9
   

Is the Euro well and truly buggered?

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Definitions given (repos etc) and numbers pictured in graphs are correct as of the dates indicated; for the total debt/GDP ratios, they're from 2010, latest available; for 2009 you can refer to: http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10403-total-debt-to-gdp.html#axzz1gREjjYTp

Hilarious excerpt from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/12/eurosceptics-take-over-asylum-sketch?newsfeed=true
Quote:
It was David Cameron's toughest test to date.....I was reminded of Lord Cardigan returning from the charge of the Light Brigade, explaining to the remaining troops how he had given those Russkies a lesson they wouldn't forget in a hurry..........

Very Happy

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:18 pm
@High Seas,
If they're 2009 numbers, we have to assume that conditions for most - if not all - of those countries listed have worsened. The Euro is down to 1.30, and I expect it to go lower. I'm just not sure where the bottom will be because of all the intractable problems that are inherent in the Euro zone.

Cameron is in very hot water, but he inherited most the the problems that face him today. When the UK's neighbors have problems, it's going to affect not only them, but the world economies. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes; solutions are few if any exists at all.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The link on this page has 2009 numbers but a lot of good tables and graphs.The numbers on the graph on the previous page are 2010; here it is again:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2011/10/total%20debt%20to%20gdp_0.jpg
We don't have to assume anything, the UK is drowning in debt - as our host mentioned (correctly) most of it was incurred during the Blair governments.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:31 pm
@High Seas,
They were produced in 2010 for 2009 and 2008. What I'm saying is that those numbers are now a couple of years old, and I believe most of those countries listed are now in worst shape.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 02:32 pm
@High Seas,
Do the U.S. public debt figuresd you cited include the borrowings of the Treasury from the Social Security "Trust" ? I think not. These represent real future obligations, with a real present value, and, if I am not mistaken, would take our public debt up to 100% of GDP if included .
0 Replies
 
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 05:49 am
It's now time for "Story of the Day"......


Ms B was a hardworking and ambitious woman, but quite forthright and outspoken at times, and known for speaking her mind, please or offend.

These qualities were recognised by the board of the large company she worked for, and as the year 1984 approached, she was beginning to demonstrate that she was just the type of person that they were looking for, to drive the company forward and upward out of their current woeful financial situation, and so they made the decision to appoint her as the new CEO.
Part of the promotion deal required her to live in their rented house, as per the requirements of the tenancy lease that the company had been signed up to for several years.

Located near the business and situated in a very desirable residential "executive" estate, these houses were beautiful, but pretty much identical, the only real difference being in the size of the gardens.

Ms B celebrated her promotion with a new shiny car, moved in to her nice executive house and immediately set about learning all she could about her company before getting stuck in and (hopefully) making some improvements in its performance. Cutting wastage was high on the agenda, as the board had warned her that things were not too good at that moment and that, in actual fact, the truth of the matter was that the Company seemed to be spending money hand over fist and getting very little in return.

Sitting there with a stack of Company accounts, she flicked over the sheets until she reached one document that made her raise an eyebrow. Reading through, she realised that it was a list, showing the amount of rent that her and her estate neighbours pay to the Landlord, who happened to be a large asset management company that was situated nearby.

Running her eye down the list, she found that she seemed to be paying more than her next door neighbour, even though his garden was substantially bigger than hers. She made a point of talking to the landlord about this, and put the list to one side.

A week or so later, list in hand, she made an appointment and went round to the Landlord's premises in order to speak with their Chief Accountant (CA).
"I've come to talk about the rents on the estate, and in particular the apparent discrepancy between my house, and that of my immediate neighbour"

"What seems to be the problem?", the CA enquired, only seeming to give her half his attention. He was obviously a very busy man.

"Well, I see that I am paying more rent than him, despite his plot of land being much larger than mine. The houses are identical....so why.."

"That is because of the Estate policy that they all agreed on when they first moved in."

"Estate policy? Please explain as I'm confused. I've seen a document relating to such, but have not had time to read it in detail."

The CA put down his papers and was clearly irritated by this interruption to his working day. "The Estate policy is where you all pay your rent, which is collected by me and put into a large central fund. We then allocate a payment from this fund to be given out to all of those with the largest plots of land, as long as they grow crops or raise livestock."

