Slovenia is likely to need a bailout according to some thats six how many more?

poeticseraphim

http://www.economonitor.com/edwardhugh/2012/07/05/and-then-there-were-six-is-slovenia-next/

Slovenia is probably going to need a bailout at some point.

They blame lax monetary policy at the ECB that...wait for it ..they believe fuelled a housing boom. Apparrantly they were told high inflation was necessary.

They have a deficit issue and a broken economy dealing with old construction models that don't work.

They are not shut of of the markets yet..but apparrantly it's close.

That would make it six so far.......

How many countries in Europe realistically will need a bailout of funding of some kind?

And is there the will to bailout all ......or even the money? Especially since the latest EU deal was so hard to negotiate and since now the Dutch and Finns are not agreeing with it.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

http://www.economonitor.com/edwardhugh/2012/07/05/and-then-there-were-six-is-slovenia-next/

Slovenia is probably going to need a bailout at some point.

They blame lax monetary policy at the ECB that...wait for it ..they believe fuelled a housing boom. Apparrantly they were told high inflation was necessary.

That's largely inaccurate, even based on the article you're quoting. Their housing boom rather obviously has nothing to do with the euro, which they joined only in 2007:



And the claim that they were told high inflation was "necessary" isn't even supported in the article you quote - it simply says they were considered 'benign'.

It actually looks more like they had a very similar property-politics nexus to us, as per one of the comments:

The problem in Slovenia are state owned banks. As it was (or still is) anyone with the right connections with the current goverment could get a loan, used the majority of it for some dubious project (mostly real estate and company takeovers) and in the process get a lot of personal welth.

Now since these dubious projects aren't returning any money, banks are seizing the real estate/companies and holding them. But as they are overpriced no bank is able to sell them.

It was one of the promises of the current finance minister Šušteršič, that he would force the banks to sell these assets, but it is becoming apperent that no bank will sell because that will mean great losses.

I think that summs up what is currently happening in out banking sector. I believe Spain is in a similar situation. One good thing that came out of this is that people are now realizing that state ownership is a bad thing and are now in favour of selling these banks. But unfortunately in the state that they are no one will buy them even for 0€.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

They have a deficit issue and a broken economy dealing with old construction models that don't work.

They are not shut of of the markets yet..but apparrantly it's close.

That would make it six so far.......

How many countries in Europe realistically will need a bailout of funding of some kind?

And is there the will to bailout all ......or even the money? Especially since the latest EU deal was so hard to negotiate and since now the Dutch and Finns are not agreeing with it.

The money is there if necessary. While bailouts are big ticket items whose cost is often compared to national or eurozone GDP, that's a misleading comparison, because GDP is income, not capital.

The eurozone's 2012 GDP is expected to be around €9.2 trillion, with public debt of €7.9tn. The ever so large EFSF-plus-ESM will be €750bn - about 9.5% of existing public debt (and bailouts are part of both figures), or about 8% of one year's GDP.

The costs of euro breakup, on the other hand, have been put at 10-25% of national GDPs for various different countries for several years in succession.

The cost to Germany alone of eurozone breakup is estimated as 10% of GDP in the first year (€257bn), with similar but smaller costs in subsequent years - which means the cost of ESM to the whole eurozone is probably smaller than the likely costs to Germany alone of a euro breakup:

Calculating the benefit to Germany from eurozone membership has been attempted numerous times, and proven rather hard to pin down. But what about the opposite? The costs to the country of a euro break-up? Given the importance of Germany’s support to the survival of the euro project, this is a big question, with a tonne of political baggage attached.

The German ministry of finance has done just such an analysis, according to Der Spiegel, and found that the costs of such a break-up and the re-introduction of the D-Mark would lead to an up to 10 per cent fall in GDP in the first year. Unemployment would surge to its record high of over 5m.

Interestingly, the ministry spokeswoman claims she’s unaware of such a study, but we find it difficult to believe a serious publication such as Der Spiegel would have run such a story, on its front cover, if the report was just a figment of someone’s imagination. But because of the ministry’s denial, we don’t have the report or know how these figures were estimated.

