Re:Yea- we need the GPL or we won't get sources
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
No, on the hardware side there are lots and lots of companies that provide extensive technical documentation, for "free," under non-free licensing terms. Doing hardware development you use non-free datasheets and application notes all day long. Things like CPUs come with entire reference boards that are completely documented, and licensed to discourage re-use.
People get confused on this, because the same companies sell consumer devices and peripherals that come without any technical documentation, and they try to suppress that documentation when posted online by others. But the lower level devices are better documented. There is a good chance that a CPU will even have a "free" (non-libre) circuit simulator, because otherwise it is difficult to design the power delivery. Documentation alone isn't enough to design a motherboard in a cost-effective manner.
We don't need something external to "keep [us] afloat." We were, and we swam. We are, and we swim. We will be, and we will swim.
You've been here a fair number of years, and yet when it comes to understanding computers, you're still fresh and new.
Routers and watches are already counted under "embedded systems and servers." Routers, of course, bridging that gap completely.
Maybe the average user doesn't know to care about servers, but that is not the same thing as saying they're not important. There is lots of equipment in an ambulance that the average person doesn't know to value, even if it already saved their life.
If you're saying that linux users should care about how non-users feel about how many linux systems of value are in use, I'd have to say that even after all these years you don't understand the basics of why people use linux and where the value they claim to get is coming from. Notice, you don't have to agree to understand these things. You just have to know what you're arguing against. It seems to me like you've been here long to figure out, embedded systems using linux improves the system stability and general quality of linux systems. It is way more valuable than whatever Joe User has on his desktop. If there is some bug that affects that embedded system, an actual engineer from the company that makes it will file a bug report, and likely even submit a patch. I don't want a new paradigm, I don't want popular software, I want systems that work as reliably as an ATM or router.
As far as Scientology, this is just like it in the sense that you're badmouthing them both for no good reason. Even your proposed dialog that you place in the mouth of a Scientologist is just a fake conversation where you want to raise issues about their Faith in order to attack them, and they want to change the subject to something they think might provide common ground, or otherwise be more productive. A reader need not like or approve of Scientology in order to feel sympathetic to their imagined situation. And indeed, I doubt Ray Charles would have had any trouble rejecting arguments based in hatred and pejorative.
As for the last bit, you don't appear to be a cultist.
I very-much agree. I eat garden burgers because they taste like grains and vegetables mixed together and pan fried. Which is exactly what they are. They taste great. I hear people complain they don't taste like beef. If you don't want to eat beef, just "let go" of the flavor. You won't replace it. There are other good flavors available. There are other brands of vegetarian burger that try to mimic the meat flavor, but they don't taste nearly as good.
Generally people who miss the meat flavor just miss umami flavor. They should try some Japanese vegetarian dishes.
People who can't enjoy the foods they decide to choose to eat are... philosophically "special."
No, when they say it has "[multiple] the nutritional value of kale" your alarm bells should be going off, seriously. Nutritional value isn't a video game with a single score. Anybody who makes that claim, their whole spiel should be disregarded because it is just marketing crap-speak.
Dulce is higher in some things than kale, and lower than others. It has a substantially different nutrient profile.
They're not going to make healthy foods for you, because you don't really care very much. If you have to force yourself to eat vegetables, you obviously have negative thoughts towards them. Nothing that is healthy is going to taste different than the foods that you already prefer to reject; vegetables taste like the nutrients, there is no way around it. Anything with similar nutrient profiles that tastes different is going to be loaded down with huge amounts of sugar, processed oils, or artificial flavors.
The only way to enjoy eating healthy is to train your brain. "Healthy = good, unhealthy = bad. Good = Good, Bad = Bad." Right now your brain is saying, "Healthy = Good, Unhealthy = Bad, Good = Bad, Bad = Good." Just by changing the conscious part of how you think about your choices can change how you experience eating.
