3 ms·
> an institution that exists on German soil This is like saying the EU parliament conveniently is located in Belgium and therefore Belgium controls it. "The E
by quonn 4y ago
> an institution that exists on German soil
This is like saying the EU parliament conveniently is located in Belgium and therefore Belgium controls it.
"The ECB is directly governed by European Union law. Its capital stock, worth €11 billion, is owned by all 27 central banks of the EU member states as shareholders." [0]
[0] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/orga/capital/html/index.en.html https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/orga/capital/html/index.en.htm...
The ECB was not strapped of any power, but as a central bank it cannot by itself bailout countries. The Troika was formed to perform this bailout.
I'm not disputing that Germany wields considerable soft power in Europe due to the size of it's economy, but the EU is set up in a way that Germany is a member like the others.
More information here: https://time.com/3980384/germany-europe-greece-crisis/ https://time.com/3980384/germany-europe-greece-crisis/
"German taxpayers invested for decades in the development of peripheral European Union members, spent trillions to develop Eastern Germany, and will now pay a good chunk of a third Greek bailout that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion."
- elif 4y agoSorry I'm not going into tangents of tangents while you downvote me for having a different opinion. This topic is about coal in Germany, not about the EU parliament in Belgium. I recommend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission as reading if you truly believe I'm talking about "soft power" from "large economy size"
- quonn 4y agoWhat you call an "opinion" is baselessly blaming Germany for the debt crisis of Greece. The topic is not coal, the topic is nuclear. You suddenly started talking about coal, claiming that Germany wants to reduce its own nuclear power plants in order to use more of its own coal. Makes zero sense since the nuclear plants were inside the country, not outside so it doesn't make sense to pretend that Germany is pushing its own product at the expense of someone else. And it is factually wrong, since Germany is also moving aways from coals until 2030. I'm not downvoting you because I can't even do this, since HN does not permit to downvote replies. But if I could I would have done so since you make wild claims without providing even a shred of evidence or a source.
- elif 4y agohttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-22/germany-returns-to-coal-as-energy-security-trumps-climate-goals https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-22/germany-r...
- elif 4y agowhat changed since Germany extended the life of the reactors to meet their 2030 aspirations, to when they decided to decommission them in spite of their aspirations, in one graphic: https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/4d971e78dafc471b83e3b9306591c84f.html https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/4d971e78dafc471b...
- quonn 4y agoI don't know what you want to say with this graphic. The only thing I can clearly see in this plot is the Invasion of Ukraine by Russia. No matter what you want to say, it makes no sense, since both the nuclear plants and the coal plants are owned by German companies. It simply doesn't make sense to argue that Germany is trying to unfairly get an advantage by shutting down one type of it's plants to benefit the other type.