their wealth with peasants which still doesn't make it a good thing for society as a whole.

The whole point of wealth redistribution is to give the children of the poor (and now the shrinking middle class) to have a chance at a good future instead of it all coming down to how rich one's parents are - which is the way we're heading back to.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[dunkelfalke]

He does. You don't.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[nikosdion]

I've only registered an account on /. to comment on this. Disclaimer: I'm not an economist but I did study basic macroeconomics in University. I am uniquely positioned to comment on this since I'm Greek and actually get to pay property taxes in Greece, unlike you, dear dunkelfalke.

Real estate is the typical investment in underdeveloped economies. In developed economies you place your money in stocks and bonds, having a more than fair chance of getting a ROI equal or higher than the inflation rate. So, if a German or American has about $50,000 they'll place them there. In Greece the inflation was at 20% until the early 90s whereas bond interest rates were at 14% and the stock market was anemic (even worse than it is today). In other words, placing your money on stocks and bonds would *lose* you money.

Therefore Greeks placed their money in (old) houses or would build their own with the combined effort of three or more generations of a family. I don't think that an average placement of $25,000 per person, over a lifetime of work, in brick and mortar makes that person "rich" by any standard.

The problem reading the statistics is that the valuation of the houses is based on Greece's skewed "objective valuation" system. This system assigns a price per square meter of property for each area, however this valuation is not grounded on market values. It's arbitrary and usually 5x-20x higher than the market value. For example, the "objective valuation" of a derelict house I've inherited from my father in a mountain village near Kalamata is 250 Euros per square meter when the market value is less than 100, for well-maintained property (as I said, mine is falling apart). I've heard of worse cases, e.g. a 1000 square meter field in a mountain village which only connect to the nearest villages via a single dirt road was 180,000 Euros. Market value? About 5,000 Euros.

The idea behind this irrational system is that the presumptive income is based on the "objective valuation" system which has a high tax-free bracket (I think it's currently at 140,000 Euros). If the market valuations were used, very few people would have to pay taxes based on the presumptive income derived from their property.

So, yes, on paper Greeks are extremely wealthy because of the typical Greek solution of cooking up the numbers towards a desired effect and not towards objectivity. In reality Germans have more (neither far more, nor far less) personal wealth and in immediately liquefiable assets. I'm stuck with a derelict house I inherited from my father, without electricity, and with ever diminishing market value. I still have to pay 600 Euros per annum for property taxes for this house. So, what does this property actually count for? An asset of purely imaginary value 15,000 Euros or an annual liability of 600 Euros?

And a final note: your mass media may want to portray Greeks as tax evaders but that's not quite the truth. Two years ago I paid 85,000 Euros income tax out of 110,000 Euros turnover. That's an effective taxation of 77% thanks to the highest taxation bracket being 43% and having to pay 55% of your taxes as a downpayment for next year. The next year my income was a third of that. I've still not gotten back any of the money which was withheld from me two years ago. Yet, the government demanded that I pay OUT OF MY POCKET for the new taxes, including the property tax. I was one of the lucky few who had money in the bank, no loans and no family so I paid up. The majority of SMEs who saw their turnover shrink to crap due to the austerity have loans to pay, families to feed so excuse them if they don't pay their taxes because they preferred to not lose their 30-year-old 2-bedroom apartment with no central heating and not wanting to leave their children hungry. Some couldn't even do that and these are the exact people who will get up to 800KWh of electricity per two months for free, for a total cost to the state of 2 million Euros. Meanwhile your country makes 105 million Euros per year from the

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[pbhj]

>I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure.

People dying through poverty brought on by the actions of super-rich isn't a failure in your model of capitalism?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[MooseTick]

All of this talk is skewed anyway since the type of people able to respond to this are most likely have the top 1% income in the world.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[luis_a_espinal]

Perhaps you should get your facts right? Neither in Russia nor in China socialism is considered a failure, actually both countries where not even socialistic. In both countries however capitalism is considered to be a failure. Or what do you think why poverty in Russia, inequality etc. is in the rise?

Same for Cuba and Venezuela. Care to explain why Cuba is a failure when health care and education are on a much higher level (and much cheaper) than in the USA albeit being under a boycott and other sanctions from the USA the last 70 years?

Finally: capitalism and socialism are two complete different dimensions. China shows clearly: you can have both. Wow, surprise.

This is a place that tens of thousands were killed in purges, and where being homosexual can get you to the firing squad, even today. This is no bullshit or lies, but actual history (and contemporary news for those found "guilty" of homosexuality.)

Not to mention the well known fallacy of its health care system (education is good, though). You might want to revisit your notions of what a "relatively successful" society is, though (if you give a shit about being intellectually honest, that is.)

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[luis_a_espinal]

> If company goes bankrupt due to CEO's bad decisions, CEO will be able to live quite comfortably to the end of his life

if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.

... with a golden parachute so fucking big, the only punishment they get is some headlines in the news.

Failing like that == making it rich no matter what. If that is punishment, I'm going to get me into S&M!

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Bob the Super Hamste]

In the dust bowl seemed like capitalism worked and in the other ones there sure seemed to be a lot of government intervention. The one thing everyone seems to forget about is that in capitalism there are going to be busts that will wipe out businesses and actors. The invisible hand isn't always benevolent and does seem to like to smash things from time to time.

In the case of the dust bowl a lot of bad farming practices were taking place and it did destroy a lot of farmers. Granted it wasn't just contained to the bad actors but farming is going strong in the US now with better practices. I'm not sure where you were going with tobacco marketing but there has been a large amount of government intervention in that as well as various government lawsuits to recover costs associated with tobacco use. Now depending on what numbers you read to gov is getting a sweet deal with their settlement money from those lawsuits since tobacco users die quicker and end up costing the government less money, not to mention the special higher taxes government already levy against tobacco products. Finally the whole credit crunch and financial disaster of '08 seemed to be the invisible hand trying to slap bad actors back to the stone age but the government stepped in and prevented that from happening.

Also for pure capitalism to work everyone must have perfect information which is never the case but it also requires strong courts to punish fraud and it doesn't seem like either of those are happening now, maybe this is what you meant with the tobacco marketing in which case it wasn't a failure of capitalism since the courts did award large judgments to states.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[micahraleigh]

Question: does "austerity" mean any European nations have reduced their annual spending?

Answer: "No."

So what exactly are you discontent with?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[periklisv]

True. But what about Norway, Malta, Mexico, Iceland, etc. The point is, what on earth does the owning of real-estate tell us about actual economic status

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[vandamme]

Less than 2 more years of Obama left.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[zr]

that happens. also people die on surgeon's table. shit indeed does happen.

but you're missing the point. you can't _get_ a rock star CEO in today's market if you do not offer the parachute..

you and i can get all pissy about that but unless you want to put shackles on the candidate he/she simply won't work for you under different conditions.

same as Jolie or Pitt or Hanks won't work on a movie unless you cut them a sizable check regardless of how the movie does.

you have a problem with that? move to North Korea. pretty much everywhere else people figured out that worrying about CEO's paycheck is barking at the wrong tree.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[zr]

the point of that LAT article is that because IBM is too big to fail we should care. okay. lets care.

what do you propose we do about hiring the next IBM CEO? what if the CEO you want to hire won't agree to come work for you without the parachute?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

Is the USA the only country that has an FDIC style insurance to bail out banks?

If you're a bank and you can take a risky bet, if you win you make big bucks, if you lose the taxpayer pays, what would you do?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

The people responsible were the ones voted into office and career state workers. How would you suggest to hold them responsible?

It's an inherent flaw in 'governments'. People will give 'free' stuff to get votes and then will funnel money to their cronies, accruing huge bills that must be papered over or defaulted on every so often. The losers are the people (even the ones who get the 'free' stuff) and the currencies and creditors.

Government the way it's done these days is immoral.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[micahraleigh]

Typically this kind of defense of the USSR includes the "... and the trains always ran on time." While that may be a pleasantry the soviets enjoyed ... trains running on time didn't feed the 6 million Ukrainians who died of starvation.

More broadly, why do you think Stalin pursued the New Economic Policy (NEP)? The premise of it was to allow more free market principles into the system.

Were the Soviets just not Communist enough? Or did they not recognize the amazing leaps forward they had made? Or what exactly?

Because to me the whole thing smells like a spectacular failure.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[7-Vodka]

Ha. I wish I would 'suffer' deflation. Then my savings would actually be worth something.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[angel'o'sphere]

You are an idiot.
Have you forgotten that you are the one claiming that capitalism exploits people, and that communism is more efficient and fair?
Citation please? Where did I claim that?
See: I did not ;)

Anyway, you seem to believe that capitalism equals free markets, which it does not.
You seem to believe that socialism equals 'no free market' which it does not.
Hence any 'equation' where socialism and capitalism is compared in a single sentence is wrong. You try to compare e.g. electric current with microwaves. That does not make sense.
Hint: the opposite of a 'free market' is a 'planned economy', not socialism.

No idea about your other rants, I find them extremely uneducated.

Yes, Cuba is exactly there where the USA allowed it to go to. Perhaps you should read a history book about the time before the Cuban revolution.

Or look at the rest of south america. The USA destroyed every country there. Mexico is so close to a complete catastrophe ...

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes, that is how it is NOW, but 30 years ago, as I said most greeks had a comfortable life and many where rich in comparison to germans.

The quote/percentage of people who owned a house or more was much higher than in germany. Very much higher. Having 2 or more vacation residencies was common.

Of course the actual situation is as you describe.

However e.g. your example how they now rip of their unemployed, disabled, pension receivers fits exactly in what I say. The junta is not cheating the citizens.

Certainly Greece suffers from the international monetary system. But I never dug into it.

As I said in post at the top: you should have read the whole post. I gave nearly a dozen of examples of 'cheatery'.

I can give perhaps one hundred more. Anyway, I would love to go there again. As I said, if you are acquainted with them, they are nice. However as long as you are not, especially when you are a small but loud group of tourists, noteble british or german, then you restaurant bill is never fitting to what you ordered. Either the 4 espresso you ordered and got are four cappuccino on the bill or there is a random $2 extra dish on the bill that no one has ordered (and no, I don't mean the bread and olives you automatically get as starters)

Do you complain, and come again afterwards, then suddenly everything is fine.

Yes, I have witnessed that minimum a hundred times :) Luckily I spoke at that tome enough greek to at least do the greeting and ordering and asking for the bill in greek ... and my friends and I are not 'that loud'.

Also I don't get what you find negative about my comment that fish is mostly non greek? Should I have explained that in Greece dynamite fishing was still common till the early 1990s? Forbidden since the mid 1970s I believe, but no one cared. Greece could be a rich nation, if they simply would exploit their resources better, see my other post about olive oil, instead of cheating themselves.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[angel'o'sphere]

the junta is not cheating the citizens.
That was supposed to mean:
'The junta is now cheating the citizens.'

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[micahraleigh]

Needs are wants in disguise.

The USSR determined 6 million Ukrainians didn't *need* to eat.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[painandgreed]

It wasn't wealthy greeks who spent the money that put greece in debt. It was the government.

Hrrm. The Greeks have government by poor people. How unusual.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Tom]

Somehow I suspect that if you were offered a CEO position that pays 500x more than the office workers, your position would change.

Of course. But not every CEO is a cleptomaniac psychopath, only maybe half of them. You can take this unjustifiable salary and still decide to vote for and otherwise support change in a more sane direction. You probably wouldn't want to refuse from all the 500x because it's really cute to have lots of money, but you could agree that with 400x you would not starve and the nagging of your wife that she can't afford a fifth Vertu phone would stop after a while, but 100 other people would have a massive improvement to their lives.

There's a world between giving everyone the same salary (extremist communism) and giving 99% of the money to 1% of the people (extremist capitalism). Here in Europe, we had this balance for half a century, and it was intentionally maintained by the elites because they understood that with communism active nearby, impoverishing the general population would lead to revolutions. Now that the alternative is gone, the way is finally free for a new feudalism, and another thousand years of dark age.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[quantaman]

> If company goes bankrupt due to CEO's bad decisions, CEO will be able to live quite comfortably to the end of his life

if those bad decisions were in fact caused by the CEO there are plenty that can be (and is) done to punish them for poor performance. CEOs fired routinely.

Which costs them a ridiculous amount of money, leaving them with a ridiculous amount of money.

The higher up the totem pole you are the less you're hurt by being fired, both because you have more savings and because it's easier to find another job.

ultimately you have to look at it from a different perspective.

a CEO job isn't an entitlement. much like a surgeon. someone would have to walk a long hard and at times perilous career path. relatively few make it to the top of the piramid.

which makes for a limited pool of quality CEOs. supply-demand. simple as that.

market won't shell out money for no good reason. market does its job as long as its free. and,

btw, the opposite is very much true as well, the only way to check/balance prices (including labor) is free market.

Being a free market doesn't mean things work optimally. The bargaining power of CEO candidates (old boy networks included) mean they can afford to insulate themselves from the companies they run, diversified portfolios, golden parachutes, etc. The don't have enough skin in the game to really hurt when they screw up. It's also extremely difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of CEOs at their jobs. Sure you'll occasionally get a spectacular success like Steve Jobs but how do you evaluate high level decision making?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[zr]

> Being a free market doesn't mean things work optimally

it is, vs the alternatives.

> spectacular success like Steve Jobs

actually Steve Jobs was fired from apple when the board perceived him to be a poor CEO

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

Neither in Russia nor in China socialism is considered a failure, actually both countries where not even socialistic.

By the way, what does USSR stand for?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

Hint: If it has "socialist" or "democratic" in the name, it probably isn't. The USSR was communist, an extreme form of socialism, in the same way that the DPRK is an extreme form of democracy where there is only one party and only one choice of leader so they don't even bother having a vote.

Actually you've got that backwards. Many were identified as communist but had very little in common with actual communism and much more closely resembled socialism.

Marx, who basically defined the term "communism", seemed pretty specific in that communism meant no social classes, no money, and no "state." The USSR never met a single one of those conditions. There have been a few examples of it (such as the Icarians) but none of them ever lasted worth a shit. Russia tried it (even going so far as to try to abolish laws from court trials) but saw how much of a failure it was turning out to be and it didn't last more than a few years.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[roman_mir]

"universal healthcare" is a 'human right'? ??? ??? So what aliens from what planet are supposed to provide you with this 'human right' if you stop oppressing people around you to give you that ENTITLEMENT? Does healthcare grow on magic trees somehow and all you need to do is think about a magic fruit from that magic tree and get your 'human right'? So capitalism is standing in the way of you getting that 'human right', is it? Well, obviously, because under capitalism people actually own their own bodies and their productive output and you hate that concept of self ownership because it directly contradicts your idea that forcing somebody to give you something is somehow a 'human right'.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[roman_mir]

Austerity should be about smashing government spending to bits and thus being able to reduce taxes, not increase it on anybody at all. As to 'good balance' for a welfare safety net - that's the root of the evil that is destroying modern day socialist/fascist economies, they assume that they can steal from some and give to others and they set up entire government systems to achieve that goal. There should be 0 (zero) welfare provided by state in any state (and as far as I am concerned state itself is a concept that needs to be thrown in the garbage in our global world, only individuals can have rights, groups of individuals cannot).

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

Anyway, you seem to believe that capitalism equals free markets, which it does not.
You seem to believe that socialism equals 'no free market' which it does not.

Actually you're wrong on both counts. Free market means that the prices of goods are set by the forces of supply and demand. Capitalism means that the means of production is owned and operated for a profit.*

Socialism means co-operative management of production. I.e. no profit motive, and nobody privately owns any means of production. That is inherently incompatible with free markets because supply and demand don't determine prices; instead prices (and sometimes supply) are set by some governing authority. See for example Venezuela recently threatening owners of electronics stores for not obeying the official price guides set by the Bolivian government. In most capitalist states, this only happens for certain utilities that are monopolistic in nature and therefore aren't able to be subject to the normal rules of supply and demand.

Socialism varies from communism in that in communism (according to Marx) there's no money, no social classes, and no government (all of which exist by necessity in socialism, including social classes, which can just be elected officials who set prices.) This form of communism has only briefly existed in each instance of it because it never ends up working. (The Icarians were an example of communism, however the USSR was socialism. The USSR tried pure communism but it didn't last very long.)

* This also applies in the case of not for profit organizations within a capitalist system. Even though the organization itself doesn't profit, the stakeholders do, if not in the form of money, then in the form of some kind of material gain, though usually the stakeholders include employees. See the for example the executives and employees of PBS, Mozilla, and others. Likewise, for profit organizations privately own their own means of production, and any goods they produce are still subject to the rules of supply and demand.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[lucm]

Somehow I suspect that if you were offered a CEO position that pays 500x more than the office workers, your position would change.

Of course. This is why in civilized nations we let the people vote, not the money.

