text:
In pictures: Today in Athens
By Paul Walter | Sun 12th July 2015 - 8:13 pm
Follow @paulwalteruk
Scenes from Athens today, as momentous discussions take place in Brussels. Scroll down to view. Hover your mouse or finger over the photo to read the caption, and/or double-click on the image to see it in context on Getty Images.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist. He is one of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Read more by Paul Walter or more about athens, euro or greece.
This entry was posted in News and Photo feature.
Top of the Blogs: The Lib Dem Golden Dozen #422
Have you got a first class stamp?
Roger Billins 13th Jul '15 - 7:01am
Nice photographs. What Germany has done to Greece makes me more likely than not to vote 'no' to Europe in the referendum.
Martin 13th Jul '15 - 7:33am
Roger Billins;
Apart from helping reduce Greece's debt by 50% in 2011 by buying it up at the reduced amount, what is it that you think "Germany has done to Greece"?
Richard Underhill 13th Jul '15 - 10:48am
The UK's position is different from Greece.
Roger Billins 13th Jul '15 - 11:19am
i have no sympathy with the corrupt parties of the centre left and centre right and the corrupt oligarchs that have run Greece in recent times. The obsession with the European dream lead to Greece being admitted to the Euro which should never have happened. The banks should never have lent huge sums to Greece which it could not repay -it is to the repayment of those debts to which bail out money has gone. What Germany has done is humiliated and impoverished Greece and humiliation is not good for any nation and the results are unpredictable with both Golden Dawn and the KKE waiting in the wings.
I was committed to Europe but for the first time I am having doubts. Our foreign policy has for centuries been geared to preventing any power dominating Europe, in the way that Germany now does. If The UK is to stay in Europe it needs to take a much more active role in reducing that dominance.
Martin 13th Jul '15 - 11:40am
Roger Billins:
How has Germany "humiliated and impoverished Greece"? You do not explain how. The principle action Germany has taken was to make an agreement with the banks that they would buy the largest portion of debt if it were reduced by 50%. Other countries such as Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia who are poorer than Greece also contributed significantly (as much in terms of GDP) This could be regarded as a humiliation but hardly an impoverishment.
The so called 'dominance' you refer to is nothing more than many creditor states, certainly not only Germany, who are reluctant to provide further money without a reliable guarantee.
Roger Billins 13th Jul '15 - 1:12pm
I call a 25% reduction in GDP and huge rates of unemployment impoverishment. The problem is that the first two bail outs sought to impose the wrong conditions and it is only now that there is some recognition that structural reform does not mean the imposition of austerity but a liberalisation of the economy and a removal of the rights vested in the ship owners, the civil service and the military. A little bit of humility on the part of the Germans in recognizing that their fathers devastated Greece and paid virtually nothing by way of reparation would not go amiss.
jedibeeftrix 13th Jul '15 - 1:14pm
Still think describing greece as a Sanjak is hyperbole?
First the ottomans, now the eu.
Stephen Campbell 13th Jul '15 - 1:37pm
I consider people succumbing to early deaths, lack of vital medicines, tens of thousands going hungry and people committing suicide to be humiliation. I'd go further and call it economic terrorism by the financial and political classes of the EU. Thing is, when one invests, there is always a risk. That's the nature of the game. The problem is that financial institutions now wield more power than nation states and everything is done to make sure their risks are minimised (see the ISDS component of the horrible TTIP).
Personally, I feel Greece's debt should be written off, just like Germany had so much of its debt written off after WWII. Unfortunately, that won't happen as investors getting their money back is far more important than peoples' lives. And the way in which some Liberals have an almost religious and dogmatic attachment to the EU is frightening. The EU project (which I was once in favour of but now coming to the conclusion that it has failed and is turning quite nasty) is far more important in some quarters than the lives of human beings.
Like German/Italian fascism and Soviet communism, ideology is now coming before actual people. And, personally, I find that highly illiberal and more than a little bit frightening.
Josef 13th Jul '15 - 2:34pm
Yet being in the EU is the only way how countries can be forced to overcome their ideological obsessions and work together for the benefit of ALL people. Only a permanent political union can get political leaders to compromise rather than put their own narrow interest first as every member has to give way at some decisions.
Sadly the discussions about Greece have deteriorated to a sickening level (do read right-wing German papers today) dominated by nationalism for short-term political gain. But if Europe was only about self-interest we wouldn't enjoy freedom of capital, goods and labour, would we?
Martin 13th Jul '15 - 3:29pm
Stephen Campbell:
Are you advocating that Liberal Democrat policy should be to write off the 10.8 billion Euros that the UK has contributed to Greece by way of the IMF?
Admittedly such a gesture would have saved Greece from default to the IMF and would have helped its financial position considerably. Nonetheless, I really doubt that writing off debt would be acceptable to the vast majority in the UK.
If you are not advocating writing off the debt in this way, what are you advocating? (or is it a case of empty words?)
TCO 13th Jul '15 - 3:36pm
@Stephen Campbell " investors getting their money back is far more important than peoples' lives."
But the problem is that it's not "investors" but other European taxpayers' money that is being written off; money that they could have spent on preventing their own " early deaths, lack of vital medicines, tens of thousands going hungry and people committing suicide" as you put it.
@Martin: "Are you advocating that Liberal Democrat policy should be to write off the 10.8 billion Euros that the UK has contributed to Greece by way of the IMF?"
Yes, I am. That 10.8 billion Euros is only a fraction of what we spend on foreign aid or subsidies to thuggish corporations such as G4S.
Are you advocating the notion that already-rich investors getting their money back is more important than peoples' lives which are being ruined or lost due to this financial terrorism?
@Josef: "Only a permanent political union can get political leaders to compromise rather than put their own narrow interest first as every member has to give way at some decisions."
When were we last asked if we actually wanted a "permanent political union"?
Additionally, this forced "permanent political union" which will force leaders to "compromise" (or be bullied, in the case of Greece) sounds eerily like the justification the Bolsheviks used to force the remnants of the Russian Empire to join their own "permanent political union" after they gained independence in the wake of the 1917 October Revolution. After all, that too was their justification for clamping down on nationalism and narrow self-interest. I'm not a fan of nationalism myself, personally, and was once a supporter of the EU. Though many of us on the left are finally waking up to the fact that the EU is acting in a dictatorial fashion and is run by and large for the benefit of multinational corporations and finance capital.
