Cyprus bail out deal

shedweller

^^^^^^^
The same should apply to the bondholders then.
(That was in reply to hoodwinkeds post above)

Rightwing

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shrug - I can't see why it wouldn't be called capitalism. It's not left-wing because the reason banks are being protected is that they are market utilities, and the market is idealised as the way to provide the best outcome - that's right-wing pro-market thinking, although obviously, since a government bailout is involved, it's not free market thinking either.

A properly left wing response wouldn't involve saving the banks at the expense of the taxpayer, because in a proper left wing schema the banks are little more than parasites on the wealth of others.

None of which is relevant to my original comment that European governments are favouring austerity and fiscal discipline as a response to the crisis because they're mostly right of centre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The reason the banks are protected is because they are of systemic importance to the economy. If they collapse, an economy will collapse. Any sane government will protect them, now take the automobile industry, that's where your point is more valid.

As for austerity, the governments (whether they are left or right) have little choice on the matter, take France, Hollande's socialist party, the market is forcing austerity on them and on the EU because debt is getting to unsustainable levels.

The same will happen to the US in the not too distant future.

Austerity is the future regardless of left/right governments.

makeorbrake

hoodwinked wrote: »

but aren't customers also taking a risk by leaving their money in that business/bank?

Well, this is the crux of it. Why should it be accepted that they are taking a 'risk'? Do countries and governments not aspire to a more equitable outcome?

hoodwinked wrote: »

do they not benefit from good interest rates on their accounts in the good times?

Keeping money on deposit is (or should be!) a 'risk off' position - particularly so when you have a bank guarantee in place. By repackaging this as a 'tax', they are getting around this - but to any ordinary decent individual, that action morally doesn't stand.
As regards interest rates, you couldn't possibly suggest that the low level upside of deposit interest rates justifies placing deposit holders in the position of having their capital seized.
Most people kept money on deposit here in IE over the last couple of years on the back of the bank guarantee. This proves just how misplaced our collective thinking was.

hoodwinked wrote:

and if they did just throw it in there assuming things to stay the way they were, their assumptions and incompetence are being punished via this tax.

Ok, of course. They are "incompetent" for trusting the establishment when it said it guaranteed deposits of up to 100K. :rolleyes:

maninasia wrote:

Not all banks are the same, in the case of Cyprus they were offering high interests to attract depositors, they also didn't ask many questions about where the money came from.

In the case of dirty money, that may be - but that still doesn't justify the theft of ordinary decent peoples life savings.
As regards interest rates, is this not where regulation should come into play? If your saying those rates were unsustainable? How is an ordinary joe supposed to determine this? Deposit rates have been higher in Ireland over the last couple of years. Does that make all irish deposit holders fools? Lastly, I come back to the point that customers were given the assurance of a guarantee on funds of up to 100K. You think this played a part in the decision making process in this regard?

Scofflaw

Rightwing wrote: »

The reason the banks are protected is because they are of systemic importance to the economy. If they collapse, an economy will collapse. Any sane government will protect them, now take the automobile industry, that's where your point is more valid.

As for austerity, the governments (whether they are left or right) have little choice on the matter, take France, Hollande's socialist party, the market is forcing austerity on them and on the EU because debt is getting to unsustainable levels.

The same will happen to the US in the not too distant future.

Austerity is the future regardless of left/right governments.

"Any sane government will protect them" is a statement that only reflects the extent to which economic thinking is now dominated by a pro-market slant. A genuinely left-wing response would not include saving banks because they're vital to the functioning of the economy, because the economy they're vital to is a market economy, which is not regarded by left-wing thought proper as something self-evidently requiring saving.

We now think of "left-wing" as a political stance that seeks to soften and regulate the markets, but that's actually a "left of right" position, not a left-wing one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pipie

hoodwinked wrote: »

but aren't customers also taking a risk by leaving their money in that business/bank?

do they not benefit from good interest rates on their accounts in the good times?

makes sense they'd need to be exposed to the downside risk also?

they never had to lodge their money in those banks, they chose to, there are other financial institutions, or even just hanging onto to the cash in general, they chose to put it into an account with a good interest rate in the good times, they are now in the bad times, they need to account for that too,

and if they did just throw it in there assuming things to stay the way they were, their assumptions and incompetence are being punished via this tax.

