On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: Well as a bank you could lend monney from the ecb at 1% interest under their Ltro. The ecb requires a colleteral for this loan but the good thing is that they accept nearly anny colleteral (as long as its european). So the banks can buy the greek bond giving them 5% interest and use thoose as a collateral to lend the same amount at 1% from the ecb. The difference is pure profit for the bank, no initial investment is needed.
Yes, that would be a way of getting a profit. But since all of that profit stands on the active side of the balance of accounts (look for an article describing it in detail if you don't know the standard), the bonds as capital assets and the interest rates from the bonds as claims, speculating against a bankruptcy of a country like Greece, it's just an illusionary profit for the short term.
If the bonds default, the bank loses the amount of money for the bonds in the capital assets - the interest rates they earned over time + the interest rate they had to pay back to the ECB.
They're just buying time and throwing money down a hole.Even if Greece doesn't default, something is bound to happen, their bonds interest rates are skyrocketing upwards, the german bonds downwards. It's either gonna be another massive amount of billions of € or the declaration of bankruptcy and exit from eurozone.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: There are some strings attached though. What if greece (and other southern european countrys) dont pay back the new bunds? Well that should be no problem for the bank, i asume they can just default their debt to the ecb and not get back their collateral. The ecb now holds all the debt and the ecb never has to write down on its debt ! (debt to the ecb was the only debt excluded from the greek debt deal and it still has to be repaid 100%) The banks also made (and probably lost) monney on making bets against or in favour of greece on the financial markets though i think this is not what you meant.
Defaulting the debt appears in the balance of accounts as a diminuition of capital. So even if the ECB doesn't care about the interest, the bank gets in trouble. And the money from that default doesn't just disappear, it's in circulation and counts as money supply. Doesn't automatically lead to inflation, we don't know what Greece is using that money for, oh wait, it just supported a bank a few days ago. Then you can be sure that that money won't lead to consumer price inflation since it won't reach any consumers. It might lead to asset inflation cause the bank reinvests it into resources or shares or whatever, or it might be used to pay debts to other banks. Or they might buy Greek bonds.
Bets against/for Greece are a huge question mark, there was already a wave of CDS being paid out when they cut some % of Greek debt. That didn't seem to be a bigger problem for the involved parties. Now i wonder what bets are going on on the credit derivate market. What i know is that noone is gonna get CDS for Greek bonds now, and that is a good sign of how the majority of the markets thinks about Greece, they don't wanna cover you against their default. For the credit derivate market concerning Greece it's hard to tell if there's a timebomb or a fart. Depends on the banks involved and their positions + the amount of capital.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: The banks had to write of 80% on their "old" greek debt, The banks had to get some compensation for this loss and this is how they got it. (in the end the banks didnt buy as manny european bonds as the ecb did hope, they mostly refinanced their own debts) This also was needed to re- finance the banks as they had run into huge trouble getting financing on the markets. It is a verry complicated situation and i definatly dont think i fully understand it but i do think that banks now make (well rather made, during the ltro wich is now closed) monney on buying bonds from the southern eurozone. I thought that was the idea at least, The ecb could in this way indirectly support the southern bonds,while at the same time supporting the banking industry. If i am completely wrong here btw, feel free to enlight me
It's indeed complicated cause they are throwing in hundreds of billions left and right by snapping with their fingers. It has become impossible to quantify how much is in circulation, you can't tell how much exactly is concerning Greece on the credit derivate market, you can't tell where the money is going. What you can look at are the banks and governments holding Greek bonds, and i posted a pdf somewhere about the banks doing so. The biggest european ones are included.
One can only guess the scenario and the involved mechanisms.
On May 25 2012 21:43 Rassy wrote: The growth will have to come from the southern countrys coming years. Germany will have to grow a bit less, so that the southern countrys can grow a bit more. To achieve this some inflation has to happen in germany, so that german products get a bit more expensive in relation to the products from the southern eurozone. German products have been to cheap past years. (artificially, due to the euro wich made german currency relativly weaker and southern currency relativly stronger)
(well this is what politicians say)
@ cattavik: was i wrong with my answer on your question previous page? you didnt respond annymore.