"But if Europe was only about self-interest we wouldn't enjoy freedom of capital, goods and labour, would we?"
Would that be the freedom of capital which allows wealthy spivs and looters to stash their money in tax havens such as Luxembourg which is forcing people such as myself to endure austerity for their mistakes? That freedom for the rich to move their capital around at will is partly how Greece got into this mess, as it allowed wealthy Greeks to hide their money in foreign accounts while the working and middle-class Greeks get hammered.
The problem is that 'already-rich investors' have already lost a huge amount of their money in the 2012 haircut, so any future debt relief would hardly be effective.
As far as the IMF loan is concerned it would have been very helpful if the IMF had followed the European example and delayed interest payments into the 2030s. Remember that Greece managed a decent primary surplus last year and could have sustained her economy if it wasn't for debt interest.
Stephen:
Fair enough for being consistent. The money owed is now held, like UK's own contribution, by taxpayers throughout the EU and beyond, including the US. Incidentally Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia have contributed a significant % of their GDP, but are poorer in terms of standards of living than Greece. Following your point of view, you would appreciate that it is unfair for these countries to lose money to Greece.
The recent budget included cuts that were less than 10.8 billion Euros, but nonetheless were a source of considerable anguish, particularly to poorer families. Writing off the debt would precipitate another round of cuts. I am guessing that you would like to see tax increases instead, but where? It would have to be a tax that actually delivered the revenue.
@Josef: "The problem is that 'already-rich investors' have already lost a huge amount of their money in the 2012 haircut, so any future debt relief would hardly be effective."
Well, then the poor dears will just have to have an even larger haircut. They'll be forced into having to buy £75 bottles of champagne rather than £100 bottles.
Any chance of addressing my comments Re: "permanent political union"?
@Martin: "The money owed is now held, like UK's own contribution, by taxpayers throughout the EU and beyond, including the US. Incidentally Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia have contributed a significant % of their GDP, but are poorer in terms of standards of living than Greece. "
People in those nations are not, to my knowledge, going hungry on a massive scale, dying due to lack of vital medication or taking their own lives due to the demands being placed on them by the Holy God of Austerity. I am, however, happy to be proved wrong.
"Writing off the debt would precipitate another round of cuts. I am guessing that you would like to see tax increases instead, but where? "
A good start would be closing down the tax havens that the rich Greeks secreted their money away into and repatriating that money back to its rightful place: the coffers of the Greek treasury. I know it's probably considered naive in the modern age of corporate and financial dominance, but I believe in this crazy notion that those who caused this crisis (banks loaning money to countries it was known could not repay, rich Greeks dodging tax through the free movement of capital into tax havens) should be the ones who pay for it. But that's a silly and idealist notion, isn't it? Much better that poor and middle-class Greeks pay for the crimes of others, right?
But I digress and must return to work so I can do my duty and pay my taxes to help us get out of this mess here in the UK which was caused by the financial sector and the political class and for which working-class people such as myself must suffer.
John Roffey 13th Jul '15 - 4:30pm
Martin 13th Jul '15 – 3:29pm
Irrespective of where the money comes from – it had always been understood that bankers who lend money to clients take a risk that their client may not be able to pay – in these circumstances – the bank makes a loss. Those whose money is lost, in such circumstances, complaints are against the bank, or the individual who made the poor decisions when assessing the clients ability to pay. How can this fundamental law of banking be altered because the bank is the ECB?
As Stephen Campbell has mentioned above, the designers of TTIP have included the capacity for corporations to sue national governments when changes in policy causes them to loose money [some of these agreements already exist within EU nations and have caused major losses to the nations concerned]. Once again we have a 'turning on its head' of a fundamental understanding that commercial organisations make decisions which entail some degree of risk – and that it is the commercial organisation that bears the losses when things go wrong.
During the coalition, the Party broadly supported this Corporate agenda followed by Osborne . Do those giving their support now recognise they were mistaken and that the Party must return to being a left of centre party – so that people are put before the profits of global corporations who are sucking dry nations of their wealth – there certainly is little or no 'trickle down effect' in the global free market.
Having said that – the road ahead for any left of centre party is going to be extremely rocky in the foreseeable future -because of the legislation already in place.
Sadly never, though that is of course to change come 2017. Other members esspecially in the eurozone are quite happy with the permanent political union they've joined.
Yet as far as your point about dictatorship is concerned the only non-elected body, the European commision is largely controlled by the nation states. I'd love to see power moved from commision to parliament.
I agree with you that the links between big business and government in general are a frustration at some point. Strenghtening the role of parliament can be very helpful here.
What about freedom of labour and the social charter ?
@Josef: "I'd love to see power moved from commision to parliament."
As would I. I'd like to see almost all power moved to the EU Parliament.
Agreed, again. Though saying the links between big business and governments is "a frustration" is, in my humble opinion, a massive understatement 🙂
Those are the bits of the EU I still very strongly support. The freedom for the rich to move their money about to dodgy locations and the way Greece has been bullied…not so much. Though if we do have an in-out referendum in 2017, I'm still undecided as to how I would vote. A few years ago I would have 100% voted to stay in.
Gordon 13th Jul '15 - 5:16pm
Martin asks Roger Billins (2nd comment) what he thinks "Germany has done to Greece".
For an answer read Varoufakis' superb and very clear article in the Guardian of last Friday. He writes:
"In 2010, the Greek state became insolvent. Two options consistent with continuing membership of the eurozone presented themselves: the sensible one, that any decent banker would recommend – restructuring the debt and reforming the economy; and the toxic option – extending new loans to a bankrupt entity while pretending that it remains solvent.
Official Europe chose the second option, putting the bailing out of French and German banks exposed to Greek public debt above Greece's socioeconomic viability. "
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/10/germany-greek-pain-debt-relief-grexit
Get that. They knowingly chose to break the most basic rule of capitalism – that firms that make bad investments, in this case banks that made bad lending decisions, lose their money. Only around 11% of the bailout money has ever reached Greece; all the rest has round-tripped straight back to German banks. The Greek people have been thrown to the wolves and the nation is being asset stripped wholesale. There is zero chance this latest bailout will work and the next stage will almost certainly involve private and company bank accounts being plundered. At that point Greece becomes a failed state – courtesy of the EU.
This also tells us who really calls the shots in Europe – the banks. All that stuff about democracy is just window dressing. Actions speak louder than words.
