The interesting thing this week is that the most fragile and indebted country that the EU has bailed out for 30 years straight (Italy) has elected a govt that doesn't like the EU. Good times ahead.
At the same time it was made much easier (at lower interest rates) for southern European countries to borrow money from northern European countries and other markets, as creditors would feel more secure that they'd get their money back. Creditors would assume the northern European countries would bail-out southern European countries in case of problems.
And that caused southern European countries to lend more which might benefit a country like Germany again. These countries could lend more easily to buy luxury cars, for example.
Generally speaking, access to cheap debt is seen as a uniformly good thing.
But this is the same as drug dealer saying their dead customer was not responsible enough. Yeah it true, but some people just are not responsible for their own actions and the dealer was happily benefiting all the time from him
I'm not pointing the "overspending" finger either, just saying, countries should take responsibility for their actions, not complain at the enablers.
What am I missing?
Except that the dead customer still owes 590 billion to (mostly) the drug dealer mentioned above and won't be able to pay it.
And the goods delivered were not drugs but things that usually don't alter your way of thinking (like cars, machines, ...), even less if we're talking about a group of people (like the government or a country of 60mn people)
Oh and there was also trading (i.e. delivering goods back), so Italy is not only consumer but also producer.
Which is why the weaker currencies were a much better fit for Southern European countries. Creditors would expect a high interest, due to high inflation, thus limiting the politician's ability to borrow money.
I do feel northern Europe (especially Germany) is partially to blame, since they were very much interesting in increasing their exports and the Euro was the enabler.
This does not absolve the politicians, nor the electorate.
They both share the blame. If a bank clerk keeps giving loans to a drug addict something is definitely off. Especially if it suggest settling the debts via organ sale (austerity).
But then you can invest that extra profit in decreasing your foreign currency price, thus becoming more competitive.
You can google for longer explanations of why a weak currency is excellent for exporters, this is well established.
When a country's currency appreciates in relation to foreign currencies, foreign goods become cheaper in the domestic market and there is overall downward pressure on domestic prices. In contrast, the prices of domestic goods paid by foreigners go up, which tends to decrease foreign demand for domestic products.
A depreciation of the home currency has the opposite effects.
It contradicts directly your claim that exports don't get cheaper. You're saying exports remain the same (because they don't get any cheaper), and that the only change is an increase of corporate profits at the expense of wages.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_appreciation_and_depr...
> Export dependent nations may actively encourage a weak currency in order to boost their exports.
> A weak currency may help a country's exports gain market share when its goods are less expensive compared to goods priced in stronger currencies. The increase in sales may boost economic growth and jobs while increasing profits for companies conducting business in foreign markets
Where does it support your claim that a weakened currency does not affect the price of exports?
It says the exact opposite. Exports increase because they become less expensive:
> A weak currency may help a country's exports gain market share when its goods are less expensive compared to goods priced in stronger currencies. The increase in sales may boost economic growth and jobs while increasing profits for companies conducting business in foreign markets
>But then you can invest that extra profit in decreasing your foreign currency price, thus becoming more competitive.
Another thing is that if production costs go down (although you don't say why they're going down, it seems a random assumption on your part), then competition among exporters will drive the price of exports down. I mean, this is Economics 101.
I spent 5 minutes googling this out of curiosity and could only find published claims in favor of the orthodox "weak currency boosts exports" idea, for example "Export dependent nations may actively encourage a weak currency in order to boost their exports." [0] or "Exports become cheaper when the currency of a nation is weak."[1]
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/weak-currency.asp [1] https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/economic-analysis-mon...
If there are published claims to the contrary, I would be interested in reading them.
Lira pesante Due to the lira's low value after the war economic calculations and price displays became unwieldy because of the large number of zeroes. As early as the 1950s suggestions were made to redenominate the lira but no serious efforts were made at that time. In the 1970s a plan known as lira pesante [it] (English: hard lira) or lira nuova (new lira) was proposed. The lira pesante would have redenominated the currency at 1,000:1, removing 3 zeroes. However the project went dormant for several years before being revived in 1984. Ongoing heavy inflation saw the lira pesante pushed back until it was permanently abandoned in 1991 because of plans for a single European currency.
They had large pension and state-payroll obligations, and they couldn't cut that spending and stay in power. Greece tried to cut it's spending, and the government was ejected. The new socialist government was then destroyed by German bankers and politicians.
Best explanation I ever heard for that phenomenon
I'm pretty sure we are in a phase where corporations and authoritarians have coopted the political engagement of lower socioeconomic classes thru identity and economic issues vs the traditional labor base of unions which is a threat to personal safety and democracy world wide.
