Europe: Grimmer by the minute NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- European leaders insist they are making progress on a comprehensive plan to tackle the eurozone's debt and banking crisis. But the details are foggy and last-minute delays suggest that significant disagreements remain unresolved. On Wednesday, government heads from all 27 members of the European Union will gather for a second time, following a summit over the weekend. EU politicians have promised to deliver an ambitious and durable solution to a crisis that poses the biggest threat to the euro since the common currency was launched over a decade ago. "The sovereign debt crisis threatens the very existence of the eurozone," said Howard Archer, chief European economist at IHS Global. "It is therefore absolutely imperative that European policymakers finally deliver a major package." The latest talks have focused on a three challenges: restructuring the Greek government's crushing debt load, strengthening European banks and boosting the effectiveness of a limited rescue fund. While the stakes are high, expectations are dim. It took three months for comparatively modest crisis measures announced in July to be approved by all 17 euro area governments. Some experts have already dismissed Wednesday's meeting as a prelude to the Group of 20 summit in early November, when the world's most powerful leaders will gather in Cannes, France. "We have no confidence at all that the various proposed strategies will provide any effective fix for Europe's ills," said Ian Gordon, an analyst at investment bank Evolution Securities in London. Greece The main issue for Greece is the role the private sector could play in restructuring Greece's debt. Calls have been growing for banks and investors to voluntarily accept larger writedowns, or haircuts, on the value of Greek government bonds. Under a July agreement, bondholders had agreed to a 21% reduction. But the latest estimates suggest that writedowns of 50% or more will be necessary. It won't be easy. Analysts say talks with the Institute of International Finance, which represents the interests of banks that hold Greek debt, have been challenging. Greece: This cannot end well IIF president Charles Dallara said "there are limits" to what the private sector will tolerate as voluntarily, warning that any "unilateral actions would be tantamount to default." Analysts said the writedowns must be voluntary because an involuntary haircut could trigger credit default swaps, which act as insurance policies on bonds. The fear is that reducing the amount of money Greece owes will prompt other debt-burdened nations to seek a similar deal. But economists say there is no way for Greece to get out of debt without some concessions from creditors. Banks European banks need to raise capital reserves to withstand a default by Greece or another euro area government. The tab could total as much as 200 billion. The big question: where will the money come from? Europe bank rescue is not enough EU politicians, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, have said banks should first try to raise capital from private investors before seeking government aid. But market participants are skittish about investing in European banks. In addition, some banks have had trouble raising money to fund short-term needs, and have been elying on temporary liquidity measures from the ECB. Banks that cannot raise money in capital markets should be recapitalized by member state governments, politicians say. Bailout fund The European Financial Stability Facility, a 440 billion fund that was recently empowered to intervene in sovereign debt markets and lend money to governments that need to boost bank capital, is widely seen as inadequate. However, increasing the amount of money the EFSF controls has been ruled out by EU nations. There has been talk of combining the EFSF, which will be phased out in 2013, with a replacement called the European Financial Stability Mechanism. Leaders are also considering a new vehicle to attract private capital from sources, such as emerging market sovereign wealth funds. The IMF may also contribute more money, analysts say. But the talks have so far mainly revolved around ways to enhance or "leverage" the existing EFSF to get more miles out of its relatively limited resources. The fund has already committed loans to Ireland and Portugal. It is also expected to back a second bailout for Greece, originally expected to total 109 billion. Moody's to France: We're watching you In addition to providing loans, the fund has been authorized to lend money to governments that need to inject capital into banks. It also has the power to buy bonds directly from investors. The EFSF is seen as a potential replacement for the ECB as the buyer of last resort for the debt of nations such as Italy and Spain, which are struggling to secure affordable funding. There have been several theories about how to boost the fund's firepower but analysts say a bond insurance scheme is the most likely outcome. The plan is to use what money the fund has left after all of its other commitments to provide a partial guarantee on newly issued government bonds. The goal is to jumpstart the market for sovereign debt by giving investors some confidence that they won't lose all of their money. The need for a large and credible rescue fund is urgent as worries about Italy grow. Italy, the eurozone's third largest economy, has one of the largest bond markets in the world, worth an estimated 2 trillion. While Italy is in much better shape than Greece, the Italian economy has been ailing for years and the nation has debts equal to about 150% of its economic output. That's a recipe for disaster unless the government can force through more austerity and manage to boost economic growth at the same time. To top of page First Published: October 25, 2011: 9:50 AM ET http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/25/new..._crisis_talks/index.htm?section=money_markets No one wants to bear the brunt of the economic pain that is coming. But, it is coming none the less. I doubt the EU will survive this. _
EU Summit Unlikely to Reach Deal: Official Published: Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011 | 10:45 AM ET Text Size By: CNBC.com and AP Twitter 32 LinkedIn Share A European official says there is now serious doubt that EU heads of government will agree on a broad package of financial measures at a summit meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. The official says the 10 EU members who don't use the euro do not want to agree to a bank recapitalization plan unless there's also agreement on increasing the firepower of the EFSF [cnbc explains] , the EU's bailout fund. The person, speaking on condition of anonymity because the negotiations were confidential, says there are doubts that the EFSF changes can be agreed. "It's a real mess once again," the official said. European stocks [.FTEU3 982.57 -6.42 (-0.65%) ] fell further Tuesday afternoon after news that finance ministers in the European Union will not meet before a summit of EU leaders scheduled for Wednesday. The meeting of finance ministers was talked about but never confirmed, sources in the European Council told CNBC. Reuters reported, quoting EU sources, that the EcoFin meeting was cancelled because the details of the issues to be discussed had not been finalized. Euro zone financial officials will still meet ahead of the summit, an EU spokesman told Reuters. http://www.cnbc.com/id/45031099/
The question is how much more can be taken from the poor and given to the rich to keep 'the markets' happy. There's only so long these thieves and their servants in the Liblabcon cabal can hold society to randsom.