Hint: vegetables don't taste bad to humans unless they're trained to say so. It is psychosomatic. You're genetically programmed to enjoy healthy foods. If you haven't aligned your desires so that you subjectively prefer healthy foods, you won't eat a healthy diet, and if you did, it would stress you out which is unhealthy. If you believe you can't like healthy food, don't try, it is a waste of time and will fail. GMO isn't going to change what ascorbic acid tastes like, or any other nutrient. Adding nutrients to things change their flavor so that they taste more like the things that already had that nutrient.
You might want to fact-check the SS and medicare stuff.
That was already debunked a decade ago. It is not a matter of bankrupcy, it is a matter of small adjustments in payouts that would be forced.
Also, the US "debt" isn't loans that would be defaulted on. It can be managed very differently, and unilaterally. Also, we have a perfect credit history and in a true crisis we can refinance at will. US debt crisis would mean government austerity, because we have the history, courage, and constitutional credit payment obligations.
The German and French banks gave loans although they knew Greece couldn't pay back.
No, they gave loans that could only be repaid if Greece made specific economic reforms that were needed to fix systemic problems in their economy. Greece made the promises to change, didn't make the reforms, and so can't repay.
And like the rest of Europe is saying, they won't be able to restructure the debt without actually making the reforms that would work, but Greece refuses to try... even after promising to. It all worked in other countries, how is that an evil plot?
You seem to be arguing against the very concept of a stable nation-state. You're welcome to your views, but I don't see how the idea helps Greece if their goal is still to get handouts. Nobody is going to agree, and it doesn't generate income. It is just disconnected moralizing.
And no, the idea that a nation-state is responsible for its debts is not at all the same as attaching debt to a decedent. The words simply mean different things, the moral and philosophical concepts are different.
If you believe that putting Greece so deeply in debt is a harm against future Greek citizens, you should be calling for the Greek government officials responsible to be arrested, if they're not immune. They're the ones whose prerogatives created the situation. Germany didn't have control of the Greek economy, and if they did have the problem wouldn't exist the budget would be balanced.
Just because Greece's creditors don't want them to default (who doesn't want to be repaid what they were promised?) doesn't mean they want to see it happen for moralistic or symbolic reasons. They "don't want Greece to default" because they want them to make their payments, and make the reforms needed to make future payments. Simply giving them the debt as free money to prevent them from defaulting is a really silly idea. In what way does it benefit creditors?
You fail to comprehend. Living "within" your means doesn't mean you're saving, or that there is an imbalance. That is a failure of understanding, even though I'm using the words literally, and in the normal way.
It is living within your OWN means. It means to NOT spend more than you have. It doesn't mean you saved. And Germans saving doesn't cause somebody else to spend money they don't have. That is just incoherent nonsense and magical thinking.
It is not a zero-sum game where if Germans save money, money just appears for free in Greek bank accounts. Actually, Greeks could also save money. Everybody could save money. Or everybody could spend everything they have every month, and never save anything, and have frequent bouts of austere living, and yet still be within their means, and still have available credit.
Living within your means requires you to stop coveting what the Germans have built for themselves, and to accept that what you have built is what you have. If you want more, quite whining about what the Germans did for themselves and do something for yourselves.
And no, I am not "in credit" with the bank. I have credit, because in the past I have paid back what I borrowed. The bank is not in debt to me, because I didn't loan them any money. And I didn't deposit money in a bank that can't stand on its own feet without foreign support. If you stand on your head, unpaid loans don't turn into offers of credit.
You listed RPM, Gtk+, Gnome, systemd, PulseAudio, and NetworkManager. Aren't all of those still in active use? Aren't they all still some of the most popular solutions for what they do?
If that is failure, you didn't comprehend the story. It wasn't about things not being your personal favorite.
Then again, if you think RPM, Gtk, or systemd are "failures," you might be one of the people in the story.
Lennart is professional programmer who has had great success. You sound jealous. The software packages you list are actually the most used solutions, not failures. Failure doesn't mean, "I don't like it, waaaaa."
And I'm sure Lennart would tell you that applications are different than kernels, and you're comparing apples and oranges. I know he'd see that, because he's a programmer.