If someone has more up-to-date numbers I'd like to read them, but I don't think describing Italy as getting "bailed out for 30 years straight" is accurate unless I'm missing something here.
[0] https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=10Y
If the UK travel industry does benefit from the cheap pound, it probably won’t have any effect until next summer.
London weather gets bad rep but I find it pretty good. Rarely goes below zero degrees Celsius and is rarely so hot that you struggle. I actually prefer London weather to central/south European one for example. More consistent, pleasant all year round. This is all personal though...
When I was in Paris a local informed me that Paris gets more rain than London. I suspect though London rain is more spread out throughout the year.
Maybe it's for the best: hiking trails not being extremely crowded during the warm seasons makes tourism more enjoyable.
The NHS is also using private clinics to help clear backlogs - so even private insurance can lead to a long time to see a consultant.
Ambulances also do not have good response times.
[1]https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/urgent-emergency-care/...
I always hear and read complaints that the US doesn't have a single player public option for health insurance, and that it makes our country one of the worst.
Other nations with "good health care" seem to pay their workers less, have higher taxes, have long wait times at the ER, weak militaries, etc. Something always seems to give.
How would you rank and quantify the various medical systems of the world? Where does the US fall? Why, and how could we make it better?
I'd like to be better informed about healthcare as a matter of policy and how it fits into the bigger scope of government spending.
Germany for example had pretty decent healthcare 10 yrs ago, then a few regulations were passed and it's been doing downhill at a staggering pace.
Nowadays hospitals prefer amputations over simple treatments in diabetes cases as a pretty well known example, as it's me profitable.
There's always going to be some trade-off of course, because resources are never infinite. But preventative healthcare is a lot cheaper and better for quality of life than waiting until limbs need to be lopped off.
But in recent years, it's been struggling, certainly it wasn't high on the conservative govt funding list, and COVID caused extra burnout. Winters we're always tough, and this one is thought to be especially so.
It is unclear to me if it is a lack of money or poor spending.
Are these conclusions based upon some sort of systematic analysis of yours?
There is also a believe that the NHS is a single national entity, which is not the case. Both Wales and Scottish have a national trust whereas England has 100's, totally 217 trusts as of April 2020 [1]. This does not allow for combined purchasing power, shared resources and causes duplicate effort in almost every area.
How about dentistry? Seems odd that for the most part that's not covered under the NHS. It wasn't until adulthood I understood all the jokes about British peoples teeth!
My hope is that we can move to another model that is directly free to the end user, reduce the eye watering waiting times and put the almost £200B annual funding to good use.
For anyone who's spent a significant amount of time in the US this shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Middle and upper class Americans have access to excellent dental care, but if you spend some time in the poorer parts of town, you'll see plenty of people with missing teeth and other severe dental problems. NHS dentistry is poor, but it's better than nothing (which is what a lot of poor Americans effectively get).
There's also the aesthetic aspect of it. Europeans in generally tend to be culturally less interested in tooth straightening and whitening.
> does someone have a good read
The question is complicated enough that any writings on it will inherently have a bias since there are so many details that are easy to ignore in your favor
It bears repeating for the zillionth time that the US spends more public money on healthcare as a proportion of GDP than the UK.
What is a "weak" military for you, and what does it have to do with healthcare? The UK has aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines (including 24/7 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile patrols). Only an ignorant American (and maybe Russian) would consider that to be "weak", because they're so used to the militarised culture and massive spends that everything below blowing half the budget on tanks is "weak".
As has been said many times, the US spends more public money on healthcare, per capita and as % of GDP than everyone else, and had some of the worst outcomes (infant mortality, birth mortality, life expectancy, etc.) of all the developed world.
It's not a matter of how much, but how. The US system has middlemen to manage the middlemen and mind boggling prices and practices. Other systems are underfunded or with corruption here and there.
Would you prefer to wait 2 months to see a non-urgent specialist doctor for "free" or have it in a few days, but billed $60k hoping your insurance covers it? I know that most people prefer not being bankrupt over speedy non-urgent treatment. And US nurses are still paid shit for terrible working conditions, so it's not like it's them getting the extra money, it's mostly at middlemen and to a lesser extent doctors.
The solution to the problems exhibited in systems such as the NHS are more funding and focus (e.g. helping more students get to doctor/nurse positions to ease the burden).
How are you measuring wait times? How are you defining Emergency Departments?
In England there's a 4 hour target for people to be seen, treated and then discharged (or for a decision to admit to be made). Currently the English NHS is meeting that target for 75% of all attendances. This has declined from a 95% rate a few years ago, and it's seen as a massive problem.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas...