Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
In any case, it doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Weaker euro+differentiated inflation is more or less the same, but without depending on
European Solidarity would be additionally supported by agreeing on a new European currency coordination system aimed at preventing currency wars as well as excessive currency fluctuations between European countries
which sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual plan. At best, if fully successful, it would be the same we have now (or perhaps what we have now + slightly different ECB behavior).
European Solidarity would be additionally supported by agreeing on a new European currency coordination system aimed at preventing currency wars as well as excessive currency fluctuations between European countries
which sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual plan. At best, if fully successful, it would be the same we have now (or perhaps what we have now + slightly different ECB behavior).
if government didnt buy stocks, it would be worse, but Japan government has big loans too, so they can not help to their stocks market for ever...
having better public finances using southern public debt money to repay northern banks wrong investments..
Can you explain this to me ? It seems like your saying that the Nothern country are using money from the Southern countries to pay of there own debts. If you did intend to say this may I ask what drugs are you using ? I want some to! Seems like a good trip to me :D
Can you explain this to me ? It seems like your saying that the Nothern country are using money from the Southern countries to pay of there own debts. If you did intend to say this may I ask what drugs are you using ? I want some to! Seems like a good trip to me :D
I asked him that question. He refuses to answer.
It is hard to answer when he thinks that:
1. his country debt is a fiction, they just dont use foreign money, it is just bank speculation or so :-DD
2. debt is ok, everybody have debt and they have problem with repaying it just because there is fictive crises against his country
3. he didnt take foreign money, just his politicians did it :-D
4. western countries are so intelligent and clever that they think out this debt trap so southern countries was "attacked"
5. unemployment is just result of fictive bank crises, their productivity and labour cost are normal :-)
6. Germans are too rich, so they had to cheat everybody cos it is not possible that they dont have such a problems :-DD
am I right el pupe :-) ?
1. his country debt is a fiction, they just dont use foreign money, it is just bank speculation or so :-DD
2. debt is ok, everybody have debt and they have problem with repaying it just because there is fictive crises against his country
3. he didnt take foreign money, just his politicians did it :-D
4. western countries are so intelligent and clever that they think out this debt trap so southern countries was "attacked"
5. unemployment is just result of fictive bank crises, their productivity and labour cost are normal :-)
6. Germans are too rich, so they had to cheat everybody cos it is not possible that they dont have such a problems :-DD
am I right el pupe :-) ?
NB: I never write:
that the German government (mind the difference between the German government and the German banks!) receives money from countries paying of their (I cannot stress this word enough) debt to give it to German banks who misinvested?
Then learn proper English:
ME: And "doing well" means staying rather competitive (in relative terms of course) and having better public finances than Southern Europe.
YOU: I suspected it.
Being competitive in term of prices I guess..
and having better public finances using southern public debt money to repay northern banks wrong investments..
Ergo, you did say that.
just let me be. have a good day.
I will, the moment you stop spreading nonsense.
learn to read.
this is the last time I make this explanation, I will do it with a vry simple example to help every simple mind:
-Deutsche Bank (D, private) lends money to Bankia (spanish, private) (why D. bank does it? because it get a better rate than to use that money in Germany!!!)
-Bankia lends money to spanish people in a very risky way
-Spanish people, at first crisis signs, lose work and can't repay their debt
-Bankia get in liquidity crisis.
Then you (Merkel) had 3 choices:
a) the free market solution: let fail the wrong investors, so let fail Bankia and let D. bank lose its part of wrong investment.
b) the political mediation: Spanish and german govs intervene with public money (and partially nationalize their home private banks), every country take a part of the losses.
c) the German solution: the spanish gov saves Bankia, with spanish public money made up with new public debt. Bankia gives back those money D. bank.
What happened? the third...
What's wrong with it?
that D. bank investment is a no-risk one, but still it get paid with a risky rate.
So D. bank get the payment for a risk that in reality only spanish gov (public --> people) had.
