| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
Easiest meaningfully quantifiable dataset from the ones posted in the last page is %income spent on food, which lines up with what most people would consider reality pretty well. That debt to income ratio is also a good indicator that the wealth numbers are largely meaningless, after all if you own a house worth 300k and you also own a mortgage to that house worth 400k, but the wealth statistic doesn't incorporate the mortgage into the calculation, you're not exactly wealthy now are you. :p | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Still cant get over it, lets just asume for arguments sake that german people work just as hard and efficient as spanish people, then logically they should end up with around the same amount of wealth but it apears to be that people in spain and italy end up with twice the wealth as people in germany. While the countrys although different, are still verry similar on a global scale. I can only conclude that the germans and the netherlands are stupid enough to let their wealth slip away somehow and now i wonder where this wealth ends up. Some of the monney ends up with our governments in the form of taxes as another poster already sugested and most of it ends up with the banks i guess. Another good explanation might be the house ownership as mentioned before, this is high in the netherlands but it is low in germany. At the introduction of the euro there has been a huge inflation, not only in consumables but also in assets like houses. Houses in the netherlands rose with 250% between 1995 and 2005 (about 150k euro for an average house wich went from 100k to 250k) and i can only asume similar numbers if not higher in other countrys.This would give a huge amount of households in the south an enormous (paper) profit ,easily 100k/house. While the germans did not enjoy this profit because most of their houses are rented (the profit ended up with the real estate firms who own and rent out the houses) The netherlands should have enjoyed the same artificial increase in wealth and manny of the older generation did.But there is also a huge new generation wich bought houses at peak. In the netherlands manny houses have been sold around the peak in the housing market (2005-2008) and as a result of that a huge amount of households now has a negative net worth. Maybe the southern countrys didnt go overboard with buying houses like the netherlands did so relativly less houses have been sold at peak wich now have a negative net worth after deducting the mortgage. Guess its not as outrageous as i first thought it was but still these statitistics makes one thinking. Wealth/household is a verry good indicator for the average wealth per household btw, i dont understand why people try to redicule this indicator.And wealth/household is also a reasonable indicator for how wealthy a population is, together with average income per household or person (but this income should in the end transfer into wealth no?) Much more so then percentage of income spend on food, wich differs due to culture and also local price differences. We in the netherlands eat terrible food and france, italy and spain are well known for their excelent food, maybe they just spend more monney on it without beeing poorer. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
Survey is here for whoever wants to take a look (well radiatoren provided a link already but as it's kinda vague that this is the actual survey I figured I'd repost it). So a little bit of context. One line from that survey that shows just how much homeownership matters: 'Median net wealth of homeowners in the euro area amounts to €217,600, a value that is substantially larger than the one reported for nonhomeowners (€9,100)' Apparently the median value of a home in Luxembourg is an outlier compared to everyone else in the EU (valued at 500k on average), Cyprus, Belgium and the Netherlands next in line with a 250k average. (graph from p.81) Then take a look at p.83-84 of the survey which plots median income per household using the 2002 housing prices valuations. The housing bubble in full effect (Luxembourg, Cyprus, Spain most prominently affected). Then read up at p.86 which talks about 'other factors', which might explain how the larger wages of Germany don't translate to what is captured by the 'wealth' statistic. Then throw in popular media reporting on all these nuances and what you get is a hot mess. -_- edit: On April 11 2013 05:47 Yuljan wrote: The pre-bust real estate argument is mostly valid for Spain. The average wealth may have improved a little because of the current fake high of the DAX but median should be unchanged (low income households generally only have bank accounts with low interest rates and no stocks in Germany). The household size is around 2 in Germany and 2,32 for the rest of europe so this does not explain the large differences in wealth. The home ownership argument is further weakened if you look at finland which has a high home ownership but is not even close to southern wealth levels. As shown in the survey's graphs I mentioned above, Cyprus's real estate bubble was just as big as Spain's. Germany's net wealth has shrunk compared to 2002, also mostly because of real estate. And Germany's household size is indeed 2.04, but Cyprus's is 2.76, Spain's 2.68 etc (p.12) p.80 graph shows a per person correction... which would stack multiplicatively with the real estate bubble, but I didn't see a graph with both these effects shown. The survey itself is well written, it outlines caveats, possible inconsistencies etc. Taking the media quoted numbers at face value is, at the least, misleading. edit2: A final note on the median reported for Germany and Austria. This being so low is not (only) a reflection of inequality in these countries but more so the fact that less than 50% of Germans and Austrians are homeowners, so the median simply falls inside the nonhomeowner category, with all the very significant effects on 'wealth' this entails. The explanation of the median effect in this ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nDn1CFB.jpg) completely misses the point for the intended target audience, even though it is valid for all the rest of the countries. | ||
|
ffswowsucks
Greece2291 Posts
if that is the case, since when did Germany have a problem with this crisis, as far as I heard Germany actually will make or has already made more money out of it... so stop complaining. Where is the whole problem u are making out from Greece? All Greeks at the moment are trying their best to repay the debt. Everyone is working hard and the basic salary has dropped to around 450e. Give us a break. And not to mention the situation that happened in Cyprus. | ||
|
C[h]ili
Germany167 Posts
This being said, I respect that Greek people are suffering and hard working. Hopefully there will be a reasonable 'rescue package' for Greece at the end of the year once the German elections are over, because looking at Greece's interest rates, at the debt-to-GDP ratio and at growth rates, there is little hope for your country to repay their debt, regardless how much you try. I am angry that so much time is wasted just because of the German election. I would also like to close with my view on the wealth data, which I have voiced earlier. For me, the focus is not so much on comparing wealth across nations. Rather the data suggests that there is potential to tax wealth in Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and so on, and this should be done, for example via a wealth tax or a property tax. Domestic wealth should be the primary source of funding before international sources are touched, and the fact that the latter source of funding is preferred by crisis countries is unsettling. Afterall, after reunification we did not asked to be bail-out by Greece, but rather raised taxes. | ||
|
Meatloaf
Spain664 Posts
On April 11 2013 08:17 Godwrath wrote: In Spanish case is not that amazing. With the construction bubble and everyone getting a mortgage due to lax regulations is normal you get those numbers, since during that period it was very common that you "had to buy" a house. That chart is just demagogic bullshit if you use it to tell "who is poorer", as the poster above you clarified. yeah I call bullshit too ,think we are some wealthy motherfuckers over here? specially people of 30 and under whom got all his laboral rights & salaries cut to the ground with no hope of them getting better anytime soon? Thats some serious bullshit chart , people are getting kicked out of their houses bc of stupid high mortgages that they cannot pay over here AND if you lose the house bc you truly cannot pay (you lost your job... quite common nowadays) you STILL have the debt and the bank keeps the house. Talk about win win situation for our corrupt banking system. Hell , when i first went to live with my GF we visited a house property of a bank and we were offered mortgage for the 80% of house value and THEN 2 personal credits(one for each of us) to make up for the money that was missing. It doesnt matter the amount of debt the bank puts on you as there is no risk for them , if you dont pay they keep the house and you keep the debt. thank god im livin on rent , its not cheap either but whatever... | ||
|
Garalor
Germany136 Posts
On April 11 2013 16:29 Meatloaf wrote: thank god im livin on rent , its not cheap either but whatever... whats so special about living on rent? its common in germany. more than 50% overall. in citys even more % http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-95-vpp80fFw/Tn5Fl8PeZcI/AAAAAAAABdA/D55SVOLYl58/s640/Mietquote.PNG a quick google search tells me that 1 m² costs 6,37€. (2010) In Citys like Hamburg you pay about 8€ for 1m² But i have to say, i dont know the situation in other countrys. i heard it uncommon in denmark. Someone knows more? @situation in other countries: i like to help other people, if they try to help themselfs. for example by stopping bribery. I heard it is, and it always was (even before the crisis) quite common in countries like greece? is that true? There was a interview with a person on the street. He said something like: "if the doctor ask you, if you want to pay 250 with a bill. or just 200 righ on the hand. you choose 200"..... if thats the case. than would should everybody think of it? Is that ok? | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10107 Posts
