Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "An Argument Against Brexit (Pt. 3) | Yanis Varoufakis | INTERNATIONAL | Rubin Report" video.

Celebrated Marxist economist and hero of the new left. Goes without saying he was a total fuckin disaster. Not up to the job. Decades of useless economic theorising and all he could come up with is ''Let's ask the people if they wanna pay their debts!"
7
Charlie Milroy If the EU fails completely, then it will be because it doesn't have the support of those who it supposedly represents. Remember that when the UK joined a common market, there was no talk of a single currency, an EU army, open boarders, or the EU dictating policy to member states. I'm all for globalisation. But I still support Brexit, as the EU doesn't much represent globalisation. It has spent ten years trying to come up with a trade deal with the US (the UK's biggest single trading partner). How is that globalisation? You mean 'Europisation' if you mean anything. As the EU is a closed market. Not a global market. The EU is simply heading in a direction that the majority in the UK disagree with. Ever Closer Union. And as has already been pointed out here, arrogantly ignored those concerns. It offered nothing. Even going so far as to snub the UK's democratically elected prime minister when he was desperate to do a deal. Well, there are consequences to behaving like that. If the concerns of 60 odd million people are going to be treated with that much contempt, what do you expect? If the EU is so ridged and inflexible, then it offers only two choices. Remain or leave. And the UK voted to leave. So I would say, it better get its act together fast before it falls apart completely. Because in a democracy, its the electorate that ultimately decides which direction it wants to go. Not the political elites.
3
Simon Meekers It appears to me that Varoufakis is just desperate to unload the blame onto someone else. As I already pointed out, if the ECB had stuck to its own rules, Greece would never have been allowed to join the euro in the first place. But apart from shifting blame, his argument doesn't make sense. If his criticism is that, during extreme circumstances, the ECB broke its own rules, then logically according to him they should have stuck with those rules and forced Greece out of the euro. But hold on, who was Greek finance minster at the time Greece was offered the deal? Wasn't it Varoufakis? Clearly both the ECB and Varoufakis believed that, above all, the best case scenario was for Greece to remain within the euro. If that was not the case, and the ECB was wrong. Then Varoufakis was also wrong. If Varoufakis believed that it was preferable that the ECB should have stuck to its own rules and forced Greece out of the euro, then he and his party should have either rejected the deal. Or announced that Greece was pulling out of the single currency. Ultimately, the decision to accept or reject the ECB deal was down to the Greek government. And Varoufakis was finance minster. Is he now saying he made the wrong decision? The worth of any minister of finance is how to deal best with the economic situation he or she is presented with. You don't win points by saying you don't like the problem and that you would prefer to start from somewhere else.
2
Simon Meekers The problem for Varoufakis then, was that the deal he wanted was not on offer. But then there were more and just two interested parties wanting to come to a deal. Germany too had a self interest in getting the right deal for its own economic reasons. And as it was the German taxpayer who would be taking the risk in either situation, it was the elected German government who had the ultimate deciding vote. And again, membership of the euro zone brings with it responsibilities as well as benefits. And one of those responsibilities is to keep state spending under control. Basically, beggars cannot be choosers. Germany has as much right to act in its own self interest as Greece. And it was Greek self interest that was responsible for the crisis in the first place.
2
Simon Meekers German 'private' banks? And you think they are expendable because they are not state controlled? What about those who have their life savings in those private banks? Or their pensions? Who do you think would have had to have bailed them out? The Greeks?! You sound like private business is somehow of no benefit to an economy. And therefore expendable or less deserving. ''The fact that there is a independent organization determines that both the creditors and debtors can't choose, the organization chooses without favoring one or the other merely for them being one or the other'' This is a meaningless statement. As any hit to the German economy would be detrimental to the economy of the EU as a whole in a way that would not be the case with Greece. And once again, it was German taxpayer money that was at stake. The German's had every right to use what influence they had to their advantage.
2
Simon Meekers And again, It is German money we are talking about here. Do you think it's Danish taxpayers who will foot the bill? Or the Estonians? What I am saying, is that you cannot have a single currency without a single economic policy. That is the fault at the heart of the euro. And while national governments are responsible for their own tax and spending, they will, quite rightly, look out for their own taxpayers. A central bank can work in a sovereign country, because its interests are tied to the interests of a single national government. That is not the case with the ECB. It is not dealing with a single government entity. But with multiple governments who are all answerable to their taxpayers in a way that the ECB is not. I also believe I'm right in saying that one of the cast iron guarantees the Germans insisted upon during the setting up of the single currency, was that they would not end up paying for the irresponsible state spending of other euro members. Which, as it turned out, they ended up doing in the end anyway. So again. In my opinion the German government was correct in using its weight to get the best deal for Germany. If Varoufakis did not like the deal on offer, he should've rejected it and pulled Greece out of the euro. You cannot ignore the rules when it suits you (as Greece did), and then expect other euro members not to do the same.
2
Why do you assume you have to be a member of the alt right to disagree with yet another washed up fraudulent Marxist failure?
2
GlitchyShadow The UK's membership should be decided on whether it is beneficial to the UK. Not on whether it is beneficial to other European countries. If other European nations have a problem with a future EU army or Turkey's membership, then they should step up and say so. Rather than always let the UK end up being the bad guy.
