|
On March 23 2013 05:33 ACrow wrote:(...) It gives estimates about median household wealth, conducted over the years 2010-2011, but it includes real estate. The study blames the low numbers for Germany on a low percentage of Germans owning houses, high taxes (and special costs due to the reunification). Germany: 51,400€ Austria: 76,400€ France: 113,500€ Italy: 163,900€ Spain: 178,300€ According to the study, personal German wealth is one of the lowest in all of Europe. It is a study by the German Central Bank, so take it with a grain of salt (the conspiracy theorists here will probably interpret it as a sign of the evilness of Germany I guess  ).
It's not an independent study by the German central bank, but rather part of a coordinated attempt by the ECB to learn more about wealth in the Eurozone. Most central banks, however, have not yet published the results. Some suspect this is because the implications of the survey are politically undesirable, and the preliminary results do indeed support this view.
On March 23 2013 05:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2013 05:34 Holy_AT wrote:Your ignorance only reflect your own nationalism. I am not a nationalist, as a matter of fact I would dissolve all national states immediatly if I had the power to do so and would form a global ruling body for the whole world, one world one nation one economy one currency. Yet you state that Germany should regroup itself with austria and "some part of benelux"... You want Alsace too maybe ? lol The thing you showed does not mean at all that Germany is poorer or getting fucked by europe : it is not the wealth of the country that is discussed but household wealth. A household, in the context of surveys on social conditions or income such as EU-SILC or the Household budget survey (HBS), is defined as a housekeeping unit or, operationally, as a social unit: having common arrangements; sharing household expenses or daily needs; in a shared common residence. If you look at this + Show Spoiler +Wealth level are indeed very low in Germany, but financial assets and other type of assets are on par : the main problem lies in household wealth. In Italy, as seen in the graph, people bought their house long ago (mostly) and both the real estate and the fact that people own house has been so since a long time. Show nested quote +The home ownership rate is very low in Germany: less than 50% overall, and is at its peak of 58% among 55-64-year-olds. Only about half of homeowners in Germany own their homes outright. Among retired households (of 65 and older) that own their main place of residence, about 80% own it outright. In Italy, over 95% of households over 65 own their home without a mortgage. But, as we saw above, a very small share of households in Italy have home debt. Even among young households, over 50% of them own their home outright. In the US, home-secured debt is very common. For those aged 25-64, over 60% still owe money on their house. Only for households of 75 and over do more than 80% not have a mortgage. It has nothing to do with the Europe and everything to do with internal political matters such as what is the state of the real estate, are there any incentive or regulation in relation to this estate, are there any policy pushing toward house building, etc. Maybe there are also cultural explication to that (it is known that some professions in France for exemple prefer renting than owning their house. Teachers is an exemple of that). http://www.socialsituation.eu/monitoring-report/wealth/wealth-distribution-in-more-detail/wealth-levelsAlso there is a statistical evidence : when you talk about median, you cut the population in half and take the statistic for the 50th %. If the wealth is more inequally distributed (which is the case for both Germany and the US in the link posted) the differences will be bigger than what it is (that's why you need both median and average). Don't mess things up, this has nothing to do with Europe, and a lot to do with your policies. See the graph ; the US were way lower than Italy before 2nd WW, but they decided to go for an agressive policy pushing their citizen toward debt to buy themselves houses and now the US are above Italy in household assets (altho they all have debts).
Your comment on Alsace is unacceptable and it would suit you well to apologize. Please do not get me wrong, I respect and honor the general quality of your comment, but this single line is offending.
As argued above, the full results of the study are not yet published and I do not think it is advisable to start the statistical discussion until they are. Two facts about wealth are clear, however:
1) Private wealth has increased in southern economies since the introduction of the Euro, while it has remained more or less constant in Germany.
2) Private wealth in crisis economies is substantial.
Both facts together suggest that there is potential to tax wealth in crisis economies so as to take the funds to solve the sovereign debt crisis. Wealth in - for example - Spain is substantial and this wealth should be the primary source for funds before there is discussion about re-capitalizing the Spanish banking sector using German tax money.
However, this is not done and modest attempts to do so such as the property tax in Italy produce massive public outcry. From this, it is clear that the political preference is crisis economies is to first ask northern economies and the ECB for help before touching upon domestic sources. In the end, German tax money is transfered to countries were tax evasion is notoriously high despite the fact that there would be substantial domestic wealth that could be used to solve the crisis.
