No, that doesn't work. In the EU, you claim your unemployment benefits in the country you last worked.
It isn't clear whether countries like Germany are obligated to pay welfare under EU law, so obtaining benefits is likely to be difficult for out of work EU citizens coming to Germany. If a significant number of Greeks were doing this, it would simply mean that the laws would get changed and/or that Greece would get booted out of the EU entirely. Neither France nor Germany would be willing to pay welfare for people who didn't pay into their systems.
Sorry, I hadn't realized how stupid your suggestion was and how ignorant you were of European rules.
Claiming that a UI of a service that is often free and has thousands of competitors is "ruining someone's life" is just stupid. If you don't like a UI, don't use it. In fact, there are plenty of UIs for mail and other services that have changed hardly at all in a decade; just use those.
How about encouraging unemployed Greeks to move to Germany or France.
That was what European integration was supposed to enable, and labor mobility is essential for a functioning integrated market.
But labor mobility is pretty limited in Europe by vast cultural differences and differences in job requirements. Even if you manage to get a job in Germany as a Greek, you will always be treated as a second class citizen.
can we switch the generic "Greeks" to "Greek politicians"?
That would be wrong; politicians are not the primary beneficiaries.
The main beneficiaries are likely to have been the usual large special interests: public sector employees, pensioners, home owners, welfare recipients, doctors, lawyers, well-connected businesses, and a few other common and powerful groups.
Because in the US, politics is such that there is a will for one part of the country to sacrifice for another part of the country; in part, that's because people can actually move and work freely across the US, not just in theory, but in practice.
In Europe, Greece is effectively a completely separate culture, nation, and people from Germany or France; the Germans and French have no interest or motivation to make sacrifices for the Greeks.
Notably, austerity tends to shut down the economy, which will only lead to further financial insolvency.
If a reduction in government spending "shuts down the economy", you didn't have much of an economy to begin with.
You never give an order which you know will not be followed.
The EU isn't "ordering" Greece to do anything. The EU is saying "if you want to borrow more money in the future and stay in the Euro, you need to do the following..." Greece is always free to say "fuck you" and leave.
The real question isn't why the EU isn't cutting its losses and just kicks Greece out. Financially, that's the right thing to do. But many politicians would lose face, and the fact that the entire EU structure is built on sand would become apparent.
The Greek financial issue is not about how much money they are getting, but what they are going to do in the future. Germany was an occupied country with a strongly capitalist and free market economy and a great deal of fiscal responsibility. Greece is a sovereign nation that's flip-flopping between left and right wing extremism and is fiscally utterly irresponsible.
You're equivocating about the term "racism", using the term on the one hand to refer to the existence of small extremist groups, and on the other hand to refer to effects that supposedly affect everybody who contains even a small amount of African American ancestry. The two uses of the term "racism" have no logical connection.
The reason Germany didn't have any money wasn't ongoing excessive borrowing and wasteful spending, as in the case of Greece, it was that Germany was devastated after the war. And Germany was effectively occupied and run by the allies for decades after the war. So, giving it money represented an investment that has paid off, and the people giving the money to Germany had plenty of control over how the country was run.
The reason Greece doesn't have any money is excessive borrowing and wasteful spending. Forgiving their debt isn't going to make them any more responsible, and they are not occupied. And, in fact, Greek debt will have to be forgiven one way or another; what people are really negotiating about is whether Greece is willing to make the necessary changes to borrow again in the future, and they obviously aren't.
Now that they're bordering on default, I'd be okay with them paying in dirt. Maybe 10x the value of the land, or 1/10th their area. Or at least putting that on the table to light their fires and maybe scare them into doing something financially responsible for once.
How would that help? Greece is still a sovereign state and they can screw their land owners in many ways.
It's time for Greece to default, have its debt wiped and be left to recover. That will mean some European banks lose a lot of money.
