"Nice Google scholarship. "

Yeah you're the one who doesn't criticize for using google? I guess I'm supposed to rattle off gdp figures from the top of my head. Obviously you memorized Spanish central government spending contributions with that 18% figure you ripped off of wikipedia.

"I'd like you to point out where I blamed government exclusively and championed the bankers. They're woven together in a web of crony capitalism where the politicians make policies to protect banks and the bankers give money to the politicians in various forms. Good straw man, though."

You said the solution is to 'vote people out' and you're squeamish about even figuratively hanging the bankers. Who votes out the bankers, exactly?

" Because, you know, treaties governing supranational organizations are pretty hard to change, what with requiring unanimous consent and all that. Saying this whole thing would be fixed by altering a single clause of the Lisbon Treaty grossly oversimplifies all the dynamics at work here."

Thanks for ignoring the point where your complete restructuring of the EU into a free trade zone wouldn't entail, you know, substantial treaty changes that far more comprehensive than Article 125. Thanks for also ignoring the point about temporary Eurobonds. You can't argue from the basis of what is possible when you yourself are proposing ridiculous proposals that far more impossible.

And who cares if they're illegal (which that isn't even clear cut), the point is what would solve the crisis. Do you agree Eurobonds would solve the crisis?

"Saying this whole thing would be fixed by altering a single clause of the Lisbon Treaty grossly oversimplifies all the dynamics at work here."

It's not oversimplification. I'm not saying that governments like Germany like that idea. I'm saying that it would solve the crisis. The solution and the political will to reach that solution are two entirely different things. But you only selectively focus on political will, here.

"You said the solution is to 'vote people out' and you're squeamish about even figuratively hanging the bankers. Who votes out the bankers, exactly?"

Well, you vote people out and elect people who won't play ball with the bankers. That would do it. I don't think it's appropriate to even "figuratively" say bankers need to be hanged. Cue your misrepresenting my saying I hope Chavez dies of his caner soon...

"Thanks for ignoring the point where your complete restructuring of the EU into a free trade zone wouldn't entail, you know, substantial treaty changes that far more comprehensive than Article 125."

I'm not. I was talking about the ultimate solutions to the problems of the European Union. Restructuring the EU into the free trade zone it was initially sold as or explicit federation (which you ignore me saying) are the only long term solutions to the problem. If these countries are going to use the same currency they need to have a fiscal union where member state budgets are controlled by Brussels. If they don't want that they need to go back to national currencies and use the EU only for free trade and finally getting all the electric sockets to be the same.

Eurobonds alone wouldn't solve the crisis because it's much deeper than just the fact that governments have spent too much money and banks made boneheaded investments. The democratic deficit is real. The political destiny of nations is being decided by people that those nations did not elect. The people of the continent need either a United States of Europe where the union's decisions are made by directly accountable officials or they need to scrap the whole deal and tone integration down. Either way is extremely difficult, even more difficult than the treaty changes to Lisbon you keep going on about. That's why even though the desired outcomes are clear (whichever one wins out) the process of getting it done will be very hard.

"The solution and the political will to reach that solution are two entirely different things. But you only selectively focus on political will, here."

They certainly are. While I may be focusing a bit too much on the political will, you are too fixated on just piling new debt on top of old as the only solution to the problem. Whether that's the right way to go is very much up in the air. After all, China and Brazil refused to get involved in buying European debt a month or so ago. Would simply punching new numbers into European computers in Frankfurt solve what is becoming a crisis in confidence in the euro itself? I've got some doubts here, and I bet a lot of serious European policy makers do too.

@ Putin- surely Eurobonds would help a great deal, but it's not a proper tool to solve the crisis as it only addresses the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. In essence it would be a reward for countries who have not properly managed their budgets over the past years and it would punish the countries who have been more careful in their spending. National governments won't be able to sell Eurobonds to their citizens, and rightly so I believe.

Problem is that the EU is starting to become extremely unpopular across nations in Europe. The EU is associated with bureaucracy and high cost. The 'leaders' of the EU are a Portuguese and a Belgian guy, and the ECB's chairman is Italian. People don't see themselves as European, and they don't see these people as their representatives. I think the EU is not yet ready for a fiscal union unless policy will be dictated from Berlin rather than Brussels.

Regarding the voting rights, it's also strange to take population as a standard for voting rights for reasons I illustrated earlier. It's absurd that counties with limited economies have such a large saying in affairs for which, in the end,

LOL, misrepresenting. Because your comment that you hope Chavez dies of cancer can be interpreted in so many ways.

