Forum Post: Greece owned by the bankers
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 3:26 p.m. EST by skizzy
(445)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Senior banker Lucas Papademos was named Thursday as the prime minister of the new Greek interim government massive layoffs, increased taxation, and accelerated privatization
Italy's debt is at 120% of GDP American debt is now in the zone of 100% of GDP
Let the riots begin....
Let the fire spread to Italy!
Europe then US
No surprise in this appointment. The global financial complex is running the world. And doing a piss-poor job of it.
Remember Domino Theory? We are about to experience with economies instead of communists.
I know ... This is going to be crazy so many people are still in denial ...
If Greeks defaulted, they will be able to keep their future. If they insisted to stay in EU, they will mortgage their future to service a forever debt and will be slaves.
yup they are slaves we are all debt slaves ... but it is almost like Greece is the test case for how far and fast the bankers can inflict austerity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity and enrich themselves further.
Today, OWSers; we are all Greeks....
All the protesting, riots and changes in government leaders didn't help them one bit.
We need a better strategy and plan of attack Wall Street is not the cause, it is a SYMPTOM!
JOIN THE REVOLUTION Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM We don’t have to live like this. "Spread the News"
Wall Street and the bankers are the problem we got that one right
There are many problems. These roads rats (bankers and financiers) are just symptoms. Even if you could stop or kill them all, they would be back in an instant. You have to fix the problems that allowed them to exist in the first place.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM OsiXs (More Power and Technology to the People!)
http://www.opensecrets.org
An excellent way the common man can make some money off this whole thing right now is to by some National Bank of Greece stock (NBG). It has tanked and once Greece gets bailed out it will sore. Anyone who can use this message board can make money off of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKFcUb9gr1s&feature=feedlik
Video of Occupy Happenings...
I'll be damned if I let the bankers do to this country what they did to Europe!
Time to riot!!1
They trusted the bankers. They were good little spenders, building up a nice hefty debt just as they were told, so the bankers could own their souls when interest came due.
http://www.opensecrets.org
It is inaccurate to look at one year of GDP to the debt since the debt is paid back over 10-30 years.
Look at one year of debt payment to one year of GDP.
Or one year of debt to 30 years of accumulated GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio
THIS IS NOT what democracy looks like!
We need look no further than North Dakota for a SOLUTION !
NORTH DAKOTA’S ECONOMIC “MIRACLE”—IT’S NOT OIL http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/north_dakota.php
North Dakota has had the lowest unemployment in the country (or was tied for the lowest unemployment rate in the country) every single month since July 2008.
Its healthy job market is also reflected in its payroll growth numbers. . . . Year over year, its payrolls grew by 5.2 percent. Texas came in second, with an increase of 2.6 percent.
Why is North Dakota doing so well? For one of the same reasons that Texas has been doing well: oil.
Oil is certainly a factor, but it is not what has put North Dakota over the top. Alaska has roughly the same population as North Dakota and produces nearly twice as much oil, yet unemployment in Alaska is running at 7.7 percent. Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming have all benefited from a boom in energy prices, with Montana and Wyoming extracting much more gas than North Dakota has.
North Dakota has one thing that no other state has: its own state-owned bank.
Access to credit is the enabling factor that has fostered both a boom in oil and record profits from agriculture in North Dakota. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) does not compete with local banks but partners with them, helping with capital and liquidity requirements. It participates in loans, provides guarantees, and acts as a sort of mini-Fed for the state. In 2010, according to the BND’s annual report:
The Bank provided Secured and Unsecured Federal Fund Lines to 95 financial institutions with combined lines of over $318 million for 2010. Federal Fund sales averaged over $13 million per day, peaking at $36 million in June.
http://www.opensecrets.org
Lucas Papademos, in fact is the former European Central Bank vice-president.
He will serve as prime minister of a new interim government until early elections. The Banking Cartel (the wolf herd) handed Greeks (the sheep herd) to one of their lieutenants for their protection (their's who?). Well done humanity.