Another consequence is that banks and private investors will view European government debt as more risky. That increases the cost of borrowing for Greece and for the rest of the EU. Since European governments are addicted to borrowing, that's a serious political problem for them. And Greece itself will still face much stiffer austerity than under any official "austerity measures".
It's the right thing to do, but it is something European political classes dread because it threatens to destroy the entire financial illusion that Europe is built on.
You are mistaken; money is created out of nothing every day in the private sector. Total mortgage debt was $10.6 trillion in the US in 2007; but derivatives based on that debt were $62 trillion. ( Source: The Rise and Fall of the U.S. Mortgage and Credit Markets [vanderbilt.edu].) The difference is pure money creation by the private sector.
Think of those derivatives as lottery tickets. A typical lottery ticket is worth neither the $10 million jackpot, nor even the $5 you paid for it, it is worth a few cents. No money got created at all, and most people aren't even getting what they paid for for their ticket. And whether you know that you bought a lottery ticket or erroneously thought that you made an investment doesn't change the situation either.
While you're right about the courts being the final arbitrators, the corporations can be the ones who petition the courts for a ruling.
They can, and they do. That's why the major tech companies keep trying to push the envelope on encryption and being transparent about government requests. But if they step out of line too much with what the administration wants, they likely get in trouble.
Penguinoid's cynicism and criticism of corporations was unwarranted: it's not the job of corporations to do anything, but they are actually trying to do a lot for privacy.
The UK has a Constitution, though some of it is unwritten
Well, whatever. Point is: privacy protections vis-a-vis government are very weak in Europe, and European government control over private enterprise is extremely strong. So, again, people are getting lousy privacy because of the people they are voting for.
The UK doesn't have a constitution. Much of continental Europe has constitutions that allow pretty much arbitrary spying on citizens given the right governmental excuses.
Whether it is "legitimate" is for the courts to determine, not up to your whims or the whims of corporations.
Finally, it is completely unreasonable to complain that corporations aren't fighting these battles for the people. Even though many corporations would actually like to fight for privacy, but they simply don't have the power and they are far too vulnerable to pressure by the administration.
The ISPs don't care about their clients' privacy -- what they're objecting to is all the expensive hardware to gather and store all those records.
Sorry to rain in on your parade of self-righteous indignation, but why exactly should they do anything else? A democratically elected government tells them to spy on their customers, the same democratically elected government that tells them to ban smoking, to reduce carbon emissions, and to add safety features to their products; do you advocate that corporations should pick and choose which of those regulations they should comply with and which they shouldn't based on their own political or moral preferences?
Unless you're a minarchist or anarchist, don't complain if corporations willingly comply with government directives just because you dislike the particular government directives.
If you can't understand the danger of flying an upside down lawnmower with no safety guards over a crowd of people, which by the way is against the current FAA regulations
I didn't say that it wasn't dangerous nor that drones should be permitted to fly anytime anywhere.
I pointed out that your your statement of "jackasses seem to keep ruining it for everyone" makes no sense. That phrase implies that an activity becomes illegal even for people who would use it responsibly because a few people are doing something irresponsible. But, as you point out yourself, it didn't take jackasses doing anything, these activities were "ruined for everybody" long before.
then you are part of the problem.
And you seem just the kind of person who is itching to implement the final solution.
Nothing will convince you, or even make you think, given what a bigot and partisan you are. So, whether anything is "convincing" to you is pretty much irrelevant to me.
How is that "ruining it for everybody"? What does that have to do with the FAA? The art show was private property, and the property owner could have and should have stopped the use of the drone.
What's "ruining it for everybody" is that knee jerk reactions like yours based on local incidents cause politicians and regulators to pass knee jerk regulations that apply uniformly across the country, regardless of local circumstance, and give police another excuse to stop and hassle people.
Pretty much true in an "at will" State. Many, of not most, States are NOT "at will" States.
Even in "at will" states, there are so many other employment protection laws that firing people for no cause is extremely legally risky, and usually incurs other costs. In addition, you can't see the firing in isolation, you need to consider the cost of firing and hiring someone else together.