To put them in context, however, Germany had 2.87m unemployed last month according to the Federal Labour Agency, so the prediction is for a near-doubling of unemployment in case of a break-up. And 10 per cent of its economy is around €257bn (based on 2011) figures. But that’s just the first year’s estimated drop in GDP, presumably the impact would last several years so the total costs would be higher.

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/06/26/1058221/pricing-the-german-costs-of-a-euro-break-up/

The costs to the whole eurozone of euro breakup would be very very much larger than the costs of the bailouts - and whereas the bailout loans may be difficult to recover completely in the case of Greece, there would obviously be no prospect whatsoever of recovering breakup costs.

So, while the euro is becoming publicly unpopular in Germany, it seems likely that the German government will treat that in much the same way the UK government treats the unpopularity of EU membership, and for the same reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

So, while the euro is becoming publicly unpopular in Germany, it seems likely that the German government will treat that in much the same way the UK government treats the unpopularity of EU membership, and for the same reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Isn't that the truth , it says it all there really.

You really support the EU as an ideal don't you? Fair enough at least you are consistant. :)

Agreed the cost of break up outweighs the cost of bailouts ..so far ....

But maybe not for bailed out countries depending on how they are structured.

But an ordered break -up is better than a disordered one.

And considering the political disunion and especially after the latest EU summit and the disunion afterwards.

The problem with me is that i support no end goal...i actually do not believe in either eu support or rejection....and so my opinion changes with each new piece of information.

The economies of the baltics and Eastern europe are still interlinked politically aswell ...if one needs bailing out do others? And how would a bailout and bailout terms of Austerity like with Ireland ( considering after our ECB and IMF review nothing has formally changed) affect those economies that are really still develping?

And it has already refused aid to non Euro developing countries in the EU..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eArOjEkufOY

There is such a huge inequality in th EU within the Eurozone and outside of it. And you are right it is not cost effective to address the opinions of EU citizens who foot the bill.

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Isn't that the truth , it says it all there really.

You really support the EU as an ideal don't you? Fair enough at least you are consistant. :)

Mostly, yes, in my own odd way. If it simply wasn't there tomorrow I'd be fine with that either - it's what I grew up with, so it wouldn't bother me very much in itself.

But if it did disappear tonight it would be reinvented tomorrow anyway, because what makes the EU useful makes it, in effect, necessary, unless European countries have a yen to become a collection of second-rate backwaters - which they don't.

We live in a period of closure, where nearly every country is connected into the global net (even the African countries, although their presence only registers very faintly) through really quite rapid trade and communications links. A global meta-culture and marketplace are forming, plus we face a number of pressing and highly important planetary-scale issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and so on. Small countries like Ireland can't influence such a world at all, but we can influence the EU, and the EU can influence the world - so in terms of projecting what we, as citizens of Ireland, have to offer, or believe to be right, there is no option but a European Union. Were I in the UK, I would probably feel differently - the UK is one of the few European countries with global reach, although that reach is much exaggerated in the minds of many UK citizens. But for Ireland, there is no option to influence the world without the EU (or going back to the UK), and the world is a place where one is either a happener or a happenee - inwards-looking isolation doesn't produce anything but material, intellectual, and political poverty.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Agreed the cost of break up outweighs the cost of bailouts ..so far ....

But maybe not for bailed out countries depending on how they are structured.

None of the bailouts come anywhere even close to the estimated costs of eurozone breakup, or even exit. Not even Greece, which is why it has blinked whenever it has been faced with potential exit.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But an ordered break -up is better than a disordered one.

And considering the political disunion and especially after the latest EU summit and the disunion afterwards.

The problem with me is that i support no end goal...i actually do not believe in either eu support or rejection....and so my opinion changes with each new piece of information.

The economies of the baltics and Eastern europe are still interlinked politically aswell ...if one needs bailing out do others? And how would a bailout and bailout terms of Austerity like with Ireland ( considering after our ECB and IMF review nothing has formally changed) affect those economies that are really still develping?

And it has already refused aid to non Euro developing countries in the EU..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eArOjEkufOY

There is such a huge inequality in th EU within the Eurozone and outside of it.

