|
On December 13 2013 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:24 Influ wrote:
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change. Not at all, for some country having their own currency would greatly help them (economiste like Sapir even quantified the gain) : France is an exemple, but Greece is also one (for Italy, some says it would not be the case).
Care to provide the link to his paper where he quantifies the gains from leaving Euro for countries like Greece? I am really interested what model did he use and what exactly are his conclusions.
|
I really can't see many benefits from Greece leaving the monetary union in its current state at all. Anyone care to list them for me? There is an argument to be made that greece perhaps maybe possibly wouldn't have incurred the amount of debt that it did without the euro, but apart from that I don't know.
I also don't agree with the failure of the euro as a supposed fact. The currency did not go into crisis at any point despite the sovereign debt crises, that must count for something.
|
On December 15 2013 23:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
For me the biggest reason for the failure of the euro is that lying and hiding nations did with there finances. There were rules to help keep the euro stable, 3% max budget debt ect, and they were ignored or lied about. That more then anything caused its failure.
Perhaps if countries actually tried to keep a healthy economy/budget instead of thinking the EU was promised land and they could fuck about this might have never happend. This is nonsense because it is contradictory. The euro was used, and defended, as a tool for poor countries to catch up richest countries : in effect, it gave the opportunity for the poorest member of the euro zone (like Greece) to take credit at the same interest rate as the richest member of the same zone (Germany). It was basically created in part to permit poor to endebt theirselves at the best interest rate possible (and it worked, up until the 2007 subprime crisis - the exogene shocks nobody wanted to see). See the government bonds rate for european countries (considering the euro was built between 1999 and 2002) : And now you're saying it's not normal, they had too much debt. It's really difficult to actually have a sane discussion on the europe if people have no knowledge on basic macroeconomic. You can't on one hand give a tool to countries which make it possible for them to endebt themselves easily, and force them to accept a stupid pro cyclical rule at the same time, and then afterwards cry a bunch because people did not respect the stupid rule.
1. The low interest rates were not set by some political entity but by the market, the market players gravely misjudged the situation because they assumed common responsibility were there was none. A perfect example of market failure.
2. The low interest rates might have made it easier for the "poor" countries to indebt themselves, but they didn't force them to like you imply.
3. The economy in countries like Spain grew a lot because of the introduction of the Euro and the huge amounts of loaned money, in fact Spain did come close to overtaking Germany in GDP per capita before the crisis hit.
GDP per capita ratio Germany:Spain: (source Wolfram Alpha)
1980|1.95:1
1985|2.00:1
1990|1.61:1
1995|2.04:1
2000|1.59:1 <---Euro introduced in 1999
2005|1.29:1
2008|1.26:1
2013|1.42:1
If one looks at those numbers the economic contraction doesn't seem so bad compared to the huge boost.
The social aspects of the crisis in Spain are still frightening of course.
|
On December 25 2013 19:15 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 23:32 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
For me the biggest reason for the failure of the euro is that lying and hiding nations did with there finances. There were rules to help keep the euro stable, 3% max budget debt ect, and they were ignored or lied about. That more then anything caused its failure.
Perhaps if countries actually tried to keep a healthy economy/budget instead of thinking the EU was promised land and they could fuck about this might have never happend. This is nonsense because it is contradictory. The euro was used, and defended, as a tool for poor countries to catch up richest countries : in effect, it gave the opportunity for the poorest member of the euro zone (like Greece) to take credit at the same interest rate as the richest member of the same zone (Germany). It was basically created in part to permit poor to endebt theirselves at the best interest rate possible (and it worked, up until the 2007 subprime crisis - the exogene shocks nobody wanted to see). See the government bonds rate for european countries (considering the euro was built between 1999 and 2002) : And now you're saying it's not normal, they had too much debt. It's really difficult to actually have a sane discussion on the europe if people have no knowledge on basic macroeconomic. You can't on one hand give a tool to countries which make it possible for them to endebt themselves easily, and force them to accept a stupid pro cyclical rule at the same time, and then afterwards cry a bunch because people did not respect the stupid rule. 1. The low interest rates were not set by some political entity but by the market, the market players gravely misjudged the situation because they assumed common responsibility were there was none. A perfect example of market failure. 2. The low interest rates might have made it easier for the "poor" countries to indebt themselves, but they didn't force them to like you imply. 3. The economy in countries like Spain grew a lot because of the introduction of the Euro and the huge amounts of loaned money, in fact Spain did come close to overtaking Germany in GDP per capita before the crisis hit. GDP per capita ratio Germany:Spain: (source Wolfram Alpha) 1980|1.95:1 1985|2.00:1 1990|1.61:1 1995|2.04:1 2000|1.59:1 <---Euro introduced in 1999 2005|1.29:1 2008|1.26:1 2013|1.42:1 If one looks at those numbers the economic contraction doesn't seem so bad compared to the huge boost. The social aspects of the crisis in Spain are still frightening of course.
