Originally posted by PalynkaThe one who is avoiding straight answers is you.
And no1 avoids straight answers. Shocking.
Let's try again:
1. Optimal non-partisan rate?
2. Why is demand for these bonds so low if it's such a sweet deal?
Tell me again where I or the average Euro can borrow money at 1 or 2 percent interest rates. Remember it was YOU who were trying to ridicule the claim that the ECB favors Europe's financial elite. I think you need to explain why that thesis is so absurd when the ECB is making loans to big banks at far below competitive rates so that those banks can invest in high yield bonds. This is simply a handout to those banks.
Originally posted by no1marauderLet's try again:
The one who is avoiding straight answers is you.
Tell me again where I or the average Euro can borrow money at 1 or 2 percent interest rates. Remember it was YOU who were trying to ridicule the claim that the ECB favors Europe's financial elite. I think you need to explain why that thesis is so absurd when the ECB is making loans to big b ...[text shortened]... es so that those banks can invest in high yield bonds. This is simply a handout to those banks.
1. Optimal non-partisan rate?
2. Why is demand for these bonds so low if it's such a sweet deal?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaGovernment accounts are "in order" when they run deficits during economic downturns, so the "moral hazard" argument doesn't apply. Unless the EU is run completely by economists from the U of Chicago.
Eh? Having explicit guarantees would imply that governments have no incentive to keep their accounts in order. It's really simple.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderProviding guarantees provides no incentive for countries to ever run surpluses. It's not just running deficits in downturns, it's about not being able to pay back.
Government accounts are "in order" when they run deficits during economic downturns, so the "moral hazard" argument doesn't apply. Unless the EU is run completely by economists from the U of Chicago.
The EU run by economists from the U of Chicago? LOL! Do you live in fantasy land?
And let's try again:
1. Optimal non-partisan rate?
2. Why is demand for these bonds so low if it's such a sweet deal?
Originally posted by PalynkaAnswer my questions and I'll answer your's (though the answer to #2 is obvious given the financing outlined above.)
Providing guarantees provides no incentive for countries to ever run surpluses. It's not just running deficits in downturns, it's about not being able to pay back.
The EU run by economists from the U of Chicago? LOL! Do you live in fantasy land?
And let's try again:
1. Optimal non-partisan rate?
2. Why is demand for these bonds so low if it's such a sweet deal?
The idea that governments should never run a deficit is a Friedmanite one. The EU has provisions discouraging nations for running deficits even in economic downturns. So, it's reasonable to ask whether they base their economics on U of Chicago principles esp. since they are insisting that Greece presently take measures similar to what the World Bank, IMF and others insisted the East Asian countries do in the late 90's to the detriment of those countries' economies and people. If that's a "fantasy" to you, so be it.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat a muppet. The EU does not discourage running deficits in downturns. In fact it encouraged government spending in this downturn. Here's a link for you from the European Commission itself:
Answer my questions and I'll answer your's (though the answer to #2 is obvious given the financing outlined above.)
The idea that governments should never run a deficit is a Friedmanite one. The EU has provisions discouraging nations for running deficits even in economic downturns. So, it's reasonable to ask whether they base their econo riment of those countries' economies and people. If that's a "fantasy" to you, so be it.
http://ec.europa.eu/financial-crisis/promoting/index_en.htm
The Group of 20 leading industrial and emerging nations has adopted a strategy that broadly endorses the European approach. It recognises the need for government spending to stimulate the economy but also calls for tighter rules and more oversight of the financial industry.
So your view of Europe as endorsing governments "never to run a deficit" is pure delusion.
The issue of moral hazard is about not having incentives to pay off debt. How you make the leap from this simple fact to "never run a deficit" just shows how you don't understand a fraction of what you spew about. You can run deficits and be able to pay for the money you borrow.
Are you going to answer the questions now?
2 edits
[/i]Originally posted by Palynka[/i]Your third grade insults aside, what part of this didn't you understand?
What a muppet. The EU does not discourage running deficits in downturns. In fact it encouraged government spending in this downturn. Here's a link for you from the European Commission itself:
http://ec.europa.eu/financial-crisis/promoting/index_en.htm
[/i]The Group of 20 leading industrial and emerging nations has adopted a strategy that broadly endorses th and be able to pay for the money you borrow.
Are you going to answer the questions now?
European Union rules preclude the 27-member bloc from lending money to member states to plug holes in their budgets or bridge deficits.
How that "encourages" governments to increase spending in a recession is a mystery to me. Of course, you could simply state that the rule itself is contrary to the overall policy prescriptions of the EU itself (in which case it should be scrapped). A rigid rule like this doesn't distinguish between those nations that can or can't supposedly pay off debt in the long run so it is a poor tool for accomplishing such a goal.
Please again tell me where I or the average Euro can borrow money at a 1-2 interest rate and I'll address your questions. A simple concession that I and they can't will do.
😲
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/7240589/The-Greeks-must-be-rueing-the-day-they-whacked-the-drachma.html
Pavlidis
on February 16, 2010
at 11:04 AM
In the Paris Reparations Agreement of 1946 the German war crimes against Greece were billed at 7.1 billion US dollars. A few years later, under the threat of the oncoming Cold War, Germany was already needed by the Allies in the struggle against communism. For this reason, it was agreed in the London Agreement of 1953 that the recognised reparation demands against Germany should be postponed – until a final settlement in a later peace treaty.
Germany also during occupation (1941-1944) was given a mandatory loan from Greece to the size of 3,5 billions USD.
A total sum of 10,6 billions USD at 1938 prices, not today. Even at a modest interest of 4%, this money accounts to 130 billions USD, half of the total debt of Greece!
This war reparations does not take into account the cultural object stolen of Greece stolen during occupation, neither the massacres of civilians in several cities as a revenge for the rebel fighters.
Before the minister of economy of Germany say that Germans are not liable of the faults of Greeks, he should pay back the faults of his ancestors, money that was lawfully is to be given to Greece, and then half of Greek debt will be paid!