"What?.....er..... Why?"

"I thought it was obvious", raising his eyebrows at her apparent stupidity. " It is to ensure that there is never a shortage of food, and that those who produce the food can be sure that the whole exercise is very worthwhile as we guarantee that we will give them the top market price for it."

"Hold on a minute.....let's get this right. You're telling me that you give money to my next door neighbour for growing vegetables in his garden?"

"Of course, otherwise there would be a shortage."

"Well, my garden is too small to grow anything in any great number, but my Company makes many things.....handbags for instance. Will you guarantee to buy those from me to prevent a shortage of handbags?"

"Don't be silly.....it's obvious to me that you don't know the ways of business"

She flushed. "Just how much do you pay him?"

He snorted. Reaching across the desk, he retrieved another list. "It's no secret....here."

She read down through the names of her neighbours, making a mental note of how much payment they received. Finally, she found the one she was looking for.

"It says here that my next door neighbour receives much, much more than any of the others, even those with similar gardens".

"Well, that was all agreed when the estate was built, before your house was added onto the estate. You only receive a small figure because you only have enough space to grow 50 cabbages."

"So it works out that he pays the same rent, but then almost has that entire payment wiped out when you give him this extraordinary allowance. He virtually lives rent free, one could say"

"Only if he produces the type of food that we require. I don't know why you are making a fuss, because if you look you will see that there is actually another neighbour or two who end up paying MORE than you."

"That's their problem" Ms B blurted, straightening her hair and taking out a notepad."If they are stupid enough not to question it, then more fool them!" She found her pen and started making notes....."What happens to all this food?"
"A fair bit of it goes into our communal supermarket that you are strongly advised to use."

"And the rest?"

"It goes into storage....we own several large storage facilities in the area and they are usually full. If it is stored for too long it either goes bad and is disposed of, or we sell it at a knock down price to the poorer estates in the area."

"Is this the ONLY means of income for my neighbour?"

"Oh no," he said, a patronising smile spreading across his face..... "He's actually a very shrewd businessman and owns a company, dare I say it, more succesful than yours." He leant back in his chair. " In actual fact I was just doing the balance sheets of all of your companies the other day, and it turns out that you are the third poorest tenant on the estate, but we won't hold that against you".

"OK.....to sum up....." She looked down at the figures on the pad, trying not to let her anger rule her thought process. "Me.....the third poorest on the estate, pays an exorbitant rent so that a large sum of that can be paid to my neighbour so that he can live virtually rent free while running a separate and succesful business whilst growing thousands of cabbages for you that then get stored, until a substantial proportion of them may be then thrown away?"

"You are nearly correct" he said, the grin returning. "Except that it was corn that he produced last year. Next year we have advised him to rear dairy cattle, as we will be paying out a pretty penny for butter, before we throw most of it away. You understand now?, how these things work in the business world?"

"I'm not happy at all, it's totally unfair and I want something done about it."

"What do you suggest?" His expression changing to one of mock interest.

"That we ALL pay our fair share as regards to rent, and that if anyone wants to grow food for the communal supermarket, then they do this as a separate business and then go and do what all other businesses do, including mine, and that is sell it at the best price they can negotiate with the buyer. Allowances should be scrapped, certainly the allowance system that you have at the moment, as it is immensely slanted in favour of my neighbour and leads to terrible inefficiency and the unforgivable waste of large amounts of food."

"He won't like this at all.....and he is a VERY proud and vindictive man with a long memory for such things. Don't tell him I told you that"

"Well put it to your board, otherwise I will withold that part of my exorbitant rent that goes straight into his pocket. I have been wondering why he grins and rubs his hands every time he sees me. Well....no more. Sort it out NOW."


Time went by, with the news of this rebellion spreading round the estate like wildfire. Her neighbour barely spoke to her during this time, and made a point of letting his large dog crap in her driveway whenever the opportunity arose. Finally, a tenants meeting was held where fierce arguments took place, but in the end, after the figures were studied in minute detail, it was grudgingly agreed that Ms B was paying far and above what was considered to be a reasonable and fair rent, and that her neighbour was directly benefitting from this, to what some considered an obscene degree. They didn't like her at all because she was rude and had an arrogant manner about her, but grudgingly they had to admit that she had a point
A decision was made in her favour. The tenants then left her while they convened to a separate room, along with the Landlords Chief Accountant, before returning with their decision. Her neighbour was red in the face and looking daggers at her.


