It's partly philosophical and partly real. I think Greece has done this with some of their islands. The thought came to me while looking at various parts of the world at work (purely work-related, I do have to know something about European travel) and partly again as I read that Scotland wants to split themselves from the UK, for good.

The thought goes something like this: say you're France and you've got a lot of problems with your banks, and the bond selling is so bad that it's not making a dent on your own debt and you're fearing that like the Spain, your elite rich citizens will start a bank run.

France is historically/geographically unique as it has several small "micronations" bordering it. Heck, Spain has a small city surrounded by France. (And yet they still complain about Gibaltar.) Like most nations, underneath the supposed unity of the French people everyone is divided into little tribes and regions with its own flavor and regions.

So why not just offer to sell some of the regions to these micronations that seem to be better suited to these areas? There's a whole mountainside surrounding Monaco that has hotels, resorts and a golf club either named after Monaco or its ubiquitous Monte Carlo Casino. Offer all of that mountainous area and lands up to the city of Nice to Monaco. Heck France might be so desperate it might include Nice for a fiver. Monaco has been trying to build up its sea coast for years and it hasn't faired well, and unlike France, Spain or even Catalonia, it doesn't have a debt issue. It's attached to the EU in a way the appendix is attached to your small intestines, or clams to the bottom of the boat. It doesn't really need the Euro, it just goes along for the ride.

And wasn't there an area in France that they and the Germans had been fighting for centuries about? Sell that to Germany, as Germany may be the lone country that doesn't have an economic problem. Most of them speak German just as well as they speak French, which may not be good for either the French or Germans.

I know what you're thinking, this is completely silly and it would never happen. But, if the economic situation in Europe is as bad as I've read it to be where if the EU was a family, Greece would be that your crazy uncle who somehow through his own bad dealings forced the rest of the family into filing for Chapter 11 (although your aunts Spain and France are doing the same thing, and England has been to the bookie one too many times. And Italy's a sad, sad, ho.). And then the family all went to a karaoke bar called Eurovision to drown their sorrows. It's that bad. Why not consider selling some properties to other nations?

I mean if it's that desperate, countries might have to do desperate things. Like deciding now would be the best time to become fully independent in a time where it might not be the best to do so economically. (Gee, that sounds like me.)

I'm reminded of the scene in 1984 where the main character is being tortured by the thought police and is asked about the purpose of Ingsoc. The inner party (the ones in control) KNOW that their system has a lower standard of living for everyone, including themselves, than if they abandoned the system. They KNOW that it's leading to a general decline in conditions. So why do they do it? For power.

No country will do this because no country is willing to give up power. They WANT power. They want control. It might not help them in the long term, but they don't care. They are after power. That is the purpose of government, whether their obtuse double-thinking allows them to see it or not.

I understand about the appeal to power. If I'm reading things right, if it really is so bad that many countries' leaders may lose power because of their actions or reactions to Greece's plight (and seeing what the people did to the "sensible" leaders who agreed to their terms of austerity), they'd consider anything to retain that power. And if it means selling parts of your country to micronations or other nation who aren't having these issues, they'd consider it.

ampersand wrote:If I'm reading things right, if it really is so bad that many countries' leaders may lose power because of their actions or reactions to Greece's plight (and seeing what the people did to the "sensible" leaders who agreed to their terms of austerity), they'd consider anything to retain that power.

They won't maintain their power. It's too late. They, and their buying of votes through wealth redistribution, have pretty much utterly destroyed the country of Greece. It's just a matter of time before it collapses entirely (and the outcry against the "austerity" of spending even more is certainly not helping). Even selling land would only be a short term fix. As would be printing more money to fund the government, if they weren't tied to the Euro.

Greece's issue isn't just one of "wealth redistribution." The country is probably the epitome of both bureaucracy and evading bureaucracy, a legacy that goes back a very, very long time. While about one in seven work for the government directly, an even larger portion works for the government indirectly through contracting. The people often duck taxes: in Athens alone, only a few hundred swimming pools were registered with the government but a few passes by helicopter found thousands.

Oddly enough, should Greece leave the EU, they might be temporarily better off. They can then literally print money, and while inflation becomes a factor, that also means that Greece becomes an even bigger tourism favorite than now. The standard of living might improve, though imports are going to be far more expensive than most can afford. Their history of inability to solve their fiscal problems suggests that after a few years, it will even worse than it is now, but that's for the future to handle, right?