I don't like the term 'growth', there are multiple ways to quantify it and the way of using it without a quantification makes it more of a catchphrase than a real thing. I'm not an expert on macroeconomic mathematics, so if someone knows how growth should be calculated, he's free to post.
How do you want to cause inflation in Germany but not in the southern zones when they share the same currency?
No, you weren't wrong. Actually, noone is right, don't believe anything anyone says, make an opinion for yourself, since predicting things to come is impossible anyway. There is no way to get to a really true answer.
Causing uneven inflation would require a joint effort between the ECB and German fiscal policy. I'm not sure about this, but I imagine the ECB would buy German debt, while Germany would expand their government spending. This would keep German bond rates low, increase German wages (indirectly), and push Germans to import more goods (or take more vacations to Greece) with their increased wages.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: Well as a bank you could lend monney from the ecb at 1% interest under their Ltro. The ecb requires a colleteral for this loan but the good thing is that they accept nearly anny colleteral (as long as its european). So the banks can buy the greek bond giving them 5% interest and use thoose as a collateral to lend the same amount at 1% from the ecb. The difference is pure profit for the bank, no initial investment is needed.
Yes, that would be a way of getting a profit. But since all of that profit stands on the active side of the balance of accounts (look for an article describing it in detail if you don't know the standard), the bonds as capital assets and the interest rates from the bonds as claims, speculating against a bankruptcy of a country like Greece, it's just an illusionary profit for the short term.
If the bonds default, the bank loses the amount of money for the bonds in the capital assets - the interest rates they earned over time + the interest rate they had to pay back to the ECB.
They're just buying time and throwing money down a hole.Even if Greece doesn't default, something is bound to happen, their bonds interest rates are skyrocketing upwards, the german bonds downwards. It's either gonna be another massive amount of billions of € or the declaration of bankruptcy and exit from eurozone.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: There are some strings attached though. What if greece (and other southern european countrys) dont pay back the new bunds? Well that should be no problem for the bank, i asume they can just default their debt to the ecb and not get back their collateral. The ecb now holds all the debt and the ecb never has to write down on its debt ! (debt to the ecb was the only debt excluded from the greek debt deal and it still has to be repaid 100%) The banks also made (and probably lost) monney on making bets against or in favour of greece on the financial markets though i think this is not what you meant.
Defaulting the debt appears in the balance of accounts as a diminuition of capital. So even if the ECB doesn't care about the interest, the bank gets in trouble. And the money from that default doesn't just disappear, it's in circulation and counts as money supply. Doesn't automatically lead to inflation, we don't know what Greece is using that money for, oh wait, it just supported a bank a few days ago. Then you can be sure that that money won't lead to consumer price inflation since it won't reach any consumers. It might lead to asset inflation cause the bank reinvests it into resources or shares or whatever, or it might be used to pay debts to other banks. Or they might buy Greek bonds.
Bets against/for Greece are a huge question mark, there was already a wave of CDS being paid out when they cut some % of Greek debt. That didn't seem to be a bigger problem for the involved parties. Now i wonder what bets are going on on the credit derivate market. What i know is that noone is gonna get CDS for Greek bonds now, and that is a good sign of how the majority of the markets thinks about Greece, they don't wanna cover you against their default. For the credit derivate market concerning Greece it's hard to tell if there's a timebomb or a fart. Depends on the banks involved and their positions + the amount of capital.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: The banks had to write of 80% on their "old" greek debt, The banks had to get some compensation for this loss and this is how they got it. (in the end the banks didnt buy as manny european bonds as the ecb did hope, they mostly refinanced their own debts) This also was needed to re- finance the banks as they had run into huge trouble getting financing on the markets. It is a verry complicated situation and i definatly dont think i fully understand it but i do think that banks now make (well rather made, during the ltro wich is now closed) monney on buying bonds from the southern eurozone. I thought that was the idea at least, The ecb could in this way indirectly support the southern bonds,while at the same time supporting the banking industry. If i am completely wrong here btw, feel free to enlight me
It's indeed complicated cause they are throwing in hundreds of billions left and right by snapping with their fingers. It has become impossible to quantify how much is in circulation, you can't tell how much exactly is concerning Greece on the credit derivate market, you can't tell where the money is going. What you can look at are the banks and governments holding Greek bonds, and i posted a pdf somewhere about the banks doing so. The biggest european ones are included.