Of course this is only a partial view and there needs to be discussion on the distribution and composition of wealth once the full results are published. But still, it will need to be explained to the German electorate why Germany is taking on debt to make transfers to other nations despite the fact that domestic wealth in those countries is significant.
|
So, on the basis of what is filtering through tonight, it's good news for smaller deposit holders in Cyprus, or at least anyone with less than €100,000.
It looks like they won't be subject to a levy. Large deposit holders appear to be looking at a 40% hit however, according to the BBC's Christian Fraser.
Effectively, it's a return to the deal that Germany and the IMF were advocating last week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/24/eurozone-crisis-cyprus-bailout-eurogroup-meeting
|
So now every large deposit holder empties there account and the banks still all crash despite the money we are spending.
Awesome plan still.
|
On March 23 2013 17:30 C[h]ili wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2013 05:33 ACrow wrote:(...) It gives estimates about median household wealth, conducted over the years 2010-2011, but it includes real estate. The study blames the low numbers for Germany on a low percentage of Germans owning houses, high taxes (and special costs due to the reunification). Germany: 51,400€ Austria: 76,400€ France: 113,500€ Italy: 163,900€ Spain: 178,300€ According to the study, personal German wealth is one of the lowest in all of Europe. It is a study by the German Central Bank, so take it with a grain of salt (the conspiracy theorists here will probably interpret it as a sign of the evilness of Germany I guess ). It's not an independent study by the German central bank, but rather part of a coordinated attempt by the ECB to learn more about wealth in the Eurozone. Most central banks, however, have not yet published the results. Some suspect this is because the implications of the survey are politically undesirable, and the preliminary results do indeed support this view. Show nested quote +On March 23 2013 05:43 WhiteDog wrote:On March 23 2013 05:34 Holy_AT wrote:Your ignorance only reflect your own nationalism. I am not a nationalist, as a matter of fact I would dissolve all national states immediatly if I had the power to do so and would form a global ruling body for the whole world, one world one nation one economy one currency. Yet you state that Germany should regroup itself with austria and "some part of benelux"... You want Alsace too maybe ? lol The thing you showed does not mean at all that Germany is poorer or getting fucked by europe : it is not the wealth of the country that is discussed but household wealth. A household, in the context of surveys on social conditions or income such as EU-SILC or the Household budget survey (HBS), is defined as a housekeeping unit or, operationally, as a social unit: having common arrangements; sharing household expenses or daily needs; in a shared common residence. If you look at this + Show Spoiler +Wealth level are indeed very low in Germany, but financial assets and other type of assets are on par : the main problem lies in household wealth. In Italy, as seen in the graph, people bought their house long ago (mostly) and both the real estate and the fact that people own house has been so since a long time. The home ownership rate is very low in Germany: less than 50% overall, and is at its peak of 58% among 55-64-year-olds. Only about half of homeowners in Germany own their homes outright. Among retired households (of 65 and older) that own their main place of residence, about 80% own it outright. In Italy, over 95% of households over 65 own their home without a mortgage. But, as we saw above, a very small share of households in Italy have home debt. Even among young households, over 50% of them own their home outright. In the US, home-secured debt is very common. For those aged 25-64, over 60% still owe money on their house. Only for households of 75 and over do more than 80% not have a mortgage. It has nothing to do with the Europe and everything to do with internal political matters such as what is the state of the real estate, are there any incentive or regulation in relation to this estate, are there any policy pushing toward house building, etc. Maybe there are also cultural explication to that (it is known that some professions in France for exemple prefer renting than owning their house. Teachers is an exemple of that). http://www.socialsituation.eu/monitoring-report/wealth/wealth-distribution-in-more-detail/wealth-levelsAlso there is a statistical evidence : when you talk about median, you cut the population in half and take the statistic for the 50th %. If the wealth is more inequally distributed (which is the case for both Germany and the US in the link posted) the differences will be bigger than what it is (that's why you need both median and average). Don't mess things up, this has nothing to do with Europe, and a lot to do with your policies. See the graph ; the US were way lower than Italy before 2nd WW, but they decided to go for an agressive policy pushing their citizen toward debt to buy themselves houses and now the US are above Italy in household assets (altho they all have debts). Your comment on Alsace is unacceptable and it would suit you well to apologize. Please do not get me wrong, I respect and honor the general quality of your comment, but this single line is offending.As argued above, the full results of the study are not yet published and I do not think it is advisable to start the statistical discussion until they are. Two facts about wealth are clear, however: 1) Private wealth has increased in southern economies since the introduction of the Euro, while it has remained more or less constant in Germany. 