What nation are you talking about?

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[ArmoredDragon]

No, socialism is a system where most or all of the means of production are owned by the state.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Citizen of Earth]

Or "Why should I care about the peasants when I have absolute power?"

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Citizen of Earth]

There's an important factor that you Doomer types seem to forget about. The pre-revolutionary French and the Arab Springers didn't have access to a particular pressure-relief valve that we do: DEMOCRACY. Instead of breaking out the torches and pitchforks, all that the disgruntled masses need to do is vote for the Pitchfork Party that will be newly created to (attempt to) deliver whatever it is that the masses want. If the masses want punitive taxes on the rich, then that's what we'll get.

There'll be unintended consequences, of course, like chasing rich people, their entrepreneurship, their businesses, and their capital and all foreign capital out of the country, but if this is what the masses want, we can have Venezuela right here. Everyone will be *equally* poor — mission accomplished! The 'revolution' will happen in the voting booth.

Strange that what we actually see in the first world isn't voters opting for far-left or far, far left-er types, but actually a tendency toward business-friendly conservative types. The Pending Doom(TM) is strictly a minority opinion, most particularly among the supposedly outraged masses.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[Magius_AR]

Nope. Capitalism and socialism are both incomplete. Calling one more important than the other is like suggesting that your car's axle is more important than its pistons -- both are needed for the car to work.

No, it's like comparing brake fluid and washer fluid. Without one, you're doomed to disaster. Without the other, you'll probably eventually get into trouble at some point when your windshield clouds up and you collide with some obstacle. In short, the unfettered version of socialism is by far way worse than the unfettered version of capitalism. And it's not even close.

But you are correct that some amount of both is the ideal.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[shutdown -p now]

The USSR was not communist. It was Marxist-Leninist statist socialism. Communism is supposed to be a socioeconomic system that doesn't have classes (and hence class struggle), and has no need for a state. USSR has never officially claimed either as an achievement, merely as desirable long term goals.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[shutdown -p now]

Real estate is the typical investment in underdeveloped economies. In developed economies you place your money in stocks and bonds, having a more than fair chance of getting a ROI equal or higher than the inflation rate. So, if a German or American has about $50,000 they'll place them there.

Er, no. An American, at least, would get a mortgage for a house with this money, because otherwise he'll be renting something, paying the same amount as the mortgage payment every month, except he doesn't get a house at the end.

And most Americans don't earn enough to afford saving any significant amount of money on top of that mortgage payment. Certainly nowhere even close to 75%. The question of "where do I invest my spare money" only bothers the lucky few.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[rtb61]

Ahh yes democracy, tell that to Nazi Germany, democracy can quite readily fail and it is rather obviously failing in the US and has been doing so for quite some time and at every level of government from local, through state and into federal.

Re:Can't eat what you don't grow

[luis_a_espinal]

that happens. also people die on surgeon's table. shit indeed does happen.

but you're missing the point. you can't _get_ a rock star CEO in today's market if you do not offer the parachute..

you and i can get all pissy about that but unless you want to put shackles on the candidate he/she simply won't work for you under different conditions.

same as Jolie or Pitt or Hanks won't work on a movie unless you cut them a sizable check regardless of how the movie does.

you have a problem with that? move to North Korea. pretty much everywhere else people figured out that worrying about CEO's paycheck is barking at the wrong tree.

What the hell is a rock start CEO? Like Leo Apotheker of HP sad fame? Eddie Lampert who ran Sears to the ground? The list of crappy CEO's can go on and on. And the list of average CEO's is even greater.

The list of rockstar CEOs is very minuscule, so your argument about needing high parachutes to attract rockstart CEOs is flawed.

The entire compensation system is flawed and it has more to do with using golden parachutes as 'hush money' to get rid of a bad CEO quickly and without issue (thus minimizing damage) than to attract rockstar talent. Thomas Sowell explains this in details in his "Basic Economics" (a deep look into the subject, a worth read.)

This type of argument only makes sense when we can objectively correlate the quality of golden parachutes to quality of performance. People can argue as much as they want that this correlation (or actual causal relation) exists. But real world (and actual managerial intention) evidence says otherwise.

No more bailout

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, he doesn't want any more bailout money, but he DOES want them to give him money to "bridge" things over?

I take it that what he really means is that he doesn't want any more money with strings attached (like an obligation to pay it back), but he's happy to accept money with no strings....

Re:No more bailout

[Noah Haders]

everyone else is wrapped up in string but there's no strings on him!

Re:No more bailout

[buchner.johannes]

Greece's financial problems can be solved if corruption and tax aversion is drastically reduced, which is part of the program Alexis Tsipras promotes. That is why the Troika only gives money if reforms are made and I think they know it is the key for Greece to become financially independent again.

Re: No more bailout

[prefec2]

As no country is going to pay back its debt, why should they do so?

Re: No more bailout

[CrimsonAvenger]

They're not being asked to pay back their debt.

They're being asked to not run up any more debt. They're required by the terms of the bailout (the part where a bunch of other governments a pile of money to keep them out of bankruptcy) to not borrow any more money till they pay the bailout back.

Now, what the Greeks want is for the other European governments to give them more money while at the same time not paying back the last pile of money they were handed.

Re: No more bailout

[Half-pint HAL]

No taxes and now no need to work.

You can't starve people into finding jobs when your country has record unemployment.

Re: No more bailout

[Billly Gates]

You also can't pay for electricity and food for people when you do not have money either and now no one will lend you any as you're a defaulter.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

That is not the only thing they are being asked for. They are also being asked to cut the minimum wage, rise working hours, cut pensions, fire public sector employees and sell state enterprises including the electric power company. The result of those measures, rather unsurprisingly, was 25% unemployment, including over 50% youth unemployment, people who cannot pay back their loans and more vagrant on the streets.

Unless the Greek government offers these people a change to live a decent life what do you think will happen?

Re:No more bailout

[AchilleTalon]

Everyone is, aren't you?

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

More competitive in the long run... They have been applying the "reforms" for 7 years now. How longer do you want people to wait? Compare what happened in the PIIGS to what happened in Iceland which had much the same problem around the same time. They let a bunch of banks default and nationalized the largest ones. They have 4.4% unemployment. Because Iceland defaulted on a lot of debt there were claims that they would never get a loan again. Guess what. They are getting loans again.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Re: No more bailout

[lucm]

Unless the Greek government offers these people a change to live a decent life what do you think will happen?

You may not be aware of this, but usually a government is financed by the taxes paid by the citizens, not the other way around. Boy you must suck at Simcity.

Re:No more bailout

[lucm]

The money saved from not paying interested will be used to restructure the internal economy and to help pursuit the real tax evaders/dodgers.

Also don't forget the electricity bill.

Re: No more bailout

[ScentCone]

Unless the Greek government offers these people a change to live a decent life what do you think will happen?

Has it ever occurred to you that prosperity never comes from a wave of the government's magic wand? Over time, people have to actually produce value. Getting stuff from the government doesn't do that, it just taxes what someone else creates, and rearranges the money (very inefficiently, too). The Greek government is notoriously inefficient and corrupt. It's a drag on the economy, and the non-government employees aren't looking at Greece as a land of economic opportunity (and thus attracting investment and launching businesses that in turn will spend more money and hire more people) - corrupt third-world style societies always struggle with this stuff, and it's an ongoing, chronic, self-inflicted wound. Only the Greeks can fix themselves, and they have to start by showing that they have zero tolerance for their own corruption - which is completely endemic across every level of Greek society and government.

Re:No more bailout

[bloodhawk]

Greece's financial problems can be solved if corruption and tax aversion is drastically reduced, which is part of the program Alexis Tsipras promotes. That is why the Troika only gives money if reforms are made and I think they know it is the key for Greece to become financially independent again.

10 or maybe even 5 years ago fixing tax evasion and corruption may have solved their problems, it was the core rot that created the mess, now though it has decayed their economy to a point where fixing that will not be sufficient, they either need massive growth or austerity measures + financial assistance. However when you need as much financial assistance as Greece then you are not in a good position to dictate terms. I am stunned they haven't found a way to eject them from the EU already and just let them sink or swim on their own.

Re:No more bailout

[jmauro]

No one nation will ever get ejected from the EU or the Euro. Most of the elites see the EU as the moderating force to prevent war in Europe from ever happening again. The prospect of nations warring rather than suing each other in The Hague is enough to keep everyone in, even if some members are anti social from time to time.

Re: No more bailout

[jmauro]

They aren't running up more debt. They've had a primary surplus since 2013, the problem is in the ECB/Euro system they have no way of reducing the external debt (i.e. let the relative value of your currency drop) to bring thier flows in sync with where they should be.

The only thing that will relieve them is for Northern Europe to increase thier inflation or to have the debts forgiven. That isn't politically possible due to internal politics in Germany, France, etc. So they're forcing the issue to end the "beatings will continue until moral improves" that is currently foisted upon them.

Re: No more bailout

[umafuckit]

They're not being asked to pay back their debt.

Yes, they are being asked to pay it back. They have 25 billion to pay back this year. They are paying it back with money from the loans they're taking.

Re: No more bailout

[Half-pint HAL]

Er, yes you can. Start starving them and I bet all of a sudden you will find a bunch of novice farmers ready to go.

A) Land ownership laws in most countries preclude people from becoming farmers and hunters at will.

B) Agriculture is intensive labour, and attempting to do it on an empty stomach will lead to death by exhaustion.

C) Farming yields food only at the end of the season. Give a starving man a cow and he will eat it, not set up a breeding programme.

D) That cow is going to be more expensive than feeding him for months, so how the hell is he going to get the cow anyway?

E) Untrained farmers and hunters are very dangerous to the local ecology, and end up causing long-term damage to the ecosystem.

F) There are people starving to death right now, all over the world. Evidence enough that your theory is utterly, utterly wrong.

Re: No more bailout

[Half-pint HAL]

Syriza aren't just about Europe -- they're also about internal reform; ie addressing the real problem of corruption at the top of society. Austerity prevents them addressing what is the real problem according to just about any respected economist: social inequality. If the goal is recovery, Keynes, Krugman et al assert that austerity must be avoided. Ergo anyone who forces them to continue with austerity measures is actually forcing them into a worse position. That's why they believe the debt obligation is illegitimate -- it creates a state of continuous penury.

Re:No more bailout

[bloodhawk]

At this point in time I think it is at best a 50-50 chance of Greece staying in the EU. The EU is more about an economic powerhouse rather than a military one and Greece at the moment is a shit stain in their underpants, I won't be surprised if they wash themselves of Greece not only to get rid of the stink but to stand as a warning to others.

Re: No more bailout

[AmiMoJo]

That's the key point. The average Greek didn't cause this mess, but is now suffering for the actions of those who did. It's unacceptable, and the Greek people have decided they won't stand for it. The ones responsible tried to claim that the consequences will be dire, but they have not been so in other countries and we will now get to see if the same thing will be true in Greece or not.

Re: No more bailout

[Rhywden]

Wrong. They currently don't even have to pay the interest.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

Re: No more bailout

[umafuckit]

Dude, what are you talking about? This is what Greece currently owes. i.e. money they are paying to their creditors. There was a haircut on the debt (what you're referring to, I think), but they still owe lots of money and they're still paying it back. The whole point of this is that they're not allowed to default, because if they did that would likely mean a Euro exit, which nobody wants. So they're forced to take the loans the pay the loans.

Re: No more bailout

[Rhywden]

Please, before you're starting to talk you should take time to inform yourself. Yes, they do owe a lot of money to diverse governments and governmental institutions. And, no, they currently don't have to pay that money back and they don't currently have to pay interest.

Paying back money will begin in 10 years time (if ever, actually). This is also the reason why cutting their debt to the EU totally wouldn't change their current position one bit because, again, they currently don't have to pay their debts anyway!

However, don't confuse that money with what they're owing to private investors.

In short, stop talking, you're making yourself look like a fool.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

The average wage in Iceland is over twice higher than that in Greece.

Unemployment in Iceland was at 9% in 2011 and has lowered to 4% since. Unemployment in Greece in comparison hasn't been going down by the same amount and is essentially at a steady level of 25%.

The devaluation of the Icelandic krona also decreased the value of private debt denominated in krona. So it essentially made personal debts easier to pay. It is true inflation went up but wages went up as well to compensate.

You don't know WTF you are talking about.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

Also the current inflation rate in Iceland is 0.8%. Hardly a disaster like you claim it to be.

Re: No more bailout

[umafuckit]

they currently don't have to pay their debts anyway

Then why is there a deadline for paying back 1.5 billion Euro to the IMF, which isone of their creditors, in June? That sounds like a debt repayment to me.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

Retired people paid in order to get their pension. How come banks are given priority but retired people aren't? Retirees are creditors too. It is just a cheap shot against people who cannot fight back.

In the case of Spain and Ireland the governments had low debt, a lot lower debt than Germany, and the "crisis" happened when private banks started collapsing and these states assumed the private bank shortfalls. It is insane that this was not handled at an Eurozone wide level. There are no restrictions on money movement in the Eurozone. All it takes is a bank run and massive capital flight from one country to another inside the Eurozone to make that country have a financial problem and be declared a puppet state with no control over its own destiny. It is simply ridiculous. In my opinion they should have let a lot of the bad banks default instead of the states covering all that private debt.

Sure there was a large amount of corruption in Greece. Like the Greeks used to say they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. Is it surprising that these sorts of government corruption issues happen when the state goes for months without paying salaries?

The creditors have a responsibility to see if the debtor is able to pay before handing out the loans as well.

We had enough problems with indentured servitude and debtors prisons in the XIXth century.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

More lies. Greece has less people in the workforce working for the government than Germany.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Re: No more bailout

[umafuckit]

Further, the link you sent does not say the Greeks do not have to pay back the debts. It says that they have "suspended interest payments for a decade" and that they "gave Greece more time to repay." In other words, they pay back the debts over a longer period of time. Not that they start in 10 years.

From the Wikipedia: "21 July 2011 in Brussels, where euro area leaders agreed to extend Greek (as well as Irish and Portuguese) loan repayment periods from 7 years to a minimum of 15 years and to cut interest rates to 3.5%" Nowhere do I see information indicating that "they don't have to pay back the debts." Quite the opposite, the Wikipedia page says what I told you earlier: that the "bailout" is to avoid a Greek default. i.e. a failure to pay back. As far as I can tell, only you are saying that they are not currently paying back. But then again, I'm a fool, so what do I know?

Re: No more bailout

[Bob the Super Hamste]

[Ctrl]+ X
weakenesspays
[Enter]
Repeat until the problem goes away

Re: No more bailout

[7-Vodka]

You only have the read the comments at your own article...

Re: No more bailout

[Rhywden]

Geeze, guy, I said that they don't have to pay back the debts immediately. It's not my problem if you are unable to read.

Nowhere did I say that they don't have to pay back the debts forever. I said that they _currently_ don't have to pay them back. I also mentioned the ten years. I also posted a link. If you're that dense then I can't help you. Moron.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

Which discuss the military industrial complex should be accounted for too. Guess which of the two countries, Greece and Germany, has a bigger military-industrial complex.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

People who got loans to buy a house or whatever will have more difficulty making payments leading banks to default. The debts stay the same and their salaries and pensions go down. That's the issue here.

The central powers were responsible for putting bankers in control of Greece and Italy and removing the elected government in what amounted to coups. Putting in charge people like Mario Monti. Which negotiated ruinous payback schemes which were made to enrich the bankers who caused the problem in the first place.

Re: No more bailout

[umafuckit]

Geeze, guy, I said that they don't have to pay back the debts immediately.

Yep, I understood that you think that. But everything, including the article you link to, indicates that this not so.

I read your link and your link does not support what you are saying. You said "Paying back money will begin in 10 years time (if ever, actually)." That's not true: what your link says is that interest repayments are suspended for 10 years. The debt repayments are ongoing and are financed with the bailout loans. The next repayment is March. Half the point of the bailout loans is to finance the repayments. The period of payment is extended (what your link says) but the payments are not suspended.

I said that they _currently_ don't have to pay them back.

Indeed, I realise what you think.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

It wasn't just the pensions that were cut. Wages have been cut as well. Including the minimum wage.

It is easy to extrapolate a couple of anecdotal remarks about Greek pensioners to the entire population. A lot of the comments you make are plain bogus. Get in your head that Greece has less government employees per capita than Germany. So claims that they have more governmental overhead and an oversize government are bunk. Greek citizens typically also have more deposits than Germans so claims that Greek citizens are financially irresponsible are bunk as well.

As for pensions, in any country pensions are paid out of a fund which is paid by contributions from salaries. People are paid commensurately with what they put into the fund. They aren't getting something for nothing. The state has as much of an obligation to pay these creditors back as they have the obligation to pay back external creditors. Rather unsurprisingly if you cut the minimum wage and depress wages the payments to the pension fund are reduced and you start having difficulties with cash flow for paying pensions for retired people. Well duh.

