Off Topic Thread too point uh

awec wrote: »

I'm going to Greece next year on holidays...

Is it one of those house building trips?

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it one of those house building trips?

I believe its known as voluntourism now.

Wang King

Teferi wrote: »

Anyone into bikes? Getting this little nipper when my frame size comes back into stock. From reviews its seems just about the best bike you can get for this sort of money which suits me, biking is awful expensive (and yet cheaper than commuting).

For what it's worth, Argos are doing a full carbon bike at 649 at the moment

mfceiling

I'm about as far removed from the intricacies of economics as one could possibly be, but all along i've reckoned that Greece are in no fit shape to pay down debts or even make inroads into their loans. I even thought with all the best will in the world they couldn't grow their economy quick enough to make any difference in years to come.

Seems that maybe it's true enough...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/30/greek-debt-troika-analysis-says-significant-concessions-still-needed

stephen_n

If Greece goes, Danske bank goes with it and that will take half the banks in Europe with it. They're going to have to find some way to write down the debt and call it something else. Greece will have to end its ridiculous retirement age and start finding some way to tax their wealthy more efficiently.

mfceiling

Read a good article on sunday about how many greek businesses paid their taxes but the tax inspectors skimmed quite a bit off the top for themselves!!

Corruption was rife for years.

awec

Yes, the frustrating thing is to hear that Greek PM go on about losing their dignity but the reality is their pension system is insane.

They can retire at 61 (or younger in some cases)!

Greek voters couldn't care less about Danske bank.

What they need is someone to educate them about the potential pitfalls of a grexit at home. They will be reliant on credit from elsewhere and that will not be cheap. If I was encouraging a yes vote I would be pushing for them to show a documentary about the Weimar Republic!

mfceiling

awec wrote: »

Yes, the frustrating thing is to hear that Greek PM go on about losing their dignity but the reality is their pension system is insane.

They can retire at 61 (or younger in some cases)!

Something like 5% of them in the public service retired before they were 30!!

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Greek voters couldn't care less about Danske bank.

!

Oh I'm sure they don't but Merkel sure as hell does, which is why the EU will push as hard as they can to avoid a default.

molloyjh

mfceiling wrote: »

Something like 5% of them in the public service retired before they were 30!!

How can that possibly be true? I'm really wary of a lot of the stuff I hear about Greece because so much of it is so insanely batsh!t crazy. There were (are?) massive issues in the country but not all the stuff we're hearing could be true.

molloyjh wrote: »

How can that possibly be true? I'm really wary of a lot of the stuff I hear about Greece because so much of it is so insanely batsh!t crazy. There were (are?) massive issues in the country but not all the stuff we're hearing could be true.

They have this mad list of up to 600 professions which are classed as dangerous and allow retirement at 50 e.g. hairdressers being exposed to hair dye.

I've just spent three and a half hours doing my work expenses since the beginning of February, and am facing the same again tomorrow night.

****ing hate admin, upside is all that lovely lolly that I've involuntarily saved the past few months

molloyjh wrote: »

How can that possibly be true? I'm really wary of a lot of the stuff I hear about Greece because so much of it is so insanely batsh!t crazy. There were (are?) massive issues in the country but not all the stuff we're hearing could be true.

It's not a pension. If anything it's for medical reasons. A doctor's note goes a long way...

The youngest people on their pension there are people who were employed before 1992 and served 35 years, they could technically retire at 58, this all according to an Economist article I'm reading. Thats also a retirement on 80% of your salary which is preposterous.

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm about as far removed from the intricacies of economics as one could possibly be, but all along i've reckoned that Greece are in no fit shape to pay down debts or even make inroads into their loans. I even thought with all the best will in the world they couldn't grow their economy quick enough to make any difference in years to come.

Seems that maybe it's true enough...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/30/greek-debt-troika-analysis-says-significant-concessions-still-needed

They have less of an obligation as a % of GDP than Ireland does.

However, they have rampant ineffeciences in their welfare system, and their tax system has a massive hole with conservative estimates of €5bn per year in unpaid tax.

All of the Greek debt was always government debt, racked up through feckless spending over a very long period (there's no bank debt in there for the Paul Murphys of this world to scream about bondholders).