CA. "What will happen now is that you will carry on paying your unfair rent, and we will collect it as normal."

Ms B stood up "But..."

CA. "Please let me finish" He paused, waiting for her to sit down. She sat. He shuffled his paper in annoyance and continued. "Where was I?....oh yes, we will collect the rent as normal. We will then put it into the central fund as normal, and give out the allowances as before.

Ms B sat, scratching her head, wondering what the hell was going on.

"We will then go to your neighbour, and take the amount of allowance back that is deemed unfair."

Neighbour snorted, and nearly stormed out of the room but thought better of it.
"We will then place that money into another fund, and call it a rebate, before paying that rebate into your bank."

"But that sounds like I'm getting some sort of gift....rather than just simply getting my own overpayment adjusted down to a fair and equal amount".

"Dear Lady....when you get accustomed to such business matters you will realise that this is the way that things are done at such high level. We can't just simply lower your rent to be the same as your neighbour and then adjust his allowance downwards."

"Why not? It's quite simple. Why do you have to make it so that it looks like I'm getting charity? All I want is to pay the same as him at the end of the day."

Her neighbour snorted loudly again, and made it clear that he thought the lady rude and ungrateful.

"You either take it or leave it, madam. Will you accept the rebate?"

"I still regard it as my own money in the first place, which it is, but if I have to do it this way, then so be it. One question though.....after all the to-ing and fro-ing of my money, whatever name you want to give it....will I end up, when all is said and done, will I end up paying the same amount as my neighbour?"

"Well, it will still remain very slightly higher than your neighbour, but such a small amount as to not warrant you worrying your little head over.

Was this a ploy to ensure that her neighbour "saved face" to a certain extent, she wondered? What the hell, as long as it turns out fairly equitable in the end, she may as well agree.

"Fine, I agree. I still have no idea why it has to be so complicated a process, but I'll accept your proposal and look forward to my so called "rebate" each year.

Gasps of relief as the meeting came to an end and everyone shuffled for the door, looking the other way as they passed the still seated neighbour. None of them liked confrontation, and this stroppy newcomer had certainly rocked the boat.

Ms B was almost the last to leave, nodding at her neighbour (maybe a little too trimphantly) as she passed.

He stood up and placed a hand on her arm....."You have cost me a great deal today, Madam, and I will never forget this", he said, coldly. "If you EVER step out of line in future, I will be there waiting."

She pulled her coat tight and carried on towards the door, determined not to respond.


"I will win in the end" he shouted after her. "I always do."

The title of this story is "When is a rebate not a rebate?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
0 Replies
 
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 06:33 am
And just to illustrate what a cloud cuckoo land this overly inflated institution that is the EU has become, here are a few figures extracted and roughly broken down from this linked website....
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/

Divided by head of relevant Country's population taken from here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe


The amounts are approximate, but rounded up or down to the nearest round figure. Certainly close enough to give a good representation.


Top Five Net Contributors to the EU....average Euros per head of population, per year (1999 - 2007 inclusive).

League Table. (in Euros) av. payment per person, per year.

Netherlands - 130 per year
Germany - 86
UK - 37 (after rebate taken off)
France - 33
Italy - 26



Top Four Net Recipients

Greece - 3639 Euros received per year, per head of population.
Ireland - 314
Portugal - 238
Spain - 149

Hopefully, someone will check my figure regarding Greece, as my calculator has either blown a fuse or (worse) it's actually true!

If this is confirmed, it would mean that the typical two adult, two child family in Greece has received the average equivalent of 14556 euros PER YEAR, for the entire nine years from 1999 to 2007.

If this money had gone direct to its people, it would mean that Stavros and his family have had enough money to buy a brand new, very decent family car each year. By 2007, they would have nine of these shiny cars sitting on their driveway, all bought and paid for by the EU net contributors.