2
Who said anything about opting out of globalisation? You don't need to be in the EU to trade with the rest of the world.
2
The reasoning is simple. Each constituency elects a representative to sit in parliament. There is no second place.
2
Jakob Schulze I'm not particularly making an argument for either system. Like I said, there are benefits and drawbacks to both. But the system the UK has is not referred to as 'Proportional Representation' (as far as I am aware). And I never said it was. The benefit of the UK system is that it doesn't rely on governments being forced into coalitions as much. Which you could argue is better for the electorate, as they know if they elect a particular party, that party is able to carry out its manifesto without having to horse trade with smaller parties. Also, you could argue that the EU system would give much smaller parties a disproportionate amount of influence in any coalition government. If the population as a whole only voted in a government with 51% of the vote, then is it right that a much smaller party with, say 8% or less gets to sit in coalition and decide make or brake deals in parliament simply because a coalition deal tips the scales into a majority? Besides which, 51% isn't that bad. After all, the UK is pulling out of the EU on a vote of 52% is it not?
2
Jakob Schulze That will always be the case no matter what system you adopt. As all government is about compromise. About dealing with reality, rather than how you would like things to be. If you spend more money here, you have less to spend there. If you want higher spending everywhere, you have to raise tax's. Different people want different things. And most often than not those different things are incompatible. That's life.
2
Your little link there didn't say anything that we don't already know. No party can ever represent the majority on all issues. As an individual can support a particular party on one issue, while disagreeing with it on another. All individuals weigh up the pros and cons before voting for any party. It reads, ''Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence'' All this is saying is that big business has more influence on government than the average voter. But then so what? Large businesses represent many more people than just the single voter. And as for 'mass-based interest groups', they rarely represent more than single issue politics. You can campaign for more government spending in one sector, but its the government that has responsibility for the bigger picture. ''Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.'' Don't quite know what the 'if still contested franchise' means. Unless it refers to illegal immigrants within the US. But the proof is all there. Regular elections. freedom of speech and association. As well other human rights and privileges. Then Eric Zuess chips in: "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now." But then Eric Zuess would say that, wouldn't he?
2
Celebrated Marxist economist and hero of the new left. Goes without saying he was a total fuckin disaster. Not up to the job. Decades of useless economic theorising and all he could come up with is ''Let's ask the people if they wanna pay their debts!"
1
Greece's problem is that it wants the benefits of being in the euro without the responsibility. You can't have a single currency without central currency controls. If Varoufakis wanted out of the euro, he should've made the case. Talking of EU 'reform' is simply kicking the problem into the long grass. Because everyone's been talking of reform for decades.
1
I would argue that the single currency could, and can never, be 'independent'. Independent of what? Politics? In a single nation using its own currency, the politics is clear. The currency must be managed on what is beneficial for that country. In a union of (however many countries now make up the EU-its late and I can't be bothered to check), that cannot be the case. As there are multiple governments of multiple nations. All serving the good of their electorate. The whole argument about an independent bank is nonsensical.
1
But again, what you say is impossible. The very fact that Germany is Europe's economic powerhouse means that it automatically takes precedence over small economies such as Greece. What is good for Germany is good for Europe. And that's important if you want Germany to continue paying the bills and bailing out the Greeks. Besides, if the ECB were truly independent, the Greeks would never have been allowed to join the euro in the first place.
1
Let's be honest. People have been talking about reforming the EU for decades. And yet all it does it centralise ever more power. And so what if Turkey joins the EU and they create an army? Turkey was already getting funds from Brussels in preparation of joining. And it's about time Europe got serious about its own security. Besides, if the UK isn't in the EU, what does any of that matter to the UK?
1
GlitchyShadow I can think of a number of people I would instantly dislike from both the far right and the far left. And Yanis Varoufakis is one of them. Corbyn is another.
1
What does that make the other half?
1
Well, if half the audience isn't alt right, then (as we are concentrating on the percentage of alt right audience membership) that must mean that the other half is.
1
Erratic socialist? Can you also be an erratic fascist? And write about the failures of nazism?
1
+Aanthanur DC He's sure as hell erratic if nothing else.
1
alexander reusens From what I understand, nazi economics was built around massive state spending. So you are right. It was untenable. Lesson there for all good socialists.
1
Jakob Schulze Idk the figures. But I would assume this is down to UKIP coming second or third in a larger number of constituencies. I mean, 13% is all very well, but it counts for nothing if you never come first. As for the Brussels parliament, it simply works on a different system where you can select a first, second, or third candidate. There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems. One tends to give a less proportional but more definite result. While the other gives the opposite. Generally the UK system means the government is less reliant on a coalition agreement with other parties. Which can be good or bad depending on who you voted for.
1
Jakob Schulze I suspected you already knew what you were talking about, but I thought I better take your comment at face value in any case. No offence meant. The problem I have with PR is that it rarely gives a clear result. And a government needs strong leadership. Not bitter coalition infighting. Whereas the system we have now is clear and simple. Essentially, you are voting for a candidate to represent your constituency. If enough people think he or she doesn't do a good job. They can vote him out. What could be more democratic?
1
What makes you think politics isn't already representative? Is it just because the person you vote for doesn't get the job?
1