3 ms·

This reminds me of an airport in Radom (Poland). It was built few years ago, because it was an opportunity to get some money from EU (and for local politicians

by mamon 9y ago

This reminds me of an airport in Radom (Poland). It was built few years ago, because it was an opportunity to get some money from EU (and for local politicians to get some bribes :) ). For the first two years airport was unused - the only airline that signet contract got bankrupt. Currently it has another airline operating and serves 10k passengers per year. That's what happens when EU starts giving away money.

tempay 9y ago
> That's what happens when EU starts giving away money. I'm unconvinced how bad this actually is. An organisation with a ~150 billion euro budget in going to inevitably have some abuse/waste of it's resources but equally I can think of dozens of projects that have positive outcomes. Sure, it's still not okay for the ones like the airport to exist but I think focusing on them undermines the good that can be done by having a source of cash that can be used to improve the world.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  I guess you would similarly dismiss the corruption etc that has led to auditors refusing to sign off on EU accounts for years? And as if the EU has morality at its core.. I don't see much of that when it comes to EU policies that impoverish farmers in developing countries.
  - tempay 9y ago
    > you would similarly dismiss the corruption etc that has led to auditors refusing to sign off on EU accounts for years? So far as I can tell this is incorrect[1]. [1] https://infacts.org/mythbusts/auditors-havent-refused-sign-off-eu-accounts/ https://infacts.org/mythbusts/auditors-havent-refused-sign-o...
danmaz74 9y ago
A very big difference is that EU convergence funds aren't debt you need to repay later - while those Chinese investments are. Those countries are getting into deep debt, sometimes to build things they don't need.
- mamon 9y ago
  There's a catch with convergence funds: EU never pays 100% of the bill. Average is closer to 50%, I think, so it is enough to tempt politicians into unnecessary investments, and not enough to be completely harmless for local community budget (there are cities in Poland with debt to yearly income ratio of 80-90 %).
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    Theoretically, the not-100% rule is meant exactly so that the receiving state won't spend the money in completely wasteful projects. Unfortunately, this isn't a full assurance against the long term stupidity/short term greed of local politicians and voters alike - this happened in Southern Italy too, and surely in many other places.

by mamon 9y ago

tempay 9y ago

> That's what happens when EU starts giving away money. I'm unconvinced how bad this actually is. An organisation with a ~150 billion euro budget in going to inevitably have some abuse/waste of it's resources but equally I can think of dozens of projects that have positive outcomes. Sure, it's still not okay for the ones like the airport to exist but I think focusing on them undermines the good that can be done by having a source of cash that can be used to improve the world.

Boothroid 9y ago
I guess you would similarly dismiss the corruption etc that has led to auditors refusing to sign off on EU accounts for years? And as if the EU has morality at its core.. I don't see much of that when it comes to EU policies that impoverish farmers in developing countries.
- tempay 9y ago
  > you would similarly dismiss the corruption etc that has led to auditors refusing to sign off on EU accounts for years? So far as I can tell this is incorrect[1]. [1] https://infacts.org/mythbusts/auditors-havent-refused-sign-off-eu-accounts/ https://infacts.org/mythbusts/auditors-havent-refused-sign-o...

danmaz74 9y ago

A very big difference is that EU convergence funds aren't debt you need to repay later - while those Chinese investments are. Those countries are getting into deep debt, sometimes to build things they don't need.

mamon 9y ago
There's a catch with convergence funds: EU never pays 100% of the bill. Average is closer to 50%, I think, so it is enough to tempt politicians into unnecessary investments, and not enough to be completely harmless for local community budget (there are cities in Poland with debt to yearly income ratio of 80-90 %).
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Theoretically, the not-100% rule is meant exactly so that the receiving state won't spend the money in completely wasteful projects. Unfortunately, this isn't a full assurance against the long term stupidity/short term greed of local politicians and voters alike - this happened in Southern Italy too, and surely in many other places.