tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post1530028818265833633..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: The Great Recession and the Eurozone crisisMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7541117586349164812015-07-17T22:25:36.656+00:002015-07-17T22:25:36.656+00:00Blissex, I would tend to agree with that but the l...Blissex, I would tend to agree with that but the loans came with "conditionality" in plain English we will screw over Europe's taxpayers if you implement policies that screw over poorer Greeks.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-45208847756121820562015-07-17T13:51:30.601+00:002015-07-17T13:51:30.601+00:00«Indeed the other eurozone governments forced on t...«Indeed the other eurozone governments forced on the greek government conditions that were not available to the banks: a massive cut in interest rates, enormous lengthening of the repayment period, free default insurance. Something worth probably a few dozen billions euros per year to the greek government (just default insurance on greek debt is 20% per year in the private market), in addition to having their interest rate payments halved.»<br /><br />This is what *the* ordoliberal academic in Germany writes as to this:<br /><br />www.ft.com/cms/s/0/828d3f62-2a42-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html<br />«In March 2012, private creditors accepted a loss in present value terms of about 70 per cent.<br />In November 2012, eurozone members accepted a loss in present value terms of about 50 per cent.»<br /><br />And what the IMF chief economist writes:<br /><br />«And the shift from private to official creditors came with much better terms, namely below market rates and long maturities. Look at it this way: Cash interest payments on Greek debt last year amounted to 6 billion euros (3.2% of GDP), compared to 12 billion euros in 2009. Or put yet another way, interest payments by Greece were lower, as a proportion of GDP, than interest payments by Portugal, Ireland, or Italy.»<br /><br />and a private investor:<br /><br />klauskastner.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/paul-b-kazarian-greece-has-practically.html<br />«Kazarian makes two principal claims: (a) Greece's net debt to GDP ratio is, in actual fact, significantly below 60% and only about 1/3 of the ratio of peer countries. And (b) Greece's cash net interest payments are close to zero; i. e. no cost of debt service.»<br />«Kazarian makes a claim which sounds outrageous but he says that he can provide detailed calculations to interested parties. That claim is: Greece's creditors have already sustained 340 BEUR in net present value losses from debt relief, 'thus providing Greece with extremely generous breathing space'. Kazarian calls this a 340 BEUR wealth transfer to Greece (149 BEUR from private creditors and 191 BEUR from official creditors).»<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-52882402958833809392015-07-17T13:11:17.556+00:002015-07-17T13:11:17.556+00:00«"With judicious top-down reductions wages an...«"With judicious top-down reductions wages and pensions, plus the issue of tax-bonds, the Greek public sector could finance itself for the foreseeable future. All that is needed is that the ECB continues to provide liquidity to the Greek banks."<br /><br />The latter condition translates to "the ECB continues to provide an unlimited euro overdraft to the greek government". That's a very "clever" condition: I think that almost any economic problem can be solved with an unlimited overdraft at the ECB.»<br /><br />To support the notion that my interpretation of Varoufakis' words is correct, this is what an unnamed greek negotiator said:<br /><br />«We are going to get some new financing, is the ECB going to lift all these caps, all these restrictions, these limits on how much the banks can borrow, the state can borrow from the banks? Because we can't borrow. We used to. Up until February, we could still issue treasury bills. Short-term, three-month fixed bonds, mostly one-year. But this government was never allowed to do that because it was finished. No more treasury bills […] You see, the problem with treasury bills, [is that] it is the Greek banks who buy it. And the ECB said: “No more treasury bills”. So the state could not borrow from the banks.»<br /><br />BTW I am not saying that the greek government should be able to or should not be able to get an unlimited overdraft from the ECB via greek banks, "secured" by greek government treasury bills. Just that they really want to, and expect that as a right.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-28952131723652795632015-07-15T16:45:38.690+00:002015-07-15T16:45:38.690+00:00«All EU governments gave themselves AAA ratings,»