2) Private wealth in crisis economies is substantial. Both facts together suggest that there is potential to tax wealth in crisis economies so as to take the funds to solve the sovereign debt crisis. Wealth in - for example - Spain is substantial and this wealth should be the primary source for funds before there is discussion about re-capitalizing the Spanish banking sector using German tax money. However, this is not done and modest attempts to do so such as the property tax in Italy produce massive public outcry. From this, it is clear that the political preference is crisis economies is to first ask northern economies and the ECB for help before touching upon domestic sources. In the end, German tax money is transfered to countries were tax evasion is notoriously high despite the fact that there would be substantial domestic wealth that could be used to solve the crisis. Of course this is only a partial view and there needs to be discussion on the distribution and composition of wealth once the full results are published. But still, it will need to be explained to the German electorate why Germany is taking on debt to make transfers to other nations despite the fact that domestic wealth in those countries is significant.
It was a joke and I think most people here understood it as such, if not I apology.
I entirely agree that there is a problem of taxation (not tax evasion, you are misleading yourself if you think it's only a question of tax evasion, because tax evasion is made through illegal means, while most of the problem comes from people that pay less taxes legally) but it has nothing to do with what was discussed and implied by the first post.
The idea was that Germany was getting poorer due to the euro is untrue. Even if private wealth didn't increased in Germany as much as in southern countries (and I don't think that's the case, altho it's true that household wealth is really low in Germany) it is a matter of intern political choices, and the incidence of the euro and the euro zone on this is almost zero. Look the graph I gave about the household wealth in Germany, the US and Italy, and read the link I gave, it gives you some insight on what we were talking about.
|
wasnt euro supposed to be the solution to this?
|
On March 25 2013 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:
So now every large deposit holder empties there account and the banks still all crash despite the money we are spending.
Awesome plan still.
There are capital controls in place, which means the following (this is already approved by the govt of Cyprus):
- Restrictions in daily withdrawals (reported to be 100 euros a day at the moment)
- Ban on premature termination of time savings deposits
- Compulsory renewal of all time savings deposits upon maturity
- Conversion of current accounts to time deposits
- Ban or restrictions on non cash transactions
- Restrictions on use of debit, credit or prepaid debit cards
- Ban or restriction on cashing in checks
- Restrictions on domestic interbank transfers or transfers within the same bank
- Restrictions on the interactions/transactions of the public with credit institutions
- Restrictions on movements of capital, payments, transfers
- Any other measure which the Finance Minister or the Governor of Cyprus Central Bank see necessary for reasons of public order and safety
Imagine the effect if that goes full force on your daily life. You can only access your chequeing accounts for a 100 euros a day. You cannot withdraw money from saving accounts and you can't transfer from them, you can only pay cash. You can't leave the country with any money at all. Imagine your car breaks down and you need it for your job. Or you work from home and its your PC. Good luck replacing them. Or you have a holiday booked in two weeks and can't go because you're not allowed to take cash out of the country.
I don't think what happened could have happened any differently with the ways all the parties acted. Germany was never going to bail out a european tax haven no questions asked just before an election, and any russian deal would have come at a cost of selling out everything to them. So you're left with this, the only part that's ridiculous is that this was the solution that should have been pursued in the first place (instead of touching the 100k guarantee).
|
On March 25 2013 10:28 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:
So now every large deposit holder empties there account and the banks still all crash despite the money we are spending.