The mistake the Eurozone leaders made was that austerity by cutting wages and entering deflation does not have the same economic effect as an inflationary policy of printing more money and inflating wages and prices. Austerity makes prior compromises harder to pay back. Private loans, corporate loans, etc. It makes tax receipts shrink, as corporations can more easily evade taxes than the middle class, leading to tax hikes to maintain government revenue. The tax increases and the deflation have the effect of reducing economic activity, if I can get more out of my buck tomorrow why spend it today, leading to an economic depression and inability to pay back the external debt. You will notice that the volume amount of debt as a fraction of GDP in Greece has actually increased since they started the austerity and some economists say at current GDP growth rates the debt will be paid back in over 200 years which for all practical intents and purposes is never.

The Greek people got themselves into this mess with a lot of external help namely from Germans arms dealers who sold them a bunch of crap they did not need in order to meet some artificial NATO requirement in defense spending as a fraction of GDP. Germans complain about corruption in Greece but then German arms dealers actively corrupt Greek government officials in order to buy their equipment, deliver faulty equipment, and cheat their way out of the investments in Greek economy including shipyards that they promised to do.

Germans always claim to have a lot of money and power but they are the biggest cheats in Europe. They cheated their way out of WWII debt. In military programs they always claim they want to buy a lot of units to get workshare and jobs for their industry then backpedal their orders leaving others to foot the bill for them while demanding to keep their work share. They did this in the Eurofighter program. They do it in Airbus. They do it in EADS. It is pathetic. They never keep what they agreed in prior commitments.

As for the inflation when the Euro came into effect Germany was responsible for it to a large degree as well. They kept the DM artificially low in market value by keeping DMs stashed in banks and outside of the market, similar to what the US did with QE right now, which were then converted into Euros and injected into the system and loaned to countries like Greece.

The Eurozone is entering a deflationary period right now so yes the ECB will print more money with QE starting next month. They are less dumb than the current leadership in Germany and are trying to prevent that same thing that happened in Japan in the last decade and in the US in the 1970s. Think Greek like levels economic depression and unemployment except all over Europe. They need to print more money to prevent that. Pure and simple.

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

Eurofighter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: No more bailout

[cheesybagel]

More on Eurofighter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Electroplating in college dorms

[istartedi]

Electricity was not metered in our dorms. A lot of us joked about electroplating. AFAIK, nobody did it. This was in the 80s when most weed was ditch from Jamaica or Mexico. People weren't hip to hydro there. If you offered college students free electricity now, grow-ops would definitely be their first thought.

Of course this is Greece we're talking about here, so they'll just end up with rolling black-outs if they aren't doing it already. It's hard to run a grow-op, server farm, or anything when the juice is only on for a few hours a day.

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[Nutria]

For all intents and purposes, "For all intensive purposes" makes *zero* sense.

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[qpqp]

Whoosh!

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[ShanghaiBill]

A lot of us joked about electroplating. AFAIK, nobody did it.

There is little money is small scale electroplating. Running a GPU bitcoin miner on your computer is more profitable. You can find throwaway computers is the bargin bin at Goodwill with 512 core GPUs. They get a lot hotter than modern GPUs, but if the electricity is free, who cares?

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[TeknoHog]

Running a GPU bitcoin miner on your computer is more profitable. You can find throwaway computers is the bargin bin at Goodwill with 512 core GPUs. They get a lot hotter than modern GPUs, but if the electricity is free, who cares?

Surely you don't mean mining Bitcoins directly? There are much more profitable GPU coins, as in profitable even when you pay for electricity.

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[serviscope_minor]

For all intents and purposes, "For all intensive purposes" makes *zero* sense.

ah your one of those grammer Nazi's I keep hearing about right?

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[Nutria]

I very rarely comment on bad grammar, so no, I don't think I am.

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[lucm]

Electricity was not metered in our dorms. A lot of us joked about electroplating.

Guess what would have happened if people had abused the system? Yep, metered electricity, because the college had no access to bailout money.

It's a whole different situation when you get to pay your shit with someone else's Mastercard.

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[7-Vodka]

Re-read what he corrected in context. It was apropos.

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[serviscope_minor]

Nope. What he corrected was th sig:

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Abuse of "intensive purposes", "begs the question" and "whom" all in line? It's clearly a joke.

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[istartedi]

Now I really want to know how many C-64s, Apple ][s, Osbourne's, or other contemporary machines available to students we would have needed to have a 95% chance of mining a coin before the semester was out. That's assuming that crypto currency existed in 1987, which it didn't. I suspect we would have overloaded the breaker panel and not have had much of a chance. These machines struggled to render one crappy low-res image of the Mandlebrot set.

A more plausible technique back then would have been to steal cycles from an academic computer. I don't know what they had in the 80s, but when I returned to school after dropping out there was an RS6000 and a Sun cluster to which we had access, and possibly more that we could have found and compromised. Not sure how much computing power could have come from pooled student accounts. It might have been more plausible; but the ability to run unattended jobs was often restricted. Computing privileges at a university generally aren't worth risking for such nonsense...

Re:Electroplating in college dorms

[Dr.Boje]

thatsthejoke.jpg

um, OK

[cascadingstylesheet]

No more bailouts, but we'd be happy to take some money to "bridge" us over to ... something.

We firmly reject any policies that might move us toward fiscal responsibility. Oh, and since we're so solvent, we're going to give away free electricity, because that's what everyone who is hopelessly bankrupt does, give away more "free" stuff.

Re:um, OK

[hambone142]

Free is never "free". Money doesn't grow on trees or out of the ground. "Free" means someone else pays for it.

Re: um, OK

[prefec2]

First, this free electricity to those who cannot afford it. Second, in other EU countries like Germany, if you are poor they pay your rent, healthcare, electricity etc. of course only to levels to support your basic human rights. Nothing else they do now in Greece. This is no socialism this is capitalism otherwise such measures would not be necessary as you would have enough resource tokens to get the electricity.

Re:um, OK

[Half-pint HAL]

We firmly reject any policies that might move us toward fiscal responsibility.

No, Greece rejects any policies that won't lead to recovery. Austerity economics is madness, ignoring all the evidence from economic theory and history that says that recovery is hastened by putting money in the hands of those who will spend it quickest (ie the poor). After WWII the UK nationalised a multitude of private industries under the Keynes plan, and we grew. Austerity economics proposes the exact opposite of what worked previously, looking at national infrastructure as liquid assets to be sold. It's the wrong way round.

Re:um, OK

[Yoda222]

Who's paying the air I breathe? Who's paying for the rain water that I collect?

Re:um, OK

[MeNeXT]

You are with the carbon you exhale and the fertilizer that you poop and the ashes you will return to the earth.

Re:um, OK

[MeNeXT]

Then why didn't it work the last 60 years? Money is debt, and throwing more debt into the old equation will result in bankruptcy.

The UK used the debt to rebuild the wealth that was destroyed during the war. Greece spent the money in entitlement. Unfortunately the next generation will have to pay. Listen to the solutions offered by the new Greek PM it basically reinstate the old but this time they promise they will not steal. Fingers crossed.

Austerity is imposing honesty into the equation and it will take another 10-20 years to fix properly. Greeks need to pay taxes for the services their government offers. They need to work to create wealth and not just a night out on the town. Greece was the grasshopper and now they need to become more like the ant because winter has come. If Europe was not part of this equation, austerity, the earnings of the Greeks would have disappeared as their currency would have no value.

I agree somewhat to your statement "Austerity economics is madness" and that is when the society generates more wealth than they produce otherwise they are leaving their bills and their debt for their children to pay. History has also told us that trying to maintain an unbalanced situation will only result is a larger disaster later on as was seen in the great depression. We need to put aside some wealth so we can avoid austerity when times are tough.

Re:um, OK

[7-Vodka]

Who's paying the air I breathe?

Dear lord. We're all paying for that one...

Re:um, OK

[7-Vodka]

If giving money to people who will spend it is good economic policy, how is everyone not in economic nirvana right now. Spending money is the easiest thing in the world, here give me some I'll show you.

Truth is that money spending and money giving don't produce anything. Hard work does.

Re:um, OK

[Half-pint HAL]

Austerity is imposing honesty into the equation

Take a look at Spain -- austerity is seeing homes repossessed on an almost industrial scale, and people are dying because of poverty, and yet the banks got their bail-outs, and the people at the top (including the government) are still getting large take-home pay packets.

Greece's problem was that the politicians bought votes with debt rather than taking money from the rich -- the problem was always at the top-end of society, but austerity takes it out on those at the bottom.

Austerity is the opposite of honesty.

Greeks need to pay taxes for the services their government offers.

Rich Greeks need to pay taxes. People who have no money and no job cannot pay taxes.

History has also told us that trying to maintain an unbalanced situation will only result is a larger disaster later on

Yes, but the unbalanced situation is tax loopholes for the rich. Austerity does nothing to address this, hence maintaining the unbalanced situation.

Re:um, OK

[Half-pint HAL]

he has a nobel prize in macro economics and you don't

I can exclusively reveal that I am not now, and never have been, Paul Krugman!

Re:um, OK

[MeNeXT]

agree with him or not, he has a nobel prize in macro economics and you don't. across the board austerity is the worst possible thing you can do to get out of a recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

The problem with Greece is not about a recession it's about too much debt. Who cares about the Nobel prize, they gave the Nobel "Peace" price to a president who was at war.

Re:um, OK

[mjwx]

Money doesn't grow on trees or out of the ground.

Hmmm, US banknotes are made from a cotton fibre paper, cotton does come from trees.

Polymer banknotes used by Australia, Europe, the UK and others are made from plastic, which is made from petroleum that does come from the ground.

My advice, never test old cliches.

Re:um, OK

[Znork]

The economics prize is not a Nobel prize, it's a memorial prize to Nobel, instituted by the Swedish Riksbank (central bank). If economics as a science is even mature enough to have any serious prize is debtatable, considering the state of the field seems to be pretty much still arguing about whether the earth is flat or spherical (and awarding 'Nobel prizes' to members of both factions, plus the faction arguing that the earth is actually a dimension-traversing hypercube).

But then again, there's a Nobel prize for literature, so maybe they could merge the economics prize into that one.

Re:um, OK

[umafuckit]

That's a cartoonish description of what's going on. Tsipras just last night was the first Greek PM (that I know of) who cut a load of MP benefits in order to set an example to the rest of the nation. e.g. getting rid of subsided cars, selling half the limo fleet, selling one of three government jets. At least they're practising what they preach.

does, give away more "free" stuff.

America's debt was peaking at the end of WWII and it was concerned about going back into another depression when the war ended. What did it do? Marshal Plan. Pumped billions into other countries. The US gave Europe and Japan "free stuff" in order to build up their economies and allow them to buy US goods. This allowed the US to do something with its trade surplus and the money earned by other countries came back to Wall Street to be invested. This worked well for some time. I'm not saying Greece now is the same as the 40's US. Of course not. But your notion of economics is simplistic. What you describe works for individuals (don't spend money you don't have) but not for nations. They tried austerity and it didn't work.

Re:um, OK

[Half-pint HAL]

If giving money to people who will spend it is good economic policy, how is everyone not in economic nirvana right now.

There are people right now who can't afford enough food to feed their family. We're not doing it. So what exactly are you trying to prove?

Re:um, OK

[AmiMoJo]

Unfortunately the next generation will have to pay.

Unfortunately for the creditors, they won't. It isn't their debt, they didn't create it and they won't accept suffering for it. Either the creditors find a fair way to repay the debt that doesn't make young Greeks suffer for the mistakes of a minority of their elders, or they lose their money.

Maybe in the short term that will have some bad consequences, but after 7 years of austerity it seems like it can't be much worse.

Re:um, OK

[Half-pint HAL]

You are attributing to austerity what is caused by the insane spending that preceded it. The very same spending that made austerity necessary.

If I had a bacterial infection would my doctor: A) say I should have taken antibiotics earlier, so now I can just die or B) give me antibiotics? You cannot solve any problem without addressing the root cause. Austerity tips the scales further in the favour of the rich, so it cannot redress the imbalance that is behind the problem.

Re:um, OK

[Half-pint HAL]

Ignorance is bliss (as is anonymity), right...? I said "recovery", and bed rest is necessary for recovery from serious illness, but is no good as a preventative medicine. Keynesian economics says public spending should increase in times of crisis and decrease in times of plenty. Greece got half of the equation wrong and spent too much during times of plenty, distorting markets. The cure for this is not to forcibly get the other half of the equation wrong -- two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:um, OK

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But then again, there's a Nobel prize for literature, so maybe they could merge the economics prize into that one.

If I had mod points today I would be facing a difficult decision of funny or insightful. I might lean towards the funny because of the hyper cube statement earlier though although that seems as likely an explanation as any when it comes to economics. There really should be a +1 funny because it is true mod that boosts karma.

Re:um, OK

[7-Vodka]

I'm not against the voluntary helping of people. Don't sell it as an economic plan.

Re:um, OK

[excelsior_gr]

After WWII:
World: Greece, you gotta re-build your infrastructure! You look like shit.
Greece: I don't have any money!
World: OK, we will lend you some, but the Marshall Plan is for the big boys. You'll get normal loans.
Greece: Uh, thanks, I guess.
World: Also, what's all that communist talk over there? Here are some of our boys to rule. Don't worry we checked them up; they're legit.
Greece: They're all over the place torturing people and starting fights with Turkey! We'll overthrow them.
World: Ugh, that turned up ugly! Now Turnkey is pissed and you'll need weapons. You got any?
Greece: We got some old stuff hanging around.
World: That won't do. You need proper equipment.
Greece: I don't have any money!
World: Don't worry, here's a loan. I hear the US is having a yard sale.
Greece: Thanks, I guess.
Russia: Why are you buying their stuff instead of ours? We just sold of our best stuff over to Turkey and they'll screw you over!
Greece: Uh-oh. I need another loan!
World: Sure, here ya go. By the way, do you need any cars? We make all kinds of stuff you can use for improving your infrastructure, too.
Greece: Cars are cool! But we don't have any money and we already owe you tons.
World: Yeah, you do, but this shit's gotta go. Hey, now that you're a democracy again, maybe your politicians like getting re-elected?
Greek politicians: Sure thing!
World: Then take this loan (and a fat "bonus") and use the money to create counter-productive jobs in the public sector. Then hire your voters to fill them and you're all set!
Greek politicians: Gee-wiz! This plan is foolproof. We can go on for decades!
World: See? Now everyone is happy. By the way, you still owe us a shitload of money.
Greek politicians: Sure, whatever.
Greece: The public sector is swollen like a toad, we owe money to everyone, some genius had the bright idea to host the Olympic Games in 2004 for the lulz, and why do we keep buying those weapons again? Shouldn't NATO and the EU back us up in case of trouble?
World + Greek politicians: Look at the silly monkey!
Greece: This debt is too much. I can't take it.
Greek government: Hmmm, yeah. That's probably because of the last government. By the way, they lied about the economic balance to get us in the Euro-zone.
Greek opposition: All we did was some creative accounting! They do that in Hollywood all the time! And don't you give me that last-government shit. We were in this together!
World: You did what?! I want my money back!
Greece: We don't have any. We never actually did!

I think the rest is ongoing history, so I might as well stop here.

So much for your "Greece spent the money in entitlement" bullshit.

Re:um, OK

[Tom]

We firmly reject any policies that might move us toward fiscal responsibility.

Stop repeating the bullshit that the corporate media feeds you.

Greece has had a balanced budget in 2014, something that Germany (its biggest creditor) wanted to accomplish in 2015, but failed.

The greek problem is that the EU regulations that determine what amount of debt is considered acceptable is based on GDP. With the cuts in spending that the Troika demanded, GDP has imploded, putting Greece into the impossible situation where even a decrease in absolute debt was still an increase in debt-as-percentage-of-GDP, which is the figure that the EU rates the "success" of the fiscal policy on.

Re:um, OK

[Tom]

Austerity is imposing honesty into the equation and it will take another 10-20 years to fix properly.

I live in Germany, the main driving force behind the austerity politics. We are still doing well compared to Greece and Spain, but compared to Germany 20 years ago, the country is in ruins.

Anyone who claims that austerity is successful needs an appointment with a shrink.

Re:um, OK

[roman_mir]

Modern economic theory is propaganda, Keynesianism that the politicians love, since it allows them to print and borrow all the money they need to stay in power by promising the impossible free lunch forever to the idiotic mob, which ends up eating its own economy for 'greater good'. Austerity is not going to solve problems until people recognise that the entire concept of a welfare state is a joke that keeps pushing them down into dirt (and for a good reason).

