Why Is Greece Making The World Markets Volatile?

Why won't Greece give a firm answer to leaving the euro zone or accepting a bailout?

Their leaders keep flip flopping and its causing the stock markets to go up and down everytime there is a new headline from that part of the world

This weekend will be important for Greece when the european leaders meet for a final decision, will the markets finally trend toward risk again?

 

Why are you complaining? You hate the Captalist system and want to destroy it and replace it with Socialism right?

Well in order to do so, the system has to die. Socialists around the world, aided by you, are killing it. The market is in death throes.

Your life is going to get much, much worse because Socialism tears down the top but never lifts the bottom.

 

Liberalism and socialism are, by definition, incompatible. I know you're part of a social group that doesn't understand basic sense, but come on you can do better!

With regards Greece, I think its rich for the likes of France and Germany to moan about their behaviour. Those nations, out of political desire, allowed an economically irrational result with a Euro that shouldn't have been allowed to proliferate.

 

"Liberal" is the term Fabian socialists in America have adopted in order to hide their true intentions. They are not "classical liberals".

Politics by it's very nature is irrational. In politics, it doesn't matter if something is true or not, all that matters is whether you can convince the voters to believe it is true or not.

The Euro elites are snuffing out democracy in Greece, which is a prerequisite for the establishment of a State Socialist Command Economy.

That is the goal, not the freedom, not democracy, not equality, the creation of a technocratic dictatorship based around a State Socialist command economy. Von Rumpuy wants to be dictator of a European State Socialism.

 

Adding Fabianism to the abuse of terms won't help you either. Do you honestly believe the bobbins that the social group you belong to spew? If so, I suggest that you do some independent reading!

This is just silliness. Old Europe simply allowed a preferential trade agreement to get out of hand. They sidelined economic needs. Note that socialism is naturally against the supranational organisation, an organisation that has been used to harness neo-liberalism at the expense of labour market efficiency

 

Your definition of socialism is out of date.

When I speak of Socialism I mean "the third way" compromise.

 

Politicians are motivated to stay in power. Except, they don't have any money, and too many voters get money from the government. (A lot of the US states will be entering the same situation in not too many years - Greece is just the canary in the coal mine)

Leave Eurozone, they immediately bankrupt, no one gets paid. Accept a bailout, they have to cut spending, 80% lose their pay. Either way, the current politicians get kicked out, as do their replacements.

Every day they avoid a decision, is a day they stay in office.

 

if they leave the eurozone it is like filing for bankruptcy all their debts are forgiven so it could be a better option than cutting spending

but it looks like the european union does not want them to leave because when times are good they help strengthen the euro

 

LOL,

No, the debt won't be "forgiven" the banks will go under and take the entire EU economy with it. Banks in Europe as "too big to fail" as ours are.

 

That it still refers to the ownership and control of the means of production cannot be denied. Crikey, the bobbins you've been fed would lead you to call Blair a socialist because he targeted a marginal reduction in child poverty rates. Our Tony obviously was more Thatcherite

 

Why bother with ownership when in the modern world, with modern Government power and modern regulatory schemes, you can have all the control?

Control, even without outright ownership is still de facto State socialism.

 

Nope. Without worker ownership and control we only have state capitalism. You've made a very basic error, confusing the economic spectrum and socialist political economy

 

Well thank you for the education, it's still no version of capitalism I'm willing to live under. The Euros and Chinese can have it if they want it.

 

All capitalist nations are mixed economies. There will of course be differences. The class structure of the US, with individualism kicked into touch in favour of the corporate elete, wouldn't be welcomed with open arms

 

The rest of the world trust politicians to control business.

The funny part is politics is much closer to a monopoly. No matter who is running for office, they are approved by the few parties required for a majority. Like the 60's song said "why in a so called democratic society, we are always voting for the lesser of two evils?"

The only politicians not beholden to a party in power in the US are those running as Tea Party. The Republican leadership sure didn't want them mucking up their relationship with the Democratic leadership and their combined relationship with "special interests".

Occupy Wall Street has had interesting spin offs. The mass move away from big banks will cause the banks to change even more, they already gave up on their idiotic $5 charge for ATM card use. Once the consumer realizes the power of mass movement, and how to use social networks. I can almost smell the "Consumer Spring".

Occupy Hollywood is gaining momentum. Movie stars, sports stars, and class action lawyers make up a huge part of that top 1% (the income disparity in acting is huge as the average actor makes only $4K a year).

The Progressive dream was rioting in the streets, with the voters crying for governemtn to take over (Cloward & Piven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy), forcing socialism. Cloward and Piven saw this as only the poor rioting, but that wasn't enough.

The Progressives saw the solution was a variation of Bootleggers and Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists), where they would join Republican's in pulling back regulation, dropping taxes, keeping interest rates low, and pushing a depression. Their goal was to grow the poor much bigger, then give them even more. Years of unemployment, Obummercare, and a place to vent their anger - the rich.

Didn't seem to work real well in 2010, we'll see in 2012.

 

Typically folk that do not understand economics and the requirements of capitalism. I say 'god bless em' as its their naivety- if they become a key force- that will enable a more radical change to the economic paradigm (and therefore provide a means to truly test the US class system)

 

why would such a little pizzant country threaten to bring down the global financial markets ?

Why don't you concentrate on the illness, not the symptom.

 

You trust the government more than "the people"?

 

As a businessman, I trust those that I have regularly dealings with. That rarely includes crackpots who use right wing dogma to hide from economic reality

 

The left wing dogma embraces economic reality? ROTFL

 

The interesting aspect with political economy is that most of the schools can be applied to left wing thought. In contrast, the right winger typically has to hide from economic comment.

 

Does it occur to you that your "schools" of thought are focused on how to control the economy. That fits the left.

The right, like Adam Smith, has more faith in the individual.

 

You'd have a point if you weren't making nonsensical comment. The schools of thought are about understanding economic relations, be it the neoclassical orthodox or the numerous heterodox approaches. The right are constrained to marginal schools, such as banging on about the Austrian school despite its failure to understand the labour market or the firm.

Smith spent most of his efforts looking into the ethics of capitalism. Given a lack of understanding of his work (e.g. the invisible hand is deliberately exaggerated despite only being mentioned a couple of times), they misrepresent his analysis. Try something like McLean's "Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century"

 

well the stock markets are seeing it that way now they are remaining slightly bullish

but there is still is a sense of uncertainty due to greece and now everyone is watching Italy as it is a much bigger economy with alot of debt woes, so no big moves are being made yet in risk for the US markets

 

why does such a little country pose such a big threat ?