The riots need to start in the U.S. now. OWS needs to take to the streets and show the 1% that we mean business.
We have be smarter than that. Riots are not a solution.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
it's coming http://www.opensecrets.org
[Removed]
Very good. Greek politicians bankrupted Greece, the central bankers save it.
Guessing George Papandreou had a conscious moment that got to him when he decided to have a vote. That vote idea really pissed off the bankers.How dare he give the Greek people a opportunity to have a say in there future. Greek politicians work for the bankers ... just like our politicians work for the bankers
It was actually cheap money and Greek politicians that bankrupted Greece via extravagant benefits for low productivity (short work days, easy work weeks, early retirement) and a proclivity for spending and debt. The bankers, whom you demonize, actually 'wrote off' huge chunks of the loans made to Greece during the happy, joyful period now that things have 'gone south' and the Greeks have no desire to adopt longer, harder work schedules and fewer benefits. I have a mortage. I pay it every month. I work 50 hours a week to do so. To pay off that mortage was a promise that I made to my banker when I bought my house. My word is my bond--how about yours?
I also pay a mortgage ... I also work extra to make sure i can pay that mortgage ... I hope your home value is not under yet ... thank god mine is not. But the Greece debt problem is more complicated then just over using a credit card. How do we stop this from happening to the US ? Also we keep working harder to get ahead ... we get raises for are hard work we take second and third jobs but we still can't keep up with the basic cost of living ? Thing are going up in price faster then we are getting more money
"How do we stop this happening to the US?" The answer to that one is actually simple: don't allow politicians to spend freely. Keep revenues and expenditures in balance. Greece's insolvency is due to Debt, instigated by the gov't, that far outweighs its GDP.
it was the bankers who taught them how to hide their debt. at least that is what the newspapers say.
Ya deregulation had nothing to do with it .... We can just print more money to pay off the debt ? So we barrow worthless paper from who? and we have to pay it back barrow worthless paper with interest to who? Money is debt ... our debt is already 100% of GDP ... They the bankers are using funny money to buy up tangible assets that have wealth at cheep prices like gold. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfHEz4plxtg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfHEz4plxtg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kScxoRpGDj0
If only the Greeks were willing to accept a lower standard of living this would not have happened.
And lower. And lower. And lower. Circling the drain we all go. While the neoliberal elite floats off into the summer breeze on their golden parachutes.
It happened anyway, and the country is ruined. You prefer that?
The pushback needs to start somewhere. It's only just begun.
Pushback to whom? Do you really believe low skilled labor can sustainably earn the big bucks? The Socialists tried and failed. Yes, you can reduce income inequality by pulling down the rich, but pulling up the poor is hard if the poor doesn't want to upskill.
Moderate equality is a worthy goal, for moral and practical reasons. The socialists (using the term loosely, as is the norm) in Sweden, Germany, 1940s-70s USA didn't fail. Failure is neoliberalism (which was at the core of the EU experiment, btw).
Good and surprising lecture on inequality at this year's TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
To whom = politicians who've bought into the Friedman/Reagan/Thatcher/Pinochet worldview - i.e. most of them at this point.
There is only one way you can sustainably reduce income inequality. High taxes on the rich and money distributed to the poor. You can't screw around with the labor market, it always comes back to bit you in the balls and you get offshoring to low cost countries. The examples you gave are all about high taxes. I am OK with that but only for the purpose of redistribution and not as a punitive hammer (like the 90-100% taxes people talk about in this forum). I don;t think the rich will leave the country if you have that high taxes. But I do believe that they will 1) hide their money and 2) fight tooth and nail by buying politicians over and under the table, as well they should. So balance is key. I am OK with Clinton era taxes, may be even a tad bit more. Actually I think even at a top 50% tax rate there will not be a revolt among the rich. Any more than that and you are fucked. But what will never, ever work is pushing wages up artificially through unions. You can point to Germany and show how well they are doing with trade barriers, but 10 years back when Germany was sucking ass everyone was pointing tot he fact that they have no labor flexibility hence people don't want to hire, they just want to hire temps. As it is Germans have a lower standard of living than Americans.