One can only guess the scenario and the involved mechanisms.
On May 25 2012 21:43 Rassy wrote: The growth will have to come from the southern countrys coming years. Germany will have to grow a bit less, so that the southern countrys can grow a bit more. To achieve this some inflation has to happen in germany, so that german products get a bit more expensive in relation to the products from the southern eurozone. German products have been to cheap past years. (artificially, due to the euro wich made german currency relativly weaker and southern currency relativly stronger)
(well this is what politicians say)
@ cattavik: was i wrong with my answer on your question previous page? you didnt respond annymore.
I don't like the term 'growth', there are multiple ways to quantify it and the way of using it without a quantification makes it more of a catchphrase than a real thing. I'm not an expert on macroeconomic mathematics, so if someone knows how growth should be calculated, he's free to post.
How do you want to cause inflation in Germany but not in the southern zones when they share the same currency?
No, you weren't wrong. Actually, noone is right, don't believe anything anyone says, make an opinion for yourself, since predicting things to come is impossible anyway. There is no way to get to a really true answer.
Causing uneven inflation would require a joint effort between the ECB and German fiscal policy. I'm not sure about this, but I imagine the ECB would buy German debt, while Germany would expand their government spending. This would keep German bond rates low, increase German wages (indirectly), and push Germans to import more goods (or take more vacations to Greece) with their increased wages.
Its true that inflation is created if the central bank lends out freshly printed money and Germany is able to spend them prior to other country, then Germany will benefit more from this inflation than the other countries.
Hower I doubt ECB will ever want to use the limited capacity of the printing press at decreasing German bonds even more, when it could continue the "prolong and pretend" technique by indirectly supporting spanish/italian bonds.
(and obv. ECB doesn't have the mandate to buy governemnt bonds on the primary market).
BTW: This isn't "uneven inflation." This is just Germany benefitting from the inflation that will hit the eurozone equally hard.
Cattvik:
Now i wonder what bets are going on on the credit derivate market. What i know is that noone is gonna get CDS for Greek bonds now, and that is a good sign of how the majority of the markets thinks about Greece, they don't wanna cover you against their default.
What do you mean? Why wouldn't the current market for CDS still exist today? A CDS is in theory of comparable risk to a bond (though there are some differences in practice as bonds can be used as collateral).
But the value of the CDS is still a matter of risk/reward situation.
Im not sure what kind of other deriviates you are interested in? Are you thinking about CDS on Spain/Italy?
Dont know where you can find cds rates,maybe if you have a bloomberg terminal you can see. I have not been able to find them on the internet unfortunatly. There isnt realy a regular market for them, its more something for banks and hedgefunds etc.
With inflation in germany, what some people see as the solution, they are probably meaning that german products have to become more expensive. The easiest way to make this happen is inflating the wages.(german metal workers recently got a 6% increase) This will also leed to normal inflation. Cost inflation for products made in germany and a slight monetary inflation for all products and assets, first in germany and slightly spreading to nabouring countrys who do alot of trade with germany. (asset inflation is equally important for citizens as "normal" inflation btw, as they spend maybe 30%+ of their income on assets such as houses) The advantage of this is that the southern economys become relativly more competitive wich should help them get out of the slump and that the germans can start capitalising on their productivity and start spending more ,wich always is nice thing to do. The huge disadvantage is though that it does not make the southern economys more competitive in an absolule way. It just hinders the germans instead of helping the southern economys to become more competitive.
Ty so much!
On May 26 2012 03:30 Rassy wrote: Dont know where you can find cds rates,
Shares in Bankia SA, Spain's fourth largest bank, have been suspended on the Madrid stock exchange, amid reports that the struggling bank was expected to ask the state for a rescue of more than 15 billion euros ($19b).
The market regulator CNMV said on Friday it was "due to circumstances that may affect the normal share trading"
Bankia requested the suspension ahead of a board meeting to decide on a recapitalisation plan, "in view of the lack of precision on the figures" ahead of the decision, the bank said in a statement.
Bankia's shares plummeted 7.43 per cent on Thursday to close at 1.57 euros, taking total losses to more than 58 per cent since their listing in July 2011.
