Text 23323, 127 rader
Skriven 2011-12-07 16:39:09 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 23312 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: See what I mean...
==========================
07 Dec 11 07:39, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB>>> The original idea was that the Euro, a common currency, would
 RB>>> automatically lead to alignment of the fiscal and tax structures of
 RB>>> the participating countries. No provisions were made to _ensure_
 RB>>> that, however, and it simply didn't happen. As a result, you have a
 RB>>> large number of different fiscal and tax structures in the
 RB>>> Eurozone, but a common currency. Naturally that only works as long
 RB>>> as times stay good - we're now experiencing what happens when times
 RB>>> are not so good.

 RW>> Interesting that the fiscal/tax structures of the 50 states is tied
 RW>> to a common currency and it works so well in comparison.

 RB> Because the national fiscal/tax structure is uniform and comes from
 RB> Washington. There is no such thing in the EU, and that's the weak
 RB> point of the system.

Yes, that's what I was getting to.

 RB> Mind you, I wasn't talking about things like the state sales or
 RB> income taxes in the USA, or about ordinances and policies that only
 RB> apply within a single state, but about the policies that govern the
 RB> entire nation.

I know.

 RB> Since the EU isn't a single nation, it also has few uniform policies.
 RB> Originally, it was only conceived as a free trade zone and then
 RB> developed into a loose (very loose at times) association of _very_
 RB> soverign states in which, basically, everyone is still for himself.
 RB> That's why it's so hard to harmonize institutions and policies
 RB> throughout the entire EU - in the States, Washington makes national
 RB> laws and they override State laws.

Not necessarily. i.e. it's against federal law to grow or possess
marijuana, yet in California, the state allows it's growth and possession,
for medical use. If the feds wanted to bust a grower, they can do so, but
California would have something to say about that. The feds regulate how
much one can have on their person (none), but state laws says you can have
2 ounces. Depending on the amount over that, the state won't always arrest
you, but they can issue a misdemeanor ticket to appear in court.

 RB> Here in the EU, every single EU member must formally agree to a
 RB> measure (with some _minor_ exceptions allowing majority decisions) or
 RB> it simply isn't valid. And in some member states, a national
 RB> referendum is required for some decisions, which makes the situation
 RB> even more difficult.

A national referendum here would go a long ways in curtailing spending by
the government. It would go over like a jet airplane if that were allowed.

 RB> It's a little like the situation would be in the States if there were
 RB> no federal income tax (the federal government weak and depending on
 RB> subsidies from the states),

We gave that up for a non-competitive government in the commercial market
place with the passing of the federal income tax act.

 RB> no uniform military, no ICC, if every state could make foreign
 RB> treaties on it's own, and all 52 states had to ratify measures
 RB> affecting the whole. Add to that the different languages and
 RB> cultures, and you have a terriffic coordination problem even if
 RB> everyone deals in good faith - and you can't even assume
 RB> that.

Right.

 RB>>> In contrast to single currencies such as the Dollar, the Yen and
 RB>>> the Renminbi (Yuan), all of which are subject to a _single_ fiscal
 RB>>> and tax system, the Euro has this fatal flaw, and has had it from
 RB>>> the beginning. The question is whether it can be eliminated or at
 RB>>> least reduced at this point in time. Nobody really has an answer to
 RB>>> that at present.

 RW>> There is an answer, but it won't happen. Restructure the EU to
 RW>> something like the USofA and make the Union states model their tax
 RW>> structures the way our tax is done.

 RB> You're right: it won't happen. The differences among the EU members
 RB> are simply too great for that. Just imagine how things would look in
 RB> the States if you had, say, 20 "official" languages instead of one -
 RB> and that's ignoring the different histories and cultures. Also, and
 RB> this is the main
 RB> point: not one of the EU members is going to give up more sovereignty
 RB> than it really _must_ in it's own interest. There is no interest in a
 RB> "United States of Europe", and a great deal of suspicion and fear
 RB> that some EU members could be aiming at such a thing ("naturally" to
 RB> enhance their own power at the expense of the other members).

Which will be the demise of the EU, eventually.

 RW>> Well it seems that Merkel and Sarkozy have come up with something
 RW>> that they wouldn't even have given a second thought a year ago.

 RW>> "Countries that rack up too much debt should be subject to penalties
 RW>> that they will not be able to fight, they now say."

 RB> They can start by toeing the line themselves. One of the first
 RB> violators of the so-called "stability pact" for the Euro (max. 2%
 RB> added debt annually) was Germany, and France wasn't far behind.
 RB> Neither, incidentally, was ever sanctioned for that. But others were.
 RB> That lesson hasn't been lost on the other EU members. So any ideas
 RB> such as you mention will be a hard sell - people here are already
 RB> talking about "Merkozy" (Merkel + Sarkozy) "ruling", or attempting to
 RB> rule the Eurozone, and nerves are wearing thin.

And more reason for the demise of the EU...

 RW>> Well, they can rest in peace for now. Belgium announced that they
 RW>> have a new PM and Cabinet...

 RB> Well, _that's_ good news at least. We can use more of that in the
 RB> present situation.

That's like having a President and a cabinet. The Prez can't do very much
to get the nation on it's feet without issuing a Presidential Executive
Order.


                R\%/itt


  ,,,By the time you find greener pastures, you can't climb the fence!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)