>>...A TV crew had asked MPs some basic question about the nature of the EFSF [European Financial Stability Facility bailout fund] right before the crucial sitting of the Bundestag. They wanted to know how much money Germany will guarantee under the extension (€211 billion), which countries had received money under the scheme so far (Ireland and Portugal; Greece received assistance separately), and whether banks could be bailed out under the extended EFSF (yes).

Amazingly, the majority of parliamentarians could not answer these simple questions correctly. Some believed that only Greece had received money. Others thought that so far the EFSF had not been used at all. Almost none could tell the total amount of German guarantees. ‘A few billion, I guess?’ was a typical answer. And of course only a minority knew that the EFSF could also provide bank bailouts.

When the report was broadcast on national TV last Thursday it caused a public outrage and was widely reported in the media. This was the biggest sum of money a German parliament had ever committed to a cause – and MPs had no idea what they had just done.>>

See:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Greek-debt-crisis-bailout-euro-Germany-EFSF-vote-pd20111004-MB5YM?OpenDocument&src=kgb

Do Australian members of parliament have a better idea of what they’re voting for?

Or are they as clueless as their German counterparts?

Well, if they were going to vote for the EFSF, I would certainly want them to answer a few tough questions.

Bugsy wrote:

>>Well, if they were going to vote for the EFSF, I would certainly want them to answer a few tough questions.>>

I think you're missing the point.

I would want our members of parliament to be able to answer tough questions on ANY measure that came before them.

Whether the questions the German Bundestag members were asked were "tough" is I suggest a matter for debate. I would have called them elementary.

Is this a rhetorical question?
Could Australian members of parliament do better than their German ones?
Australian parliamentarians are mugs who couldn't organize an raffle.

Name three Australian politicians who could demonstrate an understanding of a problem half as complex as this one the Germans are handling.
In fact, name just three successful policies or acts implemented over the past decade- as opposed to ones that were so badly handled (or bad to begin with) they actually had to be aborted.

The fact that our politicians' answer to the global recession a few years back was to raise taxes really speaks for itself.

King Hazza

In South Africa some iconoclastic pundits used to label members of parliament "stemvee" from the Afrikaans:

Stem (vote)

Vee (cattle)

In other words they were "voting cattle" who would be ushered (figuratively) through the lobbies by the whips.

It was not necessary for them to know what they were voting for. All they needed to know is how the whips wanted them to vote.

Would it be fair to say that most Australian members of parliament are "stemvee?"

Actually steven, your point isn't exactly clear, it has to be inferred.

If I took your question at face value, I would say that if asked exactly the same questions as the Germans were, I doubt that they would be able to answer.
I did of course take that and ran with it, saying that if they were to be voting on European legislation, then of course I think some tougher questions would be in order. Like... why? for instance.

I see that what you really mean is that politicians should be able to answer questions on the legislation that they vote for. Which is what you really meant, but have a bad habit of assuming that everyone already gets the point you are trying to make. I really think you should be clearer.

But yeah, I think they get in trouble and get told to sit in the naughty corner if they vote the wrong way. Not exactly cattle, more like kids or soldiers.

Dear Steven,

In answer to your question.

I think it would depend on the individual Australian
pollies that we've got. I couldn't imagine Tony
Abbott getting anything right. He has troubles with
numbers - (look at his budget reply speech - heck
the devils' in the details - and there were none)
same goes for Barnaby joyce. Yet I
couldn't imagine Malcolm Turnbull getting things wrong.
Nor for that matter guys like Tony Windsor and Rob
Oakeshott - who'd probably check out everything prior
to voting (it's all in the details for these guys).
So I guess my answer would have to be - we've got a
great mix - However there's enough good guys around
who are capable - so I guess I'd have to say that yes -
they would do a better job of it than the Germans.
They did after all got us past the global financial
crisis quite well.

Bugsy wrote:

>>I really think you should be clearer.>>

Fair comment.

On rereading my original post I see I did not express myself well. I should have prefaced the quote with a question along the lines of:

"If Australian members of parliament were faced with similar questions about Australian legislation would they be able to provide informed answers?"

And this really is a problem. I once asked a certain Green politician and supporter of a carbon tax some REALLY elementary questions about the physics of greenhouse gases. She was clueless.

So here you have a politician supporting a tax without even the remotest understanding of why anyone might consider it necessary in the first place.

In fairness I have found "sceptics" to be equally clueless. But at least they are not advocating a tax. The onus is surely on those proposing a tax to explain why it is needed

Perhaps media in each electorate should ask - without warning, their representative politicians 3 questions on each piece of legislation then publish their answers, leave blank except for days waiting until reply received.

Self long prefer those prepared to admit they do NOT know, then go check then soon respond with accurate information.

BTW anyone who believes they know everything is a serious problem waiting to happen...