But it is his work that is important, regardless of this.
TFA isn't about his work, it's about: "In Response to Open Letter, France Rejects Asylum For Julian Assange".
Hahaha. You jest right? You complain that one man may be cherry picking what secret documents he reveals
I didn't "complain", I corrected you. You stated that Assange's personal agenda didn't matter to his work at all. I pointed out that it very much does.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that doesn't work. In the EU, you claim your unemployment benefits in the country you last worked.
It isn't clear whether countries like Germany are obligated to pay welfare under EU law, so obtaining benefits is likely to be difficult for out of work EU citizens coming to Germany. If a significant number of Greeks were doing this, it would simply mean that the laws would get changed and/or that Greece would get booted out of the EU entirely. Neither France nor Germany would be willing to pay welfare for people who didn't pay into their systems.
Sorry, I hadn't realized how stupid your suggestion was and how ignorant you were of European rules.
Claiming that a UI of a service that is often free and has thousands of competitors is "ruining someone's life" is just stupid. If you don't like a UI, don't use it. In fact, there are plenty of UIs for mail and other services that have changed hardly at all in a decade; just use those.
That was what European integration was supposed to enable, and labor mobility is essential for a functioning integrated market.
But labor mobility is pretty limited in Europe by vast cultural differences and differences in job requirements. Even if you manage to get a job in Germany as a Greek, you will always be treated as a second class citizen.
No, not alien at all. That's very much the direction that the US is heading, primarily courtesy of progressives and Democrats.
That would be wrong; politicians are not the primary beneficiaries.
The main beneficiaries are likely to have been the usual large special interests: public sector employees, pensioners, home owners, welfare recipients, doctors, lawyers, well-connected businesses, and a few other common and powerful groups.
Because in the US, politics is such that there is a will for one part of the country to sacrifice for another part of the country; in part, that's because people can actually move and work freely across the US, not just in theory, but in practice.
In Europe, Greece is effectively a completely separate culture, nation, and people from Germany or France; the Germans and French have no interest or motivation to make sacrifices for the Greeks.
"Democracy" is a wide range of forms of government, some of which work well, others of which work poorly, and yet others of which are downright evil.
Yes, and AIG got that money because they made a credible argument that they could pay it back (as they indeed did).
That kind of "credible plan" is what the EU demands and what Greece refuses to provide, complaining that it would be too much "austerity".
If a reduction in government spending "shuts down the economy", you didn't have much of an economy to begin with.
The EU isn't "ordering" Greece to do anything. The EU is saying "if you want to borrow more money in the future and stay in the Euro, you need to do the following..." Greece is always free to say "fuck you" and leave.
The real question isn't why the EU isn't cutting its losses and just kicks Greece out. Financially, that's the right thing to do. But many politicians would lose face, and the fact that the entire EU structure is built on sand would become apparent.
The Greek financial issue is not about how much money they are getting, but what they are going to do in the future. Germany was an occupied country with a strongly capitalist and free market economy and a great deal of fiscal responsibility. Greece is a sovereign nation that's flip-flopping between left and right wing extremism and is fiscally utterly irresponsible.
You're equivocating about the term "racism", using the term on the one hand to refer to the existence of small extremist groups, and on the other hand to refer to effects that supposedly affect everybody who contains even a small amount of African American ancestry. The two uses of the term "racism" have no logical connection.
The reason Germany didn't have any money wasn't ongoing excessive borrowing and wasteful spending, as in the case of Greece, it was that Germany was devastated after the war. And Germany was effectively occupied and run by the allies for decades after the war. So, giving it money represented an investment that has paid off, and the people giving the money to Germany had plenty of control over how the country was run.