If, in the more reasonable world, the Greek government were to use this money to build schools, hospitals , roads, general infrastructure like that.....then THAT means that in nine years of such spending, they should have built a new, modern country to be proud of.

Let's see now.....just how WAS the Greek situation the last time I looked?

Utter madness. Unless my calculators wrong, of course. Hope so.







0 Replies
 
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 07:12 am
Net Payment in by the UK (euros), and breakdown.

Payment IN total for the nine aforementioned years =

20,314,000,000 Euros (paid in by UK on aforementioned table)

20,314,000,000 euros, divided by nine (years of payment) =

2,257,000,000 euros per year (average), divided by 52 =

43,403,846 euros paid in per week (average), divided by 7 =

6,200,549 euros paid in PER DAY (average), EVERY DAY.

If the UK were to break from the Euro (don't worry, we have a market of 62million consumers that other countries would love to have a slice of, and very competetive companies that could easily nose their way into world markets.....we'll be OK).....then that would mean we could, for instance, set up a State Lottery (1p per ticket, who cares?) and divert the EU money into declaring 6 UK euro millionaire winners PER DAY, and STILL have half a million left over to go into the coffers.....and feel no worse off!

Or, more sensibly, spend that 6 million a day on OUR infrastucture, god knows it needs it, or offer it as "start up money" (interest free even) for budding companies to get going, with a view to getting back into manufacturing in a big way, like we used to.

Want a new hospital? No problem...we'll just save our equivalent euro payments for a few weeks and you can have it all bought and paid for.

The possibilities are endless.

Then again, we could always knock that equivalent off our personal taxes, and all have a fair bit more money in our pockets. Now THAT would get the economy moving again!

I think I'm rather looking forward to it. Scary, but exciting all the same.

PS. By the way...Sorry Stavros, I have a sneaky suspicion that I put your decimal point in the wrong place. Had me worried for a minute.







0 Replies
 
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 05:39 am
@High Seas,
"This allegation about the German bond auction is absurd - "

"Yesterday the crisis jolted Germany. A bond auction revealed that there were few takers even for normally rock solid German bonds. Some in Germany said this should be a wake-up call for the German Chancellor. The message was that investors are turning away from Europe.

The EU's Economics Commissioner Olli Rehn said today that the crisis has now spread to the core, including Germany. In the past few days the situation had become extremely serious, he said, and the contagion process "has now spread and touched the euro's hard core area".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15875968

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And Italy and France sold their securities today at reasonable rates...."

Reasonable?......Erm, pardon me if I'm not mistaken, but the following headline ......

ITALY FORCED TO PAY RECORD RATES AT AUCTION.....

in some way paints a different picture, no? Maybe your definition of the word differs from mine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15888752


(extract)
"Italy has been forced to pay record interest rates in a 10bn euro ($13bn; £9bn) auction of treasury bills.

The rate of interest for the new debts due to be repaid in six months was 6.504%, compared with 3.535% in the last comparable sale on 26 October.

The rate for two-year borrowing was 7.814%, up from 4.628% last time.

The Bank of Italy stressed that demand for the bonds had been high, with demand for the debts outstripping supply by 50%.
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 06:06 am
"The Bank of Italy stressed that demand for the bonds had been high, with demand for the debts outstripping supply by 50%."

I'm sure that the Bank of Italy spokesman could have gone on to boast even more if their interest rate was 10%. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 06:33 am
@High Seas,
"This has nothing to do with freedom or democracy - or Patton, or Wellington for that matter - so please drop that tack, it's irrelevant to the point of incoherence. It has to do with financial economics - your thread is about the euro, right?! Focus on your own topic ......"

Quite the opposite. Our shared history, however annoying or upsetting it may be to some people, directly led to Britain staying out of the whole Euro exercise in the first place.
Britain stated its position quite clearly at the outset - that the Euro would probably never work unless federal fiscal union was put into place, and that would never be acceptable to Britain as it would definitely not be prepared to hand over the large part of our fiscal sovereignty to a foreign, unlected body.

Consequently we remained outside the Euro zone.

Consequently we were proved to be correct in doing so, and correct regarding the main reason as to why it has failed.

