This is how to solve problems in the Euro zone.
 

Create a single currency, don't bother with a single economic set of rules, over spend, borrow too much and get into financial debt that will bring the currency down.

Then tell a country outside the currency to have to pay for your screw up.

Effectively this is what the French and Germans were planning to do with their tax on the financial institutions of the UK.

The fault of the Euro zone lies with Brussels in not have strict rules, the countries who borrowed money way above their ability to repay, thinking others would rescue them, the politicians who continually bribed voters to keep them happy so they kept voting for them and then the banks. Not the other way around. If the banks had said no, the countries with massive public spending debts would be very poor and look very poor.

No worries, it will all solve itself. Croatia just joined, is this another nose in the trough?

You are a genius, Paul. You should be in politics. Paul Markham: Minister of economics, toilet placement and internet porn.

What do you think of all the free porn on the internet nowadays? I am really curious what your ideas on this are.

Good job the government have just announced they are scrapping pension payments to expats to save some money then I suppose.

The shit is piling up and it will soon start hitting te fan. How much of Greece's, Italy's, Spain's, Portugal's and who ever else decides they need a bail out, will Holland anti up?

Holland = You.

Could never be in politics. Those guys are far better then me at cocks ups and denying cock ups.

Jesus.. first you solved all problems in the adult biz and then moved on to solving all European monetary problems?

Christ, whats next? I expect within 2 weeks you'll be spilling the secrets of time travel.

We didn't "just joined",we still have referendum to pass,and after that we will join 1.7.2013,and there is a big chance how EU will collapse before we join.

The whole point of the ECB verifying budgets is to stop this happening again.

There should be a UK transaction tax but it should go to the treasury not to the EU.

And the big financial institutions decide to move to Hong Kong, leaving the UK with even less. Got any more bright ideas?

They are no tied to the UK, they can move anytime they like. Have you heard of the Internet? It's big communication type thing that ties the world together much closer than the wind and sail did in the past. Don't understand either. :1orglaugh

But I think the banks might move if they get hammered to hard.

When is the referendum and what do you think the chances are?

IMO the EU is weighed down now by countries that can't contribute enough into the pot. Adding more seems crazy.

They're not going anywhere Paul. They say that every time regulation is proposed.

If they want to fuck off to Hong Kong or Singapore then let them. Fuck knows the Chinese government or the Singaporeans won't bail them out when they need it.

They love the UK. It lets them do risky investments with big returns backed by the tax payer if it goes wrong.

^^^^ this

I hope you know you are talking to a man who does not believe in reading books.

Well the rest of Europe is now about to bail out banks, so not just the UK. :1orglaugh

You don't know what the Chinese will do to get them to move over. Still how long before China builds it's financial institutions to rival and over take the City of London?

The UK banks might stop lending money to the UK or EU. Now that would be even worse.

Unlike everyone else, I don't blame the banks. They just lent money to people often on a spending craze who didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of repaying the loans. Like Greece, Ital................. You know the list.

If the banks hadn't of lent like they did, the amount of money being spent by the citizens of most of the EU would of been far lower. We were all running around enjoying the money flooding into our coffers. Many maxed out their personal CC, now they have maxed out their countries CC.

That is because you have not read anything about how the crisis happened and wallow in your ignorance.

mind = blown.

Countries are being bailed out. But even if they weren't it's not the end of the world. Look at Argentina. It said fuck you to it's creditors and after a while it's back on it's feet. Nobody will lend to them mind.

After the handover in 1997 the UK worked hard to get the Chinese to agree not to interfere with the HK economy. They said they wouldn't for 50 years under the "one country, two systems" scheme.

Despite this HSBC's headquarters is a building designed so that it can be dismantled and moved. Nobody trusts the Chinese government. They play a much bigger role in the economy and are tighter on regulation. Banks will not be able to operate freely in a post democratic Hong Kong.

They have. That's why the government is underwriting mortgages for first time buyers.

There's a contradiction in there. See if you can spot it.

Lefties want everyone else to pay for their fuck ups... surely not?

Probably pass since none of anti-eu parties passed into parliament on elections before few days,but since that will occur in around month or two things things can change.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Stop thinking in countries, this is about the Euro zone. If it was just a country they would devalue and it would all be fine. Can't be bothered to debate the rest. Time will tell.

lol this is where i quit reading.
If the bankers would not let the EU countrys and especialy taxpayers pay for the bankers debt, then the EU would be perfectly fine.
90% of the so called European debt is debt made by bankers, not by the taxpayers themself.
If the EU would not
By the way it is not ment to solve the european crisis the plan is to bankrupt the EUSSR and the USA. Lower the western countrys and enrich the poor countrys so everyone will have the same read be poor and work for third world wages.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing. Paul could pass a bill to end free porn and we would all go back to 1996.

When did the "lefties" fuck up?

You telling me Europe isn't run by lefties?

this problem has not solution... the only solution for all is the WORLD CURRENCY...

All those socialist policies must have gotten past me.