" I don't think it's appropriate to even "figuratively" say bankers need to be hanged. "

Because they care about the people they harm. The actions of the Steven Baum (banker) law firm are a reflection of their overall attitude. As is CNBC's declaration that the foreclosed were "losers". When the right stops openly talking about shooting people who disagree with them I'll agree that figurative hanging is inappropriate.

"Eurobonds alone wouldn't solve the crisis because it's much deeper than just the fact that governments have spent too much money and banks made boneheaded investments. "

The particular crisis is not much deeper than the liquidity problem in Europe, where sovereign governments can only get loans at very high interest. The problem was not fiscal policy. Speculative attacks were used against particular targets. There were no speculative attacks vs Japan, and Japan's debt is far higher than Greece's. Belize has lower yields than Greece despite the fact Belize is going or has already gone bankrupt. The Germans want us all to believe that the problem is they don't have control over southern fiscal policy. The problem is the Germans don't want to contribute to European consumption, either with consumer spending or with injecting capital into European markets.

The problem of European dithering has little to do with its lack of democratic legitimacy, a point I agree with. Europe could not be more unified politically. All but Estonia or some such country have center-right governments in power. Germany simply wants greater centralized control so that it can continue to benefit from the export domination the Eurozone allows it to have while not paying anything to prop up the economies of their consumers.

Again, this nonsense about profligate spenders is belied by the budget surpluses and budget cuts they were implementing prior to the crisis. Spain had a record surplus and cut its debt to gdp ratio by half. Italy had very small budget deficits and also substantially reduced its debt to gdp ratio. Why don't acknowledge the fact that when recessions hit, revenues decrease while spending obligations increase?

@Mr_rb
It's absurd that counties with limited economies have such a large saying in affairs

Germany has the say now, they have the cash and a huge captive export market, thanks in no small measure to the Marshall plan. Policy will be dictated from Berlin and implemented by the faithful bloated Brussels bureaucracy.
One thing that is a key driver too is what will happen to the Euro pensions if the Euro itself collapses? Kinnock, Mandleson et al., most definitely will be pulling out all the stops on this one.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/mandelson_in_line_for_163_1m_pay_and_pension_package_1_1136739

Then again I guess that some have other irons in the fire:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-final-favour-how-mandelsons-last-act-in-brussels-boosted-russian-oligarch-973813.html

I don't get why you think Poland has such a trivial economy. It is the 6th largest in the EU, right behind your Netherlands.

We can always depend on you for the most unimaginative Marxist reading of an issue, Putin33.

This isn't even a Marxist reading, doofus. Your reading is much more Marxist than mine.

wait, people are actually asking Putty's opinion when it comes to *economics*?

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

Why don't you ask his experiences with menopause while you're at it

Actually ther is also some very interesting parrells between the non-audit of the EU and the Fed. Here is the EU version: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7092102.stm

Maybe they will start shredding all the notes of their meetings, as I gather is the practice in the States. This guy should know:
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/directory/faculty/robert-auerbach
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-auerbach/stop-the-federal-reserve_b_385328.html

Did you even read your first article? They lay the blame for that on accounting errors from member states, and how is it a non audit if the auditors are complaining about errors? There is absolutely no parallel to the complaints about the Federal Reserve. Start making sense.

As usual you lead off without having a clue what you are talking about (fighting fire with fire). Naturally the European Commision says it is nothing to do with them, what the fuck else would you expect them to say, genius?

Let's take the common agricultural policy, as an example,it wouldn't exist without the EU and has been a gigantic gravy train for those in the know for decades. e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/global/27sugariht.html ( a reference from home for you)

Last time the Fed came up I seem to remember you defended it, is that still your view? My view is, particularly after reading extracts of Auerbach's book on Google, that they and the bankers (generic) are one in the same bad smell.
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Deception_and_abuse_at_the_Fed.html?id=SSEKhlT3DFcC&redir_esc=y

@Putin- I don't think it's trivial at all.. the Polish economy and other economies in the East of Europe are also growing and will hopefully catch up with the Western states soon. My point was that, since I don't Europe as one state such as the US, I have problems with the influence of net contributors on one side and net receivers on the other. I think the balance is lost- policy making should be dictated based on actual contribution to the EU, which can be measured most accurately by monetary contribution in my opinion. Imagine the US entering in some kind of agreement with Asian countries about trading rights or whatnot. Would you be satisfied if China would be given 4 times the amount of seats on the committee as the US, purely based on their population? Probably not.