You've got it backwards....Ordinary deposit holders are required to have a bank account.
Ordinary depositors are not playing a risk game, they are putting their salaries in, and using the "banking service" to run mortgages, direct debits etc...
It does not matter what financial institution they choose...all institutions are getting hit.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Capitalism is broadly based on creative destruction...so preventing that destruction from happening means that this isnt capitalism. The factors of production werent released from the flawed companies who misused them and went bust. I agree that it isn't socialism either.

What has happened has been described as corporatism...a symbiotic relationship between state and key corporations, accurately I think. I like that definition better.

No, that's just simplistic "bad corporations, fight the man" stuff, reflected in your over-use of the word "elites". Governments bail out banks because banks are vital to the functioning of a modern capital economy - they are the channels through which capital is aggregated from small and large capital owners and provided to capital-requiring enterprises.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rightwing

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Any sane government will protect them" is a statement that only reflects the extent to which economic thinking is now dominated by a pro-market slant. A genuinely left-wing response would not include saving banks because they're vital to the functioning of the economy, because the economy they're vital to is a market economy, which is not regarded by left-wing thought proper as something self-evidently requiring saving.

We now think of "left-wing" as a political stance that seeks to soften and regulate the markets, but that's actually a "left of right" position, not a left-wing one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Governments are markets are becoming one. And it will ultimately be the market that calls the shots as the governments become more bankrupt.

I've no problem with a bank being left to fail, but I can't see how any government of any persuasion could let all banks fail. That's the problem.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's just simplistic "bad corporations, fight the man" stuff, reflected in your over-use of the word "elites". Governments bail out banks because banks are vital to the functioning of a modern capital economy - they are the channels through which capital is aggregated from small and large capital owners and provided to capital-requiring enterprises.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course banks are vital. No one denies that. That doesn't mean that an individual bank in a small country like Ireland is too big to fail. If all the banks were allowed to fail in Ireland, they'd go into bankruptcy and someone would move in and take the over at a price that makes sense to them.

hundreds of banks have entered into bankruptcy in the last few years in the US. Their assets move from weak hands to stronger hands at a price that makes sense to the acquiring bank. There is true price discovery. This process has happened since the earliest days of banking. Now...THAT is capitalism.

Also, you significantly underestimate the political capital that banks have IMO.

Well, it's looking like the tax will be defeated in parliament. What will this mean for Cyprus, is the question. Tomorrow will be another bank holiday, we can presume.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Of course banks are vital. No one denies that. That doesn't mean that an individual bank in a small country like Ireland is too big to fail. If all the banks were allowed to fail in Ireland, they'd go into bankruptcy and someone would move in and take the over at a price that makes sense to them.

hundreds of banks have entered into bankruptcy in the last few years in the US. Their assets move from weak hands to stronger hands at a price that makes sense to the acquiring bank. There is true price discovery. This process has happened since the earliest days of banking. Now...THAT is capitalism.

Also, you significantly underestimate the political capital that banks have IMO.

I don't ignore it (although I didn't mention it), particularly since that was such a large part of the regulatory problem here, but their political capital comes from the fact that they're vital to the functioning of a modern capitalist economy. Bank deregulation was predicated on the idea that with less regulation banks would be better at capital allocation within the economy, because the freer the market the better - again, a right-wing idea, but one which ignores the fact that banks invent their own market rather than being simply channels for capital/enterprise matching.

As to the "hundreds of banks in the US" - the banks that have been allowed fail are tiny, and the vast majority of them were bought by other banks, not always totally voluntarily. No bank larger than the EBS has been allowed to fail in the US in the crisis.

We don't have hundreds of tiny banks, though, in any case. We have four big ones, two of which constitute most of the domestic banking sector. Apples and eggs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't ignore it (although I didn't mention it), particularly since that was such a large part of the regulatory problem here, but their political capital comes from the fact that they're vital to the functioning of a modern capitalist economy. Bank deregulation was predicated on the idea that with less regulation banks would be better at capital allocation within the economy, because the freer the market the better - again, a right-wing idea, but one which ignores the fact that banks invent their own market rather than being simply channels for capital/enterprise matching.

As to the "hundreds of banks in the US" - the banks that have been allowed fail are tiny, and the vast majority of them were bought by other banks, not always totally voluntarily. No bank larger than the EBS has been allowed to fail in the US in the crisis.

We don't have hundreds of tiny banks, though, in any case. We have four big ones, two of which constitute most of the domestic banking sector. Apples and eggs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You can't be serious. Wamu was allowed to fail...$300bn in market cap...so you're just plain wrong there. IndyMac was about $30bn...another dong.

