Why is my government so retarded that they don't understand that Germany needs to pile up debts right fucking now in...

Why is my government so retarded that they don't understand that Germany needs to pile up debts right fucking now in order to save the Euro.
REEEEEEEEEE

Other urls found in this thread:

english.eu.dk/en/faq/faq/net_contribution
mises.org/library/theorie-des-geldes-und-der-umlaufsmittel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because muh schwäbische Hausfrau and black zero.

I hate him so much ;_;

>Germany needs to pile up debts right fucking now
Yes, let's follow the exemplary decisions of the Greeks.

I wonder, I wonder.

You realize that without us piling up debts the other countries will never be able to reduce their debt?

Marco economics isn't the same as micro economics. Or imagine you've got car problems. You could keep driving and save some money short term, but the problem will get worse eventually and might end up being more expensive to fix than it would've been if you had fixed it before it escalated. You know, like in Greece.

debt = slavery


clearly they know more details than you do, fuching krautschlinger

If they continue like this all the other countries will kill the Euro and Germany will be fucked.

>pile up debt
>save the Euro

You need to do some research buddy.

Nope. They just have to achieve a primary surplus (for about 100 years) and they are fine again. Us borrowing money has nothing to do with it.
The common currency was designed to be handled like the DM not the Lira. That the people in the olive belt don't get this isn't our fault.

see above. It's not our responsibility to spend or not spend in order for their fiscal balance sheet to be in order.

I'm in no doubt that Greece is fucked and can't get out of this mess while remaining in the Euro but that has nothing to do with our fiscal policies.

They can't achieve a surplus as long as we save money.
If they achieve a surplus someone else needs to be in debt. There is no money without debt. Do you understand this?

It's not our responsibility but it's in our self interest because we want that fucking Union and besides that if Greece goes bancrupt we can say BYE BYE to those debts. Not to say that the whole refugee shit happening there at the moment was kind of a fuck you towards us, or rather a consequence of us telling them what to do on one side, but then pretending it's not our responsibility when the whole crap backfired.

I'm against the Union as it is, but we should get out gracefully. Otherwise we're fucked.

>They can't achieve a surplus as long as we save money.
Oh yes, they just have to sell us more than we sell them.

>There is no money without debt.
That must be the most insidious lie that's in wider circulation. When we had a metal standard or only fine metals at all there was money, too.

Vollgedecktes Geld is not only the best way to organize an Umlaufmittel but in the end it will prove to be the only stable one. We'll head for some more and bigger crashes in the financial systems because we create money out of thin air. And at some point any fiat money that's got a fluctuating nominal amount will seem foolish, to even consider.

>It's not our responsibility but it's in our self interest because we want that fucking Union
>we want
No, you want.

>besides that if Greece goes bancrupt we can say BYE BYE to those debts.
God fucking damn it. The money is gone anyways. GONE.

>Not to say that the whole refugee shit happening there at the moment was kind of a fuck you towards us
To safeguard our own border when the Schengen treaty is violated is - on the other hand - solely our responsibility.

>I'm against the Union as it is, but we should get out gracefully.
What does that mean? Not much grace left in that club, is there?

>Otherwise we're fucked.
We're fucked either way. It's impossible for them to repay their debt to the Eurozone, their debt bilaterally to us or what has run up in the Target2 system.

>indebt yourself to save the Euro
just let it die already you morons

>Oh yes, they just have to sell us more than we sell them.
How can they do that if we don't buy?
If we buy more of their stuff we reduce our savings thus reducing their debt.
So in order for their debt to go down we need to spend money. Do you agree?

>That must be the most insidious lie that's in wider circulation. When we had a metal standard or only fine metals at all there was money, too.
There was money, but there was also debt.

If I give you 1 fiat money, I no longer have it. So i created a PLUS FOR YOU but a MINUS FOR ME.
In order for the other countries to create a PLUS we need to have a MINUS.

>save the Euro

Still thinking that that is worth the effort?

>kill the Euro and Germany will be fucked
How is this bad?