But the rich countries in the EU benefit much more from the EU. The whole reason they're net contributors is because the arrangement benefits them the most. The weak economies in the Eurozone buy Dutch and German made products and Dutch and German banks collect on loans they issue to them. The EU is not a trade pact. In an Asian-US trade deal, we would not giving some supranational organization sovereignty over our judicial system and subject ourselves to some international organization's idea of spending caps. I think it's a bit of a false comparison.

"When the right stops openly talking about shooting people who disagree with them I'll agree that figurative hanging is inappropriate."

May I take this opportunity to congratulate Putin in joining the likes of Clarkson in the acceptance and appreciation of the light hearted execution joke. With this small step the world has shifted towards being a more tolerant, relaxed and happier place :).

" Naturally the European Commision says it is nothing to do with them, what the fuck else would you expect them to say, genius?"

So how is the EU supposedly benefiting from these accounting errors? The EU barely makes any revenue whatsoever, so how does it compare to the Fed? You just post up these articles and expect us to your understand your bizarre conspiracy theories which aren't articulated in the articles in the least.

"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/global/27sugariht.html"

Again your link makes no sense. Companies are exploiting the subsidy program to fraudulently make profits. How is that an example of a government entity profiting? The fraud is costing the EU money. The people profiting are the sugar companies. What the hell is the relation?

"Last time the Fed came up I seem to remember you defended it, is that still your view?"

The only alternative I've ever heard the fed critics propose is something far worse, a completely unregulated banking industry. Auerbach is a crank who thinks the Fed was used to pay Watergate hush money and a whole bunch of other ridiculous things.

Talk about moving the goalposts this is what you actually said - ''Did you even read your first article? They lay the blame for that on accounting errors from member states.....''
You make absolutely no attempt to defend it now, but move on as ever, like a slippery slimey eel.

The EU benefits because the whole body politic is infested with corruption and people feathering their own nests, I previously gave the you the example of Mandleson, which you chose to ignore.

As to the Fed and Auerbach you may choose to ignore him by branding him a ''crank'', but that only stirs my interest more. Certainly his revelations on the Fed shredding minutes are very interesting as are his views of the Fed employing economists at universities. Illuminating too are his reports of guys such as Corrigan, 25 years at the New York Fed and then straight to Goldman Sacks. What did he say about the European sovereign debt crisis and Goldman's role in it? Was it something like ths - "With the benefit of hindsight, it seems very clear that standards of transparency could have been and should have been higher." Small world, isn't it?

"You make absolutely no attempt to defend it now, but move on as ever, like a slippery slimey eel."

Defend what? You constantly post articles that half the time have no relevance in order to get people to jump down your rabbit holes. The Mendelsen thing was above where this conversation began. Again, you just throw out these random links and expect everybody to follow and respond to whatever garbled line of thought you have. You don't explain a damn thing and would rather insult me instead. Suit yourself.

Defend your assertion that ''the blame for accounting errors lies with the member states''. It is money given by the EU which is being defrauded, as you yourself say in your second post.
The fraud is systemic and starts at the top. That is why discussion of the role of the EU commisioners is in context. I would have thought this obvious, but perhaps not, given you couldn't grasp the link between corruption on Wall St. and the European sovereign debt crisis.

I thought so Putin you are indeed a slippery slimy eel. Later on today I will reemphasise the fact that you are a liar too.

Solving this, previous and every other potential credit crisis is actually quite simple - allow individuals, companies, banks and countries who do not repay their debts to fail. It may be prudent to reschedule some debt by agreement with the lenders but if that fails the borrow should go bankrupt. Not only does this crystalise the debt it allows the borrower to move on, sure they will be unlikely to get credit again for sometime, but at least they have a fresh start. This sounds very hard on the lenders but really it isn't. When they realise that everyone they lend to could go bankrupt - they will only lend to credit worthy enterprises and this makes their businesses substanable.

bump

Ok so evidently we didn't get any details of how I "lied" or how I'm a "slippery eel" which is evidently Fulham's insult de la semaine.

"Defend your assertion that ''the blame for accounting errors lies with the member states''. It is money given by the EU which is being defrauded, as you yourself say in your second post. "

You're conflating two separate things. It's I guess a common tactic with you to do this kind of misdirection. Ironically on the issue of agriculture, the EU audits say that the accounts have been accurate. The main area where error is a problem is the cohesion budget. It's very difficult to have standardized accounting for so many countries. I don't see how this is an evil conspiracy. You haven't explained how it is. You just continue to insult me and explain nothing.