The political capital issue isn't specific to Ireland, its global. The idea of TBTF or is nothing but banking propaganda. Large banks fail all the time.

You seem to think that that if BOI, AIB etc were allowed to fail, that no-one would have come on and bid on their good assets. Is that what you are saying?

oscarBravo

Amberman wrote: »

You seem to think that that if BOI, AIB etc were allowed to fail, that no-one would have come on and bid on their good assets.

You seem to think that if they were allowed to fail, there would have been no negative consequences for the wider economy or government finances.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

You can't be serious. Wamu was allowed to fail...$300bn in market cap...so you're just plain wrong there. IndyMac was about $30bn...another dong.

WaMu was sold to JP Morgan, IndyMac largely to OneWest. That's the point - no bank over a certain size was just let fail, they were bought - which is what I said.

The political capital issue isn't specific to Ireland, its global. The idea of TBTF or is nothing but banking propaganda. Large banks fail all the time.

You seem to think that that if BOI, AIB etc were allowed to fail, that no-one would have come on and bid on their good assets. Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that because there was no Irish bank big enough to do it, there was nobody the Irish government could lean on to buy them out, and that rescue by another bank is pretty much the only alternative to government rescue that governments will accept for larger banks. Only small banks actually fail like normal businesses. If you read through the crisis list of failed US banks, you'll see that pattern very clearly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

carpejugulum

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Any sane government will protect them" is a statement that only reflects the extent to which economic thinking is now dominated by a pro-market slant. A genuinely left-wing response would not include saving banks because they're vital to the functioning of the economy, because the economy they're vital to is a market economy, which is not regarded by left-wing thought proper as something self-evidently requiring saving.

We now think of "left-wing" as a political stance that seeks to soften and regulate the markets, but that's actually a "left of right" position, not a left-wing one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's pretty meaningless to talk about left and right.

Socialism and corporatism go hand in hand and are promoted through populism. Both erase personal freedoms claiming that there are some magical people who know better how to lead your life than you.

Amberman

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to think that if they were allowed to fail, there would have been no negative consequences for the wider economy or government finances.

I do believe the consequences would have been less negative had they been allowed the fail compared to bailing them out. I cite Iceland as an example.

asherbassad

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's hardly surprising, surely? Europe is currently dominated by centre-right governments. That means the EU, and most of the Member States individually, are centre-right. The few left-wing governments that are being elected are in a minority, so of course you get protection of the markets at the expense of the public as a general framework, rather than vice-versa.

But the public are the people who voted those centre-right parties into power, and thereby set the tone of the response by their own governments and by the EU. If they're suffering, they need to elect left-wing or centre-left governments, as the French have done, but many have instead gone the other way.

That's largely a reflection of the results of the previous left-wing responses to crises like these, which historically have not been good results, because the response of the left to crises tends to involve killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, whereas the right-wing response doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What you've written there amounts to utter drivel. Trying to explain away these kinds of actions while still being hopelessly trapped inside the left/right paradigm is futile. Meaningless even. Like using fairytales to explain electronics.

Pay attention. Until Sunday all depositors in Cypriot banks were insured for deposits up to 100k euros in any one bank. The solemn governmental promise has shown to be a lie. Plain and simple. The ECB and the IMF demanded this. One thing is for certain, if the IMF and the ECB can void deposit insurance in Cyprus, they can void it anywhere. And if they can void deposit insurance then they can void bond covenants with the stroke of a pen. Nothing is safe now.

The EU, ECB and IMF have just advocated the confiscation of private property for their own indulgence. In case anybody is unclear or vague about this...bank accounts are private property like your car or your record collection or the clothes on your back but the EU just came in and demanded it be taken. Anyone who tries to bury their head in the sand and pretend that this isn't a heist deserves to wake up when he's 70 only to find out that his pension is gone and all he has to look forward to is the soup kitchen and the pauper's grave.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

WaMu was sold to JP Morgan, IndyMac largely to OneWest. That's the point - no bank over a certain size was just let fail, they were bought - which is what I said.



I'm saying that because there was no Irish bank big enough to do it, there was nobody the Irish government could lean on to buy them out, and that rescue by another bank is pretty much the only alternative to government rescue that governments will accept for larger banks. Only small banks actually fail like normal businesses. If you read through the crisis list of failed US banks, you'll see that pattern very clearly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MY point is that other banks buy failed banks...banks in bankruptcy. Their asset don't just disappear. Wamu was a 300bn bank. They were bought for 1.9bn. That's capitalism, with price discovery.