Sure, but...? There's a good bit less inside the EU, and a hell of a lot less than there was when I was growing up.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

And you are right it is not cost effective to address the opinions of EU citizens who foot the bill.

One of the reasons we have governments is because the electorate is very fickle, and relatively easily persuaded to vote against their own best interests. That's not because they're stupid, but because they're concerned first and foremost with their own lives and with their prospects for the next year or so. As a result the majority of people quite rationally pay little attention to political and economic affairs until they're directly affected, and then only usually to the extent they're directly affected. In turn, that means they have no fixed views on major issues, and their opinion changes with each new piece of information, often on the basis of either shallow or misleading claims, as long as they're made loudly enough. And from my own experience, it is very much easier to get an inaccurate soundbite repeated everywhere and believed by nearly everyone than it is to get people to look at real facts.

As I regularly point out, for example, nearly everybody in Ireland believes that German banks were heavily invested as bondholders in our banks - but there is, quite simply, no hard evidence for it at all. Billions upon billions of euros in German bank money is supposed to have flooded Ireland with a tidal wave of credit - without leaving a paper trail of any kind.

If such a major claim can be believed without any evidence, what can't be believed?

Same thing with Irish fisheries - people quote figures from other people, and when you finish tracing the source you find nothing at all - a number someone said, without any particular justification, and that everyone else repeated for 20 years without challenging it!

So electorates are prone to making up their minds on the basis of no evidence, and that's rather obviously a problem. People often dismiss such problems by saying that the will of the people is all that's important*, but the will of the people only makes decisions, it doesn't provide truth. The electorate obviously can make a bad decision - an observation that tends to provoke horrified gasps of "heresy!", but is completely self-evident. Whatever side one was on in Lisbon, for example, it's clear that the electorate made a bad decision - if one was on the No side, the second decision was a bad decision, if one was on the Yes side, the first decision was.

(* it's usually said by the people who are currently benefiting from this particular quirk of the electorate)

In the case of something like the euro, it's relatively easy to fan opposition to the costs of saving it, because those are the costs we're paying. We're not paying the far larger costs of not saving it, and that makes the mental comparison completely skewed - which makes saving the euro unpopular because of the costs of doing so, even though it remains necessary because of the higher costs of not doing so. The right thing for a government to do is to go with the option that costs their people less, even if it's unpopular because people are mentally comparing apples and oranges. That's what governments are for, and it's one reason why they have a multi-year mandate - so that they can do necessary but unpopular things.

Nearly all of us can spot the fact that a government that does only what is popular is a bad government, but that doesn't stop many of us complaining about a 'lack of democracy' or a 'lack of mandate' when the government does something we personally object to. It's not a lack of democracy or a lack of mandate - it's part of how the system works. Governments are bound by the best interests of the country, and by the rules of law, not by the day to day flux of public opinion - the more they pay attention to the latter, in general, the worse they actually are at the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mostly, yes, in my own odd way. If it simply wasn't there tomorrow I'd be fine with that either - it's what I grew up with, so it wouldn't bother me very much in itself.

But if it did disappear tonight it would be reinvented tomorrow anyway, because what makes the EU useful makes it, in effect, necessary, unless European countries have a yen to become a collection of second-rate backwaters - which they don't.

We live in a period of closure, where nearly every country is connected into the global net (even the African countries, although their presence only registers very faintly) through really quite rapid trade and communications links. A global meta-culture and marketplace are forming, plus we face a number of pressing and highly important planetary-scale issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and so on. Small countries like Ireland can't influence such a world at all, but we can influence the EU, and the EU can influence the world - so in terms of projecting what we, as citizens of Ireland, have to offer, or believe to be right, there is no option but a European Union. Were I in the UK, I would probably feel differently - the UK is one of the few European countries with global reach, although that reach is much exaggerated in the minds of many UK citizens. But for Ireland, there is no option to influence the world without the EU (or going back to the UK), and the world is a place where one is either a happener or a happenee - inwards-looking isolation doesn't produce anything but material, intellectual, and political poverty.