Consequently Sarkozy got his high heels in a tangle, as he HATES being proven wrong, especially by the Brits.

Consequently he set up the ambush (IMO), and prepared the ground for us to be treated as upstart, non euro outsiders at the infamous "vetogate" talks.

Consequently we WERE viewed as outsiders, we fell into the ambush and are now being largely scapegoated.

Democracy has a great deal to do with what is going on in the EU at the moment, and the whole sovereignty issue will raise its head around Europe in the weeks to come.

Watch the discussions in Prague, Budapest, Dublin and other places in coming weeks. It may be very surprising to see which way they spring once the Merkozy corporation has finally suppled them with the finer details of the whole deal.

High Seas, democracy and freedom are at the heart of all this. I have no idea where you live or what nationality you are, but answer me one question.
Do you think it's acceptable for a foreign committee, that has not been voted in by your people, to sit and decide what taxes you are going to pay?

Eh? 'Cos that's what it basically boils down to, in order for the Euro to survive. The only alternative I can see to this is that the wealthy eurozone members will have to keep on, and on, and on, bailing out the weaker economies, to keep things stable.
How do you think the Germans and Dutch would take to that idea?

The IMF can slop their toilet out once or twice, and probably will do in the coming months, but again in 2013? and 2014? etc. I think not.

Never discount history, because it has directly led to how everything works today.

And democracy may be discounted at your own peril. The Italians have been forced to do it recently, but then again, they've never really been very famous for standing up and being counted.






Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 07:04 am
This is worth reading, IMO, as the nuts and bolts are spot on, even though he's a bit of a ranter at times.

I would reckon that he's in line with what most Brits are thinking....well, those of us who don't consider the X Factor to be a more important story....

Stephen Glover (Columnist, Daily mail)

"Ed Miliband said yesterday that David Cameron had made a ‘catastrophic mistake’ by exercising Britain’s veto last week. In so doing, the Labour leader was echoing the received wisdom of the Lib Dems, the BBC and several European leaders over recent days.

According to them, the Prime Minister has left us ‘dangerously exposed’ or ‘dangerously isolated’ as a result of the veto. Britain is commonly represented as a one-man band versus the 26 other members of the European Union, which will find itself fatally excluded from their counsels.

This is amazing nonsense. The question that interests me is whether the politicians and commentators who endlessly bang on about our supposed marginalisation are being stupid or intentionally dishonest. Or could it be that they are being both?

In the first place, Britain has by its own choice been isolated from the central European project — the euro — since it was launched on January 1, 1999. We have deliberately stood aside from the monetary union now involving 17 members of the EU, including four of its five largest economies.

It is a mercy that we have. Although the likes of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Energy Secretary Chris Huhne once urged that we join the euro as soon as possible, the then Labour Chancellor, Gordon Brown, resisted such siren calls, and in effect over-ruled the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Now Messrs Clegg and Huhne and all the other erstwhile pro-euro evangelists seem glad we are not part of the single currency.

So the very fact of staying outside the euro isolated us from the mainstream. And that isolation has in fact protected us from the worst headwinds of the eurozone. Things may be bad for the British economy, but almost no one doubts that they would be far, far worse had we signed up.

And if isolation from the dominating euro project has been such an advantage over the past decade, who can doubt that it is likely to be an even greater boon in the future? To bemoan our exclusion from this club is tantamount to wishing we were on board a ship that is steaming remorselessly towards the rocks.

As it is, we are in a lifeboat, admittedly in turbulent waters, but fortunate not to be marooned with all the others on the deck of a vessel that seems certain to be seriously holed, and quite likely to sink. Who wouldn’t want to be excluded from the worst effects of a probable disaster?

Perhaps you think I am exaggerating, but I don’t believe I am. Since last week’s ‘historic’ summit in Brussels, which was supposed to produce a decisive new financial package to save the euro, the currency has plummeted against the dollar and the pound, and stands at an 11-month low.

The rates at which Italy and Spain are forced to borrow money have risen, and in the view of most economists are at unsustainable levels. Almost no one thinks a new 200 billion euro fund outlined in Brussels will be enough to deal with Italy’s problems — let alone those of Spain, France and others — and in any case No. 10 confirmed yesterday that Britain will not be contributing its earmarked £30billion towards this amount.