RedHat has huge resources, they have a war chest, they're not in trouble or "stuck with" anything. They've written software in the past that they don't still use. They're not known as being irrational or emotional, they're known for being the business-and-oss-friendly distro. They make pragmatic decisions.
Hate away. But remember, attacking the man is a logical fallacy, not a rational point. You will be understood accordingly.
They're just still confused by all this open source and free software stuff. They can't comprehend that I'm using software written by people, not by a company, that sales don't matter, and that it doesn't help me if they use the same software. They just can't comprehend that we would be able to tolerate linux "on the desktop" if we're less than 1% of users. To them that sounds like it is a "failure" because it isn't cool or popular. They just don't understand where our software comes from, and why having low overall end-user adoption doesn't impact us negatively, or prevent us from having new software.
After all, if a proprietary OS had the adoption rate of (end-user) linux, there would be almost no software being written for it, and you couldn't use it for most general business tasks.
Yes, we know. Western powers help only western powers. That's the whole point of this argument. It's not about money, it's about power.
Then why all the whining and coveting of our assets? If you already knew we're worried about our own needs, and you know Greece hasn't been looking out for us, why would we sweep in to spend our hard-earned money on people who claim that money is free and don't know how we got it, and constantly accuse us of having just waved our hands and made it all appear?
Distant wars generate local trade, that's something not less than nothing. A war between Europe and Greece would be great for the US, because we'd end up getting to drop most of the bombs, and getting most the industrial activity increase.
If the Greeks were smart enough to build something, bombs, cars, whatever, they would have economic output. Understand, Greece doesn't have enough money for anybody to make a significant amount stealing it.;) Germany doesn't waste their time plotting the destruction of Greece. The loans were a favor. You don't like loans, when asked to repay according to agreed terms? Good, you won't have any more evil loans forced on you, for hundreds of years. You're welcome.
Greeks think themselves so important that they might endanger the economies of France and Germany when they immolate their credit, but actually France and Germany are trustworthy economic partners of many nations and will have no trouble surviving the Greek tragedy. The Greek suffering is just beginning, now the current generations will have to learn something most of the world understands already; living within your means is not an inconvenient suggestion, it is the difference between a wish and dinner.
We don't criticize for them asking, we criticize for them whining and demanding after they're reminded they have awful credit and aren't trustworthy.
The only defense to accusations of untrustworthiness is payment of debts. Instead they threaten to default if the debts are not simply forgiven, and demand payment of tithes.
"And we Americans financed the whole thing. You're welcome."
Should you guys be financing things with your 1 trillion dollar debt?
Yes. We have the world's best credit, we have always paid our debts and by our own laws we must. It would be illegal for us to default.
And our GDP is $17 Trillion. A debt of $1T would be well within our means. But generally it is regarded as higher. But it isn't loans. We didn't take out loans. We issue government bonds. Which we pay back 100% of the time.
That is why the US is doing well, and Greece is about to crash and burn. We pay back whatever we say we will, so can simply issue bonds and people value them even more than loan contracts from another nation. Greece, on the other hand, pays back nothing, their word is so bad they're claiming the Germans shouldn't have ever believed anything they say, and they have to make up weird conspiracy theories to deny the root cause of their financial problems.
"Live withing your means" is a saying like "for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction," or "don't count your chickens before they hatch." It is a simple matter of understanding the nature of the physical world, and accepting what you have successfully achieved before the current moment in time. If you don't like what you've achieved, the only solution is to achieve more. Decide how to build what is desired. Don't wait for the world to hand you wealth, we will not. We have our own real living to spend our means.
Central banks are not funded by taxpayers. The IMF for example was funded by the US in a budget-neutral manner, as an exchange of assets. Translation: the IMF's money is created out of thin air. That the IMF won't give Greece any of their created money is shameful, sociopathic, criminal, and utterly unnecessary.
That was the first post to show actual insight into the situation.