None of the bailouts come anywhere even close to the estimated costs of eurozone breakup, or even exit. Not even Greece, which is why it has blinked whenever it has been faced with potential exit.



Sure, but...? There's a good bit less inside the EU, and a hell of a lot less than there was when I was growing up.



One of the reasons we have governments is because the electorate is very fickle, and relatively easily persuaded to vote against their own best interests. That's not because they're stupid, but because they're concerned first and foremost with their own lives and with their prospects for the next year or so. As a result the majority of people quite rationally pay little attention to political and economic affairs until they're directly affected, and then only usually to the extent they're directly affected. In turn, that means they have no fixed views on major issues, and their opinion changes with each new piece of information, often on the basis of either shallow or misleading claims, as long as they're made loudly enough. And from my own experience, it is very much easier to get an inaccurate soundbite repeated everywhere and believed by nearly everyone than it is to get people to look at real facts.

As I regularly point out, for example, nearly everybody in Ireland believes that German banks were heavily invested as bondholders in our banks - but there is, quite simply, no hard evidence for it at all. Billions upon billions of euros in German bank money is supposed to have flooded Ireland with a tidal wave of credit - without leaving a paper trail of any kind.

If such a major claim can be believed without any evidence, what can't be believed?

Same thing with Irish fisheries - people quote figures from other people, and when you finish tracing the source you find nothing at all - a number someone said, without any particular justification, and that everyone else repeated for 20 years without challenging it!

So electorates are prone to making up their minds on the basis of no evidence, and that's rather obviously a problem. People often dismiss such problems by saying that the will of the people is all that's important*, but the will of the people only makes decisions, it doesn't provide truth. The electorate obviously can make a bad decision - an observation that tends to provoke horrified gasps of "heresy!", but is completely self-evident. Whatever side one was on in Lisbon, for example, it's clear that the electorate made a bad decision - if one was on the No side, the second decision was a bad decision, if one was on the Yes side, the first decision was.

(* it's usually said by the people who are currently benefiting from this particular quirk of the electorate)

In the case of something like the euro, it's relatively easy to fan opposition to the costs of saving it, because those are the costs we're paying. We're not paying the far larger costs of not saving it, and that makes the mental comparison completely skewed - which makes saving the euro unpopular because of the costs of doing so, even though it remains necessary because of the higher costs of not doing so. The right thing for a government to do is to go with the option that costs their people less, even if it's unpopular because people are mentally comparing apples and oranges. That's what governments are for, and it's one reason why they have a multi-year mandate - so that they can do necessary but unpopular things.

Nearly all of us can spot the fact that a government that does only what is popular is a bad government, but that doesn't stop many of us complaining about a 'lack of democracy' or a 'lack of mandate' when the government does something we personally object to. It's not a lack of democracy or a lack of mandate - it's part of how the system works. Governments are bound by the best interests of the country, and by the rules of law, not by the day to day flux of public opinion - the more they pay attention to the latter, in general, the worse they actually are at the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You make some good points. It is not unpopular decisions made by Govt i object to. It is the rejection of unpopular decisions which the electorate makes in referendums that bothers me. And a lack of much elected representation in the EU.

I would not always agree that it is the Govt's duty to do what is most cost effective even if unpopular. Not always. It depends on the level of unpopularity and the countries level of tolerance.

The problem of thinking of only the numbers is that people forget there is the politics. It is not always what is best or least expensive but what you can negotiate.

Will it work will the Finns stick to it will such and change the conditions etc?

There was a list of Bondholders online ...i shall find again ...but later

I know nothing of Irish Fisheries....nor do i want to:)

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

You make some good points. It is not unpopular decisions made by Govt i object to. It is the rejection of unpopular decisions which the electorate makes in referendums that bothers me. And a lack of much elected representation in the EU.

I would not always agree that it is the Govt's duty to do what is most cost effective even if unpopular. Not always. It depends on the level of unpopularity and the countries level of tolerance.

The problem of thinking of only the numbers is that people forget there is the politics. It is not always what is best or least expensive but what you can negotiate.