If I'm not mistaken Eurozone regulators set the risk weighting on all Eurozone sovereign debt at zero. That was a huge encouragement for banks to treat all sovereign debt as the same and any spread between various sovereigns as a pure arbitrage opportunity.
While you're right that no one forced anyone to borrow, the low rates and faster growth were a huge encouragement and made it seem like a good idea at the time.
|
On December 24 2013 01:58 Lebesgue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:24 Influ wrote:
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change. Not at all, for some country having their own currency would greatly help them (economiste like Sapir even quantified the gain) : France is an exemple, but Greece is also one (for Italy, some says it would not be the case). Care to provide the link to his paper where he quantifies the gains from leaving Euro for countries like Greece? I am really interested what model did he use and what exactly are his conclusions.
Only problem is Sapir is french.
|
On December 25 2013 19:15 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 23:32 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
For me the biggest reason for the failure of the euro is that lying and hiding nations did with there finances. There were rules to help keep the euro stable, 3% max budget debt ect, and they were ignored or lied about. That more then anything caused its failure.
Perhaps if countries actually tried to keep a healthy economy/budget instead of thinking the EU was promised land and they could fuck about this might have never happend. This is nonsense because it is contradictory. The euro was used, and defended, as a tool for poor countries to catch up richest countries : in effect, it gave the opportunity for the poorest member of the euro zone (like Greece) to take credit at the same interest rate as the richest member of the same zone (Germany). It was basically created in part to permit poor to endebt theirselves at the best interest rate possible (and it worked, up until the 2007 subprime crisis - the exogene shocks nobody wanted to see). See the government bonds rate for european countries (considering the euro was built between 1999 and 2002) : And now you're saying it's not normal, they had too much debt. It's really difficult to actually have a sane discussion on the europe if people have no knowledge on basic macroeconomic. You can't on one hand give a tool to countries which make it possible for them to endebt themselves easily, and force them to accept a stupid pro cyclical rule at the same time, and then afterwards cry a bunch because people did not respect the stupid rule. 1. The low interest rates were not set by some political entity but by the market, the market players gravely misjudged the situation because they assumed common responsibility were there was none. A perfect example of market failure. 2. The low interest rates might have made it easier for the "poor" countries to indebt themselves, but they didn't force them to like you imply. 3. The economy in countries like Spain grew a lot because of the introduction of the Euro and the huge amounts of loaned money, in fact Spain did come close to overtaking Germany in GDP per capita before the crisis hit. GDP per capita ratio Germany:Spain: (source Wolfram Alpha) 1980|1.95:1 1985|2.00:1 1990|1.61:1 1995|2.04:1 2000|1.59:1 <---Euro introduced in 1999 2005|1.29:1 2008|1.26:1 2013|1.42:1 If one looks at those numbers the economic contraction doesn't seem so bad compared to the huge boost. The social aspects of the crisis in Spain are still frightening of course.
running a persistent trade deficit is only possible when you are financed by the other side. German economic policy that focuses on export oriented growth meant that German banks lent to Spain at cheap interests and in large sums.
|
On December 26 2013 06:36 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 19:15 Maenander wrote:On December 15 2013 23:32 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
For me the biggest reason for the failure of the euro is that lying and hiding nations did with there finances. There were rules to help keep the euro stable, 3% max budget debt ect, and they were ignored or lied about. That more then anything caused its failure.