Still, that's a separate matter. Nations generally only cede land when they are in the most dire of straits. France did so in the Louisiana Purchase because Napoleon was desperate to fund his war. Mexico did so because the US had militarily defeated it and was going to take it anyway. Russia did so because it was broke and, fearing that Britain would seize it anyway, figured letting a minor power like the United States buy it was a much better option than having a powerful foe like Britain so close to its shores. I don't see anyone at this level (yet), and the political implications of even a suggestion are so severe that I don't see it happening. Scotland may gain true independence, but that will be the culmination of a process that has been slowly unfolding for decades.

Martin Blank wrote:Greece's issue isn't just one of "wealth redistribution."

Well, more accurately it is just the spending of money they don't bring in with their forced tribute system. The fact that it is on wealth redistribution schemes instead of imperial military overreach (as the US does) is a minor point.

The people often duck taxes

Good! Although I can't imagine that the swimming pool tax registration tax would net all that much for the government.

They can then literally print money, and while inflation becomes a factor, that also means that Greece becomes an even bigger tourism favorite than now.

I fail to see how printing money for Greece (or leaving the EU) would make them a bigger tourism favorite. Could you elaborate.

When your country's currency is strong, visiting a country whose currency is weak against yours makes everything cheaper. If you're used to paying £200/night for a decent hotel, and the dollar is 2:1 against the pound, then paying $200/night for a great hotel feels like a bargain, because it's only £100/night as far as you and your budget is concerned.

When your country's currency is strong, visiting a country whose currency is weak against yours makes everything cheaper.

That's what I figured he was referring to, but it seems erroneous. Wouldn't prices just be higher in Greece for the most part, making it so, to use your example, you go from paying £200/night to ~$400/night?

But what happens when you want to make another move but your lands are tapped?

collegestudent22 wrote:Wouldn't prices just be higher in Greece for the most part, making it so, to use your example, you go from paying £200/night to ~$400/night?

Nope, the global economy is a complex and often slow-to-adjust thing. Besides, what are you comparing against? What if the dollar is strong compared to the Euro but not the Pound? Does that mean that Europeans pay one price while Brits pay a different price for the same hotel in Kalamazoo? Does that hotel in Kalamazoo even know or care about what the Dollar is doing that day versus either one, much less the Yen, the Boliviano, the Quetzal, and so forth? There are a lot of currencies out there. In the mean time, does your employer change your salary based on what the Dollar is doing from one day to the next? One month to the next? Does it affect the price of goods that were grown/manufactured and consumed all within the country?

Deacon wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:Wouldn't prices just be higher in Greece for the most part, making it so, to use your example, you go from paying £200/night to ~$400/night?

Nope, the global economy is a complex and often slow-to-adjust thing. Besides, what are you comparing against? What if the dollar is strong compared to the Euro but not the Pound? Does that mean that Europeans pay one price while Brits pay a different price for the same hotel in Kalamazoo?

Not quite what I meant. I was referring to general inflation, not necessarily exchange rates. I would presume that, if someone from a foreign country comes to the US, they would convert their Euros, yen, or pesos or whatever into dollars. And the price of the hotel is, say, ~$100/night. Everyone pays that. But, if the Euro is 1:2 on the dollar, then you would convert 50 Euros to get $100 (minus conversion fees) upon travel to the point in question. And if the dollar is inflating, then the prices for hotels in California as well as the exchange rates (all of them) would also rise (albeit, not uniformly or necessarily in tandem, but in close approximation to equilibrium, I would think).

You've never traveled internationally, have you?

Deacon wrote:But what happens when you want to make another move but your lands are tapped?

I get it!

I have nothing further or useful to add to this thread, but it IS interesting. Please continue.

Deacon wrote:You've never traveled internationally, have you?

I have not, but I would think that if I owned a hotel, I would charge everyone the same price(s), no matter what country or area they come from. And I would think that, for the most part, the dollar would be exchanged into Euros when traveling to Europe, although I could be wrong on that. (It certainly would be if traveling the other way around, so any such anomaly would only be for US travelers - likely due to the reserve currency status.) I do remember needing Canadian dollars for the vending machines about a decade ago when my family traveled from western New York to Michigan through Canada.

When you own a hotel you charge a fee. If you are charging $100/night and the ones in the UK are charging £100/night, then when a Brit travels to the US and the pound is worth 2 dollars, they're delighted that their £100 now buys them TWO nights. The rate doesn't change to $200/night just because the guest is British.

On the other hand, if say an Australian were traveling in the US and the AUD is only worth 50 cents, then the Australian is unhappy that it costs him twice as much as he's used to paying for a night.

All of that extends to food, drinks, shopping, rental cars, cabs, cigarettes, entertainment, etc.

I don't know how this is difficult.