Will it work will the Finns stick to it will such and change the conditions etc?

There was a list of Bondholders online ...i shall find again ...but later

I know nothing of Irish Fisheries....nor do i want to:)

Eh, don't bother hunting for a list of bondholders, unless it's a new one. If you're referring to that rather nice picture list with the Anglo bank logo in the background, don't bother, it's rubbish. And, yes, I can give you chapter and verse on that: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70717812&postcount=18

In fact, that picture is exactly the kind of thing I mean - like most people, you probably have no idea of the provenance of the list, who's behind it, who leaked it, what it's actually a list of, or what it actually means. You certainly have no idea what kind of sums might be involved, because the list doesn't contain that information (although the original creator of the list had that information) - yet you regard it as proof of an almost entirely unrelated claim, that the German banks filled up Irish banks with money. And even if that list was exactly what most people think it is (and it isn't even that) it still wouldn't come within a mile of proving what you take it as evidence for.

All that list is evidence of is of just how easy it is to fool the public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

Eh, don't bother hunting for a list of bondholders, unless it's a new one. If you're referring to that rather nice picture list with the Anglo bank logo in the background, don't bother, it's rubbish. And, yes, I can give you chapter and verse on that: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70717812&postcount=18

In fact, that picture is exactly the kind of thing I mean - like most people, you probably have no idea of the provenance of the list, who's behind it, who leaked it, what it's actually a list of, or what it actually means. You certainly have no idea what kind of sums might be involved, because the list doesn't contain that information (although the original creator of the list had that information) - yet you regard it as proof of an almost entirely unrelated claim, that the German banks filled up Irish banks with money. And even if that list was exactly what most people think it is (and it isn't even that) it still wouldn't come within a mile of proving what you take it as evidence for.

All that list is evidence of is of just how easy it is to fool the public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You assume a lot. And most of it not true.
No not that.
That list i think was meant to be a spoof.

I was thinking more of this......

Bruton, Richard, FG: shares and interest in AIB investment fund-Ark Life
Feighan, Frank, FG: shares
Harney, Mary, Ind & Min. for Health: shares
Haughey, Seán, Min. of State, FF: shares
McGuinness, John, FF: Ark Life Investment- (AIB, 3 High St. Kilkenny investment)
O'Keeffe, Ned, FF: shares
Power, Seán, FF: shares
Indirect Interests
Barrett, Seán, FG: Standard Life, AIB bondholder
Dr. Devins, Jimmy, FF: Standard Life, bondholder
Fahey, Frank, FF: Aviva, bondholder
Keneally, Brendan, FF: managed fund in Standard Life and Hib. Aviva (both companies have bondholdings in AIB)
Penrose, Willie, Lab: Standard Life, bondholder
Shatter, Alan, FG: Standard Life, bondholder

I have heard everything from Irish pensions being involved to Noonan (actually i must check the oireahtas members registery of interests just out of curiosity). I know Noonan had German state bonds at one point but sold them i think.

The List by Mr Staines or Mr Fawkes has incorrect names and was presented as being heavily edited anyhow.Whether it was even partially true or not matters little now as it is hardly likely that the original names on the bond indenture still own that debt now anyway.

The names above are from the oireachtas register.

The central bank does not keep tabs on the secondary market activity of these bonds.

A figure from the Central bank in 2008 when the garantee was made held that 23 billion out of 97 billion were classiffied as being held by Irish residents.A list may be based on estimates. So, for example, if an Irish bank issues debt that is held by an Irish resident firm Custodian who manage the payment streams, but the ultimate beneficial owner of the debt (who ultimately gets the coupon payments, etc.) is a German pension fund, then the Central Bank statistics will report the debt securities as being held by Irish residents.

All lists are estimates ..but some are better than others...


The grudge against the ECB is overstated true...Irelands bailout really began a while before the formal IMF bailout.

But the biggest mistake was to give equal blanket garantees to depositors and senior bondholders.

But Yes the ECB DO have legitimate concerns beyond Irish banks.

You stated you feel we can Influence the EU. Really? I have not really seen evidence of that. And if that were true would it be fair even?