On the same day the Spanish government had announced a $11bn bailout for the troubled bank.
Spain's fourth-largest bank, Bankia was part-nationalised two weeks ago because of its problems with bad property debt.
Any extra government money would be on top of the $5.6bn in state loans that the government converted into shares in the group in the part-nationalisation process.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: Well as a bank you could lend monney from the ecb at 1% interest under their Ltro. The ecb requires a colleteral for this loan but the good thing is that they accept nearly anny colleteral (as long as its european). So the banks can buy the greek bond giving them 5% interest and use thoose as a collateral to lend the same amount at 1% from the ecb. The difference is pure profit for the bank, no initial investment is needed.
Yes, that would be a way of getting a profit. But since all of that profit stands on the active side of the balance of accounts (look for an article describing it in detail if you don't know the standard), the bonds as capital assets and the interest rates from the bonds as claims, speculating against a bankruptcy of a country like Greece, it's just an illusionary profit for the short term.
If the bonds default, the bank loses the amount of money for the bonds in the capital assets - the interest rates they earned over time + the interest rate they had to pay back to the ECB.
They're just buying time and throwing money down a hole.Even if Greece doesn't default, something is bound to happen, their bonds interest rates are skyrocketing upwards, the german bonds downwards. It's either gonna be another massive amount of billions of € or the declaration of bankruptcy and exit from eurozone.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: There are some strings attached though. What if greece (and other southern european countrys) dont pay back the new bunds? Well that should be no problem for the bank, i asume they can just default their debt to the ecb and not get back their collateral. The ecb now holds all the debt and the ecb never has to write down on its debt ! (debt to the ecb was the only debt excluded from the greek debt deal and it still has to be repaid 100%) The banks also made (and probably lost) monney on making bets against or in favour of greece on the financial markets though i think this is not what you meant.
Defaulting the debt appears in the balance of accounts as a diminuition of capital. So even if the ECB doesn't care about the interest, the bank gets in trouble. And the money from that default doesn't just disappear, it's in circulation and counts as money supply. Doesn't automatically lead to inflation, we don't know what Greece is using that money for, oh wait, it just supported a bank a few days ago. Then you can be sure that that money won't lead to consumer price inflation since it won't reach any consumers. It might lead to asset inflation cause the bank reinvests it into resources or shares or whatever, or it might be used to pay debts to other banks. Or they might buy Greek bonds.
Bets against/for Greece are a huge question mark, there was already a wave of CDS being paid out when they cut some % of Greek debt. That didn't seem to be a bigger problem for the involved parties. Now i wonder what bets are going on on the credit derivate market. What i know is that noone is gonna get CDS for Greek bonds now, and that is a good sign of how the majority of the markets thinks about Greece, they don't wanna cover you against their default. For the credit derivate market concerning Greece it's hard to tell if there's a timebomb or a fart. Depends on the banks involved and their positions + the amount of capital.
On May 23 2012 08:25 Rassy wrote: The banks had to write of 80% on their "old" greek debt, The banks had to get some compensation for this loss and this is how they got it. (in the end the banks didnt buy as manny european bonds as the ecb did hope, they mostly refinanced their own debts) This also was needed to re- finance the banks as they had run into huge trouble getting financing on the markets. It is a verry complicated situation and i definatly dont think i fully understand it but i do think that banks now make (well rather made, during the ltro wich is now closed) monney on buying bonds from the southern eurozone. I thought that was the idea at least, The ecb could in this way indirectly support the southern bonds,while at the same time supporting the banking industry. If i am completely wrong here btw, feel free to enlight me
It's indeed complicated cause they are throwing in hundreds of billions left and right by snapping with their fingers. It has become impossible to quantify how much is in circulation, you can't tell how much exactly is concerning Greece on the credit derivate market, you can't tell where the money is going. What you can look at are the banks and governments holding Greek bonds, and i posted a pdf somewhere about the banks doing so. The biggest european ones are included.
One can only guess the scenario and the involved mechanisms.
On May 25 2012 21:43 Rassy wrote: The growth will have to come from the southern countrys coming years. Germany will have to grow a bit less, so that the southern countrys can grow a bit more. To achieve this some inflation has to happen in germany, so that german products get a bit more expensive in relation to the products from the southern eurozone. German products have been to cheap past years. (artificially, due to the euro wich made german currency relativly weaker and southern currency relativly stronger)
(well this is what politicians say)
@ cattavik: was i wrong with my answer on your question previous page? you didnt respond annymore.
