(van onze Internationale ‘Genocide Elite-Gangster’ redactie) AMSTERDAM-NOIR- G20 en Bilderberg Wapen& Olie handel levert meer dan 60 miljoen vluchtelingen op en 15000 doden per dag(Video). Paus Franciscus geeft de NWO beweging gelijk: De ‘Bilderberg-Gangsters’ en de ‘G20- misdaadgroep’ hebben de wereld in een oorlog gestort, waarbij alleen de arme sloebers het slachtoffer van zijn. Tot nu […]
Guns and butter, July 13th 2016
Greece facing ‘brain drain’ as 427,000 economic migrants, many high-skilled, leave country in light of debt crisis
By Helena Smith
Greece is experiencing its biggest brain drain in modern history with close to half a million of its most able and talented professionals having left since the start of its economic crisis, the country’s central bank has revealed.
The Bank of Greece said 427,000 had migrated since 2008, a year before the nation’s debt drama erupted. The exodus of workers, many of them high-skilled, makes the prospect of economic recovery even more opaque.
“Migration and poverty are undoubtedly the two most painful consequences experienced by a society in protracted crisis conditions,” the report’s author Sophia Lazaratou told Kathimerini newspaper.
“The current exodus is being led by young professionals seeking their fortunes in Germany, the UK and the United Arab Emirates,” according to the report. Over 100,000 have moved abroad since 2013.
Unemployment – along with a Byzantine bureaucracy and endemic corruption – has spurred the flow. In the seven years since the debt crisis exploded, joblessness has soared from around 4% to 25% . More than 50% of Greeks aged between 25 and 39 are out of work – the highest proportion of any EU member state.
“What this shows is that there has been a deep and long-term seepage of the most able and the most talented that will have major implications for the future growth potential of Greece,” said Prof Kevin Featherstone, who heads the London School of Economics Hellenic Observatory.
A broken sign, ‘Accountant’s Office’, lies on the floor of a deserted marble factory that closed in 2006. Photograph: Yannis Behrakis/REUTERS
Asked if Brexit would affect the exodus, he said: “It may well divert them. In the medium term, there will be less job opportunities in the NHS, education sector and financial services, there will be less of a pull factor.”
Reintegrating people in long-term unemployment has become a major concern in a country where the depth and length of the recession is akin to the depression suffered by eastern European states in the early 1990s.
The unprecedented outflow has been particularly hard on Greece’s health sector with ever more doctors also joining the exodus. Ironically the vast majority, educated and trained at great expense, have headed for Germany where some 25,000 Greek doctors are now believed to work.
Want News and Views from a European perspective? Go to EuropeReloaded.com [A New TLB Project]
ER recommends other articles by the Guardian
Demand a vote on TTIP and CETA
A wave of anger is growing across Europe, that secret trade deals like TTIP and its Canadian brother CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) will become law before European parliaments have even had a chance to debate them.
New information suggests that these dangerous trade deals could be ‘provisionally implemented’ as soon as they’ve passed through the European council and parliament, and only after they come into force would they be sent to the British parliament for ratification. This is terrifying because both CETA and TTIP give big business sweeping new powers over our society.
The problem with TTIP and CETA
Both trade deals allow big business the right to sue the British government over laws that might damage corporate profits in special corporate courts not open to ordinary people.
Imagine a corporation taking the British government to court for introducing a sugar tax, for prohibiting fracking or for minimum alcohol prices in Scotland before the British parliament has even consented to the deals.
Even if the British parliament rejects CETA, these corporate courts could remain active for several years. This week, there have been serious concerns expressed by MPs in Germany and Austria about these undemocratic trade deals. Let’s add to that pressure.
What you can do
We can stop this happening. In June – one week after the EU referendum – David Cameron will travel to the EU Council to discuss CETA. We are calling on him to veto the provisional implementation of the deal and demand a vote on CETA – implementation must wait until all EU member states have ratified the deal.
Stopping CETA is urgent. CETA has already been signed and is awaiting ratification by the European Council in September and EU parliament later in the year.
Take action now to stop this undemocratic deal.