The previous government took a knife to spending in order to meet budget targets (which were necessary in order to be bailed out), they gutted parts of the system that they shouldn't have gone near, and avoided making any real progress on reducing tax evasion and increasing tax reciepts (note, not through raising taxes, but simply by enforcing existing tax compliance!).

Unfortunately the electorate, in an act of desperation more than anything else (understandable I think) listened to the fairytale promises of Syriza, who told them that it could all be different, that Europe could change the targets and allow them to continue retiring earlier than the Germans who's tax euros went directly to cover the Greek bailouts.

The Greek are not to be insulted or castigated over this whole affair, but unfortunately, the path they have desperately chosen has no doubt left lasting damage to both their economic and socio-political environments, and a growing resentment of the people who helped them out.

In short. Ireland's debt costs more to service as a % of GDP. We pay our taxes, so it doesn't feel as bad. If there were €5bn+ of tax evasion each year, you rack up serious debt easily, and when it comes to actually needing that money from your people, they've become extremely accustomed to not handing it over, and it is political suicide for many to point this out.

I thought Greece's backed debt was over 200% of GDP and Ireland's was closer to 105%, IE drastically lower?

Edit: I mean in total obviously, given the cost to service the debt is surely only relevant in cases where it's prohibitive, and we are capable of servicing our current debt?

Headline Debt to GDP is kind of irrelevant, all that really matters is the costs of servicing the debt.

Example, I've a 100bn loan with a 20 year maturity at 5%. This means I pay €5bn each year, and after 20 years, I also pay the capital amount. However, realistically, when it comes to 19.75 years, I issue another 100bn bond and use the money raised to pay for the capital on the previous. The total interest payments are 100bn over the lifetime of the loan.

Another country has a 200bn loan with a 60 year maturity at 2%. They pay €4bn each year and in 60 years the value of money (consider how much 10million was in 1950) is relatively easier to raise to pay off. The total interest payments are 240bn over the lifetime of the loan.

Greek are more like the second example where we are #1. The headline number is only relevant in connection with the %, given that the capital is just rolled over close to maturity.

Both Ireland and Greece are more than capable of servicing their debts. If Greek's paid taxes appropriately, they'd have absolutely no difficulty in meeting their obligations.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I thought Greece's backed debt was over 200% of GDP and Ireland's was closer to 105%, IE drastically lower?

Edit: I mean in total obviously, given the cost to service the debt is surely only relevant in cases where it's prohibitive, and we are capable of servicing our current debt?

Think it's 175% for Greece and about 105% for Ireland this year

http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/debt-projections/

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/government-debt-to-gdp

The difference is that the open markets are now open to us in terms of issuing bonds to get the liquidity to pay the debts/roll them over whereas Greece do not have that if that makes sense?

Deleted User wrote: »

Headline Debt to GDP is kind of irrelevant, all that really matters is the costs of servicing the debt.

Example, I've a 100bn loan with a 20 year maturity at 5%. This means I pay €5bn each year, and after 20 years, I also pay the capital amount. However, realistically, when it comes to 19.75 years, I issue another 100bn bond and use the money raised to pay for the capital on the previous. The total interest payments are 100bn over the lifetime of the loan.

Another country has a 200bn loan with a 60 year maturity at 2%. They pay €4bn each year and in 60 years the value of money (consider how much 10million was in 1950) is relatively easier to raise to pay off. The total interest payments are 240bn over the lifetime of the loan.

Greek are more like the second example where we are #1. The headline number is only relevant in connection with the %, given that the capital is just rolled over close to maturity.

Both Ireland and Greece are more than capable of servicing their debts. If Greek's paid taxes appropriately, they'd have absolutely no difficulty in meeting their obligations.

Did we not renegoatiate our terms downwards to make it more favourable to us tho?

awec

Any truth that all Greece is guilty of is borrowing 50 quid from Wonga in 2008?

thomond2006

awec wrote: »

Any truth that all Greece is guilty of is borrowing 50 quid from Wonga in 2008?

Did you see Tsipras looking at houses in Dundrum today?

Deleted User wrote: »

Headline Debt to GDP is kind of irrelevant, all that really matters is the costs of servicing the debt.

Example, I've a 100bn loan with a 20 year maturity at 5%. This means I pay €5bn each year, and after 20 years, I also pay the capital amount. However, realistically, when it comes to 19.75 years, I issue another 100bn bond and use the money raised to pay for the capital on the previous. The total interest payments are 100bn over the lifetime of the loan.

