http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-19682049

Imagine you live in Valencia. You have, shall we say, high blood pressure, and you need a regular supply of drugs to keep you alive. Your local pharmacy says, Sorry, we've run out.

Granted that Spain and the other PIGS have only themselves to blame for the mess their countries have got themselves into, but is this an acceptable situation? Have Merkel and Sarkozy (and now Hollande) realised the effects their austerity measures have had? But what would have been the alternatives?

Europe, what a mess.

I really see the only way out, long term, is to basically wipe all debt. These countries cannot repay it long term. You cannot service debt with more debt. It is not sustainable.

It is of course not only Europe suffering this way, but many countries around the globe.

The alternatives, to my mind, would have needed to start many years ago.

They start with policies and rational thinking that does not include the reliance on constant economic growth and increasing consumer conumption (an impossibility surely?).

The rich companies and individuals of Europe and the world also wield too much political influence. This is not going to change for a long while

While I feel for the Spanish people, the power is with them in many ways to now rectify things. You cannot have everything you want in life for free, so to speak, and many European citizens have been brainwashed to believe you can.

Frankly, it will take a people's revolt to really change things and a lot of personal sacrifices

I coincidentally heard about this on the radio and reflected how Southern Europe is now in many ways worse off than many developing nations. The alternative to austerity is to keep printing money ad infinitum postponing the day of reckoning but according to Ludwig Von Mises is bound to eventually result in complete hyper-inflationary collapse.

The situation to my mind is as if we were stranded in the dessert with John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig Von Mises with a limited supply of water and asked each of them which way to the Oasis? We followed Keynes for many decades but now suspect that Von Mises was right but may not have enough water left to retrace our steps. The austerity bloc are attempting to retrace their steps and the U.S/U.K are just hoping Keynes is right after all.

Whatever happens will imho range between very unpleasant and catastrophic and I would rather not be around to see who is correct, this was a large factor I considered when moving to Thailand.

In all the grand debates about billions and how to lose them, politicians tend to forget the ordinary people whose lives are affected by it. Quite clearly neither party really knows the answers, and it's going to be the ordinary citizen who pays a very heavy price. Politicians will find a way out for themselves, I have no doubt.

I really see the only way out, long term, is to basically wipe all debt. These countries cannot repay it long term. You cannot service debt with more debt. It is not sustainable.

But to wipe out the debt would not educate the politicians who got the country into debt in the first place. They'll just go and repeat the process.

The treasury civil servants and the politicians have got the country (whichever country that may be) into debt by not balancing the books. They all look to raising more money when needed by borrowing or raising taxes, not looking at ways to reduce spending.

To me, the reduction of outgoings is a far more effective way of budgetry control than borrowing money. Cut out a lot of spending by reducing numbers of civil servants, reducing armed forces, reduce politicians pensions and expenses, so on. Cut out foreign aid, unless tied to work for the donor-country's businesses. For the UK - get out of Europe and the enormous costs of the EuroParliament / Brussels bureaucrats.

I really see the only way out, long term, is to basically wipe all debt. These countries cannot repay it long term. You cannot service debt with more debt. It is not sustainable.

But to wipe out the debt would not educate the politicians who got the country into debt in the first place. They'll just go and repeat the process.

The treasury civil servants and the politicians have got the country (whichever country that may be) into debt by not balancing the books. They all look to raising more money when needed by borrowing or raising taxes, not looking at ways to reduce spending.

To me, the reduction of outgoings is a far more effective way of budgetry control than borrowing money. Cut out a lot of spending by reducing numbers of civil servants, reducing armed forces, reduce politicians pensions and expenses, so on. Cut out foreign aid, unless tied to work for the donor-country's businesses. For the UK - get out of Europe and the enormous costs of the EuroParliament / Brussels bureaucrats.

What you say makes perfect sense. Cut spending, balance budgets, don't borrow money.

The problem, now that many countries are beyond the tipping point, is who is willing to sacrifice to reach the goals?

Historically I am fairly sure that debts between sovereign states have been wiped clean, when one state simply could not pay the debt anymore. This helped avoid conflict and popular uprisings/wars.

