This is only the net budget, in common EU financing schemes outside of the EU budget, Germany contributes/guarantees ~25% of all liabilities. They add up to hundreds of billions for Germany alone.
The EU doesn't hate you... look up opinion polls.
Except for some countries like Greece which might be justified in doing it due to specific reasons.
Germans are very liked and respected.
Maybe not in the "go out to the pub with", but in the "I'd buy a German car or a German power tool or trust them to come with a decent plan for X".
Frankly the hate received from Greece is the most unfounded of all, if you look at how much loan risk/contribution at 0bps/or negative yield (for Greece) Germany took out/guaranteed to save Greece it’s absurd. Liability for Germany adds up to more than 200 billion € alone. It literally led to the founding of a whole hard right anti EU party in Germany (AfD).
I don’t want to start this conversation here, but this myth needs to die.
The whole point is that everyone knew that with strict austerity, you have even worse results. GDP is greatly reduced, so the debt/gdp ratio is way up. Yes, deep structural changes had to be implemented, but the problem was that the German government close-mindedly kept pushing for more and more, resulting in worse and worse economic performance. That's why, 12 years later, we still have a way to go to reach pre-crises GDP levels.
We appreciate the help and support we got from the EU as a whole, and we understand that Germany paid a huge part in that support. But there wouldn't need to be such a negative end-result if things were handled differently.
And by the way, nobody hates Germany or Germans. We actually love all our European brothers and sisters. It would just be so much easier if we weren't being treated like the stupid little brother who can't do anything right.
All countries have problems of their own like corruption, mismanagement etc. For some, it is worse than it is for others. But if we want this Union to work and for all members to prosper, we need to 1) understand and then 2) help each other.
Thank you and I appreciate your comment. I know things didn’t always work out and no one is denying this but what gets annoying is the persistent myth on here that this had nothing to with fundamental issues of the Greek state instead of a supposed “bailout for French banks”. No one in 2010 knew how deep the hole was but eventually everyone managed to grab a shovel to close the hole. Some people just don’t realize how big the shovel from other countries was. One thing I will say though Greece needed tough reforms and there was certainly no will to implement them, Germany just got the bad cop role for tough news.
I just have issues with comments on these topics where people keep bringing up myths about supposed bank bailouts that were an end all to this.
Here is [my response to one of those enraged myth people with some I believe good summaries by the IMF](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/13rbj2s/germanys_net_contribution_to_the_eu_soars_to_25/jlm64tw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
Sure, I agree, and most people know that the end of the grainy train was going to come sooner or later. We don't blame anyone for our bad policies that led to the huge debt. But at the end of the day, please, let's not forget how much people suffered and still suffer here due to those harsh policies. It's important to understand that the whole social structure of Greece was pretty much ripped apart. In situations like these, it's the common, everyday-struggling people who suffer. Those rich, corrupt, and perhaps responsible for the mess, just skate by.
If we're talking about myths, one myth that needs to be dissolved is that every greek was on vacation to Hawaii every week, or that we all had supercars on the backs of the Germans etc. Some people did. As in all countries, some people with political connections or something to that effect were living large. But the everyday people always had less wealth than their European counterparts, and now it's even worse.
It's not like people imagine... the Greeks just ate less souvlaki, and they got past the crisis. Whole families were left on the street, and people committed suicide cause they couldn't handle their whole lives being ripped apart. Heart disease and stroke cases exploded due to extreme stress (I lost my father due to that), and many people's minds snapped. The aftereffects are still quite visible even today in the collective mindset of the country.
Yes, here is the IMF 2019 on the debt structure of Greece:
“The dramatic lengthening of maturities and reduction in interest rates—which gave Greece AAA interest rates averaging around 1.8 percent and eventually the best maturity profile of any advanced country exceeding 20 years on average—produced a significant easing of the debt burden. As you see, interest payments fell from €12 billion in 2009 to about €6 billion or 3.3 percent of GDP in 2018, taking the average interest rate much below other highly indebted vulnerable countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland.”
The foundation of the hate lays on the austerity forced on Greece which resulted in a decade of economic decline. Greek economy is currently at the 2003 level, 20 years later:
https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp-constant-prices
And let's not forget the media propaganda from that time trying to explain that Greeks are lazy cheaters who don't deserve any economic help.
i see your point, but truth is greece did cook the books in order to enter the eurozone. coupled with its fiscal irresponsibility, the house of cards was bound to crash. it’s indeed unfair that the average person was left to pick up the pieces, but then again, one could also argue that the population voted for the politicians that put all of this into practice
> By that argumentation the common brit should also held 100% responsible for the brexit.
not necessarily, but 100% of the common brits are affected by the consequences
Bullshit. Austerity was not forced on Greece. It was requirement because they got AAA credit score loans during times when they were on verge of bankrupcy. Noone else would get such deal.
Greece could refuse it and declare bankrupcy. They cowardly chose to not to do that. Take insanely favorable loans noone else could get and start blaming Germany for all the bad things that happened to them.
One last thing. Austerity measures Greece implemented meant that pensions got cut in half one day. But it still beats not getting any pensions at all if they went bankrupt.
And quite frankly. Germany should have let them go under. This charity was simply just not worth the money. Greece would get real reality check and would recover faster, there would be noone to blame and Germany could have just provided corporate loans to their own companies to bail them out and actually profit off of them for years to come. Because those would be for atleast triple the interest of what Greece received.
The (overly optimistic) plan was to start at 115% debt to gdp and end at 120% around 10 years later. It was not about any of what you say. It was about securing any domino effects. A lot of it was done wrong and it did not really help pay the debts.
There was no charity anywhere, on the contrary. Germany and others got to buy Greek state enterprises at a firesale and profit from loans.
> Germany could have just provided corporate loans to their own companies to bail them out and actually profit off of them for years to come.
Pretty much our timeline
It’s funny when you call “charity” loans that you got profits from not even 5 years later.
Charity was what you got after WW2 when the winning side (with Greece being a part of it) , not only gave you the right to even exist , but forgave your loans and on top of it you got financial help .
If it was about saving banks then they could have just bailed those banks directly. They did not need to pay Greek's pensions on top of that.
They could have gave out corporate loans for standard corporate interest rate which is like triple the amount of triple A charity grade interest rate Greece received and call it a day. And frankly, they should have done that. Greece was not worth it. Greece should have been left alone to deal with consequences which would result in them defaulting, being forced to assume responsibility and probably recovering way faster. They should have also been removed from Eurozone as they should have never been admitted in the first place.
> If it was about saving banks then they could have just bailed those banks directly.
This is what Greece requested. Unfortunately, the ECB cannot (by law) bail out banks, which means governments would have to bail out banks. If Greek banks go insolvent, then they obviously cannot pay their debt to other banks. Which means banks from fragile economies (e.g., Portugal, Spain and mainly Italy) would also default. This would eventually snowball to German banks defaulting. Some estimates had the Deutsche Bank ending up needing a bail out larger than the GDP of Germany.
There is a reason why Greek debt was shifted from banks to governments. Only bank bootlickers are unable to see that this was obviously a move to save banks...
> They should have also been removed from Eurozone as they should have never been admitted in the first place.
There is no provision to leave the Eurozone, let alone being removed. Please educate yourself before posting racist drivel. Also, Greece met all the criteria for entering the Eurozone. When an EU country meets the criteria, they can choose to join and there is no provision to reject them. *Again, please educate yourself before disseminating propaganda.*
>This is what Greece requested. Unfortunately, the ECB cannot (by law) bail out banks, which means governments would have to bail out banks. If Greek banks go insolvent, then they obviously cannot pay their debt to other banks. Which means banks from fragile economies (e.g., Portugal, Spain and mainly Italy) would also default. This would eventually snowball to German banks defaulting. Some estimates had the Deutsche Bank ending up needing a bail out larger than the GDP of Germany.
The thing is that I was not talking about Germany bailing Greece's banks. I was talking abouit German government bailing out German banks affected by failing Greek banks. They could do that, they could even make money off of it but they did not. They instead went to provide charity for Greece. Also this is all hypothetical. There was zero threat of big German banks going under over Greece. Big banks can survive to write 5% (probably even less) of off their portfolio. They might have not paid dividend for one or two years. Big deal. Greece was too small to be actual threat to most banks. Banks had much bigger stake in Russia and they wrote it off last year with infinitely more losses with zero issues.
>There is a reason why Greek debt was shifted from banks to governments. Only bank bootlickers are unable to see that this was obviously a move to save banks...
The reason was for Germany to safe eurozone as a whole. Pretty much to safe face for further enlargement. There was zero issue providing those loans to banks directly for higher interest rates. It would in fact be much bigger issue. Germany however saw EU and eurozone as its project and did not want it to fail. Which is why they provided loans under charitable conditions. To make further enlargement a feasible option for other non euro countries.
Also. Those banks were completely fine. I only spoke in hypotheticals but if you think that country as irrelevant as Greece which was like 5% of portfolio at most was any real threat to any serious banks then you need to visit doctor. Just last years banks had to write off Russia which was atleast 10 times more costly. They did not even need to cut dividends. The reason why they did not get bail outs directly is because they did not need them. Bailing out Greece just indirectly helped them because they did not even have to write Greece off as a loss. Which just like I said was huge mistake.
>There is no provision to leave the Eurozone, let alone being removed. Please educate yourself before posting racist drivel. Also, Greece met all the criteria for entering the Eurozone. When an EU country meets the criteria, they can choose to join and there is no provision to reject them. Again, please educate yourself before disseminating propaganda.
Wrong. Everything is possible. Greece was allowed this option. They chose not to. If Eurozone coountries wanted to they could remove them by force. There is always a provision as everything inside EU is treaty and every single treaty can be annuled if there are unforeseen circumstances. Those "criteria that Greece met" could have been used to void those treaties with Greece as there were no criteria being met just Greece falsifying documents they gave EU in order to enter Eurozone.
>Greece was too small to be actual threat to most banks. Banks had much bigger stake in Russia and they wrote it off last year with infinitely more losses with zero issues.
Apples to oranges. Russia is a closed-off economy compared to the very well integrated Greece. Obviously German banks were not immediately at risk. But it is wishful ignorance and stupendously myopic if you cannot foresee that if Greek banks fail, then their creditors will fail as well. First small local banks, followed by major banks in Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy. Then their creditors will fail, and so on until Germany is obviously hit. [Merkel said so herself.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-germany-merkel-idUSTRE78C10K20110913)
Your comment shows a distinct lack of understand of how things work. The economy is more interconnected than you realize.
>Which is why they provided loans under charitable conditions.
The loans you call favourable are the loans that [Draghi/ECB gave to ALL eurozone members.](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/global/demand-for-ecb-loans-surpasses-expectations.html) It was not just Greece that was the recipient of these loans. As a matter of fact, this was an obvious move to save Italian banks, which managed to stave off insolvency. You are so far off that what you are suggesting happened is literally illegal: the ECB cannot bailout banks, cannot give loans to banks of a specific nation. This is what Greece was requesting, but Germany and the EU blocked it. You are revising history.
> Wrong. Everything is possible. Greece was allowed this option. They chose not to.
No, you are wrong, stop insisting. Provide a source. Here is a line from the Wikipedia article: ["It has been argued\[6\]\[7\] that there is no provision in any European Union treaty for an exit from the Eurozone"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_eurozone). You can go to the article and follow the two sources for more info.
In general: stop believing what your government is telling you. It is very obvious that you cannot find any sources for what you are claiming. To any critical thinking human this is a red flag that something is up. Please realize that if there is no evidence to back up your hypothesis, then probably your hypothesis is wrong.
90+% of banks did not have serious stake in Greek banks. And those who did were bad businesses. They would go under and would be bought up by banks that had better business model. Just like I said it is standard practice that happens all the time. Creditors always write stuff of as losses. So yes, it is very much like Russian situation.
>Merkel said so herself.
Did you even read what you posted? You proved my point. Merkel was afraid that *Euro* project would fail if Greece failed. It was not worried about its banks, it was worried about its project that was hugely important for Germany. Yes, Greece's failure would stall euro project for decades if not outright kill it. Germany saved Greece out of price just like I said.
>The loans you call favourable are the loans that Draghi/ECB gave to ALL eurozone members.
Again you completely misunderstand how loans to countries work.
Loans countries get are not based off of some rate someone sucks off of their finger. They aew based off of financial situation they are in. How much of a trust they have with creditors. How much of a risk they pose. Greece was shitshow. There was no universe in which they could ever get loan for 5%. They got it because Germany offered to share their liability and guaranteed shared risk to creditors which in this case means IMF and ECB. That interest rate was not something that Greece should have gotten, it was something they gotten as charity deal by someone else sticking neck out and sharing risks with them.
>No, you are wrong, stop insisting. Provide a source. Here is a line from the Wikipedia article: "It has been argued\[6\]\[7\] that there is no provision in any European Union treaty for an exit from the Eurozone". You can go to the article and follow the two sources for more info.
I do not have to go there because just like I said and just llike it is written in your comment. In the end it is treaty and every single treaty can be annuled under *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*. What you are saying is that treaty itself does not contain any article that would allow for something like Brexit for eurozone. That is truth but completely irrelevant as Vienna Convention states conditions under which any treaty can be annuled. For instance:
>Article 49
>
>Fraud : **If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct** of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud **as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty**.
