Which worked. It also worked for Portugal and Ireland. Greece may or may not have been able to correct their issues on their own. However, there were lots of structural issues, including cultural issues around taxation.
Ask Croatia, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia andSlovenia if they are? Hint, they absolutely are.
Any union with such a variety of policies will have winners and losers for every project and legislation. Sometimes that will be individuals, sometimes countries. The point is that most are better off in general and that every country is better off from the sum of policies.
Countries have less control of their individual exchange rate. That was problematic for Greece, who underwent austerity, successfully I might add as access to the EU wide economy and trade, including (over)tourism is what's taken them back from the brink.
In terms of larger countries, it has been beneficial for France and Germany, less so for Italy, but also less of a problem and less of the fluctuations the lira used to suffer.
The currency is only one aspect and a quite recent aspect. Many other aspects of sovereignty are ceded as a condition of joining. However, the pros outweigh the cons.
The point of the increased cooperation is that everyone is better off, with less risk of war and better protections. The EU sets many minimum standards for goods, services, interoperability and budgets, legislation, courts etc that countries cannot override.
So, abandon the EU? Abandon the concept of the USA? My comment was tongue in cheek but deep cooperation can be a good thing. It's part of the reason for the EU. Mutual dependency reduces the risk of war. Isolationism, like the USA is tending towards leads to more war.
It, of course affects pricing. If they pay $5 to apple, you pay $5 more. It's just like Trump's tariffs. The end user pays. Sure, the market encourages keeping prices down to attract customers, but if everyone pays a toll, you can't compete below that.
Now the companies can. Just like you don't care about companies paying each other, companies don't care where they can cut costs. Making their product cheaper, and therefore more attractive to increase sales is good for them. In this case it just happens to be good for consumers too. They may not pass on that hypothetical $5 but if they pass on $4, we're still better off. Apple is worse off.
I wonder how long before services are targeted for tariffs in response to Trump. It may be that prices for apps and games go back up immediately.
I'm glad they used up political capital that hasn't directly done damage and now allows her to take the position without as much resistance, most likely. I'm sure they will still try to go against her, but it will be all the harder when articles like this allude to a non progressive agenda in the old establishment within the party.
You could tell the candidate your concern and they could say that negotiations have failed to the recruiter, as could you and then you both are pulling out.
If their passport doesn’t match their appearance, would that be safe for travel in less welcoming countries? Would it allow them to travel at all, if it didn’t match their presentation? Isn’t that the whole point of a passport? There is no reason for this kind of legal ruling apart from offering a way for bigots to practice bigotry. Nobody will be safer, but trans people will be more at risk.
Oh, I certainly agree that r&d is probably higher than manufacture, but they are ninijisibg the cost to replace. There is also runk cost fallacy to consider.
Russia doesn't have the spare cash lying in the couch as you say and the cost to manufacturer is higher when under sanctions. The ability to manufacturer is also hamstring.
Which worked. It also worked for Portugal and Ireland. Greece may or may not have been able to correct their issues on their own. However, there were lots of structural issues, including cultural issues around taxation.