...«All EU governments gave themselves AAA ratings,»<br /><br />BTW this statement has been questioned by someone very naive on another economists blog, and I have found in reply (which has not appeared there...) this truly delightful document from the Bank for International Settlement who write rather testily about how the "Basel" lending regulation framework has been implemented by the EU:<br /><br />http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1312v.htm<br /><br />«In the European Union (EU), authorities have allowed supervisors to permit banks that follow the IRB approach to stay permanently on the Standardised Approach for their sovereign exposures.<br /><br />In applying the Standardised Approach, in turn, EU authorities have set a zero risk weight not just to sovereign exposures denominated and funded in the currency of the corresponding Member State, but also to such exposures denominated and funded in the currencies of any other Member State.»<br /><br />A good recipe for lots of fun! :-)<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-11265216612407487692015-07-14T12:50:28.823+00:002015-07-14T12:50:28.823+00:00Bliss, I am aware of the practdical aspects of the...Bliss, I am aware of the practdical aspects of the problem of regulating the big banks and hedgefunds. There are an inadequate number of regulators and too many investment firms. And the pay of the regulators is desristory in comparison with the pay of the money managers. Sure, the last two Fed chiefs in the US were sophisticated people, but the field perssonell are not. And there are way too few of them to monitor the system adequately. <br /><br />The problem with AIG was not just that the government did not monitor AIGs adventures in GB well enough. Even the President of AIG did not understand how exposed the traders were leaving his company. People complained when AIG managers were paid bonuses, but it was really only one small part of the company that produced all the losses. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-50301244396935949562015-07-14T10:47:33.784+00:002015-07-14T10:47:33.784+00:00Blissex @ 13 Jul 15 13:09
I never said anything a...Blissex @ 13 Jul 15 13:09<br /><br />I never said anything about bankers taking advantage of supposed Greek naivete; I was not talking about the situation on that level. I was talking about the basic logical mechanism of that kind of economic interaction. If the Greek government (or anybody at all) says to the lender, "Hey, can you spot me a few billion here?", and the lender says, "No, can't do it. Wouldn't be prudent.", then nothing happens, the transaction doesn't get off the ground, and the borrower will have to find other ways to solve their problem. It's the lender that triggers the transaction, and so that decision is subject to certain principles, guidelines, best practices, etc. The dependability of the borrower, e.g., would be taken into account. Possibly you think it was the lenders who were naive.JPLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-50056164834335503082015-07-14T07:30:29.739+00:002015-07-14T07:30:29.739+00:00Jure,
A load of viable new loans would obviously ...Jure,<br /><br />A load of viable new loans would obviously be one way for a bank to pay for old non-performing loans. But any bank RELYING on that windfall is living in la-la land. Thus the basic question remains: how to deal with a bank which finds its loans are worth a fraction of book value? <br /><br />The conventional wisdom is to have taxpayers rescue the bank (though of course the deluded authorities constantly claim there’s no chance of taxpayers being robbed – till the authorities are proved wrong in the next crisis). In contrast, like Milton Friedman, Lawrence Kotlikoff and others, I suggest we set up a system where there is not the remotest chance of taxpayers ever being robbed. The way to do that is to have banks funded just by shareholders.<br /><br />Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-22473682038540754952015-07-14T01:37:36.669+00:002015-07-14T01:37:36.669+00:00I was responding to the OP, but I've just read...I was responding to the OP, but I've just read the comments of Ralph Musgrave @ 12 Jul 15 5:57 and Luit @ 13 Jul 15 6:02, which suggest a path to an answer to my question above. I'm still wondering, was it perhaps more than just "reckoning" or "assessing"? Further possibilities might be "collusion" or "class solidarity via shared conventional (and sociopathic) values". The problem (of reckless lending) has more general relevance: Bankers these days (as compared to earlier periods) seem always to be driven by an insatiable lust for immense wealth, which they think perhaps will give them a favourable and dominant standing among their group of fellow point-one percenters (and which btw allows them to indulge their unthinking arrogance wrt the rest of society). The creative ways bankers try to do this should be identified and all of them should be blocked, and all possible such ways should be blocked in principle. I would still like to get a record of the reasoning process engaged in by the bankers who made the decisions in the Greek case.JPLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7332230874418064732015-07-13T22:15:57.346+00:002015-07-13T22:15:57.346+00:00«BTW the surge in net imports and in productivity ...