On April 11 2013 09:18 Rassy wrote: I did (and still do) asume these are all net values, so all assets minus all debts (mortgages) else the statistic is completely meaningless. Still cant get over it, lets just asume for arguments sake that german people work just as hard and efficient as spanish people, then logically they should end up with around the same amount of wealth but it apears to be that people in spain and italy end up with twice the wealth as people in germany. While the countrys although different, are still verry similar on a global scale. I can only conclude that the germans and the netherlands are stupid enough to let their wealth slip away somehow and now i wonder where this wealth ends up. Some of the monney ends up with our governments in the form of taxes as another poster already sugested and most of it ends up with the banks i guess. Another good explanation might be the house ownership as mentioned before, this is high in the netherlands but it is low in germany. At the introduction of the euro there has been a huge inflation, not only in consumables but also in assets like houses. Houses in the netherlands rose with 250% between 1995 and 2005 (about 150k euro for an average house wich went from 100k to 250k) and i can only asume similar numbers if not higher in other countrys.This would give a huge amount of households in the south an enormous (paper) profit ,easily 100k/house. While the germans did not enjoy this profit because most of their houses are rented (the profit ended up with the real estate firms who own and rent out the houses) The netherlands should have enjoyed the same artificial increase in wealth and manny of the older generation did.But there is also a huge new generation wich bought houses at peak. In the netherlands manny houses have been sold around the peak in the housing market (2005-2008) and as a result of that a huge amount of households now has a negative net worth. Maybe the southern countrys didnt go overboard with buying houses like the netherlands did so relativly less houses have been sold at peak wich now have a negative net worth after deducting the mortgage. Guess its not as outrageous as i first thought it was but still these statitistics makes one thinking. Wealth/household is a verry good indicator for the average wealth per household btw, i dont understand why people try to redicule this indicator.And wealth/household is also a reasonable indicator for how wealthy a population is, together with average income per household or person (but this income should in the end transfer into wealth no?) Much more so then percentage of income spend on food, wich differs due to culture and also local price differences. We in the netherlands eat terrible food and france, italy and spain are well known for their excelent food, maybe they just spend more monney on it without beeing poorer. No, what it means is that food is more expensive, totally different to "spending more money". We do not choose to spend more money, and most of the spanish typical dishes are "poor people" dishes. You are confusing healthy with expensive, totally unrelated. For you it may be new, but we know about it for quite a long time, specially since many spanish people had moved to other countries. I have friends on Germany who for the first month were in shock with what we put up to in food expenses. Not to speak about renting, because a few years ago, the prices on cities like Madrid/Barcelona skyrocketted compared to Berlin. About wealth/household. I already told you why those numbers are inflated, like the growth rate numbers of spain were during the construction bubble. Most of the people who own a house have a mortgage, have money little money to pay for anything else than the mortgage after the crysis (because food is expensive you can bet),, and that if they are lucky to have a job, which is a big problem in the country. Raising taxes to householders is just asking for more evictions to happen (and for your information, they were already raised last year). About the more wealthy population, yes i would agree, but we have to solve first them avoiding taxes. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On April 11 2013 17:35 Godwrath wrote: No, what it means is that food is more expensive, totally different to "spending more money". We do not choose to spend more money, and most of the spanish typical dishes are "poor people" dishes. You are confusing healthy with expensive, totally unrelated. For you it may be new, but we know about it for quite a long time, specially since many spanish people had moved to other countries. I have friends on Germany who for the first month were in shock with what we put up to in food expenses. Not to speak about renting, because a few years ago, the prices on cities like Madrid/Barcelona skyrocketted compared to Berlin. About wealth/household. I already told you why those numbers are inflated, like the growth rate numbers of spain were during the construction bubble. Most of the people who own a house have a mortgage, have money little money to pay for anything else than the mortgage after the crysis (because food is expensive you can bet),, and that if they are lucky to have a job, which is a big problem in the country. Raising taxes to householders is just asking for more evictions to happen (and for your information, they were already raised last year). About the more wealthy population, yes i would agree, but we have to solve first them avoiding taxes. i agree with you, food prices are more expensive in most other european countries compared to germany. just want to add some more: in spain unemployment for under 30 year olds is above 50%. because the studies messures households instead of single persons, spanish households get bigger (because the unemployed live in their parents household) which leads to RICHER households (the "wealth" of the unemployed still gets added to the household total). quite the paradoxon. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 11 2013 10:26 Taguchi wrote: You're correct Rassy, survey is talking about net wealth. Survey is here for whoever wants to take a look (well radiatoren provided a link already but as it's kinda vague that this is the actual survey I figured I'd repost it). So a little bit of context. One line from that survey that shows just how much homeownership matters: 'Median net wealth of homeowners in the euro area amounts to €217,600, a value that is substantially larger than the one reported for nonhomeowners (€9,100)' Apparently the median value of a home in Luxembourg is an outlier compared to everyone else in the EU (valued at 500k on average), Cyprus, Belgium and the Netherlands next in line with a 250k average. (graph from p.81) Then take a look at p.83-84 of the survey which plots median income per household using the 2002 housing prices valuations. The housing bubble in full effect (Luxembourg, Cyprus, Spain most prominently affected). Then read up at p.86 which talks about 'other factors', which might explain how the larger wages of Germany don't translate to what is captured by the 'wealth' statistic. Then throw in popular media reporting on all these nuances and what you get is a hot mess. -_- edit: As shown in the survey's graphs I mentioned above, Cyprus's real estate bubble was just as big as Spain's. Germany's net wealth has shrunk compared to 2002, also mostly because of real estate. And Germany's household size is indeed 2.04, but Cyprus's is 2.76, Spain's 2.68 etc (p.12) p.80 graph shows a per person correction... which would stack multiplicatively with the real estate bubble, but I didn't see a graph with both these effects shown. The survey itself is well written, it outlines caveats, possible inconsistencies etc. Taking the media quoted numbers at face value is, at the least, misleading. edit2: A final note on the median reported for Germany and Austria. This being so low is not (only) a reflection of inequality in these countries but more so the fact that less than 50% of Germans and Austrians are homeowners, so the median simply falls inside the nonhomeowner category, with all the very significant effects on 'wealth' this entails. The explanation of the median effect in this completely misses the point for the intended target audience, even though it is valid for all the rest of the countries.I've already adressed all those things. As you said, Germany's household size is 2.04, way lower than Spain and Cyprus. The average household wealth in Germany is low because 1) there are inequalities (which only explain the last trend) 2) it's not a country where there are a lot of homeowners (which explain the historical trend). If you look at other countries such as Italy, they have a huge household wealth since a long time (1930-1950) and the US, who is now the country with a high household wealth, had policy that enabled the purchasing of house through debts and credits since the fifties. Before that, their household wealth was also quite low (despite already being an economic giant). see here and here (previous comments) for sources and explanations. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On April 11 2013 17:28 Garalor wrote: whats so special about living on rent? its common in germany. more than 50% overall. in citys even more % http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-95-vpp80fFw/Tn5Fl8PeZcI/AAAAAAAABdA/D55SVOLYl58/s640/Mietquote.PNG a quick google search tells me that 1 m² costs 6,37€. (2010) In Citys like Hamburg you pay about 8€ for 1m² But i have to say, i dont know the situation in other countrys. i heard it uncommon in denmark. Someone knows more? @situation in other countries: i like to help other people, if they try to help themselfs. for example by stopping bribery. I heard it is, and it always was (even before the crisis) quite common in countries like greece? is that true? There was a interview with a person on the street. He said something like: "if the doctor ask you, if you want to pay 250 with a bill. or just 200 righ on the hand. you choose 200"..... if thats the case. than would should everybody think of it? Is that ok? Unfortunately I haven't seen much statistics for Denmark, but I know the m2 cost here in a city is about 16 € m2 per month for small apartments (20 m2) and about 9,25 € m2 per month for a large apartiment (80 m2). The average I could find as overall was about 5.7 € per m2 per month (but those include rural areas). The numbers are far, far higher in Aarhus and Copenhagen. As for owners, the costs vary with site from an average of about 1 € m2 in the outskirts and 5 € m2 in the top municipal areas. As for percentages, it was about 54 % "owners" in 2000 and that number has anecdotally been steady for many years even past the bubble burst. It is not as uncommon as one might think to rent an apartment in Denmark. The danish housing costs are the reason for the high number of renters since it is easily 350k € for a small house in the city even today and that makes it a very long term investment! | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On April 11 2013 18:35 WhiteDog wrote: I've already adressed all those things. As you said, Germany's household size is 2.04, way lower than Spain and Cyprus. The average household wealth in Germany is low because 1) there are inequalities (which only explain the last trend) 2) it's not a country where there are a lot of homeowners (which explain the historical trend). If you look at other countries such as Italy, they have a huge household wealth since a long time (1930-1950) and the US, who is now the country with a high household wealth, had policy that enabled the purchasing of house through debts and credits since the fifties. Before that, their household wealth was also quite low (despite already being an economic giant). see here and here (previous comments) for sources and explanations. i totally agree with your posts. but i want to add: the main reason why germany and austria are ranking so low is not the low number of houseowners. it's that the study doesnt't account for "non-private pensions" but takes into account private pensions. so countries which already privatized their pensions (netherlands!) are displayed WAY wealthier then countries where the government mainly pays pensions and only a small part is private (e.g. germany and austria). if you add the pensions the "average" german can expect (1.435 € for a 2 person household) and account for the fact people get their pension for 13 years (also "average") you can add 223.860 € to a german households "wealth". (source (german)) since people for example in greece get way less pensions paid by the government and there private pensions are already accounted for in the study the numbers are totally screwed if you try to compare different countries. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On April 11 2013 16:29 Meatloaf wrote: yeah I call bullshit too ,think we are some wealthy motherfuckers over here? specially people of 30 and under whom got all his laboral rights & salaries cut to the ground with no hope of them getting better anytime soon? Thats some serious bullshit chart , people are getting kicked out of their houses bc of stupid high mortgages that they cannot pay over here AND if you lose the house bc you truly cannot pay (you lost your job... quite common nowadays) you STILL have the debt and the bank keeps the house. Talk about win win situation for our corrupt banking system. Hell , when i first went to live with my GF we visited a house property of a bank and we were offered mortgage for the 80% of house value and THEN 2 personal credits(one for each of us) to make up for the money that was missing. It doesnt matter the amount of debt the bank puts on you as there is no risk for them , if you dont pay they keep the house and you keep the debt. thank god im livin on rent , its not cheap either but whatever... Well you might be happy now and i do agree with your opinnion about the banks but the above statistics, although slightly misleading without further explanation, clearly shows that having a house is the way to go .Off course there is a group wich bought at peak (250k) and who have a loss now because the house is worth only 200k but this is only temporarely. Within 20 years the houses will have doubled again and even the people who bought at peak for 250k ea will then have a 150k profit with houses at 400k ea. Their mortgage will be paid down and if not their montly costs will be relativly small because all wages will have doubled as well in 20 years Trust me on this btw,governments will keep printing monney and houses will double within 