There would have been plenty of banks lining up to buy the good parts of the insolvent banks at the right price. I think the "right price"is where you are confused.

The Irish govt wouldn't wouldn't have had to lean on anyone if they accepted the best price they were offered...again...this is called price discovery. Ofcourse they would have to muscle people if they wanted a price which didn't make commercial sense.

Do you understand the difference?

Sir Oxman

Just in - Cypriot Parliament has rejected the bailout proposals.

asherbassad

Amberman wrote: »

I do believe the consequences would have been less negative had they been allowed the fail compared to bailing them out. I cite Iceland as an example.

You believe that, do you? Please elaborate. EU robs private bank accounts and you give them a free pass because the alternative would have been dire??

Tell you what mate, just give me all your money. It's for your own good. How does that sound?

mickdw

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Just in - Cypriot Parliament has rejected the bailout proposals.

Yes. Would fine geal reject such a deal or rush it through the house?
This will be quite interesting now. Will the banks now open as normal in cyprus? Surely there will be mass withdrawals of cash from the banks as a result of the idiotic announcement over the weekend.

Amberman

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Just in - Cypriot Parliament has rejected the bailout proposals.

If the Troika sticks to its guns and the banks fail, the the bond holders and shareholders get wiped out. All depositors are safe under 100k...not sure about those over 100k. Other banks come in and picks up the parts of the business of the banks in bankruptcy at a price that makes commercial sense. Banks reopen in days.

Of course, this is very unlikely to happen. Zee bond holders must be protected to ensure "stabliiteeeeeee"

Amberman

asherbassad wrote: »

You believe that, do you? Please elaborate. EU robs private bank accounts and you give them a free pass because the alternative would have been dire??

Tell you what mate, just give me all your money. It's for your own good. How does that sound?

Reading is fun...try it!

Sir Oxman

mickdw wrote: »

Yes. Would fine geal reject such a deal or rush it through the house?
This will be quite interesting now. Will the banks now open as normal in cyprus? Surely there will be mass withdrawals of cash from the banks as a result of the idiotic announcement over the weekend.

They would surely choose option 2.


I expect this is what will happen.
Surely this ranks as one of the most stupid, ill-conceved and short-sighted ideas in a time of very many stupid, ill-conceived and short-sighted ideas.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

If the Troika sticks to its guns and the banks fail, the the bond holders and shareholders get wiped out. All depositors are safe under 100k...not sure about those over 100k. Other banks come in and picks up the parts of the business of the banks in bankruptcy at a price that makes commercial sense. Banks reopen in days.

Of course, this is very unlikely to happen. Zee bond holders must be protected to ensure "stabliiteeeeeee"

There's only about €170m in senior bonds, total of something like €1.7bn in bonds all told(see Seamus Coffey). And I rather doubt the Cypriots have sufficient money to fund their depositor guarantee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

asherbassad

Amberman wrote: »

I do believe the consequences would have been less negative had they been allowed the fail compared to bailing them out. I cite Iceland as an example.

Misread your post..thought you were stating that the consequences of not bailing them out would have been dire. Apologies.

oscarBravo

asherbassad wrote: »

welcome to the Fourth Reich!

...where intelligent discussion takes a back seat to stupid Nazi analogies.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's only about €170m in senior bonds, total of something like €1.7bn in bonds total (see Seamus Coffey). And I rather doubt the Cypriots have sufficient money to fund their depositor guarantee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If the deposit holders do get impaired, then maybe people will be more careful about where they put their money in future rather than reply on such "guarantees".

What European sovereign could stand behind their deposit guarantees schemes?

Thats the real scary part in all this.

Bitcoin forever!

darkhorse

Rightwing wrote: »

Austerity is the future regardless of left/right governments.

With that attitude, we may as well just lock up the place and hand over the keys.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

If the deposit holders do get impaired, then maybe people will be more careful about where they put their money in future rather than reply on such "guarantees".

What European sovereign could stand behind their deposit guarantees schemes?

Thats the real scary part in all this.

Bitcoin forever!

No sovereign anywhere could in the event of a systemic failure of all their banks. The guarantees are only meant for the failure of a single small bank.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

According to Zerohedge, Europe is the the area with the biggest exposure. First published a year ago this week...though this is a later article.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-europes-loan-deposit-ratios-look

22 of the 25 most vulnerable banks are in Europe.