«BTW the surge in net imports and in productivity in Greece between 2001 and 2008 were not spotted by me but some perceptive bloggers»<br /><br />Wikipedia contributors also have a nice page with nice graphs:<br /><br />en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_government-debt_crisis<br /><br />for example the "Current account balance" section.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-81551127849179474982015-07-13T21:36:32.708+00:002015-07-13T21:36:32.708+00:00"In the general case it is arguable but in th..."In the general case it is arguable but in the specific case the main feature is that the pie is the same size in 2001 and 2014, so if someone is worse off in 2014 than in 2001, then someone else must be better off and then it is an internal greek distributional problem."<br /><br />It may well be so. However, this entirely ignores the question of how and why Greece got to where it is and the social and political ramifications of 25% unemployment and the vaporization of a million jobs.<br /><br />Henry<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-634330726488147492015-07-13T20:09:44.063+00:002015-07-13T20:09:44.063+00:00«It seems as if the initiative in this dubious tra...«It seems as if the initiative in this dubious transaction is with the lenders;x<br /><br />Really? All EU governments gave themselves AAA ratings, only some of those borrowed as much as they could or let or even encouraged their private sectors to borrow as much as they could.<br /><br />«they are in a position of power. Instead of adhering to the principles of responsible lending, they decided knowingly to violate those principles in this case (and others): why did they do that?»<br /><br />This kind of hallucinatory argument always make me laugh: because that might apply when a big bank deals with a poor widow.<br /><br />But the finance ministry of a big rich country is not a poor widow: greek finance ministers and top civil servants have been professors of economics, ex-IMF top functionaries, ex-bankers, all assisted in any case by the best and brightest at Goldman-Sachs on richly paid advisory contracts.<br /><br />The idea that these people could be taken advantage of by even megabanks, as if because of their simple minded innocence, seems completely stupid to me.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-6025023525655555132015-07-13T19:44:22.456+00:002015-07-13T19:44:22.456+00:00«the solution is Grexit, rationing of basic goods,...«the solution is Grexit, rationing of basic goods, ban luxury imports to ensure only what is needed comes in, land reform and full employment with a Job Guaranteed»<br /><br />But that would be the start of ferocious austerity, as GDP would fall drastically wrt to the 2001 baseline. Everybody would be employed but rather poorer than now. The points I have been making are about employment given a GDP at least as high as that of 2001.<br /><br />«Blissex, I am in the bond business;»<br /><br />Then you must know how bond salesmen behave... :-)<br /><br />«we shook our heads at the interest rate spreads in sovereign debt»<br /><br />So did many, but an official AAA rating is powerful, and on the buy side there are a lot of suckers who trust AAA ratings or bond salesmen or spivs who don't care (IBG-YBG).<br /><br />«These people need jobs not just redistribution of income.»<br /><br />What to you looks like a job to someone else might look like redistribution of income. In 2001 in Greece 4.1 million workers produced much the same GDP as 3.5 million workers produced in 2014: this was in some sense redistribution from the 0.6 million workers who lost their jobs to the 3.5 million who kept theirs, and/or to the their bosses: the pie is the same, some people get more, some people get a lot less. In 2008 the 0.6 million were employed despite higher productivity of the 3.5 million only because of a gigantic spending boom that resulted in net imports growing by 560%.<br /><br />Therefore looking at 2001 and 2008 there are two main ways to give those 0.6 million their jobs back:<br /><br />* As in 2008, give Greece "free" (never-to-be-repaid) loans to fund a surge of net imports (and GDP) of 15-20% of "baseline" GDP.<br /><br />* As in 2001, decrease the overall productivity of the greek workforce by 10-15%, by worksharing, workfaring, or outright welfare transfer from the 3.5 million who have a job, or their bosses, to the 0.6 million who lost theirs.<br /><br />That's based on a simple look at 2001-2008-2014, which suggest two simple tradeoff between productivity and jobs, and imports/GDP and jobs, which suggest that greek GDP elasticity to net imports is around 1, and similarly for productivity.<br /><br />If you have a way to raise GDP and employment in Greece in a few years by 20% without net imports booming to 15-20% of GDP, or to increase greek worker productivity without reducing jobs, please write *today* to Alexis and Euclid!<br /><br />I have asked that question on some blogs frequented by "resolutionary socialist" economist, and never received a reply.<br /><br />Dear Yannis opined as to this some years ago, as quoted above, that "no way".<br /><br />«When banks want to privatize their winnings, they should not socialize losses.»