20 years (just normal inflation alone is sufficient for this) If you can now buy a house in the neterlands you definatly should as we are near rock bottom. Dont know much about real estate in other countrys, i know germany has been rising during the past years but if i look at prices there then houses still look cheap. ty btw for the link to the report. Its a verry interesting read. Godwrath Spain. April 11 2013 17:35. Posts 3786 PM Profile Report Quote Agree with you that the numbers are inflated and dont tell the whole story, i have been looking for possible explanations since i saw the chart. The income table (wich was not shown on the first time but wich i did see on this page) clearly shows that the income in the southern countrys is alot lower wich could explain why manny people have such a difficult time now in southern europe (i do acknowledge that, pls dont think that i see everyone living in the south as rich people who abuse the system or something, i just try find explanations so i can make sense of it for myself) Normally you would expect income to translate into wealth over time though and while the income is lower, their wealth is higher wich is kinda puzzling. The housing market and wrong estimates (taking housing prices at their peak value)offers a good enough explanation for me though. | ||
|
Meatloaf
Spain664 Posts
On April 11 2013 19:54 Rassy wrote: Well you might be happy now and i do agree with your opinnion about the banks but the above statistics, although slightly misleading without further explanation, clearly shows that having a house is the way to go .Off course there is a group wich bought at peak (250k) and who have a loss now because the house is worth only 200k but this is only temporarely. Within 20 years the houses will have doubled again and even the people who bought at peak for 250k ea will then have a 150k profit with houses at 400k ea. Their mortgage will be paid down and if not their montly costs will be relativly small because all wages will have doubled as well in 20 years Trust me on this btw,governments will keep printing monney and houses will double within 20 years (just normal inflation alone is sufficient for this) If you can now buy a house in the neterlands you definatly should as we are near rock bottom. Dont know much about real estate in other countrys, i know germany has been rising during the past years but if i look at prices there then houses still look cheap. In Spain it has been this way too for a long time, but since some salary cuts , and the fact that salaries are "frozen" since 4 years ago... you can see that I'm not too confident into buying a house and put my family in a situation where we could be taking debt over what we could pay in the near future. In 20 years maybe this mess will sort itself out, in short term? Spain is aiming for being a place with overqualified & cheap workers. as they say in the news "we are a country with potential" we just have to agree to get payed less when we actually are much more qualified than our fathers and grandfathers were. sorry about the bitterness in my post but i cant help it when touching this issue. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Can't say that I am surprised though. Here's the link to the Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/11/cyprus-bailout-leaked-debt-analysis-bill | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
On April 11 2013 22:29 AngryMag wrote: Guardian writes that Cyprus needs additional 6 billion €. Nikosia will have to get the money from somewhere. Since the über rich guys already tooka out their money, they will probably rob some savers and small entrepeneurs again. Can't say that I am surprised though. Here's the link to the Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/11/cyprus-bailout-leaked-debt-analysis-bill Next time any official analysis is right about numbers will be the first. What gets me is that first deal reached on Cyprus that everyone tries to forget about (u know, the one where that 'absolutely forever valid and sacred and insertsuperlativehere' 100k deposit guarantee was thrown under the bus) and just how incompetent those officials have been shown to be. And I say incompetent because for the life of me I cannot honestly see any longterm benefit for anyone at all from eroding confidence in guaranteed deposit safety, and that includes the German banks which might possibly be said to expect a shortterm influx of deposits from the South. Are they doing napkin math during those late night negotiation sessions at the Eurogroup to come up with these numbers? Just how little control does the ECB have over the banks it's supposed to be regulating? Remember, March 16 numbers on Cyprus were 6,7% haircut for less than 100k depositors, 9,9% haircut for over 100k depositors. This would supposedly yield 5,8bn. This had grown to, what, 85% haircut for the bad bank, 40% for the better off bank or somewhere close to that? And now it's doubling? Not to mention the daily reports of the richer Russians and Cypriot politicians/families/friends taking money out from 1-15 March. These reports nicely line up with the big % figures and further discredit that first agreement. (I went searching a while back about an analysis on numbers and didn't find much other than this forbes blog, which at leasts asks the questions, even though it's a layman's analysis with a few misunderstandings thrown in, if anyone has some better analysis available please link to it). Are the ECB, Troika, Merkel et al really getting played like that? If they're not being played like amateurs, are they so short sighted that they'd rather go for a shortterm moneygrab and risk the system that sustains them? No wonder the crisis doesn't seem to be letting up. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On April 11 2013 23:25 Taguchi wrote: Next time any official analysis is right about numbers will be the first. What gets me is that first deal reached on Cyprus that everyone tries to forget about (u know, the one where that 'absolutely forever valid and sacred and insertsuperlativehere' 100k deposit guarantee was thrown under the bus) and just how incompetent those officials have been shown to be. And I say incompetent because for the life of me I cannot honestly see any longterm benefit for anyone at all from eroding confidence in guaranteed deposit safety, and that includes the German banks which might possibly be said to expect a shortterm influx of deposits from the South. Are they doing napkin math during those late night negotiation sessions at the Eurogroup to come up with these numbers? Just how little control does the ECB have over the banks it's supposed to be regulating? Remember, March 16 numbers on Cyprus were 6,7% haircut for less than 100k depositors, 9,9% haircut for over 100k depositors. This would supposedly yield 5,8bn. This had grown to, what, 85% haircut for the bad bank, 40% for the better off bank or somewhere close to that? And now it's doubling? Not to mention the daily reports of the richer Russians and Cypriot politicians/families/friends taking money out from 1-15 March. These reports nicely line up with the big % figures and further discredit that first agreement. (I went searching a while back about an analysis on numbers and didn't find much other than this forbes blog, which at leasts asks the questions, even though it's a layman's analysis with a few misunderstandings thrown in, if anyone has some better analysis available please link to it). Are the ECB, Troika, Merkel et al really getting played like that? If they're not being played like amateurs, are they so short sighted that they'd rather go for a shortterm moneygrab and risk the system that sustains them? No wonder the crisis doesn't seem to be letting up. My litlle conspiracy theory says that poliicians know about these numbers from the get go, it just wouldn't be very smart to make all the information available to the public at once. It is smarter to let it out piece by piece, to prevent bank runs from average Joe( as pointed out, the very wealthy guys already brought their money out, did they know more than average Joe?). I highely doubt that the officials are incompetent, they just don't care about the interests of the average voter, of course they cannot say that, it is just the way I see it. Every western nation pays 6-8% of it's annual budget directly to the banks via interest, the crisis is likely to make that number even bigger. If some countries go down the drain, the financing for the rebuilding of the economy will make the profits even bigger. The crisis directly profits the financiers of the economy and all it's possible outcomes (be it being saved by taxpayer's money or countries going down the drain) will generate big profit either in the short (via being saved) or in the long run (chance to finance the rebuild of an economy, remember the more an economy develops, the less likely it is to create big growth rates). There is a natural plateu for growth. Since the financial system needs that growth, big dividends must come from somewhere, it needs a restart here and there. In my opinion our western governments make onesided policy for big business (big business companies usually reward them with nice positions and salaries after their political career, if they are a bit cheeky they are nothing more than lobbyists paid by the tax payer) already during their career as politicians. In short, they are not incompetent, they just don't care about the well being of the majority of the people. EDIT: Ugly to read, but I am too lazy to change it around. | ||
|
govie
9334 Posts