Correctly implemented austerity must consist of cutting government spending and cutting taxes on everybody. Instead the so called 'austerity' does not end up cutting welfare state spending and increases taxes to pay out the bond holders who were promised their returns and safety by irresponsible governments that used the Keynesian style 'economic theory' to destroy their economies.

By the way, did I just see you talking about nationalization and 'Keynes plan'? You are part of the cancer and rot that destroys the economy.

why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

why do rich and poor people always get things for "free"??? Be it a rich guy who gets a goodie bag at an award show woth thousands of dollars such as at the grammys, Or giving the "poor" free food and electricity. All of this, on the backs of the actual hard working middle class. Its wrong, the government should not be taking money from X and giving it to Y

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should they let them die...
Social darwinism: Let the poor and the unemployed just die, as they are not
adapted to the society. "Social" selection at work.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[PeeAitchPee]

Because generally speaking, neither of these groups produce any value per-capita compared to the middle class. The middle class does, but they're generally working too hard to notice when they get fucked by politicians on both sides until it's too late.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[anchovy_chekov]

Hey AC, Ayn Rand just called. She says she wants her shrivelled heart back.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[TapeCutter]

government should not be taking money from [the middle class] and giving it to Y

Take another look a post WW2 history, there would be no middle class if not for the government taking money from X and creating it.

why do rich and poor people always get things for "free"???

Strange how the people who make these kind of claims are never willing to live in poverty to get "free stuff"?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[quantaman]

why do rich and poor people always get things for "free"??? Be it a rich guy who gets a goodie bag at an award show woth thousands of dollars such as at the grammys, Or giving the "poor" free food and electricity. All of this, on the backs of the actual hard working middle class. Its wrong, the government should not be taking money from X and giving it to Y

Why not? The idea that society achieves an optimal distribution of wealth on its own is ridiculous, adopting a perfect free market wouldn't make it any less so. One of the essential duties of government is to ensure a just and stable society, a limited degree of wealth redistribution is part of that process.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[mcrbids]

It's somewhat true that there's a bell curve in taxation, peaking with the middle class.

1) The poor have nothing to tax. They are generally on welfare or just off it, and struggling. The "freebies" a la "welfare" is not so much about the welfare receiving parents as giving their kids a chance to break out of the poverty trap, which they can't do if undernourished or uneducated.

2) The middle class has something to tax, but don't have the resources to defend themselves adequately. This is where the peak begins.

3) The upper middle class has a lot to tax, and is just starting to have enough resources to start to defend themselves, This is where the taxation peak starts to drop. (pretty much: between the 2% and the 0.5%)

3) The super wealthy hold all the cards. They can hire legions of lawyers and bankrupt countries if need be. This category controls or directly owns 50% of the world's wealth. Taxation doesn't even make sense to this class.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm...

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

i dont know what the answer is and i wont pretend to. Being someone who makes enough to not get any help, but makes enough to get taxed it seems as if id be better off people "poor"

Hell id be ok with making everyone pay an electrical tax and giving everyone free electricity, but i find it wrong to only give something out to a small portion of the population on the backs of everyone else.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

One of the essential duties of government is to ensure a just and stable society, a limited degree of wealth redistribution is part of that process.

I dont disagree to a degree, but at what point do the middle class stand up and say enough is enough. no more welfare, make people work for the state if on welfare (there are jobs that the state does, and pays workers good money to do, but could be done for much less) be it picking up garbage o nthe freeways or parks or other jobs that need to be done. heck even make it so that if someone is good enough at what they are doing it can translate into a fulltime job with the state.

When I was unemployed i was suposed to be "looking for work" or I wouldnt get paid... well an excel spreadsheet with some adjustments to the dates fixed that real quick. why not actually put me to work if im gonna collect?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

i have, its no fun let me tell you.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[westlake]

why do rich and poor people always get things for "free"???

maybe because most people know deep down that they never more than a step away from the personal or financial crisis that would take them out of the middle class?

it is not hard to picture the geek as the eternal adolescent who thinks that he will never get sick, never grow old, never lose his job....

that the toast will always hit the floor jam side up.

Re: why does everyone always want to give...

[cyber-vandal]

Because people like that read their Rand and listen to Rush Limbaugh and believe that being on welfare is one long party.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[nukenerd]

why do rich and poor people always get things for "free"???

Strange how the people who make these kind of claims are never willing to live in poverty to get "free stuff"?

They do. There is a whole sub-class (in the UK anyway) who don't bother to get a job in order to qualify for hand-outs.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[drinkypoo]

I dont disagree to a degree, but at what point do the middle class stand up and say enough is enough. no more welfare

The problem is the general ignorance of the public. Here you are demanding an end to entitlement programs when the ones you're really paying for are entitlement programs for corporations. When the public starts demanding the right thing, then perhaps they will get it. Right now, the public is blaming the poor for being poor. Well, the rich can't have it both ways. Either they're The Job Creators, and they are failures at creating jobs, or they're just some greedy self-entitled fucks who have created their own entitlement programs based on artificial scarcity and forcing the masses to do their bidding. So either they're incompetent and trying to do the right thing, or they're evil and succeeding at their goals. There's no third way because people either have their needs met or they do not.

make people work for the state if on welfare

OK, this is not a very complicated concept: You are advocating for slavery. Step one, shit on the economy. Step two, force people to work. Step three, profit! So just stop, and don't bring this idea up again, unless you want to be known as pro-slavery.

As long as you keep blaming the poor for being poor, you're going to be blaming people who are by definition disenfranchised and powerless as opposed to the people who can actually change things for them. It is not news that the most reliable predictor of economic success is the economic success of one's parents.

When I was unemployed i was suposed to be "looking for work" or I wouldnt get paid... well an excel spreadsheet with some adjustments to the dates fixed that real quick. why not actually put me to work if im gonna collect?

Well, there is a way to do that which isn't slavery, and it's called public works. Frankly though, the line is pretty blurry there, too. It's the government's job to promote prosperity, it says so right there. When we get to the point at which public works are necessary, then capitalism has failed. Public works are a manipulation from outside the system only necessary as a correction when it has gone wrong — in a working capitalistic system, capital is motivated to produce what is needed. But in our system, you are able to use capital to produce more capital by depriving people of what is needed, through artificial scarcity. By definition, it will periodically require manual correction. And since the system is set up to so efficiently funnel money to a relative handful of people in charge of the largest corporations (the mechanisms through which they work) it's going to require regular and persistent correction.

TL;DR: A welfare system requiring people to work is slavery and only motivates maintenance of the welfare state, which is already a problem.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Half-pint HAL]

If the middle class want to stand up and say "enough is enough" they should be addressing the upper classes and corporations, and their tax fiddles. When high earners can cook the books so as to pay a lower percentage of income tax than the middle classes, it's them that are not paying their way.

make people work for the state if on welfare (there are jobs that the state does, and pays workers good money to do, but could be done for much less)

What you're proposing is basically eliminating the minimum wage, then...?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[drinkypoo]

i dont know what the answer is and i wont pretend to. Being someone who makes enough to not get any help, but makes enough to get taxed it seems as if id be better off people "poor"

The answer is the MGI (Minimum Guaranteed Income) which we used to call a COLA, or Cost Of Living Allowance. But I guess calling it an allowance is insulting. You take a flat percentage from everyone and then give an equal amount to everyone every year, either just from income or from their total cash pool — the latter of which sounds drastic, but which encourages investment, which in turn is what actually makes the economy go around.

Another part of the answer, though, is not permitting the banks to do what they're doing right now with housing: refusing to sell it at market price. We have multiple homes for every homeless person in this country, let alone family, and houses are just rotting all over the nation while people are living in trailers in their neighbors' back yards. Houses actually depreciate faster when they're not being lived in even if nobody is breaking into them and stealing all the fixtures as is wont to happen, because humans tend to institute some stability of temperatures — to say nothing of maintaining the property, fixing leaks and that sort of thing. So they're actually destroying the available housing in the country for the sake of... what? Nobody knows.

Hell id be ok with making everyone pay an electrical tax and giving everyone free electricity, but i find it wrong to only give something out to a small portion of the population on the backs of everyone else.

Then a minimum guaranteed income should be a no-brainer. If you want more than a minimal existence, you'll still have to work, so most people will do that. But people won't continue to work a shit job for shit money, because they won't have to. It can potentially eliminate entire obsolete industries, yet without putting hordes out on the street with all the predictable resultant social turmoil. And hey, let's throw health care in there too, because nobody should ever go into lifetime servitude because they got sick. I mean, what fucking year is it? These services only cost so much because we're letting Big Pharma run the game. At what point do we admit that capitalism is a failed concept? When you let the money make the rules, money just makes rules which permit it to self-perpetuate. This should not shock anyone.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

hmm, I didnt really look at it that way before. I would say indentured servitude instead of slavery, but i get what you are saying.

As I said I dont know what the answer is. but i would rather make people work for their handout than simply give out handouts.

Im in no way blaming the poor, I was poor once, and not long ago. just a few months actually. I busted my butt to get out of poverty and while I would still call myself poor (40 grand a year in NY is poor by any standard) I can finally afford to make sure i have gas in my car and food on my plate.

I didnt do this because of government help, i did it in spite of government help. There is nothing good about wanting to steal from those who are working so i can sit on my butt all day watching (govt subsidized) tv on my (govt subsidized) cell phone

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

this entire thing could be stopped byrewriting the tax code. there is no good reason that we have the highest taxes in the world, yet we STILL need more money

Im going to blame the govt before i blame the rich. the rich are playing by the rules put in place by the govt. in other words, dont hate the player, hate the game

as for min wage, we all see how well raising min wage is working out now. more part time jobs and less full time workers. Also robots and self serve POS terminals. Yeah, thats REALLY helping

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

I like a lot of what you are saying here, but to claim capitalism has failed is a bit of a stretch, sure its a crappy system, but its still the best system any country of our size has ever tried

so the MGI, would you be replacing welfare with this? Meaning instead of giving "the poor" stuff (food cards, tax credits etc) we are simply writing a check to them and letting them decide how to spend it (but if they spend it recklessly, they are on their own???) because if that is what you are saying, i have been saying we need to do something like that for years.

If you do the math on how much we spend on welfare each year (by welfare i mean all social safety net stuff) and simply wrote a 1 time check to those in true need, to give them the opportunity to get back on their feet rather than continuing to rely on the govt. it would save SO much more money we could reduce the size of the government at the same time.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[quantaman]

One of the essential duties of government is to ensure a just and stable society, a limited degree of wealth redistribution is part of that process.

I dont disagree to a degree, but at what point do the middle class stand up and say enough is enough. no more welfare, make people work for the state if on welfare (there are jobs that the state does, and pays workers good money to do, but could be done for much less) be it picking up garbage o nthe freeways or parks or other jobs that need to be done. heck even make it so that if someone is good enough at what they are doing it can translate into a fulltime job with the state.

  When I was unemployed i was suposed to be "looking for work" or I wouldnt get paid... well an excel spreadsheet with some adjustments to the dates fixed that real quick. why not actually put me to work if im gonna collect?

I've thought about that before, making the Government the employer of last resort, but I see two big problems.

1) There might not be enough grunt work available, so the government work will either be extremely inefficient (ie costing more money than just welfare) or push private companies out of business. Like any entitlement program there will also be an urge to improve working conditions and compensation until they're competitive with real jobs, at which point you've destroyed the original objective.

2) Following on that very few people like being unemployed which gives them motivation to find jobs. But that program will give people the illusion of gainful employment while taking up time they could use for a real job search. I suspect people in that program would spend a lot longer in these government fake-jobs than they would on welfare looking for regular jobs.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[drinkypoo]

so the MGI, would you be replacing welfare with this? Meaning instead of giving "the poor" stuff (food cards, tax credits etc) we are simply writing a check to them and letting them decide how to spend it (but if they spend it recklessly, they are on their own???) because if that is what you are saying, i have been saying we need to do something like that for years.

Yes, this is precisely what it's about. Current welfare systems are self-perpetuating because if you begin to get enough money to change your situation, you're no longer eligible for welfare. So either you get trapped in the system, or you have to commit welfare fraud so that you can save enough money just to move, let alone actually buy new clothes for a real job and so on. MGI doesn't have this problem at all, because everyone gets it no matter how much they make and no matter how much they have in the bank. If they hoard the money in the bank, the government gets it back when they die (or when their relatives get it, since they usually squander it.) But since it's not that much money, they can never really stash enough that way to where it will threaten the economy, as it does when the richest people do it.

If you do the math on how much we spend on welfare each year (by welfare i mean all social safety net stuff) and simply wrote a 1 time check to those in true need, to give them the opportunity to get back on their feet rather than continuing to rely on the govt. it would save SO much more money we could reduce the size of the government at the same time.

That would work well for some people, but it would provide little or no improvement to others. The chief problem with the welfare state is self-perpetuation of condition, and the MGI should all but eliminate this problem.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Wootery]

Let go. Genocides do solves everything.

Riiiight.... so in your estimation, what proportion of genocides result in responsible politics that serve the populace?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ScentCone]

The problem is the general ignorance of the public.

Right. This is perpetuated by lefty progressives who think it's mean to hold students to real standards, and socially promote them out of schools that - especially in the worst areas - are often run by people who really don't care if their students learn a damn thing. And they are unfireable because of another entrenched and influential branch of the lefty-verse, the teachers unions. Ignorance is mostly due to cultural problems in kids' homes (ignorant parents, or usually, parent), but it's tolerated by schools that are just phoning in the process of pushing those kids along and into the arms of the entitlement state.

When the public starts demanding the right thing, then perhaps they will get it.

I demand that we stop tolerating and promoting ignorance and rewarding non-productive lifestyles perpetuated by an entire class of Nanny State middle-people who have a vested interest in keeping it that way. There, I demanded. Nothing, huh?

OK, this is not a very complicated concept: You are advocating for slavery. Step one, shit on the economy. Step two, force people to work. Step three, profit! So just stop, and don't bring this idea up again, unless you want to be known as pro-slavery.

Oh, I see. Just asserting nonsense makes it true and gives you the high ground, and the moral position to tell people to shut up, lest they "be known" by you as something you assert they are? OK, we can all play that game. Your embrace of "public works" is exactly the "slavery" you're pretending to dislike. Except, the slaves are the people you're forcing to spend part of their days working to come up with the cash to fund the make-work welfare that you're pretending is any different than any other form of work-based welfare.

When we get to the point at which public works are necessary, then capitalism has failed.

No, the failure is in the form of a critical mass of people feeling entitled to a certain standard of living without actually doing the things that produce the value that buys that standard. They are completely unable to grasp cause and effect. To the extent that they even stop to think about why they aren't prosperous, they listen to people who preach the notion that the only reason one person isn't better off is because another person is. That the-pie-is-of-a-fixed-size fallacy is at the heart of all of this BS, every bit of it.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[cheesybagel]

Another part of the answer, though, is not permitting the banks to do what they're doing right now with housing: refusing to sell it at market price. We have multiple homes for every homeless person in this country, let alone family, and houses are just rotting all over the nation while people are living in trailers in their neighbors' back yards. Houses actually depreciate faster when they're not being lived in even if nobody is breaking into them and stealing all the fixtures as is wont to happen, because humans tend to institute some stability of temperatures — to say nothing of maintaining the property, fixing leaks and that sort of thing. So they're actually destroying the available housing in the country for the sake of... what? Nobody knows.

There is a simply solution to this. Tax unoccupied property more than actually used property. However the opposite is usually true.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[cheesybagel]

Capitalism worked fine before globalization. Back when anti-trust laws were worth a damn and countries actually taxed the rich. Like after WWII.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Fire_Wraith]

'Workfare' or make-work has its own issues too. It's a direct intervention into the labor market, and it's going to have a distinct impact on wages, though the exact impact will depend on the details thereof.

Part of this all comes back to the Calvinist views on work and morality - aka the "Protestant Work Ethic". If you're not hard working and industrious, you're a lazy shiftless no-gooder, and you deserve all the bad things that happen to you, and you're not one of those who has been chosen to be saved by God. We got rid of that last part, but we've incorporated the rest. And it's served our society very well for the most part. I think we're approaching the point where it's outlived its usefulness though, in the face of declining fertility rates, increasing efficiency, and ever expanding automation. Two hundred years ago, you could expect to earn a living simply by dint of being an able-bodied adult male, no education required. Those days are long since passed.

Eventually, the solution is going to be something like a guaranteed/minimum basic income, which would take the place of all the existing poverty and social programs. Everyone would get it (no income limits), and you could use it however you like. Want more money? Work on top of that. You could even eliminate the minimum wage, since no one would be 'forced' to work. We're not where we'd need to be yet in order to really make that work, but at some point, that's probably the best solution once labor enters a post-scarcity state due to the advance and prevalence of automation.