<br /><br />But banks are quasi-governmental organizations, part of the "establishment", they are driven by government policy and depend on government support, regulation, liquidity to function. When governments say "jump" banks jump twice. When government say "lend lend lend" bankers go wild!<br /><br />Also: Citigroup and RBS were bailed out not just "because too big to fail" but I am sure also because their management have copious archives of letters and conversations in which government sources told them "lend lend lend". Hey Greenspan told suprime borrowers to "borrow borrow borrow" in a famous public speech.<br /><br />PS to indicate how much banks depend on government policy, here is a truly brilliant example of Greenspan helping them get lots of free money:<br /><br />www.interfluidity.com/posts/1160447599.shtml<br />«the spread between the Federal funds (and Treasury bill) rate and the prime rate widened from 1 1/2% to 3% in 1991. That was Greenspan’s gift to the banking sector to insure that major banks would not fail. You may recall at the time that rumors were rife — including some repeated on the floor of the House — that Citibank was about to go under. By doubling the margin between the prime and the funds rate — and essentially increasing the profitability fourfold after taking into consideration the costs of processing loans»<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-66780539790860564382015-07-13T17:27:36.952+00:002015-07-13T17:27:36.952+00:00It doesn't really matter in the end "who ...It doesn't really matter in the end "who is at fault", when it comes to sovereign debt, we know the people responsible for the bad loans will land on their feet, we know the people responsible for taking the bad loans will land on their feet, and we know the people who mis-rated the loans will land on their feet.<br /><br />Why, because in the end, whether they be bankers, politicians, of financial leaders they all come the same class of monied interests. They will have enough spirited away to ensure that their children will be fed and they will always have willing "friends" from the same class to hire them, no matter how utterly malfeasant they have been.<br /><br />Sure, one or two will hit bottom, but as a percentage, massively less than those outside their clique.<br /><br />In the meantime, we also know the failures whether in lending or borrowing will be borne by in brunt by the little guys, the ones who actually need a job, who have nothing sacked away and no convenient nepotism ("networking" as it is called today) to ensure future employment. We will blame those millions who know little if nothing about finance and economics, and mostly believe what they hear, instead of the hundreds who were elected or paid to know better and were the source of all advice.<br /><br />We also know, even if the public of Greece and other PIGS countries are guilty, that their children are not. We know that those children are the first to suffer. And meanwhile as we sit back in our ivory towers and discuss the hypothetical failures and solutions, most of us bloggers having the benefit of economic comfort lest we be spending time in other endeavors, those children suffer.<br />Carl Weetabixhttp://rutrow.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-8332422770867148172015-07-13T15:56:29.531+00:002015-07-13T15:56:29.531+00:00The UK and the US were growing well prior to decon...The UK and the US were growing well prior to decontrolling the banks and allowing them to run amok. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-34709228630629956882015-07-13T14:01:19.549+00:002015-07-13T14:01:19.549+00:00If you want to let the banks off the hook by sayin...If you want to let the banks off the hook by saying that the bonds were AAA by fiat, then the bonds should have been treated like AAA bonds after the crisis. That would mean the ECB acting as an unlimited lender of last resort and none of the conditions imposed.<br /><br />Instead we got the EU labeling the bonds AAA and Greece expected to pick up the tab for the difference between the rated risk of the bonds and what the bonds actually were.<br /><br />In economics, like any science, a lot of different sounding statements actually converge at the same meaning. Anyway you look at it there was a gap between the market rate and reality which everyone benefited from in the good years and Greece is expected to cover everyone elses losses from in the bad years.