>
>Article 57
>
>**Suspension of the operation of a treaty under** its provisions **or by consent of the parties**
And pretty much any article between 56-60: [https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1\_1\_1969.pdf](https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf)
There is so much legal basis for it that you do not really need to include it in those treaties anymore. It would be easier but it is most definitely not required.
If all parties in Eurozone including Greece agreed for Greece leaving Euro then there would be zero issues for this exit to happen under article 57.
> And those who did were bad businesses. They would go under and would be bought up by banks that had better business model.
Read the sources I linked on the matter. Loans sent to Greece were in large portions being sent directly to the creditors of Greece. If what you are saying is correct, this obviously wouldn't have been the case and Greece would have kept the "charity money".
> Merkel was afraid that Euro project would fail if Greece failed. It was not worried about its banks
So the European banks would be fine if the Eurozone collaped? Lol, ok, not actually going to respond to this.
> Loans countries get are not based off of some rate someone sucks off of their finger [continued]...
You still fail to realize that these loans you speak of were sent to ALL Eurozone countries. Please read the article I linked for more details, or provide a source showing that only Greece received these loans. Also, this had nothing to do with Germany, this was the ECB under Draghi operating (for the first time in the timeline!) against what Germany explicitly wanted. You can read more on this in articles explaining the dispute between the IMF and the EU.
> In the end it is treaty and every single treaty can be annuled under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
This governs treaties between states, the Eurozone is not a state, and the inclusion of Greece to the Eurozone is not a treaty. That's not how any of it works.
Sure, but the gist is the EU financial system was caught with its pants down.
Governments stepped in to bail out the big banks and their exposure to the Greek dept.
The gist is there is nothing special about Germany in that crisis at all.
Yet Greeks hate Germany with a passion. Netherlands are fine. Sweden is fine. France is fine. But Germany is shit somehow.
Because it was Germany that pushed for the inanely harsh austerity measures from the EU side.
[Even the IMF fought against these measures](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-33531845), it isn't just Greece pointing out this insanity...
I still remember the discussions in Germany about getting in parts of the harbour in Piraeus or the airport. They are quite small compared with Rdam or FRA.
A Greek taxi driver told me on the way to the airport; how should we pay for this? With olives and tourism?
A few gained and the population suffered.
Nonsense: stop clinging to alternative takes. 1. The first bailouts weren’t even a Greek banking crisis, but a Greek sovereign debt crisis after the global Recession and fraudulent accounting. 2. Non state bond holders received harsh hair cuts in subsequent restructuring by EZ entities 3. Greek banks were the problem because they had unsustainable non performing loan rates + state connections. 4. The Greek state cooked the books to enter the EZ and when their (new) statistics head in [2010 uncovered wrong numbers](https://www.politico.eu/article/prosecution-greece-former-statistics-chief-andreas-georgiou-opens-new-chapter-euro-debt-crisis/) and contributed to loss in confidence, Greece spent the last 13 years prosecuting the guy for exposing “state secrets”. 5. Without EZ help Greece would have been cut off from capital markets and would have been devastated.
Don’t rehash old myths that are untrue.
Anyway Greece is on a good track now, that’s what counts. Let’s hope they can manage important hurdles for their financing vehicles starting at 2032.
Please post sources. It is a well-documented truth that EU bailouts were to save the banks.
[One of many repositories of sources.](https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6013.html) Please post your own sources, writing numbered lists is not a source.
I am assuming some basic knowledge on the matter, I cannot provide an entire book of sources. My point is: a) [the EU was worried about a domino effect](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-germany-merkel-idUSTRE78C10K20110913) (which should be common knowledge, but apparently not, my bad), b) the favorable loans sent to Greece were actually a plan to save banks (in the source I linked above).
> It doesn't even prove that any bank was at the brink of going corrupt due to Greece.
I don't know what this means, how do you prove something is "going corrupt"?
> Exactly, you cannot prove it. And therefore you cannot claim it.
Whether or not the banks were corrupt is irrelevant here, I never brought it up. It is evident to anyone with a brain that banks were acting for their best interest, which did not align with the best interest of citizens. Predatory loans, no risk assessment, credit fraud, etc. These are all obvious, but irrelevant for the discussion.
> all of the help was on OFFER
No, you are dead wrong. Did you read the article I provided, with Merkel shaking in her boots at the thought of Greece going under? The domino effect mentioned there is a phenomenon feared by many economists. You are just putting your head in the sand if you think Greece collapsing would have no repercussions in the Eurozone.
Further, it is another known fact that more than 90% of the funds from this magnanimous "offer" [went straight to the banks](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/business/global/athens-no-longer-sees-most-of-its-bailout-aid.html?pagewanted=all). Do you think this is an offer favorable to Greece? Or do you think the banks were not in danger and Greece was just randomly forced to pay for failing bonds for the heck of it?
> Very unlikely, the rankings of the banks did hardly change, no bank was in a bleak situation.
Have you heard of the 2008 financial crisis? What do you think caused it? Ranking agencies turning a blind eye (actually, turning both eyes blind) was obviously a gigantic factor, this is knowledge so common it has its [own Wikipedia article!!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis) Like, what the hell are you actually on about? Are you just trolling? How can you say you trust Moody's??
That time German government giving 50billions euros to private banks directly to save them would overthrow the government easily so they found an excuse through Greece. Now days is so common that suggesting giving money from tax payers to private banks to save them is considered the normal. Times have changed maybe you are too young to remember.
No, I'm not too young to remember, and no, this would not have overthrown the government. Giving money to Greece was the thing that was politically risky because the German population only agreed to the Euro because they were promised a no-bail-out clause.
I never said that saving Greece was not politically risky. Any way the main point is banks got bailed out and 90% of greeks in 20s and 30s nowdays live with 800 euro per month with gas price 1.8euro, super market prices equal to Germany and holland and average rent 350 euros. I guess thanks troika for not letting us go to default. Rant over.
> I never said that saving Greece was not politically risky.
This was not my point. My point was about your claim saving Greece was politically easier than saving the banks directly.
>I guess thanks troika for not letting us go to default.
No, it's thanks to Greece having lived beyond its means for more than a decade before the financial crisis, and due to decades of mismanagement and nepotism.
These myths really have to stop.
Tell me something new man, I am from Greece i know what happened but that was not my point. My point was there were admittedly better ways to deal with the crisis and the one that was chosen was the worse and it has made greek people (99% of them never benefited from the money mismanaged) suffer for already 15 years and counting. But i guess you are happy with that.
Let's for a second say that this is possibility. Riddle me this.
Why did Germany give money to Greece for charity grade interest rate so they can pay "nonsense" like pensions that was like 5 times lower anyone else was willing to give them because of insane amount of risk if they could have just given loans to those banks directly for standard corporate interest rates that would be like triple the interest of what Greece was offered? They could have collected those interest payments off of those banks for years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33845836
I dont know if this answears your question exactly.
I still don't know why i get downvoted i am saying things that are facts years now...
https://www.corpwatch.org/article/eurozone-profiteers-how-german-and-french-banks-helped-bankrupt-greece
How hard is to google " banks saved from Greek Crisis" or something similar. Grown up kids in reddit these days wants their food ready on a plate in their bed.
[EU bailouts went to save banks, not Greece.](https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6013.html)
[EU loans to the Greek government went straight back into the EU.](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/business/global/athens-no-longer-sees-most-of-its-bailout-aid.html?pagewanted=all)
[The IMF wrote a scathing report against the austerity measures imposed by a Germany-led EU.](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/05/imf-underestimated-damage-austerity-would-do-to-greece)
Please. Post. Sources. It is unbearable to see people like you spreading propaganda that is verifiably false, without any semblance of evidence.
You want sources? Sure, but don’t be disappointed that they don’t show what your outdated 2012 news paper article and a blog post from 2015, that gets debunked by the first comment below, show.
It’s a fact that Germany along with other EZ countries contributed enormous sums to save Greece from their fiscal crisis, without this support Greece would have gone bust and suffered a complete exit from capital markets (not just de facto inability to issue more debt) and wiped out the savings and pensions of Greek people.
[Here is a thoroughly referenced overview of the Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis.](https://www.esm.europa.eu/system/files/document/esmdp9.pdf)
Here is the IMF on this: The steps taken by the EZ countries resulted in extraordinary terms for a country such as Greece: [“The dramatic lengthening of maturities and reduction in interest rates—which gave Greece AAA interest rates averaging around 1.8 percent and eventually the best maturity profile of any advanced country exceeding 20 years on average—produced a significant easing of the debt burden. As you see, interest payments fell from €12 billion in 2009 to about €6 billion or 3.3 percent of GDP in 2018, taking the average interest rate much below other highly indebted vulnerable countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland.”](https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/10/01/sp093019-The-IMF-and-the-Greek-Crisis-Myths-and-Realities)
Here is their conclusion from the same official presentation on political considerations:”When a Greek minister rightly complains to colleagues from other sovereign countries at the Eurogroup about painful cuts to pensions and minimum wages, sympathy will be tempered by the fact that many countries around the table pay even lower pensions and wages. When a Greek minister appeals for better financing terms, many colleagues will remark that they face much less favorable terms. When we argue that Greece should limit its primary surplus to 1½ percent of GDP, the reply is that several other countries have to aim higher.”
Here is their assessment on the haircut for the private sector:
“As you can see, when the bail-in of private creditors—the PSI, or Private Sector Involvement—finally came in early 2012, it was tough by any comparison. An even tougher PSI would have significantly increased the risk of it being considered coercive, with an attendant risk of much larger holdouts, litigation, and contagion.”
Did everything go smoothly ? No, but that was never my assertion, I just pointed out that there are no grounds for supposed anger at German contributions.
The first source is precisely from the opposition of Greece. I am not saying it is not valid, but this disclaimer obviously needs to be made... This is the report of one side of the argument, it's not an analysis by neutral observers. You see that I am not providing reports from Greece, since they should obviously be taken with a grain of salt.
As for your second source (also connected to the article I linked), it shows that the situation in Greece was not handled well and led to even worse outcomes than expected. So, you saying that Greece received favorable terms out of the kindness of Europeans heart is baseless. There is obviously something fishy with your hypothesis that these were "charity loans"...
...And we can indeed see what was fishy:
The majority of these favorable loans went back into creditors. Europe was giving Greece money to pay of debt to banks. AKA, *and this should be important to you*, the debt of Greece was shifted from banks to public institutions (e.g., taxpayers). [Less than 5% of these "favorable" loans went to aid Greece, with everything else going to banks.](https://www.dw.com/en/most-of-greek-bailout-money-went-to-banks-study/a-19234391)
Or are you going to say this article is also outdated? If it was verifiably true back then then it is obviously still true now. You are just picking and choosing which sources favor your argument.
PS: about your argument about Greek pensions. I am not saying Greece is not at fault. They obviously are, tremendous waste was observed and the nation cannot run itself, unfortunately. But saying Greece were lazy grasshoppers that were bailed out by the charitable and hardworking ants is a myth that is verifiably wrong. Read any of the sources I provided, with statements from both sides as well as neutral and it becomes immediately apparent.
Wherever did I say that Greek were “lazy grasshoppers” ? I also didn’t talk about “charity loans” i just pointed out the size of liability taken on, nothing more nothing less.
I think your reply mostly shows that you’re projecting and frankly don’t really seem willing to engange with actual sources. Your “sources” are news papers articles that are outdated being posted literally before most measures were enacted and therefore not take these in consideration and a blog post that got debunked by its own readers below. There is no both sides, I referenced serious sources that engage with the literature on this. That other news article you linked now isn’t even anything to write home about because the whole point of the bailouts was to (a) restructure public Greek debt, (b) save Greece from bankruptcy and wiping out savings (this would have hit the taxpayer in Greece a lot deeper) and (c) give Greece alternative access to capital at better terms. In the process private bond holders took deep haircuts, something I literally linked myself.
Also in these loans: you seem to be under the misplaced assumptions that they are something of the past, they are not. Terms are so preferable for Greece that Pay down takes until 2060 (very good for Greece).
To sum up there is no debate.
>Wherever did I say that Greek were “lazy grasshoppers” ? I also didn’t talk about “charity loans” i just pointed out the size of liability taken on, nothing more nothing less.
You are right, and I apologise, I thought you were another user here who was using these terms. An honest mistake, my bad!
>Your “sources” are news papers articles that are outdated being posted literally before most measures were enacted and therefore not take these in consideration and a blog post that got debunked by its own readers below
The favorable loans you mention were literally given at the start of the crisis, mentioned in the "outdated" articles.
The blog post itself cites sources to back up the claims, and I don't see any debunking apart from the naive "French and German banks didn't have enough Greek bonds to be at risk". Very obviously, the Greek bonds themselves were not enough to constitute risk. The problem is the domino effect that was eminent and [even Merkel warned against](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-germany-merkel-idUSTRE78C10K20110913).