In short, the euro’s tribulations are even more dire than at the end of last week. Those who have spent the past few days whingeing about our isolation are demonstrating the sort of parochial self-preoccupation of which they often accuse their eurosceptic adversaries. Mr Cameron’s use of the veto is an almost irrelevant sideshow in comparison with what may be the impending implosion of the euro.

Thank God we are isolated as far as is possible from this apparently doomed project! Of course, no one can say whether it will take weeks, months or years to unravel, or in what form that will take place. Britain will inescapably suffer when it does happen, but not as much as most members of the eurozone.

To judge by recent opinion polls, most British people endorse Mr Cameron’s veto, and his attempt to keep us as far as possible from a storm over which we can have no control. If only Labour and Lib Dem leaders were as far-sighted.

Despite signs that Labour was becoming more eurosceptic, Mr Miliband has regurgitated all the usual nonsense about catastrophes and isolation, while being seemingly unaware or unconcerned that the euro stands at the very edge of a real disaster. The lack of democratic accountability in the EU — or the fact that democracy itself has been suspended in Italy — never appears to concern the leader of the so-called People’s Party.

As for Mr Clegg, he has been even more contemptible, initially backing the Prime Minister’s stance, and then attacking him after having been got at by Lib Dem colleagues. He, too, has openly fretted about our supposed marginalisation, as has his self-opinionated and loquacious mentor, the even more annoying Paddy Ashdown.

Most cynical and unscrupulous of all has been Scotland’s First Minister and Scottish Nationalist leader, Alex Salmond. He had the effrontery to tell the BBC Mr Cameron should have consulted him before exercising the veto, and suggested ‘vital fishing talks’ this week in Brussels might be undermined — quite forgetting that our membership of the EU has led to the near destruction of Scotland’s once buoyant fishing industry.

The slippery Mr Salmond also skirted around the reality that an independent Scotland which joined the euro would have to accept fiscal union, and the economic suzerainty of Berlin. Would most Scots really regard such an outcome as preferable to union with England? I doubt it

Does any of these gentlemen really believe Mr Cameron’s use of the veto amounts to the calamity they pretend? Perhaps they really have been conditioned to repeat the empty cliches of our political class. If they were a bit smarter they might realise that most people side with Mr Cameron, not them. One poll suggested that around half of Lib Dem supporters (reputedly the most europhile of voters) back the Prime Minister.

By the way, we shouldn’t accept the idea that all 26 member states are monolithically against us. Many are fearful of German economic hegemony but believe they have no option for the time being but to go along with the project. All the same, the Czech government indicated on Tuesday that it has not yet accepted the deal on fiscal union.

Nor should we forget that the advantages of access to the Single Market remain as they did before the veto. It is childish to suppose that all member states are going to gang up on us at every opportunity. They sell us more than we sell them, and Britain is the second largest contributor to the EU budget. There are many ties of affection, and they need us as much as we need them.

So let’s not be frightened by the spectre of being left alone. Enough of this stupidity and dishonesty! If, as seems increasingly likely, the euro collapses, we shall be happy not to be part of it. If, by any chance, it doesn’t, we should be equally relieved. Either way, there is a great deal to be said in favour of isolation, at least for now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2074298/Has-time-politicians-stupid-dishonest.html


0 Replies
 
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 07:21 am
You'll be glad to hear that I am now away for Xmas (going back to old Angleterre to see family) and will be back in the New Year.

Just as an exercise, I'll put in the £/Euro exchange as of today, and have another look when I get back.

1 Euro = 84p (0.8391)





Happy Christmas everyone, and a more stable New Year!
saab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 07:34 am
@Old Goat,
Merry Christmas for you in GB.
I am going there too to be with our daughter.
Looking forward to it.
Doing the same
1,00 SEK = 0,09 GBP
saab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 08:24 am
@saab,
1 Euro = 9,0617 Swedish crowns
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 08:59 am
@Old Goat,
Old Goat wrote:

"This allegation about the German bond auction is absurd - "

"Yesterday the crisis jolted Germany. ..............

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15875968

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And Italy and France sold their securities today at reasonable rates...."