Electronic funds transfers to begin in 3, 2, 1...

View

asherbassad wrote: »

Pay attention. Until Sunday all depositors in Cypriot banks were insured for deposits up to 100k euros in any one bank. The solemn governmental promise has shown to be a lie. Plain and simple.

Plain and simple and wrong.

The deposit insurance applies in the event of a bank failing (i.e. effectively shutting its doors).

It does not apply to any taxes or levies that governments choose to introduce while those banks continue to operate.

It is a bit like home insurance in a way. Your insurance may cover you for fire and theft but it doesn't cover you for the government introducing or raising a property tax.

KyussBishop

Scofflaw wrote: »

No sovereign anywhere could in the event of a systemic failure of all their banks. The guarantees are only meant for the failure of a single small bank.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, any sovereigns which control and issue their own currency can, easily enough; agreed though, that any system is ridiculously dangerous/destructive, where banks can freely agglomerate into 'TBTF' systemically dangerous institutions.

hmmm

asherbassad wrote: »

You believe that, do you? Please elaborate. EU robs private bank accounts and you give them a free pass because the alternative would have been dire??

The EU has done no such thing.

The Cypriots need 18 billion euros to prop up their banking system - the system they regulated, which has collapsed thanks to their incompetence (the same as in Ireland).

The EU has offered 10 billion as long as the Cypriots contribute 8 billion.

At any point here the Cypriots can walk away and refuse the offer. They could do an Iceland and allow the banks to collapse, and wipe out a much greater percentage of deposits.

Stop blaming the EU for this. The Cypriots are the ones begging for a bailout, no-one is going to hand them a blank cheque.

touts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Just in - Cypriot Parliament has rejected the bailout proposals.

I presume the EU will now look to threaten and bully until they get to install a technocrat government to force through the deal just as they did in Greece. Of course the complicating factor is this time Russia might have an interest in seeing their own puppet in power. If things fall the right/wrong way Russia could suddenly be back as a major player in European politics. It will be an interesting few days but I fear the interests of German bankers and Russian Billionaires will be put ahead of the needs of the Cypriot people who are now little more than pawns.

Rightwing

darkhorse wrote: »

With that attitude, we may as well just lock up the place and hand over the keys.

I'm very much in favour of austerity. I was calling for it as far as back as 2002. We, or other countries would not be in the mess we are in now if we were prudent. The world needs austerity and I laud the Germans/Dutch/Finns for trying to impose it.

hmmm

touts wrote: »

but I fear the interests of German bankers and Russian Billionaires will be put ahead of the needs of the Cypriot people who are now little more than pawns.

They already have, by the elected Cypriot politicians who decided, themselves, that they were going to tax people with deposits of less than 100k. The Cypriots voted in these people, and again just like in Ireland, they have to deal with the consequences.

woodoo

It will be very interesting to see if they get the bailout anyway now. The Cypriots protested, their politicians heard them and voted no. We handed over most of our pension reserve. We have been too soft all the way.

_Kaiser_

touts wrote: »

but I fear the interests of German bankers and Russian Billionaires will be put ahead of the needs of the Cypriot people who are now little more than pawns.

Why does that sound so familiar.....?

I completely agree though - I expect the EU to now revert to type and attempt to force the "deal" through regardless in the next few days, as it did with Greece and arguably Ireland among others.

Rightwing wrote:

I'm very much in favour of austerity. I was calling for it as far as back as 2002. We, or other countries would not be in the mess we are in now if we were prudent. The world needs austerity and I laud the Germans/Dutch/Finns for trying to impose it.

Ah but it's not austerity is it? It never has been. It's selective austerity, designed to target those who are least able to resist so that the party/gravy train/business as usual can continue for those making these decisions and who are insulated from the effects these measures have.

I find it amazing how the EU supporters on this forum can continue to make their case when almost every month brings us another crisis/flashpoint that pushes it further into the realm of a dictatorship.

How long can this really go on? 6 years on and still no real signs of recovery. How much longer before the increasingly shaky house of cards collapses? I think we're a step closer today myself with this decision.

Chucky the tree

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Why does that sound so familiar.....?

I completely agree though - I expect the EU to now revert to type and attempt to force the "deal" through regardless in the next few days, as it did with Greece and arguably Ireland among others.



Ah but it's not austerity is it? It never has been. It's selective austerity, designed to target those who are least able to resist so that the party/gravy train/business as usual can continue for those making these decisions and who are insulated from the effects these measures have.

