Hacker News Reader

Comment by freeflight | Hacker News Reader

> There is no mechanism in Europe to move enough money to the poorer parts from the productive powerhouse, Germany.

There are several mechanisms to move money [0], just the free movement of labor alone has transferred a lot of money from Germany further to eastern Europe for decades already.

I fail to see how military exports would be better than that, defense products are not "money", they serve no productive purpose at all in any country that's not at war.

It should also be noted that Germany is among the biggest weapons exporters on this planet [1] and quite a big chunk of Greece debt boiled down to liabilities for military hardware from other EU members [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2017/02/10-cou...

[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/912...

View on HN

I don't think you quite understand what I was saying. Free trade is the problem, not the solution. Germany makes a lot of stuff and sells it to the southern countries, running huge trade surplus. The southern countries borrow to buy the stuff and eventually have debt problems. There is no mechanism to get money from Germany back to southern Europe in the amounts needed. Before monetary union, Italy or Greece would see their currencies go down and the trade deficit would start to balance out.

In the US the people in rich parts of the country pay more in taxes to the federal government than they get back. This is a good thing, not a problem like many people state. It is not about building weapons for export, it is that the US government spends $600 billion on defense spending, moving resources from rich parts of the country to the poorer parts (to pay for government bases and defense contractors that build weapons for the US government). I agree that there are better ways to do this redistribution of wealth, but it is the only one that seems acceptable to the Republican party. Building infrastructure could be another, but it has not happened since the building of the interstate system ended in the 1980's.

The EU supra-national government (very similar to the US federal government over the US states) has a very small budget (€143 billion for the year 2014, from Wikipedia) and no real ability to raise large amounts of money from taxes it can impose. Varoufakis believes that until the EU has such a mechanism, having a common currency is going to continue to build up financial problems that are like to break up the union in a bad way.

Just nitpicking, but the EU is nothing like the federal government in the US. That also explains, to degree, the much smaller budget.

I should have stated the EU is like the early US and that it will probably have to grow federal power to succeed. Similar to how the US states found its articles of confederation did not give the federal government enough power to solve the problems it was expected to solve and 12 years later they were with the current US Constitution.

That's true. Pre-BREXIT I was no tagainst the EU, I simply thought that it was a tad too intrusive at times. So, yeah, I understood some of the reasons why the Brits wanted to leave.

Then, either the EU changed or I did or both, and my opinion changed. Trump definitely did his part to wake me up and see that BREXIT was less about the EU itself as I initially thought and more about populism and protectionism. Both are things I never liked. I still hope that BREXIT served as a overdue wake-up call for Brussels.

Now, I favor European integration and cooperation. I'm simply not sure where to draw the line yet. Defense politics and military cooperation are definetly over due and the EURO needs some kind of reform (no idea how exactly, but the last crisis showed the current system to be not stable enough).

Would I support a "United States of Europe"? Good question, maybe it's inevitable one day. The issue definetly will be that European nation states are much more different, culture, language, politics, history, than American states which share a common history starting with the first settlers. I for my part see the risk of loosing something.

Now that I think about it, that could be a reason for the rise of populist movements.

Thank you for making me think about all that!

What I would wonder is how long of a staying power does this kind of relief have?

If I build a missile factory in Baghdad, Mississippi that runs for 20 years then is closed won't the same problem persist as before the missile factory was created?

I think your point that free trade is the problem is fairly evident in this kind of problem, however, I am not sure that spending on things such as military producers or even national infrastructure is a long-term solution. In the end the project always ends, the product stops being produced, and times change.

Is this just delaying the eventual wealth-death of a town/state or does this lead to a self-sufficient system?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com