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559025307647276280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-63327590685637895622015-07-13T13:07:03.393+00:002015-07-13T13:07:03.393+00:00Why is it the task of governments to be a free col...Why is it the task of governments to be a free collection agency for banks making bad lendings? <br /><br />When banks want to privatize their winnings, they should not socialize losses. Luithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02426876487901954327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-33945104934566533212015-07-13T13:02:25.255+00:002015-07-13T13:02:25.255+00:00I completely agree with you here Ralph, banks were...I completely agree with you here Ralph, banks were not incompetent in assessing the risks, they rightly assessed that they could get the state hold the bag when things went sour. It created a situation where rates were high (greece had a higher chance of default) but risks were low (portofilio's could be moved to the state). The amount of damage done in the process while making some extra profits is huge. <br /><br />The failure is with the states, allowing these banks to be to big to fail en allowing for situations where the implicit garantees can be turned in to profits for banks at great costs for society. <br /><br />States are not free collection agencies for banks. They should stop behaving like them. <br /><br />Luithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02426876487901954327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-20671579115173958272015-07-13T12:56:54.503+00:002015-07-13T12:56:54.503+00:00Blissex, I am in the bond business; even in 2000, ...Blissex, I am in the bond business; even in 2000, given the Greek history of defaults versus the virtue of the German government, and the warnings of multiple economists - such as Alan Blinder - we shook our heads at the interest rate spreads in sovereign debt. <br /><br />I do not know what you mean about unemployed people and distrubutional probelms. These people need jobs not just redistribution of income. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-82639824513489891212015-07-13T12:47:15.598+00:002015-07-13T12:47:15.598+00:00"That's a distributional problem for Gree..."That's a distributional problem for Greece to solve."<br />Right, the solution is Grexit, rationing of basic goods, ban luxury imports to ensure only what is needed comes in, land reform and full employment with a Job Guarantee. But I doubt the "socialist" Greek government will do this.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-2672917997533909922015-07-13T12:36:01.673+00:002015-07-13T12:36:01.673+00:00«interesting comparisons with the 2001 position»
...«interesting comparisons with the 2001 position»<br /><br />I have chosen 2001 because it was when Greece joined the Eurozone (even if arguably the net import madness really started in 2004), 2008 because it was the peak "free" money year, and 2014 because both it is the last year for which statistics can be made, and it was the last year before the "magic" of Tsipras and Varoufakis had its effect on the greek economy. When 2015 and 2016 end we'll see how much that "magic" has worked on Greece.<br /><br />«but to say unemployment is a distributional problem is utterly ridiculous»<br /><br />In the general case it is arguable but in the specific case the main feature is that the pie is the same size in 2001 and 2014, so if someone is worse off in 2014 than in 2001, then someone else must be better off and then it is an internal greek distributional problem.<br /><br />To change the distribution of the pie Greece could do worksharing, or tax the better off greeks to pay welfare or workfare to the worse off greeks. What they are trying to do instead is to "tax" the rest of the EU so that better off greeks stay better off, like they did in 2008.<br /><br />The very simple numbers that I have shown demonstrate that Greece's 2001-to-2014 unemployment falll seems due to higher productivity than in 2001, and the 2008-to-2014 GDP fall seems due to lack of never-to-be-repaid borrowing funding net imports grown to 20% of baseline (2001) GDP.<br /><br />Neither problem seems due to "austerity" and neither seems a tragedy *in the aggregate* to me. If Greece wants to go back to the good old days what they have to do is, based on the strong evidence of 2001-2008-2014:<br /><br />* If they want to to back to the the GDP/final private consumption and employment levels of 2008, find someone that is willing to "lend" them never-to-be-repaid funding for around 20% of their baseline (2001) GDP every year to pay for net imports. Any volunteers? :-)<br /><br />* If they want to get again the employment levels of 2001 (they already were in 2014 on the same or higher GDP/final private consumption as 2001) they need to decrease per-worker productivity, by worksharing, welfare transfers, workfare.<br /><br />One implicit point I have been making thruout is that in the 15 years the elasticity of Greece's GDP and final private consumption to net imports seems to be around 1, so every gain in GDP and final private consumption implies finding someone willing to finance for "free" the purchase of net imports for much the same amount. Unless very deep "structural" changes happen, and that is amazingly unlikely in the short-medium term.<br /><br />That's more or less what Y Varoufakis wrote 3 years ago already:<br /><br />«idle productive resources in Greece cannot produce much for which there is <br />increasing demand»<br /><br />«With judicious top-down reductions wages and pensions, plus the issue of tax-bonds, the Greek public sector could finance itself for the foreseeable future. All that is needed is that the ECB continues to provide liquidity to the Greek banks.»