Published on 25 Jun 2016
In light of the recent political developments around the world, this channel will be active, as time permits, at least up until and including the US presidential election. We will try to upload world crisis radio every weekend, and perhaps other content that might be of interest. The main goal of this is to provide useful commentary and rebuttal to the fascist Donald Trump.
Comments will be moderated; we will not give a platform to fascist opinion. This channel is and has always been anti-fascist
Dat concludeert de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) donderdag in een rapport over problematische schulden.
“Voor veel mensen zijn de regels te ingewikkeld, bovendien wordt te weinig rekening gehouden met de psychologie van mensen”, aldus de WRR.
Steeds meer mensen hebben te kampen met problematische schulden. Het gebeurt regelmatig dat mensen als gevolg van hun schulden onder het bestaansminimum belanden.
Onder meer het leervermogen is van belang voor financiële zelfredzaamheid. Daarnaast speelt persoonlijkheid een grote rol, concludeert de raad. Zo lopen mensen met een vermijdend karakter en mensen met weinig zelfcontrole een groter risico om in financiële moeilijkheden terecht te komen. Zij ontkennen problemen eerder, geven te veel uit en trekken niet op tijd aan de bel.
Aangezien de genoemde persoonlijkheidskenmerken deels erfelijk bepaald zijn, hebben sommige mensen van nature meer kans op financiële problemen, concludeert de WRR.
De Raad wijst erop dat burgers wijs moeten zien te worden uit verschillende inkomens- en ondersteuningsregelingen. Als er flinke schulden ontstaan, wordt het bovendien alleen maar ingewikkelder.
“Er kan een ware run op de schuldenaar ontstaan, waarbij elke schuldeiser voor zich probeert zoveel mogelijk geld terug te halen. Daarbij wordt soms ontoelaatbare druk uitgeoefend. Dat vergt veel van schuldenaren”, aldus de WRR.
Ook hebben stress en armoede een negatieve invloed op de beslissingen van mensen. Hierdoor kan een negatieve spiraal ontstaan.
“Hoewel eigen verantwoordelijkheid het uitgangspunt moet blijven, moet worden meegewogen dat het burgers soms erg moeilijk wordt gemaakt om die verantwoordelijkheid ook waar te maken. Niet iedereen beschikt in gelijke mate over de daartoe vereiste mentale kenmerken en vermogens en psychologische mechanismen kunnen de zaken nog eens bemoeilijken”, stelt de Raad.
De WRR pleit in het rapport voor een beter ontwerp van regels en instituties. Hierbij moet rekening worden gehouden met het “menselijk tekort”.
Beleid zou gericht moeten zijn op het voorkomen dat mensen in de financiële problemen terechtkomen door keuzes zo te verpakken dat mensen relatief makkelijk de optie selecteren die het beste uitpakt voor hun financiële situatie.
Als mensen toch schulden opbouwen, zou er sneller contact mogelijk moeten zijn tussen de schuldenaar en een hulpverlener. Wanneer mensen hun schulden aan de overheid niet meer afbetalen, moeten zij daar pas toe gedwongen worden als blijkt dat daar ook voldoende geld voor hebben. Zo kan voorkomen worden dat schuldenaren onder het bestaansminimum uitkomen.
Donderdagmiddag vindt er een gesprek over schuldhulpverlening plaats tussen leden van de commissie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid van de Tweede Kamer, de Nationale Ombudsman, de Algemene Rekenkamer en de WRR.
Have you wondered why politicians aren’t what they used to be, why governments seem unable to solve real problems? Economist Yanis Varoufakis, the former Minister of Finance for Greece, says that it’s because you can be in politics today but not be in power — because real power now belongs to those who control the economy. He believes that the mega-rich and corporations are cannibalizing the political sphere, causing financial crisis. In this talk, hear his dream for a world in which capital and labor no longer struggle against each other, “one that is simultaneously libertarian, Marxist and Keynesian.”
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate
Monday June 29 2016
avid Cameron, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and others have been attacked by the leave campaign for exaggerating the economic risks of Brexit. This criticism has been widely accepted by the British media and many financial analysts. As a result, British voters are now grossly underestimating the true costs of leaving.