And it will be ok, if it was the result of some kind of democratic procediment. But it wasn't. It was an EU (aka Merkel slaves) dictat.
understanded?
for real?
now let me be and return to play as an economist at your "university"..
that the German government (mind the difference between the German government and the German banks!) receives money from countries paying of their (I cannot stress this word enough) debt to give it to German banks who misinvested?
Then learn proper English:
ME: And "doing well" means staying rather competitive (in relative terms of course) and having better public finances than Southern Europe.
YOU: I suspected it.
Being competitive in term of prices I guess..
and having better public finances using southern public debt money to repay northern banks wrong investments..
Ergo, you did say that.
just let me be. have a good day.
I will, the moment you stop spreading nonsense.
learn to read.
this is the last time I make this explanation, I will do it with a vry simple example to help every simple mind:
-Deutsche Bank (D, private) lends money to Bankia (spanish, private) (why D. bank does it? because it get a better rate than to use that money in Germany!!!)
-Bankia lends money to spanish people in a very risky way
-Spanish people, at first crisis signs, lose work and can't repay their debt
-Bankia get in liquidity crisis.
Then you (Merkel) had 3 choices:
a) the free market solution: let fail the wrong investors, so let fail Bankia and let D. bank lose its part of wrong investment.
b) the political mediation: Spanish and german govs intervene with public money (and partially nationalize their home private banks), every country take a part of the losses.
c) the German solution: the spanish gov saves Bankia, with spanish public money made up with new public debt. Bankia gives back those money D. bank.
What happened? the third...
What's wrong with it?
that D. bank investment is a no-risk one, but still it get paid with a risky rate.
So D. bank get the payment for a risk that in reality only spanish gov (public --> people) had.
And it will be ok, if it was the result of some kind of democratic procediment. But it wasn't. It was an EU (aka Merkel slaves) dictat.
understanded?
for real?
now let me be and return to play as an economist at your "university"..
In any case, it doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Weaker euro+differentiated inflation is more or less the same, but without depending on
European Solidarity would be additionally supported by agreeing on a new European currency coordination system aimed at preventing currency wars as well as excessive currency fluctuations between European countries
which sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual plan. At best, if fully successful, it would be the same we have now (or perhaps what we have now + slightly different ECB behavior).
I agree!
European Solidarity would be additionally supported by agreeing on a new European currency coordination system aimed at preventing currency wars as well as excessive currency fluctuations between European countries
which sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual plan. At best, if fully successful, it would be the same we have now (or perhaps what we have now + slightly different ECB behavior).
I agree!
Can you explain this to me ? It seems like your saying that the Nothern country are using money from the Southern countries to pay of there own debts.
Not really. Southern governments accumulated big debts, in part, bailing out domestic financial institutions (not so much the Greek case, but in Spain, Italy, Ireland...). Those domestic institutions avoided default due to bailouts, being able to repay their creditors. Those creditors are mostly private institutions in Northern countries.
So: if Southern governments had let their banks fall (or if Greece had defaulted on its public debt), the Northern governments would have been in the need of bailing out their own financial intermediaries, possibly without any help from Southern governments (who knows). Or accept a banking crisis at home.
As I said at some point in this forum, once the crisis hit, all countries in Europe suffered sizable losses. All the alternative responses were different mostly in the way the burden was shared (but somewhat also in the size of that burden). They chose a path that avoids most any financial institution failure and reshuffles a bit the burden among countries, but places most of it on taxpayers throughout Europe, especially in the South (Northern citizens have to fund the official bailouts, but to a large extent it is done issuing zero or negative interest rate bonds, and then lending to the South, so it's very much reduced. In the South this is obvious, as the fiscal consolidation measures hit taxpayers directly). A non-bailout solution would have been more chaotic, but also would have hurt more severely the (owners of) distressed financial institutions.
