Evaporation can be solved by covering the reservoirs, so the water can't evaporate.
Geography is the real issue. Costs to build possibly too.
1,483 karma · joined February 4, 2016
So first of all what crisis are we talking about here, a fiscal crisis (there is definitely one in France) or the sometimes violent protests? And can you spell out the exact connection to eurozone in this 'spreading'? Also why did it spread only to 4 Eurozone countries and not the rest?
> You can't have them converge even with same currency!
why?
> If say Gambia
We don't have a Gambia here and you understand a common currency is only one part of the project. What we have are many different countries that are indeed converging - for example we've got car factories in countries that never had them before on this scale. Can you without looking it up say which EU member produces the most cars per capita? But we have to do more of that convergence.
And yeah, a political union would help, but then we both know it's not possible currently, so an ever tighter federation has to suffice for now.
> (also converging to what?)
to freely (as freely as possible) doing business across internal EU borders, in this case
These are again fact-free arguments based on feelings. Who are the winners and who are the losers? Germany as a big exporter certainly doesn't look like a winner now, does it? Spain is doing better than Germany since Covid in GDP growth.
And of course we need the EU markets to be converging and you can't really do that with 27 currencies and monetary policies. Why do we need them converging? Because businesses like the US or China greatly benefit from having huge economies of scale in their internal markets, which makes it much easier to expand after that. The EU has to come as close as possible to that too, otherwise we have no chance and will suffer much greater economic pain. But I guess Varoufakis doesn't tell you that. He just makes you long for the great times where you had to pay for each currency exchange and every bank transaction to other EU countries.
As for far-right monsters, the nazis are currently the most powerful parties in Italy, France, Germany, Austria among others. So your thesis still doesn't make sense.
> You obviously are not good at identifying a fascist streak.
You still don't understand what I wrote. There is no fascist streak that would distinguish countries that adopted the euro from those that didn't.
> Stable EU states that aren't in the EZ. Like, say Norway or Switzerland.
Let's at least try being serious.
I am sorry, but what are you on about? Your thesis is that Eurozone accession enables future fascism ("Ngl joining the EuroZone (what Magyar did) is precisely the myopic decision that allows future fascist to rise to power."). What does that have to do with Croatian fascist leanings, which existed long before they joined the EU? Precisely nothing. So why are you mentioning them in connection with the euro?
> What I do know all major Euro economies are experiencing constant crises that never end
Compared to what?
> And that is excellent breeding ground for the populist movement.
Compared to what?
> Euro as a whole just produces more and more crises.
Compared to what?
There is no serious analysis, only talking points about perpetual EU crisis which are exactly what the fascist movements are pushing, so yeah.
You picked one state from seven, while not mentioning fascist elements in Hungary or Poland (before Tusk). Great calibration on your side.
So some other things you failed to mention:
- most CE economies are very open and so big businesses already do internal accounting and/or facturation in euros anyway
- a move to euros would save transaction costs for companies and individuals
- in Hungary at least this would also probably lower mortagage costs (they had some issues with mortgages in Swiss francs in the past as far as I remember)
I don't have that hope but if there is any path to that, it leads through many many coffins.
> how much of this is because of Russian influence in America. That could well have been a much larger factor than we know at the moment
There is some influence but it's not the largest part. It's just the robber barons of the world form natural coalitions and help each other.
Meanwhile in the US, if a majority party does not like the voting districts, they just redraw them, and if they don't like the voters, they disenfranchise them. Truly great high-IQ work.
Once EV manufacturing is decarbonised (which is I assume ongoing) this will be moot too.
So you have to 1) remember that and 2) calculate how much will come out. You will be surprised to hear not everybody does.
> the "public health threat" is literally a prohibition scare-the-rubes meme.
I'm not from the US, we never had prohibition. We however had people poisoned (blind or dead) by methanol - I'm originally from the countryside and making and drinking fruit spirits is very common here.
Also more people dead from methanol sold as alcohol on industrial scale - like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Czech_Republic_methanol_p... - of course this happened because the alcohol taxes are high, but OTOH if they weren't high, people would drink even more, and that reverberates through the health system and society as a whole.
Sure, which is why the laws in the US are not approved by randomly selected lawmakers. In that way it's irrelevant what some random jury decides, when the executive branch, the lawmakers and top judges are owned by the ruling class.
> We have those in Bangladesh. As often as not, such laws just become vehicles for manipulating elections
Sorry about that, but that's not a rule that applies everywhere, far from that. And of course the elections in the US are already heavily manipulated even without that.
The way this is solved in our country is that you can legally make your own alcohol, but only at a state-approved distillery, where the personnel knows how to handle this.
Why should everyone care about founders of a different country that's not even working particularly well at this time.
> while substantive decisions about guilt or liability are made by randomly selected juries
A system gamed as easily as any other one.
> Meanwhile other countries trust random people at companies
They don't trust them to do the right thing, which is why there is a law telling them what to do. The alternative is to ban privately-owned social networks (either all of them or at least those that don't follow the laws).
It might not be the most economical way to manage that. Often owning a car is seen as a status symbol, and economically it would be more rational not owning one. But I doubt many people do a really thorough honest calculation - they don't have to, they can afford a car. In that way, a car loan is helping them to do the, strictly economically speaking, wrong thing.
> But it's a large capital expenditure upfront.
Yes, which is why in many countries the private owners are not the biggets market for new cars; instead, companies are, because they have the incentives to buy new. And private owners mostly buy on the secondary market.
for now, but maybe in a few years it will
We wish, but that might not be true. Last year a South Korean government data center burned down and some data was lost forever with it. A few days ago, Ukraine attacked Yandex data centers (3 of them I think?) and some services stopped working, one of them a bank, so people can't get to their money, and it's not certain they will in the future.
Power generation generally seems to be much more redundant in that war. In part because Ukraine connects to the EU power grid and Russia itself has a huge grid. Sure for a small island country the situation would be different.
If you want something bigger (than 4200 mm) then the battery will be so expensive anyway that most of the added tech does not change the price considerably. And also forget about the analogue dashboard because we have a billion mandatory digital assistants anyway (I'm not complaining, anything to save lives).
(and Zdechovsky is not a reliable source at all)
Your point is a good one but there are many people who left even when they couldn't really afford to and are stuck somewhere, but still won't return.