Perhaps if countries actually tried to keep a healthy economy/budget instead of thinking the EU was promised land and they could fuck about this might have never happend. This is nonsense because it is contradictory. The euro was used, and defended, as a tool for poor countries to catch up richest countries : in effect, it gave the opportunity for the poorest member of the euro zone (like Greece) to take credit at the same interest rate as the richest member of the same zone (Germany). It was basically created in part to permit poor to endebt theirselves at the best interest rate possible (and it worked, up until the 2007 subprime crisis - the exogene shocks nobody wanted to see). See the government bonds rate for european countries (considering the euro was built between 1999 and 2002) : And now you're saying it's not normal, they had too much debt. It's really difficult to actually have a sane discussion on the europe if people have no knowledge on basic macroeconomic. You can't on one hand give a tool to countries which make it possible for them to endebt themselves easily, and force them to accept a stupid pro cyclical rule at the same time, and then afterwards cry a bunch because people did not respect the stupid rule. 1. The low interest rates were not set by some political entity but by the market, the market players gravely misjudged the situation because they assumed common responsibility were there was none. A perfect example of market failure. 2. The low interest rates might have made it easier for the "poor" countries to indebt themselves, but they didn't force them to like you imply. 3. The economy in countries like Spain grew a lot because of the introduction of the Euro and the huge amounts of loaned money, in fact Spain did come close to overtaking Germany in GDP per capita before the crisis hit. GDP per capita ratio Germany:Spain: (source Wolfram Alpha) 1980|1.95:1 1985|2.00:1 1990|1.61:1 1995|2.04:1 2000|1.59:1 <---Euro introduced in 1999 2005|1.29:1 2008|1.26:1 2013|1.42:1 If one looks at those numbers the economic contraction doesn't seem so bad compared to the huge boost. The social aspects of the crisis in Spain are still frightening of course. running a persistent trade deficit is only possible when you are financed by the other side. German economic policy that focuses on export oriented growth meant that German banks lent to Spain at cheap interests and in large sums.
Do you have a source for that or did you just say that based on a personal guess?
I tried looking one up myself, but only found a site on which the source for greece's money was given, suprisingly enough, the German banks didn't actually give Greece that much.
http://demonocracy.info/infographics/eu/debt_greek/debt_greek.html
|
On March 03 2014 12:33 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2013 06:36 Sub40APM wrote:On December 25 2013 19:15 Maenander wrote:On December 15 2013 23:32 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
For me the biggest reason for the failure of the euro is that lying and hiding nations did with there finances. There were rules to help keep the euro stable, 3% max budget debt ect, and they were ignored or lied about. That more then anything caused its failure.
Perhaps if countries actually tried to keep a healthy economy/budget instead of thinking the EU was promised land and they could fuck about this might have never happend. This is nonsense because it is contradictory. The euro was used, and defended, as a tool for poor countries to catch up richest countries : in effect, it gave the opportunity for the poorest member of the euro zone (like Greece) to take credit at the same interest rate as the richest member of the same zone (Germany). It was basically created in part to permit poor to endebt theirselves at the best interest rate possible (and it worked, up until the 2007 subprime crisis - the exogene shocks nobody wanted to see). See the government bonds rate for european countries (considering the euro was built between 1999 and 2002) : And now you're saying it's not normal, they had too much debt. It's really difficult to actually have a sane discussion on the europe if people have no knowledge on basic macroeconomic. You can't on one hand give a tool to countries which make it possible for them to endebt themselves easily, and force them to accept a stupid pro cyclical rule at the same time, and then afterwards cry a bunch because people did not respect the stupid rule. 1. The low interest rates were not set by some political entity but by the market, the market players gravely misjudged the situation because they assumed common responsibility were there was none. A perfect example of market failure. 2. The low interest rates might have made it easier for the "poor" countries to indebt themselves, but they didn't force them to like you imply. 3. The economy in countries like Spain grew a lot because of the introduction of the Euro and the huge amounts of loaned money, in fact Spain did come close to overtaking Germany in GDP per capita before the crisis hit. GDP per capita ratio Germany:Spain: (source Wolfram Alpha) 1980|1.95:1 1985|2.00:1 1990|1.61:1 1995|2.04:1 2000|1.59:1 <---Euro introduced in 1999 2005|1.29:1 2008|1.26:1 2013|1.42:1 If one looks at those numbers the economic contraction doesn't seem so bad compared to the huge boost. The social aspects of the crisis in Spain are still frightening of course. running a persistent trade deficit is only possible when you are financed by the other side. German economic policy that focuses on export oriented growth meant that German banks lent to Spain at cheap interests and in large sums. Do you have a source for that or did you just say that based on a personal guess? I tried looking one up myself, but only found a site on which the source for greece's money was given, suprisingly enough, the German banks didn't actually give Greece that much. http://demonocracy.info/infographics/eu/debt_greek/debt_greek.html
It's not necessarily German banks giving directly to Greece, but German banks giving cheap loans to Greek banks and backing Greek private development. We're talking about the Greek economy, not the Greek government.