Too many believe that a vote to leave the EU will have no effect on their personal financial position. This is wishful thinking. It would have at least one very clear and immediate effect that will touch every household: the value of the pound would decline precipitously. It would also have an immediate and dramatic impact on financial markets, investment, prices and jobs.
As opinion polls on the referendum result fluctuate, I want to offer a clear set of facts, based on my six decades of experience in financial markets, to help voters understand the very real consequences of a vote to leave the EU.
The Bank of England, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the IMF have assessed the long-term economic consequences of Brexit. They suggest an income loss of £3,000 to £5,000 annually per household – once the British economy settles down to its new steady-state five years or so after Brexit. But there are some more immediate financial consequences that have hardly been mentioned in the referendum debate.
To start off, sterling is almost certain to fall steeply and quickly if there is a vote to leave– even more so after yesterday’s rebound as markets reacted to the shift in opinion polls towards remain. I would expect this devaluation to be bigger and more disruptive than the 15% devaluation that occurred in September 1992, when I was fortunate enough to make a substantial profit for my hedge fund investors, at the expense of the Bank of England and the British government.
It is reasonable to assume, given the expectations implied by the market pricing at present, that after a Brexit vote the pound would fall by at least 15% and possibly more than 20%, from its present level of $1.46 to below $1.15 (which would be between 25% and 30% below its pre-referendum trading range of $1.50 to $1.60). If sterling fell to this level, then ironically one pound would be worth about one euro – a method of “joining the euro” that nobody in Britain would want.
Brexiters seem to recognise that a sharp devaluation would be almost inevitable after Brexit, but argue that this would be healthy, despite the big losses of purchasing power for British households. In 1992 the devaluation actually proved very helpful to the British economy, and subsequently I was even praised for my role in helping to bring it about.
But I don’t think the 1992 experience would be repeated. That devaluation was healthy because the government was relieved of its obligation to “defend” an overvalued pound with damagingly high interest rates after the breakdown of the exchange rate mechanism. This time, a large devaluation would be much less benign than in 1992, for at least three reasons.
First, the Bank of England would not cut interest rates after a Brexit devaluation (as it did in 1992 and also after the large devaluation of 2008) because interest rates are already at the lowest level compatible with the stability of British banks. That, incidentally, is another reason to worry about Brexit. For if a fall in house prices and loss of jobs causes a recession after Brexit, as is likely, there will be very little that monetary policy can do to stimulate the economy and counteract the consequent loss of demand.
Second, the UK now has a very large current account deficit – much larger, relatively, than in 1992 or 2008. In fact Britain is more dependent than at any time in history on inflows of foreign capital. As the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said, Britain “depends on the kindness of strangers”. The devaluations of 1992 and 2008 encouraged greater capital inflows, especially into residential and commercial property, but also into manufacturing investments. But after Brexit, the capital flows would almost certainly move the other way, especially during the two-year period of uncertainty while Britain negotiates its terms of divorce with a region that has always been – and presumably will remain – its biggest trading and investment partner.
Third, a post-Brexit devaluation is unlikely to produce the improvement in manufacturing exports seen after 1992, because trading conditions would be too uncertain for British businesses to undertake new investments, hire more workers or otherwise add to export capacity.
For all these reasons I believe the devaluation this time would be more like the one in 1967, when Harold Wilson famously declared that “the pound in your pocket has not been devalued”, but the British people disagreed with him, quickly noticing that the cost of imports and foreign holidays were rising sharply and that their true living standards were going down. Meanwhile financial speculators, back then called the Gnomes of Zurich, were making large profits at Britain’s expense.
Today, there are speculative forces in the markets much bigger and more powerful. And they will be eager to exploit any miscalculations by the British government or British voters. A vote for Brexit would make some people very rich – but most voters considerably poorer.
I want people to know what the consequences of leaving the EU would be before they cast their votes, rather than after. A vote to leave could see the week end with a Black Friday, and serious consequences for ordinary people.