I don't like the term 'growth', there are multiple ways to quantify it and the way of using it without a quantification makes it more of a catchphrase than a real thing. I'm not an expert on macroeconomic mathematics, so if someone knows how growth should be calculated, he's free to post.
How do you want to cause inflation in Germany but not in the southern zones when they share the same currency?
No, you weren't wrong. Actually, noone is right, don't believe anything anyone says, make an opinion for yourself, since predicting things to come is impossible anyway. There is no way to get to a really true answer.
Causing uneven inflation would require a joint effort between the ECB and German fiscal policy. I'm not sure about this, but I imagine the ECB would buy German debt, while Germany would expand their government spending. This would keep German bond rates low, increase German wages (indirectly), and push Germans to import more goods (or take more vacations to Greece) with their increased wages.
Its true that inflation is created if the central bank lends out freshly printed money and Germany is able to spend them prior to other country, then Germany will benefit more from this inflation than the other countries.
Hower I doubt ECB will ever want to use the limited capacity of the printing press at decreasing German bonds even more, when it could continue the "prolong and pretend" technique by indirectly supporting spanish/italian bonds.
(and obv. ECB doesn't have the mandate to buy governemnt bonds on the primary market).
BTW: This isn't "uneven inflation." This is just Germany benefitting from the inflation that will hit the eurozone equally hard.
Now i wonder what bets are going on on the credit derivate market. What i know is that noone is gonna get CDS for Greek bonds now, and that is a good sign of how the majority of the markets thinks about Greece, they don't wanna cover you against their default.
What do you mean? Why wouldn't the current market for CDS still exist today? A CDS is in theory of comparable risk to a bond (though there are some differences in practice as bonds can be used as collateral).
But the value of the CDS is still a matter of risk/reward situation.
Im not sure what kind of other deriviates you are interested in? Are you thinking about CDS on Spain/Italy?
Well, the ECB would essentially have to change it's role and abilities, and we'd have to see unprecedented fiscal cooperation in the EU. The ultimate result would be a bunch of "different" Euros all pegged to a common Euro. That's essentially what they have now, except they would be able to use those advantages more freely.
Here's an short and interesting analysis of the euro crisis. It start's off with a startling airbus analogy, then he ties it to the current economic crisis. The analogy is a bit drawn out, and he does not provide any solutions, but he provides a description of what's going on. Basically outlining that until the countries in Europe start cooperating, they are doomed to fail.
Fyi even the original title is dead wrong in this thread.
For instance , its been recognised from all by now ( well apart the germans it seems ) that its banking crisis + balance of payments ( competiveness as well) , debt its not the source rather one of many side effects .
I dont know where to begin cause the seer miss information in this thread is unbelievable , and im sure wont read 75 pages of mostly pure nonsense so ill just make some random thoughts observations.
Il start from the bottom .
There cant be more than 1 euro , one for the north one of the south this is pure bs , Gresham's law states that : When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation.
yea who would have thought of that ;p
Euro is the main source of the problem , it was created problematic back when jacques delor and mitterrand discused that they knew its weak but they didnt have the power to persuade the other leaders ( mostly helmut kohl) to original created a eurobond and be like the u.s with common banking system . mitterhan then said that 15 years after or so they will have a crisis and then they will have to decide if they will work it out ( aka eurobond ) or let it collapse
Germany is the main problem ( within countries), not Greece or Spain , or ireland and portugal.
Germany was creaking under its’ welfare/labour laws and also shouldering the costs of an eastern integration.
The cost, in the tune of $300 Billion US, was never accounted for in Germany’s federal budget, being kept in a separate account.
It became the Strongest European economy since its’ “external” exchange rate was depressed from what it would have been under the DM.Its main trading partners with a higher propensity to inflate labour costs were Trapped in the euro at a fixed parity, essentially indebting themselves to buy German factory output (think Siemens scandal)
Germany before euro had the lowest per capita gdp under the Dm , and consider the sick man of europe , whereas Greeks had the highest.