I'll take the policies - on tax, labor, regulation, and fiscal/monetary stimulus - that we had during the liberal consensus years (40s-70s). I don't think Eisenhower's top marginal rate will cause a revolt. We had prosperity, relative equality, and plenty of people built up trust funds for their children despite it all. The effective tax rate on the super-rich is now only 17%. It's unsustainable.
Unions and trade policy... Again, Germany is only one example. All of our trading partners practice more protectionism than we do - it's a function of states doing what they're supposed to: operate in the best interests of their citizens. We are remiss. Unions are not mindless, they will work with manufacturers, but we need intelligent tariffs that somewhat even out the huge disparities in labor, environmental, and health standards between partners. What unions won't do is bend over and accept the race to the bottom, which is precisely why they're demonized in this neoliberal climate.
Great analysis of tax policy, written/compiled by an OWSer: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
right on - vlad is way off base - i lived through the 50's and the 60 and 70's were even better. my uncle filled cigarette machines - can't get a lower job than that - he owned a house - sent his daughter to notre dame - went to italy twice (along with many other vacations) - he had a very middle class life with a shit job - could not do that today. you got best comment - nice! if you go to democracynow.org and read her interviews with manfred max neef - you will be amazed - i think - maybe you already know him - keep it up
Thanks. :o) I will check Reef out, I've heard you mention him before but haven't read about him...
I am nostalgiac for an era I only know through my parents and history books. How sad that my entire life has been in the age of Friedman and Reagan, the neoliberal nightmare...
it is also good to keep in mind that while things were good on an economic front for many (white) people things were not all good. i am old enough to remember emmett till being murdered - along with too many others - i drank from a white only water fountain in nc and that was the least of it. korea and vietnam got no opposition in any way and women had to wear skirts to school. any way today is better in many many ways but also worse as far as income inequality - i have been trying to get a handle on Ron Lawl and the fed, income tax thing and don't get it! all i can understand is he is free market, hayak fanatic - there are many things wrong with the economic system and it is a sham in many ways but he is out there! look into max neef - i think he will open your eyes - he did for me - simple obvious truths. you might want to watch and listen instead of reading (you have the option on that site - don't know if you follow democracynow but her show is great) - his humanity is more obvious if you are listening
I can't thank you enough for the info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILJyYFVsGiM
There is no way we can go back to 91% tax rates. That's punitive taxation. It is done not to pull up the poor. It is done to bring down the rich. Tell me, why are you so intent on bringing down the rich? I can understand taxation to invest in healthcare and education, but this is jealousy, pure and simple.
you are way off base - again - you need to read better histories - howard zinn is a start - chomsky is a bit difficult but very informative - if you are interested in helping this movement then do a better job here - if you are pushing a right wing agenda then go somewhere else and do it
Yes, it was jealousy that kept us prosperous through the postwar years.
Actually, it was greed that ended the prosperity for the many to the benefit of the few.
There were plenty of rich people in 1960. They weren't punished. It was what needed to be done to maintain relative equality - a healthy distribution.
The world outside the USA was in ruins. The rich had nowhere to go, and our corporations had no competition. In that environment, we could afford extreme taxes, unions, etc. Today, the rich can leave (ask the UK), and our corporations actually have to compete (ask GM/Chrysler). Once solution would be to blow up all our competitors again, so we can regain the "greatness" we had from 1945-1971, but that's not a very socially responsible solution.
GDP 1960-present:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+chart
The corporations have been doing fine. New markets have opened up everywhere. With some balanced trade agreements instead of neoliberal unilateral disarmament, American labor could have remained competitive rather than the disparities becoming so egregious that it overwhelmed home bias. In other words, there was plenty of demand and plenty of growth, but labor was cut out by neoliberal policies.