There will always be somebody who thinks that an equal exchange of assets means the other guy gives them free money, and they give back insults and moralizing.
Even if the money was printed and then given to the IMF, the moment the money was printed, the value it has came from devaluing all of the other money in circulation.
This is only true in an economy that's already working at 100% capacity. That hasn't been the case for a long time now. In the current situation of idling economy some actor getting more money will likely simply activate idle production capacity, which will actually increase the size of the market and the value of existing money.
Of course, the whole idea that supply exceeding demand can cause a crisis speaks for the absurdity of the entire economic system. It might be best to focus efforts on coming up with its replacement.
If that was true, the last bailout would have created a bunch of economic activity and Greece would be paying back their loans now. Maybe it isn't that simple. Maybe there more parts needed for a working national economy than just "free" short-term money.;)
If you want free money, just find some toilet tissue and write dollar signs on it. It will have the exact same purchasing power as any other "free" money. If you think US dollars are free money, that explains why nobody gives you any.;)
It is sortof like a "payday loan" center. It is possible that you really do just need money temporarily, separately from having bad credit, and that whatever loan you get you'll repay. But the rate is very low. Most of those people are lying to get loans for other reasons than that, like they simply wasted all their money without saving enough for rent. Those people will later fail for sure.
Economies are already destroyed in reality before a country comes for an IMF loan. No country should ever ask for such a loan other than to fund a reform/austerity setup that will recover the economy eventually. If they actually just wasted all their money, aren't going to actually impose internal changes, and just want to patch up their budget for another month, well that will fail because now they took a high interest loan and they have less money. Their usable income went down because their overhead went up, because they couldn't control their short-term urge to spend. Unfortunately, most countries that ask for IMF loans don't have a real plan, they just lie about having a plan and a budget but they don't intend to follow it.
The answer, obviously, is just to stop loaning to desperate countries. Then they'll beg and cry for somebody to create an IMF to loan money to them at the high rates they can justify with their bad credit. Then you can see, blaming the IMF for consensual loans that are only initiated by the borrower applying in the first place... pretty weak thinking.
You think the US economy uses fake money, and we create it out of thin air, because you don't have to reply on those dollars to support your nation.
You might be well advised to discover that the US pays all of its debts. It is actually a legal responsibility of the Government to pay debts. We have awesome credit as a nation, because we always pay. You think we're rich, but the per-capita standard of living in many European countries is much higher than ours. We aren't really that rich, but we balance our budget and live within our means, so we're always doing OK. We could borrow lots of money if we wanted to. Why? Because we know where money comes from, and "out of thin air" isn't that place. We live within our means because it is a physical reality that your means is what you have access to. Things beyond your means are things you can't have. It is really that simple.
the only way they can continue to pay their pensions, benefits and state servants(including military) is going to start printing drakhmas, which will subsequently inflate like there's no tomorrow.
I doubt they could pay high enough wages to beat inflation long enough to keep people showing up to work. And the harder they tried, the harder they would fail.
I guess the whole nation will have to go on hunger strike demanding free unlimited credit cards, at least until austerity starts looking good. Unfortunately, by then it won't be managed temporary austerity, just the "we're really poor and austere" kind.
Iceland invested a couple decades of austerity to create their current self-sufficiency and energy independence.
Iceland can make do without bailouts, and they aren't going to whine about living within their means. In their climate, it is more obvious, more common-sense that you can only live within your means, as a matter of physical fact. Complain to the icy sea how unfair freezing to death is, and see what response you get.
For example, do you think the Canadian dollar could be split into one dollar for the economically stronger regions and a "floppy Canadian dollar"?
Both would mirror the US dollar and it would not be a problem.
North America doesn't have currency problems. These are solved issues, for decades.
Europe doesn't have the compatible business cultures of various US and Canadian regions, so the currencies would fall out of balance as the different groups tried to screw each other over. In North America we compete on a level playing field and our governments manage our currencies for mutual stability.
OK, pay up. I say the US has cut lots of social program for lack of funding, I say Greece should pony up for restore some of it. You've had plenty of bailouts, where is ours? You got your help, now it is your turn to give back to us.