David-1 13th Jul '15 - 5:20pm
Who now can be so confident as to claim with assurance that a vote on the UK staying in Europe would be won by Yes?
There are many people who want to be a part of Europe — but not part of a Europe which is wholly run in the interest of German bankers.
The plan, I think, is to deprive Greece of everything except the symbolism of a nation-state, while all of its social and economic policies are formulated for it by a clique who stand to make money off the ransacking of the national assets. The well-being of the Greek people will not even come in tenth place.
The modus operandi should be familiar; it is how the British Empire seized control of many of its richest territories, from Bengal to Egypt. The question we should be asking is: "Who benefits?"
@Gordon: " They knowingly chose to break the most basic rule of capitalism – that firms that make bad investments, in this case banks that made bad lending decisions, lose their money."
Exactly. The Big Capitalists (and by that I mean large financial institutions and multinational corporations, not small/middle businesses and individual entrepreneurs) want to rig the rules of the game in their favour and damn the consequences for the "little people" as they call us. They have access to elected politicians that we mere constituents could only dream of. They own most of the "free press" which coincidentally reflect their own views, telling us all that what is good for the banks and multinationals is good for us all when in reality it is quite the opposite. They are, quite simply, more powerful than nation states and anti-democratic by their very nature. To them, profit will always – always – come before human beings who are not part of their cabal. They will asset-strip whole nations and leave people to suffer to maintain their dominance.
If this continues, we very well may be entering a period of capitalist totalitarianism.
The implications for the European project are dire as Wolfgang Münchau explains in todays FT.
"Greece's creditors … have destroyed the eurozone as we know it and demolished the idea of a monetary union as a step towards a democratic political union.
In doing so they reverted to the nationalist European power struggles of the 19th and early 20th century. They demoted the eurozone into a toxic fixed exchange-rate system, with a shared single currency, run in the interests of Germany, held together by the threat of absolute destitution for those who challenge the prevailing order.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e38a452e-26f2-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3flhaV8dg
I don't expect the fallout will be limited to the eurozone; an EU that presides over reducing one of its members to destitution has no place in a decent world and I don't expect it to survive except perhaps as a shrivelled remnant, probably a talking shop shorn of any power or real influence.
The Greek agreement has been branded as harsher than the Treaty of Versailles, apparently Keynes thought that Treaty too harsh and described it as a "Carthaginian peace".
Wikipedia – Carthaginian Peace is the imposition of a very brutal 'peace' by completely crushing the enemy. It derives from the peace imposed on Carthage by Rome. After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies, was forced to demilitarize, pay a constant tribute to Rome and could not enter war without Rome's permission. At the end of the Third Punic War the Romans systematically burned Carthage to the ground and enslaved its population.
I think there is little doubt that we are undergoing an epic change whereby Corporatism is replacing national government. Those who, not unsurprisingly, find this difficult to believe at present – will, certainly in the lifetime of this parliament – have no choice but to accept this is true.
As far as Tsipras was concerned – any unbiased observer would reasonably conclude that he genuinely expected the EU to operate as a considerate partner within a family of nations – and was genuinely shocked to find this was not the case.
John Dunn 13th Jul '15 - 5:53pm
All faith in the European project is ebbing away. In recent days the EU has been exposed as a ruthless, vicious and Mafia style mobster extortion racket. It takes a few days for reality to settle into the public consciousness, and when it does, it will be clear that this anti-democratic, economic war against Athens is not finished by a long shot. The ruthless and very public humiliation of Greece, has rendered the scales to fall from the eyes of even the dimmest Euro-fantasist.
Stephen – "If this continues, we very well may be entering a period of capitalist totalitarianism."
Quite so. We are right on the brink already and it's not just Greece. Only last week the sole remaining Lib Dem MEP, Catherine Bearder, voted FOR negotiations on TTIP to continue. For those not paying attention that is a proposal that will effectively revoke the Magna Carta by ending the foundational principle of 800 years of English law that all are equal under the law. Under TTIP a favoured few, that is large corporations, will no longer answer to the law of the land but only to 'arbitration' decisions handed down by their own retainers.
Lib Dems planning to revoke Magna Carta for the greater convenience of plutocrats? The next election should be fun.
Gordon 13th Jul '15 – 5:53pm
"Only last week the sole remaining Lib Dem MEP, Catherine Bearder, voted FOR negotiations on TTIP to continue"
It was only because I accidentally turned on Andrew Neil's 'European Politics Show' at the weekend that I realised that TTIP had been passed by the EU Parliament [CB MEP] was arguing strongly for the deal against UKIP's Lord Dartmouth – UKIP have, so far, been the only Party strongly against the deal. As a result I Googled to find an article explaining what had happened.
"You won't know this, but a very important TTIP vote happened in Europe this week
The corrupt heart of Europe will always put big business over citizens' rights
There was an important vote in Europe this week but it wasn't about Greece so you probably won't have heard about it. Its implications, however, could be more sinister and more damaging for democracy than a Grexit.
The European Parliament voted by a majority of 436 to 241 to pass a resolution on the secret EU-US trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). By voting yes MEPs effectively gave their stamp of approval for the deal to go ahead, in spite of repeated and widespread protest from their own constituents. Protests which have repeatedly been ignored.
A European Citizens' Initiative against TTIP currently stands at over 2,300,000 signatures, a number which should have triggered a response from the European Commission, the unelected body negotiating the deal. Instead the EC dismissed it out of hand as illegitimate. The EC's own public consultation on one of the most controversial parts of TTIP received a resounding no from a staggering 97 per cent of respondents – again, ignored" {more here]
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/you-wont-know-this-but-a-very-important-ttip-vote-happened-in-europe-this-week-10380530.html
T-J 13th Jul '15 - 6:28pm
Its the old theme. The British see intergovernmental Europe not working out, and leap to the solution of throwing the whole thing away rather than proposing to federalise.
Obviously the status quo isn't working. Clearly the recent crisis has been managed more for the interests of banks mainly in Germany rather than the citizens. But it is equally obvious that retreating back to a Europe of nationstates offers no refuge from these forces shredding democracy already.
Perhaps the crisis will now recede. Or perhaps it'll just flare up again in a few months or years. Either way, reforms must be made. Europe has been lecturing Greece on this, but it has much to do as well. As liberals, we should be fullsquare behind such reform ideas, not sniping from the sidelines making doom-laden declamations of despair.