<br /><br />The latter condition translates to "the ECB continues to provide an unlimited euro overdraft to the greek government". That's a very "clever" condition: I think that almost any economic problem can be solved with an unlimited overdraft at the ECB. I wish I had one myself of course :-). But unlimited overdrafts at the central banks are only given to corrupt and bankrupt megabanks like Citigroup and RBS and to "first tier" governments like the USA and UK ones. Too bad for me and Greece :-).<br /><br />BTW the surge in net imports and in productivity in Greece between 2001 and 2008 were not spotted by me but some perceptive bloggers, I am not crediting them by name because they are "progressives" and I am sure they'd rather not be associated with the ideas that Greece has not suffered austerity nor needs it to gain "competitiveness".<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-83821753713546348122015-07-13T10:23:46.854+00:002015-07-13T10:23:46.854+00:00"... banks lent far too much in an indiscrimi..."... banks lent far too much in an indiscriminate and irresponsible way."<br /><br />What I want to get clear about here is, why did the banks (i.e., the bankers) lend too much, beyond what was prudent (and in general, why do they do that)? Is there an incentive of some sort for lending beyond what is prudent? E.g., why did they continue to lend to Greece when they were aware of the risky situation wrt repayment? It seems as if the initiative in this dubious transaction is with the lenders; they are in a position of power. Instead of adhering to the principles of responsible lending, they decided knowingly to violate those principles in this case (and others): why did they do that? Who are the people who made those decisions? Why do the borrowers get the punishment and blame? (I'm aware that gangster loan sharks don't care about the ethics of their transactions and they are good at "forcing conditions" on the borrowers..) Rereading your last paragraph, I begin to understand the answer, at least for the latter stages: the Troika acting as crony, then as gangster. JPLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-19436841753266251142015-07-13T10:14:01.391+00:002015-07-13T10:14:01.391+00:00Many years ago on the Jimmy Young show on Radio 2 ...Many years ago on the Jimmy Young show on Radio 2 Mrs Thatcher issued the following statement, "profit without risk is an obscenity Jimmy" , so these banks took a risk and lost , get over it guys , thats capitalism for you there is risk and reward. <br />Sack the fools who made the loans not the country which borrowed foolishly. <br />What ever the out come democracy is dying before our eye's , if the money men win we all lose. It's turned me from a staunch EU man into a time to leave this farce, man. <br />RouterAlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-65165996993697163262015-07-13T09:09:01.867+00:002015-07-13T09:09:01.867+00:00"between 2010 and 2012 the Troika lent money ..."between 2010 and 2012 the Troika lent money to Greece so it could pay off its private sector creditors "<br />You should really qualify this by pointing out how bad a return the private sector creditors got on their investment.StuartPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13748038209546648459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-63045867795062731362015-07-13T06:46:31.453+00:002015-07-13T06:46:31.453+00:00Anon
You said itt better then i said. "Too mu...Anon<br />You said itt better then i said. "Too much" lending also produces growth and hides income stagnation.<br />Just because income did not grow as it must to support any lending, you could say "too much" lending but only ex post the colapse once the realisation that low income can not support that much lending.<br /><br />But lending has to grow exponentially in order to make paying off old loans possible. The real question is: why incomes did not grow.<br />The model here is; debt and incomes must grow to prevent depressions. That is how the world works and it worked between WWII and apearance of Reagan and Thatcher providing for unprecedented prosperity or as Pikketty calls it: an outlier in historic growth of the world.Critical Tinkererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08540226813192385645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-21070803937336761352015-07-12T23:03:07.300+00:002015-07-12T23:03:07.300+00:00Ralph
Abou bank bad loans: if you erase bad liabil...Ralph<br />Abou bank bad loans: if you erase bad liabilities as in bankruptcy, there is no need to fund banks by the state. No need for deep pockets, liabilities are just erased, just as in bankruptcy procedeengs. <br />Presently there is no legal framework to make that possible except in USA and it was limited in scope in 2005 by Bush administration as if they knew what was comming.<br /><br />And by rhe way, heve you ever heard of share buyback?Critical Tinkererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08540226813192385645noreply@blogger.com