At this very moment , the delta (aka difference) between almost zero percent financing for Germany and anywhere between 400% to 700% higher cost of financing for every other European state , this creates huge impalances , thus the need for a eurobond.
most cant seem to understand that macroeconomics have distinct different rules than macro ones. Its something like astrophysics vs quantum physics total different. it is sound to consider a cut in unnecessary expenses and live a more prudent life. That is fine. If you try to apply the same principle in macroeconomics, that will lead to disaster. Imagine every household cutting on their expenses. The market will go bust( like they do now )
It is been known for 80 years now since John Maynard Keynes ,, theoretical work in the Great depression. cutting wages adding taxes in a economy in recession creates depression , period .
Understand this one , a country leaving Euro , everything collapses , again a flaw of the system ( wont go into technicalities like bank runs etc , this will create ).
even if a eurobond is been made , all the reforms , the austerity measures to end and a political balance is resored , that doesnt mean anything , its doesnt guarantee Euros safe cause most of the hedge funds have sold all the european assets investors have been leaving the eurozone and the euro its self its loosing ground to other currencies by the day.
To restore investor confidence and bringing them back takes time , europe doesnt have. Its 50-50 for the euro to survive even if Germany and all the leaders makes up their mind and work together.
On May 26 2012 07:06 topoulo wrote: It is been known for 80 years now since John Maynard Keynes ,, theoretical work in the Great depression. cutting wages adding taxes in a economy in recession creates depression , period .
Understand this one , a country leaving Euro , everything collapses , again a flaw of the system ( wont go into technicalities like bank runs etc , this will create ).
even if a eurobond is been made , all the reforms , the austerity measures to end and a political balance is resored , that doesnt mean anything , its doesnt guarantee Euros safe cause most of the hedge funds have sold all the european assets investors have been leaving the eurozone and the euro its self its loosing ground to other currencies by the day.
To restore investor confidence and bringing them back takes time , europe doesnt have. Its 50-50 for the euro to survive even if Germany and all the leaders makes up their mind and work together.
It's been known since 1776 that Capitalism is the only political system that will ever work, and it's been proven over and over again. It's just a matter of the world to catch up. Look how long it took people to accept that the earth isn't flat, or that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. Capitalism is in the same boat.
On May 26 2012 07:06 topoulo wrote: It is been known for 80 years now since John Maynard Keynes ,, theoretical work in the Great depression. cutting wages adding taxes in a economy in recession creates depression , period .
Understand this one , a country leaving Euro , everything collapses , again a flaw of the system ( wont go into technicalities like bank runs etc , this will create ).
even if a eurobond is been made , all the reforms , the austerity measures to end and a political balance is resored , that doesnt mean anything , its doesnt guarantee Euros safe cause most of the hedge funds have sold all the european assets investors have been leaving the eurozone and the euro its self its loosing ground to other currencies by the day.
To restore investor confidence and bringing them back takes time , europe doesnt have. Its 50-50 for the euro to survive even if Germany and all the leaders makes up their mind and work together.
It's been known since 1776 that Capitalism is the only political system that will ever work, and it's been proven over and over again. It's just a matter of the world to catch up. Look how long it took people to accept that the earth isn't flat, or that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. Capitalism is in the same boat.
Capitalism is an approach to growth and increasing standard of living. Also, the criteria for "work" isn't concrete, unlike the Earth not being flat.
Since i wondered how growth is calculated, i found some nice explanation and -on the same site- why the quantification of growth using the GDP is unreliable and why speaking about growth without looking at the used calculation is useless.
Oh, and i found a document explaining why Germany is paying way too much to the EU. While Germany has the highest GDP, Luxemburg has the highest GDP per capita, which is a fairer way of telling how an economy is performing cause it takes into consideration the amount of people living in it. Per capita Germany was one rank above Italy at the moment of calculation (2009 i think). Then, the author analyzed the argument that Germany is a threat to other countries' economies with the high exports. That's why they have to pay more to the EU. It mentions an article in 'Der Spiegel' where Lagarde criticizes Germany for their exports, after which it's written that they make nearly 50 % of the GDP. Utterly false!
you quoted del spiegel the most propagandistic , german magazine , is like actually believing fox news and add some , so it must be true ;p
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
“For two years, the chancellor has been trying to cure symptoms instead of correcting the deeper causes of the financial crisis. This can worsen an illness, and it will now have an effect on the Germans.”
