I have a relative in Italy. Years ago she mentioned people there has started committing suicide out of despair of the state of the economy. She had an employer that lost 2 businesses. And this was in Florence. I heard things are much worse way down south, especially Sicily.
What caused these countries to fall like this? Is this a hangover from the past? I mean, Italy sunk into meh status after the Renaissance and Spain and Portugal pretty much lagged after losing their empires and Greece was fucked hard by the Ottomans.
Nope, their failure is mostly racial. They just can't keep up with the advancements of our age and they are easy going, addicted to have fun. Also no work discipline.
It is almost the same with the Americas. South sucks, north is fine. Do you think it is a coincidence?
People lost their trust in Spain. Spanish Government borrowed so much money to fund their war but they didn't repay what they owe, so those people left Spain in drones and moved to more reliable countries like the Netherlands and Germany who can keep their promises. That's why Dutch Banks are considered highly reliable. (along with the Swiss and German Banks) They keep their promises. Ask
Age of empires III if you don't believe me.
The story is very long but you can read some of it here:
To fully understand the peculiarities of the history of the system of public finance, and that of the closely related system of private (international) finance and banking of the Dutch Republic, one has to view it in the context of the general history of the Netherlands and of its institutions, and of the general Economic History of the Netherlands (1500 - 1815). In contrast to that general history this is a sectoral history, concerning the fiscal and financial sector.
It is important to realize that those general histories differ in an important way from those of centralized Western European monarchies, like Spain, France, England, Denmark and Sweden in the early modern era. The Netherlands were highly decentralized from their origins in the Habsburg Netherlands in the late 15th century, and (other than the monarchies just mentioned) successfully resisted attempts to bring them together under the centralized authority of a modern state.
Indeed, the Dutch Revolt that gave rise to the Republic of the United Netherlands, effectively resulted from resistance against attempts by the representatives of king Philip II of Spain, the Habsburg ruler of the country, to institute such a centralized state and a centralized system of public finance. Where in other instances the modern fiscal system resulted from, and was made subservient to, the interests of a centralizing monarchical state, in the Dutch instance the emerging fiscal system was the basis of, and was mobilized in the interests of the defense of, a stubbornly decentralised political entity.
See? Decentralization fucking rules. Ask Dutchies. That's why ethereum is a shit coin. Fuck eth. Bitcoin master race.
Ironically, the Habsburg rulers themselves pushed through the fiscal reforms that gave the rebellious provinces the wherewithal to resist the power of the sovereign. Emperor Charles V needed to increase the borrowing capacity of his government to finance his many military adventures.
Debt debt debt, and non repaid. Rekt.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor"Ruler of both the
Spanish Empire from 1516 and the Holy
Roman Empire of
German Nation from 1519, as well as of the Habsburg
Netherlands from 1506"
To that end it was necessary to put in place a number of fiscal reforms that would ensure that the public debt could be adequately serviced (thereby increasing the creditworthiness of his government). In 1542 the president of the Habsburg Council of State, Lodewijk van Schoor, proposed the levy of a number of taxes throughout the Habsburg Netherlands: a Tenth Penny (10 percent tax) on the income from real property and private loans, and excise taxes on beer, wine, and woollen cloth.[1] These permanent taxes, collected by the individual provinces, would enable the provinces to pay enlarged subsidies to the central government, and (by issuing bonds secured by the revenue of these taxes) finance extraordinary levies (beden in old Dutch) in time of war. Other than expected, these reforms strengthened the position of the provinces, especially Holland, because as a condition of agreeing to the reform the States of Holland demanded and got total control of the disbursement of the taxes.
Holland was now able to establish credit of its own, as the province was able to retire bond loans previously placed under compulsion as enforced loans. By this it demonstrated to potential creditors it was worthy of trust. This brought a market for voluntary credit into being that previously did not exist. This enabled Holland, and other provinces, to float bonds at a reasonable interest rate in a large pool of voluntary investors.[2]
The central government did not enjoy this good credit. On the contrary, its financing needs increased tremendously after the accession of Philip II, and this led to the crisis that caused the Revolt.
And the story goes on.
TLDR; those who have more work discipline always win in the long run. Southern dudes are worse bankers than northern dudes. That's it. What does Italy, Spain and Greece have in common? Their banks suck.
?
If they leave EU, they can always join back to USSR.
