 |
| Source: http://www.esharp.eu/ |
Arguments in favour of "no":
Eurobonds would simply provide indebted members with an excuse to continue being profligate and taking off the market pressure would reduce their incentives to embark on strategies to lower their debts. They would thus do precious little to solve the eurozone crisis and Germany
Arguments in favour of "Only Greed":
The greed side in the greed vs. grievance debate, argued by Paul Collier, posits that grievances are a ubiquitous feature in society and cannot explain specific instances of conflict. Thus, “the incidence of rebellion is not explained by motive, but by the atypical circumstances that generate profitable opportunities”; these notably include natural and lootable resources, poor economic growth and high unemployment. In the case of Darfur the conflict was sparked, and then propagated by a shortage of natural resources caused by desertification in the north. Previously, the nomadic Arabs, who inhabited the northern and southern parts of Darfur, and the African sedentary farmers, who inhabited the centre, lived in symbiosis in that the nomads would move south and graze their cattle on the farmers’ land in the dry season, thus fertilizing it in time for the next rainy season. However as the population grew and desertification progressed, both sides sought to buttress their way of life by encroaching on the other’s. The conflict is mainly one over resources in which grievances and political inequality only play marginal roles.
Arguments in favour of "Only Grievance":
Frances Stewart is the main supporter of the grievance side of the debate and argues that inequality fails as an econometric correlate of conflict because the focus is on the wrong kind of inequality. Rather than concentrating on “vertical” inequality between individuals, we ought to be focusing on “horizontal” inequality between ethnic groups. Furthermore, we should not limit ourselves to considering inequality of income or land possession, but inequality in access to political resources. Given that the government of Sudan has its powerbase in the mainly Arab and Muslim north of the country it has favoured the Arab groups at the expense of the African ones. This was made even more explicit by its backing of the Janjaweed Arab militia. Thus the conflict in Darfur cannot be explained purely by greed because more deep-rooted and less tangible factors have sown the seeds for the fighting. It is too easy to reduce the causes of a conflict to mere competition over resources, whilst ignoring the intangible causes such as political inequality and ethnicity which have driven the propaganda and atrocities that have marred Sudan.
It makes sense that the state ought to ask its citizens to pay a deposit in order to protest to deter thugs from hijacking it and emptying the states’ coffers in order to pay for all the damages caused. It is not restricting people’s right to protest, it is merely ensuring that people behave responsibly when exercising this right and do not abuse it.
Arguments in favour of "No":
The right to protest is guaranteed in our constitutions and should not be made conditional on the payment of a deposit. It is merely a back-handed measure to restrict protest movements and would not deter violence as it is clear that the people who hijack protests have not got any sense of civil responsibility anyway and would not be deterred by a €2 deposit. Furthermore, the sense of responsibility should stem from the knowledge that the city’s repairs will be paid for by taxes, and thus indirectly by the citizens.
Arguments in favour of "Yes":
Stimulus packages and lowering interest rates to "kick-start" the economy are a reinterpretation of John Maynard Keynes's idea that government spending is the best remedy to reverse an economic downturn. All the previous crashes from the Asian economic crash to the subprime mortgage bubble can be traced back to various stimulus packages launched by fiscal and monetary policy-makers. Low interest rates encouraged excessive lending and cheap credit which far surpassed the growth of the real economy; this was particularly the case for Mediterranean countries like Greece and Spain when they joined the euro. Now that the bubble has burst and the fundamental imbalances in these economies have been revealed, it would be foolhardy to think that flooding these economies with more cheap liquidity (and therefore debt) will somehow help them reduce their debt burden or grow steadily. The only way to foster real economic growth and therefore reduce both the deficit and national debt is to help them regain competitiveness, and austerity measures are the first step necessary to achieve this. Arguments in favour of "No":
In counteracting an economic downturn a distinction must always be made between the short-term and medium-term plans. When a country is laden with debt, like Greece, placing all the onus on reducing the deficit in the short-term will only plunge that economy into a deep recession, therefore achieving neither debt reduction nor growth. Draconian austerity measures tend to lead to an increase in unemployment and a decrease in people's disposable income which means they will spend less, and without domestic consumption a country cannot hope to grow. Reducing the debt burden therefore should be a medium-term goal to be embarked upon once the economy is on sounder footing, to do otherwise is to strangle an already weak recovery, as highlighted by the recent economic turmoils. In the short-term the European Central Bank should keep buying struggling economies' bonds to keep them afloat and Europe must make a concerted effort to provide Greece with enough money to regain its competitiveness so that it may then manage its huge debt. Forcing an economy into recession only means piling on more debt as the government will be forced to borrow more money to keep the country going in the absence of other sources of revenue. On the other hand when a country grows it will begin to reduce its deficit and consequently its debt burden.
