I didn't realize that a refusal to engage with a stranger on the internet means that one loses the argument by default. Anyway, I guess we're back at it.
You were all too happy to engage until I proved you wrong.
And we're not back at it, unless of course you want to return to that thread and try to resurrect your position. But we all know that's not going to happen.
German taxpayers have lent Greece their tax dollars. Germans will be harmed by additional default or debt relief. I am not saying that either should be taken off the table, but I am just arguing that there are victims to this situation other than Greece, itself.
The banks and gov't are so intermingled that they may as well be one in the same...Fascism is when we cant find the line between banks/corporations and government...
Miles, you remind me of Keith Olberman. You and he seem to have a disorder of not only thinking you're right about everything, but have an absolute sense certainty that your correctness is beyond reproach and that if you don't agree it's only because you're stupid or evil.
curtram is flat out denying economy (banking) as a measure of social justice and equality between historical and cultural nation states. Alternative has accepted the exchange between the historical and cultural nation states as quite natural since economy and society can not be separated so clearly as curtkram suggest it is or should be. zizek's article insinuates that there should be some seperation between monetary and cultural values, and moreover the failure of monetary success should not be blamed on cultural differencess - and culturally to dismiss charges of social failure based on economic failure as false. and to deny the guilt of economy not only acceptable but a step forward and out of the economic binds on culture................if church and state need to be separated should economy and state be separated, and is that even possible?
@Chris, it is possible, it's called END CITIZENS UNITED. quite simple as well, take money out of politics (and all its derivatives) and everything will start falling into place again. Now, how do we make legislators legislate against themselves if they are so deep into corporate pockets?
JLC, things were fucked before Citizens United and have been for decades. And as you noted, those who benefit from institutionalized corruption cannot be relied upon to end it.
I play with left and right because this architecture site has become a repository for pablum traditionally tossed around by the capital-L Left.
Setting the left/right dichotomy aside, do you see any problems with a constitutional amendment restricting speech rights for groups of people who choose to come together for political aims by means of registered, limited liability organizations?
groups of people who choose to come together for political aims by means of registered, limited liability organizations.
You really believe this is what citizens united is?
I am not against free speech for individuals or groups, but I don't believe corporations will ever have the common good for a nation as their main interest. They are slaves to the bottom line. and the lear jet.
Yes, I do believe that's what Citizens United is about, at least in part. I hear what you're saying, and I have to ask—where do we differ? These principles apply to for-profit corporations, but also non-profits and labor unions.
Moreover, I do that expenditure in the interest of advancing political speech warrants constitutional protection. I don't trust the state to decide what expenditure is "protected" and which is "unprotected" in the interest of advancing political speech. I'm not blind to the perverse incentives that flow therefrom, but I'd prefer it that way than the other.
"These principles apply to for-profit corporations, but also non-profits and labor unions."
You seem to be the only one using this as a wedge. I think most would be fine with denying money's access in politics for all, but the folks who come out reminding everyone about the baby in the bath water without provocation or reason protest too much, methinks. Why do you feel the need to remind us of what we already know?
Because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of government regulating political speech. I don't think I'm the only one concerns about it this matter—Glenn Greenwald (whom I detest) has raised the same concerns. I didn't realize everyone knew this—pardon the disturbance, Peter.
Definition: Rules and administrative codes issued by governmental agencies at all levels, municipal, county, state and federal. Although they are not laws, regulations have the force of law, since they are adopted under authority granted by statutes, and often include penalties for violations. One problem is that regulations are not generally included in volumes containing state statutes or federal laws but often must be obtained from the agency or located in volumes in law libraries and not widely distributed. The regulation-making process involves hearings, publication in governmental journals which supposedly give public notice, and adoption by the agency. The process is best known to industries and special interests concerned with the subject matter, but only occasionally to the general public. Federal regulations are adopted in the manner designated in the Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.) and states usually have similar procedures.
Okay, you're differentiating between statutes and regulations (regulations have the force of law, but okay, whatever). Thank you for the bolding, but you should know that all federal and state regulations are readily accessible via the internet or in print.
In your view, should statutes restricting corporate speech be enforced by the government? In criminal prosecutions? In civil proceedings?
I differentiate for a reason. When was the last time you had the time to research all of the bullshit being created by regulation?