.

realise
all german [etc]..bailouts
of greece [etc]..

is doing
is bailing out..*the banks.

that over lent to greece
cause greece over bailed out banks

its good money going after bad
now they offer their next bailout

ITS TIME TO SEIZE back control over banks
we will bail you out..but WE OWN YOU..!

sack upper managment
keep the banks open
and trace back who did

* major fraud
and seize their assets

time to get serious
before they steal the money
YOU put into the trust..of criminal bankers

Lexi and Polpak

If you look at the questions put to the German legislators here's what they amount to.

--How much money is involved?

--How will the money be spent?

Surely it is not asking too much of legislators to require that they know these basic facts? It's not rocket science. It does not require an advanced degree in banking and finance. Almost every adult Australian has to answer similar questions about their personal finances every day

I suggest that you might be feigning a little too much outrage on this, stevenlmeyer. And, perhaps, guilty of a little oversimplification...

>>Almost every adult Australian has to answer similar questions about their personal finances every day<<

Don't know about your personal finances, but mine bear no resemblance to the EFSF whatsoever. At a stretch, you could equate the facility to the limit on your credit card, I suppose. But even you might be hard pressed to answer the question, "so, stevenlmeyer, your new credit limit is $15,000. What exactly are you going to spend it on?"

But hey, you are perfectly familiar with the way politics works, in this country as well as Germany. If every parliamentarian was required to understand and approve even the basics of the legislation placed in front of parliament, there would be no need for the Party system. Or whips.

On a more charitable level, let's imagine that they were all given, and took, the opportunity to research and understand all the variables involved in a bail-out package. Or climate science. Or the Defence budget. Or international refugee treaties. The result would still be precisely the same.

Only it would take forever to reach a point where they were sufficiently "educated" to meet your commitment criteria, and nothing at all would ever get done.

pericules quote..""let's imagine that they were all given, and took, the opportunity to research..and understand all the variables involved in a bail-out package.""

a single page brief of the true facts would sufice
[but even then they have been specificly selected to be the next fall guys..selected specificly cause they wouldnt read it

ditto..>>""climate science...Or the Defence budget.
Or international refugee treaties...The result would still be precisely the same.""

yes we agree

""Only it would take forever
to reach a point where they were sufficiently "educated"
to meet your commitment criteria, and nothing at all would ever get done.""

mate nothing needs doing
when the only doing is doing as your told

ALL THE BAD LAW..is here cause those before them
blindly followed the public service adgenda,...
run via the 2 party domon-autocratic system

the issue isnt will they do the same
but how to stop them doing worse

and that is..IF we are capitalist..trust the capitalists to figure it out BY THEMSELVES..[and when capitalists stuff it up..NOT TO BAIL OUT THE SAME TEAM that made their nest..[and lost their pants

THEN and only THEN
does govt step in and run it as a trust
OWNED by the people...[that in time goes for a share dispesion
where we the people/get each an equal share..to sell or kep as we please]

govt money[bonds] or underwriting
to bailout capitalists..is insane..
its a communist solialistic elite capitalist-ism

that SAYS..it needs/expects govt to butt out
so govt butts out...till the dodo hit the fan
and workers are loosing their jobs..

[then govt steps in assuming total oversight/control..
[and the bosses are sent away..[or sent to jail]
and govt trustees run it

and workers do the job
[just like..workers have allways done]

except now govt is the 'boss'[in trust]

Hi Pericles

I am bemused rather than outraged.

I take your point that not every member of parliament can be an expert on every topic that some before them. But I must again re-iterate that what the German legislators were asked boils down to two simple questions:

How much?

On what?

They were NOT asked questions on the likely effects of bank bailouts or whether this was a wise piece of legislation.

How much? On what?

Aren’t those decisions we all have to make?

Unless you have unlimited finances don’t you have to make such decisions?

The fact that most Budestag members were reportedly unable to answer such basic questions indicates a, to say the least, casual attitude towards their jobs.

How much?

On what?

Not really unreasonable questions are they?

Pericles

and others

A bit of perspective.

The German legislators were being asked to vote on a bill that would cost Germany 211 billion Euros or roughly 9% of Germany’s GDP.

9% of Australia’s GDP is more than $100 BILLION.

It is more than twice the cost of the NBN.

All in one hit!

Now imagine how you would feel if Australian legislators were asked to vote on a $100 BILLION piece of legislation and it turned out:

They did not know the amounts involved

AND

They did not know how the money was to be spent

How would you feel about legislators that were so casual?

sounds like Roz Kelly's whiteboard economics to me. As long as you get relected well!

you raise good points steven
the issue is more clear when we consider that the end result adds up to a two trillion bailout of bankers

this first payment was the first promise made in june
since then two further have been put up
but not yet voted on

we miss the forrest of spin for the trees
se this one is to buy up greece bonds
[to resell at firesale prices]
[to the same banks that now hold them]

so you can imagine the bonus allround
going direct to bankers bonus

when we facter in spain and italy
the fraud conducted reaches absurdity level;s
but its time the banks that invented this scam went bust

and be made to..forced to repay..
those who's money they stole..and hid away

im talking about the little guy..[people not ;persons]
ie not the big guys..[ie corperations][legal persons]

of course those who spent away
our pension funds globally
will need be held to account..and forced
into bondage to repay the proceeds of crime

there is also the aiding and abetting law...
that moterists are coping..but that needs to be applied to REAL cime
upon the real criminals..who know only

how to spend
go broke and get bailed out

ie those too clever by half
white shirted black suited blackguards
who presume to be the 'most clever guys'..in the world

who via the fiction of a promise to pay
stole away the workers pay..