GDP vs. wages: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?pagewanted=all
Also, doesn't look like anyone's done an international study, but at least two studies have debunked the myth that the rich flee higher state taxes: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3556
the rich can leave but not necessarily with their money - nothing wrong with capital controls - you made your money here it stays here - south koreas economic miracle occurred while they had very strict capital controls - death penalty if i remember correctly - bill clinton got them removed - the great liberal!
"Once solution would be to blow up all our competitors again..."
they have to concoct a "socially responsible" reason...
I'm all SET to return to the tax rates of 1964 as long as EVERYONE has to pay what was paid then. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/fix-the-deficit-return-to-1964-tax-rates/ Here's a summary of the margin rate on the top dollar....
$ 1000 - $ 2000 = 16.5%
$ 2000 - $ 3000 = 17.5%
$ 3000 - $ 4000 = 18.0%
$ 4000 - $ 8000 = 20.0%
$ 8000 - $12000 = 23.5%
$12000 - $16000 = 27.0%
$16000 - $20000 = 30.5%
$20000 - $24000 = 34.0%
$24000 - $28000 = 37.5%
$28000 - $32000 = 41.0%
$32000 - $36000 = 44.5%
$36000 - $40000 = 47.5%
...
$400000 and up = 77.0%
Adjust for inflation, and no problem. Also, considering how much wages have stagnated, and may not have, had wealth remained in circulation instead of accumulating at the top...
don't see how someone making 10k could pay 23% - that would be after all the payroll taxes - then pay gas tax and sales tax etc - remember that in 1966 $6,700 was equivalent to 43k today
Objectively speaking, Americans have a higher standard of living today than in the 50s. You choose to ignore that, because some Americans have far more today than they did in the 50s, while most only have a little more. You are focusing on those that gained a lot, and ignoring that the fact that you did gain a little as well, as you are freaking jealous.
If you disagree, tell me why you believe standard of living is lower today than in the 50s.
You are actually wrong, or more likely dishonest.
Real wages have stagnated over the past 30 years. Two-income households now struggle to stay afloat where single-income households used to live comfortably. Working harder, being forced into more debt, and having little hope for the future. This is the American Dream for the 99%.
Posting this for others, because I know you won't watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A (Elizabeth Warren)
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/11/265311/graph-family-26-percent-wages/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?pagewanted=all
I think it is immoral and impractical to have 90% tax rates.
Tell it to the last stable, prosperous and relatively equal period in our history.
Do you understand what the top marginal rate means, by the way? This explains it well enough: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/tax-fallacies-explaining-marginal-tax-rates/
Are you one of those types who are always wondering if the guy next door has a bigger package, and wanting to cut him down to size?
LOL. Actually, I have no reason to be jealous. I have a moral problem (not financial) with the current situation, and from a pragmatic standpoint see it as unsustainable.
I actually pasted the wrong link above, trying again: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Really encourage you to take a look, instead of being a pathetic douche.
Also: http://openeconomicsnd.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/dean-baker-inequality-at-root-of-crisis/
If you think the 50s were prosperous, then you must agree that the 10s were just roaring? Standard of living went up significantly. Bigger houses, better card, smarter toys, what have you. Yes it is more unequal, but that's the jealousy angle again.
You haven't looked at either link. Jealousy has nothing to do with the problems of inequality. The 40s-70s were prosperous and saw the growth of the middle class - the greatest increase in standards of living the planet has ever seen (for good or ill). Prosperity for a few is not prosperity at all, but exploitation, suffering, and despair - and the seeds of revolution. You're a fool, and I am done.
the '10s? You mean the 1910s? Like when you could squat on "federal" land and then own it? Imagine if we took over Canada and opened up all the existing "crown" lands to US homesteaders. I'd vote for the president with the balls to campaign on that promise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act