I find it amazing how the EU supporters on this forum can continue to make their case when almost every month brings us another crisis/flashpoint that pushes it further into the realm of a dictatorship.

How long can this really go on? 6 years on and still no real signs of recovery. How much longer before the increasingly shaky house of cards collapses? I think we're a step closer today myself with this decision.

The EU asked for no depositers under €100k to be burnt, Cyprus said no. What more do you want?

Rightwing

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Why does that sound so familiar.....?

I completely agree though - I expect the EU to now revert to type and attempt to force the "deal" through regardless in the next few days, as it did with Greece and arguably Ireland among others.



Ah but it's not austerity is it? It never has been. It's selective austerity, designed to target those who are least able to resist so that the party/gravy train/business as usual can continue for those making these decisions and who are insulated from the effects these measures have.

I find it amazing how the EU supporters on this forum can continue to make their case when almost every month brings us another crisis/flashpoint that pushes it further into the realm of a dictatorship.

How long can this really go on? 6 years on and still no real signs of recovery. How much longer before the increasingly shaky house of cards collapses? I think we're a step closer today myself with this decision.

The Eurozone concept is flawed. Austerity is only undoing the damage caused by the Ahern government.

I would urge the US to begin austerity, if Obama keeps going they way he is going he will have them as bad a s Greece.

moon_man

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The EU asked for no depositers under €100k to be burnt, Cyprus said no. What more do you want?

is that per bank account ?

100 k is not a lot of money to any decent sized business , are they supposed to be happy to loose their money

_Kaiser_

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The EU asked for no depositers under €100k to be burnt, Cyprus said no. What more do you want?

What do I want?

How about we stop blindly following the diktats of an increasing undemocratic, unaccountable institution that is pushing more and more of the people it supposedly serves into economic servitude so that "business as usual" can be maintained.

The EU project in its current form has come to its end and it's really because despite linking all their computers and financial institutions together, the average citizen hasn't ever quite bought into the idea - and without that the whole thing was never going to work.

It's time to step back and take stock. Simply put the nations of the EU are still too different and nationalistic to effectively work together - which is why we have tonnes of legislation and red tape, but very little leadership from any of the member states.. and what there is is determined to continue on a path that can only ever lead to failure.

At this point I genuinely believe it's a case of when the whole mess collapses, not if, and just how much damage will have been done before then and what will the aftermath be for those average citizens who will bear it hardest.

hmmm

moon_man wrote: »

100 k is not a lot of money to any decent sized business , are they supposed to be happy to loose their money

Their banking system is bust. They're begging for money. The EU aren't "stealing" anything, they are refusing to write the Cypriots a blank cheque unless the Cypriots themselves also contribute.

Are you happy to pay more tax so that Russian mobsters can continue to get 5% interest by laundering their money through Cypriot banks?

hmmm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

At this point I genuinely believe it's a case of when the whole mess collapses, not if,

The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

_Kaiser_

hmmm wrote: »

The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

Except eventually the wolf did come...

moon_man

hmmm wrote: »

Their banking system is bust. They're begging for money. The EU aren't "stealing" anything, they are refusing to write the Cypriots a blank cheque unless the Cypriots themselves also contribute.

Are you happy to pay more tax so that Russian mobsters can continue to get 5% interest by laundering their money through Cypriot banks?

`for all i know , the story about russian tony sopranos is made up

hmmm

moon_man wrote: »

`for all i know , the story about russian tony sopranos is made up

OK. So can you explain why you think a tiny island in the Mediterranean, with lax regulation of banking and no proper money laundering checks, has a massive banking industry with tens of billions of Russian deposits? You think the Russians said "it's too much effort to do my banking in my local bank, I know, let's put it in a bank in.....(sticks a pin in the map)...Cyprus! Heeeeeyy, all my other friends are doing the same! What a coincidence!"

Amberman

OMG...a big warm thankyou to the Eurocrat confiscators!

Bitcoin is up almost 25% in a day!

Twenty Five Percent...in the last 24 hours!

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg2ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv

Congrats to all Bitcoin holders out there. Good luck Euro holders...:P

hmmm

Amberman wrote: »

Bitcoin is up almost 25% in a day!

Ah yeah, there's the sign of a stable currency. Please, convert my Euros into your libertarian fantasy chocolate money.

Amberman

Hey...you go your way, I'll go mine. Best of luck to you.

PS - What has libertarian got to do with it?