Federal law, on the other hand, is something that comes up on C-Span.
Simplicity is good. Regulations are anything but simple and, while statutes are not necessarily EASY, they tend to be much more simple for the average person to find and understand.
Regulations are also much easier to control by special interest. If the regulatory body is made up of a bunch of folks, where do I cast my vote to have the most chance of making a difference? I can readily and simply find out which way my senators and reps vote and cast my ballot accordingly.
What's the specific question you're asking about the FEC's regulations promulgated since Citizens? We can do a Google search, together!
Peter, I must say, your argument seems to boil down to: "If the everyman can't understand the regulation, then the regulation shouldn't exist. Statutes are much simpler than regulations, and are therefore better." Have you taken a look at a federal statute recently?
As a reminder, you still haven't answered my question about appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
This comes as absolutely no surprise to those who were following the referendum vote and the subsequent fallout.
"We warned that the damage done by a bank holiday would accelerate rapidly, and that is happening. While the plural of anecdote is not data, and both this Wall Street Journal story and Financial Times reporter Peter Spiegel’s Twitter survey are subject to considerable sample bias, both suggest that many “Oxi” voters of last weekend have reversed themselves as they’ve gotten a clearer picture of how destructive a Grexit could be. Moreover, in fairness to them, recall that they were given false assurances by Syriza leaders. Varoufakis insisted that banks would reopen last Tuesday no matter what, and that Greece has four months of pharmaceutical supplies. Tsipras assured voters that with a fresh mandate, he would get a better deal from the creditors. Party officials vociferously denied the assertion by European leaders meant a vote against the Eurozone and would be taken as a vote for a Grexit."
Athens must now pass a series of tough reforms by Wednesday before the rest of the eurozone will consider a third rescue package, which includes up to €25bn to shore up the country's beleaguered banking sector.
Reforms include VAT hikes, pension cuts and a "scaled up privatisation programme" that will see €50bn of the country's assets transferred into an "external fund" and sold off under Brussels' supervision.
Greece will also have to welcome back international debt inspectors from the European Commission, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank to monitor the country's progress.
"In case no agreement could be reached, Greece should be offered swift negotiations on a time-out from the euro area, with possible debt restructuring," the draft text said.
How could they possibly resist such a sweet offer? They didn't even ask for their first born.
The news this am reports that Greece has accepted the framework of a deal based on the above - more privatization, more austerity, national assets collateralized, no debt reduction.
Apparently the vultures haven't finished picking the bones clean yet. The new government appears to have taken a page from oBAMa's playbook - promise hope and change, then give them the same old shit x2.
alternative, if nothing else it shows that the greek government doesn't care about what the people of greece want, right?
also, it's more important to support a broken banking system that leaves people more or less destitute so they can protect investor profit and interest payments.
under the current plan, how will greece pay down it's debt? it can't get revenue from taxes because unemployment is too high. it obviously isn't going to sell treasury securities or bonds or anything like that. greece doesn't control their own central bank so they don't have any sort of option like quantitative easing.
so how do the investors get paid if there is no money to pay them with? the imf and eu can keep giving them loans they can't pay back in order to pay the interest to the banks, but in the end what does that solve?
This morning on some insipid morning "news" program they reported that 401Ks are up, thanks to a greek deal! Who knew it was sooo easy to make money? The markets only go up. Investors get paid by selling monetized securities to schmucks in the markets.
alternative, if nothing else it shows that the greek government doesn't care about what the people of greece want, right?
Government is only and always concerned with one thing - maintaining power over people. With that comes all else...
@cutkram you're asking the write questions and which is the basis of why the OXI vote took place and why economist like stiglitz, etc., stated the obvious. Previous corrupt governments just agreed to anything to get the money -
Unless there is long term economic investment that focuses on growing the economy, bankers will not see the money.
@yanisvaroufakis stated greece had to collect more tax money [+30% black market unreported] and one plan was to introduce trade unions and living wages as a mechanism to have people fairly report taxes.
Interesting piece in New statesmen - just out and worth a read.
I wonder what Tsipras' payoff is? The Greek people gave him power to stand up and he took a dump all over them. This opens up the real possibility of Golden Dawn or another extremist party coming to power.