“It would be in our best interest to stop the downward spiral. That could be through growth programs for the countries in crisis, which would absorb the slumps in the real economy resulting from the financial turbulence. Or it could be through euro bonds, which is probably the only way to stop the fatal logic of financial markets in panic mode that are throwing one country after the next into crisis.”
“The Germans still appear to be profiting from the crisis through absurdly low interest rates (4.6 Bil. euro, two year notes at zero percent issued last Wednesday)that only exist because other euro-zone countries are in crisis and everyone is fleeing to German bonds. But that won’t last much longer, if the falling economic figures are any indication. If the chancellor isn’t stopped soon, the German economy will also soon find itself in crisis.”
On May 26 2012 07:50 aksfjh wrote: Capitalism is an approach to growth and increasing standard of living.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Socialism, also a social system, is the opposite.
Also, the criteria for "work" isn't concrete, unlike the Earth not being flat.
Then let me make it concrete: ...Capitalism is the only political system that will ever... be consistent with man's nature as a rational being because it protects individual rights. To clarify, rights only belong to individuals so to say "individual rights" is redundant but necessary in today's political/philosophical context.
Also in case it's not obvious to you, rights necessarily belong only to individuals because observe when you define rights by groups: womens rights, black rights, blonde rights, mothers rights, old peoples rights, worker rights, relaxers rights, green shirted rights....etc.
Take any of those examples, notice they are being grouped arbitrarily, as if being any of them, a mother,a worker,a black person, negates his rational faculty. But the rational faculty always remains, and that's the essential characteristic that makes rights possible. For this reason animals don't have rights, they don't have a rational faculty.
To concede rights to any special group means that “rights” belong to some men but not to others. And observe that it would also introduce conflicts in rights of the group vs the individual and therefore inequality before the law. Individual rights are the great equalizer before the law.
On May 26 2012 07:50 aksfjh wrote: Capitalism is an approach to growth and increasing standard of living.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Socialism, also a social system, is the opposite.
On May 26 2012 07:50 aksfjh wrote: Capitalism is an approach to growth and increasing standard of living.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Socialism, also a social system, is the opposite.
Also, the criteria for "work" isn't concrete, unlike the Earth not being flat.
Then let me make it concrete: ...Capitalism is the only political system that will ever... be consistent with man's nature as a rational being because it protects individual rights. To clarify, rights only belong to individuals so to say "individual rights" is redundant but necessary in today's political/philosophical context.
Also in case it's not obvious to you, rights necessarily belong only to individuals because observe when you define rights by groups: womens rights, black rights, blonde rights, mothers rights, old peoples rights, worker rights, relaxers rights, green shirted rights....etc.
Take any of those examples, notice they are being grouped arbitrarily, as if being any of them, a mother,a worker,a black person, negates his rational faculty. But the rational faculty always remains, and that's the essential characteristic that makes rights possible. For this reason animals don't have rights, they don't have a rational faculty.
To concede rights to any special group means that “rights” belong to some men but not to others. And observe that it would also introduce conflicts in rights of the group vs the individual and therefore inequality before the law. Individual rights are the great equalizer before the law.
Now this is propaganda...
Capitalism is not defined by a consensus and you can never know that "capitalism is the only political system that will ever... be consistent with man's nature", since political systems is an open box definition (not limited to known definitions)...
The rest is arguments made by the gunowner on the prairy at his singleton farm. "My house, my rules and don't ya bring that sleezy government thingy to ma property or I'll rip 'em a new one!"
Somehow a nation is a "special group" by your definitions...
On May 26 2012 07:50 aksfjh wrote: Capitalism is an approach to growth and increasing standard of living.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Socialism, also a social system, is the opposite.
Also, the criteria for "work" isn't concrete, unlike the Earth not being flat.
Then let me make it concrete: ...Capitalism is the only political system that will ever... be consistent with man's nature as a rational being because it protects individual rights. To clarify, rights only belong to individuals so to say "individual rights" is redundant but necessary in today's political/philosophical context.
