Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry

Thanks for that, it really adds to the discussion....

filbert wrote:Thanks for that, it really adds to the discussion....

I have been to France many times, I also have many friends that are french.

I know this is a serious discussion, but it could use some lightning up?

Alexzandvar wrote:

filbert wrote:Thanks for that, it really adds to the discussion....

I have been to France many times, I also have many friends that are french.

I know this is a serious discussion, but it could use some lightning up?

So does that make it OK to post a racial slur but then say 'some of my best friends are black'? Please don't use the Sepp Blatter defense....

This is an emotive enough topic as it is without resorting to lazy national stereotypes and tired jokes.

filbert wrote:

Alexzandvar wrote:

filbert wrote:Thanks for that, it really adds to the discussion....

I have been to France many times, I also have many friends that are french.

I know this is a serious discussion, but it could use some lightning up?

So does that make it OK to post a racial slur but then say 'some of my best friends are black'? Please don't use the Sepp Blatter defense....

This is an emotive enough topic as it is without resorting to lazy national stereotypes and tired jokes.

I edited the post, looking back on it, it was in bad taste.

I'm sorry

SilverMK2 wrote:

Sonophos wrote:I would propose a world wide mutual right off to present value (the value of debt for the purposes of trading) of all national loans. After all if you owe me 15 and I owe you 10 wouldn't we call it 5. At least then we would get an actual honest idea of what is owed to whom.

As much as that would be nice, it is just way too complicated to do that, with various loans being from consortia of nations or institutions, offset against different things, with different rates of repayment, different borrowing periods, etc.

What they really need to do is refinance with Ocean and turn all their debts into one single easy monthly repayment...

Hence why I would propose using the present value as the bench mark for valuation. Any conditions other than interest could be construed as international bribery.

The Nations that are in in real trouble tend to be the ones that don't have a strict enough metod of personal income reporting and/or tax collection.

Oh, hasn't Austerity solved all of this yet?

I believe only 1 of 3 ratings agencies downgraded France. That may change.

Are these the same rating agencies who told everyoen that Mortgage Backed securities were the bee's knees and were very safe? The ones who rated the banks that had billions in "toxic" assets as very highly rated? Their rating means nothing anymore, I bet Investors barely even listen to them now days.

Easy E wrote:Their rating means nothing anymore, I bet Investors barely even listen to them now days.

The rating does still mean "something". Obviously the ratings agencies still have a lot of credibility issues given how they've missed every single significant event of the last 3-4 years. But markets will react to them. I think how gentle the sell-off has been so far in Eurozone financial markets simply shows how systemic weakness has already been priced in. Once again, the markets were there first.

As much as that would be nice, it is just way too complicated to do that, with various loans being from consortia of nations or institutions, offset against different things, with different rates of repayment, different borrowing periods, etc.

The big issue is that banks hold much of the debt. You write down all of the debt, and the banks suffer huge balance sheet losses. Then some banks go down, other banks need to increase reserves (cash) by selling assets, making fewer loans, and it's generally terrible times all around as the Eurozone hits recession. This is exactly why there's been so much can-kicking from Merkozy on this specific issue.

sourclams wrote:
The big issue is that banks hold much of the debt. You write down all of the debt, and the banks suffer huge balance sheet losses. Then some banks go down, other banks need to increase reserves (cash) by selling assets, making fewer loans, and it's generally terrible times all around as the Eurozone hits recession. This is exactly why there's been so much can-kicking from Merkozy on this specific issue.

Not really. The amount of money that European banks have invested in risky government debt is tiny compared to how much was lost in the credit crisis. A default on debt would be a shock to the system, but it wouldn't bring the European economy crashing down by a long stretch.

Now add the two together as the "Toxic" asset issue has never really been resolved either.