Some from varying political perspectives think that the fundamental mistake was to offload the debt to the banks, albeit at a 50 to 70% discount. We heard similar arguments when RBS, Northern Rock and Lloyds had to be saved at public expense.
What would have happened to Greece and the banks? The banks would or would not have gone bust; if some had the Greek debt would have been sold off to other banks, heavily discounted but still the same amount to Greece. Whichever way, the Euro nominated debt would have continued to rise according to the terms of the interest rates. Today Greece would have defaulted and have at least two to three times the present debt. Greece would not be able to borrow and with or without the Euro, Greece would be a completely collapsed economy and being in default the EU financial institutions would be unable to help. Presumably extensive humanitarian EU aid would be made available.
The EU states led by Germany and France (whose banks were owed the most) really did come to Greece's rescue, nasty as it has been, the alternative was many times more devastating.
Of course, it was not only to save the Greeks; the financial collapse triggered by the fall of Lehmans and the US sub-prime market was threatening the general banking system, so a 'free market' approach to Greece and to the overall banking sector, was likely to have a massive impact across the world economy.
I do wonder how the economies would have fared if Bush had 'saved' Lehmans, my guess is that it would have only staved off a financial collapse until another reckless bank went to the wall.
Is it not better that we have the EU with its mechanisms for oversight of its member's budgets and, since it is large enough, its ability to exert some control over the financial sector?
@Martin "Greece would be a completely collapsed economy"
What do you think the Greek economy is?
"we have the EU with. . . its ability to exert some control over the financial sector"
Are you sure you have not got that the wrong way round?
Good to see we agree here. A pity that Dave's renegotiation priorities won't be the same as ours. Yet I can't see how leaving the EU would be positive, in fact substantial change (good to see TTIP mentioned) can only be achieved together with Europe.
The main point about the motion passed wasn't that TTIP negotiations auld continue but that substantial changes like ring-fencing of health services etc. and retention of accountable public courts.
Given that free trade as such is a very welcome goal for liberals whilst it's the negotiation procesd and some details, which are still subject to further discussions and another vote are a mess, it was surely right that Catherine Bearder supported the motion.
David-1:
1. An incompletely collapsed economy.
2. Anything smaller than the EU would have correspondingly smaller ability to control the financial sector. Yes the financial sector exerts its own influence, but clearly the EU does "exert some control".
T-J
Very well said, fully agree
Gordon 13th Jul '15 - 10:15pm
T-J – What do you mean by 'federalise'? To Conservative friends it means formal centralisation and loss of any national autonomy and is hyper-toxic. Are they wrong?
Some few of us have been trying for years to argue that the Lib Dems needed to develop a liberal plan for the development of the EU to set against the thoroughly illiberal path the EU was on. There were plenty of warning signs – democratic referendums ignored or denied for instance, the penchant for taxing poor people to pay large landowners and so on. When the proposed constitutional collapsed there was a window of opportunity as the powers that be bewailed its loss saying in effect, "but there's no alternative". Well, there should have been – a liberal one. Instead the Lib Dem establishment did all sorts of gymnastics to try and pretend the Lisbon Treaty wasn't substantially the same thing reheated and represented on a new plate.
I'm sorry, but the ship has sailed on a positive EU reform. A bit of belated hand-waving just doesn't cut it.
Martin – The situation with Northern Rock and other UK bank was wholly different to what's happened in Greece since the UK is a monetary sovereign and Greece isn't. To put that another way in Britain it was the banks that needed resolving (either via bail out or bankruptcy), in Greece its the country. Moreover, as Varoufakis explains in the Guardian article linked above, it was known since 2010 that Greece was bankrupt meaning it couldn't pay its debts under any reasonable scenario. How can anyone suppose that it is now solvent with a deeply depressed economy as result of years of austerity followed by the immensely damaging events of the last two weeks? It is now less able to pay its debts than it was even two weeks ago and everyone knows that.
Also you are wrong to imagine as it appears you do that a debt write down would or could be only in the secondary market. The face value of the debt is what needs to be written down quite separately from whether the holders of that debt choose to sell it on to someone else at a loss or not.
Some financial blogs are speculating that the 'resolution' of Greek banks in the near future is likely to involve a bail in of depositors. Translation: people and companies will wake up one morning to find that a large percentage of the money in their account has gone – confiscated to pay off the financiers. Since that is people's savings and the nation's working capital, I dread to think what the human and economic consequences might be.
I recommend this post.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-greek-deal-from-germany-reading.html
jedibeeftrix 13th Jul '15 - 11:05pm
@ Martin – "Is it not better that we have the EU with its mechanisms for oversight of its member's budgets and, since it is large enough, its ability to exert some control over the financial sector?"
Provide me an adequate description of the difference between oversight and tyranny from the point of view of Joe Athens?
"Today Greece would have defaulted and have at least two to three times the present debt."
Great! It would have done the two things necessary in any successful IMF rescue package:
1. Default to make debt manageable
2. Devalue to allow a competitive recovery
What is your prescription for Joe?
Gordon:
You do not appear to have understood my comments. I was referring to those who looked for free market solutions. Earlie I was making the point that debt write down of 50 to 75% was precisely what did happen thanks to other EU states with Germany the largest contributor, but not the largest in terms of GDP. A free market solution would not achieve this as easily, if at all.
Jed:
Joining a club of states provides group protection together with group rules. Joe is of course free to leave the club if he does not want to play with the rules, but he cannot expect to retain the advantages. Apparently Joe wants to be in the club but cannot understand why cronyism and cheating on the rules is not allowed. Joe has to understand that he cannot behave as a benefit recipient who is upset that he is not getting a long service rise in benefit.
Devaluation in the face of an increasing debt nominated in a hard currency (many countries have to borrow in other currencies) would only have limited short term value. The key to competition is efficiency. Nepotism has produce a Greek civil service that is larger than that of the UK, despite having only a fraction of the population. This is competitively unsustainalble.
David Blake 14th Jul '15 - 4:32pm
I've always been pro-European, but I have to admit that the treatment of Greece by the EU bodies and by some countries has made me become much more Eurosceptic.
Richard Underhill 14th Jul '15 - 7:59pm
This is about the eurozone. Some previous Greek governments have had a bad reputation for corruption.
Part of the problem for the eurozone generally was that the conditions set up for entry were not enforced after entry.