Another country has a 200bn loan with a 60 year maturity at 2%. They pay €4bn each year and in 60 years the value of money (consider how much 10million was in 1950) is relatively easier to raise to pay off. The total interest payments are 240bn over the lifetime of the loan.

Greek are more like the second example where we are #1. The headline number is only relevant in connection with the %, given that the capital is just rolled over close to maturity.

Both Ireland and Greece are more than capable of servicing their debts. If Greek's paid taxes appropriately, they'd have absolutely no difficulty in meeting their obligations.

But in our case a lot of our rate is from loans post-2008 and a lot of that will be paid down and the rate will fall with that as well, wouldn't it? I completely accept your example except for the assertion atht beginning that headline debt to GDP ratio is kind of irrelevant, and again I'd point to previous historical examples of why it's actually quite dangerous.

The reason our rates are so high is because of the proportion of our debt which was created after 2008. That same ratio was 25% in 2008, it was almost 125% at it's peak. We quintupled our debt during that period and that new debt was all created at a far higher rate than existing debt.
In comparison, Greece's headline debt-to-GDP ratio at the beginning of 2008? 105% coincidentally, all of which was created when there was a lot less heat on them. That was an insane amount of debt for them to have been able to acquire. Rather than being irrelevant the headline figures over time are surely the actual cause of the difference in rates, and an indication of exactly why we're far better off right now. If the Greeks had any inclination of balancing the books they'd probably be paying more for their debt than we are!

Of course there are a lot of other knock-on effects from attempting to maintain a high external debt-to-GDP ratio as well. For example dependency on the availability and stability of creditors.

Peregrine

thomond2006 wrote: »

Did you see Tsipras looking at houses in Dundrum today?

With his poor salary and Dublin's house prices, I certainly hope not!

.ak

Aldo officially out. Mendes instead, they fight for the interim title.

.ak wrote: »

Aldo officially out. Mendes instead, they fight for the interim title.

I wasn't a huge fan of Mendes' last fight with Aldo. Mendes is a good guy though so I'm looking forward to this still. McGregor will have to go back to the drawing board to come up with some midget-related jokes to ensure he remains the most relevant fighter.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But in our case a lot of our rate is from loans post-2008 and a lot of that will be paid down and the rate will fall with that as well, wouldn't it? I completely accept your example except for the assertion atht beginning that headline debt to GDP ratio is kind of irrelevant, and again I'd point to previous historical examples of why it's actually quite dangerous.

The reason our rates are so high is because of the proportion of our debt which was created after 2008. That same ratio was 25% in 2008, it was almost 125% at it's peak. We quintupled our debt during that period and that new debt was all created at a far higher rate than existing debt.
In comparison, Greece's headline debt-to-GDP ratio at the beginning of 2008? 105% coincidentally, all of which was created when there was a lot less heat on them. That was an insane amount of debt for them to have been able to acquire. Rather than being irrelevant the headline figures over time are surely the actual cause of the difference in rates, and an indication of exactly why we're far better off right now. If the Greeks had any inclination of balancing the books they'd probably be paying more for their debt than we are!

Of course there are a lot of other knock-on effects from attempting to maintain a high external debt-to-GDP ratio as well. For example dependency on the availability and stability of creditors.

I think "yes" is pretty much the answer to all of that, and it agrees with almost all I said but has a But to start with? Are you just generally disagreeable? :pac:

I'm certain we're in a better position, we have access to the markets where we have managed to get cheaper financing to make the debt obligations easier. However the Debt Servicing as % of GDP is the important number when considering the fiscal targets. If it's costing you 15/16% of GDP just to stay afloat (service debt) then you are in serious serious trouble.

Greece has a lower one than us (right now). It's not servicing debt that's hurting their economy, it's the structural problems that they almost can't fix now. The '€320bn loan' crushing Greek economy is a great headline, but it's incredibly misleading.

Edit - Link explains it well http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/greek-debt-crisis-not-the-tragedy-were-being-shown-311798.html

Wang King

Balls, got a new Minix box and there's no software on it, anyone installed Genesis before, easy or hard?

Wang King wrote: »

Balls, got a new Minix box and there's no software on it, anyone installed Genesis before, easy or hard?

piece of piss.

tv addons . ag

Install

Configure

done