Re: why does everyone always want to give...

[cheesybagel]

Getting out is not as easy as you think. Imagine you are living in the street and go to a job interview. Regardless of how well qualified you are your chances to actually get a job are pretty slim. Clean clothes? A bath? Shaving? Getting to work on time every day?

A lot of people living in the streets had regular lives but because of some reason, could be clinical depression, could be unemployment, end up living in the streets.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[cheesybagel]

Or so you keep hearing. But when you actually look at the statistics the amount of people who actually do that is rather low.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[cheesybagel]

Most unemployment benefit schemes work by pulling money out of a fund which was paid for with taxes the person unemployed paid for working prior to losing their job. Unemployment benefits are also usually time limited according to what you put in the fund to begin with. So claims that people are getting something for nothing by being unemployed are simply bunk. Once you exhaust that fund you usually get nothing more.

There are other schemes which do not work like that like Medicare or food stamps. In the case of food stamps at least it was sold as a way to pay farmers for excess food production that otherwise would have been sent to a landfill.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[cheesybagel]

as for min wage, we all see how well raising min wage is working out now. more part time jobs and less full time workers. Also robots and self serve POS terminals. Yeah, thats REALLY helping

It means people can have more time off to pursue other interests. Seems like a win to me. I have nothing against robots per se because they basically increase productivity. The problem is we are getting past the time when they only were used to replace dangerous or menial tasks. Pretty soon there will be little left for people to do. This is not some Asimov socialist utopia.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[demonlapin]

MGI has a lot going for it. It's efficient as hell - cutting a check to every citizen once a month takes very few government employees. Everyone has free choice about how to spend the money. But there's the problem of assholes: what do you do when someone spends their MGI on crack? Do you let them starve or make them sleep on the streets? No, of course you don't, because we're not barbarians. So you introduce food stamps/EBT and subsidized/free housing. Pretty soon, you've re-created the entire modern welfare system, except that you now have MGI on top of it. Congratulations, you now have the worst of both worlds.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

what do you do when someone spends their MGI on crack? Do you let them starve or make them sleep on the streets? No, of course you don't, because we're not barbarians. /quote. Theres where I say yes, thats exactly what you do. people need to learn to be responsible for themselves. and if they blow it, too bad. does it sound heartless? yeah, but the sad truth is if we keep bailing out people who wont help themselves, we are only hurting the rest of the people

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

while you are correct, we are not a democracy, and democracy has its own issues. If we went by the will of the people, slavery would still be a thing

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[sonicmerlin]

The government is playing by the rules put in place by the rich.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[MeNeXT]

The answer is the MGI (Minimum Guaranteed Income) which we used to call a COLA, or Cost Of Living Allowance. But I guess calling it an allowance is insulting. You take a flat percentage from everyone and then give an equal amount to everyone every year, either just from income or from their total cash pool — the latter of which sounds drastic, but which encourages investment, which in turn is what actually makes the economy go around.

Another part of the answer, though, is not permitting the banks to do what they're doing right now with housing: refusing to sell it at market price. We have multiple homes for every homeless person in this country, let alone family, and houses are just rotting all over the nation while people are living in trailers in their neighbors' back yards. Houses actually depreciate faster when they're not being lived in even if nobody is breaking into them and stealing all the fixtures as is wont to happen, because humans tend to institute some stability of temperatures — to say nothing of maintaining the property, fixing leaks and that sort of thing. So they're actually destroying the available housing in the country for the sake of... what? Nobody knows.

I like your idea but your math doesn't add up. You want a Guaranteed minimum but you will collect a fixed amount. What happens to the difference? What happens when there are more people collecting than there are people working (suppling)? If there is no reward(wages) for work why even bother working. Until we find a way to produce all the needs of society with volunteers then we would have more and more "poor" (Guaranteed Minimum earners) until the system would fail.

I believe the problem of the poor is in our governments, meaning we the people. Just look at the US constitution. It's become a useless piece of paper because it's citizens treat it like toilet paper. They display it for all the world to see but the flush it as soon they are told to. The US now has Kangaroo courts, secret lists, confiscation of property without a hearing, personal searches without cause and more. The land of the free where your house can be seized for profit. The right to profit exceeds the right to life and that is just plain wrong. Corporations are not citizens. The board of directors and/or the officers of a company should be imprisoned when they break the law and not forgiven and rewarded because they are too big to fail. There is no easy solution but it would start by the constitution becoming more than a piece of paper.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Uberbah]

I dont disagree to a degree, but at what point do the middle class stand up and say enough is enough. no more welfare, make people work for the state if on welfare

Indeed, when is enough enough? When will people who work for a living, who stopped believing in the tooth fairy decades ago, go on believing the fairy tale that people choose to be poor and stay poor?

Im in no way blaming the poor, I was poor once, and not long ago. just a few months actually. I busted my butt to get out of poverty

Any tingling in your Spidey Self Awareness?

40 grand a year in NY is poor by any standard

Nearly eight grand more than the Bronx median income.

but i would rather make people work for their handout than simply give out handouts.

So, Calvanist slavery it is then, regardless.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

what defines "unoccupied"?

If I show up once a year to hay the lot out to feed horses, well thats use right? There will always be ways around such a thing

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

right? and im sure people in africa would KILL for those hand me downs, free housing and electricity....

How does the old saying go? A man with no shoes, stops complaining when he meets the man with no feet

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[7-Vodka]

Ok. If you give people this minimum income of yours (which where does it come from by the way?), what's your plan if everyone decides to just live off that? How is this productive in any way? Aren't you just subsidizing 'not working'?

2. I do not think market price means what you think it means.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[7-Vodka]

Do you know what free market means?

Voluntary trade.

As opposed to at the barrel of a gun.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

charter schools, at least in NY (cant speak for anywhere else) tend to put out higher educated kids than the local public schools. this is a fact in NY.

so we have some people complaining that its not fair that these kids get to go to these charter schools while their kids are stuck in public school

heres an idea, lets get rid of the dept of ed, lets get rid of tenure for k-12 teachers, and hire the best teachers. If doing that works in the charter schools why cant we try it in the public schools?

Instead of bringing the smart kids down, why not allow them to do their thing?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

from us. but getting something for that money is better than nothing

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Half-pint HAL]

Im going to blame the govt before i blame the rich. the rich are playing by the rules put in place by the govt. in other words, dont hate the player, hate the game

Fine. But stop blaming the poor, because the solution isn't making them poorer.

as for min wage, we all see how well raising min wage is working out now. more part time jobs and less full time workers. Also robots and self serve POS terminals. Yeah, thats REALLY helping

Yeah, because a person could easily live off the per-hour cost of a self-service supermarket checkout.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

but it still happens. and those people should be prosecuted for abusing the system, and stealing from people who work for a living

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

if you are not qualified to do anything more than flip burgers, why should you be paid 50 grand a year???

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ScentCone]

But don't let reality clog your little illusion.

Which illusion? That crappy schools are bad? You've just proved that point.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[TapeCutter]

Yeah that was my point, I was part of the "working poor" for 15yrs, I don't recall anyone throwing free stuff at me, quite the opposite.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[mjwx]

Capitalism worked fine before globalization. Back when anti-trust laws were worth a damn and countries actually taxed the rich. Like after WWII.

No, no, no,

Taxing the rich is *gasp* SOCIALISM *gasp*. At least according to Fox News.

We have to tax the poorer more and cut public services.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Half-pint HAL]

if you are not qualified to do anything more than flip burgers, why should you be paid 50 grand a year???

Oooh!! That's a lovely strawman you've built there. Giving someone enough money to buy food, clothing and heating for their family is basic human decency. That's way short of 50 grand.

If I offer to give a homeless guy a sandwich, would you respond by asking whether he deserves a five-course banquet at the Ritz?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Wootery]

No no no no no. It's not good trolling if you reveal yourself like that.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[cheesybagel]

Even outside the US, during the so called Trente Glorieuses, the same thing happened in Europe.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

Sure, and we can het even more if we just take everyones money, and give them what they need

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

Except for the truth is that for a family, when all is broken down it is close to 50 grand. Im sure administrative costs factor in but still

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Half-pint HAL]

Ah, family. So you mean that because Johnnie Commoner is a burger cook, his kids should be forced to starve? Or do you think that poor children should be forced out of schooling and into the factories?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[7-Vodka]

Do I have the right to disagree with this arrangement?

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

When it comes to charter schools NY seems like a bad example as I asked around and found out the ones in NY get to be selective like private schools with their students. So since they are allowed to avoid the problem students they have an easier time doing well. That said in Minnesota the charter schools aren't allowed to be selective and must take any child who lives within the district that the charter resides provided there is a spot, otherwise they go on a waiting list. The only preference given is to siblings of existing students and that seems reasonable so that all students have the same schedule. In Minnesota charter schools don't seem to do worse than the surrounding public schools and in some cases do substantially better. The surprising thing is that the local public schools have been trying to push their problem students to the charter schools to get them off their roles. So with a higher percentage of problem students than the local public schools it is impressive that the charters are even able to match the performance of public schools. On the other hand charter schools aren't all pixi dust and unicorn farts there is a lot of issues especially when you get into some of the management levels and some of the more specialized charter schools. I say this as someone who's wife worked in charter schools for 10 years and has seen the incompetence, and megalomania of various directors, as well as following the TiZa Academy story that didn't pass the smell test and seemed to be a way to offer religious instruction and funnel public dollars to a religious institution.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[drinkypoo]

MGI schemes will guarantee whole cities worth of minimal subsistence trailer park housing filled with Widescreen TVs, PS4s, alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. In other words,

...just like now. Actually, that would be an improvement, because right now most of the people who would live in such conditions are just homeless.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

again, not the point i was getting at at all.

think of the children is never the right reason to throw money at a problem, no matter how much you want to save the kids

maybe if you are not qualified to do anything but flip burgers, maybe you should think about not having those 5 kids with 3 different women. im not saying forced sterilization, but people need to think.

Blame the parent who cant take care of their kids for having them, not the people who dont want to take care of other peoples kids. The parent is the problem, not me

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[Tom]

TL;DR: A welfare system requiring people to work is slavery and only motivates maintenance of the welfare state, which is already a problem.

I agree on the slavery part, but which welfare state? What we had in welfare state has been demolished systematically, and what is left is so basic that people don't die from hunger on the streets and that's it. In many western countries in 2015, considerable parts of the population don't have basic health coverage, and can't afford to pay for medical care except in dire emergencies. Given that we put people on the moon and the super-rich fly private jets and banks can gamble with what amounts to the total budget of small countries, I say that's a shame.

It's perfectly fine to have a division between people by wealth, and that working hard and being smart can give you spoils that being lazy and stupid doesn't, but unless we can lift up the whole of society and not just the top 5%, we should be ashamed of ourselves. And I say that as someone who for most of his life has been in those 5% because frankly speaking that's not as exclusive as it sounds. If you work in IT or engineering, you're almost guaranteed to be there, because the 95% are the people in the call centers, the taxi drivers, the secretary, the guys in the coffee shop and the TSA goons at the airport and so on and so forth.

We don't have a welfare state. What we have is civilization. And we need it, because without this "welfare" aspect, with unchained brutal capitalism, we would very fast end in a state where slavery is actually a good idea because it would improve the lower classes lives.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

i went from under 20 grand a year to 40 grand a year only 2 months ago. 12 grand on a 4 week vacation??? I cant tell you the last time i got a vacation.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[ganjadude]

sure, dont work, no money. your choice

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[drinkypoo]

Better drug rehab programs, better care for disabled and PTSD-afflicted veterans, better coordination of outreach programs - all of these have a real hope for addressing the root causes behind homelessness.

Well, no. It's the economy, stupid coward. The majority of homeless people right now aren't the usual mentally ill. The published unemployment rate is a dirty lie.

Re:why does everyone always want to give...

[7-Vodka]

No, you know. Disagree with having to give up my hard earned money for essentially no services.

Bad idea.

[BarbaraHudson]

build a cloud of servers in poorer Greeks' basements

Do you really want to put servers in the basement? Didn't Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station meltdown not teach anyone anything? Or the floods on wall street that filled the basements completely?

Re:Grow lights

[ganjadude]

LED lights have dramatically dropped the cost (and heat signature)

Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[super_scalt]

Let's exploit the already-screwed Greek government for some 'free' CPU time to run your own business. Because, you know, exploiting government generosity has already worked SO WELL for that country.

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Let's exploit the already-screwed Greek government for some 'free' CPU time to run your own business..

Actually, I believe a more accurate statement would be that the Greek government has been exploiting the rest of the EU for free money.

But, as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said, "If I owe the bank 100 pounds . . . I have a problem. If I owe the bank 100,000 pounds . . . the bank has a problem."

Right now, Angela Merkel has a problem, because she guaranteed the German public that all the money that they lent to Greece would be eventually paid back.

Alexis Tsipras has stated that he wants Greece to stay in the Eurozone. I don't believe him. What he wants most, if for Greece to be free from old debts to the EU. The EU is not going write off the old debts, and let Greece stay in the Eurozone. So his other choice would be to let the bus crash and default on the debts. The EU would then have to toss the Greeks out of the Eurozone. Then Tsipras could claim that he wanted to stay in the Eurozone, and that it was the evil EU who kicked them out.

When the Greeks go back to their own Drachma, instead of the Euro, they can then print as many of them as they like. They can distribute them as they wish, and make everyone in Greece rich!

Of course, the Drachmas will be close to worthless on the world financial markets . . . so the Greeks would not be able to purchase things that they think they need from foreign countries . . . like TVs, cars, washing machines, etc.

But at least they would be free from the Euro yoke, and have control over their own fate . . . and have nobody else to blame, if they don't like how it turns out.

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[gTsiros]

there doesn't have to be a provision

they can just make it so the greeks will wish to leave the eurozone.

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

If Greece goes the Euro goes. (Actually if any Eurozone country goes the Euro goes).

I believe that the Greeks are overplaying their hand here. A few years ago, this might have been true, but now, international financial institutions have had time to prepare for the "Grexit" as a seriously possibility and create contingency plans.

Greece is less than 2% of the Eurozone economy. If Frace, Spain or Italy jumped . . . then they would have a problem. The Euro will survive a "Grexit", and be probably come out stronger, because the world financial markets will see the Eurozone as an organization that will not tolerate financial "fudge." And that the Eurozone is committed to keep the Euro a "hard" currency.

Let's face it . . . why are the Greeks in the EU anyway? They aren't really European . . . they sit at the butt-end of the Balkans, as one English diplomat put it, "half Byzantine, half Turkish by temperament." And why are the Turks in NATO? Turkey . . . and North Atlantic?

Well, if we take a look at a map, we'll see that Greece and Turkey together control the strategic Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits. These were important during the Cold War, when the EU and the USA were fearful of the Tartar hordes of the USSR sailing through. This is the only reason that the EU wanted them in.

After World War II, the Greeks were very close to flipping over to Communism. Well, the voters of Greece have now done it. I worked with a couple of guys from Greece a few years ago. They voted early, and voted with their feet. One works in Ireland now, the other in Spain.

Plus Greece cannot be kicked out of the Eurozone by anyone. Actually there isn't a provision for such a thing in the treaties that implement the Eurozone.

Just do a search on Google news on "Grexit". You will learn how this can happen:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8fd55736-ae0a-11e4-919e-00144feab7de.html

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[super_scalt]

I was questioning the ethical implications running a business off handouts to the poor from a government who can't afford them in the first place, regardless of how they got into that position. Your argument's fine, it just has no bearing on the ethics of the situation.

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[mjwx]

The bigger issue Angela Merkel and the EU have is letting Greece exit the EU because of the message it sends to the others in the same boat, Portugal, Italy Ireland and Spain.

If the EU shows that it cant make Greece repay its debts the others are going to do whatever Greece did.

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[AmiMoJo]

Tsipras has said he doesn't expect debts to be written off, but he does expect them to be deferred until Greece is in a position to pay them back.

It's like after WW2. The UK wasn't in a hurry to pay back US loans, it was busy rebuilding. In fact even now we have some WW1 debt left over (Osborne said he cleared it, but actually he just took another cheaper loan for the same amount).

The US is doing the same thing. Instead of just cutting everything Obama threw money at the problem and get the US economy moving again, and once things are going well again will be able to pay it back. The US could have suffered a lot more if it had tried to do what Greece and to an extent the UK did.

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[NoOneInParticular]

Right now, Angela Merkel has a problem, because she guaranteed the German public that all the money that they lent to Greece would be eventually paid back.

Angela Merkel has a problem because she deceived the German public in order to save the German Landesbanken that owned most of the Greek debt. Instead of letting the banks go bankrupt, and thereby creating a political problem (these banks are state owned, and run by politicians), she created enough time for the banks to offload the debt to the EU public at large. In the German case: profits go to politicians, losses are socialized. Pretty Soviet.