When an event is in the midst of negotiations, very difficult to read clear intentions of leaders of actual intentions verses manuvers.
The OXI vote raised the debate to the world court - US did put pressure on EU to keep Greece afloat. US knows if Greece and China both go down, will create global contagion and the southern border of EU is very important to a stable middle east. Tsipras had to bring something to be able to sit at the table. So I assume the banks are in such dire situation very difficult situation.
Tsipras should walk away from the deal. He is giving away more than he is getting. Yes, will through Greece out of the EU and into a deep depression for 3-5 years. The plan has to be more than an account's balance sheet if the aim is to pull greece out of the gutter.
Grexit
I didn't realize that a refusal to engage with a stranger on the internet means that one loses the argument by default. Anyway, I guess we're back at it.
You were all too happy to engage until I proved you wrong.
And we're not back at it, unless of course you want to return to that thread and try to resurrect your position. But we all know that's not going to happen.
I think this is becoming a dispute of semantics.
German taxpayers have lent Greece their tax dollars. Germans will be harmed by additional default or debt relief. I am not saying that either should be taken off the table, but I am just arguing that there are victims to this situation other than Greece, itself.
I think that this is my cue to step out of the 105-IQ echo chamber.
taxpayers don't fund central banks. money doesn't come from hard work, it comes from central banks printing money.....
Germans paid for several bailouts, curt.
"I think that this is my cue to step out of the 105-IQ echo chamber."
Come on, don't make it so easy.
You must be used to the 85-IQ chamber.
ZING.
I think that this is my cue to step out of the 105-IQ echo chamber.
If you stop watching Coulter and O'Reily your IQ *might* go up. Then again, probably not. Ignorance can be fixed, stupid can't.
The banks and gov't are so intermingled that they may as well be one in the same...Fascism is when we cant find the line between banks/corporations and government...
The Euro is a failed experiment... The EU is a good idea but they should have all kept to their own currency...
Miles, you remind me of Keith Olberman. You and he seem to have a disorder of not only thinking you're right about everything, but have an absolute sense certainty that your correctness is beyond reproach and that if you don't agree it's only because you're stupid or evil.
It's rather off-putting.
curtram is flat out denying economy (banking) as a measure of social justice and equality between historical and cultural nation states. Alternative has accepted the exchange between the historical and cultural nation states as quite natural since economy and society can not be separated so clearly as curtkram suggest it is or should be. zizek's article insinuates that there should be some seperation between monetary and cultural values, and moreover the failure of monetary success should not be blamed on cultural differencess - and culturally to dismiss charges of social failure based on economic failure as false. and to deny the guilt of economy not only acceptable but a step forward and out of the economic binds on culture................if church and state need to be separated should economy and state be separated, and is that even possible?
Alt, I didn't say you were evil, just stupid. But you're also a troll, which I guess makes you evil, too.
@Chris, it is possible, it's called END CITIZENS UNITED. quite simple as well, take money out of politics (and all its derivatives) and everything will start falling into place again. Now, how do we make legislators legislate against themselves if they are so deep into corporate pockets?
JLC, things were fucked before Citizens United and have been for decades. And as you noted, those who benefit from institutionalized corruption cannot be relied upon to end it.
Do you guys realize that many left-leaning groups favor the decision in Citizens United?
https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-citizens-united
you keep playing with left and right, I can think for myself. thanks.
I play with left and right because this architecture site has become a repository for pablum traditionally tossed around by the capital-L Left.
Setting the left/right dichotomy aside, do you see any problems with a constitutional amendment restricting speech rights for groups of people who choose to come together for political aims by means of registered, limited liability organizations?
groups of people who choose to come together for political aims by means of registered, limited liability organizations.
You really believe this is what citizens united is?
I am not against free speech for individuals or groups, but I don't believe corporations will ever have the common good for a nation as their main interest. They are slaves to the bottom line. and the lear jet.
Plus, right now money equals speech, which is just plain stupid.
Don't feed the troll and maybe it will go away.
Yes, I do believe that's what Citizens United is about, at least in part. I hear what you're saying, and I have to ask—where do we differ? These principles apply to for-profit corporations, but also non-profits and labor unions.