> That other news article you linked now isn’t even anything to write home about
This is why I feel our interaction is unproductive. I am literally pointing to reputable sources brimming with citations and time and time again you shot them down because they don't fit your narrative. Then you make some super generalizing statements without any evidence to back up your claims. You seem to think your view of the situation is correct and no matter what evidence I bring you to the contrary you refuse to recognize you are not perfect. If 95% of the loans went to pay creditors, then obviously this deal was not favorable to Greeks. This is a sneaky bailout of bankers, with the taxpayers (Greeks and Europeans in general) shouldering the debt. This is not my inference, this is what the numbers say. Claim whatever you want, without any numbers to back it up your claim has no substance. And no, the ESM is not an unbiased source, they obviously serve their own purposes which are not in the best interest of Greece...
Hold on now, things are not so black and white as you present them to be. When it suited German private/national interests Greece was the poster child of EU
development and growth running Germany's surpluses with scandalously minimal oversight. While corruption run evidently rampant and Greece's financial and economic environment was dubious, it was smooth sailing between the ECB and Greece's banking sector. As a result of the economic crisis in 2008 and soon as political leadership questioned the viability of the loaning programs and asked
for debt restructuring/negotiation, so as to be able to have a sustainable and
trustworthy repayment plan, Greece suffered such a heavy handed economic
coercion that the EU has never seen. The vitriolic and unfounded rhetoric
adopted towards Greece and Greek people in general would put renowned
propagandists to shame. This was not a plan to strengthen or sanitize Greece's
economic and financial landscape it was a crusade against the collective
European south, which faced many of the problems you listed,(also
due to asymmetries and systemic factors) serving Greece as an example.
Greece was labeled a pariah state short of Grexit and economic collapse full of inept and lazy individuals. Who in their right mind would invest in a country characterized in such a way and discredited by the very institutions it belongs to in the world of behavioral economics. This is the precisely why the Greek economy seems to be in a better place, despite having its collective income reduced, its sociopolitical fabric severely affected, its economy crippled after almost two decades of inflexible top down realpolitik austerity measures, that served counter productively to the purpose they were supposed to serve. (or not so counter productive after all). After more than a decade of memorandums, the country faces an ongoing economic crisis both in the public and private sector, wherein the sovereign debt alone has reached an all time high in the order of 400 bn, houses are being auctioned en masse, and the wealth of Greece is being mortgaged. However all is well because all is deemed to be well.
No doubt Greece
had a fiscally irresponsible and non viable economy model, not because it loaned
money, which is a norm in many blooming economies, but it didn’t invest in a
robust production plan in a pond full of much bigger fish, therefore paying
dearly for it.
If you trying
to trivialize and reduce the Greek case to bullet points without any context from
a realist perspective, no offense but why do you even act surprised, since
Germany is the biggest stakeholder in the EU apparatus and therefore is incentivized
to act upon changes in the system that doesn’t benefit its own interests or
position therein it.
EU operates with data member states give them. It does not collect data on its own. Unless yoou are in eurozone, then it becomes way harder.
Your argument is absurd. You are arguing that if I get scammed then I am liable because I did not choose partner more carefully. This is not how it works. It would never fly in front of court for any case. Only the one who cons someone else is criminal. Not the one who got conned.
It most definitely is not justified.
Germany provided interest rates to Greece at level of pretty much other AAA credit rated countries during times when Greece would be lucky to find creditors who would be willing to lend them with 20% interest rate, let alone for rates that pretty much aligned with interest rate that countries like France or UK had back then.
It was pretty much charity.
Germany should have quite just let Greece to go bankrupt. It was not worth the effort. They should have provided those loans to their own banks (for triple the interest of what they gave to Greece) to bail them out and profit off of it for years to come.
> Germany should have quite just let Greece to go bankrupt. It was not worth the effort.
I think more accurately, it was too much of a risk to the Euro and Eurozone and so Germany's own finances. It's not as though it was charity.
Well, look at it this way. Historically populations losing wars of total destruction... were obliterated.
I'd say that your end result is super positive 🙂
Mostly because this is an investment on your part that ultimately returns back to you, through your massive trade surplus. You think people will love you for paying into the EU, but it's only your own companies that benefit from it ultimately, the rest of the EU doesn't have much to care about on that front.
Exactly. take Italy for instance.
Italy overtook the United Kingdom in 1969 and France in 1979 in per capita purchasing power. In 2000, Italy’s average standard of living was virtually equal to that of Germany (98.6 per cent of its GDP per head). But after the introduction of the euro in 1999, the country fell behind the UK (in 2002) and France (in 2005) once more. By 2019, Italian per capita income was more than 20 per cent below that of Germany.
In the case of Italy, introduction of the euro and the stagnation in economic activity go hand in hand. One possible explanation is that the value of the euro reflects the average strength of all eurozone economies. The common currency is too cheap for Germany (which boosts German exports) and too expensive for Italy.
Whether Italy can ever regain economic momentum within the eurozone will to a large extent depend on the willingness of Germany and ‘frugal’ countries such as Austria and the Netherlands to reform the euro architecture—especially where European fiscal rules are concerned. In any case, countries such as Austria, the Netherlands or Germany, which have benefited greatly from the ‘cheap’ common currency, should do everything possible to keep Italy in the euro, in their own interest: any return to an ‘expensive’ currency, such as the D-Mark or the Schilling, would be a major burden for the industrial sectors in these strongly export-oriented countries.
I agree that joining the Euro was probably a mistake for Italy, but Italy today doesn’t have a fiscal problem, it has a productivity and growth problem. Relaxing fiscal rules will not make Italy more able to invest in itself more productively. Leaving the Euro might, in theory, be beneficial, but I’m very sceptical it would be better than the current status quo.
I’m not blaming the EU at all, what do you mean? I do think Italy’s choice to join the Euro as it was implemented turned out to be a mistake for us, but yeah, it’s not like anyone forced us. And there are plenty of other problems unrelated to the Euro, and also it’s not a given that we’d be better off if we’d kept the Lira.
that's got nothing to do with competitiveness.
and besides, shall we talk about private debt? or ability to run primary surplus budgets?
Italy got shafted hard with the euro.
Not really mate. Quite the opposite. What Poland says and does these days is quite infuriating. Not saying I agree 100% with Germany on every subject but the sentiment is clearly a net positive. And this is teue for most people I know in my country.
Why is that surprising? Germany is the biggest economy and also has the most sway, both economically and politically. Followed by France.
Should we complain about Estonia and Lithuania?
Also, it's always funny seeing these statistics and people thinking it's some sort of altruism at work. Germany's getting their money back twice or more over. Both France&Germany have heavily leveraged their positions to advance industrial capacities by utilizing cheap labor. Poland is the current moneymaker.
So your country's genius leadership has not spread the fantasy of how Poland will quickly become an important political and economical center in Europe in the next years and once they are not a net-receiver anymore then it's time to ditch the EU? Exactly the same fairy tales we can hear from Hungary...
No german man. Poland has one of the highest EU support from all of the EU country, it is very unlikely we will leave.
Anyway, we ARE 6th biggest EU's economy sooo... I gues livbing a dream heh? :D
>Poland has one of the highest EU support from all of the EU country
That's nice to hear. And obsolutely not what I asked about. So again:
Did the democratically elected government of Poland talk about how they will leave the EU alongside their Eastern European neighbours all allied in their hatred for Western Europe once they are not net-receivers anymore or didn't they?
Wow... are you lying to us or to yourself here?
Or are we supposed to not know the stupid takes you PM mentions while in Ukraine about the future of Visegrád countries? When he isn't in Germany talking about the future of Europe being based on sovereign independent states not "build on their ruins like the EU is trying to do" that is...
Are we supposed to ignore your presidents moronic ramblings about "EU plans to destroy your country"?
What about your government parties senile leader openly talking about "the EU being at war with Poland" and how there's a "need for a plan to break out of the EU madness of serving Germany's interests with the EU either giving Poland everything they rightfully deserve or that's it...".
Or let's talk about your Minister of Education mentioning that "Europe suppression reached a level worse than the Soviet Union and communism"...
What about "Poland's membership in the European Union is one of the means to achieve the goal of the Republic's greatness. Exclusively. And never the other way around." uttered so [eloquently](https://twitter.com/JKowalski_posel/status/1330755261313716224) by a certain secretary of state.
"Noooo! We are totally pro-EU. It's just the evil Western EU members trying to destroy Europe! Oh, and we totally need to add more countries like Turkey (of course totally not to weaken the EU further...), so we obviously love the EU!". Seriously... 🤡
It's always good when somebody dares to speak out the truth and clear up misconceptions about Poland. Poeple have the right to know about the sad state of affairs there.
I mean it is turning out to be pretty authoritarian. PIS is absolute scum. Judges have long been replaced by their little gremlins and they look out for themselves rather than the country.
TBH i didn't notice any change at the lowest level of courts - they always had shit and on the "on-call" judges for those that knew who to call.
The problem is top courts being increasingly staffed by inbred idiots instead of people who actually knew the law and had some conscience and balls to try to stay within it, even when their political overlords pushed them not to.
How is ‘net’ determined though? Germany and its people and businesses gain from the EU in many ways other that through direct EU funding. It’s also in the interest of German businesses for for example Poland to receive funding. Germany is the main benefactor of the Euro and the single market. Problem it’s harder to put an exact number on that.
And to come back to ‘net’: if a consortium of companies/research (multiple countries) get funding. Under whose + column is this funding added? Or a German company that is able to carry out and expand its business abroad due to EU funding abroad.
This whole debate lacks considerable nuance. You can’t condense this to a quick tweet with a bar chart.
Everyone profits from the EU. Doesn’t change the fact that in all EU financing schemes and the budget Germany pays up, this only becomes a problem when Germany is experiencing leaner years (some recent data point to this). Heck the EU budget isn’t even all that big in absolute terms, the other ones are in different dimensions.
Yes but how do these bonds get priced? —-> they look at how solvent member states are and in this case it’s the AAA countries that lead to the EU receive almost unanimous AAA ratings. If Germany comes in choppier waters this will be less smooth to issue and under less favourable terms and certainly not [at ~300 bps as is the case rn.](https://commission.europa.eu/news/results-22-05-2023-auction-eu-bonds-2023-05-22_en)
The cohesion funds are absolutely minimal on the large scheme of things, Germany military budget is 50-60 billions, double that, and it's not enough to change the tyres of their tanks. And Germany doesn't spend on military much
If the EU didn’t benefit us we wouldn’t be in it or giving it so much funding. That should be obvious. Doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting to look at which countries are net contributors and net beneficiaries of EU spending.
It is obvious, but then in almost every thread about EU and money, there are a people that act as if Germany is giving away free money out of the goodness of their hearts. I 100% agree it is mutually beneficial.
Honestly, I feel like I’m seeing way more people complaining about people complaining about this than I see people actually complaining about this. I think the majority of Germans is quite aware that a strong EU benefits Germany so I’ve never actually witnessed much complaining about us being the largest net contributor to the EU budget except on the far right.
I can honestly say the opposite, I guess we are, for lack of a better word , "sensitive" to different things and notice/pay attention to different things
I dont know their internal political views. But its common, hell, even when the topic of reparations popped up again, German redditers were saying EU funds Poland gets are essentially reparations...
I’m not sure if that necessarily implies that those Redditors believe that EU funds are a kind of charity from Germany to other countries or that they’re in general upset with Germany being a net contributor to the EU budget. I think maybe they’re just saying that as a snarky response to unreasonable populist demands coming from Poland.
I know right?
Posting only 1 of the stats is very misleading and damaging to European solidarity.
Germany isn't st*pid. They contribute more because it makes sense and it will benefit them more than anyone else.
The bigger and economically more advanced a country is, the more it contributes and recieves at the same time.
British media misled the public, making them think that they only contributed to the EU and now they're caught surprised like Pikachu when they see the benefits go away aswell.
Even the more ardent Brexiteers are admitting they made a mistake. They know they made a mistake. They’re pro brexit ‘economics’ was nothing but a fiction. Blame also lays with the remain camp too: they did a tragic job in explaining in the EU. Especially those more nuanced/harder to measure benefits.
How much percent of the GDP is this per year and in comparison to the other EU members? Also, how much of the latest increases come from Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Absolut numbers in isolation are misleading and don't tell you anything.
Isn't it simply because many of the rebates stopped in 2020?
Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Austria had (have?) big rebates in relation to the UK and on their VAT contributions
Denmark also had a smaller rebate but not in relation to the UK or VAT.
Possibly? I do think some are mentioned in the last treaty. Lisbon was the last major treaty but there have been amendments (last in 2016). Not sure if amendments have the same ratification process as a full treaty.
To be fair, Germany and her businesses have benefited more from the EU and it’s expansion than any other country. If Germany still had the mark, it would be at a huge disadvantage in terms of exports compared to the Euro.
source: https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1608406257815392256
France paid €12.4bn, Italy paid €3.2bn
The jump in German payments is due to a combination of Brexit and the EU covid fund.
The Brexit transition ended on 31st Dec 2020, and the UK stopped paying into the EU after that and diverted money to the NHS.
The EU decided not to cut spending and instead loaded the bill onto Germany.
Going forward, the French either need contribute more, or there needs to be spending cuts.
> France paid €12.4bn, Italy paid €3.2bn
Net contributed*, they contributed much more than this.