Oh that's right the EU's largest group is the European People's Party which is according to Wikipedia is a " pro-European centre-right European political party".

Exactly! There will be NO END to this financial crisis until all nations are completely and utterly bankrupt, and enslaved to the bankers. Only after that can the banking criminals sign us (against our will and better judgment) onto a World Currency & World Government.

The talking points will run along the lines of "we can't have a financial union unless we have a stronger political union" because look what has happened to the Euro Zone. "Some countries had different laws, regulations, blah, blah ..and that created a system of financial have, and have-not countries." Their solution then will be to strip away sovereignty from all member countries so they can be dictated to and controlled both politically and financially. This is in fact what is going on right now, with the installation of the "technocrats" (just another name for banking dictators, or dictators beholden to bankers) to rule Greece and Italy (Papademos, and Mario Monti).

And what exactly have they done that you think represents the people in Europe who consider themselves to be on the right of politics?

Massive deregulation of markets.

I hate the idea of the uk been in europe i also hate the idea the uk having the same currency as everyone else in europe

Why....?

Yes, the bankers didn't have the debts. The lenders had the debts, they couldn't repay.

Yes the banks should of stopped lending to these countries. Because I expect bankers to have more brains that politicians and voters. Still the bankers knew there was a big chance countries who were not in debt, would bail them out. Still makes the countries and the voters responsible ultimately.

True about lowering the wealth of the rich countries. Those who had terrible economies and GDP, borrowed to a level that was unsustainable. If they didn't know they were borrowing way above their ability to repay, why were they even running the country? The rich nations stood back and did nothing. Just allowed it to carry on.

Now we have all those in debt struggling to repay the debt, threatening the banks and all of our economies. If you have anything in a bank account, you're at risk. The more you have with the financial sector the more you risk. My pensions have been downgraded by a big slice, being level headed about it all, by thinking the leap they took was based on the loans. So a false leap.

If you have a bank account, insurance, pensions, etc you're directly effected. If your income relies on people's ability to spend on a little luxury, like porn, your income might be squeezed. Because people in the poorer sector of the EU over borrowed.

The actual idea of making Europe one State, like the USA is flawed. If not stupid and that's the ultimate aim of these politicians.

America financially is a far more level playing field than Europe. America is a very new country, people who live there are Americans, tot Texans, Californians or Idahoans first. They have a common language, a worker in Boston can up tools and move to San Diego to get a job.

Europe is a collection of countries with very different cultures, history, languages, personalities and financial levels. The differences change as soon as you cross a border.

Thinking that politicians who can hardly agree on the recipe for a goulash can run a single currency is ludicrous. The ultimate blame lies with the bureaucrats who dreamed it was possible. Without have a clue what they were doing. Even the "Father of the "Euro" Jacques Delores thinks this.

When they thought they could join Europe together as one Socialist Union.

Why?

Because with your command of English, it can't be your first language. Mine is far from perfect, being a cockney, still better than yours.

I hate the idea of the UK being in the EU. I also hate the idea of the UK joining any single EU currency.

Not perfect, just better.

Mafia Man. Bankers are generally cleverer than politicians, unless the bankers are politicians as well. They are meant to be not trusted. Therefore allowing them to lend money to people who don't have a chance of repaying it is the fault of regulators. Aesop knew this.

Never trust a villain. The fool who does, only has himself to blame. So is the fool at fault if he's running a country or voting for those who will. Or the banker for taking advantage?

Many here don't feel much remorse for misleading a surfer for $30. Where's the difference? Besides the amount.

Hmm...
 

I honestly believe if there is ever "First Contact" it will be Paul Markham who meet the first alians... which in short means "we're fucked!" :error

Who's to blame the most?

A shopaholic goes into a bank and asks for a loan, because he can't spend at the level he likes with his limited income. The banker asks the shopaholic about his incomes and expenditure. It's clear the shopaholic can't repay the loan and banker asks "How do you plan to repay the loan?"

The shopaholic points out he's a member of a much wealthier family who will back his loans, in fact he has a rich uncle who will always bail him out. So the banker loans the money, knowing the rich uncle will repay the debt.

Is the banker to blame for being a banker?

Is the shopaholic to blame for being a shopaholic?

Is the rich uncle to blame for being a fool?

This is the problem here. We had political leaders who were shopaholics. Many like George Brown were spending money they didn't have on projects that would never produce a profit and calling it "Investing". They weren't they were pursuing a dream, a political dogma and bribing voters to re elect them.

Can you blame the bankers for lending the money?

Or George Brown for spending it things that would never show a profit and always require spending?

Or the politicians who kept him in a position where he could spend so far above his level?

Or the voters who kept them in office?

Blaming the bankers is diverting the blame to where it really belongs.

When they spent more than the businessmen could afford to repay.