All in all, I think politically it made sense to do it this way, because if some banks fell in Germany, or if they had been bailed out, the government would have taken some of the blame on the public's eye (people tend to praise/punish outcomes, even if they are not in the hands of the government), while bailing countries that bail their banks, cutting the chain of defaults, was more easily presented as an exogenous event, someone else's blame, and since we are as strong as ever we can affoard to go and help them :P
Not really. Southern governments accumulated big debts, in part, bailing out domestic financial institutions (not so much the Greek case, but in Spain, Italy, Ireland...). Those domestic institutions avoided default due to bailouts, being able to repay their creditors. Those creditors are mostly private institutions in Northern countries.
So: if Southern governments had let their banks fall (or if Greece had defaulted on its public debt), the Northern governments would have been in the need of bailing out their own financial intermediaries, possibly without any help from Southern governments (who knows). Or accept a banking crisis at home.
As I said at some point in this forum, once the crisis hit, all countries in Europe suffered sizable losses. All the alternative responses were different mostly in the way the burden was shared (but somewhat also in the size of that burden). They chose a path that avoids most any financial institution failure and reshuffles a bit the burden among countries, but places most of it on taxpayers throughout Europe, especially in the South (Northern citizens have to fund the official bailouts, but to a large extent it is done issuing zero or negative interest rate bonds, and then lending to the South, so it's very much reduced. In the South this is obvious, as the fiscal consolidation measures hit taxpayers directly). A non-bailout solution would have been more chaotic, but also would have hurt more severely the (owners of) distressed financial institutions.
All in all, I think politically it made sense to do it this way, because if some banks fell in Germany, or if they had been bailed out, the government would have taken some of the blame on the public's eye (people tend to praise/punish outcomes, even if they are not in the hands of the government), while bailing countries that bail their banks, cutting the chain of defaults, was more easily presented as an exogenous event, someone else's blame, and since we are as strong as ever we can affoard to go and help them :P
Then you (Merkel) had 3 choices:
a) the free market solution: let fail the wrong investors, so let fail Bankia and let D. bank lose its part of wrong investment.
b) the political mediation: Spanish and german govs intervene with public money (and partially nationalize their home private banks), every country take a part of the losses.
c) the German solution: the spanish gov saves Bankia, with spanish public money made up with new public debt. Bankia gives back those money D. bank.
What happened? the third...
What's wrong with it?
that D. bank investment is a no-risk one, but still it get paid with a risky rate.
So D. bank get the payment for a risk that in reality only spanish gov (public --> people) had.
And it will be ok, if it was the result of some kind of democratic procediment. But it wasn't. It was an EU (aka Merkel slaves) dictat.
You say it's a German diktat, but it really isn't. Your government - understandably - chose to save those banks. Just like the Belgian government saved Dexia and Fortis. They had the right to let Bankia go broke (which would happen in a free market). They chose not to. Yes, Merkel was in favor of saving those banks. Of course she was, because of European stability (well, stability ... but you know what I mean). However, that's not a sufficient reason to call it a German diktat. Don't try to blame it on someone else.
Now, my point was that this has nothing to do with the 'good' finances of Northern European countries (I put 'good' between brackets because good means less worse here). Your "German solution" does not influence the German finances. The Belgian government saved two important banks too. Yet, we are not in the deep shit Southern Europe is finding itself in.
There is a reason why this crisis is way worse in Italy, Spain or Greece than it is in for instance the BeNeLux. Here, it's crisis, but working people don't feel it in their pockets. Unemployment is not at the levels of Spain. There is a reason for that. A reason you keep ignoring.
a) the free market solution: let fail the wrong investors, so let fail Bankia and let D. bank lose its part of wrong investment.
b) the political mediation: Spanish and german govs intervene with public money (and partially nationalize their home private banks), every country take a part of the losses.
c) the German solution: the spanish gov saves Bankia, with spanish public money made up with new public debt. Bankia gives back those money D. bank.
What happened? the third...
What's wrong with it?
that D. bank investment is a no-risk one, but still it get paid with a risky rate.
So D. bank get the payment for a risk that in reality only spanish gov (public --> people) had.