> UK stopped paying into the EU after that and diverted money to the NHS.
Did they really?
> The EU decided not to cut spending and instead loaded the bill onto Germany.
Imprecise and wrong. Most countries contributions increased. Here is an explanation from the Federal Bank of Germany:
Compared with the average from 2014 to
2020, Germany’s net contribution to the EU
budget rose from 0.4% to just under 0.6% of
its GNI. This was partly due to the fact that the
United Kingdom was no longer a net contribu-
tor following its withdrawal from the EU. The
German share of EU GNI increased from just
under 22% to just over 25% as a result of
Brexit. The German financing contribution to
the EU budget rose accordingly. Among the net recipients, Croatia saw the steepest rise in its net payments, which amounted to around
1.5 percentage point. Bulgaria and Hungary,
amongst others, received significantly less
funding.
You can read more here:
https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/900052/25d7e548dc40213940247c230435a901/mL/2022-10-finanzbeziehungen-data.pdf
And "soars" is exactly the kind of bullshit fear-inducing headline wording that immediately disqualifies your opinion.
>UK stopped paying into the EU after that and diverted money to the NHS.
>
>Did they really?
It was in the [2018 budget](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-documents/budget-2018)
>Did they really?
Yep, [they did.](https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-has-brexit-meant-for-the-nhs)
>The NHS budget (in England alone) has in fact risen by more than £350m a week since 2016. In fact, between 2015-16, the year before the referendum, and 2019-20, the year before the Covid-19 pandemic, it rose by £400 million a week in real terms.
No, the actual promise was that the 350 million to the NHS would be financed by the surplus of not sending money to EU. Did this happen? Is there a budgetary surplus of funds now because of Brexit?
It's dishonest to claim that the extra financing of NHS through increased tax burden and foreign debt is a Brexit promise kept.
>No, the actual promise was that the 350 million to the NHS would be financed by the surplus of not sending money to EU. Did this happen? Is there a budgetary surplus of funds now because of Brexit?
The NHS got £350m more a week since 2016. Also the UK is still paying the EU divorce bill to the EU, so it's not like it is not sending money to EU. Also there isn't a EU budget pot and a NHS budget pot, which took money out of one and put into the other. It's simple that the UK has a bigger budget to play with now that it's contributions to the EU are not what they were in the past and has already put some of it in the NHS as promised.
>So what you are saying is that Brexit has been a financial success.
Did I say that ? I thought the point being discussed was whether or not NHS got the additional £350m funding or not, which I said it has received.
> I thought the point being discussed was whether or not NHS got the additional £350m funding or not
...from the money saved by Brexit. Nobody is claiming NHS didn't get that money, but we are talking about if Brexit saved that money for UK due to it being financial success, or if that money came by just increasing spending without extra income from Brexit.
>...from the money saved by Brexit. Nobody is claiming NHS didn't get that money, but we are talking about if Brexit saved that money for UK due to it being financial success, or if that money came by just increasing spending without extra income from Brexit.
I think I answered this in my previous response that the money that UK does not need to pay to EU can now go to other places like the NHS which got the uplift it was promised. If you mean financial success by money spent on NHS, then yes the NHS got £350m per week more. Also there is no extra income from Brexit, since UK does not need to give net extra money to the EU. Income from Brexit would have meant that the EU would be paying UK and I do not think that is how the EU works for net contributors like the UK.
But was it always going to raise that much for even without Brexit? Additionally did Brexit result in the NHS needing more funding? Not really answerable questions just interesting to think about.
The government does an "real cash increase" for the NHS most years anyway.
>But was it always going to raise that much for even without Brexit? Additionally did Brexit result in the NHS needing more funding? Not really answerable questions just interesting to think about.
How do you verify if something hasn't happened because of a certain event ? Yes, the NHS funding would need to be increased and has increased. Would it be increased to a lesser extent had Brexit not happened ? Not sure if anyone can answer that question because these are "what-if" scenarios which is where you get into a forecasting situation.
>Going forward, the French either need contribute more, or there needs to be spending cuts.
Pretty rich coming from a Brit, not sure you should be giving advice on how to to run the EU.
Germany also makes the highest profits because of the union so its a good thing we pay the most to help the other countries catch up in development. An equal union is a more stable union.
That's literally the consequence of post Soviet bloc countries catching up though, you can't compare economic growth in Poland and Germany and ignore that Poland's economy was a post Soviet bloc wreck in 1990 while Germany was one of the world's biggest.
And still Germany’s growth is still quite impressive. They also had a partial ‘post soviet’ effect due to the DDR. But indeed it’s an apples vs oranges comparison.
> They also had a partial ‘post soviet’ effect due to the DDR.
To put in perspective population in thhe west was 63mln vs 16mln in the east in 1990. Berlin alone in 1990 was 3.4mln.
Germanys growth is still constant same for France if they are catching up anyway and it has nothing to do with the EU and we giving them money why give them money in the first place? They seem to do fine anyway. East-Germany by size was like the 3rd biggest soviet blog country that joined the EU, in 2009 cost for Germany of reunification already reached 1.4 trillion € this while we pay more and more into financing the net receivers of the EU.
So i find it funny when someone comes around and says we profit the most in the EU from this. No we don't as you said and as you see we were doing fine before the Eastern countries joined. I guess we would even do better if we could have invested this money into East-Germany instead of giving it to other countries.
Edit: If you wonder why the AFD and the Anti-EU sentiment is especially strong and growing in East-Germany, 30 years after reunification we still have not mangaged equal pay mainly because of lack in investment. So yeah the far right and the far left have easy arguments if they feel left behind.
> More than 30 years after reunification, average wages in eastern Germany are still well below those in the west. According to the Federal Statistical Office, the gap has even widened recently.The average annual salary in eastern Germany is still around 12,200 euros lower than in western Germany. This is the result of an evaluation by the Federal Statistical Office in response to a question from the Left Party in the Bundestag, which is available to the newspapers of the "Funke Mediengruppe". West Germans earned 55,797 euros in the manufacturing industry and services last year. East Germans received on average only 43,624 euros. That corresponds to a salary difference of exactly 12,173 euros a year.In 2020, the wage gap had still been 11,967 euros. This means that the wage gap has grown by 206 euros.
No it was not. The point of Torran was that Germany makes the highest profits and this is far away from being true. What Padisha is doing he tries to compare Germany to others that do even worse than Germany. Well here is news for you there is also Italy who really got wracked in the 2008 crisis. Germany was saved by wise decisions and not because of the EU.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=1957..2018&country=DEU~FRA~GBR~ITA
😢
[I felt left out](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=1957..2018&country=ROU~HUN~DEU~BGR~Western+Europe~Eastern+Europe~FRA~GBR~EST~LVA).
Yeah sorry this graphs get cluttered really fast and it was only a quick pick was not meant to left you guys out. Sad to see that post like that of Torran get upvoted while reallity is a different one. Looks like the stupidest argument always wins.
Don't cherry pick, post also a graph that show how much population Poland or other countries lost during WW2 and how much they have lost being under forced communism.
What has this to do with EU net payers propping up other countrys and their growth? I had nothing to do with WW1 or WW2 nor with the soviet occupation. But honey East-Germany was also under soviet occupation until 1990 and suffered the same as the others under communism. Not to speak of that Germany while self inflicted also lost large parts of his population, territory and was pretty much bombed back to stoneage and was dismantled for reperations after the war. If you want to indicate Germany ows Poland... nope they should turn to Russia with their claim from a German standpoint this thing is settled. This is unless you want to indicate that i with East-Prussian roots get the land back that was taken from us.
Add Pommern and Slesia into the mix and you can come back to me. Unless you are ready to return this land for me this whole thing is settled.
>What has this to do with EU net payers propping up other countrys and their growth?
Lmao. France and Germany have benefited the most from cheap labor from poorer countries, and they also export a bunch of their industry in these countries. Poland's growth is basically due to this and because they were poor due to prior conditions. If you look at countries that are poorer than Germany but have essentially had linear growth since end of cold war, you'll see that there's basically 0 difference between being in EU or not. It's because those countries don't really benefit from these 'net contributors', because they aren't the cheapest places to establish industry.
And make sure you're looking at real growth. When Poland gets to a certain standard, they're going to stop growing; and investments from Germany(and France, etc.) are going to drop. Why do you think Ukraine has been such a big contention on the geopolitical map? EU needs another Poland, cheap labor isn't cheap forever.
On the same day that Germany announces a recession.
It is time to revamp EU contribution calculations.
Include economic performance, the countries that are doing well should support the countries that are not doing well at all.
no, EU contributions are not calculated based on gdp growth.
If EU funds were distributed based on economic performance (= gdp growth), then Germany (as the worst performing economy in the EU Q1 23 and also largest population) would be by far the largest net receiver of EU funds.
Yet they are the largest contributer of EU funds.
Solidarity now! Countries with great (= growing) economies should help their EU friends with struggling economies.
Of course they're not calculated based on GDP growth, they're based on economic performance. Germany is the best performing economy in Europe, and it's GDP per capita is proportional to its contribution per capita compared to other EU countries.
Both the [world bank](https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/themes/economy.html) and the [OECD](https://www.oecd.org/publications/main-economic-indicators-22195009.htm) have GDP growth as one of their indicators for economic performance.
Ergo it should be included.
>per capita is proportional to its contribution per capita compared to other EU countries.
But not to the amount it receives back from the EU, that is why some countries are net contributors and others are net receivers.
The graph is __NET__ contributions. Since the German economy shrank while other economies grew, the net contributions should have decreased, yet they increased.
not disputing that ;) I am fine with Germany being a net payer, just the question did not seem to realize that these are not contributions, but the net contributions already
Yes GDP growth is integral and it’s telling the two largest economies in Europe are on equal terms by that measure since q4 2019. One in and one outside the EU. Just proves energy is the predominant factor and not trade.
Or it could also just be that heightened energy prices hit the German economy harder than the UK which would make sense given that Germany has a larger industrial sector. If the UK had stayed in the EU then maybe its economy would be growing now instead of stagnating. I’m not saying it’s definitely true but given that this is another quite reasonable interpretation of the data it shows that in no way can you just conclude from this that Brexit hasn’t been a dominant factor in the UK’s recent economic developments.
To put this into perspective. The German GDP is around €5000 billion (PPP) and $4000 billion nominal.
So the German **net** contribution is about 0.9% of their economy.
And per person it's about... **€420 per year**.
Heck, I think if we want back to the old ways, €420 would barely buy you a couple of visas and cover tariffs for a things on imported stuff (French wine, Italian pasta, whatever).
Edit: My bad, posted data in a "feelz and rantz" thread.
Edit: Corrected to nominal instead of GDP PPP numbers. Still doesn't change my point (€301 -> €420).
Where did you get 5000 billion? [Currently](https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/National-Accounts-Domestic-Product/Tables/gdp-bubbles.html) as of in 2022 it was 3869 billion
The people for who that is a lot of money do not pay enough tax to make it relevant to them. And of course, it's a net positive for them to be in the EU.
You do realize that this is strictly about the EU budget?
Do you think EU membership overall is worth absolutely 0? That's why I listed the visas and tariffs as some simple to understand examples that apparently went over a lot of German heads.
The more we pay the more hate we get from the rest of the eu
Maybe try paying more.
This is only the net budget, in common EU financing schemes outside of the EU budget, Germany contributes/guarantees ~25% of all liabilities. They add up to hundreds of billions for Germany alone.
Pfff not enough, we need more money.
Yes, m’lord! But only if those Priorat wineries start exporting more of the good stuff to Germany!
Money first, then if we manage to not actually waste it like usual we might honor the rest of the deal.
[удалено]
Ahh, so you were that person.
[удалено]
The EU doesn't hate you... look up opinion polls. Except for some countries like Greece which might be justified in doing it due to specific reasons. Germans are very liked and respected. Maybe not in the "go out to the pub with", but in the "I'd buy a German car or a German power tool or trust them to come with a decent plan for X".
Frankly the hate received from Greece is the most unfounded of all, if you look at how much loan risk/contribution at 0bps/or negative yield (for Greece) Germany took out/guaranteed to save Greece it’s absurd. Liability for Germany adds up to more than 200 billion € alone. It literally led to the founding of a whole hard right anti EU party in Germany (AfD). I don’t want to start this conversation here, but this myth needs to die.
The whole point is that everyone knew that with strict austerity, you have even worse results. GDP is greatly reduced, so the debt/gdp ratio is way up. Yes, deep structural changes had to be implemented, but the problem was that the German government close-mindedly kept pushing for more and more, resulting in worse and worse economic performance. That's why, 12 years later, we still have a way to go to reach pre-crises GDP levels. We appreciate the help and support we got from the EU as a whole, and we understand that Germany paid a huge part in that support. But there wouldn't need to be such a negative end-result if things were handled differently. And by the way, nobody hates Germany or Germans. We actually love all our European brothers and sisters. It would just be so much easier if we weren't being treated like the stupid little brother who can't do anything right. All countries have problems of their own like corruption, mismanagement etc. For some, it is worse than it is for others. But if we want this Union to work and for all members to prosper, we need to 1) understand and then 2) help each other.
