news
and comment
|
for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above) recent economics articles: |
I advise you take some of Ben Bernanke’s
comments with a sack of salt.
the web address for this article is | ||
will ireland accept the stitch up? Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s analysis gets ever closer to my own. ☺
related material
the web address for this article is | ||
any remaining power of the eussr central bank is based entirely on bluff It just requires one of the PIIGS to stand firm, and the euro looks highly unstable.
For those who whine about David Cameron, what would you do if you were a highly able politician and you saw the EUSSR moving further and further into cloud cuckoo land? What would you do? Why waste political capital when it may well be unnecessary?
Of course, Heffer misses the real point as usual. Ireland has fought for independence for 800 years, and not with student marches. And I doubt others will go quietly as they grasp the realities.
the dodgy, tottering euro - how international inter-bank loans work Very crudely, A owes B owes C owes A. If anyone in the circle cannot pay, for example C cannot pay A, then A cannot pay B and B cannot pay C. This is called systemic risk. The European banks are linked in much more complex circuits of this type. If you really want to get into this more deeply, it will help if you acquaint yourself a little with fractional banking. If the web of debt involved banks alone, systemic contagion can be controlled by a central bank feeding banks in trouble, using printing presses. The politicians in that country cannot afford millions of voters losing their money. So the politicians tend to guarantee ‘small’ deposits of the masses. (A crude form of insurance is usually paid by the banks out of profits, but if the banking collapse becomes big enough and dangerous enough, the insurance quickly runs out.) Because the banks know that the government will have bail them out, they tend to take ever bigger risks (this is called moral hazard.) The alternative is for the government to let a bank fail. But, of course, this still leaves other banks; that are owed money by the bank that fails; holding the baby, and generating a cascade of failures. Now, the euro is a complete mess, one might almost call it a piigs ear. There is no serious supervision, the criteria that supposedly rule ECB decisions have been widely ignored by governments throughout the EUSSR. So far, we have referred to the problem
of systemic inter-bank breakdown. To complicate matters still further, banks work across borders. For example, large British banks have funded huge cross-border loans, lending in the region of £100 billion into Ireland. So if the Irish government goes into default, Britain could find itself another £100 billion short. The British state has a very large interest in stopping Ireland and its banks defaulting. That is what is behind the British government’s offer to help Ireland out of its mess. The ECB and the IMF, if they bail out Ireland, will demand their pound of flesh in terms of control over the Irish economy, and so over the Irish state. After fighting for freedom for over 800 years, this is not welcome. But the ECB cannot afford to let Ireland crash and burn. So here is the kicker: Ireland can sit there, refusing to accept terms and the ECB has virtually no choice but rescue them anyway, unconditionally. And the moment that any of the PIIGS decide to exercise this nuclear option, the euro will be seen as the house of cards that it is. Watch this space. related material end note
the web address for this article is | ||
the death throws of the eussr euro? Scan recommended.
That is, indeed, truly madness.
the illegitimate euro - more repression or retreat from the euro?
the web address for this article is | ||
fossil media bleating again - missing the fundamentals of economics in the real world
Who cares about ‘balance of payments’ deficits? So Missus Sawkins buys a Chinese car? She very likely borrows from a UK bank to pay it off.. The banks make a profit, the Chinese get more noodles. Who loses? Either Missus Sawkins can pay the debt off, or otherwise.
Clearly, the last government will not care or they would not have been taxing the UK manufacturers out of business. If Missus Sawkins stops buying Chinese cars, that will not produce more jobs in the UK. If all the Missus Sawkins stop buying Chinese cars, then the Chinese will stop eating noodles. Of course, we could build an iron curtain and stop Missus Sawkins buying what she wished. Aat least then the cult socialists would be happy. Perhaps the Micronesians will buy some Scotch whisky and sell some sushi to the Chinese, so at least they won’t starve.
the web address for this article is | ||
You are here: economics news from November 2010 < News < Home |
latest | abstracts | briefings | information | hearing damage | memory | France zone |
email email_abelard [at] abelard.org © abelard, 2010, 9 november variable words |