Richard Underhill
I agree that some New Democracy and Pasok governments have been corrupt and that Greece needs to reform many of its practices. Whether it's the eurozone or the EU is irrelevant. The same people feel that they have a right to do whatever they like and to humiliate small countries. They propose that Greece's assets should be sold off through a body based in the tax haven of Luxembourg which they themselves control. They don't like Syriza so they think they have a right to do whatever they like to get rid of it. I'm sorry, but the way some of the northern European countries have been behaving is disgraceful.
Syriza is in coalition with a right wing party whose leader has the defence ministry.
Lack of cash means that defence needs to be cut, so the coalition is in trouble.
Former Chancellor Nigel Lawson was on TV saying that Greece shouls default as Germany did, only to be corrected because Germany did so twice.
Richard Underhill 15th Jul '15 - 10:56pm
If "All publicity is good publicity" lots of people will know about Greece.
The USA is interested, but any money they put in went through the International Monetary Fund.


text:
Case Library
Collaboration & Joint Conduct
DOJ/FTC
Extraterritorial Conduct
Legislative Developments
Monopolization
Unilateral Conduct
Generic Price-Hike Investigations Expand to Include Turing
Categories: Unilateral Conduct
Industries: Pharmaceutical
by William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. on February 16, 2016
As we have previously reported, (click here, here, and here to read more), generic drug manufacturers have come under scrutiny from state and federal regulators for recent generic drug price hikes. These investigations have expanded to include Turing Pharmaceuticals and its former CEO, Martin Shkreli.
As has widely been reported in the media, in August 2015, Turing acquired the drug Daraprim. Daraprim is used to treat parasitic infections that often affect AIDS patients and other patients with compromised immune systems. In September 2015, Turing raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per tablet overnight. This price hike caused a media firestorm that ultimately led to Shkreli's resignation. In December 2015, Shkreli was also arrested for securities and wire fraud based on his work at his first biopharmaceutical company, Retrophin.
But what, if any, have been the antitrust implications flowing from the Daraprim price hike given that a producer's unilateral decision to raise prices, albeit significantly, would not constitute an antitrust violation? So far, Turing has been the target of at least two antitrust investigations. In October 2015, the media first reported that the New York Attorney General's Office is investigating Turing. Rather than investigate the Daraprim price hike, the NY AG's Office is apparently investigating whether Turing may have inappropriately restricted the distribution of Daraprim to a small number of specialty pharmacies. Media outlets have claimed that the NY AG's Office is investigating whether Turing restricted distribution allegedly to prevent other companies from performing their own bioequivalency studies that would allow them to develop competing products and thereby allow Turing to avoid price competition.
In January 2016, Shkreli's lawyers announced that Turing was also being investigated by the FTC for possible antitrust violations flowing from Daraprim's price increase. Interestingly, Shkreli's lawyers made this announcement in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in an attempt to explain why Shkreli's anticipated testimony before Congress would breach his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. In fact, at the February 4, 2016 hearing, Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer any questions posed by members of Congress.
We'll report back with further updates.
William F. Cavanaugh, Jr.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Talk:Premarital sex
This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
We should get a new tag for Ed Stub. There is an article now, but it is a quote from a Moonie site. - π 10:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the number of politicians and royals who have indulged outside marriage, the biblical view a useful suggestion for anarchists?
82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
1 Marriage bias
2 This could make a really good cover story
3 Biased article lacking citations
4 What about the working and agricultural classes?
Marriage bias[edit]
I hate the term 'premarital', as it implies that the people having sex will get married, or should get married, or something similar. I prefer the term 'nonmarital'. Tropico 3 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That's nice, but this is the term that is used.ТyYes? 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think it depends on whether we want this article to be spefically focused on cultural and religious reactions, or be more general. AD (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Given the nature o' teh wiki, I'd say the former. ТyComplaints 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think articles should also give some general information, but whatever. DickTurpis (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Good point, but as we are (or should be) more specifically addressing the religious prohibition and general marks against such a thing, it really is understood in the context of marriage. That is, if it were not for the religious / morality police out there, favoring marriage, no term would exist, period. So it probably should stand as it is. GodotGrow a vagina 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
All good points, but I'm still right, so there. Fallacy (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"That's nice, but this is the term that is used."--il'Dictator Mikal 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Polite way of saying IDGAF. ТyYes? 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of weird, seeing as I don't see how I'd give a fuck that you don't give a fuck. CowHammer (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This could make a really good cover story[edit]
Not as it stands, of course; but there is so much room to talk about the politicization of sex, sexuality, etc., here. unless that's it's own article. ;-) But seriously, we could talk about what effects it has, how the media portrays it, the reactions of "the right" about that very portrayal, etc. GodotGrow a vagina 00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you should get right on that. Fallacy (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I nominate HBK!
--il'Dictator Mikal 00:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Long list before this, Fallacy. I've already done 3 articles this week. I've only got so much sanity in me. ;-) GodotGrow a vagina 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Biased article lacking citations[edit]
This article is very poorly written. It is biased and lacking in citations. I will pick a few examples to demonstrate my point:
"These are traditions largely rooted in the monotheistic, patriarchal religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism."
The author clearly has little to no understanding of cultures outside of medieval European culture. It is not true that traditions recommending against premarital sex are LARGELY ROOTED in monotheistic religions. Many cultures containing traditions which oppose premarital sex are NOT rooted in monotheistic religions, for example Indian and Chinese culture. From Understanding Chinese Society edited by Xiaowei Zang: "premarital sex was widely opposed and rare before 1978". In India, premarital sex is considered immoral and condemned by Hinduism. Source: The Cultural Context of Sexual Pleasure and Problems: Psychotherapy with Diverse Clients: Psychotherapy with Diverse Clients edited by Kathryn S. K. Hall, Cynthia A. Graham
"There is no logical, rational, biological, or sociological gain filled by restricting sex to marriage."
That is a meaningless statement. Who decides what's a "logical" or "rational" gain? What makes the author think that he or she is qualified to make such a statement? Not even the most knowledgeable logician would be qualified to make such a claim. What's rational or not depends on the goal to be achieved. The goal is not specified, therefore the sentence has no meaning.
"Sociological gain" is unqualified and of course no citations are provided. Presumably the author thinks it's obvious that there are no sociological consequences for prohibiting premarital sex, which is patently false. Since there are sociological consequences, one would have to examine at least most of the different situations and circumstances that are likely to exist in order to conclude that prohibition of premarital sex NEVER gives net positive utility, which I find an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. This is not done. No evidence is given to support the claim that there are no situations in which the prohibition of premarital sex may provide net positive utility.