Slashdot Mirror
No, on the hardware side there are lots and lots of companies that provide extensive technical documentation, for "free," under non-free licensing terms. Doing hardware development you use non-free datasheets and application notes all day long. Things like CPUs come with entire reference boards that are completely documented, and licensed to discourage re-use.
People get confused on this, because the same companies sell consumer devices and peripherals that come without any technical documentation, and they try to suppress that documentation when posted online by others. But the lower level devices are better documented. There is a good chance that a CPU will even have a "free" (non-libre) circuit simulator, because otherwise it is difficult to design the power delivery. Documentation alone isn't enough to design a motherboard in a cost-effective manner.
We don't need something external to "keep [us] afloat." We were, and we swam. We are, and we swim. We will be, and we will swim.
You've been here a fair number of years, and yet when it comes to understanding computers, you're still fresh and new.
Routers and watches are already counted under "embedded systems and servers." Routers, of course, bridging that gap completely.
Maybe the average user doesn't know to care about servers, but that is not the same thing as saying they're not important. There is lots of equipment in an ambulance that the average person doesn't know to value, even if it already saved their life.
If you're saying that linux users should care about how non-users feel about how many linux systems of value are in use, I'd have to say that even after all these years you don't understand the basics of why people use linux and where the value they claim to get is coming from. Notice, you don't have to agree to understand these things. You just have to know what you're arguing against. It seems to me like you've been here long to figure out, embedded systems using linux improves the system stability and general quality of linux systems. It is way more valuable than whatever Joe User has on his desktop. If there is some bug that affects that embedded system, an actual engineer from the company that makes it will file a bug report, and likely even submit a patch. I don't want a new paradigm, I don't want popular software, I want systems that work as reliably as an ATM or router.
As far as Scientology, this is just like it in the sense that you're badmouthing them both for no good reason. Even your proposed dialog that you place in the mouth of a Scientologist is just a fake conversation where you want to raise issues about their Faith in order to attack them, and they want to change the subject to something they think might provide common ground, or otherwise be more productive. A reader need not like or approve of Scientology in order to feel sympathetic to their imagined situation. And indeed, I doubt Ray Charles would have had any trouble rejecting arguments based in hatred and pejorative.
As for the last bit, you don't appear to be a cultist.
I very-much agree. I eat garden burgers because they taste like grains and vegetables mixed together and pan fried. Which is exactly what they are. They taste great. I hear people complain they don't taste like beef. If you don't want to eat beef, just "let go" of the flavor. You won't replace it. There are other good flavors available. There are other brands of vegetarian burger that try to mimic the meat flavor, but they don't taste nearly as good.
Generally people who miss the meat flavor just miss umami flavor. They should try some Japanese vegetarian dishes.
People who can't enjoy the foods they decide to choose to eat are... philosophically "special."
No, when they say it has "[multiple] the nutritional value of kale" your alarm bells should be going off, seriously. Nutritional value isn't a video game with a single score. Anybody who makes that claim, their whole spiel should be disregarded because it is just marketing crap-speak.
Dulce is higher in some things than kale, and lower than others. It has a substantially different nutrient profile.
They're not going to make healthy foods for you, because you don't really care very much. If you have to force yourself to eat vegetables, you obviously have negative thoughts towards them. Nothing that is healthy is going to taste different than the foods that you already prefer to reject; vegetables taste like the nutrients, there is no way around it. Anything with similar nutrient profiles that tastes different is going to be loaded down with huge amounts of sugar, processed oils, or artificial flavors.
The only way to enjoy eating healthy is to train your brain. "Healthy = good, unhealthy = bad. Good = Good, Bad = Bad." Right now your brain is saying, "Healthy = Good, Unhealthy = Bad, Good = Bad, Bad = Good." Just by changing the conscious part of how you think about your choices can change how you experience eating.