[plus the workers peace of mind..the peoples trust
as well as their pensions services and social systems..
up-to and including good governance and basic sic accountable service

I'd say they were definitely towards the unreasonable end of the spectrum, stevenlmeyer.

>>How much? On what? Not really unreasonable questions are they?<<

The EFSF is not a supermarket where you do your weekly shopping. If it were, you should certainly be expected to know what you bought. It is instead a quasi-bank, into which funds are pledged, and used to assist member States as and when they are required.

As far as the "how much" is concerned, the new German pledge of an additional $211 billion is simply an extension of a credit line, not a physical expenditure. The money will at some point be converted into bonds, or similar instruments, which - theoretically at least - have repayment terms attached to them. Also, who exactly will ultimately be the beneficiary of this particular extension of credit is by definition unknown.

So, in my view, your oversimplification of the questions to "how much, on what?" is misleading.

There is no doubt that the parliamentarians concerned should have been properly briefed on the headline number. That's just spin-management 101. But given the complexity of the financial re-arrangements in Europe right now, not knowing off the top of your head which countries had been supported by which particular scheme might not be the crime you seem to think it is. And before a politician answers a journalist's question that includes that heavily-loaded phrase "bank bail-out", I suggest he has every right to be cautious.

A personal suggestion, stevelmeyer. Stop taking Business Spectator articles so seriously, and start instead to question their stance a little. Oliver Hartwich is not even the worst offender - Robert Gottliebsen is an even more painful read - but he tends more often than not to ride his hobby-horse into the ground, and in doing so generates more heat than light.

Pericles wrote:

>>Stop taking Business Spectator articles so seriously>>

LOL Pericles, I never take the media too seriously. Long ago I learned there is no such thing as "impartial media" or "objective reporting."

However the passage I quoted is a matter of fact - it was also reported on Bayerische Rundfunk which I occasionally listen to over the internet. I was not relying on Hartwich's opinion.

The Bundestag members were asked these questions and most could not supply answers. Given the amounts involved I would have thought they should be able to answer these basic questions.

I take your point that it is not actually expenditure but a line of credit. However it is a line of credit extended to risky parties and the Germans are unlikely to get it all back. Certainly they will not get an interest commensurate with the risk.

BTW why do you find it necessary to defend Bundestag members on this?

its funny...we know its a line of credit
supplied by govt..by giving a bond to the bank
that the bank monetises..to bail out govt[because previous bank bailouts by other govts..had to do the same thing

its a clever cycle
banks lend to govt
govt lends to banks

govt assumes the bank debt
and the bank debt grows as an ever bigger burden upon the people

a bailout..that neds a bigger bailout
that feeds a bigger bailout

and govt hold's the people hostage
for the banker bailout debt

this after the banks
stole govt control OVER bankers from govt

this after much colluded fraud

that extends so far as to diable my internet acces
by a clever bug inserted into my computer[that dont allow the page to be read]..or open..

[without first switching off the page i half downloaded
the last time i was on the net]

that then refuses to paste
unless i do some other clever tricks
[still not knowing if the post uploaded
till i repeat the first trick..to read the new page

[ie after uploading it..shutting off my computer..
then hoping enough was uploaded to read it..next time i switch on]

yesthere are those with big secrets
who know how to close down those who resist them

while others readilly defend them
anyhow i go to post...again and again and again
little caring that guilt makes you deaf

you do what you like
and i will keep trying to do what i like

Nothing to do with the Bundestag, stevenlmeyer.

>>BTW why do you find it necessary to defend Bundestag members on this?<<

Just doing my bit to un-spin some unfair spin. I'd do it for Tony Abbott, if it were ever necessary.

And the Business Spectator reference was just obiter dicta. Hartwich was stirring the pot with some feigned outrage, as he so often does, and you obediently helped it along. But BS itself has some good commentators too. Gottliebsen being the shining exception.

No harm in passing these things on, of course. But it's like Arjay's conspiracy nonsense - it would be easy to let it through to the 'keeper, but I'm a sucker for realism, and tend to encourage it where I find it.

Pericles wrote:

>>And the Business Spectator reference was just obiter dicta. Hartwich was stirring the pot with some feigned outrage, as he so often does, and you obediently helped it along.>>

In fairness, Pericles, my post was confined to the fact that German legislators were voting on a bill that involved a lot of money by anyone’s standards without many of them knowing how much was involved and for what the money was to be used.

Don’t you think that is a sad commentary on the state of parliamentary democracy in Germany?

It is you who brought up all the rest.