I am neither religious nor a social conservative but I find the bias and lack of citations in the article to be utterly disgusting. If a scientific claim is to made, it must have scientific evidence. This article is not up to the rationalwiki standards. — Unsigned, by: Forces / talk / contribs
RationalWiki is very America-centric (and sometimes euro-centric) (which, nobody wants that, but it's difficult to get people to write about anything that isn't directly related to America (or sometimes Europe)). If you can make the article less America-centric, then that would of course be appreciated.
RationalWiki also does not require citations for any opinions the writers want to put in the article or remove from the article. But claims with citations are of course worth more than claims without citations, so if you can provide citations for claims you care to put in, then that is of course appreciated. Nullahnung (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What about the working and agricultural classes?[edit]
... who had quite different attitudes towards such matters - common law marriages, starting a relationship once the intended marriage had been decided upon, 'selling' spouses to each other (The Mayor of Casterbridge) etc? In La Traviata Violetta is 'a necessary adjunct' to Alfredo's sister being 'as pure as an angel.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Premarital_sex&oldid=1442803"
Talk pages for unrated articles


text:
Jaime Javier Hernández Bertrán (Barcelona, 18 de gener de 1972) va ser un ciclista català que competí professionalment entre 1997 i 2003.

Palmarès
 1991
 3r a la Cursa Ciclista del Llobregat
 1993
 1r a la Volta a l'Empordà
 1994
 1r al Trofeu Guerrita
 1996
 3r al Campionat d'Espanya en contrarellotge

Resultats a la Volta a Espanya
 1999. 77è de la classificació general
 2000. 80è de la classificació general
 2001. 89è de la classificació general
 2002. 117è de la classificació general
 2003. Abandona

Resultats al Tour de França
 1999. 102è de la classificació general
 2000. 97è de la classificació general

Enllaços externs
 Fitxa a sitiodeciclismo.net
 Fitxa a cyclebase.nl
 Fitxa a museociclismo.it

Ciclistes barcelonins

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Invite to this FNAF SFM attempt animation live stream hosted by Pala Movie theater. Be ensured to mention your dares as we will be browsing your remarks. Remember to LIKE, SUBSCRIBE and change on the alert bell!
Become part of our Discord server:.
Just timeout if customers are remaining violent. Never ever timeout for other function.
Is a mod abusing their part? Keep in mind to report to our contact e-mail deal with on our YouTube channel about part.
Next Next post: Rust – Solo Chill Stream – x2 Server Moving Base?


text:
Steve Aoki Adds One of the Most Exclusive Dynamic Ether Cards to His NFT Collection
NataleeHoF, NFT Newsether cards, steve aoki0
DJ, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Aoki has added one of the rarest Ether Cards to his NFT collection with the acquisition of the OG #99 Ethercard NFT – which unlocks exclusive privileges and features on the Ether Cards platform. This, just as Ether Cards has released its Dust token in conjunction with the largest CryptoPunk giveaway of the year.
Today, the price of an Ether Cards OG card ranges from $120,000 to over $1 million on OpenSea. Aoki's OG card received 100,000 Dust tokens on September 30th and will accumulate Dust continuously. He will be able to exchange Dust tokens for CryptoPunks among other exclusive privileges.
Aoki has in the past partnered with Ether Cards – he utilized its dynamic NFT platform to launch Dominion X, a series of collectible NFTs.
The acquisition of the OG #99 Ethercard NFT unlocks exclusive privileges and features on the Ether Cards Platform, such as the exchange of Dust tokens for CryptoPunks
October 1, 2021; Singapore – Ether Cards, the platform whose technology has brought real-world utility to the creation of dynamic NFTs for Steve Aoki and other prominent public figures, announced today that Aoki, the world-renowned artist, DJ, entrepreneur, and philanthropist, has acquired one of the rarest and valuable NFTs from the Ether Cards Collection – the #99 OG Card. Today, the price of an Ether Cards OG card ranges from $120,000 to over $1 million on OpenSea. Only 99 OG cards exist. Total sales volume for Ethercards on OpenSea stands over 2500 ETH (~US$7,831,400) with over 210 ETH (~US$656,672) in the last week.
Aoki's acquisition comes just a day after the initial distribution of Dust tokens and Ether Cards' 27 CryptoPunk giveaway to the Ether Cards community on September 30. The Dust tokens can be used within the Ether Cards ecosystem to exchange for NFTs, participate in exclusive early-access NFT sales, build and manage NFT functionality, and unlock advanced features on the platform amongst other planned future functionality.
Andras Kristof, Ether Cards Founder and CEO, says, "Steve Aoki is a true Dynamic NFT pioneer both as a creator and collector. His own issued Dynamic NFTs using the Ether Cards technology have set a real standard for how an artist can involve and engage their community. It's a great pleasure to sell the very special #99 OG to Steve."
As one of the most valuable cards in the collection, Aoki's OG card received 100,000 Dust tokens on September 30th and will accumulate Dust continuously. As part of the Ether Cards' giveaway campaign, 1,000,000 Dust tokens can be exchanged for one of the 27 CryptoPunks. Mr. Aoki already owns two CryptoPunks.
Steve Aoki says, "I think that the logical progression of where NFTs are going is a deeper and interactive experience between creators and fans facilitated by attaching real-world utility to NFTs. It's something I've been doing on my own in the Discord channel I started, and now something I've been able to do by partnering with Ether Cards who through their pioneering Platform have developed a way to add that interactivity directly to NFTs. Purchasing the super rare #99 OG Ethercard is exciting for me for many reasons especially around the release of Ether Cards' Dust token. I see it as not only investing in Ether Cards' long-term success but the market and space as a whole."
This acquisition marks the significance of Ether Cards position in the Dynamic NFT space as it prepares for the public launch of its NFT self-serve platform. Ether Cards' self-serve platform allows any artist, brand, athlete, or public figure to create, launch and manage dynamic NFTs to engage, grow, and monetize their communities.
About Ether Cards
Ether Cards is an NFT gamification and monetization platform that connects real-world utility with the digital space. This platform allows talent, celebrities, and projects to connect with their communities in engaging and unique methods, while simultaneously unlocking new monetization channels.