Awesome plan still. There are capital controls in place, which means the following (this is already approved by the govt of Cyprus): - Restrictions in daily withdrawals (reported to be 100 euros a day at the moment) - Ban on premature termination of time savings deposits - Compulsory renewal of all time savings deposits upon maturity - Conversion of current accounts to time deposits - Ban or restrictions on non cash transactions - Restrictions on use of debit, credit or prepaid debit cards - Ban or restriction on cashing in checks - Restrictions on domestic interbank transfers or transfers within the same bank - Restrictions on the interactions/transactions of the public with credit institutions - Restrictions on movements of capital, payments, transfers - Any other measure which the Finance Minister or the Governor of Cyprus Central Bank see necessary for reasons of public order and safety Imagine the effect if that goes full force on your daily life. You can only access your chequeing accounts for a 100 euros a day. You cannot withdraw money from saving accounts and you can't transfer from them, you can only pay cash. You can't leave the country with any money at all. Imagine your car breaks down and you need it for your job. Or you work from home and its your PC. Good luck replacing them. Or you have a holiday booked in two weeks and can't go because you're not allowed to take cash out of the country. I don't think what happened could have happened any differently with the ways all the parties acted. Germany was never going to bail out a european tax haven no questions asked just before an election, and any russian deal would have come at a cost of selling out everything to them. So you're left with this, the only part that's ridiculous is that this was the solution that should have been pursued in the first place (instead of touching the 100k guarantee).
That sounds awful and ultimately crippling to the economy...
|
On March 25 2013 11:16 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 10:28 Derez wrote:On March 25 2013 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:
So now every large deposit holder empties there account and the banks still all crash despite the money we are spending.
Awesome plan still. There are capital controls in place, which means the following (this is already approved by the govt of Cyprus): - Restrictions in daily withdrawals (reported to be 100 euros a day at the moment) - Ban on premature termination of time savings deposits - Compulsory renewal of all time savings deposits upon maturity - Conversion of current accounts to time deposits - Ban or restrictions on non cash transactions - Restrictions on use of debit, credit or prepaid debit cards - Ban or restriction on cashing in checks - Restrictions on domestic interbank transfers or transfers within the same bank - Restrictions on the interactions/transactions of the public with credit institutions - Restrictions on movements of capital, payments, transfers - Any other measure which the Finance Minister or the Governor of Cyprus Central Bank see necessary for reasons of public order and safety Imagine the effect if that goes full force on your daily life. You can only access your chequeing accounts for a 100 euros a day. You cannot withdraw money from saving accounts and you can't transfer from them, you can only pay cash. You can't leave the country with any money at all. Imagine your car breaks down and you need it for your job. Or you work from home and its your PC. Good luck replacing them. Or you have a holiday booked in two weeks and can't go because you're not allowed to take cash out of the country. I don't think what happened could have happened any differently with the ways all the parties acted. Germany was never going to bail out a european tax haven no questions asked just before an election, and any russian deal would have come at a cost of selling out everything to them. So you're left with this, the only part that's ridiculous is that this was the solution that should have been pursued in the first place (instead of touching the 100k guarantee). That sounds awful and ultimately crippling to the economy...
Economically they're crippled anyway, but yes this adds even more to it. Country dependant on a large finance sector and shell corporations (large part will be gone) with some added tourism (gone in the short term because tourists can't get money either). They're going to be in an exceptionally rough spot, but it's not all that surprising when you could get 10% interest rates there compared to 2-3% elsewhere in Europe.
|
On March 25 2013 11:42 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 11:16 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2013 10:28 Derez wrote:On March 25 2013 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:
So now every large deposit holder empties there account and the banks still all crash despite the money we are spending.
Awesome plan still. There are capital controls in place, which means the following (this is already approved by the govt of Cyprus): - Restrictions in daily withdrawals (reported to be 100 euros a day at the moment) - Ban on premature termination of time savings deposits - Compulsory renewal of all time savings deposits upon maturity - Conversion of current accounts to time deposits - Ban or restrictions on non cash transactions - Restrictions on use of debit, credit or prepaid debit cards - Ban or restriction on cashing in checks - Restrictions on domestic interbank transfers or transfers within the same bank - Restrictions on the interactions/transactions of the public with credit institutions - Restrictions on movements of capital, payments, transfers - Any other measure which the Finance Minister or the Governor of Cyprus Central Bank see necessary for reasons of public order and safety Imagine the effect if that goes full force on your daily life. You can only access your chequeing accounts for a 100 euros a day. You cannot withdraw money from saving accounts and you can't transfer from them, you can only pay cash. You can't leave the country with any money at all. Imagine your car breaks down and you need it for your job. Or you work from home and its your PC. Good luck replacing them. Or you have a holiday booked in two weeks and can't go because you're not allowed to take cash out of the country. I don't think what happened could have happened any differently with the ways all the parties acted. Germany was never going to bail out a european tax haven no questions asked just before an election, and any russian deal would have come at a cost of selling out everything to them. So you're left with this, the only part that's ridiculous is that this was the solution that should have been pursued in the first place (instead of touching the 100k guarantee). That sounds awful and ultimately crippling to the economy... Economically they're crippled anyway, but yes this adds even more to it. Country dependant on a large finance sector and shell corporations (large part will be gone) with some added tourism (gone in the short term because tourists can't get money either). They're going to be in an exceptionally rough spot, but it's not all that surprising when you could get 10% interest rates there compared to 2-3% elsewhere in Europe.
