4 ms·

What good is the EU if its wealthier members are unwilling to subsidize the poorer ones? Germans want the benefits of federation without the drawbacks.

rusk 7y ago
It allows DE to have an artificially devalued currency which benefits their exports.
petre 7y ago
The EMU is about the federalisation of Europe through the back door. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5TPpuIslzG4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5TPpuIslzG4
mamon 7y ago
EU isn't really subisidizing anyone - the actual flow of money is from poor towards the wealthy: https://www.politico.eu/article/what-rich-countries-get-wrong-about-the-eu-budget-east-west-euroskeptic-cohesion-policy/ https://www.politico.eu/article/what-rich-countries-get-wron...
- luckylion 7y ago
  This confuses public subsidies with private money flows.
  - mamon 7y ago
    Not confuses, just gives fuller picture - the whole deal between old and new EU members was: open up your markets, and we'll give you access to our "cohesion funds" from EU budget. Now you can see who won and who lost on this deal.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Again, it's taxes vs private money. And "the whole deal" really was about a politically unified Europe, the "purely economic union" wasn't a thing anymore when the east expansion happened. That certainly was parts of it, but let's not create alternative history. Besides, "lost and won" is terribly weird when you just look at money flows but exclude goods. Hey, sell me your $30k car for $1000, you'll be the winner, because you get $1000 from me and we'll not look at the car. Not saying that that's an accurate description of EU-trade, just that it's weird to only look at money flows. Another problem with that in general is that it's not just about old and new EU members. Luxembourg is an old member, is the tax oasis that works hard to help companies evade taxes in France and Germany, and is also leeching EU subsidies, not contributing to the EU funds.
      - throwawaylolx 7y ago
        >Again, it's taxes vs private money. That's the entire point of the article, the author is not "confusing" them: >The talks cannot just be about public money, and should not become a brawl between "net contributors" and "net beneficiaries."
        luckylion 7y ago
        > That's the entire point of the article, the author is not "confusing" them I very much believe they are intentionally confusing them because it makes their point. In a "that's basically the same, don't look too hard, just listen to these huge numbers" kind of way.
econcon 7y ago
While EU does subsidize poor EU countries but we must question what's the impact of that subsidizing. 1. EU is single market 2. Germany micraclously had strong currency at the time EU was created, so Germany businesses bought everything in cheaper EU countries and winners became bigger winners engulfing all small players across whole EU 3. EU taxes winners of the game and sends some money to improve the quality of life in poor nations but this ensures that poor EU nation get trapped in middle range and never surpass Germany. They've managed to get all benefits of "imperialism" without any of the downsides.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Artificially strong currencies tend to produce trade deficits, not investment surpluses. I know Germans save and invest a lot, but I doubt they can go against such an enticing macro-economic rule.

rusk 7y ago

It allows DE to have an artificially devalued currency which benefits their exports.

petre 7y ago

The EMU is about the federalisation of Europe through the back door. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5TPpuIslzG4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5TPpuIslzG4

mamon 7y ago

EU isn't really subisidizing anyone - the actual flow of money is from poor towards the wealthy: https://www.politico.eu/article/what-rich-countries-get-wrong-about-the-eu-budget-east-west-euroskeptic-cohesion-policy/ https://www.politico.eu/article/what-rich-countries-get-wron...

luckylion 7y ago
This confuses public subsidies with private money flows.
- mamon 7y ago
  Not confuses, just gives fuller picture - the whole deal between old and new EU members was: open up your markets, and we'll give you access to our "cohesion funds" from EU budget. Now you can see who won and who lost on this deal.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Again, it's taxes vs private money. And "the whole deal" really was about a politically unified Europe, the "purely economic union" wasn't a thing anymore when the east expansion happened. That certainly was parts of it, but let's not create alternative history. Besides, "lost and won" is terribly weird when you just look at money flows but exclude goods. Hey, sell me your $30k car for $1000, you'll be the winner, because you get $1000 from me and we'll not look at the car. Not saying that that's an accurate description of EU-trade, just that it's weird to only look at money flows. Another problem with that in general is that it's not just about old and new EU members. Luxembourg is an old member, is the tax oasis that works hard to help companies evade taxes in France and Germany, and is also leeching EU subsidies, not contributing to the EU funds.
    - throwawaylolx 7y ago
      >Again, it's taxes vs private money. That's the entire point of the article, the author is not "confusing" them: >The talks cannot just be about public money, and should not become a brawl between "net contributors" and "net beneficiaries."
      - luckylion 7y ago
        > That's the entire point of the article, the author is not "confusing" them I very much believe they are intentionally confusing them because it makes their point. In a "that's basically the same, don't look too hard, just listen to these huge numbers" kind of way.

econcon 7y ago

While EU does subsidize poor EU countries but we must question what's the impact of that subsidizing. 1. EU is single market 2. Germany micraclously had strong currency at the time EU was created, so Germany businesses bought everything in cheaper EU countries and winners became bigger winners engulfing all small players across whole EU 3. EU taxes winners of the game and sends some money to improve the quality of life in poor nations but this ensures that poor EU nation get trapped in middle range and never surpass Germany. They've managed to get all benefits of "imperialism" without any of the downsides.

conanbatt 7y ago
Artificially strong currencies tend to produce trade deficits, not investment surpluses. I know Germans save and invest a lot, but I doubt they can go against such an enticing macro-economic rule.