>>>>>Regards to you as well. And I happily concede you know more about economics than I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonetheless -- ;-) You tell it from a strict German POV. Germany flourishes and the rest can go fly a kite.
>>>>
>>>>Don't think so. I argued for no bailout in 2008 and 2009, and at least in 2009 the exposure of german banks was much larger.
>>>>Also Iceland seems to have prospered by no bailout, even if World Bank was not too happy about it -
>>>>mostly prodded by UK investors. But trying to always cushion negative consequences results in feedback
>>>>oscillating until the system collapses.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What you describe has been called "the Austrian plan" -- tight restraint of government spending. I just don't buy it. That kind of thinking was exactly what led the U.S. into the Great Depression.
>>>>
>>>>No. Even germany was spending more in 2008 and 2009 than was good for if you add up all secret budgets.
>>>>In case of Greece: if this had been in private economy the lender would have been accused of fraud at court.
>>>>And adding more money would NOT have helped: they already funnell too much into channels bad for economy.
>>>>They need to reallocate their already overdrawn spending - this is NOT tight restraint by far.
>>>>
>>>>> The world economy cratered again. We weren't spending and neither was anyone else. "And then a wonderful thing happened," Prof. Mokyr said. "Pearl Harbor was bombed. Everyone was back to work making planes, tanks, uniforms, munitions. Women joined the work force. The greatest prosperity in our history."
>>>>
>>>>My sentiments exactly. But this was/is not happening because of just giving more money to the needy. Everybody had to participate in the war effort (those sitting just in front of TV would have been sent into the army first) which today is not happening. You have to force those living off subsidy to at least show up and do make-work or you will have either have them working non-officially or a system already lopsided.
>>>>
>>>>Todays system giving everybody a vote is as instable as the oligarch democracies in Greece and early Rome:
>>>>There you could not win against the "big money" as enough votes were reserved for those giving more to the state.
>>>>Lead to middle class evaporating back then as well, and in case of Rome to the peoples tribunes, egalizing things somewhat again.
>>>>The second level of government in place most of the places today is often structured along state lines/governments.
>>>>This should IMHO be more along the lines of equalizing voting power with dues paid -
>>>>otherwise those with money will take other course of action, as they see their efforts being taxed away.
>>>>
>>>>Disturbing for me is the tendency for aristocracy in politics: from the Kennedies to Bush and Clinton.
>>>>Even the only partially democratic Rome went into Caesarism through such tendencies.
>>>>
>>>>my POV at least
>>>>
>>>>thomas
>>>
>>>We definitely disagree, which I will let go because you are one of my favorite UT members.
>>>
>>>Clinton aristocracy? Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>>The only other comment I will make is 2008 and 2009 would have been much more catastrophic if not for government intervention. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for governments to spend money like drunken sailors all the time, but sometimes it is the only remedy.
>>>
>>>Enough arguing. It is an unofficial national holiday here -- the Super Bowl. It's like the final of the World Cup in the rest of the world.
>>
>>My son is going (has gone) to superbowl party with some friends. Never fear though , its a once a year thing. He's really an Arsenal supporter :-(
>
>If he saw it he saw a great game. The Giants and Patriots should play at the end of every season, regardless of who plays in the Super Bowl by the normal rules.
>
>When I was working in Manchester I was in the office one Saturday morning. One of our crew named Jacci, who was from London and who the "northerners" considered posh, came in complaining. One of the Manchester teams (and I don't remember whether it was Man U or Manchester City) had a home match against Arsenal. "This town is full of Arsenal 'ooligans," she said. Another guy in our group, also British, said "Yes, I shall be joining them shortly."

She was probably a Spurs fan. All the London clubs have emnity but Arsenal Spurs is especially deep.