Statistics can be a funny game...as regards fisheries for example ...to be honest Irish agencies gathering data don't impress me at all...there is differing criteria for measuring statistics from agency to agency and there is little interest in a lot of data at all to be honest. Even in statistics where there may be great public interest like unemployment in Ireland different govt departments measure this differently and will have different figures...and it is actually legitimate sometimes to use different criteria for gathering data to get an accurate view. These things are not necessarily a science...more an art.

poeticseraphim

People feed junk info all sides into the media and forums . There is bias and agenda everywhere everyone has one.

But a list pulled from an acid dropping right wing libertarian's ass should be scrutinised....

But i would not dismiss all estimates entirely ....

Scofflaw

poeticseraphim wrote: »

You assume a lot. And most of it not true.
No not that.
That list i think was meant to be a spoof.

I was thinking more of this......

Bruton, Richard, FG: shares and interest in AIB investment fund-Ark Life
Feighan, Frank, FG: shares
Harney, Mary, Ind & Min. for Health: shares
Haughey, Seán, Min. of State, FF: shares
McGuinness, John, FF: Ark Life Investment- (AIB, 3 High St. Kilkenny investment)
O'Keeffe, Ned, FF: shares
Power, Seán, FF: shares
Indirect Interests
Barrett, Seán, FG: Standard Life, AIB bondholder
Dr. Devins, Jimmy, FF: Standard Life, bondholder
Fahey, Frank, FF: Aviva, bondholder
Keneally, Brendan, FF: managed fund in Standard Life and Hib. Aviva (both companies have bondholdings in AIB)
Penrose, Willie, Lab: Standard Life, bondholder
Shatter, Alan, FG: Standard Life, bondholder

I have heard everything from Irish pensions being involved to Noonan (actually i must check the oireahtas members registery of interests just out of curiosity). I know Noonan had German state bonds at one point but sold them i think.

The List by Mr Staines or Mr Fawkes has incorrect names and was presented as being heavily edited anyhow.Whether it was even partially true or not matters little now as it is hardly likely that the original names on the bond indenture still own that debt now anyway.

The names above are from the oireachtas register.

But of what value is the exercise, exactly? And by that I don't mean that it's of no value, but that the meaning isn't necessarily obvious. Oireachtas members had bank shares - which would make most people assume they would therefore be "on the side of the banks". But shareholdings were wiped out in the bailout.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The central bank does not keep tabs on the secondary market activity of these bonds.

A figure from the Central bank in 2008 when the garantee was made held that 23 billion out of 97 billion were classiffied as being held by Irish residents.A list may be based on estimates. So, for example, if an Irish bank issues debt that is held by an Irish resident firm Custodian who manage the payment streams, but the ultimate beneficial owner of the debt (who ultimately gets the coupon payments, etc.) is a German pension fund, then the Central Bank statistics will report the debt securities as being held by Irish residents.

That's the now-classic answer to the point that there's no evidence for German bank involvement - it's the best Karl Whelan could do when I asked him, as well. Same for Constantin Gurdgiev.

But...it isn't evidence that there was German bank involvement, is it? It's a way of explaining away the lack of evidence - which still leaves the whole "German banks" claim as based on no evidence to start with. And it would be somewhat more comforting if those trotting out that piece of arm-waving were able to show any examples of what they're claiming - but, surprise surprise, again nobody has done so.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

All lists are estimates ..but some are better than others...


The grudge against the ECB is overstated true...Irelands bailout really began a while before the formal IMF bailout.

It's massively overstated, in my book - all the ECB did was insist that the government not renege on promises it had made. It's entertaining to watch people who whine about the government's broken promises being simultaneously outraged at the ECB's insistence that government promises are kept.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But the biggest mistake was to give equal blanket garantees to depositors and senior bondholders.

Really? Why?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But Yes the ECB DO have legitimate concerns beyond Irish banks.

You stated you feel we can Influence the EU. Really? I have not really seen evidence of that. And if that were true would it be fair even?

Hmm. You're telling me that you've never seen anyone Irish influence the EU? Can you tell me what the government's position on, say, ACTA, was? Or their position on CAP? CFP? What the IFA's influence over the CAP reform process is?