Moreover, I do that expenditure in the interest of advancing political speech warrants constitutional protection. I don't trust the state to decide what expenditure is "protected" and which is "unprotected" in the interest of advancing political speech. I'm not blind to the perverse incentives that flow therefrom, but I'd prefer it that way than the other.
Just my opinion.
"These principles apply to for-profit corporations, but also non-profits and labor unions."
You seem to be the only one using this as a wedge. I think most would be fine with denying money's access in politics for all, but the folks who come out reminding everyone about the baby in the bath water without provocation or reason protest too much, methinks. Why do you feel the need to remind us of what we already know?
Because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of government regulating political speech. I don't think I'm the only one concerns about it this matter—Glenn Greenwald (whom I detest) has raised the same concerns. I didn't realize everyone knew this—pardon the disturbance, Peter.
I am opposed to a regulation, as imposed by a regulatory body.
I am in favor of a law, as imposed by the legislature and interpreted by the courts.
The difference being what, exactly?
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1771
Definition: Rules and administrative codes issued by governmental agencies at all levels, municipal, county, state and federal. Although they are not laws, regulations have the force of law, since they are adopted under authority granted by statutes, and often include penalties for violations. One problem is that regulations are not generally included in volumes containing state statutes or federal laws but often must be obtained from the agency or located in volumes in law libraries and not widely distributed. The regulation-making process involves hearings, publication in governmental journals which supposedly give public notice, and adoption by the agency. The process is best known to industries and special interests concerned with the subject matter, but only occasionally to the general public. Federal regulations are adopted in the manner designated in the Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.) and states usually have similar procedures.
Emphasis mine.
Okay, you're differentiating between statutes and regulations (regulations have the force of law, but okay, whatever). Thank you for the bolding, but you should know that all federal and state regulations are readily accessible via the internet or in print.
In your view, should statutes restricting corporate speech be enforced by the government? In criminal prosecutions? In civil proceedings?
I differentiate for a reason. When was the last time you had the time to research all of the bullshit being created by regulation?
Federal law, on the other hand, is something that comes up on C-Span.
Simplicity is good. Regulations are anything but simple and, while statutes are not necessarily EASY, they tend to be much more simple for the average person to find and understand.
Regulations are also much easier to control by special interest. If the regulatory body is made up of a bunch of folks, where do I cast my vote to have the most chance of making a difference? I can readily and simply find out which way my senators and reps vote and cast my ballot accordingly.
If I'm a concerned citizen, then I go online, and I look up regulations and statutes. It's not hard.
Congress isn't controlled by special interests?
How about the questions about enforcement that I raised above? You want the government to prosecute violations of political contributions?
Case in point, what has the FEC decided with regards to the ruling?
It's all "readily accessible via the internet or in print" so I'm sure you could tell me without needing much time.
Don't be obtuse, you know damned well that isn't what I am saying.
What's the specific question you're asking about the FEC's regulations promulgated since Citizens? We can do a Google search, together!
Peter, I must say, your argument seems to boil down to: "If the everyman can't understand the regulation, then the regulation shouldn't exist. Statutes are much simpler than regulations, and are therefore better." Have you taken a look at a federal statute recently?
As a reminder, you still haven't answered my question about appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
I'm merely responding to what you're writing. It's exceedingly difficult to pick up subtlety on an internet forum devoted to architecture.
I'm saying "heck" to myself as I'm reading this. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/07/tsipras-has-just-destroyed-greece.html
not really sure what to think of that.
this is why we can't have nice things.
This comes as absolutely no surprise to those who were following the referendum vote and the subsequent fallout.
"We warned that the damage done by a bank holiday would accelerate rapidly, and that is happening. While the plural of anecdote is not data, and both this Wall Street Journal story and Financial Times reporter Peter Spiegel’s Twitter survey are subject to considerable sample bias, both suggest that many “Oxi” voters of last weekend have reversed themselves as they’ve gotten a clearer picture of how destructive a Grexit could be. Moreover, in fairness to them, recall that they were given false assurances by Syriza leaders. Varoufakis insisted that banks would reopen last Tuesday no matter what, and that Greece has four months of pharmaceutical supplies. Tsipras assured voters that with a fresh mandate, he would get a better deal from the creditors. Party officials vociferously denied the assertion by European leaders meant a vote against the Eurozone and would be taken as a vote for a Grexit."