The team behind Ether Cards consists of industry veterans and experts throughout the blockchain sector. With more than 50 years of combined experience behind them, they have supported and worked with some of the biggest names in the industry, including the Ethereum Foundation, Chainlink, Brave and their technology was used to launch LaMelo Ball, Mike Tyson, Steve Aoki dynamic NFTs.
To learn more, visit ether.cards, find out about more exciting announcements on the Ether Cards blog, and follow @ether_cards on Twitter.
About Steve Aoki
Counting nearly 3 billion music streams to his name, Steve Aoki is a true visionary. Billboard described the 2x-GRAMMY-Nominated artist/DJ/producer and Dim Mak Records founder as "one of the most in-demand entertainers in the world." As a solo artist, Aoki boasts a lauded cross-genre discography that includes 7 studio albums and collaborations with Lil Uzi Vert, Maluma, BTS, Linkin Park and Louis Tomlinson amongst others.
In 1996, he established Dim Mak out of his college dorm room, a trendsetting record label, events/lifestyle company and apparel brand. It has served as a launch pad for global acts like The Chainsmokers, Bloc Party, The Bloody Beetroots, and The Kills, in addition to being the home of early releases from acts such as ZEDD and Diplo. As a nightlife impresario, Aoki's legendary Hollywood club night Dim Mak Tuesdays hosted early performances from future superstars such as Kid Cudi, Daft Punk, Lady Gaga, and Travis Scott.
A true renaissance man, Steve Aoki is also a fashion designer, author and entrepreneur. In 2012, he founded THE AOKI FOUNDATION, which primarily supports organizations in the field of brain science research with a specific focus on regenerative medicine and brain preservation. In addition, Aoki has pushed his clothing line Dim Mak Collection to new heights, both with original designs and collaborations with everyone from A Bathing Ape to the Bruce Lee estate. Aoki's multi-faceted journey is chronicled through the Grammy-nominated Netflix documentary I'll Sleep When I'm Dead (2016) and his memoir BLUE: The Color of Noise(2019). In the summer of 2020, Aoki unveiled his Latin music imprint, Dim Mak En Fuego, continuing to break down musical and cultural boundaries 'by any means necessary.'
Click Here to View Steve Aoki Facebook
Click Here to View Steve Aoki Twitter
Click Here to View Steve Aoki Instagram
DC Partners With Palm NFT Studio for Epic Digital Collectibles Drop for DC FanDome 2021 Vaynerchuk's NFT art sells at Christie's for more than $1.26 million
Bitboy Crypto Using Ether Cards and Chainlink For Provably Fair Mint of Pluto Alliance V2 NFTs
Adam Priester
Adam Priester is a Swedish 3d designer that has reached acclaim working with brands including IBM, Nike, and netflix. His visceral and atmospheric work often focuses on the fragility of the human form affected by external and often cryptic influences. He creates truly unique art that easily identifiable as Adam's creations. His gift with Houdini to create procedural creations is second to none. He's already seen success on NFT platforms including Nifty Gateway and SuperRare.


BOING is leading the resurgence in Ankle Bracelets. Our climbing and sailing rope bracelets are ideal for the outside summer look. They are easy to put on, simple to clean and very durable and attractive.


What should you be looking for when you research acting teachers?
It is very important to know exactly what you are getting when you sign up with a particular teacher or training institution. If you do not do your homework you can end up paying a lot of money for advise and instruction that is not based in any type of established method or approach and then find that when you try to enter the entertainment work force you do not have the necessary skills to work successfully as an actor. This part of my website is dedicated to helping you understand what questions to ask and what to look for in an acting teacher.
First let me say that there is a short list of teachers whose approach and technique of acting training are considered established, proven methods of creating the work. This is important in that when you approach an acting coach you should always ask them what school of thought they teach, what their own training entailed and who they studied with. Before I go into what I will call my "red flag" area, let me list for you the teachers whose methods you will want to know and train in if possible, when you are developing your craft. Look for teachers whose training has involved work or study in the methodology of Constantin Stanislavski, Stella Adler, Uta Hagen, Lee Strasberg, and Sanford Meisner. These are the standard "classic" teachers whose approaches have been accepted as the most established and proven methods of acting. Do your research before you interview a teacher. Know some basic facts about what these teachers thought and taught. Don't be afraid to directly ask a teacher candidate to tell you what they know about any of these teachers' approaches to acting. If they are unfamiliar with these names I would consider that a bad sign. Now there are a number of reputable teachers who studied with these people or under others who studied directly with these people. A few names I am familiar with who are great teachers are: Larry Moss, Ivana Chubbuck, Sandy Marshall, Seth Barrish, Terry Schreiber, David Mamet. There is a long list of good instructors out there and you will have to research anyone who you speak to and find out more about them.
That is the most important question you can ask a prospective teacher – who did you study with and where did you study? If they answer with any of the following educational institutions then you know their training included all these techniques, brought to them by people who actually studied them with the originators of the approaches or with direct teaching descendants of the great classic teachers. The following schools will let you know your prospective teacher is highly qualified.
Actor's Studio/New School American Conservatory Theater, American Repertory Theater, California Institute of the Arts, Columbia University, Herbert Berghof Studios, Julliard School, The Neighborhood Playhouse, New Actor's Workshop, New York University, Northwestern University, Stella Adler Conservatory – New York, University of Illinois-Urbana, University of Washington, University of Houston, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Yale University, ACT in San Francisco, RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts), The Barrow Group, Circle in the Square, HEB Studios, The Gene Frankel Studio, Actors Theatre of Louisville, San Diego Globe Atlantic Acting School, Berkeley Repertory Theatre, Carnegie Mellon.
I am sure I am leaving some great programs off this list but this is a good start. This is only a list of what I know. There are obviously other places to study with great programs that I have not listed. I can only speak about what I know and have researched myself. If someone gives you a name not included in this list go to the University's website and research their theatre department and find out who is training their actors and what their experience is.