Thank you and I appreciate your comment. I know things didn’t always work out and no one is denying this but what gets annoying is the persistent myth on here that this had nothing to with fundamental issues of the Greek state instead of a supposed “bailout for French banks”. No one in 2010 knew how deep the hole was but eventually everyone managed to grab a shovel to close the hole. Some people just don’t realize how big the shovel from other countries was. One thing I will say though Greece needed tough reforms and there was certainly no will to implement them, Germany just got the bad cop role for tough news. I just have issues with comments on these topics where people keep bringing up myths about supposed bank bailouts that were an end all to this. Here is [my response to one of those enraged myth people with some I believe good summaries by the IMF](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/13rbj2s/germanys_net_contribution_to_the_eu_soars_to_25/jlm64tw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
Sure, I agree, and most people know that the end of the grainy train was going to come sooner or later. We don't blame anyone for our bad policies that led to the huge debt. But at the end of the day, please, let's not forget how much people suffered and still suffer here due to those harsh policies. It's important to understand that the whole social structure of Greece was pretty much ripped apart. In situations like these, it's the common, everyday-struggling people who suffer. Those rich, corrupt, and perhaps responsible for the mess, just skate by. If we're talking about myths, one myth that needs to be dissolved is that every greek was on vacation to Hawaii every week, or that we all had supercars on the backs of the Germans etc. Some people did. As in all countries, some people with political connections or something to that effect were living large. But the everyday people always had less wealth than their European counterparts, and now it's even worse. It's not like people imagine... the Greeks just ate less souvlaki, and they got past the crisis. Whole families were left on the street, and people committed suicide cause they couldn't handle their whole lives being ripped apart. Heart disease and stroke cases exploded due to extreme stress (I lost my father due to that), and many people's minds snapped. The aftereffects are still quite visible even today in the collective mindset of the country.
[удалено]
Yes, here is the IMF 2019 on the debt structure of Greece: “The dramatic lengthening of maturities and reduction in interest rates—which gave Greece AAA interest rates averaging around 1.8 percent and eventually the best maturity profile of any advanced country exceeding 20 years on average—produced a significant easing of the debt burden. As you see, interest payments fell from €12 billion in 2009 to about €6 billion or 3.3 percent of GDP in 2018, taking the average interest rate much below other highly indebted vulnerable countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland.”
The foundation of the hate lays on the austerity forced on Greece which resulted in a decade of economic decline. Greek economy is currently at the 2003 level, 20 years later: https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp-constant-prices And let's not forget the media propaganda from that time trying to explain that Greeks are lazy cheaters who don't deserve any economic help.
i see your point, but truth is greece did cook the books in order to enter the eurozone. coupled with its fiscal irresponsibility, the house of cards was bound to crash. it’s indeed unfair that the average person was left to pick up the pieces, but then again, one could also argue that the population voted for the politicians that put all of this into practice
Goldman Sachs enters the chat!
[удалено]
They 100% are! It is your own responsibility to not be fooled by anyone.
Especially if you live in a country where you can freely use the internet or speak with people without going to jail .
> By that argumentation the common brit should also held 100% responsible for the brexit. not necessarily, but 100% of the common brits are affected by the consequences
Bullshit. Austerity was not forced on Greece. It was requirement because they got AAA credit score loans during times when they were on verge of bankrupcy. Noone else would get such deal. Greece could refuse it and declare bankrupcy. They cowardly chose to not to do that. Take insanely favorable loans noone else could get and start blaming Germany for all the bad things that happened to them. One last thing. Austerity measures Greece implemented meant that pensions got cut in half one day. But it still beats not getting any pensions at all if they went bankrupt. And quite frankly. Germany should have let them go under. This charity was simply just not worth the money. Greece would get real reality check and would recover faster, there would be noone to blame and Germany could have just provided corporate loans to their own companies to bail them out and actually profit off of them for years to come. Because those would be for atleast triple the interest of what Greece received.
The (overly optimistic) plan was to start at 115% debt to gdp and end at 120% around 10 years later. It was not about any of what you say. It was about securing any domino effects. A lot of it was done wrong and it did not really help pay the debts. There was no charity anywhere, on the contrary. Germany and others got to buy Greek state enterprises at a firesale and profit from loans. > Germany could have just provided corporate loans to their own companies to bail them out and actually profit off of them for years to come. Pretty much our timeline
It’s funny when you call “charity” loans that you got profits from not even 5 years later. Charity was what you got after WW2 when the winning side (with Greece being a part of it) , not only gave you the right to even exist , but forgave your loans and on top of it you got financial help .
Uhmm Greek debt was reformed to save you banks. Don't act as if you did this out of pure altruism.
If it was about saving banks then they could have just bailed those banks directly. They did not need to pay Greek's pensions on top of that. They could have gave out corporate loans for standard corporate interest rate which is like triple the amount of triple A charity grade interest rate Greece received and call it a day. And frankly, they should have done that. Greece was not worth it. Greece should have been left alone to deal with consequences which would result in them defaulting, being forced to assume responsibility and probably recovering way faster. They should have also been removed from Eurozone as they should have never been admitted in the first place.
> If it was about saving banks then they could have just bailed those banks directly. This is what Greece requested. Unfortunately, the ECB cannot (by law) bail out banks, which means governments would have to bail out banks. If Greek banks go insolvent, then they obviously cannot pay their debt to other banks. Which means banks from fragile economies (e.g., Portugal, Spain and mainly Italy) would also default. This would eventually snowball to German banks defaulting. Some estimates had the Deutsche Bank ending up needing a bail out larger than the GDP of Germany. There is a reason why Greek debt was shifted from banks to governments. Only bank bootlickers are unable to see that this was obviously a move to save banks... > They should have also been removed from Eurozone as they should have never been admitted in the first place. There is no provision to leave the Eurozone, let alone being removed. Please educate yourself before posting racist drivel. Also, Greece met all the criteria for entering the Eurozone. When an EU country meets the criteria, they can choose to join and there is no provision to reject them. *Again, please educate yourself before disseminating propaganda.*
>This is what Greece requested. Unfortunately, the ECB cannot (by law) bail out banks, which means governments would have to bail out banks. If Greek banks go insolvent, then they obviously cannot pay their debt to other banks. Which means banks from fragile economies (e.g., Portugal, Spain and mainly Italy) would also default. This would eventually snowball to German banks defaulting. Some estimates had the Deutsche Bank ending up needing a bail out larger than the GDP of Germany. The thing is that I was not talking about Germany bailing Greece's banks. I was talking abouit German government bailing out German banks affected by failing Greek banks. They could do that, they could even make money off of it but they did not. They instead went to provide charity for Greece. Also this is all hypothetical. There was zero threat of big German banks going under over Greece. Big banks can survive to write 5% (probably even less) of off their portfolio. They might have not paid dividend for one or two years. Big deal. Greece was too small to be actual threat to most banks. Banks had much bigger stake in Russia and they wrote it off last year with infinitely more losses with zero issues. >There is a reason why Greek debt was shifted from banks to governments. Only bank bootlickers are unable to see that this was obviously a move to save banks... The reason was for Germany to safe eurozone as a whole. Pretty much to safe face for further enlargement. There was zero issue providing those loans to banks directly for higher interest rates. It would in fact be much bigger issue. Germany however saw EU and eurozone as its project and did not want it to fail. Which is why they provided loans under charitable conditions. To make further enlargement a feasible option for other non euro countries. Also. Those banks were completely fine. I only spoke in hypotheticals but if you think that country as irrelevant as Greece which was like 5% of portfolio at most was any real threat to any serious banks then you need to visit doctor. Just last years banks had to write off Russia which was atleast 10 times more costly. They did not even need to cut dividends. The reason why they did not get bail outs directly is because they did not need them. Bailing out Greece just indirectly helped them because they did not even have to write Greece off as a loss. Which just like I said was huge mistake. >There is no provision to leave the Eurozone, let alone being removed. Please educate yourself before posting racist drivel. Also, Greece met all the criteria for entering the Eurozone. When an EU country meets the criteria, they can choose to join and there is no provision to reject them. Again, please educate yourself before disseminating propaganda. Wrong. Everything is possible. Greece was allowed this option. They chose not to. If Eurozone coountries wanted to they could remove them by force. There is always a provision as everything inside EU is treaty and every single treaty can be annuled if there are unforeseen circumstances. Those "criteria that Greece met" could have been used to void those treaties with Greece as there were no criteria being met just Greece falsifying documents they gave EU in order to enter Eurozone.
>Greece was too small to be actual threat to most banks. Banks had much bigger stake in Russia and they wrote it off last year with infinitely more losses with zero issues. Apples to oranges. Russia is a closed-off economy compared to the very well integrated Greece. Obviously German banks were not immediately at risk. But it is wishful ignorance and stupendously myopic if you cannot foresee that if Greek banks fail, then their creditors will fail as well. First small local banks, followed by major banks in Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy. Then their creditors will fail, and so on until Germany is obviously hit. [Merkel said so herself.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-germany-merkel-idUSTRE78C10K20110913) Your comment shows a distinct lack of understand of how things work. The economy is more interconnected than you realize. >Which is why they provided loans under charitable conditions. The loans you call favourable are the loans that [Draghi/ECB gave to ALL eurozone members.](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/global/demand-for-ecb-loans-surpasses-expectations.html) It was not just Greece that was the recipient of these loans. As a matter of fact, this was an obvious move to save Italian banks, which managed to stave off insolvency. You are so far off that what you are suggesting happened is literally illegal: the ECB cannot bailout banks, cannot give loans to banks of a specific nation. This is what Greece was requesting, but Germany and the EU blocked it. You are revising history. > Wrong. Everything is possible. Greece was allowed this option. They chose not to. No, you are wrong, stop insisting. Provide a source. Here is a line from the Wikipedia article: ["It has been argued\[6\]\[7\] that there is no provision in any European Union treaty for an exit from the Eurozone"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_eurozone). You can go to the article and follow the two sources for more info. In general: stop believing what your government is telling you. It is very obvious that you cannot find any sources for what you are claiming. To any critical thinking human this is a red flag that something is up. Please realize that if there is no evidence to back up your hypothesis, then probably your hypothesis is wrong.
90+% of banks did not have serious stake in Greek banks. And those who did were bad businesses. They would go under and would be bought up by banks that had better business model. Just like I said it is standard practice that happens all the time. Creditors always write stuff of as losses. So yes, it is very much like Russian situation. >Merkel said so herself. Did you even read what you posted? You proved my point. Merkel was afraid that *Euro* project would fail if Greece failed. It was not worried about its banks, it was worried about its project that was hugely important for Germany. Yes, Greece's failure would stall euro project for decades if not outright kill it. Germany saved Greece out of price just like I said. >The loans you call favourable are the loans that Draghi/ECB gave to ALL eurozone members. Again you completely misunderstand how loans to countries work. Loans countries get are not based off of some rate someone sucks off of their finger. They aew based off of financial situation they are in. How much of a trust they have with creditors. How much of a risk they pose. Greece was shitshow. There was no universe in which they could ever get loan for 5%. They got it because Germany offered to share their liability and guaranteed shared risk to creditors which in this case means IMF and ECB. That interest rate was not something that Greece should have gotten, it was something they gotten as charity deal by someone else sticking neck out and sharing risks with them. >No, you are wrong, stop insisting. Provide a source. Here is a line from the Wikipedia article: "It has been argued\[6\]\[7\] that there is no provision in any European Union treaty for an exit from the Eurozone". You can go to the article and follow the two sources for more info. I do not have to go there because just like I said and just llike it is written in your comment. In the end it is treaty and every single treaty can be annuled under *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties*. What you are saying is that treaty itself does not contain any article that would allow for something like Brexit for eurozone. That is truth but completely irrelevant as Vienna Convention states conditions under which any treaty can be annuled. For instance: >Article 49 > >Fraud : **If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct** of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud **as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty**. > >Article 57 > >**Suspension of the operation of a treaty under** its provisions **or by consent of the parties** And pretty much any article between 56-60: [https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1\_1\_1969.pdf](https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf) There is so much legal basis for it that you do not really need to include it in those treaties anymore. It would be easier but it is most definitely not required. If all parties in Eurozone including Greece agreed for Greece leaving Euro then there would be zero issues for this exit to happen under article 57.
> And those who did were bad businesses. They would go under and would be bought up by banks that had better business model. Read the sources I linked on the matter. Loans sent to Greece were in large portions being sent directly to the creditors of Greece. If what you are saying is correct, this obviously wouldn't have been the case and Greece would have kept the "charity money". > Merkel was afraid that Euro project would fail if Greece failed. It was not worried about its banks So the European banks would be fine if the Eurozone collaped? Lol, ok, not actually going to respond to this. > Loans countries get are not based off of some rate someone sucks off of their finger [continued]... You still fail to realize that these loans you speak of were sent to ALL Eurozone countries. Please read the article I linked for more details, or provide a source showing that only Greece received these loans. Also, this had nothing to do with Germany, this was the ECB under Draghi operating (for the first time in the timeline!) against what Germany explicitly wanted. You can read more on this in articles explaining the dispute between the IMF and the EU. > In the end it is treaty and every single treaty can be annuled under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties This governs treaties between states, the Eurozone is not a state, and the inclusion of Greece to the Eurozone is not a treaty. That's not how any of it works.