Common currency with numerous countries is like a chain. It's only as stronk as the weakest link and you currently have some really weak links. Germany will continue to wrestle with this problem indefinitely or at least until it overwhelms them.

if we don't we will lose most of our export basically over night which means unemployment.

>So in order for their debt to go down we need to spend money. Do you agree?
Obviously. I just don't understand why we do need to indebt ourselves to buy stuff from Greece. With ~100bn they owe us we could send every German to Greece for holiday twice.
Why should Germany stop to import stuff from Greece or importing at all? Because that's the only way our creditors could fail to repay us.

>There was money, but there was also debt.
So?

>If I give you 1 fiat money, I no longer have it. So i created a PLUS FOR YOU but a MINUS FOR ME.
Trivially.
But what has that to do with debt? You could have given me 1 money without borrowing it. You know, by just owning that 1 money beforehand.

Of course we would have to bleed for a while, but after we recover I think we'd be better off, especially because we'd be much more independent.

but muh Reich

That's why
english.eu.dk/en/faq/faq/net_contribution

>ironical thread started by rarely sane germanon
>bunch of keynesian germcucks appear

>if we don't we will lose most of our export basically over night which means unemployment.

That just means our economy is unhealthily based on exports. If we are in trouble because we produce too many goods and have to export them or face unemployment, then there is something wrong, wouldn't you say?
We have 200bn trade surplus, ffs. 200 BILLION! That's outright madness.

>they think europe can be saved without HIM

Oh wait, he was actually serious ...

kek

>Why should Germany stop to import stuff from Greece or importing at all?
We shouldn't. We should import way more from Greece which means we need to give Greece more money.

>But what has that to do with debt? You could have given me 1 money without borrowing it. You know, by just owning that 1 money beforehand.
How would I have gotten the 1 money?
I would have gotten it from someone else since I can't create money.
So i created a minus for that person in order for me to have a plus.

That's true. We need to STOP exporting so much OR we need to IMPORT MORE.
In order to import more we need to spend money so we need to create debt.

Please halp. We need to save this shithole called EU ;_;

...

>pay debts greece
>just be like us it's easy
>you just need to stop corruption
this faggot is the worst of them all.

you goys need eurobonds. If eurobonds don't happen, then further integration is impossible. Unless you make Greeks or Spaniards work for free

No, we just need to raise our wages.

...

>No, we just need to raise our wages.
you can't, your exporters would become less competitive and your GDP results wouldn't be as good. You should move more production to eastern Europe

Gerabia

"we'll pay you to leave"

>We shouldn't. We should import way more from Greece which means we need to give Greece more money.
That's not how I meant the question. "should" as in "why should that happen". We will import from Greece and the Greeks have to import less from us and then their debt could be get balanced again.
Of course that's completely unrealistic. They will never be able to repay such a huge debt. Das müssen wir abschreiben. Wahrscheinlich auch die Target2 Schulden von Portugal und vielleicht sogar Italien.

>How would I have gotten the 1 money?
A process to exchange time into money, called "work".

>I would have gotten it from someone else since I can't create money.
>So i created a minus for that person in order for me to have a plus.
Exactly. And at some point I will give a person 1 unit of money which is how the whole cycle works. You're talking as if there was zero liquidity and that all the time.

>In order to import more we need to spend money so we need to create debt.
Same fallacy again.

Yes, that's the point. We need to reduce our ridiculous export surplus. It's a good thing when we become less competitive.

No you don't. What we need is to quit this stupid currency project. The only way to save the EU.

>Germans think the fate of the Eu will be decided during their elections.

France will decide.

>A process to exchange time into money, called "work".
If I work form him he is in debt because he promised to pay me for my work.
Every month he erases his debt by paying me some amount of money.
Where does he get the money from?
From someone else who pays a debt to the employer.

>Exactly. And at some point I will give a person 1 unit of money which is how the whole cycle works. You're talking as if there was zero liquidity and that all the time.
There is no liquidity if there is no debt because there would be no money.

Let's say there is a society without money.
Person A trade one potato for one banana of person B
Person B now has the potato and person A the banana.
Easy.