Re:Oh yeah, that's a great idea...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

profits go to politicians, losses are socialized. Pretty Soviet.

Actually, that pretty much describes what happened in the US, with the Wall Street and US auto industry bailouts.

Physics violation

[Cafe Alpha]

If you're using the heat of the pc to keep warm, then there's no inefficiency in using the power to generate bitcoins.

Actually that sounds like a conservation of energy violation. Isn't there SOME loss of heat in creating order, information inside a computer?

If calculation generates heat exactly as efficiently as every other use of electricity that doesn't generate "work" then all heaters should be generating bitcoins or folding proteins or something.

Re:Physics violation

[geoskd]

If you're using the heat of the pc to keep warm, then there's no inefficiency in using the power to generate bitcoins.

The problem is that when dealing with heating and cooling, pure resistive heating is about the worst way to go about it. Its true, it is 100% efficient at converting the electrical energy to heat energy, but that electrical energy suffered many losses in becoming electrical energy.

A more economical solution is to take the fuel that was used to create the electricity and burn it directly to create heat. (Generally about 20%-30% more efficient overall).

An even better solution is to use that electricity to move Already existing heat around. This is by far the most efficient use of the energy in the first place.

Re:Physics violation

[rossdee]

"If calculation generates heat exactly as efficiently as every other use of electricity that doesn't generate "work" then all heaters should be generating bitcoins or folding proteins or something."

Except that a Bitcoin generating rig costs considerably more than a fan heater.

Re:Physics violation

[ShanghaiBill]

The problem is that when dealing with heating and cooling, pure resistive heating is about the worst way to go about it.

In this case, it is the BEST way to go about it. Normally, you have to consider both the one-time cost of the equipment, and the ongoing cost of electricity. But if the electricity is FREE, then the cost of the equipment is the only consideration. If it is wasteful, that is not your problem.

The Greeks are continuing to engage in the same sort of economic insanity that got them in trouble in the first place. If you want to help the poor, then give them money and let them choose what to buy. If you give them "stuff" instead, they will have no incentive not to squander it. It will cost more, and provide fewer benefits.

Re:Physics violation

[ShanghaiBill]

Except that a Bitcoin generating rig costs considerably more than a fan heater.

An efficient rig costs more. An old inefficient GPU costs practically nothing, and is actually better at generating heat for your apartment. Many of them even come with a built in fan to spread the heat around.

Re:Physics violation

[Half-pint HAL]

Is electricity "stuff"? Or does it enable the use of stuff?

Anyway, I don't think they've looked far enough east for inspiration. I remember reading a few years ago that in one of the south-east Asian cities (Kuala Lumpur maybe? Singapore?) there was two-tier pricing on electricity -- dirt cheap up to X kWh so that everyone could have lighting and basic usage, but then ramping up to very expensive so that the rich buggers running air conditioning all day long were effectively subsidising the poor.

Although, on reflection, that's not really a solution for Greece seeing as it's not a matter of a large wealth gap as a severe lack of wealth....

Re:Physics violation

[mpeskett]

Compare the following two questions:

"If the energy in a computer ends up as heat and information, and the energy in a heater just ends up as heat, isn't there some loss of energy in the process?"

"If the water in a waterfall all ends up at the bottom, and the water in a hydroelectric dam all ends up at the bottom, isn't there some loss of (gravitational potential) energy in the process?"

One dumps all the energy provided into some sort of ground state as quickly and wastefully as possible, the other carefully channels it to extract an additional benefit on the side. The analogy isn't perfect (for one thing, the water at the bottom of the waterfall will land with more energy than the water sent through a turbine, and make a hell of a noise in doing so), but I don't think there's anything thermodynamically wrong with the idea of siphoning off and redirecting some part of a flow of energy to drive a turbine or a calculation, and still have it ultimately all end up as heat.

Re:Physics violation

[jrumney]

I remember reading a few years ago that in one of the south-east Asian cities (Kuala Lumpur maybe? Singapore?) there was two-tier pricing on electricity -- dirt cheap up to X kWh so that everyone could have lighting and basic usage

In Malaysia there are 5 tiers for electricity pricing (until recently it was 9), and if your total bill for the month comes to less than RM20 (around USD 7), the government covers it.

Re:Physics violation

[Charcharodon]

Would it be possible to burn bitcoins to stay warm?

Re:Physics violation

[7-Vodka]

Giving money to charity is admirable.

Borrowing money to give it to charity, not so much.

Borrowing money to buy votes, and then trashing an economy and trying to extract money from people by violence. That's something else entirely.

Re:Physics violation

[7-Vodka]

Why do you think that forcing people into this particular scheme by force is better than allowing voluntary relationships?

Re:Physics violation

[Half-pint HAL]

I know this. However, a lot of people do have to live in those conditions, and I think it perfectly fair that rich people who use lots of electricity for luxuries pay proportionally more than poor people who only use it for essentials.

Re:Physics violation

[bdares]

Not the best, although that depends on what your evaluation criteria is. Look at heat pump heaters, they basically run the AC on backwards. You end up blasting out even colder air through the outside radiator but end up getting more thermal energy out than you put electricity in.

Re:Physics violation

[rbrander]

> Isn't there SOME loss of heat in creating order, information inside a computer?

Article in Scientific American some years ago about that: as it turns out, it can be shown thermodynamically that processing information has to increase entropy because it *destroys* information. Net. You put more data into a calculation than you get out. 5 + 7 can be turned into 12, but not the other way around; the 5 and 7 are lost.

Re:Physics violation

[Cafe Alpha]

So if you calculate the sum and the difference so that no information is lost then you have less heat?

Re: Physics violation

[Half-pint HAL]

Rich people are the leeches. The thing with trickle-down economics is that "let them eat cake" is a lie.

Re:Physics violation

[micahraleigh]

Tiers? Sounds like a net neutrality violation.

Re:Physics violation

[ultranova]

Borrowing money to buy votes, and then trashing an economy and trying to extract money from people by violence. That's something else entirely.

The entire system of private ownership is based on violence. Claiming something as yours implies that either you, your gang or men in uniforms will use physical force to stop me if I try to "extract" it. And the same happens if I try to print my own euros rather than extract yours. That continued threat of violence is part of what's financed by your taxes.

So by all means, do condemn violence, but understand that your precious money is worth nothing without it. Which might not be a bad thing, but requires completely redesigning the entire economic system and all associated cultural norms and valuations.

Re:Physics violation

[lsatenstein]

Free electricity means that the poor can purchase food with the equivalent. And probably, given the situation in Greece, most of the electric bills have not been paid due to poverty. (Buy food or medicine before buying electricity).

A previous posting assumed that all electricity comes from burning coal or fuel. Ours comes from damed water and turbines. It is transported to use with (I am told) 120kv three phase lines)

Free-As-In-Beer Electricity In Greece

[Nutria]

So what? This is not news for nerds.

Re:Free-As-In-Beer Electricity In Greece

[Carcass666]

So what? This is not news for nerds.

I'm sure there are some nerds in Greece...

Re:Free-As-In-Beer Electricity In Greece

[PolygamousRanchKid]

So what? This is not news for nerds.

Actually there are some nerds here who work managing data centers . . . and some of them have the pleasure of being invited into high level management meetings every month when the power bill comes in, to explain why the electricity bill is so high.

The gag is . . . I have actually met some low level managers who would write a business plan proposal, when they heard that electricity in Greece is free.

But the really, really, REALLY cool thing about nerds . . . is that we can discuss ANYTHING into being a nerd issue. If Slashdot posted a story about Justin Bieber breaking his leg while falling into Kim Kardashian's ass crack . . . well, first someone would post a response titled, "I am an Certified Expert Celebrity Ass Spelunker!" Then someone would post that they are currently working on a post-doc on the abstract quantum fractal geometry of female posteriors.

Then we would degenerate the whole thread into a pedantic bun fight about tangential issues.

I don't read Slashdot for the news . . . I read it for nerds' opinions on the news.

That's how they do it!

[TheSync]

Illegal informal small businesses in people's basements to avoid crazy business and labor regulations is a typical form of Greek business - why not data centers!

Basements

[codeButcher]

Not to be a pedant, but since Greece to my knowledge doesn't experience ground freezing temperatures, houses there probably do not require (expensive!) ground excavations and basements that take the house's foundation to below the frost line. I have no doubt that in such warm climes a cellar is a very good idea due to the temperature-buffering effect of all that thermal mass around it (useful i.a. for aging cheese and wine and storing other foodstuffs), but to build one would presumably not necessarily be within the financial means of the poor.

Also, once those people start receiving rent from such (or any other) operation, they might no longer be "poor".

Even the place where I live, which must have one of the world's most intellectually-challenged (and by the way also very socialist-oriented, but I repeat myself) governments, basic amenities (water, electricity, etc.) are only provided without charge to the poor for the first X number of units, where X is really very basic survival usage, any usage above that is charged at the usual prices. Not saying that is what the Greeks plan to do, but they would be really stupid to offer "uncapped/limitless".

Re:Basements

[wisnoskij]

Still, if they are poor they very well might be interesting in selling that free electricity.

I have a dream

[SuperKendall]

I see a world where I go to poor people's homes, and leave expensive computer equipment there for the "free" electricity....

The dream part is where it's still there the next day.

Re:I have a dream

[nukenerd]

I see a world where I go to poor people's homes, and leave expensive computer equipment there for the "free" electricity....The dream part is where it's still there the next day.

You could live next door to them and run a cable through a hole in the wall, in exchange for a few cans of beer.

oh dear god no

[gTsiros]

no not any more promises for free or cheap stuff no, this is what earlier greek gorvernments promised

"there is money" etcetc

no for fuck's sake no NO GOD NO

what greece needs is for the greek people to finally FINALLY learn how to work EFFICIENTLY and manage their finances

Re:oh dear god no

[Half-pint HAL]

Recovery requires spending. Every penny put in the pockets of someone living in abject poverty is going to be spent in under a week. Meanwhile, middle classes and above reduce their spending out of prudence during crises. Austerity deepens the crisis by stopping money circulating. If Greece wants to shake off its woes, it has to dedicate all its resources to increasing consumer spending -- therefore money must go to the poor. And it's not just about money, either -- after WWII, the UK nationalised all the public mass transport firms, as access to transport (and therefore to workplaces and shops) was vital to keep the poor economically active.

Re:oh dear god no

[EdwardFurlong]

Where are you getting the penny from? Maybe giving money away discourages people from trying to earn it themselves. Every person I know who went on unemployment milked it as long as they could. Same as everyone thinking of ways to scam "free" electricity. Get it free there is no incentive to save, food, heat, electricity, whatever. Okay the poor spend every penny, so why not just give the bottom 10.... 20... 30.... percent of the population as much money as they want? Just spending someone elses money does nothing. I see all these under 16 year olds not working. Lets all chip in and give them a thousand dollars a month, as long as they spend it all. Do you think that would do anything to help the economy? Think about how the money is changing hands and tell me how it works out to being a good thing.

Re:oh dear god no

[7-Vodka]

Spending money doesn't create wealth and prosperity. Productive work does.

Giving people money to spend (which comes from where?) distorts the signals to the market and causes mal-investment.

Re:oh dear god no

[Half-pint HAL]

Greece didn't need to "recover". It needed to stop spending itself into an even deeper hole, i.e. stop doing what got them into this mess.

"Stopping digging" and "climbing out of the hole" are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.

And Greece obviously didn't have sufficient motivation to fight the rampant corruption and pervasive tax evasion. None of that is going to get fixed with more money, so more money instead of austerity wasn't going to help.

...which is why the country elected a new government that promised to tackle corruption and tax evasion.

Re:oh dear god no

[Half-pint HAL]

Spending money doesn't create wealth and prosperity. Productive work does.

Work is only productive if you can sell the fruit of your labours.

Giving people money to spend (which comes from where?) distorts the signals to the market and causes mal-investment.

Nice rhetoric. Except that "mal-investment" is hardly a possibility when that money is only just enough to buy the barest essentials of living. You clearly have no idea whatsoever of what poverty is like. I, thankfully, have only seen it from the outside, but I have seen enough of it never to wish it on anybody, or blame the poor for their situation.

Re:oh dear god no

[Half-pint HAL]

a new government that promised to tackle corruption and tax evasion

And will do no such thing. Obviously, I might add.

Why do you say "obviously"? If they don't, there will be no recovery, and then their country, and by implication all their families and friends, will be totally fucked. Syriza won't be coining it in in the meanwhile as they cut back government spending at the top, and they know that no-one will reelect a party elected on an anti-corruption manifesto if they don't do something about corruption. Not only this, but Syriza are unpopular in the global business world, so they're not exactly setting themselves up for the comfortable directorships and consultancy posts most politicos get when they retire....

Not really the case

[kgkoutzis]

The new Greek government promised, tonight, that they would provide free food supplies, electricity and medical care to the Greek citizens who truly fell victims of the recent economic crisis. This means that people who literally can't afford to survive (e.g. jobless, really low-wage/low-pension, etc.) will be provided with this help because they actually need it to stay alive. If someone starts a cloud-server farm in their basement, it means that their income will increase to a level that will actually allow them to survive on their own, without the government's help, so they won't have access to free electricity after this. If someone does this without declaring it to the government, I'm sure the power company will notice the unusual power consumption and will investigate in order to find those who try to take advantage of the government benefits while also committing tax-fraud at the same time. So, tl;dr: Catch 22. If you start a server farm, you won't be a poor citizen any more, thus won't receive these benefits. I hope this answers your "question".

Re:Not really the case

[Half-pint HAL]

Corruption is at the top of society. It is very difficult for the top of society to pretend to be destitute.

"radical left-wing"

[Enry]

Stop it.

Stupid idea

[EdwardFurlong]

If anyone tried this they would stop getting free electricity. No company is going to spend thousands getting a server farm up on the chance nobody will catch on what they are doing. You could get away with some small time stuff, but they will catch on if you try to scam them.

Re:Grow lights

[unrtst]

Grow lights; Bitcoin/etc miners; Servers; Electroplating; whatever...

Any spikes will be pretty easy to see. Just put a cap on it and bust those that are exceeding it. Bonus, you'll probably ID a lot of existing growers/etc.

As far as the basic idea of free minimal amounts of electricity to the poor, that sounds like a very good thing. Heck, just give everyone their first N kw/month for free.

Free, as in "some-one else is paying for it"

[squash_me_quickly]

Just because the people/companies in Greece are not paying for it, doesn't make the electricity free. The "rest of the world" is paying for the electricity by loaning the Greek government money.

People use the word "free" much to freely.

Re:You're probably not poor enough if...

[saigon_from_europe]

You're probably not poor enough for free electricity if you can run cloud servers... But you will have the benefit of paying taxes so that those poor enough can get free electricity!

Rich people don't pay taxes in Greece. Most of the wealthy doctors, attorneys and similar higher middle class report their income to be about 1000EUR/month, and basically pay no taxes. That's one of the reasons how the entire problem started. An effort to make them pay taxes after the crisis started ended miserably.

Six points about Greek Debt

[Robotron23]

This article contains a lot of surprising points about Greek debt - namely that a large part of it was essentially preallocated to serve as bank bailouts, and as repayment of other debt. Back in 2010 those issuing the cash knew it was doomed to fail, yet it went ahead anyhow. The general populace of Greece saw relatively little of the cash borrowed by their elected government, which goes a way to explaining why the campaigns run by Syriza were so successful:

http://jubileedebt.org.uk/repo...

Nice how certain bloggers, not beholden to the interests that define and distort so much media now, end up presenting actual facts over the masses of bluster and propaganda that qualifies for reporting in the news media nowadays.

How many places even mention that back in the 1950s, the Greeks voted to cancel 50% of the war debt levied on Germany? Or raise the shocking idea that it would be good of Germany to reciprocate that favour?

Re:Six points about Greek Debt

[7-Vodka]

The german debt wasn't debts they acquired from spending. It was the vitors of the war putting a gun to their head and saying "sign this paper that says you owe us an eye watering sum you can never pay". That's not debt, that's extortion.

The greek debts come from their own unwise choices.

Re:Six points about Greek Debt

[dogganos]

Hitler was elected, you know.

Re:Six points about Greek Debt

[seoras]

No, that's not extortion that's Karma. Germans had spent 6 years doing more than just putting guns to heads across Europe...
"...their own unwise choices" would be one way of describing electing into power Hitler and his Nazis and following their lead.

Re:Six points about Greek Debt

[seoras]

Right, so finally someone understands the difference between the "innocent citizens" and the "evil leaders".
"little more than torture" is a good way of describing what's happening to the many Greeks hit by austerity.

Sorry but I don't see how Germany can take a higher moral ground here within a historical context.
Real debt? Please enlighten us on what you think "real debt" is within the context of WWII & Greek governments and banking?