Hint: vegetables don't taste bad to humans unless they're trained to say so. It is psychosomatic. You're genetically programmed to enjoy healthy foods. If you haven't aligned your desires so that you subjectively prefer healthy foods, you won't eat a healthy diet, and if you did, it would stress you out which is unhealthy. If you believe you can't like healthy food, don't try, it is a waste of time and will fail. GMO isn't going to change what ascorbic acid tastes like, or any other nutrient. Adding nutrients to things change their flavor so that they taste more like the things that already had that nutrient.
You might want to fact-check the SS and medicare stuff.
That was already debunked a decade ago. It is not a matter of bankrupcy, it is a matter of small adjustments in payouts that would be forced.
Also, the US "debt" isn't loans that would be defaulted on. It can be managed very differently, and unilaterally. Also, we have a perfect credit history and in a true crisis we can refinance at will. US debt crisis would mean government austerity, because we have the history, courage, and constitutional credit payment obligations.
The German and French banks gave loans although they knew Greece couldn't pay back.
No, they gave loans that could only be repaid if Greece made specific economic reforms that were needed to fix systemic problems in their economy. Greece made the promises to change, didn't make the reforms, and so can't repay.
And like the rest of Europe is saying, they won't be able to restructure the debt without actually making the reforms that would work, but Greece refuses to try... even after promising to. It all worked in other countries, how is that an evil plot?
You seem to be arguing against the very concept of a stable nation-state. You're welcome to your views, but I don't see how the idea helps Greece if their goal is still to get handouts. Nobody is going to agree, and it doesn't generate income. It is just disconnected moralizing.
And no, the idea that a nation-state is responsible for its debts is not at all the same as attaching debt to a decedent. The words simply mean different things, the moral and philosophical concepts are different.
If you believe that putting Greece so deeply in debt is a harm against future Greek citizens, you should be calling for the Greek government officials responsible to be arrested, if they're not immune. They're the ones whose prerogatives created the situation. Germany didn't have control of the Greek economy, and if they did have the problem wouldn't exist the budget would be balanced.
Just because Greece's creditors don't want them to default (who doesn't want to be repaid what they were promised?) doesn't mean they want to see it happen for moralistic or symbolic reasons. They "don't want Greece to default" because they want them to make their payments, and make the reforms needed to make future payments. Simply giving them the debt as free money to prevent them from defaulting is a really silly idea. In what way does it benefit creditors?
You fail to comprehend. Living "within" your means doesn't mean you're saving, or that there is an imbalance. That is a failure of understanding, even though I'm using the words literally, and in the normal way.
It is living within your OWN means. It means to NOT spend more than you have. It doesn't mean you saved. And Germans saving doesn't cause somebody else to spend money they don't have. That is just incoherent nonsense and magical thinking.
It is not a zero-sum game where if Germans save money, money just appears for free in Greek bank accounts. Actually, Greeks could also save money. Everybody could save money. Or everybody could spend everything they have every month, and never save anything, and have frequent bouts of austere living, and yet still be within their means, and still have available credit.
Living within your means requires you to stop coveting what the Germans have built for themselves, and to accept that what you have built is what you have. If you want more, quite whining about what the Germans did for themselves and do something for yourselves.
And no, I am not "in credit" with the bank. I have credit, because in the past I have paid back what I borrowed. The bank is not in debt to me, because I didn't loan them any money. And I didn't deposit money in a bank that can't stand on its own feet without foreign support. If you stand on your head, unpaid loans don't turn into offers of credit.
You listed RPM, Gtk+, Gnome, systemd, PulseAudio, and NetworkManager. Aren't all of those still in active use? Aren't they all still some of the most popular solutions for what they do?
If that is failure, you didn't comprehend the story. It wasn't about things not being your personal favorite.
Then again, if you think RPM, Gtk, or systemd are "failures," you might be one of the people in the story.
Lennart is professional programmer who has had great success. You sound jealous. The software packages you list are actually the most used solutions, not failures. Failure doesn't mean, "I don't like it, waaaaa."
