4 ms·

Yes, I thought it wouldn’t last this long. But with this structure it can’t survive, even France is now spiraling out of control in debt. The question is wheth

Yes, I thought it wouldn’t last this long. But with this structure it can’t survive, even France is now spiraling out of control in debt. The question is whether a more federal eu is possible, and if northern states are willing to pay for the south. Now, with the current economic situation in Germany, and the gas issue hanging over their heads, I think this is quite different to the 2008 crisis. Germany might be less and less willing to pay for everything

toyg 4y ago
They don't "pay for everything", they effectively subsidize their own economy. Like what they've done with Greece, lending them money to buy their tanks, the current monetary setup effectively achieves the same, just with more intermediate steps.
- valenterry 4y ago
  Of course they do. If Germany wouldn't have lending Greece money, they could have just use that money to buy tanks from their companies for themselves. German's economy doesn't care if the tanks are being bought by Greece's or Germany's military.
  - politician 4y ago
    There’s a good summary of Germany’s military procurement problems done by an Australian defense economist on YouTube - search Perun. Essentially, weapons manufacturers aren’t able to do business with Germany because Germany isn’t able to fund projects that take more than one year to deliver. That leads to horrific procurement problems like showing up to NATO exercises without enough tents, or spending 10 years evaluating a helmet for German heads that the US already uses. Without overhauling their government, he concludes that the best Germany can do to help NATO is to give funds to other countries that have more capable procurement processes.
  - toyg 4y ago
    But there is a practical limit to how many tanks they can sell to themselves. That limit is much higher when the market is 5x the size.
    - valenterry 4y ago
      Well, not really. Instead of the government lending X dollars to Greece, they can just spend those X dollars on buying tanks, even if they are not used. Would the government do that? Probably not, they might buy some tanks and spent the money for other things, so a different part of the economy is benefited. But when looking at the overall economy / gross product, it doesn't really matter.
      - toyg 4y ago
        But that's the thing - they can't spend those directly to buy tanks - until very recently, they were effectively forbidden from expanding their military capability, like Japan, and there is still a lot of political resistence against that sort of thing. So how do you forage a national defense industry then? You lend to others to buy their wares. That is only one of many, many German industries that would suffer from the demise of the Eurozone. The benefits of the common currency sustaining demand across the continent waaaaay outstrip any perceived "loss of control" for the German economy.
        valenterry 4y ago
        I mean, the context here is the impact on the German economy. If they can't buy tanks, they buy something else. As long as the money goes into German companies then the original claim that this would hurt German's economy is just not true. Okay, if the government actually cannot spent the money (even partially) at all, then yeah, the original claim would be true. I don't think this would be the case though.

toyg 4y ago

They don't "pay for everything", they effectively subsidize their own economy. Like what they've done with Greece, lending them money to buy their tanks, the current monetary setup effectively achieves the same, just with more intermediate steps.

valenterry 4y ago
Of course they do. If Germany wouldn't have lending Greece money, they could have just use that money to buy tanks from their companies for themselves. German's economy doesn't care if the tanks are being bought by Greece's or Germany's military.
- politician 4y ago
  There’s a good summary of Germany’s military procurement problems done by an Australian defense economist on YouTube - search Perun. Essentially, weapons manufacturers aren’t able to do business with Germany because Germany isn’t able to fund projects that take more than one year to deliver. That leads to horrific procurement problems like showing up to NATO exercises without enough tents, or spending 10 years evaluating a helmet for German heads that the US already uses. Without overhauling their government, he concludes that the best Germany can do to help NATO is to give funds to other countries that have more capable procurement processes.
- toyg 4y ago
  But there is a practical limit to how many tanks they can sell to themselves. That limit is much higher when the market is 5x the size.
  - valenterry 4y ago
    Well, not really. Instead of the government lending X dollars to Greece, they can just spend those X dollars on buying tanks, even if they are not used. Would the government do that? Probably not, they might buy some tanks and spent the money for other things, so a different part of the economy is benefited. But when looking at the overall economy / gross product, it doesn't really matter.
    - toyg 4y ago
      But that's the thing - they can't spend those directly to buy tanks - until very recently, they were effectively forbidden from expanding their military capability, like Japan, and there is still a lot of political resistence against that sort of thing. So how do you forage a national defense industry then? You lend to others to buy their wares. That is only one of many, many German industries that would suffer from the demise of the Eurozone. The benefits of the common currency sustaining demand across the continent waaaaay outstrip any perceived "loss of control" for the German economy.
      - valenterry 4y ago
        I mean, the context here is the impact on the German economy. If they can't buy tanks, they buy something else. As long as the money goes into German companies then the original claim that this would hurt German's economy is just not true. Okay, if the government actually cannot spent the money (even partially) at all, then yeah, the original claim would be true. I don't think this would be the case though.