And it will be ok, if it was the result of some kind of democratic procediment. But it wasn't. It was an EU (aka Merkel slaves) dictat.
You say it's a German diktat, but it really isn't. Your government - understandably - chose to save those banks. Just like the Belgian government saved Dexia and Fortis. They had the right to let Bankia go broke (which would happen in a free market). They chose not to. Yes, Merkel was in favor of saving those banks. Of course she was, because of European stability (well, stability ... but you know what I mean). However, that's not a sufficient reason to call it a German diktat. Don't try to blame it on someone else.
Now, my point was that this has nothing to do with the 'good' finances of Northern European countries (I put 'good' between brackets because good means less worse here). Your "German solution" does not influence the German finances. The Belgian government saved two important banks too. Yet, we are not in the deep shit Southern Europe is finding itself in.
There is a reason why this crisis is way worse in Italy, Spain or Greece than it is in for instance the BeNeLux. Here, it's crisis, but working people don't feel it in their pockets. Unemployment is not at the levels of Spain. There is a reason for that. A reason you keep ignoring.
the real point:
Don't try to blame it on someone else.
I blame my (southern european) politician,
I blame them 'cause they sold us 20 years ago.
But someone buyed them. And it's not the german gov (that is sold too)
The only thing I know for sure is that there were no democratic process in any south european country about that.
Don't try to blame it on someone else.
I blame my (southern european) politician,
I blame them 'cause they sold us 20 years ago.
But someone buyed them. And it's not the german gov (that is sold too)
The only thing I know for sure is that there were no democratic process in any south european country about that.
There is a reason why this crisis is way worse in Italy, Spain or Greece than it is in for instance the BeNeLux. Here, it's crisis, but working people don't feel it in their pockets. Unemployment is not at the levels of Spain. There is a reason for that. A reason you keep ignoring.
because we had inflation bursted by northern money and we can't devalutate our currency.
because northern country cheat in the application of EU treaties and our politicians does nothin (see my video of this morning)
and because of our lower PRICE competitivity.
edit:
anyway, your (benelux) crisis is just started, wait an year or two to see its effects..
(edited)
because we had inflation bursted by northern money and we can't devalutate our currency.
because northern country cheat in the application of EU treaties and our politicians does nothin (see my video of this morning)
and because of our lower PRICE competitivity.
edit:
anyway, your (benelux) crisis is just started, wait an year or two to see its effects..
(edited)
I blame my (southern european) politician,
I blame them 'cause they sold us 20 years ago.
That's the only ones you should blame for this.
The only thing I know for sure is that there were no democratic process in any south european country about that.
Were those politicians not elected democratically? That's the problem with a big government: even with elections, you never know what can happen.
I blame them 'cause they sold us 20 years ago.
That's the only ones you should blame for this.
The only thing I know for sure is that there were no democratic process in any south european country about that.
Were those politicians not elected democratically? That's the problem with a big government: even with elections, you never know what can happen.
finally something I agree with...
I blame my (southern european) politician,
I blame them 'cause they sold us 20 years ago.
But someone buyed them. And it's not the german gov (that is sold too)
And solutions is easy. Decrease living standards dramatically, decrease pensions standards, work for very low cost so you will be not able buy luxuries maybe but you will be able to live. Do this next 20 years and then you can be saved :-). And sent to prison all that your politicians you blame.
Or... just sell half of your gold reserves and you can start again with lower debt, or maybe sell all your gold and some state companies and you can start spending again :-)
I blame my (southern european) politician,
I blame them 'cause they sold us 20 years ago.
But someone buyed them. And it's not the german gov (that is sold too)
And solutions is easy. Decrease living standards dramatically, decrease pensions standards, work for very low cost so you will be not able buy luxuries maybe but you will be able to live. Do this next 20 years and then you can be saved :-). And sent to prison all that your politicians you blame.
Or... just sell half of your gold reserves and you can start again with lower debt, or maybe sell all your gold and some state companies and you can start spending again :-)