The ordinary citizens of the western world had nothing to do with the economic melt down at the end of the last decade.
It was the banks to blame but they've walked away and been left to repeat the same scam again unhindered.
" Give them money or excuse debt and then in 5 years time they will be back to the exact same position. "
Yep, the banks will do it again. The innocent will pay.

Re:Six points about Greek Debt

[bloodhawk]

perhaps you may actually want to read some history. He wasn't elected, hitler was appointed after the elected head of state died, he then abolished the office and established himself as a dictator, hitler never won an election.

Re:Six points about Greek Debt

[bloodhawk]

Greece is fundamentally broken from the top down and it has nothing to do with the banks (though yes banks are evil and corrupt too), it has something like half the working population employed by the government, a culture or Tax avoidance and systemic corruption. Unless you fix those problems Greece will always be a sink, no matter how much you pour into the economy it will need more.

Re:Six points about Greek Debt

[bloodhawk]

The civilian population didn't vote for hitler, he seized power and become a self appointed dictator. In today's terms it would be the equivalent of leveraging a trillion dollar debt on the Iraqi people for the cost of taking out Sadaam.

Article doesn't contain the word 'electricity'

[Wootery]

Unless my Ctrl-f is acting up, the article doesn't even contain the word 'electricity'....

Is this actually a thing? If so, is it going to be unmetered?

Re:Article doesn't contain the word 'electricity'

[viperidaenz]

There's another article
http://www.haaretz.com/news/mi...
All it says is:

A second part of the speech will touch on his government's social and fiscal policy over the longer term and is likely to repeat pledges for such things as a rise in the minimum wage and free electricity for poorer Greeks.

Re:"radical left-wing"

[ScentCone]

Stop it.

Why? Because it's annoying to hear things properly identified?

Re: You should be aware that

[Johnny Loves Linux]

Europe is composed of socialist countries and has been for about 60 years or so for the ones that weren't communist and the rest became socialist when the communist regime fell. Germany? Socialist. France? Socialist. Sweden, the land of Ikea, Swedish meatballs, and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? Socialist. Britain, that bastion of capitalism? Socialist. That big ass VAT they pay in Britain? That's to support their socialist regime. Take a look at the health care and welfare systems provided by the European countries. They're socialist.

Taking into account things like technology available to the common people, things like internet access and mobile phone technology, I would have to say that things are a hell of lot better than in the U.S.

So how exactly have they failed?

Tax Re:Physics violation

[mjwalshe]

Lack of collecting taxes I think you mean

Re:Free electricity?

[cheesybagel]

we have found out that commercial companies may be interested in developing power sources which could offer free energy, but they sure as hell aren't interested in actually providing free energy

Remember what JP Morgan told Tesla?

Re:Get your popcorn

[cheesybagel]

I hope you like watching the world economy implode again.

Re:"radical left-wing"

[stooo]

>> It is also too left wing by European standards.

Only for a minority of people here.

Why is the global economy so fragile?

[plopez]

How can economies as small as Greece, Spain, and Italy threaten the global financial system and economy? This to me is a very fundamental failure of global economic policy and theory.

Re:Why is the global economy so fragile?

[EdwardFurlong]

I could say the same thing about the US housing bubble. Everyone knew housing especially in California was way overvalued. They had all sorts of reality flipping shows where for suspense they would say how the market could crash at any time. Who knew it would take down the global economy? Billions lost overnight, stocks that had nothing to do with housing cut in half. Sure seems like a house of cards.

Re:Why is the global economy so fragile?

[EdwardFurlong]

I imagine some of it is because they are part of the EU. And there is no easy way to get their economies going again. In the same way California screwed the USA which in turn screwed the world, same thing going on with Greece. Even though really it is not that much money for bailouts, being tied to the Euro screws everyone. Nobody is caring when Russia or Argentina's economies tank. They built a one size fits all system in the EU and it is not working out.

Re:"radical left-wing"

[Enry]

Yes, because every person that identifies with liberal policies is a radical left wing. Thanks for being part of the problem.

The Cuban Miracle

[lucm]

Care to explain why Cuba is a failure when health care and education are on a much higher level (and much cheaper) than in the USA albeit being under a boycott and other sanctions from the USA the last 70 years?

I don't know, why don't we ask the hundred of thousands of Cubans who fled that paradise and decided to live in Miami instead? Just to be fair and balanced we could also get the opinion of Americans who fled the USA and went to live in Cuba (if you can find one that's not a wanted felon).

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[FunkyLich]

We could all answer this question easily if you would be so gentle and provide some grounds for a proper comparison. Such as, for example, a Cuba which doesn't need to follow the whims of a cranky neighbour USA which autotakes the right to force sanctions on Cuba just because it is so full of evil commies. You say live and let live, but what you do is not coherent with that. (Deliberately poisoning the waters of your neighbour and then boasting around how your own watter is way healthier, is usually a trait of a bastard, low and dirty personality.)
Only then we would be able to properly evaluate the responses to your questions.

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[lucm]

a cranky neighbour USA which autotakes the right to force sanctions on Cuba just because it is so full of evil commies

Do you know WHY those sanctions exist? It's not because Cuba is full of evil commies. It's because when the evil commies took over Cuba they "nationalized" (i.e. stole) billions of dollars worth of property owned by American companies and individuals.

There's even a Wikipedia article that explains it all. I won't put a link here because I don't want to enable your intellectual laziness.

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[Gavagai80]

Those billions of dollars of American property having been stolen blatantly from Cuba in the first place with the help of a corrupt crony dictatorship. Even JFK admitted that the American ownership of Cuba in the 50s was wholly unjust.

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[Bartles]

How many socialist dictatorships can you think of both past and present. How many capitalist dictatorships can you think of?

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[jmauro]

Taiwan under Chang Kai-Shek, Indonesia under Suharto, Portugal under Salazar, Spain under Franco, most of South and Central America from the late 60's to the early 90's, the list goes on. Hell, even present day Russia and China would fall under that category depending on how you want to slice the apple.

Dictatorships don't really proclude any economic system.

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[vlad30]

Care to explain why Cuba is a failure when health care and education are on a much higher level (and much cheaper) than in the USA albeit being under a boycott and other sanctions from the USA the last 70 years?

I don't know, why don't we ask the hundred of thousands of Cubans who fled that paradise and decided to live in Miami instead? Just to be fair and balanced we could also get the opinion of Americans who fled the USA and went to live in Cuba (if you can find one that's not a wanted felon).

Correct me If I'm wrong didn't Castro empty the prisons and send them to Miami and the US just took them in creating a crime wave in Miami and reducing costs for Cuba

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[tmosley]

"I don't understand the difference between fascism and capitalism".

You surely don't friend, you surely don't.

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Those billions of dollars of American property having been stolen blatantly from Cuba in the first place with the help of a corrupt crony dictatorship

WTF? America won Cuba in a war with Spain. They then offered Cuba their Independence. Obviously, there was a lot of private American ownership of Cuban resources, from the fact that it was an American territory.

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[Bartles]

Chang Kai-Shek

Ideology: nationalism, anti-capitalism, and anti-communism[edit] Chiang, as a nationalist and a Confucianist, was against the iconoclasm of the May Fourth Movement. Motivated by his sense of nationalism, he viewed some Western ideas as foreign, and he believed that the great introduction of Western ideas and literature that the May Fourth Movement promoted was not beneficial to China. He and Dr. Sun criticized the May Fourth intellectuals as corrupting the morals of China's youth.[25] Contrary to Communist propaganda that Chiang was pro-capitalism, Chiang Kai-shek antagonized the capitalists of Shanghai, often attacking them and confisticating their capital and assets for the use of the government. Chiang confiscated the wealth of capitalists even while he denounced and fought against communists.[26] Chiang crushed pro-communist worker and peasant organizations and rich Shanghai capitalists at the same time. Chiang continued Dr. Sun Yat-sen's anti capitalist ideology, directing Kuomintang media to openly attack capitalists and capitalism, demanding government controlled industry instead.[27] Chiang has often been interpreted as being pro-capitalist, but this conclusion may be problematic. Shanghai capitalists did briefly support him out of fear of communism in 1927, but this support eroded in 1928 when Chiang turned his tactics of intimidation on them. The relationship between Chiang Kai-shek and Chinese capitalists remained poor throughout the period of his administration.[28] Chiang blocked Chinese capitalists from gaining any political power or voice within his regime. Once Chiang Kai-shek was done with his White Terror on pro-communist laborers, he proceeded to turn on the capitalists. Gangster connections allowed Chiang to attack them in the International Settlement, successfully forcing capitalists to back him up with their assets for his military expeditions.[28]

Suharto

Suharto imposed the Pancasila ideology on Indonesia. The 4th of 5 elements of Pancasila is:

Kesejahteraan Sosial (Social Welfare), influenced by Welfare-state idea, an emphasis on populist socialism

Salazar

An Autarkian society with an interventionist econmic policy, is a mixed economy at best.

Franco

Franco was a Fascist. Fascism is not Capitalism. Franco was pressured by the world to loosen economic controls, and as free market policies were slowly adopted, the economy had great growth.

All the other crap

We really need to look at States on a case by case basis. I can only think of one South American State that had a Capitalist dictator. You didn't mention it. China and Russia certainly do not apply. Neither of them has anything close to resembling a free market.

Re:The Cuban Miracle

[Bartles]

Yeah, it also doesn't have a dictator. Not really pertinent.

Re:"radical left-wing"

[ScentCone]

Yes, because every person that identifies with liberal policies is a radical left wing. Thanks for being part of the problem.

Who said the word "every," except you? The newly elected government in Greece is indeed radically left wing. They're proud of it. That's part of their entire sales pitch, and will still be part of what defines them as they go further down in flames.

Self-inflicted misery

[lucm]

What is even worse is when the experiment fails but the perpetrator keeps making things worse, then he gets hailed as a savior by phony liberals. Like FDR.

FSA

[Lehk228]

Greece has the biggest Free-Shit-Army in the entire world.

this is not a workable blend of capitalism and socialism. if you are going to be communist be communist, but this "everyone sits on their ass with their hand out" shit cannot work anywhere.

You win

[lucm]

I was about to ask "how do you know he's white"? then I noticed his username starts with Yoda.

Re:You're probably not poor enough if...

[manu0601]

Please mod parent up. This is a social decision: allocating shared resources (tax) to provide a few kWh to the poorer at no charge. The Greek government plan is not to not subside your private datacenter.

You're using that term, "radical left-wing", but..

[Uberbah]

...it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.

"Radical left" would be seizing private property and nationalizing the means of production.

NOT staying on the Euro and vowing to pay back bank loans.

False Dichotomy

[Roger W Moore]

Why do we have to choose between capitalism and socialism? Both have their benefits and both have their problems but they are NOT mutually exclusive. Most countries used to have a progressive tax system with high rates of tax on high earners. CEOs and the like still made more money than the rest of us and did well for themselves but the higher taxes these people paid helped provide common services that we all used e.g. healthcare, transport infrastructure, free university education etc.

This system put both socialism and capitalism in balance. You have the freedom to use your (free) education to go an make money and will directly benefit yourself from doing that but society also benefits and uses the higher taxes you pay to educate the workers you employ, provide the infrastructure to transport the goods you make etc. The trick is to make sure that the high tax payers also benefit from how the taxes are spent even if they don't necessarily benefit as much.

Re:False Dichotomy

[sociocapitalist]

Sounds good to me :-)

  -- sociocapitalist

Re:"radical left-wing"

[Enry]

They call themselves "Coalition of the Radical Left", so since you're fine identifying them as 'radical left-wing' rather than their proper name, you seem to be part of the 'every'.

Re:Grow lights

[r.freeman]

Why do you want to "ID growers", must you be a little Hitler and poke nose in what other people do in own home?

Re:Grow lights

[7-Vodka]

Except that it's not actually 'free'. You understand this right?

Re: You should be aware that

[Baloroth]

Europe is composed of socialist countries and has been for about 60 years or so for the ones that weren't communist and the rest became socialist when the communist regime fell.

Believe it or not, governments are not black-and-white either/or systems. A government can have socialist systems without being primarily socialist. In the case of Europe, the means of production are still privately owned, mostly by rich capitalists or other individuals (shareholders) who have no direct connection to the government. That's the textbook definition of capitalism. To be socialist, the means of production would have to be mostly socialized (e.g. owned by a common group of some kind, such as the government, "the people", a central authority, etc), which they are not, in any of those governments. Not even remotely so.

Wouldn't that make them, NOT poor?

[jfdavis668]

Pay the poor to host servers, would mean that they are no longer poor. Unless you plan on not paying them much.

there's a limit to it too.

[gl4ss]

running clouds in basement would put you over the limit.

like, what was the poster thinking and skipping over even a cursory glance of the articles? what purpose would it serve anyhow? unlimited free electricity in a corruption rife country? only if you steal it. I guess a few people do it like that already...

GIVING PEOPLE FREE MONEY is the whole fucking reason greece is in the dire straits it is(effective 4 day workweek, too much public servants, no private industry, too big military just sitting on it's ass serving no purpose whatsoever, people getting certified as being blind for benefits and continuing to work as a taxi driver and all that) and the populistic new government is very soon going to be very non popular after it stops giving free stuff after it runs out of money. it's like entire party just ignored how the world runs and got elected into power, they're acting like they're fucking venezuela, so really it would be better if they made an example of themselves, got out of the euro and started printing their own money no other country gave a fuck about thus leading to hyperinflation and total fuckage of all their money. they're like little kids when it comes to economy and really seem to think(majority anyways) that they can just stop saving money(austerity) by decision, as if their money came from a magical source. the whole point of the austerity measures is to stop the shit hitting the fan and to keep their police, hospitals and other public services operational enough to keep the country running...

"Which gets me to thinking..."

[Zhe Mappel]

Which gets me to thinking: with free electricity, wouldn't that be a great business opportunity, to build a cloud of servers in poorer Greeks' basements? Maybe that is the real plan behind the free electricity idea.

Hyuk-yuk.

It's not "thinking," you tone-deaf dolt, to joke about a nation that's suffering a severe depression. Your crack has the moral value of someone saying, "Say, 9-10 would have been a great day to short the airplane industry, har-de-har!"

It's simply you hanging your autism out before the entire board.

Re:Grow lights

[qpqp]

So you're saying this doesn't happen anymore?

Re: You should be aware that

[Kjella]

The fundamental idea of socialism was that the state would nationalize and own the means of production like factories so the workers got a fair share of the profits, at least that's the theory. Despite having a large public sector the vast majority is still on private hands and if anything the government is increasingly purchasing services from the private industry rather than provide them itself. For example most the public transportation around here? Contracts with private suppliers. The public garbage collection? Contracts with private suppliers. Building public roads? Contracts with private suppliers.

Yes, there's is a much stronger redistribution strategy in Europe in that we tax the rich and give universal services to the poor, but the way we've implemented it is nothing like Karl Marx imagined. Instead of taking over the economy we've built a welfare state with collective bargaining based on the market economy setting the trend and public sector wages following. It's definitively got its issues, but I feel they're usually far more social in form of a nanny state than economical.

It cost...

[Bartles]

...somebody something to produce it somewhere, didn't it?

Re:"radical left-wing"

[ScentCone]

So... your problem is with the word "wing?" Regardless, the article and the discussion is about the newly elected government of Greece. You're still the only person here saying "every" about anything. Are you really that confused about this?

most offensive post on Slashdot this week

[raymorris]

You're saying that someone choosing to work in order to get paid is what slavery is. That's got to be the most ignorant and offensive post on Slashdot. Slaves don't get a choice, and don't get paid. GP's suggestion is "if you want to get paid, work".

  Go read a paragraph about what slavery actually is, you entitled little whiny prick.

  >. public is blaming the poor for being poor. Well, the rich can't have it both ways. Either they're The Job Creators, and they are failures at creating jobs,

Or in my town of 150,000, there are over 200 jobs listed in the want ads, and a few people who choose not to work a legitimate job since their needs will be met by other people, while they spend their "under the table" money on stupid play things.

Re:most offensive post on Slashdot this week

[drinkypoo]

You're saying that someone choosing to work in order to get paid is what slavery is.

Congratulations, you just failed the reading comprehension test. Please leave slashdot, and do not return.

Or in my town of 150,000, there are over 200 jobs listed in the want ads, and a few people who choose not to work a legitimate job

I don't know what town you live in, and I'm not going to do a detailed analysis of those 200 jobs, but odds are severely against all of them even being real job postings that people are expecting to fill. Even if we take them all as being real jobs, what makes you think that the jobless people in your town are even qualified to perform them? Of the qualified people, how many of them do you think would actually be hired, and how many do you think would not be hired for some reason unrelated to their ability to perform the work duties?