Assume A doesn't have a potato but wants to get a banana from B.
He says to B: You give me this potato and I give you 1 money. You can trade the 1 money for a potato or something else I produce in the future.
B gives A the potato and gets 1 money.

A is now in debt to the holder of the 1 money.
He owns the man that owns the money something.
B now has 1 money and he can only have it because A is in debt.

>He says to B: You give me this banana and I give you 1 money. You can trade the 1 money for a potato or something else I produce in the future.
>B gives A the banana and gets 1 money.

I even fail at simple stories ;_;

>There is no liquidity if there is no debt because there would be no money.
No, that's complete bullshit. It's a myth that unfortunately has established itself very well it seems.
It is perfectly possible to build your monetary system on positive money, not on debt. I can't even understand how one could assume the opposite.

>exchange story
Hmm, ok.
So since the unit of money (whatever it is) hasn't value on its own, read utility value, you equate it with an IOU. In that case you are of course right, by definition.

But I think it's not an useful way at looking at things because 1. it's not "directed" towards anybody like an IOU. You could exchange that money with everyone who believes in it's value. And 2nd it makes a leap from utilitiy values (potatoes, bananas) to some sort of undefined thing that has no inherent value (piece of paper like a banknote). But you could tell your story with something else that serves as money, as well. Something that has utility value and is used for exchange too (cigarettes were used after 2nd WW).

Your main error lies here though:
>He says to B: You give me this banana and I give you 1 money.
Yeah. And you have to own that unit of money first. At no point did you anybody in this story go into debt. Everybody worked for, or exchanged for the thing he received/gave away.

>No, that's complete bullshit. It's a myth that unfortunately has established itself very well it seems.
It's even printed on some banknotes. (see pic related)
Money is a promise to do something like pay an equal amount of gold or something.
Which means if you have the banknote someone else is in debt because he promised you something.
Without this promise the banknote would not exist.

Yes. It stems from the time of the gold standard (or bimetal standard rather).
But that contradicts your argument from before doesn't it? You said money can only exists through debt. But this banknote exists on its own - as a placeholder for a bunch of gold at the BoE. So which one is it?

I personally would handle it with a fixed amount of fiat money. A bit like bitcoin but with a central bank and physical representation of money (coins, banknotes).

>But that contradicts your argument from before doesn't it? You said money can only exists through debt. But this banknote exists on its own - as a placeholder for a bunch of gold at the BoE. So which one is it?
Why should it contradict my argument?
The bank owes the holder the banknote some amount of gold. So the bank is in debt.
If the holder of the banknote goes to the bank and demands the payout of the gold the banknote is gone and debt of the bank is gone, too.
No debt = no money

>If the holder of the banknote goes to the bank and demands the payout of the gold the banknote is gone and debt of the bank is gone, too.
>No debt = no money
Wat?
The gold didn't vanish did it? The guy who got his gold out of the vault of the bank still has it and could possibly exchange it for other things.
Assuming that people see physical gold as something valuable of course but if they wouldn't they would not have taken the banknote as an exchange item either. After all it's just a placeholder for the gold.

He has the gold, yes.
But the money is gone.

But the gold IS the money.

Read
Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel
>mises.org/library/theorie-des-geldes-und-der-umlaufsmittel

The title alone is a good observation. Money and means of exchange are the same thing. If I buy something with the 50 Pound note or with the piece of gold doesn't matter. It's both something you can't eat or use (if you're not a goldsmith) but it can be used for exchanging goods.

Fiat money (the money we use) != commodity money.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

>Fiat money (the money we use) != commodity money.
Well, the way it comes into being is different but once it's there it makes absolutely no difference. If you would keep the nominal amount of the fiat money constant and wouldn't mine any more gold, say, then it's absolutely the same. It's a fixed amount of Umlaufsmittel that compares against the amount of goods and services that are at offer at the very moment.

Besides. Even if you insist on using Fiat money that doesn't mean somebody has to be in debt. Except when you insist on the definition I have acknowleged above: that fiat money is in principle an IOU because it doesn't hold any utility value.

Last time you did that you also annexed poland.