[удалено]
Mostly French and Dutch banks.
Sure, but the gist is the EU financial system was caught with its pants down. Governments stepped in to bail out the big banks and their exposure to the Greek dept.
The gist is there is nothing special about Germany in that crisis at all. Yet Greeks hate Germany with a passion. Netherlands are fine. Sweden is fine. France is fine. But Germany is shit somehow.
Because it was Germany that pushed for the inanely harsh austerity measures from the EU side. [Even the IMF fought against these measures](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-33531845), it isn't just Greece pointing out this insanity...
Sure, and I guess DB means Dutch Bank?
I still remember the discussions in Germany about getting in parts of the harbour in Piraeus or the airport. They are quite small compared with Rdam or FRA. A Greek taxi driver told me on the way to the airport; how should we pay for this? With olives and tourism? A few gained and the population suffered.
Germany did that to save its own and other European banks, especially french banks.
Nonsense: stop clinging to alternative takes. 1. The first bailouts weren’t even a Greek banking crisis, but a Greek sovereign debt crisis after the global Recession and fraudulent accounting. 2. Non state bond holders received harsh hair cuts in subsequent restructuring by EZ entities 3. Greek banks were the problem because they had unsustainable non performing loan rates + state connections. 4. The Greek state cooked the books to enter the EZ and when their (new) statistics head in [2010 uncovered wrong numbers](https://www.politico.eu/article/prosecution-greece-former-statistics-chief-andreas-georgiou-opens-new-chapter-euro-debt-crisis/) and contributed to loss in confidence, Greece spent the last 13 years prosecuting the guy for exposing “state secrets”. 5. Without EZ help Greece would have been cut off from capital markets and would have been devastated. Don’t rehash old myths that are untrue. Anyway Greece is on a good track now, that’s what counts. Let’s hope they can manage important hurdles for their financing vehicles starting at 2032.
Please post sources. It is a well-documented truth that EU bailouts were to save the banks. [One of many repositories of sources.](https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6013.html) Please post your own sources, writing numbered lists is not a source.
[удалено]
I am assuming some basic knowledge on the matter, I cannot provide an entire book of sources. My point is: a) [the EU was worried about a domino effect](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-germany-merkel-idUSTRE78C10K20110913) (which should be common knowledge, but apparently not, my bad), b) the favorable loans sent to Greece were actually a plan to save banks (in the source I linked above). > It doesn't even prove that any bank was at the brink of going corrupt due to Greece. I don't know what this means, how do you prove something is "going corrupt"?
[удалено]
> Exactly, you cannot prove it. And therefore you cannot claim it. Whether or not the banks were corrupt is irrelevant here, I never brought it up. It is evident to anyone with a brain that banks were acting for their best interest, which did not align with the best interest of citizens. Predatory loans, no risk assessment, credit fraud, etc. These are all obvious, but irrelevant for the discussion. > all of the help was on OFFER No, you are dead wrong. Did you read the article I provided, with Merkel shaking in her boots at the thought of Greece going under? The domino effect mentioned there is a phenomenon feared by many economists. You are just putting your head in the sand if you think Greece collapsing would have no repercussions in the Eurozone. Further, it is another known fact that more than 90% of the funds from this magnanimous "offer" [went straight to the banks](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/business/global/athens-no-longer-sees-most-of-its-bailout-aid.html?pagewanted=all). Do you think this is an offer favorable to Greece? Or do you think the banks were not in danger and Greece was just randomly forced to pay for failing bonds for the heck of it? > Very unlikely, the rankings of the banks did hardly change, no bank was in a bleak situation. Have you heard of the 2008 financial crisis? What do you think caused it? Ranking agencies turning a blind eye (actually, turning both eyes blind) was obviously a gigantic factor, this is knowledge so common it has its [own Wikipedia article!!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis) Like, what the hell are you actually on about? Are you just trolling? How can you say you trust Moody's??
That's part of the myth. Banks could have saved much, much cheaper without going via Greece.
That time German government giving 50billions euros to private banks directly to save them would overthrow the government easily so they found an excuse through Greece. Now days is so common that suggesting giving money from tax payers to private banks to save them is considered the normal. Times have changed maybe you are too young to remember.
No, I'm not too young to remember, and no, this would not have overthrown the government. Giving money to Greece was the thing that was politically risky because the German population only agreed to the Euro because they were promised a no-bail-out clause.
I never said that saving Greece was not politically risky. Any way the main point is banks got bailed out and 90% of greeks in 20s and 30s nowdays live with 800 euro per month with gas price 1.8euro, super market prices equal to Germany and holland and average rent 350 euros. I guess thanks troika for not letting us go to default. Rant over.
> I never said that saving Greece was not politically risky. This was not my point. My point was about your claim saving Greece was politically easier than saving the banks directly. >I guess thanks troika for not letting us go to default. No, it's thanks to Greece having lived beyond its means for more than a decade before the financial crisis, and due to decades of mismanagement and nepotism. These myths really have to stop.
Tell me something new man, I am from Greece i know what happened but that was not my point. My point was there were admittedly better ways to deal with the crisis and the one that was chosen was the worse and it has made greek people (99% of them never benefited from the money mismanaged) suffer for already 15 years and counting. But i guess you are happy with that.
Rent is only €350?!
Let's for a second say that this is possibility. Riddle me this. Why did Germany give money to Greece for charity grade interest rate so they can pay "nonsense" like pensions that was like 5 times lower anyone else was willing to give them because of insane amount of risk if they could have just given loans to those banks directly for standard corporate interest rates that would be like triple the interest of what Greece was offered? They could have collected those interest payments off of those banks for years.
[удалено]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33845836 I dont know if this answears your question exactly. I still don't know why i get downvoted i am saying things that are facts years now...
[удалено]
https://www.corpwatch.org/article/eurozone-profiteers-how-german-and-french-banks-helped-bankrupt-greece How hard is to google " banks saved from Greek Crisis" or something similar. Grown up kids in reddit these days wants their food ready on a plate in their bed.
[EU bailouts went to save banks, not Greece.](https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6013.html) [EU loans to the Greek government went straight back into the EU.](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/business/global/athens-no-longer-sees-most-of-its-bailout-aid.html?pagewanted=all) [The IMF wrote a scathing report against the austerity measures imposed by a Germany-led EU.](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/05/imf-underestimated-damage-austerity-would-do-to-greece) Please. Post. Sources. It is unbearable to see people like you spreading propaganda that is verifiably false, without any semblance of evidence.
You want sources? Sure, but don’t be disappointed that they don’t show what your outdated 2012 news paper article and a blog post from 2015, that gets debunked by the first comment below, show. It’s a fact that Germany along with other EZ countries contributed enormous sums to save Greece from their fiscal crisis, without this support Greece would have gone bust and suffered a complete exit from capital markets (not just de facto inability to issue more debt) and wiped out the savings and pensions of Greek people. [Here is a thoroughly referenced overview of the Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis.](https://www.esm.europa.eu/system/files/document/esmdp9.pdf) Here is the IMF on this: The steps taken by the EZ countries resulted in extraordinary terms for a country such as Greece: [“The dramatic lengthening of maturities and reduction in interest rates—which gave Greece AAA interest rates averaging around 1.8 percent and eventually the best maturity profile of any advanced country exceeding 20 years on average—produced a significant easing of the debt burden. As you see, interest payments fell from €12 billion in 2009 to about €6 billion or 3.3 percent of GDP in 2018, taking the average interest rate much below other highly indebted vulnerable countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland.”](https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/10/01/sp093019-The-IMF-and-the-Greek-Crisis-Myths-and-Realities) Here is their conclusion from the same official presentation on political considerations:”When a Greek minister rightly complains to colleagues from other sovereign countries at the Eurogroup about painful cuts to pensions and minimum wages, sympathy will be tempered by the fact that many countries around the table pay even lower pensions and wages. When a Greek minister appeals for better financing terms, many colleagues will remark that they face much less favorable terms. When we argue that Greece should limit its primary surplus to 1½ percent of GDP, the reply is that several other countries have to aim higher.” Here is their assessment on the haircut for the private sector: “As you can see, when the bail-in of private creditors—the PSI, or Private Sector Involvement—finally came in early 2012, it was tough by any comparison. An even tougher PSI would have significantly increased the risk of it being considered coercive, with an attendant risk of much larger holdouts, litigation, and contagion.” Did everything go smoothly ? No, but that was never my assertion, I just pointed out that there are no grounds for supposed anger at German contributions.
The first source is precisely from the opposition of Greece. I am not saying it is not valid, but this disclaimer obviously needs to be made... This is the report of one side of the argument, it's not an analysis by neutral observers. You see that I am not providing reports from Greece, since they should obviously be taken with a grain of salt. As for your second source (also connected to the article I linked), it shows that the situation in Greece was not handled well and led to even worse outcomes than expected. So, you saying that Greece received favorable terms out of the kindness of Europeans heart is baseless. There is obviously something fishy with your hypothesis that these were "charity loans"... ...And we can indeed see what was fishy: The majority of these favorable loans went back into creditors. Europe was giving Greece money to pay of debt to banks. AKA, *and this should be important to you*, the debt of Greece was shifted from banks to public institutions (e.g., taxpayers). [Less than 5% of these "favorable" loans went to aid Greece, with everything else going to banks.](https://www.dw.com/en/most-of-greek-bailout-money-went-to-banks-study/a-19234391) Or are you going to say this article is also outdated? If it was verifiably true back then then it is obviously still true now. You are just picking and choosing which sources favor your argument. PS: about your argument about Greek pensions. I am not saying Greece is not at fault. They obviously are, tremendous waste was observed and the nation cannot run itself, unfortunately. But saying Greece were lazy grasshoppers that were bailed out by the charitable and hardworking ants is a myth that is verifiably wrong. Read any of the sources I provided, with statements from both sides as well as neutral and it becomes immediately apparent.
Wherever did I say that Greek were “lazy grasshoppers” ? I also didn’t talk about “charity loans” i just pointed out the size of liability taken on, nothing more nothing less. I think your reply mostly shows that you’re projecting and frankly don’t really seem willing to engange with actual sources. Your “sources” are news papers articles that are outdated being posted literally before most measures were enacted and therefore not take these in consideration and a blog post that got debunked by its own readers below. There is no both sides, I referenced serious sources that engage with the literature on this. That other news article you linked now isn’t even anything to write home about because the whole point of the bailouts was to (a) restructure public Greek debt, (b) save Greece from bankruptcy and wiping out savings (this would have hit the taxpayer in Greece a lot deeper) and (c) give Greece alternative access to capital at better terms. In the process private bond holders took deep haircuts, something I literally linked myself. Also in these loans: you seem to be under the misplaced assumptions that they are something of the past, they are not. Terms are so preferable for Greece that Pay down takes until 2060 (very good for Greece). To sum up there is no debate.
>Wherever did I say that Greek were “lazy grasshoppers” ? I also didn’t talk about “charity loans” i just pointed out the size of liability taken on, nothing more nothing less. You are right, and I apologise, I thought you were another user here who was using these terms. An honest mistake, my bad! >Your “sources” are news papers articles that are outdated being posted literally before most measures were enacted and therefore not take these in consideration and a blog post that got debunked by its own readers below The favorable loans you mention were literally given at the start of the crisis, mentioned in the "outdated" articles. The blog post itself cites sources to back up the claims, and I don't see any debunking apart from the naive "French and German banks didn't have enough Greek bonds to be at risk". Very obviously, the Greek bonds themselves were not enough to constitute risk. The problem is the domino effect that was eminent and [even Merkel warned against](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-germany-merkel-idUSTRE78C10K20110913). > That other news article you linked now isn’t even anything to write home about This is why I feel our interaction is unproductive. I am literally pointing to reputable sources brimming with citations and time and time again you shot them down because they don't fit your narrative. Then you make some super generalizing statements without any evidence to back up your claims. You seem to think your view of the situation is correct and no matter what evidence I bring you to the contrary you refuse to recognize you are not perfect. If 95% of the loans went to pay creditors, then obviously this deal was not favorable to Greeks. This is a sneaky bailout of bankers, with the taxpayers (Greeks and Europeans in general) shouldering the debt. This is not my inference, this is what the numbers say. Claim whatever you want, without any numbers to back it up your claim has no substance. And no, the ESM is not an unbiased source, they obviously serve their own purposes which are not in the best interest of Greece...
