5 ms·

Are you referring to this documentary? Michael Portillo's Great Euro Crisis From http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hllyd http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h

by kqr2 14y ago

Are you referring to this documentary? Michael Portillo's Great Euro Crisis From http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hllyd http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hllyd Self-confessed Eurosceptic Michael Portillo visits debt-stricken Greece. He believes that the euro crisis must have shaken the Greeks' faith in Europe's single currency and wonders if there'll be a desire to revert to the free-floating drachma. In Athens he meets everyone from a destitute young family to the former finance minister and the outgoing Prime Minister, and is surprised by some of their answers. Meanwhile in Germany, Europe's economic powerhouse, Michael encounters the taxpayers who are paying most towards Greece's mammoth financial bailout while having to watch angry Athenians burning the German flag. With tensions rising in the Eurozone, is this the moment it becomes more united, or will it be pulled apart?

kamaal 14y ago
Yes that's the documentary, Its a nice one to watch. What I realized about the entire chapter of Greece was that you can't blame the government and corporations for all the problems in the world. Sometimes we as individuals need to step back and think of our own financial future. Reckless spending on our behalf without planning for the future are disastrous. Savings and investments are important for our future. And we need to think of it. There is a point where the government's job ends and ours begins.
- anotherthrow 14y ago
  Two points: 1. I wouldn't think for a second that Michael Portillo is a reasonable unbiased analyst here. 2. How do we prevent individuals from spending recklessly? Seems like government is going to have to play a large part in that story. On (2), it's not an issue of blame, and personally I'm not interested so much in who to 'blame' - we're doing economics, not philosophical ethics. Rather it's an issue about what we do about it. Simply telling people to act differently is unlikely to be a sensible solution.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    "How do we prevent individuals from spending recklessly?" How about not bailing out banks that insist on making poor loans?
    - anotherthrow 14y ago
      That might be a start, but probably only if banks were suitably sized and regulated in the first place which wasn't the case this time. Better bank regulation / breaking up banks going forward seems more sensible.
      - josh33 14y ago
        You don't need to regulate banks if you prove to them you are not going to bail them out when they are too loose in their lending practices. They'll go out of business or tighten their lending standards. The real problem here is banks the world over have convinced their people and their governments that having debt-financed possessions is the key to happiness and prosperity.
      - nickik 14y ago
        I would look into Hisotry and Economic Theory befor you make such clames. Specially about the size of banks, the US had strong regulations on bank sizes for a long time (I dont know when the stoped exactlly) and that lead to a massiv amount of bank failure in the great depression. About 8000 Banks failed in the US, most of them single branch (this is in a system with a central bank), while you look at canada where you dont have a central bank (until 1935) you have only one bank failure. The History shows that some of the banking system with less regulation (and sometimes not central bank) have shown to be much stronger. This is large subject if you are intressting look for "free banking". The most comprehensive book on the subject is: The Theory of Free Banking: Money Supply under Competitive Note Issue by George Selgin Download here: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2307/Selgin_1544_EBk_v5.1.pdf http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2307/Selgin_1544_EBk_v5.1... It might be easier to just go to youtube and look for some videos. The most importend thing is that you dont just bail out the banks, it dosn't matter what size they are.

by kqr2 14y ago

kamaal 14y ago

Yes that's the documentary, Its a nice one to watch. What I realized about the entire chapter of Greece was that you can't blame the government and corporations for all the problems in the world. Sometimes we as individuals need to step back and think of our own financial future. Reckless spending on our behalf without planning for the future are disastrous. Savings and investments are important for our future. And we need to think of it. There is a point where the government's job ends and ours begins.

anotherthrow 14y ago
Two points: 1. I wouldn't think for a second that Michael Portillo is a reasonable unbiased analyst here. 2. How do we prevent individuals from spending recklessly? Seems like government is going to have to play a large part in that story. On (2), it's not an issue of blame, and personally I'm not interested so much in who to 'blame' - we're doing economics, not philosophical ethics. Rather it's an issue about what we do about it. Simply telling people to act differently is unlikely to be a sensible solution.
- arethuza 14y ago
  "How do we prevent individuals from spending recklessly?" How about not bailing out banks that insist on making poor loans?
  - anotherthrow 14y ago
    That might be a start, but probably only if banks were suitably sized and regulated in the first place which wasn't the case this time. Better bank regulation / breaking up banks going forward seems more sensible.
    - josh33 14y ago
      You don't need to regulate banks if you prove to them you are not going to bail them out when they are too loose in their lending practices. They'll go out of business or tighten their lending standards. The real problem here is banks the world over have convinced their people and their governments that having debt-financed possessions is the key to happiness and prosperity.
    - nickik 14y ago
      I would look into Hisotry and Economic Theory befor you make such clames. Specially about the size of banks, the US had strong regulations on bank sizes for a long time (I dont know when the stoped exactlly) and that lead to a massiv amount of bank failure in the great depression. About 8000 Banks failed in the US, most of them single branch (this is in a system with a central bank), while you look at canada where you dont have a central bank (until 1935) you have only one bank failure. The History shows that some of the banking system with less regulation (and sometimes not central bank) have shown to be much stronger. This is large subject if you are intressting look for "free banking". The most comprehensive book on the subject is: The Theory of Free Banking: Money Supply under Competitive Note Issue by George Selgin Download here: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2307/Selgin_1544_EBk_v5.1.pdf http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2307/Selgin_1544_EBk_v5.1... It might be easier to just go to youtube and look for some videos. The most importend thing is that you dont just bail out the banks, it dosn't matter what size they are.