But it's not like this is actually going to help the situation. It's like cauterizing a wound with a frying pan you used for breakfast to cook bacon and eggs. It's going to stop the bleeding, but the infection may kill the patient anyways. 100EU daily withdrawal limit? Cashing checks? Restriction of credit? How is any business or citizen supposed to function on this?
|
On March 25 2013 11:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 11:42 Derez wrote:On March 25 2013 11:16 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2013 10:28 Derez wrote:On March 25 2013 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:
So now every large deposit holder empties there account and the banks still all crash despite the money we are spending.
Awesome plan still. There are capital controls in place, which means the following (this is already approved by the govt of Cyprus): - Restrictions in daily withdrawals (reported to be 100 euros a day at the moment) - Ban on premature termination of time savings deposits - Compulsory renewal of all time savings deposits upon maturity - Conversion of current accounts to time deposits - Ban or restrictions on non cash transactions - Restrictions on use of debit, credit or prepaid debit cards - Ban or restriction on cashing in checks - Restrictions on domestic interbank transfers or transfers within the same bank - Restrictions on the interactions/transactions of the public with credit institutions - Restrictions on movements of capital, payments, transfers - Any other measure which the Finance Minister or the Governor of Cyprus Central Bank see necessary for reasons of public order and safety Imagine the effect if that goes full force on your daily life. You can only access your chequeing accounts for a 100 euros a day. You cannot withdraw money from saving accounts and you can't transfer from them, you can only pay cash. You can't leave the country with any money at all. Imagine your car breaks down and you need it for your job. Or you work from home and its your PC. Good luck replacing them. Or you have a holiday booked in two weeks and can't go because you're not allowed to take cash out of the country. I don't think what happened could have happened any differently with the ways all the parties acted. Germany was never going to bail out a european tax haven no questions asked just before an election, and any russian deal would have come at a cost of selling out everything to them. So you're left with this, the only part that's ridiculous is that this was the solution that should have been pursued in the first place (instead of touching the 100k guarantee). That sounds awful and ultimately crippling to the economy... Economically they're crippled anyway, but yes this adds even more to it. Country dependant on a large finance sector and shell corporations (large part will be gone) with some added tourism (gone in the short term because tourists can't get money either). They're going to be in an exceptionally rough spot, but it's not all that surprising when you could get 10% interest rates there compared to 2-3% elsewhere in Europe. But it's not like this is actually going to help the situation. It's like cauterizing a wound with a frying pan you used for breakfast to cook bacon and eggs. It's going to stop the bleeding, but the infection may kill the patient anyways. 100EU daily withdrawal limit? Cashing checks? Restriction of credit? How is any business or citizen supposed to function on this?
If they wouldn't do that, there would be a run on the banks as soon as they open again.
That means all the banks would be insolvent.
Which, for the economy, is much worse than those measures.
|
On March 25 2013 12:37 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 11:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2013 11:42 Derez wrote:On March 25 2013 11:16 aksfjh wrote:On March 25 2013 10:28 Derez wrote:On March 25 2013 10:14 Gorsameth wrote:
So now every large deposit holder empties there account and the banks still all crash despite the money we are spending.