And I'm sure Lennart would tell you that applications are different than kernels, and you're comparing apples and oranges. I know he'd see that, because he's a programmer.
RedHat has huge resources, they have a war chest, they're not in trouble or "stuck with" anything. They've written software in the past that they don't still use. They're not known as being irrational or emotional, they're known for being the business-and-oss-friendly distro. They make pragmatic decisions.
Hate away. But remember, attacking the man is a logical fallacy, not a rational point. You will be understood accordingly.
They're just still confused by all this open source and free software stuff. They can't comprehend that I'm using software written by people, not by a company, that sales don't matter, and that it doesn't help me if they use the same software. They just can't comprehend that we would be able to tolerate linux "on the desktop" if we're less than 1% of users. To them that sounds like it is a "failure" because it isn't cool or popular. They just don't understand where our software comes from, and why having low overall end-user adoption doesn't impact us negatively, or prevent us from having new software.
After all, if a proprietary OS had the adoption rate of (end-user) linux, there would be almost no software being written for it, and you couldn't use it for most general business tasks.
Yes, we know. Western powers help only western powers. That's the whole point of this argument. It's not about money, it's about power.
Then why all the whining and coveting of our assets? If you already knew we're worried about our own needs, and you know Greece hasn't been looking out for us, why would we sweep in to spend our hard-earned money on people who claim that money is free and don't know how we got it, and constantly accuse us of having just waved our hands and made it all appear?
Distant wars generate local trade, that's something not less than nothing. A war between Europe and Greece would be great for the US, because we'd end up getting to drop most of the bombs, and getting most the industrial activity increase.
If the Greeks were smart enough to build something, bombs, cars, whatever, they would have economic output. Understand, Greece doesn't have enough money for anybody to make a significant amount stealing it. ;) Germany doesn't waste their time plotting the destruction of Greece. The loans were a favor. You don't like loans, when asked to repay according to agreed terms? Good, you won't have any more evil loans forced on you, for hundreds of years. You're welcome.
Greeks think themselves so important that they might endanger the economies of France and Germany when they immolate their credit, but actually France and Germany are trustworthy economic partners of many nations and will have no trouble surviving the Greek tragedy. The Greek suffering is just beginning, now the current generations will have to learn something most of the world understands already; living within your means is not an inconvenient suggestion, it is the difference between a wish and dinner.
We don't criticize for them asking, we criticize for them whining and demanding after they're reminded they have awful credit and aren't trustworthy.
The only defense to accusations of untrustworthiness is payment of debts. Instead they threaten to default if the debts are not simply forgiven, and demand payment of tithes.
"And we Americans financed the whole thing. You're welcome."
Should you guys be financing things with your 1 trillion dollar debt?
Yes. We have the world's best credit, we have always paid our debts and by our own laws we must. It would be illegal for us to default.
And our GDP is $17 Trillion. A debt of $1T would be well within our means. But generally it is regarded as higher. But it isn't loans. We didn't take out loans. We issue government bonds. Which we pay back 100% of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That is why the US is doing well, and Greece is about to crash and burn. We pay back whatever we say we will, so can simply issue bonds and people value them even more than loan contracts from another nation. Greece, on the other hand, pays back nothing, their word is so bad they're claiming the Germans shouldn't have ever believed anything they say, and they have to make up weird conspiracy theories to deny the root cause of their financial problems.
"Live withing your means" is a saying like "for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction," or "don't count your chickens before they hatch." It is a simple matter of understanding the nature of the physical world, and accepting what you have successfully achieved before the current moment in time. If you don't like what you've achieved, the only solution is to achieve more. Decide how to build what is desired. Don't wait for the world to hand you wealth, we will not. We have our own real living to spend our means.
That was the first post to show actual insight into the situation.
There will always be somebody who thinks that an equal exchange of assets means the other guy gives them free money, and they give back insults and moralizing.
This is only true in an economy that's already working at 100% capacity. That hasn't been the case for a long time now. In the current situation of idling economy some actor getting more money will likely simply activate idle production capacity, which will actually increase the size of the market and the value of existing money.
