Dijsselbloem: Cyprus deal is template for the future

Dijsselbloem: Cyprus deal is template for the future

www.guardian.co.uk

Eurogroup head Jeroen Dijsselbloem has sent the euro tumbling by declaring that the Cyprus rescue should be seen as a template for the rest of the eurozone.

In an interview with reporters in Brussels after the Cyprus plan was agreed, Dijsselbloem argued that Europe could now take a new approach to tackling struggling banks.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Dijsselbloem, President of Euro Group stated-

"What we've done last night is what I call pushing back the risks.

If there is a risk in a bank, our first question should be 'Okay, what are you in the bank going to do about that? What can you do to recapitalise yourself?'.

If the bank can't do it, then we'll talk to the shareholders and the bondholders, we'll ask them to contribute in recapitalising the bank, and if necessary the uninsured deposit holders."

What's happening is outright theft, anyone with 100,000+ Euro can be taken from, and here we have the head of EuroGroup saying this could be a template for the rest of Europe!

Eurogroup is as explained by wikipedia-

The Euro Group or Eurogroup is a meeting of the finance ministers of the eurozone, i.e. those member states of the European Union (EU) which have adopted the euro as their official currency. It is the political control over the euro currency and related aspects of the EU's monetary union such as the Stability and Growth Pact. Its current president is Jeroen Dijsselbloem.

Why on earth should the people who have money in banks be taken from to cover the failings of the banks?

The Banks will re open on Thursday in Cyprus, what happens is anyone's guess, but this may be a 'template' in more ways than one...





www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Wonderer2012


It's kinda old news hehe:p Its dated from 2 days ago, then they removed his comments declaring he never said it.
RT published the interview transcript today showing he did say it.

If your interested in this stuff you should check ZH, the guy is like a crisis/economy savant or something.

Originally posted by Senduko
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

It's kinda old news hehe:p Its dated from 2 days ago, then they removed his comments declaring he never said it.
RT published the interview transcript today showing he did say it.

If your interested in this stuff you should check ZH, the guy is like a crisis/economy savant or something.

To be honest, I know how it ends. Sometimes I wish they would just get on with it and bypass all the political charades. But of course, the masses need a show and many things need taking care of (Syria etc) before they fully crash the economy/introduce a global currency.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

The same thing effectively already happened here. It was called "the bailout". That was our money and the government gave it to the banks. Everyone further got a haircut as the various markets tumbled and most everyone lost equity from one source or even many. They're stealing from us and telling us about it. We're just fools being run by thieving fools.

Well, just look how those investors (people with big money), get all scared just by someone saying something and so the euro drops!
So far they (the US/EURO) did basicly everything to save the banks whatever, so the 'big money' is happy, with a slight doubt, PANIC!!!!!!!

Only the little guys got hurt so far basicly, but that's no news, is it?

As much as it would seem to be a "theft", in reality, that's the risk of business and investment. If you want to be assured that your money is safe, then you look for those areas where you can deposit your money that are, in fact, safe. There are actually pretty sizable computations that are used to comprehend the risk of a particular investment and when something is risky, it's presumed that the return on it is going to be higher than going ahead and putting one's money into something that has low risk. Basically, higher expected return also means greater risk and the problem with assuming greater risk means that you can lose that money. Part of the reason why the Cypriot banks were so popular, particularly with Russians, was because it was a tax haven. The "return" on depositing money in Cyprus was that lessened taxation in one's home country. However, those who used the Cypriot banks to do so basically assumed the risk of losing their money should something fail.

If the Cypriot banks are privately held and the investments (or deposits) within those banks are also privately held and placed their by choice via the depositors, then why the hell should an entire country and government be penalized for bad choices made by private individuals? They shouldn't. Caveat emptor. Honestly, if we had recognized the fact that the major banks screwed up massively and internationally, perhaps it would have simply been better to let them all fall because, at the end of the day, we would have all still been on a fairly equal playing field.

is it theft?

It was being explained to an irate customer in the local building society the other day, that once a customer deposits their money in the bank......the Money is NO LONGER theirs.

He didn't like that and got crosser but the cashier was right.

So, why do people hand their cash over to strangers?

But is the cash really theirs?

Apparantly not. And so it goes........on and on, the layers upon layers of deception and smoke and mirrors.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
As much as it would seem to be a "theft", in reality, that's the risk of business and investment. If you want to be assured that your money is safe, then you look for those areas where you can deposit your money that are, in fact, safe. There are actually pretty sizable computations that are used to comprehend the risk of a particular investment and when something is risky, it's presumed that the return on it is going to be higher than going ahead and putting one's money into something that has low risk. Basically, higher expected return also means greater risk and the problem with assuming greater risk means that you can lose that money. Part of the reason why the Cypriot banks were so popular, particularly with Russians, was because it was a tax haven. The "return" on depositing money in Cyprus was that lessened taxation in one's home country. However, those who used the Cypriot banks to do so basically assumed the risk of losing their money should something fail.

If the Cypriot banks are privately held and the investments (or deposits) within those banks are also privately held and placed their by choice via the depositors, then why the hell should an entire country and government be penalized for bad choices made by private individuals? They shouldn't. Caveat emptor. Honestly, if we had recognized the fact that the major banks screwed up massively and internationally, perhaps it would have simply been better to let them all fall because, at the end of the day, we would have all still been on a fairly equal playing field.

While your explanation is all fine a good, please explain what happened here in the US. The banks failed and everyone paid, whether or not they even had money in those banks. It was called a bailout to cover what it really was - which was stealing from the American taxpayer and giving it to wealthy bankers under the charade it was saving jobs - yeah it saved jobs for slave labor and kept the rich bankers still collecting their big salaries. No it's law that we must save them for they're too big to fail.

Originally posted by Bilk22
While your explanation is all fine a good, please explain what happened here in the US. The banks failed and everyone paid, whether or not they even had money in those banks. It was called a bailout to cover what it really was - which was stealing from the American taxpayer and giving it to wealthy bankers under the charade it was saving jobs - yeah it saved jobs for slave labor and kept the rich bankers still collecting their big salaries. No it's law that we must save them for they're too big to fail.

That's a strawman as I was talking about the Cypriot banks--not what occurred here in the US. Two different ball games. What occurred in the US was most likely outright fraud being perpetrated on multiple levels, particularly in the housing/mortgage sector and, in some cases, outright theft of property. And yes, our government bailed them out and even if the banks re-paid that bail out, it still has a long last tax effect in the losses that they incurred for the years of their shenanigans can be indefinitely carried over....That could translate into reduced taxes, no taxes, or even, in some cases, tax refunds for these banks that our government chose to bail out. Probably should have put in a little line about how, if they accepted a bail out, they couldn't carry over losses from those years. So actually in total agreement with you on the subject of what happened in the US but above, I was talking about Cyprus.