The euro is not viable in the long run, cultural differences between the north and south countries are to big, certainly since it's been adressed in debt diffferences between countries. There will be a ceiling to how far the germans and other northern countries are willing to pay. If merkel isnt elected in the fall, the euro will fall in a couple of years. If she is elected it will be a longer period to when the euro collapses. I didnt make this up myself, i listened to jim rogers and the hedgefundmanagers. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Europe’s Lisbon treaty had to be changed to allow common rules on shutting troubled banks – a key element of the union. “Banking union only makes sense... if we also have rules for restructuring and resolving banks. But if we want European institutions for that, we will need a treaty change,” he said after a meeting of European finance ministers. The banking union is one of the currency bloc’s central measures to stabilise the euro and prevent taxpayers from footing bills for bank rescues. But Mr Schaeuble, who has long held reservations about the banking union, said they would “not be able to take any steps on... a doubtful legal basis”. Banking union needs changes to the Lisbon Treaty European politicians and commentators have been venting their fury not just at Mr Cameron's brusque rebuttal of the plan to solve the euro crisis, but at decades of British obstructionism in EU affairs, and their message is simple: good riddance. Even at home, Mr Cameron is facing criticism. British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg warned yesterday that the country risks becoming an international "pygmy" after Mr Cameron vetoed a new European Union treaty. The leader of the pro-Europe Liberal Democrats spoke out despite a poll showing public support for Mr Cameron's decision. Mr Clegg had at first publicly backed the prime minister after Friday's EU summit, but he broke ranks yesterday and said he had told Mr Cameron the outcome was "bad for Britain". "I am bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week's summit, precisely because I think there is now a real danger that, over time, the United Kingdom will be isolated and marginalised within the European Union," Mr Clegg told BBC TV. In Germany, politicians have ditched their traditionally diplomatic tone in foreign matters, and are lashing out at Britain. "It was a mistake to let the British into the European Union," said Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, a German member of the European Parliament for the pro-business Free Democrat Party, which belongs to centre-right coalition of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a politician from the opposition Greens party, said: "Cameron is a coward." The prime minister had shied away from confronting euro sceptics in his Conservative Party and had "manoeuvred himself into a populist corner," said Mr Cohn-Bendit. UK getting flamed by politicians Eurogroup President and Dutch Finance Minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, said the ministers in Dublin had commended Portugal on its success in implementing the bailout programme but "asked them to maintain the reform momentum despite the difficult economic and domestic conditions". He added: "Ireland is a living example that adjustment programmes do work, provided there is a strong ownership and genuine commitment to reforms." The BBC's Matthew Price said that the deal could be seen as something of a reward "for good behaviour", but also as recognition that an austerity-first approach was not always the best option. The extension is especially important for Portugal. When it received a 78bn euro bailout two years ago, it pledged to take various measures in its budget to reduce public spending. However, last week the country's Constitutional Court ruled that several of these measures in the 2013 budget were unlawful. If Portugal was to drop the measures because of this, it may not remain eligible for more funds under its bailout. Portugal and Ireland getting better terms on loans | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Point is that there is no general flaming, only some irrelevant guys shouting out their meaningless opinions over the media. In general I am amazed that EU treaties are basically valid only for 1 year nowadays. Lisbon treaty already clearly violated (no bailout clause) and now we need "additions". WHy make treaties in the first place if they are broken at the first opportunity? I have a hard time believing that so many people actually support our additional bureaucratic layer in Brussels. In my opinion the influence of unelected dudes in important positions (EU commission, banking and finance organs) on national politics needs to be cut down dramatically. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War 1388Reynor  487mouzHeroMarine  409SteadfastSC 228IndyStarCraft  227TKL  201Rex 110BRAT_OK  100EmSc Tv 32Britney Dota 2  23523Calm  4637Rain 2000Horang2 543ggaemo 386Dewaltoss 138hero 63Shinee  25scan(afreeca) 19SilentControl 13[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g5175 FrodaN1029 Liquid`RaSZi835 Mlord641 Beastyqt627 Hui .238 Livibee237 Fuzer  201syndereN198 ArmadaUGS140 XaKoH 110Trikslyr87 XBOCT46 |
|
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs GuMiho
Lancer vs GuMiho
herO vs Maru
CranKy Ducklings
Defiler Tour
CranKy Ducklings
OSC
OSC
OSC
OSC
|
|
|
EPT