Or do you mean that Ireland does not appear to be steering the current round of political horse-trading?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Statistics can be a funny game...as regards fisheries for example ...to be honest Irish agencies gathering data don't impress me at all...there is differing criteria for measuring statistics from agency to agency and there is little interest in a lot of data at all to be honest. Even in statistics where there may be great public interest like unemployment in Ireland different govt departments measure this differently and will have different figures...and it is actually legitimate sometimes to use different criteria for gathering data to get an accurate view. These things are not necessarily a science...more an art.

Heh - I don't use Irish statistics for fisheries, because of exactly the problems you describe. Come to that I don't use the EU figures, because they're based on ICES areas, not EEZs, which produces the same problems as using BIS figures for bank data. But luckily there is a data set for fisheries which fisheries scientists, policy makers, and civil servants worldwide all make use of - and where it has been possible to cross-check Irish data directly against those figures, they're consistent within a tolerable error range.

And, more generally, while it's vital to understand how statistics are collected and their proper area of application before using them, that's not a basis on which one can simply dismiss the use of statistical information in favour of whatever numbers one personally happens to prefer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Blanket garantee ...EU rules had allowed banks to conceal losses on troubled bank loans previously they had to recogise them straight away after 2005 the banks had to wait until the borrower admitted trouble before it recognised it as a loss..but the time between the borrower admitting and the problem of funding the loan could actually end up being years....audited accounts were misleading ......a blanket garantee decision was based on figures when in fact it was probale the banks had not even recognised what their losses were and might not for years...it relied heavily on accounts prepared under flawed eu rules...emphasis was given more to accounting figures than to the economics of any dealings which might have shown deep flaws

The IASB who were the ones behind 5the EU rules gave assurances theflaw did not exist.they said the rules had not made this oversight....but the British house of lords ruled otherwise..

British financial law is quite strong and a lot of bondholders insist that legally transactions take place in London so they have that assurance.

These accounting rules are still in place today ....and clean audits are therefore misleading even now ..due to an accounting error forced by accounting law

Bankers are unwilling to even trust each other knowing the error exists
One regulator stated
“As with other regulators worldwide, the Central Bank used audited financial statements as a primary tool in its supervision of regulated firms.” Despite receiving “clean” audit reports, they were “under-providing for impairment”.

By impairment they mean unregcognised losses....

A UK report stated
“not identifying the accounting standard as the root cause of the initial phase of the banking crisis has led to several misdiagnosis”.

In the report Anglo Irish topped the list with losses due to error relative to it's size with Allied Irish second...

So that is IASB mechanical regulation or law....but Irish company law is different and does not permit banks to give audits that do not recognise these losses..whether or not they require Irish auditors to tell Irish regulators is unclear

But the main point is legally their asses aren't covered...

ANd these accounting rules are contrary to EU and Irish articles

These accounting rules which in effect force huge accounting errors are still in place TODAY
Irish AND British regulators are now ignoring published accounts and audits..(what the heck they are going on now i dont know)

Losses were going on for possibly years...and economically the signs must have been there...

My issue is this ...these were not Irish company rules ...but eu wide rules...will banking union really help??

That is why the blanket garantee was a mistake..

Infact thats a lot to do with the banking crisis
..it does not distinguish between those who took riskier investments than those who did not....the moral issue of putting money into insolvent banks ...that should be wound down....

One key issue is this......... Irish accountants SHOULD have been and WOULD have been aware of Irish Company law ......it is my opinion..that they willfully ignored it to take advantage of this legal loophole that allowed them to hide huge losses...


This had been going on since 2005...and these rules are still in place...

poeticseraphim

When the Blanket garantee was given without stipulation to depostors and bondholders it agreed not just to cover the banks capital etc but also these losses and infact future losses.

There was then no incentive to start recognising them at all. So they just continued to go on. The open ended liquidity and the endurance of the same regulations a blanket garantee for depositors and creditors etc meant they just kept on going and incurring this losses and never recognising them or publishing them as they had done and costs rocketed further. They never gave their banks a true audit. The only real way they would have been fortced to recognise those losses due to huge errors they continued to make is if it had been stipulated that they would not be covered under the garantee or at least from when it happened. That losses would have to be incurred and recognised.