Also in case it's not obvious to you, rights necessarily belong only to individuals because observe when you define rights by groups: womens rights, black rights, blonde rights, mothers rights, old peoples rights, worker rights, relaxers rights, green shirted rights....etc.
Take any of those examples, notice they are being grouped arbitrarily, as if being any of them, a mother,a worker,a black person, negates his rational faculty. But the rational faculty always remains, and that's the essential characteristic that makes rights possible. For this reason animals don't have rights, they don't have a rational faculty.
To concede rights to any special group means that “rights” belong to some men but not to others. And observe that it would also introduce conflicts in rights of the group vs the individual and therefore inequality before the law. Individual rights are the great equalizer before the law.
Totally missing the point of my post. Personal rights play no role in whether a system is "socialist" or "capitalist." In both, the rights can be denied by inherent flaws in the system.
That being said, this whole thing is wildly off topic. The ires of the EU have very little to do with this, both in cause and going forward.
Capitalism is not defined by a consensus and you can never know that "capitalism is the only political system that will ever... be consistent with man's nature", since political systems is an open box definition (not limited to known definitions)...
Nothing is defined by a consensus... a consensus of 10 people does not change the identity of the thing you are trying to define... definitions come from the facts of reality and you observing them. Capitalism: Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The term Capitalism addresses all the essentials required by man's nature. "It is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is justice." Yes it can be known that it is "the only system that will ever" because it has no contradictions and is consistent with reality and man's nature. It does not violate these axioms: Existence, Identity, Consciousness. Nothing can be taken away from the definition.
The rest is arguments made by the gunowner on the prairy at his singleton farm. "My house, my rules and don't ya bring that sleezy government thingy to ma property or I'll rip 'em a new one!"
?
Somehow a nation is a "special group" by your definitions...
A Nation is not a special group, nations don't have rights, individuals do. All rational beings, on earth or elsewhere, have the same rights. However in today's irrational world where people fail to identify the source of rights (the nature of a rational being) borders are necessary. If you have trouble understanding that then imagine for a moment that there was only one continent and one government. There would be no need to define a "nation". The term "nation" just differentiates between non politically joined groups of people.
On May 26 2012 10:05 aksfjh wrote: Totally missing the point of my post. Personal rights play no role in whether a system is "socialist" or "capitalist." In both, the rights can be denied by inherent flaws in the system.
Capitalism has no flaws. And the purpose of a social system is to define rights. Define: "A social system is a set of moral-political-economic principles embodied in a society’s laws, institutions, and government, which determine the relationships, the terms of association, among the men living in a given geographical area."
That being said, this whole thing is wildly off topic. The ires of the EU have very little to do with this, both in cause and going forward.
I'd argue that until the EU recognizes rights it will always have problems but that's a philosophical debate and I think the aim of the thread is more short term; what to do about the situation now without thinking about too far into the future. The disappointing thing is that politicians refuse to think long term, they think only as far as what is needed to get re-elected.
---- Let's hear some thoughts on the video, do we agree that the analogy drawn in it is correct? Is it because the countries in the EU refuse to cooperate?
New video: - Suggesting that the gov't may try to withdraw very soon and advice to Greeks is to keep their euro dollars out of the bank so that the gov't cant seize their savings. Instead they should keep cash in euros stashed.
So what do we do in Europe to escape from our current trap?
This is what I think should be done: - Greece should be maintained in the Eurozone - ECB should lower interest rates and "print money" to buy sourthern Europe bank/treasure bunds exactly as the Federal Reserve did to get out of the crysis in USA. - That may lead to inflation, at least in Germany and the northern countries. I'm not sure, in the USA it did not, but look at the UK... Anyway, if it happens, they should increase taxes and devote the extra money to create a program to heavily invest in Greece in long-term infrastructures. - That perhaps will also lower Euro exchange rates, leading to better exports.
And sadly this is what I think will happen: - Public funds that warrant bank deposits and currently are per-nation will be centralized in an european fund, to try to protect assets in Italy and Spain - Greece will go out of the Euro, default again, banks will go bankrupcy and/or hyperinflation will happen... really bad times - Later on, ECB will have to provide unlimited liquidity to avoid total kaos in southern coutries, and "print money" anyway to absorb Greece's defaults - ...
EPT