Of course, the whole idea that supply exceeding demand can cause a crisis speaks for the absurdity of the entire economic system. It might be best to focus efforts on coming up with its replacement.
If that was true, the last bailout would have created a bunch of economic activity and Greece would be paying back their loans now. Maybe it isn't that simple. Maybe there more parts needed for a working national economy than just "free" short-term money. ;)
If you want free money, just find some toilet tissue and write dollar signs on it. It will have the exact same purchasing power as any other "free" money. If you think US dollars are free money, that explains why nobody gives you any. ;)
It is sortof like a "payday loan" center. It is possible that you really do just need money temporarily, separately from having bad credit, and that whatever loan you get you'll repay. But the rate is very low. Most of those people are lying to get loans for other reasons than that, like they simply wasted all their money without saving enough for rent. Those people will later fail for sure.
Economies are already destroyed in reality before a country comes for an IMF loan. No country should ever ask for such a loan other than to fund a reform/austerity setup that will recover the economy eventually. If they actually just wasted all their money, aren't going to actually impose internal changes, and just want to patch up their budget for another month, well that will fail because now they took a high interest loan and they have less money. Their usable income went down because their overhead went up, because they couldn't control their short-term urge to spend. Unfortunately, most countries that ask for IMF loans don't have a real plan, they just lie about having a plan and a budget but they don't intend to follow it.
The answer, obviously, is just to stop loaning to desperate countries. Then they'll beg and cry for somebody to create an IMF to loan money to them at the high rates they can justify with their bad credit. Then you can see, blaming the IMF for consensual loans that are only initiated by the borrower applying in the first place... pretty weak thinking.
You think the US economy uses fake money, and we create it out of thin air, because you don't have to reply on those dollars to support your nation.
You might be well advised to discover that the US pays all of its debts. It is actually a legal responsibility of the Government to pay debts. We have awesome credit as a nation, because we always pay. You think we're rich, but the per-capita standard of living in many European countries is much higher than ours. We aren't really that rich, but we balance our budget and live within our means, so we're always doing OK. We could borrow lots of money if we wanted to. Why? Because we know where money comes from, and "out of thin air" isn't that place. We live within our means because it is a physical reality that your means is what you have access to. Things beyond your means are things you can't have. It is really that simple.
the only way they can continue to pay their pensions, benefits and state servants(including military) is going to start printing drakhmas, which will subsequently inflate like there's no tomorrow.
I doubt they could pay high enough wages to beat inflation long enough to keep people showing up to work. And the harder they tried, the harder they would fail.
I guess the whole nation will have to go on hunger strike demanding free unlimited credit cards, at least until austerity starts looking good. Unfortunately, by then it won't be managed temporary austerity, just the "we're really poor and austere" kind.
Iceland can live within its means.
Iceland invested a couple decades of austerity to create their current self-sufficiency and energy independence.
Iceland can make do without bailouts, and they aren't going to whine about living within their means. In their climate, it is more obvious, more common-sense that you can only live within your means, as a matter of physical fact. Complain to the icy sea how unfair freezing to death is, and see what response you get.
For example, do you think the Canadian dollar could be split into one dollar for the economically stronger regions and a "floppy Canadian dollar"?
Both would mirror the US dollar and it would not be a problem.
North America doesn't have currency problems. These are solved issues, for decades.
Europe doesn't have the compatible business cultures of various US and Canadian regions, so the currencies would fall out of balance as the different groups tried to screw each other over. In North America we compete on a level playing field and our governments manage our currencies for mutual stability.
You're talking about banks in the U.S.A., right?
Signed,
a Canadian.
Newsflash, our government bailed out our own banks... within our means! No loans needed. No foreign bailouts requested or accepted.
You should.
OK, pay up. I say the US has cut lots of social program for lack of funding, I say Greece should pony up for restore some of it. You've had plenty of bailouts, where is ours? You got your help, now it is your turn to give back to us.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, yes?