Reasonable?......Erm, pardon me if I'm not mistaken, but the following headline ......


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15888752


Please check the origin of your sources - the BBC like most non-market participants, fell for what's known in the trade as a "short squeeze".

Issuers let it get bruited about they're having trouble placing their paper, short-sellers start selling it, then later the same day it transpires the issue was oversubscribed after all and the shorts have to cover at a loss. In the case of the bunds in question, as I said I explained right on your thread what happened and even posted a link to an explanatory article, here it is again >
Quote:
....The difference is that in Germany, the Debt Agency (Finanzagentur) will retain part of the new issuance all the time, usually 15-20%, so they do not need full demand to issue. Also, the requirement to be a dealer in Germany means making sure of a minimum allocation across auctions that is relatively low (0.05%), while in other countries this requirement is higher (3% for example in Italy). Germany doesn’t grant greenshoe options to its dealers.

http://www.bundesbank.de/kredit/kredit_tenderverfahren.en.php
and
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/11/german-bunds
> and I even posted the next day's yields (screen shot of my trading terminal) showing that those self-same "unwanted" bunds were selling at negative yields. This usually happens when short positions must be covered in a hurry - exactly what the short-sellers had to do in this case. The Italians executed a similar trick, one day they fed to those helpful journalists at the BBC (not meaning to single them out, most everyone else was duped along with them) a line whereby they had trouble placing their bonds, sure enough yields start going through the roof, then poof! brother Mario in Frankfurt lets it be known he's in the market for a few more tens of billions, yields collapse (aka prices shoot up above previous high or even issue price), short sellers have to cover their positions in a hurry and at a loss. It's an old trick.

0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 09:22 am
@Old Goat,
Old Goat wrote:

"This has nothing to do with freedom or democracy - or Patton, or Wellington for that matter - so please drop that tack, it's irrelevant to the point of incoherence. It has to do with financial economics - your thread is about the euro, right?! Focus on your own topic ......"

Quite the opposite. Our shared history, however annoying or upsetting it may be to some people, directly led to Britain staying out of the whole Euro exercise in the first place.
................................................

High Seas, democracy and freedom are at the heart of all this. I have no idea where you live or what nationality you are, but answer me one question.
Do you think it's acceptable for a foreign committee, that has not been voted in by your people, to sit and decide what taxes you are going to pay?
...........................

I'm in New York (Manhattan) but have spent many years in Europe (various countries, including the UK), the Far East (Japan mostly, China more recently) the Middle East and Latin America (and Canada) so I think I follow your reasoning on the British position. As to your question, I certainly stand by my position that this has nothing to do with freedom or democracy: if I had so mismanaged my financial affairs that an outside guarantor had to step in for me to continue paying for basics (and that's exactly what fiscal unification means, joint liability for obligations incurred by others) then I would certainly expect said guarantor to have a say on allocation of my revenues and expenses! Trustees for persons unable to handle their own affairs satisfactorily do it all the time - so do bankruptcy judges, and this is a principle going back all the way to Roman law, and maybe even before that. How can you not see this?

Just to finish with this historical apercu: you don't disagree with me that Cameron deserves his new nickname of "Cardigan" - but, unlike me, you don't think it sad, you think it heroic. Well, as the French marshall observed watching the Light Brigade ride forth at Balaklava, "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." ("it's magnificent but it's not warfare"). Your position may be magnificent, even heroic, but practical, it's not - and, with respect, it ill serves the interests of your country.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 10:47 am
@Old Goat,
That's easy to understand; Germany is biting more than it can chew, and their bites are getting bigger and bigger - which cannot be sustained. Germany's cash liquidity is not limitless.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2011 11:07 am

I don't know whether you're keeping up with The Guardian's cartoons

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/12/13/1323802280565/14.12.11-Steve-Bell-on-Da-007.jpg

The bulldog is David Cameron, the plug is Nick Clegg, the nuts are William Hague, Foreign Secretary, and George Osborne, Chancellor.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Dec, 2011 01:08 pm
Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not
By Deena Stryker
Date posted: 15 August 2011
View this article online here: http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1

An Italian radio program's story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here's why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn't stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.


 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:07:24