The reason Greece doesn't have any money is excessive borrowing and wasteful spending. Forgiving their debt isn't going to make them any more responsible, and they are not occupied. And, in fact, Greek debt will have to be forgiven one way or another; what people are really negotiating about is whether Greece is willing to make the necessary changes to borrow again in the future, and they obviously aren't.
How would that help? Greece is still a sovereign state and they can screw their land owners in many ways.
Another consequence is that banks and private investors will view European government debt as more risky. That increases the cost of borrowing for Greece and for the rest of the EU. Since European governments are addicted to borrowing, that's a serious political problem for them. And Greece itself will still face much stiffer austerity than under any official "austerity measures".
It's the right thing to do, but it is something European political classes dread because it threatens to destroy the entire financial illusion that Europe is built on.
Think of those derivatives as lottery tickets. A typical lottery ticket is worth neither the $10 million jackpot, nor even the $5 you paid for it, it is worth a few cents. No money got created at all, and most people aren't even getting what they paid for for their ticket. And whether you know that you bought a lottery ticket or erroneously thought that you made an investment doesn't change the situation either.
They can, and they do. That's why the major tech companies keep trying to push the envelope on encryption and being transparent about government requests. But if they step out of line too much with what the administration wants, they likely get in trouble.
Penguinoid's cynicism and criticism of corporations was unwarranted: it's not the job of corporations to do anything, but they are actually trying to do a lot for privacy.
Well, whatever. Point is: privacy protections vis-a-vis government are very weak in Europe, and European government control over private enterprise is extremely strong. So, again, people are getting lousy privacy because of the people they are voting for.
The UK doesn't have a constitution. Much of continental Europe has constitutions that allow pretty much arbitrary spying on citizens given the right governmental excuses.
Whether it is "legitimate" is for the courts to determine, not up to your whims or the whims of corporations.
Finally, it is completely unreasonable to complain that corporations aren't fighting these battles for the people. Even though many corporations would actually like to fight for privacy, but they simply don't have the power and they are far too vulnerable to pressure by the administration.
Sorry to rain in on your parade of self-righteous indignation, but why exactly should they do anything else? A democratically elected government tells them to spy on their customers, the same democratically elected government that tells them to ban smoking, to reduce carbon emissions, and to add safety features to their products; do you advocate that corporations should pick and choose which of those regulations they should comply with and which they shouldn't based on their own political or moral preferences?
Unless you're a minarchist or anarchist, don't complain if corporations willingly comply with government directives just because you dislike the particular government directives.
I didn't say that it wasn't dangerous nor that drones should be permitted to fly anytime anywhere.
I pointed out that your your statement of "jackasses seem to keep ruining it for everyone" makes no sense. That phrase implies that an activity becomes illegal even for people who would use it responsibly because a few people are doing something irresponsible. But, as you point out yourself, it didn't take jackasses doing anything, these activities were "ruined for everybody" long before.
And you seem just the kind of person who is itching to implement the final solution.
Nothing will convince you, or even make you think, given what a bigot and partisan you are. So, whether anything is "convincing" to you is pretty much irrelevant to me.
How is that "ruining it for everybody"? What does that have to do with the FAA? The art show was private property, and the property owner could have and should have stopped the use of the drone.
What's "ruining it for everybody" is that knee jerk reactions like yours based on local incidents cause politicians and regulators to pass knee jerk regulations that apply uniformly across the country, regardless of local circumstance, and give police another excuse to stop and hassle people.
Even in "at will" states, there are so many other employment protection laws that firing people for no cause is extremely legally risky, and usually incurs other costs. In addition, you can't see the firing in isolation, you need to consider the cost of firing and hiring someone else together.
Hiring and firing are costly for businesses. Sorry if you don't understand why.
TFA isn't about his work, it's about: "In Response to Open Letter, France Rejects Asylum For Julian Assange".
I didn't "complain", I corrected you. You stated that Assange's personal agenda didn't matter to his work at all. I pointed out that it very much does.
I didn't say that it was illegal to fire people, I said that it had become costly. You really need to learn to read.