They had no incentive as now they were in effect no longer private banks and had this blanket garantee ..open ended liquidity....extending the lines of credit enevitably prolonged the crisis and cost more.

They poured money into insolvent banks without figuring out why they were insolvent and not figuring out how deceptive the audits were. They should have not extended lines of credit to cover all losses and insisted that the losses be recognised as they occured and that they would not cover them. If covered the bank had no reason not to want to suffer a real audit. It would change it's rating etc.

They should have limited liquidity and not extended blanket garantees. They continued to let the banks operate without sufficient capital.

The thing is ...the economic evidence of transactions was there...economists must of looked at the info and the audits and thought the audits were not real ..the accounting information was not there ..but other economic info apparantly was.

They should have not allowed regulations to continue which allowed banks to operate without sufficient capital and then forced them to acknowledge the losses on loans promptly and sort out recapitalisation.

It was operating under EU regulation rather than Irish company law that enabled the huge errors to take place.

So whatever about banking union if the regulations are not accurate from EU structures it does not help..

poeticseraphim

As regards what prompted a bank garantee of that nature i don't know stupidity foreign pressure who knows.

It is unreasonable to assume there was not substantial foreign money in Irish banks there is foreign money in all banks. However it was not cheap money...whether the systemic nature of the crisis made the EU feel they had to extend lines of credit i don't know ....but holding to the ban garantee if the EU did enforce that after it was made was the wrong decision...it prolonged the crisis and the cost grew as they banks still had no incentive to recognise those losses and audit accordingly and then the misstrust set in in the markets. The eu insisting the garantee be held too worsened the issue without insisting on a correction to the regulation. By extending credit though the contagion issue was not dealt with.

The regulatory error is still there they still don't recognises losses sometimes for years throught the eu ...that is why it is not just Euro countries ..and they continue to make the same mistakes....






:):):):):):):):):):):):)

The list of interests from the oireachtas

It is actually only a fragment .....some are shares some are bondholders. It was just before the bailout shares had not been wiped out yet...thats the point ....but this people allowed the banking system to get wildly out of control fr a while in the lead up to the bailout and i wondered why. The years that lead up to it concern me most. Why was the banking culture the way it was? And why was the issue hidden ?? What had people to gain or lose by hiding it. Did they not want banks to be downgraded or losses to show? Who knows....

Possibly it was just a HUGE systemic error followed by stupidity from the ECB in continuingthe lending and in the Garantee and extending lines of credit.

It would be unreasonable to assume that there was no foreign investment (there obviously was the EU banking sector is interlinked ) and that the fear of contagion did not enter into it. Otherwise why bail us out at all? And in that case the Irish taxpayer is simply paying out to themselves. It would make no sense.

Lending from the ECB had gone up hugely in the lead up to the bailout. There was foreign investment involved.

Both economists you have mentioned well ....Constantine Gurdgiev is quite frankly nuts ...Karl Wheelan his lap dog....


Why are you bringing in Acta and the common agricultural policy into this???

The CAP is for the whole of the EU it has been needing reform for years and probably stopped Ireland from fully exploiting the ag sector with it's subsidies. But it suited the farmers and other EU countries too....I am actually not a big fan of the CAP at all...for years i got into huge arguements with people ....subsidising farmers at that level with the level of production they were sometimes performing was crazy ( and i am usually pro funding ) , I actually believe it held our industry back. I am usually unpopular for this stance but i am not a fan of the cap .Reforms mirror what is needed accross the EU thats the only reason it's happening....and it is going to take decades...trust me....IFA has really no more influence than others ...they were just given way more money for making way less stuff....which in the end actually has hurt the industry


Acta? Really who cares?? Is it that big a deal??

It was defeated in the EU parliment ...Irish govt supported it ....

Please if you talk about fisheries thats it game over.....just no not going there..please noooooooooooo

Sorry about the number of posts