[AmeNoJaku]

Sorry, but I can not address everything here, I'll try though as many as I can...

Originally Posted by willx

So, I addressed each of my responses to separate part of your statements, but you appear to have a rather interesting set of preconceived notions that is clear from your language. I'm curious what these beliefs are founded upon?

Trying to listen carefully arguments from all sides, whether it's current or historical politics. Obviously, I (like everyone) have come to certain conclusions, but in my case, I have been persuaded by strong counter-arguments.

Originally Posted by willx

I work in Finance, I evaluate companies/businesses in financial distress and I'm generally well versed in macro effects and policy impacts on particular markets and businesses. I've also done research on the working papers that resulted in the formation of the EU/Eurozone and how they were adjusted beyond the framework of its initial design to allow countries that would have otherwise not met the initial thresholds.

I guessed as much, your perspective follows the popular beliefs of that sector in the west.

Originally Posted by willx

I personally think the EU, which I mean to also include the concept of the Eurozone or officially "euro area" despite knowing they're different for simplicity's sake, in terms of an economic and monetary union perspective was the dumbest move in the world. The difference is I think it was very stupid for France and Germany as well, despite the benefits to those countries (currency, terms of trade).

I insist on separating the political union from the monetary... The reason is that the political union progressed slowly but steadily before the monetary one, most of the successful policies are also independent from the monetary union. In any case, concerning the monetary union, I disagree that Germany lost from it, Germans did, but their companies and economy bloomed again, after cheap East German cost was running out of steam. For the rest of the countries, it wasn't a bad idea, they could take advantage of it, but should I oversimplify, they made the worse possible decisions.

Originally Posted by willx

Anyways, the idea of taxing all depositors was a bad idea, the structure will likely in coming days be revised to apply a "tax" only to deposits above the statutory insured amount. Ultimately, if the banks were to go bankrupt instead without support only the statutory insured amount would be guaranteed by the government anyway.

Ultimately, I'm unsure of what you believe to be the "ideal" situation with regards to the banking system, global reserve currencies and use of leverage in business. Germany benefited from a weaker currency and thus benefited via trade. Greece and numerous other countries benefited due to an increased perception of safety and thus could borrow and otherwise have terms of international trade beyond its fundamental credit worthiness. Cyprus benefited when it joined as it then shared the same currency as its largest trading partner, Greece, and became ever more a finance gateway between Western Europe and Central Europe. That said, Greece, separate from the EU would have faced financial issues much sooner and without a bail out would have declared cascading private and public bankruptcy. Cyprus as one of Greece's largest trading partners and holder of significant Greek bonds would have faltered as well. Is any of that really in doubt?

I think you assumed some things there... probably it's my fault too making partial statements

Anyway, about the banking system, I think that separating investment and shadow banking from savings accounts, pension funds and low-risk loans. This was actually how banks were operating up to mid-90s. Now shadow banking and high-risk funds shouldn't be insured by states or even allowed to loan states. Now this is simply impossible, not only for Cyprus, but for Germany and the UK, the later in particular is trying to do it for a couple of years now with very little success. In Cyprus they tried to do this overnight, destroying completely the whole country... which makes me extremely suspicious about the ultimate goals in their case.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

That is what I said

Sorry, I misread you there

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

No, is not inflation, is the value of their currency. (Lira I think?), It is like how Americans visit Japan and say "everything is cheap!" because Dollar holds > value than Yen.

So if Greek economy is getting weak, is currency falls, and people will buy greek goods more. The problem is now you are straddled on to a super currency that worth more than the dollar and slightly less than British pounds, your currency cannot depreciate by either design or market force.

Now you are in trouble. You can't just all blame "public sector" for this, especially since public sector also provide services.

Education, trans-national mobility, peace, support programs, social inclusion programs, and a lot more are benefits from the union... agricultural policy was a great idea, but ended up as an expensive and unpopular flop.

The monetary union had the potential for rich countries to benefit form an undervalued currency boost their exports, while poor countries gained access to cheap funds in order to expand their real economy, instead of finance institutions, public sector, land bubble, etc.