Awesome plan still. There are capital controls in place, which means the following (this is already approved by the govt of Cyprus): - Restrictions in daily withdrawals (reported to be 100 euros a day at the moment) - Ban on premature termination of time savings deposits - Compulsory renewal of all time savings deposits upon maturity - Conversion of current accounts to time deposits - Ban or restrictions on non cash transactions - Restrictions on use of debit, credit or prepaid debit cards - Ban or restriction on cashing in checks - Restrictions on domestic interbank transfers or transfers within the same bank - Restrictions on the interactions/transactions of the public with credit institutions - Restrictions on movements of capital, payments, transfers - Any other measure which the Finance Minister or the Governor of Cyprus Central Bank see necessary for reasons of public order and safety Imagine the effect if that goes full force on your daily life. You can only access your chequeing accounts for a 100 euros a day. You cannot withdraw money from saving accounts and you can't transfer from them, you can only pay cash. You can't leave the country with any money at all. Imagine your car breaks down and you need it for your job. Or you work from home and its your PC. Good luck replacing them. Or you have a holiday booked in two weeks and can't go because you're not allowed to take cash out of the country. I don't think what happened could have happened any differently with the ways all the parties acted. Germany was never going to bail out a european tax haven no questions asked just before an election, and any russian deal would have come at a cost of selling out everything to them. So you're left with this, the only part that's ridiculous is that this was the solution that should have been pursued in the first place (instead of touching the 100k guarantee). That sounds awful and ultimately crippling to the economy... Economically they're crippled anyway, but yes this adds even more to it. Country dependant on a large finance sector and shell corporations (large part will be gone) with some added tourism (gone in the short term because tourists can't get money either). They're going to be in an exceptionally rough spot, but it's not all that surprising when you could get 10% interest rates there compared to 2-3% elsewhere in Europe. But it's not like this is actually going to help the situation. It's like cauterizing a wound with a frying pan you used for breakfast to cook bacon and eggs. It's going to stop the bleeding, but the infection may kill the patient anyways. 100EU daily withdrawal limit? Cashing checks? Restriction of credit? How is any business or citizen supposed to function on this? If they wouldn't do that, there would be a run on the banks as soon as they open again. That means all the banks would be insolvent.
I know... I just think the restrictions they're putting on them are too harsh and will only exacerbate the issues at hand. There has to be a solution that doesn't cripple their economy to such an extent.
|
So the deal is everyone loses 40% under $100k and then everything over $100k is gone?
Reading it again, up to $100K protected...and then 40% of everything over $100k is gone?
|
So why isn't Cyprus just saying FU to the EU and opting to go into bankruptcy? This is exactly the kind of situation that bankruptcy is for. I can't imagine that the political ramifications of doing so would be worse than seizing private assets like they are contemplating now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
should have built your offshore banking faciliity in tropico instead. el presidente doesn't have any capital controls
|
On March 25 2013 12:50 RCMDVA wrote:
So the deal is everyone loses 40% under $100k and then everything over $100k is gone?
Reading it again, up to $100K protected...and then 40% of everything over $100k is gone?
Deposits below the EU deposit-guarantee ceiling of 100,000 euros will be protected, and a loss of no more than 40 percent will be imposed on uninsured depositors at the Bank of Cyprus, two EU officials said.
Uninsured depositors at Cyprus Popular would largely be wiped out, two other officials said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-24/cyprus-said-to-reach-tentative-deal-to-avert-default-euro-exit.html
On March 25 2013 13:03 xDaunt wrote:
So why isn't Cyprus just saying FU to the EU and opting to go into bankruptcy? This is exactly the kind of situation that bankruptcy is for. I can't imagine that the political ramifications of doing so would be worse than seizing private assets like they are contemplating now.
Not sure. It appears they've decided to steal a bunch of kgb money. I'd imagine there are larger ramifications than domestic politics.
A bomb has already gone off at one of the bank branches
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 25 2013 13:03 xDaunt wrote:
So why isn't Cyprus just saying FU to the EU and opting to go into bankruptcy? This is exactly the kind of situation that bankruptcy is for. I can't imagine that the political ramifications of doing so would be worse than seizing private assets like they are contemplating now.
saying FU to EU is gonna relieve them of their trade privileges as well as their subsidies. Without those, Cyprus is likely left even more crappy than after taking the sadistic EU penalties. Also, Cyprus is likely to be a net recipient from the EU subsidies.
Norway and Iceland contemplate joining the union simply because their trade agreements are necessary and the laws they have to deliver are the same as if they were part of EU, but in their current situation they have very limited say on the construction of those laws (IIRC they have some cooperation with Sweden, Denmark and Finland before each larger EU summit and some contacts with UK politicians and while I am certain that these countries are trying to protect norwegian and icelandic interests, it is not optimal!).