Where I live, most of the jobs posted are things that you can't learn to do in this town. And once you get out into the wide world and learn to do those things, you sure as fuck aren't coming back here.

while they spend their "under the table" money on stupid play things.

If corporations had to pay their taxes, and couldn't just spirit the money away to other nations, then that money would both stay in the country and itself produce tax revenues.

Austerity Makes It Worse

[JimSadler]

Austerity is a simple minded proposition at best. Suppose you were living in Greece and needed to buy a pair of shoes from a greek shoemaker. Because you are unemployed you can't make the purchase. But if you were given money the shoemaker could pay taxes, make a living and hire a helper who would also pay taxes. Austerity simply deepens the cycle of poverty not only for poor people but also for business owners. What voters do is equate their own method of staying afloat with societies need to prosper. Fot a citizen it is true that if one earns more and spends less he will do better. But that does not work for a nation.

Re:Austerity Makes It Worse

[BobandMax]

Who provides the money given to the shoemaker?

Chill out capital of the world?

[seoras]

Free electricity probably has most of us thinking "weed farms".
Given the huge sales and startup investment (Snoop Dog et al) are pouring into the US States that have legalised Cannabis Greece could be sitting on a potential gold mine.
A large part of the Greek economy is tourism, its long been a big favourite summer destination for many northern Europeans.
Legalise it, tax it moderately and coin it in.
Greece has the perfect climate for growing it outdoors too, so no need for the free electricity.
You can just see the other EU member states being utterly appalled at that action.
They NEED something to differentiate and kick start their economy.

Re:Chill out capital of the world?

[seoras]

I don't think anyone would care.... ;)

What?

[rebelwarlock]

Which gets me to thinking: with free electricity, wouldn't that be a great business opportunity, to build a cloud of servers in poorer Greeks' basements? Maybe that is the real plan behind the free electricity idea.

How the fuck did you even make that logical leap?

Most stupid and offtopic article ever

[dogganos]

It is obvious to anybody that 'free electricity' just means say 500 kwatts per month free. So what's the point of all the fuss?

server farm

[giorgosts]

The scheme is intended to benefit the poor who live in austerity. The power cap is not going to be above 10 amps

They'll never learn do they?

[Barryke]

Them Greeks never learn do they? No wonder that country is going bankrupt recursively infinitely. Thats going to cost them a lot of electricity..

Re: You should be aware that

[umafuckit]

Erm... I don't think Britain is socialist. Thatcher? It's currently being ruled by a right wing government who would love scrap the NHS.

Retarded

[LordWabbit2]

Free electricity is retarded, they did it here and now we have Rolling blackouts
Arguably it's also due to mismanagement (they put ditch diggers in charge).
There is nothing wrong with the poor people sitting in the dark, they need to get up early to dig ditches anyway. Also since they can't watch TV they end up breeding more, so we can have more ditches dug.

if done by sane people this could work

[dominux]

The initial plan of austerity meant huge unemployment and poverty, paying off debt as fast as possible whilst the economy tanked, making it harder and harder to pay off the debt. This isn't a great plan for anyone involved including the creditors.
A revised plan which involves jobs and productivity and increasing their ability to pay would be a plausible way out. If they want a restructuring of the debt on the basis of giving free electricity to poor people I can't see what is in it for the creditors. Raising the minimum wage is a fairly neutral thing to do, it cuts some rubbish jobs and increases the value of some more reasonable jobs, in itself it isn't a huge deal either way in terms of repaying the debt (or making the debt more affordable, nobody actually wants the debt repaid, they just want it to be reliably serviced)

Re:Why isn't the government printing its...

[ledow]

What do you think printing your own money is?

And do you think printing tons of your own money as a country is also free? Minting of any kind has a massive cost associated with it.

Additionally, the website is bollocks. Creation of an IOU is the basis of all monies (go read what it says on a GBP10 note... "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of" - it's a promisary note). All money is IOU/promisary money. It doesn't actually exist because money is merely a concept where representative practical items are designed to be representative of an intangible number (what happens if you go to the Bank of England and cash in that promisary note and demand they give you GBP for it? Nothing. Because GBP10 doesn't exist except as a number. This isn't a new thing, since the first coin of the Roman empire, it was used to represent something that didn't actually exist in physical form).

The numbers in your bank account are exactly the same. But they aren't "creating" funds from nowhere. They aren't just increasing your bank account by the price of your mortgage. That number MUST, by law, have come from somewhere - there's a reason that lawyers are involved in mortgage transactions, and a mortgage company will not accept "just a number" from a bank that doesn't have the backing to give that money.

And it make no difference if it did "create" it anyway (which it didn't). Because, somewhere, a debt of equivalent value is owed to them. When that debt is paid, the money is returned. However, trading in debts is complicated economics that ordinary people just don't get. The banks can even sell your debt to other organisations. But the money from your debt doesn't "exist" until you pay it. However, you're in a legal agreement to provide that money, so it will be guaranteed (to an extent) to exist. Similar debts are what enables the banks to provide you money that doesn't exist. This is the way anything banking-wise works, and even governments are basically living off money that doesn't exist as cash, and will only exist in the future because of debt payments. This is where complicated economics take over and the guy in the street goes "Duh, what?" because he doesn't understand it. And it's also the way money has worked since it's inception.

Sorry, but your whole post is just talking bollocks and claiming things that you aren't understanding properly. "Banks are evil", yeah. I get that. But claiming that a cash-based society is more stable (when cash is a promisary note anyway), that numbers in an account can be manufactured without comeback, or that governments aren't creating cash out of thin air at greater expense anyway... it's bollocks.

Strangely, a global economy is more complicated than balancing your chequebook... (where a cheque is nothing more than a legal promise to pay a debt for its entire existence anyway).

(P.S. I have one bank account to store my wages in, I do not earn interest, I do not leave money in the bank at the end of the month, nor do I pay any kind of banking fee. I have no savings, no pensions, no investments, etc. When I had to fill out tax returns, 99.9% of the form was "ZERO" or "N/A" except for the income tab which was a single number. I have no love for banks, whatsoever. But you're talking bollocks).

Re: You should be aware that

[AmiMoJo]

The fundamental idea of socialism was that the state would nationalize and own the means of production like factories so the workers got a fair share of the profits, at least that's the theory.

No, that's Marxism. Socialism, as practised in Europe, is the recognition that some things are better done collectively by the people (e.g. healthcare), and that society and law should work in the interests of the people and not corporations. Of course, often having successful corporations aligns with the interests of society, within certain constraints (e.g. not causing massive pollution or ripping people off), but ultimately socialism in practice is things like strong employment laws and consumer protection.

In the US things like employment law has to be made by unions bribing politicians or collectively bargaining. Consumers are "protected" by filing lawsuits. A large part of that has been replaced by European societies simply making much of that stuff the law, because hay it's our law and we get to decide how it will work, and it's better for us to do it collectively instead of all individually.

bad idea

[Hognoxious]

with free electricity, wouldn't that be a great business opportunity, to build a cloud of servers in poorer Greeks' basements?

No. They'd steal them.

From a tax paying Greek

[kangelos]

As a tax paying Greek working in the private sector and paying nearly 50% tax rate I can tell you that I am severely underwhelmed by all these freebies. For one I have to pay through the nose for a multi-myriad non productive public sector employees who never get fired even if they commit murder, now I have also got to pay for all the people who got exorbitant loans to buy posh homes and Tsipras will now right off their loans, and of course for free electricity to be the afforementioned peoples. Quite frankly I should have emmigrated a long time ago rather than live in this new found post-apocalyptic socialist utopia of Greece, and to think that I considered myself a leftist some years ago.

Bailout...shmailout

[rainer_d]

AFAIK 11% of the bail-out money went to Greece, 89% went to creditor-banks.

Mostly German banks, that is.
And I say that as a German myself (though I don't live there anymore and as such don't really pay into the "system" much anymore - I'm in a financially much more responsible country now).

The "bailout" was a nice way to help shift that debt from private corporations to the public (=tax-payer) - and look good doing so.
If Greece doesn't want any more "rescue-plans" like this, they actually don't lose much money. But their creditors will stop receiving money from IMF&Co. This amounts to a de-facto "default" and will stop the influx of capital almost completely.
I do believe it's impossible for Greece to pay back the amount of debt they have. Not in a hundred years.
It takes two to tango - when Greece joined the European Monetary Union, apparently "everybody" knew their numbers where cooked from the beginning.
Politicians can't pay back the money but at least an effort should be made to make them accountable in front of history!

It is not as simple

[aepervius]

Some service are socialistic in nature because not having them would break us all. Fire service for example or community security (police for example). So de-facto you have socialistic services in the USA too. The philosophical divide is how many of such socialistic service we need. Western europe more or less added social medicine to that common list, whereas some politician in the USA are viewing that as the apocalypse and are trying to brake such action by all means.

Bottom line you are already using socialistic service. You are in a society. Not an anarchy. Society have for basis that some common understanding and service will be shared. Stop making it as if it was only "pinko communist" which had socialistic shared services.

Re: You should be aware that

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain isn't socialist. Where did you get that crap from? New Labour was anything but, they were clearly a centre party when they were in power because the Conservatives drifted too far right and got lost.Labour haven't been left-wing since the 80s when they couldn't get a sniff of power.

Britain's VAT is set to the EU level. It used to be 10% lower before the single EU market was pushed through by the Germans and French.

The difference between the US and larger EU countries is the US allows monopolies to control markets such as TV, Internet and mobile and goes out of their way to create local laws that prevent others coming into the market. Why? Because the US corporation is happy to bribe people to have them ensure it happens. That said, Europe is going down the US route and letting companies vacuum up rivals, killing competition, stifling innovation and controlling the market. It just takes longer.

Re:So we're right then

[ScentCone]

So you concede the point that a mixed system of socialist and capitalist policies will work and work damned well.

No, I'm saying it's surprising how well the burden of a confiscatory entitlement state can still be carried by the underlying engine of market economics, even when that source of productivity is being deliberately damaged in order to allow a professional class of redistributionist bureaucrats to preserve their jobs through populist elections where clueless voters voice their desire for free stuff, with no thought to how it's all actually created and sustained, and by whom.

Re:"radical left-wing"

[Enry]

No, but you seem to be.

Re: You should be aware that

[sociocapitalist]

Europe is composed of socialist countries and has been for about 60 years or so for the ones that weren't communist and the rest became socialist when the communist regime fell. Germany? Socialist. France? Socialist. Sweden, the land of Ikea, Swedish meatballs, and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? Socialist. Britain, that bastion of capitalism? Socialist. That big ass VAT they pay in Britain? That's to support their socialist regime. Take a look at the health care and welfare systems provided by the European countries. They're socialist.

Taking into account things like technology available to the common people, things like internet access and mobile phone technology, I would have to say that things are a hell of lot better than in the U.S.

So how exactly have they failed?

Not to mention medical care and education...

Nope, there will be limits

[kurkosdr]

I can tell you the government is not going to give "unlimited" electricity for free. There is going to be some Kwh limit defined as "more than enough to power a household". Because, otherwise everyone will allow the neighbouring MiniMarket to connect their fridges to the appartment's outlets, for a small amount of money paid to the appartment owner. Also, the new PM also promised free food (aka food stamps) for the poor people, but this doesn't mean they will be able to park a truck outside and start loading as much food they want.

ZOMG, The Illiteracy, It Burns!

[luis_a_espinal]

Germany sure has a lot of State Owned Enterprise for a country that's not Socialist.

Goddammit, we have a lot illiterate people in this country.

This is the thing. Lots of state owned enterprise =/= socialism. That is barely a requirement for it, and it is in no way contradictory of capitalism.

Socialism, in its most general term, pushes a preference for public (social) ownership of production over private ownership. I challenge anyone to show me that this is the general trend in Germany (or even the Scandinavian countries.)

... and no, I'm not a proponent of socialism. I'm free market/private ownership all the way. I lived under socialism and it sucks, but I also know what is and what it is not. It is not what the pseudo-conservative idiot masses of this country say it is.

Re:ZOMG, The Illiteracy, It Burns!

[Bartles]

Yeah, sorry. Social ownership does not mean that individuals and regular people get to own production. It means that the State nationalizes it and "takes care of it with the peoples best interest in mind".

Makes Cents!

[DarthVain]

This actually makes a lot of sense, not sure why more countries including my own don't do it. Probably because even the poor here are energy hogs. Anyway not only is it a good way to help those at the bottom of the earning power allowing them to spend on other things, without promoting electricity waste (because it is effectively capped). It also great from the standpoint of the energy companies. At a certain point, all that billing and collection and accounts is a waste of time for them due to the values involved. Not to mention, but lets face it, a lot of poor default on their bills for obvious reasons, then going after debts, collection services, forgiving debt, admin overhead etc... I am pretty sure they would LOVE the government to cover that, as it is secured money, and they know they will always get paid...

Of course this is Greece we are talking about so maybe not! :) Badda Boom Boom! Try the veal!

radical ?

[Tom]

radical left-wing government's policies

Only to americans and those with zero sense of history.

I've been following this development with interest for a while. A few of his moves are unusual, some calculatedly so, but most of his politics would not have raised an eyebrow in Europe 20-30 years ago.

Only after the neoconservative demolition of the mix of social and market politics that made Europe successful after WW2, we see moderate desires for social equality as "radical left-wing". Really? Minimum salary that makes you not live on the streets? Refusing to cut jobs and reduce government spending that has been proven for several years to reduce GDP and destroy the local economy, aka your chance to pay back the debt?

The greeks are in a trap. They are in debt like crazy, but how much debit is "allowed" by EU regulations is calculated based on GDP. If the measures to save money also reduce the GDP, your "allowed" debt shrinks, making you be more over the allowed limit, even though you reduced your actual debt. Anyone with three brain cells should realize this path leads to nowhere and a different path is required. But the Troika did nothing but raise the pressure, so what else were the greeks to do?

Re: You should be aware that

[angel'o'sphere]

Except for Scandinavia, non of the countries above is 'socialist'.
Take a look at the health care and welfare systems provided by the European countries. They're socialist.
No, they are not socialist. No idea why people always want to use that word.
In germany universal healthcare, pension and I believe even unemployment insurance (and universal duty for kids to go to school) was introduced by Otto von Bismarck, somewhere around 1910. At the high prime of the industrialization with all its capitalistic problems.
Having universal health care and other 'nice things' does not make a country socialist.

It's easy to share what you don't have

[lucm]

unlikely. I would retire after somewhere around 6 weeks and my short tenure would be spent redistributing our insane fortune among our 100 employees.

Khrushchev meets a farmer just outside Moscow.

Khrushchev: If you had a billion diamonds, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Of course.
Khrushchev: If you had one thousand mansions, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Of course.
Khrushchev: If you had one hundred cars, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Of course.
Khrushchev: If you had ten chickens, would you share them with all your Soviet comrades?
Farmer: Absolutely not!
Khrushchev: If you are ready to share expensive objects, why wouldn't you share simple chickens?
Farmer: Because right now I have ten chickens and I'm keeping them.

Enough already

[harryjohnston]

You know what another word for free-as-in-beer is?

Free.

Re:Grow lights

[theArtificial]

A downside is the spectrum produced. One experiment involves using multiple lights (different varieties) and see which the girls prefer.

Re: You should be aware that

[shutdown -p now]

Scandinavia is not really socialist, either. Higher taxes and more welfare, yes, but that doesn't make socialism.

Re:You're using that term, "radical left-wing", bu

[shutdown -p now]

They're using the term "radical left" because that's what Syriza means - it's an acronym for "Coalition of Radical Left".

Re:Grow lights

[ganjadude]

yes, most LED lights for that have multiple spectrum involved, they like different spectrum for different points of growing anyway so it really works out

Re:You're using that term, "radical left-wing", bu

[Uberbah]

Do you call China a democracy because it's officially the "People's Republic of China"? If Chomsky called himself right wing, or Cheney said he was a socialist, would that make it so?

Again, radical left would mean seizing not just the means of production, but property as well. Syriza isn't proposing anything remotely close to that.

Re:You're using that term, "radical left-wing", bu

[shutdown -p now]

I don't call China a democracy, but I do refer to them as the PRC, because that is the name that they have established for themselves - even if I have serious doubts about both the "people's" and the "republic" parts of it. so why is it strange to call a party that refers to itself as "Radical Left" by name?

Anyway, the parties that make the coalition include some hardline lefties, to the point of self-identifying as communists. Those certainly do have what you're talking about as part of their corresponding political platforms. And their prime minister has a communist background.

As far as the coalition as a single entity goes, we can't really say much because they have just got power. We'll see where they steer from here.

Re: You should be aware that

[angel'o'sphere]

Yeah, sorry, I did not write the sentence correctly. Of course they are not. In another post I called them a 'middle way'.