|
On March 03 2014 13:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 12:33 SilentchiLL wrote:On December 26 2013 06:36 Sub40APM wrote:On December 25 2013 19:15 Maenander wrote:On December 15 2013 23:32 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
For me the biggest reason for the failure of the euro is that lying and hiding nations did with there finances. There were rules to help keep the euro stable, 3% max budget debt ect, and they were ignored or lied about. That more then anything caused its failure.
Perhaps if countries actually tried to keep a healthy economy/budget instead of thinking the EU was promised land and they could fuck about this might have never happend. This is nonsense because it is contradictory. The euro was used, and defended, as a tool for poor countries to catch up richest countries : in effect, it gave the opportunity for the poorest member of the euro zone (like Greece) to take credit at the same interest rate as the richest member of the same zone (Germany). It was basically created in part to permit poor to endebt theirselves at the best interest rate possible (and it worked, up until the 2007 subprime crisis - the exogene shocks nobody wanted to see). See the government bonds rate for european countries (considering the euro was built between 1999 and 2002) : And now you're saying it's not normal, they had too much debt. It's really difficult to actually have a sane discussion on the europe if people have no knowledge on basic macroeconomic. You can't on one hand give a tool to countries which make it possible for them to endebt themselves easily, and force them to accept a stupid pro cyclical rule at the same time, and then afterwards cry a bunch because people did not respect the stupid rule. 1. The low interest rates were not set by some political entity but by the market, the market players gravely misjudged the situation because they assumed common responsibility were there was none. A perfect example of market failure. 2. The low interest rates might have made it easier for the "poor" countries to indebt themselves, but they didn't force them to like you imply. 3. The economy in countries like Spain grew a lot because of the introduction of the Euro and the huge amounts of loaned money, in fact Spain did come close to overtaking Germany in GDP per capita before the crisis hit. GDP per capita ratio Germany:Spain: (source Wolfram Alpha) 1980|1.95:1 1985|2.00:1 1990|1.61:1 1995|2.04:1 2000|1.59:1 <---Euro introduced in 1999 2005|1.29:1 2008|1.26:1 2013|1.42:1 If one looks at those numbers the economic contraction doesn't seem so bad compared to the huge boost. The social aspects of the crisis in Spain are still frightening of course. running a persistent trade deficit is only possible when you are financed by the other side. German economic policy that focuses on export oriented growth meant that German banks lent to Spain at cheap interests and in large sums. Do you have a source for that or did you just say that based on a personal guess? I tried looking one up myself, but only found a site on which the source for greece's money was given, suprisingly enough, the German banks didn't actually give Greece that much. http://demonocracy.info/infographics/eu/debt_greek/debt_greek.html It's not necessarily German banks giving directly to Greece, but German banks giving cheap loans to Greek banks and backing Greek private development. We're talking about the Greek economy, not the Greek government.
In that case I'm still waiting for an actual source here, I've heard a lot of people blaming the german weapon industry for this kind of stuff as well, even though greece only bought about 20% of their weapons from us, more than that from france and over 50% from america if I remember correctly, so I'm hesitant to believe much of anything in regards to this crisis anymore if it isn't backed up in any way, since there are too many things thrown around that people obviously picked up from interviews with angry people and low-quality newspapers.
|
Working Without Pay A Reality For Much Of Greece's Labor Force
For nearly 30 years, Nikos Aivatzidis got up at the crack of dawn to drive from his home in central Athens to his human resources job at Hellenic Shipyards, near Greece's port of Piraeus.
"I'd walk into the entrance and marvel as I watched [6,000] or 7,000 people heading into work with me," he says. "This place was like its own city."
Now this place is deserted. Many of the roughly 1,000 workers still officially on the payroll stopped showing up after the company stopped paying them in April 2012.
But Aivatzidis holds on.