What you are hoping to find here in Houston is an acting coach who has lived, worked and studied in New York or Los Angeles with protégé's of the great acting teachers above. When you are interviewing a teacher candidate ask them to give you their methodology and where they developed it from. If they cannot answer that questions specifically and clearly and do not know the basic information about the approaches of the great teachers above then they are not selling you actor training they are selling you actor impersonation skills. I like to use the following metaphor in describing what a poor acting teacher is doing; anyone can spend a few weeks with you practicing and rehearsing how you should act, speak and look if you go into an accounting job interview. They can instruct you in the "jargon" you should use to sell yourself and make yourself sound professional and skilled in that profession. You can be taught to "sell" yourself in such a manner that you will eventually land an accounting job based on the interview alone. BUT, once you get the job and you sit down at the desk – if you have not been taught how to do the "math" you can't do the job. You are looking for an acting teacher who can do the "math," and subsequently teach you to do the "math." Because after all, if you show up on a set, or at a theatre and cannot take whatever adjustment the director tells you and turn it into an action and perform the product they are looking for, you will be fired - no matter how charming and qualified you appeared in the interview.
All that being said, I am going to give you a set of questions you should ask teachers you are considering working with. You should write down their answers and go home and check their answers. Because remember the metaphor above – if their strength is in teaching you how to "sell" yourself without any real skill, then they can probably do it for themselves as acting coaches. I have provided some links on my methodology page which will direct you to information about the teachers I have listed above and their approaches. I have also included information about some of the most prominent teachers who studied with the greats and what they are doing to pass it on, and what their approaches are. Immediately following the suggested question section I am including my "red flag" section which is some things you should recognize as signs that you are dealing with someone is under qualified. Please note that these are my opinions and are based on the last fifteen years that I been a working actor, constantly training and/or teaching in both New York and Los Angeles and now here in Houston.
Questions you should ask anyone you are considering training with.
Where did you study and with whom? What is the method or approach you take to acting?
What acting work have you done? Have you worked in all three mediums – stage/film/TV?
How do you approach script analysis? What do you think is the most important part of script analysis and how do you teach it?
What is your definition of character work? How do you teach character development?
What is the approach you teach an actor to use when breaking down a scene?
What tools do you use to help an actor get to the emotional place they need to be in any given scene?
What do you hope a student leaves your class with?
Can you provide me with references from both students and industry professionals?
They should be able to answer these questions easily and specifically. If they give you general answers that do not include applicable tools then they can not give instruction in a class that is based in action and things the actor can do to tackle and fix a problem.
Red Flags to look out for in interviewing a potential acting teacher.
If a teacher has never studied with anyone who has actually trained with one of the great teachers, or those who trained directly with them – then they are teaching what they think, not what they have actually done.
Any one who does not tell you that you need to be going to as much theatre as you can to watch actors work. The reason theatre is vital is because it is live acting – not canned like film. Film is a director's medium and what you see on the screen could be the 40th take, or adjusted in such a way that it is not a great representation of the actual performance in the studio.
If a teacher will not let you audit a class to see if you like it (watch and not participate).
A teacher who makes it a point to notify everyone whenever someone they have worked with at some point is "famous" or getting awards etc. as a way of trying to gather more students. The actor should be crediting the teacher (if they are so inclined) - not the teacher using the actors accomplishments to credit themselves. Someone who is trying to establish themselves above others through the accomplishments of their students tends to not have the background or training in the field to sell their services through their knowledge.
If a teacher guarantee's that if you study with them you will book work in any field. There are a lot of factors that go into booking work on TV and Film.
These are a few of the things that might tip you off to do a little more research about your prospective teacher. A teacher should always be able to provide you with past student references as well as references from professionals in the business.
This is only a beginning set of ideas to help you start your search. If things come up I have not covered and if you want to talk to me directly you can e-mail me and I will get back to you.
What is the difference between Film Acting and Stage Acting?
First of all let me demystify this question by saying – NOTHING!
There is no difference between acting for film and acting for stage! There are differences in some technical aspects of performance for the stage and performance for the camera. BUT ACTING IS ACTING!!! Understanding how to be invested in a characters journey in a story and what steps it takes to make that journey real and personal for you, and what you need to do in order to make a series of choices that are active and result in dramatic action between yourself and the other actors is acting – not film acting or stage acting – ACTING.
But if we were to break it down generally..
On the Stage you need to deal with vocal projection depending on different venue sizes. You also will be presented with some physical projection issues in very large venues.
On film vocal and physical projection are obviously not an issue.
The story is played out in one long continuous segment and you do not get the luxury of a re-take if you get it wrong or just want another shot at it.
Often a story is shot out of sequence. You also get additional opportunities to get the right "take" on a particular piece of material. If the director thinks you "did not emotionally bring it." He/she can tell you to get more of "whatever emotion" they want, give you 15 minutes to go prepare, and you get another shot at it. You have the luxury in film of only having to prepare small segments at a time. BUT, also the handicap of not having the momentum of the bulk of a story having built up behind you when the climax arrives. Also, if the director does not like what you did they can cut you or use the shot from another character's point of view.
On stage once you and the other actors enter the playing area, it is just you out there with the other actors and the audience so just the members of the play and the audience inhabit your world once the play begins.
You deal with a large amount of technical crew and materials when you shoot a film, that are in the world of your play. Part of your story is interrupted constantly by people and objects in your sight line that do not belong in the world of your play so your focus must be very narrow and sharp to exclude them. You also have a great deal of technical language that is involved in shooting that if you take a film class you will learn (i.e. action, rolling, cut, that's a wrap, etc.). You will also need to learn about hitting your marks and what is in a camera's "shot" and what is not. If you are interested in working in film I always advise my students to do some extra work and pay close attention to all the technical aspects of what happens around them and watch the shooting of the leads and main action if they are permitted when they are not involved in shots. You will also spend a lot of time sitting around between shots. You may shoot 3 pages of text for 10 minutes and then spent 2 hours waiting for the next shot to be ready to go.
Emotional information about exchanges between people/characters is fairly broad and generally follows a path that expects the audience to do some of the work and hopefully make decisions on their own and have some varying opinions and interpretations of their own on stage. Some nights fight scenes will reach higher climaxes then others and emotions can be slightly different etc.
The camera see's things very specifically so the director and the audience will interpret your emotional life in a film much more specifically. If you are "empty" it will show. You cannot be casual or disinterested, your lack of preparation and your lack of feeling will be extremely evident to the camera. A director may want an exact emotion at an exact moment on film. Even more interesting, a poor choice or wrong choice of emotion is often like nails on a chalkboard on camera.
Visit youtube and watch some of the interviews or classes from great teachers and actors about film acting (Larry Moss's interview is very good).
Michael Caine wrote a great book about film acting.
KTAS now offers an Acting On Camera Technique class with Courtney Lomelo. Check out our classes to see the schedule!