The same thing can be said about many of the other countries in europe outside the union. EU has a wall of tarifs and an even bigger moat of subsidies to protect "the inner market". The countries joining the union have to jump when EU says jump for several years to get in to "the promised land".
|
I can't believe they would actually steal peoples money from where they think it is safe. There is no difference between the EU and your common bank robber. The sooner we get out of this union, the better.
|
On March 25 2013 22:50 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 13:03 xDaunt wrote:
So why isn't Cyprus just saying FU to the EU and opting to go into bankruptcy? This is exactly the kind of situation that bankruptcy is for. I can't imagine that the political ramifications of doing so would be worse than seizing private assets like they are contemplating now. saying FU to EU is gonna relieve them of their trade privileges as well as their subsidies. Without those, Cyprus is likely left even more crappy than after taking the sadistic EU penalties. Also, Cyprus is likely to be a net recipient from the EU subsidies. Norway and Iceland contemplate joining the union simply because their trade agreements are necessary and the laws they have to deliver are the same as if they were part of EU, but in their current situation they have very limited say on the construction of those laws (IIRC they have some cooperation with Sweden, Denmark and Finland before each larger EU summit and some contacts with UK politicians and while I am certain that these countries are trying to protect norwegian and icelandic interests, it is not optimal!). The same thing can be said about many of the other countries in europe outside the union. EU has a wall of tarifs and an even bigger moat of subsidies to protect "the inner market". The countries joining the union have to jump when EU says jump for several years to get in to "the promised land".
That's simply not true, Norway and Iceland are part of the 'inner market' through EFTA. It doesn't benefit from subsidies, but I don't believe (certain) that Norway will be a net recipient. More likely it will be one of the largest contributors in percentages of national GDP. Not that the large subsidies on farming will be of any benefit to Norway or Iceland anyway...
|
On March 25 2013 23:22 Zystra wrote:
I can't believe they would actually steal peoples money from where they think it is safe. There is no difference between the EU and your common bank robber. The sooner we get out of this union, the better.
People think it is safe =/= actually safe. The very same thing could happen tomorrow in the UK and has, in fact happened in the past in other countries outside the euro.
It does suck, but the bottom line is that by having more cash than the legal protected amount is, you are exposing yourself to this risk and you are the one to blame if something like this happens.
|
On March 25 2013 23:38 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 22:50 radiatoren wrote:On March 25 2013 13:03 xDaunt wrote:
So why isn't Cyprus just saying FU to the EU and opting to go into bankruptcy? This is exactly the kind of situation that bankruptcy is for. I can't imagine that the political ramifications of doing so would be worse than seizing private assets like they are contemplating now. saying FU to EU is gonna relieve them of their trade privileges as well as their subsidies. Without those, Cyprus is likely left even more crappy than after taking the sadistic EU penalties. Also, Cyprus is likely to be a net recipient from the EU subsidies. Norway and Iceland contemplate joining the union simply because their trade agreements are necessary and the laws they have to deliver are the same as if they were part of EU, but in their current situation they have very limited say on the construction of those laws (IIRC they have some cooperation with Sweden, Denmark and Finland before each larger EU summit and some contacts with UK politicians and while I am certain that these countries are trying to protect norwegian and icelandic interests, it is not optimal!). The same thing can be said about many of the other countries in europe outside the union. EU has a wall of tarifs and an even bigger moat of subsidies to protect "the inner market". The countries joining the union have to jump when EU says jump for several years to get in to "the promised land". That's simply not true, Norway and Iceland are part of the 'inner market' through EFTA. It doesn't benefit from subsidies, but I don't believe (certain) that Norway will be a net recipient. More likely it will be one of the largest contributors in percentages of national GDP. Not that the large subsidies on farming will be of any benefit to Norway or Iceland anyway...
Subsidies aside, Norway and Switzerland pay dearly for the privilege to be in EFTA, and they do not have substantial influence over the EU's policies. They can afford to do this simply because they are small and rich countries and, as a result, the EU is more than happy to take their money.
I am not suggesting Norway or Switzerland should join the EU, mind you, I am just clarifying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.socialsituation.eu/monitoring-report/images/503_totalassetscomposition_horizontal.png)