More recently in history we now have private enterprises often lending the money and they are far less willing to forgo the debt. Indeed it can be shown that many loans are given that common sense can dictate will never be able to repaid. Instead of wiping clean the slate sovereign states are encouraged to sell off assets, privatise, cut jobs, eat up more of their natural resources (a finite resource)...all in the name of paying of the debt. Who does this benefit? Only the money lenders.

The politicians have a lot to answer for, sure. And in Europe where they are democratically elected these days, the population as a whole also has to bear responsibility. Everyone wants wants wants but not many are willing to sacrifice. Governments are re elected on populist policies.: tax cuts, great social security, less work hours and the like. The populations voting these governments in are part of the process and should bear the pain.

However, the pain wont be shared equally, as the top few percent will not be willing to forgo their riches, or part thereof. It is a predictable cycle, one that I feel lucky not to be caught up in

It's easy to say the populations of these countries are responsible for electing the governments which incurred the debt, and it's true in a sense. But so often the ordinary voter has effectively a choice between two parties, one of which will borrow to get out of trouble, and the other.... will borrow to get out of trouble. Not many people have the qualities needed to start a political party of their own, and buck the trend.

Europe, what a mess.

I really see the only way out, long term, is to basically wipe all debt. These countries cannot repay it long term. You cannot service debt with more debt. It is not sustainable.

It is of course not only Europe suffering this way, but many countries around the globe.

The alternatives, to my mind, would have needed to start many years ago.

They start with policies and rational thinking that does not include the reliance on constant economic growth and increasing consumer conumption (an impossibility surely?).

The rich companies and individuals of Europe and the world also wield too much political influence. This is not going to change for a long while

While I feel for the Spanish people, the power is with them in many ways to now rectify things. You cannot have everything you want in life for free, so to speak, and many European citizens have been brainwashed to believe you can.

Frankly, it will take a people's revolt to really change things and a lot of personal sacrifices

I don't really see the population rising up to make sacrifices. Perhaps its time for the bolsheviks to take us down the Russian route and rise up for someone else to make sacrifices

SC

It's easy to say the populations of these countries are responsible for electing the governments which incurred the debt, and it's true in a sense. But so often the ordinary voter has effectively a choice between two parties, one of which will borrow to get out of trouble, and the other.... will borrow to get out of trouble. Not many people have the qualities needed to start a political party of their own, and buck the trend.

Choices often are limited, but apathy of the masses doesn't bring change either.

To be elected in most Western countries you need a large bankroll and populist policies. They are forces which lock political parties into returning favours for large donors (buying government in a literal sense) and result in poor long term planning by promising instant rewards for the people who vote them in.

If the Eurozone doesn't want to see a return to armed conflict between member states, then the wiping of debt might be a necessary tool.

It's easy to say the populations of these countries are responsible for electing the governments which incurred the debt, and it's true in a sense. But so often the ordinary voter has effectively a choice between two parties, one of which will borrow to get out of trouble, and the other.... will borrow to get out of trouble. Not many people have the qualities needed to start a political party of their own, and buck the trend.

Choices often are limited, but apathy of the masses doesn't bring change either.

To be elected in most Western countries you need a large bankroll and populist policies. They are forces which lock political parties into returning favours for large donors (buying government in a literal sense) and result in poor long term planning by promising instant rewards for the people who vote them in.

If the Eurozone doesn't want to see a return to armed conflict between member states, then the wiping of debt might be a necessary tool.

I think you;re getting confused with Thailand. Certainly in the UK, you need a grassroots organisation established for years. You couldn't buy your way into British politics as an outsider.

SC

An interesting example from UK politics was the election of a Green candidate from Brighton Pavilion. She had nursed the constituency for years, and was elected because she was well-known and respected locally. She then became one of 600+ MPs, whose individual influence is minimal. To get a real change, you have to multiply that by 300+.

An interesting example from UK politics was the election of a Green candidate from Brighton Pavilion. She had nursed the constituency for years, and was elected because she was well-known and respected locally. She then became one of 600+ MPs, whose individual influence is minimal. To get a real change, you have to multiply that by 300+.

Depends on whether you want to elect a government or a representative.