One possible benefit of the Euro’s crisis and possible bailout is that this small little-known country is getting a lot of coverage from world media sources. What do you think about how the New York Times portrays us? Is the picture that they give their readers of Slovakia accurate? Did they emphasize something too much or forget to report something else? What about their treatment of the crisis itself?
This article has really caught my eye as I was always particularly interested in economy and I am also taking economics course at IB. The subject of Greek crisis was also a topic of ECOFIN committee at last year’s BratMUN in which I participated representing Ireland and so I had had to study this problem a little bit closer.
ReplyDeleteThe article is analyzing the situation in Slovakia from the various aspects. It considers the economy of Slovakia as very liable to external influences as it is very small and also relatively poor. Our economy is suffering from the budget deficit and adding more to expenditures is burdensome. And we are not even talking about the real numbers and how much is $10 billion compared to state income. It marks this fact as the main reason why are people here more careful about lending money while it can significantly affect their future. It takes the bailout plan as something given, which has to be done and not as a topic for discussion. Therefore its whole flow is about why the Slovakia does not want to support the plan and focuses on the political aspects rather than on economic aspects and why Slovakia should lend the money. Even though indirectly, it marks Richard Sulik as an ambitious young politician who represents one of the struggling small parties which hinder, or even derail collective action. I find this article a little bit biased with an effort to furtively pass its opinion, that we should absolutely support the plan without further discussions, onto the reader.
My own point of view has changed through the time. At first I had been really convinced that the bailout plan is absolutely unhappy solution to even unhappier situation. I had not believed that it would help and only looked at what it would mean to the other countries e.g. cuts in their own expenditures, dissatisfaction of their own people and so. I think this is exactly what a majority of people here in Slovakia believes in. They see only fat Greeks, huge pensions, low retirement age and gigantic social benefits. The article mentioned the difference between the taken measures on account of introducing euro here in Slovakia and in Greece which can be the source of prejudices and misinformation. But I have the urge to ask a question whether they by any chance are not actually truthful... As the article further said, we even have an advertisement about that. However, this had been, as I later found out, only one side of the problem.
(the second part of the previous comment)
ReplyDeleteIt was a huge surprise for me when I became familiar with the term PIIGS. It is an abbreviation for Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. These countries had, and still have, one common feature. Their tremendous debt. Greece, even though it has the biggest debt, was, and probably still is, only one out of five countries with similar problem. And here comes the dilemma. Stuffing Greece with money and prolonging her life while believing it will give some fruits seemed irresponsible. Firstly, it was clear from the start that Greece would not be able to pay back all the money she loaned and secondly it was not sure whether it will be enough and effective because it required heavy cuts and sacrifices from their side as a result of which we saw many demonstrations. But letting Greece fall meant a huge risk of causing a chain reaction with PIIGS as main actors. That would probably mean the biggest world economic depression ever with unimaginable consequences. And suddenly the loan did not sound that bad. The only question which remained was how.
Unfortunately but understandably the European Union is not perfect. It is created upon an ability of being the same but different at the same time which is admirable but has its limitations. The states still preserve and protect their own interests. No one can deny that the membership helped us a lot, we were able to came closer to the western world and economically develop. People also noticed many changes, particularly the older ones who, from their own experience, have the chance to compare present times, with the past times, that of the socialism. However, when the problem arise flaws become visible and that is that the most important decisions are done according to the most powerful nations neglecting the dissenting voices of smaller members. And even though we owe European Union much, I think we are not just to quietly sit in the corner while the “adults” talk but also have the right to express our opinion and even to propose changes to the plans that are already heavily supported and refuse to accept them until a compromise is achieved.
When I finished reading I was quite surprised, because there seems to be more arguments againts the bailout plan that those, which will support it.
ReplyDeleteAmongst the advantages are our pride, that we were the first state in our neighbourhood, that accepted euro and bulding of some highways. This must seem a rather weak advantage and the article left out huge amount of money from eurofonds used for infrastructure, but also for science.
The article states, that our population lives rather poorly, but still has to pay for the debt of Greece. This situation has led to a tension, since one party has decided to oppose the bailout fund. Our politicians never let go of "hot topic",so this situation inevitably led to a power strugle.
However, does it really matter, what we have to say? The way it seems, is that if the European Union decides something, then we have no choice but to go through with it.
To Janka:
ReplyDeleteI am afraid I cannot agree with your point of view.
In my opinion there is only one part of the article which is directly against the bailout plan and that is the expression of Sebastian Petic. In fact, I have the feeling that the article as whole is aimed at supporting the bailout plan and when we could have a feeling that it finally gives us some views from the other side, they are vague and lack value.
I would be much more careful talking about how much money we gained from eurofonds as this needs to be looked on more complexly. Slovakia as a member of European Union has to make annual payments to the budget of EU but it is a public secret that Slovakia is not fully using provided money, in fact, it is on a very low level. But what we may praise the EU for is that the distribution of that money is much better. Leaving aside the bureaucracy one has to overcome trying to get some money from eurofonds if they stayed in Slovakia I bet they would get lost somewhere between corruption and bribery.
I also do not think that this was the case of “hot topic” and a power struggle. I would give this problem much higher value and importance as it is crucial for the future of EU as well as our own and that it was not just a drama for voters but a real thing. And it did not happen because we have no choice but to go through everything EU decides but because our voice has a value and because we can at least negotiate a compromise.