On a recent morning, the 51-year-old father of three and his 38-year-old wife, Alexandra Tsitoura, pull up their 9-year-old Fiat outside an empty office building.
Tsitoura also works at Hellenic Shipyards. Together, she and her husband used to make around $3,000 a month.
As they get out of the car, they're greeted by a pack of stray dogs, looking for food. "My co-worker used to feed them," Aivatzidis says. "But she stopped coming to work."
Aivatzidis keeps coming in hopes that he and his wife will eventually get paid. And he has another reason for showing up at the shipyard at least twice week.
"I can't quit this job because I will lose my severance pay after 30 years of work," he says. "I can't justify that."
About 20 percent of Greek workers are trapped in the same dilemma. Many, like Aivatzidis, hold on because they know finding another job at a time when the unemployment rate is 28 percent is virtually impossible. ...
Link
Pathetic...
Anything being done? I haven't heard of any big plans to fix Europe recently.
|
On March 17 2014 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Working Without Pay A Reality For Much Of Greece's Labor Force
For nearly 30 years, Nikos Aivatzidis got up at the crack of dawn to drive from his home in central Athens to his human resources job at Hellenic Shipyards, near Greece's port of Piraeus.
"I'd walk into the entrance and marvel as I watched [6,000] or 7,000 people heading into work with me," he says. "This place was like its own city."
Now this place is deserted. Many of the roughly 1,000 workers still officially on the payroll stopped showing up after the company stopped paying them in April 2012.
But Aivatzidis holds on.
On a recent morning, the 51-year-old father of three and his 38-year-old wife, Alexandra Tsitoura, pull up their 9-year-old Fiat outside an empty office building.
Tsitoura also works at Hellenic Shipyards. Together, she and her husband used to make around $3,000 a month.
As they get out of the car, they're greeted by a pack of stray dogs, looking for food. "My co-worker used to feed them," Aivatzidis says. "But she stopped coming to work."
Aivatzidis keeps coming in hopes that he and his wife will eventually get paid. And he has another reason for showing up at the shipyard at least twice week.
"I can't quit this job because I will lose my severance pay after 30 years of work," he says. "I can't justify that."
About 20 percent of Greek workers are trapped in the same dilemma. Many, like Aivatzidis, hold on because they know finding another job at a time when the unemployment rate is 28 percent is virtually impossible. ... LinkPathetic... Anything being done? I haven't heard of any big plans to fix Europe recently.
ECB is still in panic mode about fighting deflation and having run out of tools to do so. The other "powers that be" around Europe are busy trying to find some glimmer of proof that austerity is working. The distraction of "Euromaiden" certainly isn't helping things.
I'll try to do some more research on the matter though. It's hard to believe any help is coming to Greece (or any of the other troubled EU economies for that matter) any time soon though. Not until we see shifts in leadership of the leading EU nations.
Found something:
Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem dashed Greek government hopes of gaining debt relief before European elections in late May, saying the euro area would likely wait until August to take up the matter.
Dijsselbloem, also head of the group of euro-area finance ministers, said yesterday they would focus over the next six months on Greece’s eligibility for aid payments under the country’s existing rescue program. Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’s fragile coalition government is keen for extra euro-area support by the time of European Parliament elections May 22-25, asserting Greece posted a budget surplus excluding interest payments last year.
Euro-area finance ministers agreed in November 2012 to “consider further measures and assistance” including debt relief for Greece once it achieves a so-called primary surplus. Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics agency, is due to certify in April whether Greece achieved that goal last year.
“There is absolutely no reason to rush on the basis of the Eurostat figures, which will only come out at the end of April, to rush to a new program or new decisions,” Dijsselbloem told reporters in Brussels where European finance chiefs wrap up a second day of meetings today. “The Greeks will be financed on the conditions of the current program if they fulfill them, they will be financed right up till August. So then in August we’ll talk about the future.”
Source
Not even going to consider any more aid until August. 
|
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished.
|
On March 17 2014 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished.
On what was most of that part of their economy build on?
|
On March 17 2014 18:02 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished. On what was most of that part of their economy build on?
Fake numbers and debt.
|
On March 17 2014 23:59 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 18:02 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 17 2014 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished. On what was most of that part of their economy build on? Fake numbers and debt.