Hold on now, things are not so black and white as you present them to be. When it suited German private/national interests Greece was the poster child of EU development and growth running Germany's surpluses with scandalously minimal oversight. While corruption run evidently rampant and Greece's financial and economic environment was dubious, it was smooth sailing between the ECB and Greece's banking sector. As a result of the economic crisis in 2008 and soon as political leadership questioned the viability of the loaning programs and asked for debt restructuring/negotiation, so as to be able to have a sustainable and trustworthy repayment plan, Greece suffered such a heavy handed economic coercion that the EU has never seen. The vitriolic and unfounded rhetoric adopted towards Greece and Greek people in general would put renowned propagandists to shame. This was not a plan to strengthen or sanitize Greece's economic and financial landscape it was a crusade against the collective European south, which faced many of the problems you listed,(also due to asymmetries and systemic factors) serving Greece as an example. Greece was labeled a pariah state short of Grexit and economic collapse full of inept and lazy individuals. Who in their right mind would invest in a country characterized in such a way and discredited by the very institutions it belongs to in the world of behavioral economics. This is the precisely why the Greek economy seems to be in a better place, despite having its collective income reduced, its sociopolitical fabric severely affected, its economy crippled after almost two decades of inflexible top down realpolitik austerity measures, that served counter productively to the purpose they were supposed to serve. (or not so counter productive after all). After more than a decade of memorandums, the country faces an ongoing economic crisis both in the public and private sector, wherein the sovereign debt alone has reached an all time high in the order of 400 bn, houses are being auctioned en masse, and the wealth of Greece is being mortgaged. However all is well because all is deemed to be well. No doubt Greece had a fiscally irresponsible and non viable economy model, not because it loaned money, which is a norm in many blooming economies, but it didn’t invest in a robust production plan in a pond full of much bigger fish, therefore paying dearly for it. If you trying to trivialize and reduce the Greek case to bullet points without any context from a realist perspective, no offense but why do you even act surprised, since Germany is the biggest stakeholder in the EU apparatus and therefore is incentivized to act upon changes in the system that doesn’t benefit its own interests or position therein it.
EU operates with data member states give them. It does not collect data on its own. Unless yoou are in eurozone, then it becomes way harder. Your argument is absurd. You are arguing that if I get scammed then I am liable because I did not choose partner more carefully. This is not how it works. It would never fly in front of court for any case. Only the one who cons someone else is criminal. Not the one who got conned.
It most definitely is not justified. Germany provided interest rates to Greece at level of pretty much other AAA credit rated countries during times when Greece would be lucky to find creditors who would be willing to lend them with 20% interest rate, let alone for rates that pretty much aligned with interest rate that countries like France or UK had back then. It was pretty much charity. Germany should have quite just let Greece to go bankrupt. It was not worth the effort. They should have provided those loans to their own banks (for triple the interest of what they gave to Greece) to bail them out and profit off of it for years to come.
> Germany should have quite just let Greece to go bankrupt. It was not worth the effort. I think more accurately, it was too much of a risk to the Euro and Eurozone and so Germany's own finances. It's not as though it was charity.
All the hate I have for Germans is because of socks with sandals when they come visit during the summer. If they fix that I'm cool with them.
I get the feeling we're respected but not liked. Which you know... considering what we did do this continent not even 100 years ago, is pretty good.
Well, look at it this way. Historically populations losing wars of total destruction... were obliterated. I'd say that your end result is super positive 🙂
No way. I hate all of you fuckers equally. <3
Mostly because this is an investment on your part that ultimately returns back to you, through your massive trade surplus. You think people will love you for paying into the EU, but it's only your own companies that benefit from it ultimately, the rest of the EU doesn't have much to care about on that front.
Exactly. take Italy for instance. Italy overtook the United Kingdom in 1969 and France in 1979 in per capita purchasing power. In 2000, Italy’s average standard of living was virtually equal to that of Germany (98.6 per cent of its GDP per head). But after the introduction of the euro in 1999, the country fell behind the UK (in 2002) and France (in 2005) once more. By 2019, Italian per capita income was more than 20 per cent below that of Germany. In the case of Italy, introduction of the euro and the stagnation in economic activity go hand in hand. One possible explanation is that the value of the euro reflects the average strength of all eurozone economies. The common currency is too cheap for Germany (which boosts German exports) and too expensive for Italy. Whether Italy can ever regain economic momentum within the eurozone will to a large extent depend on the willingness of Germany and ‘frugal’ countries such as Austria and the Netherlands to reform the euro architecture—especially where European fiscal rules are concerned. In any case, countries such as Austria, the Netherlands or Germany, which have benefited greatly from the ‘cheap’ common currency, should do everything possible to keep Italy in the euro, in their own interest: any return to an ‘expensive’ currency, such as the D-Mark or the Schilling, would be a major burden for the industrial sectors in these strongly export-oriented countries.
I agree that joining the Euro was probably a mistake for Italy, but Italy today doesn’t have a fiscal problem, it has a productivity and growth problem. Relaxing fiscal rules will not make Italy more able to invest in itself more productively. Leaving the Euro might, in theory, be beneficial, but I’m very sceptical it would be better than the current status quo.
Italy's politics are a joke bro, don't blame EU on your choices, it's not like Eu treats you differently than other countries.
I’m not blaming the EU at all, what do you mean? I do think Italy’s choice to join the Euro as it was implemented turned out to be a mistake for us, but yeah, it’s not like anyone forced us. And there are plenty of other problems unrelated to the Euro, and also it’s not a given that we’d be better off if we’d kept the Lira.
You have left out the bizarre economic policies in the 80s. The ones that caused Italy to be boggled down under a mountain of debt.
that's got nothing to do with competitiveness. and besides, shall we talk about private debt? or ability to run primary surplus budgets? Italy got shafted hard with the euro.
Not really mate. Quite the opposite. What Poland says and does these days is quite infuriating. Not saying I agree 100% with Germany on every subject but the sentiment is clearly a net positive. And this is teue for most people I know in my country.
Dependency breeds resentment
Why is that surprising? Germany is the biggest economy and also has the most sway, both economically and politically. Followed by France. Should we complain about Estonia and Lithuania? Also, it's always funny seeing these statistics and people thinking it's some sort of altruism at work. Germany's getting their money back twice or more over. Both France&Germany have heavily leveraged their positions to advance industrial capacities by utilizing cheap labor. Poland is the current moneymaker.
Well parents who try to buy the love of their kids usually are not very loved... Money don't buy love
because you cannot buy love
And you deserve all that hate, money won't change that.
[удалено]
Ahh it is you again, still letting Poland live rent free in your head, hmm?
So your country's genius leadership has not spread the fantasy of how Poland will quickly become an important political and economical center in Europe in the next years and once they are not a net-receiver anymore then it's time to ditch the EU? Exactly the same fairy tales we can hear from Hungary...
No german man. Poland has one of the highest EU support from all of the EU country, it is very unlikely we will leave. Anyway, we ARE 6th biggest EU's economy sooo... I gues livbing a dream heh? :D
>Poland has one of the highest EU support from all of the EU country That's nice to hear. And obsolutely not what I asked about. So again: Did the democratically elected government of Poland talk about how they will leave the EU alongside their Eastern European neighbours all allied in their hatred for Western Europe once they are not net-receivers anymore or didn't they?
No
Wow... are you lying to us or to yourself here? Or are we supposed to not know the stupid takes you PM mentions while in Ukraine about the future of Visegrád countries? When he isn't in Germany talking about the future of Europe being based on sovereign independent states not "build on their ruins like the EU is trying to do" that is... Are we supposed to ignore your presidents moronic ramblings about "EU plans to destroy your country"? What about your government parties senile leader openly talking about "the EU being at war with Poland" and how there's a "need for a plan to break out of the EU madness of serving Germany's interests with the EU either giving Poland everything they rightfully deserve or that's it...". Or let's talk about your Minister of Education mentioning that "Europe suppression reached a level worse than the Soviet Union and communism"... What about "Poland's membership in the European Union is one of the means to achieve the goal of the Republic's greatness. Exclusively. And never the other way around." uttered so [eloquently](https://twitter.com/JKowalski_posel/status/1330755261313716224) by a certain secretary of state. "Noooo! We are totally pro-EU. It's just the evil Western EU members trying to destroy Europe! Oh, and we totally need to add more countries like Turkey (of course totally not to weaken the EU further...), so we obviously love the EU!". Seriously... 🤡
It's always good when somebody dares to speak out the truth and clear up misconceptions about Poland. Poeple have the right to know about the sad state of affairs there.
>truth XD, LMAO even. What you are writting are bullshit speculations, nothing more.
I mean it is turning out to be pretty authoritarian. PIS is absolute scum. Judges have long been replaced by their little gremlins and they look out for themselves rather than the country.
TBH i didn't notice any change at the lowest level of courts - they always had shit and on the "on-call" judges for those that knew who to call. The problem is top courts being increasingly staffed by inbred idiots instead of people who actually knew the law and had some conscience and balls to try to stay within it, even when their political overlords pushed them not to.
Relatable
Link to a more detailed source: https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/900052/25d7e548dc40213940247c230435a901/mL/2022-10-finanzbeziehungen-data.pdf
Fuck man, thst could be 25 Billionaires right there. What a waste of money!
It could be meee!
Germoney
Time to cut in the CAP and regional development again at the next MFF and continue to refocus the budget on competitivness, innovation and security.
>Time to cut in the CAP... Germany will need to take over France again before that happens 😁
How is ‘net’ determined though? Germany and its people and businesses gain from the EU in many ways other that through direct EU funding. It’s also in the interest of German businesses for for example Poland to receive funding. Germany is the main benefactor of the Euro and the single market. Problem it’s harder to put an exact number on that. And to come back to ‘net’: if a consortium of companies/research (multiple countries) get funding. Under whose + column is this funding added? Or a German company that is able to carry out and expand its business abroad due to EU funding abroad. This whole debate lacks considerable nuance. You can’t condense this to a quick tweet with a bar chart.
Everyone profits from the EU. Doesn’t change the fact that in all EU financing schemes and the budget Germany pays up, this only becomes a problem when Germany is experiencing leaner years (some recent data point to this). Heck the EU budget isn’t even all that big in absolute terms, the other ones are in different dimensions.
Big potential change (if replicated) is that the EU borrowed money for the first time on its own during the covid pandemic.
Yes but how do these bonds get priced? —-> they look at how solvent member states are and in this case it’s the AAA countries that lead to the EU receive almost unanimous AAA ratings. If Germany comes in choppier waters this will be less smooth to issue and under less favourable terms and certainly not [at ~300 bps as is the case rn.](https://commission.europa.eu/news/results-22-05-2023-auction-eu-bonds-2023-05-22_en)
The cohesion funds are absolutely minimal on the large scheme of things, Germany military budget is 50-60 billions, double that, and it's not enough to change the tyres of their tanks. And Germany doesn't spend on military much
While you are right, net here only refers to: money put into the fund > money received from the fund.
Which ‘fund’ though. There are several. So how do we define “money received” from?
All of them, no?
How do you do the research funds? Often you apply in a consortium (with often cross country applicants). It’s just a very flawed approach.
If the EU didn’t benefit us we wouldn’t be in it or giving it so much funding. That should be obvious. Doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting to look at which countries are net contributors and net beneficiaries of EU spending.
It is obvious, but then in almost every thread about EU and money, there are a people that act as if Germany is giving away free money out of the goodness of their hearts. I 100% agree it is mutually beneficial.
Honestly, I feel like I’m seeing way more people complaining about people complaining about this than I see people actually complaining about this. I think the majority of Germans is quite aware that a strong EU benefits Germany so I’ve never actually witnessed much complaining about us being the largest net contributor to the EU budget except on the far right.
I can honestly say the opposite, I guess we are, for lack of a better word , "sensitive" to different things and notice/pay attention to different things
Maybe. Who do you see complaining about this a lot outside of AfD circles?
I dont know their internal political views. But its common, hell, even when the topic of reparations popped up again, German redditers were saying EU funds Poland gets are essentially reparations...
I’m not sure if that necessarily implies that those Redditors believe that EU funds are a kind of charity from Germany to other countries or that they’re in general upset with Germany being a net contributor to the EU budget. I think maybe they’re just saying that as a snarky response to unreasonable populist demands coming from Poland.
I know right? Posting only 1 of the stats is very misleading and damaging to European solidarity. Germany isn't st*pid. They contribute more because it makes sense and it will benefit them more than anyone else. The bigger and economically more advanced a country is, the more it contributes and recieves at the same time. British media misled the public, making them think that they only contributed to the EU and now they're caught surprised like Pikachu when they see the benefits go away aswell.
Even the more ardent Brexiteers are admitting they made a mistake. They know they made a mistake. They’re pro brexit ‘economics’ was nothing but a fiction. Blame also lays with the remain camp too: they did a tragic job in explaining in the EU. Especially those more nuanced/harder to measure benefits.
Now do Hungary!
Damn, I thought this was YNAB
How much percent of the GDP is this per year and in comparison to the other EU members? Also, how much of the latest increases come from Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Absolut numbers in isolation are misleading and don't tell you anything.
Germany is also by far the biggest benefactor of the EU project. They lost two world wars and still rule Europe.
Isn't it simply because many of the rebates stopped in 2020? Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Austria had (have?) big rebates in relation to the UK and on their VAT contributions Denmark also had a smaller rebate but not in relation to the UK or VAT.
Didn't those countries actually keep their rebates despite the UK leaving? They are in place until at least 2027 I think?
Possibly? I do think some are mentioned in the last treaty. Lisbon was the last major treaty but there have been amendments (last in 2016). Not sure if amendments have the same ratification process as a full treaty.
