Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    18 Nov '10 13:58
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    In what sense have they "surrendered their sovereignty"?
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    18 Nov '10 14:38 / 1 edit
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Probably. I think our current government is doing everything right (for a change) and if you look at the figures then Portugal is better off than Ireland. But the spreads have still been increasing along with Ireland's (although a bit better). 7% interest rates are not really sustainable in a slow growth environment. Basically it's then up to the market, if investors think Portugal can pull this off then it can, but if they don't then Portugal is next. Not a good position to be in.

    Either way, without the Euro then Greece, Ireland and Portugal would have defaulted a long time ago because the spreads would go up and the currency would collapse.
  3. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    18 Nov '10 14:55
    Also, it's incredible the idea that countries cannot partially default. I mean, why bail-out even subordinated debt? The only reason it exists is because the country might default and that's why it commands higher premia. The burden should be shared between investors and taxpayers.

    Outright default is a big problem (government has no way to honour expenses if it can't manage cash flows properly) but if history has taught us anything then partial default (i.e. haircuts on certain bonds) would not lead to financial autarky.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    18 Nov '10 17:16
    What happened to the Celtic Tiger?

    Maybe they could sell shilleleaghs to pimps in the 'hood. They like their canes and sometimes have to use them to whack people.
  5. 18 Nov '10 17:56
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Also, it's incredible the idea that countries cannot partially default. I mean, why bail-out even subordinated debt? The only reason it exists is because the country might default and that's why it commands higher premia. The burden should be shared between investors and taxpayers.

    Outright default is a big problem (government has no way to honour expens ...[text shortened]... ng then partial default (i.e. haircuts on certain bonds) would not lead to financial autarky.
    let the investors eat it. that's what "risk" is.
  6. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    18 Nov '10 19:24
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    let the investors eat it. that's what "risk" is.
    The strange thing is if you let the investors "eat it," they become curiously reluctant to invest any more.

    Funny that. Wonder why?
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    18 Nov '10 19:25
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The strange thing is if you let the investors "eat it," they become curiously reluctant to invest any more.

    Funny that. Wonder why?
    Capital is too concentrated.
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    18 Nov '10 19:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The strange thing is if you let the investors "eat it," they become curiously reluctant to invest any more.

    Funny that. Wonder why?
    Yes, but they should have been more reluctant to begin with. Why should taxpayers bear ALL (and I stress the ALL) investor risk because of some Damocles Sword that history has shown does not fall that hardly?

    Subordinated debt should not be bailed out. It makes no sense that it is.
  9. 18 Nov '10 20:00
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Yes, but they should have been more reluctant to begin with. Why should taxpayers bear ALL (and I stress the ALL) investor risk because of some Damocles Sword that history has shown does not fall that hardly?

    Subordinated debt should not be bailed out. It makes no sense that it is.
    It wasn't bailed out in Russia in the 90s, was it? Didn't turn out to be such a disaster then.
  10. 19 Nov '10 05:21 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The strange thing is if you let the investors "eat it," they become curiously reluctant to invest any more.

    Funny that. Wonder why?
    So, socialism for them and laissez faire for everyone else?

    [I know you're not that simplistic Spruce; just a little dig....]

    EDIT: I did note Playnka's important "ALL".
  11. 19 Nov '10 17:41
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The strange thing is if you let the investors "eat it," they become curiously reluctant to invest any more.

    Funny that. Wonder why?
    that's fine.

    they assumed the risk. but now instead of them losing money, WE'RE losing money. so actually, they assumed the risk for us, without asking us, and by the way, don't be thinking they were planning to share the milk and honey with us if they HAD come out ahead.
  12. 19 Nov '10 17:41
    Originally posted by vistesd
    So, socialism for them and laissez faire for everyone else?

    [I know you're not that simplistic Spruce; just a little dig....]

    EDIT: I did note Playnka's important "ALL".
    maybe he IS that simplistic.
  13. 21 Nov '10 18:19
    A few British shillings ?
    6 billion pounds !!
  14. Subscriber huckleberryhound
    Devout Agnostic.
    21 Nov '10 21:47
    I can't wait to see the budget to see what is in store for us. The IMF should've came in so we could've cut the public sector wages and the social welfare. Both these areas in Ireland need a scythe cut down the middle, and the IMF would not've hesitated.

    Time to tighten our belts so the spongers and bankers can eat cake.
  15. 21 Nov '10 23:22
    Originally posted by Palynka
    In what sense have they "surrendered their sovereignty"?
    When someone is paying your bills, it's harder to tell them to feck off.