And suddenly 30% disappearing isn't so unbelievable anymore afterall.
|
On March 17 2014 23:59 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 18:02 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 17 2014 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished. On what was most of that part of their economy build on? Fake numbers and debt.
Don't act all high-and-mighty. French banks (as well as German and many others) were rescued by the initial bail-outs to contain the imminent default. Now that the danger of contamination is over and those central EU banks have stabilized, it seems to be all, "Well, good luck with the rest of it Greece!" Very little of the overall picture was "fake numbers," and the debt was GIVEN to them by market forces. They borrowed and the banks let them, never hinting that their debt levels were unsustainable by refusing to bid on the debt at open auction.
Greece is experiencing a depression along with enormous deflation, and the sentiment seems to be, "lol suks 2 b u gais!" from the rest of the EU.
|
On March 18 2014 01:37 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 23:59 Agathon wrote:On March 17 2014 18:02 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 17 2014 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished. On what was most of that part of their economy build on? Fake numbers and debt. Very little of the overall picture was "fake numbers," and the debt was GIVEN to them by market forces. They borrowed and the banks let them, never hinting that their debt levels were unsustainable by refusing to bid on the debt at open auction.
It was offered to them by market forces and they accepted, if a guy with a horrible business that doesn't make money goes to a loanshark, knowing that he won't be able to repay them but thinking that his rich father will protect him, do you blame the loanshark for giving him money alone or do you primarly blame the guy who lent money while knowing that he couldn't pay it back?
|
The sentiment for politicians is that they're limited in doing anything because of the electorate and the 3% deficit rule. I agree though it's silly to act high and mighty while not following the other part of the same rule of max 60% of debt to GDP ratio. It's simply picking the part of the rule you can manage while ignoring the other.
|
On March 18 2014 02:06 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2014 01:37 aksfjh wrote:On March 17 2014 23:59 Agathon wrote:On March 17 2014 18:02 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 17 2014 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished. On what was most of that part of their economy build on? Fake numbers and debt. Very little of the overall picture was "fake numbers," and the debt was GIVEN to them by market forces. They borrowed and the banks let them, never hinting that their debt levels were unsustainable by refusing to bid on the debt at open auction. It was offered to them by market forces and they accepted, if a guy with a horrible business that doesn't make money goes to a loanshark, knowing that he won't be able to repay them but thinking that his rich father will protect him, do you blame the loanshark for giving him money alone or do you primarly blame the guy who lent money while knowing that he couldn't pay it back?
No, it's the equivalent of going out to the major banks of the area, showing them your government approved paperwork, and offering you a loan at the same rate as your super rich, super successful neighbors. Not just the first time either, but every time you go back for another loan, it's no questions asked and for the same rate. If at some point the rates began to gently increase, then Greece could have heeded the warning and gone about sensible reform before a burst. But that's what bubbles are...
And it's not like Greece was going to Russian mafia banks for this money, it was the reputable banks of Germany, France, Spain, et al that loaned them the money. These renowned banks reinforced the behavior, and then the Germans, French, and English back them up as if they were "bamboozled" while the Greek people suffer for taking the gifts that were given to them by those banks.
|
On March 17 2014 23:59 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 18:02 SilentchiLL wrote:On March 17 2014 08:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Greece is still in really bad shape. I personally think they'll need a really big haircut or they'll never get out of the debt - austerity circle. It's pretty unbelievable that over the last 6 years nearly 30% of their economy just vanished. On what was most of that part of their economy build on? Fake numbers and debt.
That's too harsh.
A lot of money was lent to the Greek economy on the basis that Greece, as part of the Eurozone, would grow relatively quickly and catch up to its richer peers. That means a growing ability for Greeks to repay the debt (so sustainable lending) and a higher rate of return for lenders. Unfortunately, not enough of the lending went to productive use and so Greece turned out to not have the ability to repay that everyone thought going in.
Greeks weren't doing "fake" things, they just weren't doing things efficiently enough to repay the debts. The answer, of course, is to write off those debts but European lenders are too reluctant - too many debt write-offs and the banks will fail. So Greece and other peripheral countries are stuck in a sort of national debtor's prison.
Why Europe doesn't bite the bullet and deal with the debt is beyond me. No one seems to be benefiting, even German growth isn't very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://iuwest.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/piigs-interest-rates-1993-2011.jpg?w=600&h=435)