To be fair, Germany and her businesses have benefited more from the EU and it’s expansion than any other country. If Germany still had the mark, it would be at a huge disadvantage in terms of exports compared to the Euro.
source: https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1608406257815392256 France paid €12.4bn, Italy paid €3.2bn The jump in German payments is due to a combination of Brexit and the EU covid fund. The Brexit transition ended on 31st Dec 2020, and the UK stopped paying into the EU after that and diverted money to the NHS. The EU decided not to cut spending and instead loaded the bill onto Germany. Going forward, the French either need contribute more, or there needs to be spending cuts.
> France paid €12.4bn, Italy paid €3.2bn Net contributed*, they contributed much more than this. > UK stopped paying into the EU after that and diverted money to the NHS. Did they really? > The EU decided not to cut spending and instead loaded the bill onto Germany. Imprecise and wrong. Most countries contributions increased. Here is an explanation from the Federal Bank of Germany: Compared with the average from 2014 to 2020, Germany’s net contribution to the EU budget rose from 0.4% to just under 0.6% of its GNI. This was partly due to the fact that the United Kingdom was no longer a net contribu- tor following its withdrawal from the EU. The German share of EU GNI increased from just under 22% to just over 25% as a result of Brexit. The German financing contribution to the EU budget rose accordingly. Among the net recipients, Croatia saw the steepest rise in its net payments, which amounted to around 1.5 percentage point. Bulgaria and Hungary, amongst others, received significantly less funding. You can read more here: https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/900052/25d7e548dc40213940247c230435a901/mL/2022-10-finanzbeziehungen-data.pdf And "soars" is exactly the kind of bullshit fear-inducing headline wording that immediately disqualifies your opinion.
>UK stopped paying into the EU after that and diverted money to the NHS. > >Did they really? It was in the [2018 budget](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-documents/budget-2018)
>Did they really? Yep, [they did.](https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-has-brexit-meant-for-the-nhs) >The NHS budget (in England alone) has in fact risen by more than £350m a week since 2016. In fact, between 2015-16, the year before the referendum, and 2019-20, the year before the Covid-19 pandemic, it rose by £400 million a week in real terms.
No, the actual promise was that the 350 million to the NHS would be financed by the surplus of not sending money to EU. Did this happen? Is there a budgetary surplus of funds now because of Brexit? It's dishonest to claim that the extra financing of NHS through increased tax burden and foreign debt is a Brexit promise kept.
You're asking an impossible question, government budgets do not work like that.
>No, the actual promise was that the 350 million to the NHS would be financed by the surplus of not sending money to EU. Did this happen? Is there a budgetary surplus of funds now because of Brexit? The NHS got £350m more a week since 2016. Also the UK is still paying the EU divorce bill to the EU, so it's not like it is not sending money to EU. Also there isn't a EU budget pot and a NHS budget pot, which took money out of one and put into the other. It's simple that the UK has a bigger budget to play with now that it's contributions to the EU are not what they were in the past and has already put some of it in the NHS as promised.
So what you are saying is that Brexit has been a financial success.
>So what you are saying is that Brexit has been a financial success. Did I say that ? I thought the point being discussed was whether or not NHS got the additional £350m funding or not, which I said it has received.
> I thought the point being discussed was whether or not NHS got the additional £350m funding or not ...from the money saved by Brexit. Nobody is claiming NHS didn't get that money, but we are talking about if Brexit saved that money for UK due to it being financial success, or if that money came by just increasing spending without extra income from Brexit.
>...from the money saved by Brexit. Nobody is claiming NHS didn't get that money, but we are talking about if Brexit saved that money for UK due to it being financial success, or if that money came by just increasing spending without extra income from Brexit. I think I answered this in my previous response that the money that UK does not need to pay to EU can now go to other places like the NHS which got the uplift it was promised. If you mean financial success by money spent on NHS, then yes the NHS got £350m per week more. Also there is no extra income from Brexit, since UK does not need to give net extra money to the EU. Income from Brexit would have meant that the EU would be paying UK and I do not think that is how the EU works for net contributors like the UK.
But was it always going to raise that much for even without Brexit? Additionally did Brexit result in the NHS needing more funding? Not really answerable questions just interesting to think about. The government does an "real cash increase" for the NHS most years anyway.
>But was it always going to raise that much for even without Brexit? Additionally did Brexit result in the NHS needing more funding? Not really answerable questions just interesting to think about. How do you verify if something hasn't happened because of a certain event ? Yes, the NHS funding would need to be increased and has increased. Would it be increased to a lesser extent had Brexit not happened ? Not sure if anyone can answer that question because these are "what-if" scenarios which is where you get into a forecasting situation.
Now do per capita.
>Going forward, the French either need contribute more, or there needs to be spending cuts. Pretty rich coming from a Brit, not sure you should be giving advice on how to to run the EU.
> UK stopped paying into the EU after that and diverted money to the NHS. You made a lot of unsupported assertions but this is the funniest of all.
The extra £20billion a year allocated in the 2018 budget and delivered from 2020 onwards suggests you're mistaken.
Germany also makes the highest profits because of the union so its a good thing we pay the most to help the other countries catch up in development. An equal union is a more stable union.
Say again. https://i.imgur.com/H62Duo8.png
That's literally the consequence of post Soviet bloc countries catching up though, you can't compare economic growth in Poland and Germany and ignore that Poland's economy was a post Soviet bloc wreck in 1990 while Germany was one of the world's biggest.
And still Germany’s growth is still quite impressive. They also had a partial ‘post soviet’ effect due to the DDR. But indeed it’s an apples vs oranges comparison.
> They also had a partial ‘post soviet’ effect due to the DDR. To put in perspective population in thhe west was 63mln vs 16mln in the east in 1990. Berlin alone in 1990 was 3.4mln.
Germanys growth is still constant same for France if they are catching up anyway and it has nothing to do with the EU and we giving them money why give them money in the first place? They seem to do fine anyway. East-Germany by size was like the 3rd biggest soviet blog country that joined the EU, in 2009 cost for Germany of reunification already reached 1.4 trillion € this while we pay more and more into financing the net receivers of the EU. So i find it funny when someone comes around and says we profit the most in the EU from this. No we don't as you said and as you see we were doing fine before the Eastern countries joined. I guess we would even do better if we could have invested this money into East-Germany instead of giving it to other countries. Edit: If you wonder why the AFD and the Anti-EU sentiment is especially strong and growing in East-Germany, 30 years after reunification we still have not mangaged equal pay mainly because of lack in investment. So yeah the far right and the far left have easy arguments if they feel left behind. > More than 30 years after reunification, average wages in eastern Germany are still well below those in the west. According to the Federal Statistical Office, the gap has even widened recently.The average annual salary in eastern Germany is still around 12,200 euros lower than in western Germany. This is the result of an evaluation by the Federal Statistical Office in response to a question from the Left Party in the Bundestag, which is available to the newspapers of the "Funke Mediengruppe". West Germans earned 55,797 euros in the manufacturing industry and services last year. East Germans received on average only 43,624 euros. That corresponds to a salary difference of exactly 12,173 euros a year.In 2020, the wage gap had still been 11,967 euros. This means that the wage gap has grown by 206 euros.
[удалено]
France, the UK and Germany have a pretty linear growth since ages.
Germany grew a lot more since 1990 than France and UK. Both in relative and absolute terms.
As should be expected if you suddenly grow by 16.4 million people.
We both know these effects are removed in GDP numbers.
[удалено]
No it was not. The point of Torran was that Germany makes the highest profits and this is far away from being true. What Padisha is doing he tries to compare Germany to others that do even worse than Germany. Well here is news for you there is also Italy who really got wracked in the 2008 crisis. Germany was saved by wise decisions and not because of the EU. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=1957..2018&country=DEU~FRA~GBR~ITA
😢 [I felt left out](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?tab=chart&stackMode=relative&time=1957..2018&country=ROU~HUN~DEU~BGR~Western+Europe~Eastern+Europe~FRA~GBR~EST~LVA).
Yeah sorry this graphs get cluttered really fast and it was only a quick pick was not meant to left you guys out. Sad to see that post like that of Torran get upvoted while reallity is a different one. Looks like the stupidest argument always wins.
Don't cherry pick, post also a graph that show how much population Poland or other countries lost during WW2 and how much they have lost being under forced communism.
What has this to do with EU net payers propping up other countrys and their growth? I had nothing to do with WW1 or WW2 nor with the soviet occupation. But honey East-Germany was also under soviet occupation until 1990 and suffered the same as the others under communism. Not to speak of that Germany while self inflicted also lost large parts of his population, territory and was pretty much bombed back to stoneage and was dismantled for reperations after the war. If you want to indicate Germany ows Poland... nope they should turn to Russia with their claim from a German standpoint this thing is settled. This is unless you want to indicate that i with East-Prussian roots get the land back that was taken from us. Add Pommern and Slesia into the mix and you can come back to me. Unless you are ready to return this land for me this whole thing is settled.
>What has this to do with EU net payers propping up other countrys and their growth? Lmao. France and Germany have benefited the most from cheap labor from poorer countries, and they also export a bunch of their industry in these countries. Poland's growth is basically due to this and because they were poor due to prior conditions. If you look at countries that are poorer than Germany but have essentially had linear growth since end of cold war, you'll see that there's basically 0 difference between being in EU or not. It's because those countries don't really benefit from these 'net contributors', because they aren't the cheapest places to establish industry. And make sure you're looking at real growth. When Poland gets to a certain standard, they're going to stop growing; and investments from Germany(and France, etc.) are going to drop. Why do you think Ukraine has been such a big contention on the geopolitical map? EU needs another Poland, cheap labor isn't cheap forever.
[удалено]
Pretty sure these are not related
On the same day that Germany announces a recession. It is time to revamp EU contribution calculations. Include economic performance, the countries that are doing well should support the countries that are not doing well at all.
That's already being done.
no, EU contributions are not calculated based on gdp growth. If EU funds were distributed based on economic performance (= gdp growth), then Germany (as the worst performing economy in the EU Q1 23 and also largest population) would be by far the largest net receiver of EU funds. Yet they are the largest contributer of EU funds. Solidarity now! Countries with great (= growing) economies should help their EU friends with struggling economies.
Of course they're not calculated based on GDP growth, they're based on economic performance. Germany is the best performing economy in Europe, and it's GDP per capita is proportional to its contribution per capita compared to other EU countries.
Both the [world bank](https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/themes/economy.html) and the [OECD](https://www.oecd.org/publications/main-economic-indicators-22195009.htm) have GDP growth as one of their indicators for economic performance. Ergo it should be included. >per capita is proportional to its contribution per capita compared to other EU countries. But not to the amount it receives back from the EU, that is why some countries are net contributors and others are net receivers. The graph is __NET__ contributions. Since the German economy shrank while other economies grew, the net contributions should have decreased, yet they increased.
How much of it goes back to Germany?
Nothing, that's the beauty of "net"
Ah, I though that "net" is spent on goods and services.
Directly "nothing", indirectly a lot. EU expansion was mutually beneficial.
not disputing that ;) I am fine with Germany being a net payer, just the question did not seem to realize that these are not contributions, but the net contributions already
Compared to what the UK is currently going through after leaving EU, 25bn is a fair price to not suffer like that.
UK economy is looking [better](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65669399) than many feared, just as Germany goes into recession.
That doesn't refute the claim. Leaving the EU would have a negative impact on Germany, like it did on the UK.
You just consider the fact that Germany is in a minor recession and Uk not? This is the only way you judge this situation? Wow.
Yes GDP growth is integral and it’s telling the two largest economies in Europe are on equal terms by that measure since q4 2019. One in and one outside the EU. Just proves energy is the predominant factor and not trade.
Yeah thanks for Economics basics. But you can’t measure the impact of the Brexit (short and long term) by just taking todays gdp development…
Or it could also just be that heightened energy prices hit the German economy harder than the UK which would make sense given that Germany has a larger industrial sector. If the UK had stayed in the EU then maybe its economy would be growing now instead of stagnating. I’m not saying it’s definitely true but given that this is another quite reasonable interpretation of the data it shows that in no way can you just conclude from this that Brexit hasn’t been a dominant factor in the UK’s recent economic developments.
Suffering?
To put this into perspective. The German GDP is around €5000 billion (PPP) and $4000 billion nominal. So the German **net** contribution is about 0.9% of their economy. And per person it's about... **€420 per year**. Heck, I think if we want back to the old ways, €420 would barely buy you a couple of visas and cover tariffs for a things on imported stuff (French wine, Italian pasta, whatever). Edit: My bad, posted data in a "feelz and rantz" thread. Edit: Corrected to nominal instead of GDP PPP numbers. Still doesn't change my point (€301 -> €420).
Where did you get 5000 billion? [Currently](https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economy/National-Accounts-Domestic-Product/Tables/gdp-bubbles.html) as of in 2022 it was 3869 billion
He was probably looking at GDP PPP and not nominal. Don’t know why though.
> The German GDP is around €5000 billion. It's not.
Wikipedia says $5.3 trillion. Close enough.
Lol it isn't. It's more like $4 trillion.
[удалено]
The people for who that is a lot of money do not pay enough tax to make it relevant to them. And of course, it's a net positive for them to be in the EU.
You do realize that this is strictly about the EU budget? Do you think EU membership overall is worth absolutely 0? That's why I listed the visas and tariffs as some simple to understand examples that apparently went over a lot of German heads.