It's looking like EU will f'ing Greece tonight. So three things to consider:
1 - The Guarding suggest you consider greece for your summer holiday and gives a good guide.
2 - @yanisvaroufakis points out similarity in WW1 Treaty of Versailes and John Maynard Keynes - worth a read
With the departure of an arrogant trader, serious negotiations can commence
3. Bit of economic history from LSE Albrecht Ritschl -- From 2012 - Germany, Greece and the Marshall Plan
Athens must now pass a series of tough reforms by Wednesday before the rest of the eurozone will consider a third rescue package, which includes up to €25bn to shore up the country's beleaguered banking sector.
Reforms include VAT hikes, pension cuts and a "scaled up privatisation programme" that will see €50bn of the country's assets transferred into an "external fund" and sold off under Brussels' supervision.
Greece will also have to welcome back international debt inspectors from the European Commission, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank to monitor the country's progress.
"In case no agreement could be reached, Greece should be offered swift negotiations on a time-out from the euro area, with possible debt restructuring," the draft text said.
How could they possibly resist such a sweet offer? They didn't even ask for their first born.
How would you fix it, Miles?
^ Don't feed the troll.
The news this am reports that Greece has accepted the framework of a deal based on the above - more privatization, more austerity, national assets collateralized, no debt reduction.
Apparently the vultures haven't finished picking the bones clean yet. The new government appears to have taken a page from oBAMa's playbook - promise hope and change, then give them the same old shit x2.
It's funny how you can't answer a single question defending your views.
Did you actually think that the OXI vote meant anything?
alternative, if nothing else it shows that the greek government doesn't care about what the people of greece want, right?
also, it's more important to support a broken banking system that leaves people more or less destitute so they can protect investor profit and interest payments.
under the current plan, how will greece pay down it's debt? it can't get revenue from taxes because unemployment is too high. it obviously isn't going to sell treasury securities or bonds or anything like that. greece doesn't control their own central bank so they don't have any sort of option like quantitative easing.
so how do the investors get paid if there is no money to pay them with? the imf and eu can keep giving them loans they can't pay back in order to pay the interest to the banks, but in the end what does that solve?
This morning on some insipid morning "news" program they reported that 401Ks are up, thanks to a greek deal! Who knew it was sooo easy to make money? The markets only go up. Investors get paid by selling monetized securities to schmucks in the markets.
alternative, if nothing else it shows that the greek government doesn't care about what the people of greece want, right?
Government is only and always concerned with one thing - maintaining power over people. With that comes all else...
@cutkram you're asking the write questions and which is the basis of why the OXI vote took place and why economist like stiglitz, etc., stated the obvious. Previous corrupt governments just agreed to anything to get the money -
Unless there is long term economic investment that focuses on growing the economy, bankers will not see the money.
@yanisvaroufakis stated greece had to collect more tax money [+30% black market unreported] and one plan was to introduce trade unions and living wages as a mechanism to have people fairly report taxes.
Interesting piece in New statesmen - just out and worth a read.
Exclusive: Yanis Varoufakis opens up about his five month battle to save Greece
Full transcripts here
I wonder what Tsipras' payoff is? The Greek people gave him power to stand up and he took a dump all over them. This opens up the real possibility of Golden Dawn or another extremist party coming to power.
curt, don't feed the Troll.
miles, in that case i felt it was a good question to ask, whether it was directed towards alternative or not.
Miles, I'm not trolling you just because I'm offering a different viewpoint on the situation.
Curt, is it that the Greek government doesn't care about its people, or that it has zero bargaining power at this stage?
When an event is in the midst of negotiations, very difficult to read clear intentions of leaders of actual intentions verses manuvers.
The OXI vote raised the debate to the world court - US did put pressure on EU to keep Greece afloat. US knows if Greece and China both go down, will create global contagion and the southern border of EU is very important to a stable middle east. Tsipras had to bring something to be able to sit at the table. So I assume the banks are in such dire situation very difficult situation.
Tsipras should walk away from the deal. He is giving away more than he is getting. Yes, will through Greece out of the EU and into a deep depression for 3-5 years. The plan has to be more than an account's balance sheet if the aim is to pull greece out of the gutter.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.