It really is that simple. It's great to have wonderful hospitals where everyone has their own room, lots of high paid nurses and doctor. Schools that rival the best private schools with teachers all on 6 figures a year and afterwards everyone can go to the best universities possible. Town Halls are wonderful, with someone in there to look after every aspect of our lives. Unemployed people getting benefits that make them just as comfortable as those who work. Same goes for the less fortunate, like me, a registered invalid. And everything else the "Lefties" dream of, so from cradle to grave they can care for us.

It's a beautiful and wonderful dream. But who pays for it?

Paul. The EU is not a socialist bloc. If you still think it is, go and read the definition of socialism.

The EU is a neo-liberal capitalist bloc. Promotes trade between countries and uses taxes as it's funding just like every other government program.

Taxes != socialism as many of our American cousins would let us believe.

You should maybe take a look at the backgrounds of some of the commision.

there are plenty of socialists and communists in there and they are the ones who hold the real power. Even the ones masquerading as centre right have histories on the far left.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=G7oRzBfgDyk

In name only.

Socialist like New Labour is socialist. Which is, not at all.

If you look at the political map of Europe, it is more blue than at any time in recent history. The people of Europe are voting for the right so the lefty parties can't just be straight up about their socialist agenda. This is why they have to carry out their plans through a secretive commision that answers to no one i.e. the Europeans who think they are voting for the right.

Anyway, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

New Labour, France's Socialist Party and the SDP are actually socialist. Do you really think so?

Do you think the American's would let a socialist run the IMF?

Socialism is workers owning the means of production. Nothing the EU has done is socialistic in this regard.

There's no agenda. Capitalism won (so to speak) and everybody turned into neo-liberals including our centre left parties in the EU.

The EU might have started out as some socialist dream but now it's just a big marketplace.

Did I say the EU was run by Socialists?

Maybe the cock up the spendaholics made of their time in power has taught voters that nothing is free.

I love the ideal of doing away with the bosses, getting rid of the greedy bankers, the corrupt businessmen, the crooked politicians. So we can allow workers to own a share in the businesses they work for, letting them run the businesses and having the same workers run the country without becoming corrupt themselves.

Can you show us an example of a country where it has worked to the benefit the workers. So we can copy them and all go forward to a new and better future. This would be a truly wonderful thing and I long to see the example you would like us to copy.

Read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell if you want to know a society were non-hierarchical socialism worked.

No can you give me an actual place where it has worked. A book is theory. Unless Wikipedia has it wrong.

Seems it's a part of Spain. Need an actual country that has adopted the ethics you put forward, so we can copy it and make out lives better.

thought paul was an expert at world history and economic systems as well. i guess i was wrong.

Paul, content should be seen and not heard.:2 cents:

As usual nothing to contribute and proves it all the time.

mafia_man I ask you for a country where it works and you give me a book to read.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

Which, it seems, has nothing to do with running an entire country.

So I will ask again, can you give me a country to back up what you're saying?

It's an account of anarchism in Spain circa 1930s.

So you avoided my question. Why is that?

We all know why, there are no examples. Every single time anyone has tried to create this wonderful dream it's gone pear shaped and always the workers ended up with less, or capitalism was bank rolling it.

The places with the highest paid workers in the world are those run on a capitalist system. Redistribute the wealth made by capitalism, but capitalism still has to create the wealth first. And you have to leave a lot for the creators, or they go to where they are appreciated better.

Put workers in charge and it ends up a disaster most times. What usually happens is a Lenin starts is off with a dream and Stalin takes it over. Or a Pol Pot starts it and we know where that went.

The list of failures of countries who attempted your dream isn't long. The rest of the world knew it was a screw up.

N. Korea.
Cambodia
USSR
Cuba
China, until it adopted the capitalism system.

Yes we should do more to protect the weak, vulnerable, dispossessed and eradicate poverty. But I would rather be poor in a capitalist country than any that tried your experiment.

Now tell me no one has ever tried.

So you want us to all abandon a system that does work, for some experiment that never will. And what then will happen to the weak, vulnerable, dispossessed and poor?

Paul doesn't read books.

He didn't know that ""Homage to Catalonia" was a book, he does not know about the Spanish Civil war.

He does not read books. Even about subjects he supposed to be interested in like photography.

He just knows.

You could point out that Socialism even in the most backward countries like Russia without a history of democracy still made amazing advances under a distorted version of Stalinism. So much so that it out produced Germany and defeated German fascism saving Europe from an age of Barbarism. He would stick to what he has picked up from rags like"The Daily Mail".


He could find out lots of examples in his new country of good and bad socialism, but he does not speak Czech.

A strange person who says he knows it all, but refuses to read or learn.

Asking to show an example of a future structure of society while still in Capitalism, is a stupid as demanding from Oliver Cromwell that he show a working version of capitalism before destroying feudalism.

capitalism is failing 99% of the population in its rule of the markets. The 99% start to rule the market a new society will be build.

Mark. None of the countries you listed are socialist. They are all state capitalist countries where the dictators hold the means of production, not the workers.

Socialism isn't in competition with capitalism, it's an evolution of the system. Just like capitalism evolved out of feudalism.