This deal will delay the collapse of the euro and the day of reckoning for the European Union. I remember the joy of the Europeans at the deaths of Americans in Iraq. I hate Europeans and wish them catastrophe regardless of the tsunami that will hit America when they fall. Death to Europe.
You made this up at best. If not, explain please! What?! You opened your time-capsule of when you were 20 y.o. and took the LSD you've put in there or something? I think it's sad to witness such anti-Europeanism! Are you jealous or sad or something? My best guess is that you are frustrated because you have figured out that you have immigrated to the wrong place (Aren't you an Asian immigrant or do I have that all wrong?). You would have had a better life here than in the States...
I am white. I married into a superior race. My sons will rule Europeans. I hate Europeans with my entire being.
Albert, would you be so kind as to do me a favor? Specifically, would you be interested in reading Bertrand Russell's The Problem of China? If you have not already done so, I think you would find it not only extremely interesting, but also distressingly prophetic. I just finished it this morning, and your superior race comment made me recall one of Russell's basic tenets in analyzing the China of the early 20th century. In 1920 or so, when the book was written, China apparently still retained a good deal of indigenous culture. That is to say, unlike Japan, it had not adopted Western vices. Russell posited out that, in order for the Chinese to truly retain their culture (which he, like you, considered superior to European culture in many respects) China would have to quickly industrialize and maintain an equilibrium of power in the Far East between the Japanese Empire and the United States in order to prevent being gobbled up by one or the other. Russell wisely surmised that war between Japan and America was inevitable, and that this would end up being disastrous for China, for the simple reason that America would invariably win and that China would be left at its mercy in the Pacific. Although he recognized that America had no territorial ambitions in China, unlike Japan and England, he also acknowledged that it had immense financial interests and feared greatly the Americanization of the Celestial Empire. He feared that what he considered the beautiful anarchy of Chinese culture would be infected with American commercialism and unflinching pragmatism and that all Chinese would be turned into "muscular Christians" who tore down their ancient cities in lieu of the urban planning and the concrete blocks and the YMCAs that America peddled. As an aside, Russell also shared similar concerns vis-a-vis Bolshevism, which he held in contempt but which the Chinese students of the era were very enraptured with. Up until I began reading this book, I was a general proponent of the spreading of Western values. Now, I am not so sure. In fact, I believe that, in the span of 3 days, my entire philosophical outlook has been changed. Culture as we know it is simply a superficial gloss anymore, it would seem. After consideration, it would appear to me that the Chinese are no longer the Chinese. They have taken up the avarice and busybodyness of Americans, the central control of the Bolsheviks, the sterility and mindlessness of both, and have retained the dumb complacency with all this which was one of the few critiques that Russell levied against them. This may be brushed over with calligraphy, and with a propensity for frugality, and other things that the West doesn't know, but I cannot help but feel that China has lost itself entirely, having read the book, as I'm sure the author would have as well. Perhaps I misunderstand. Perhaps there is more Sinocism lying underneath than I am able to apprehend; perhaps this is merely another example of absorbing and placating foreigners exerting themselves upon China, as the country has traditionally done. But I am plagued with doubts. I just watched an MSN documentary on the rise of China, and, as has become customary, many of the Chinese interviewees had adopted Western names. This in and of itself is, of course, sacrilegious, but even more so when you consider that one of the names was "Dollar." Surely something else, something more deeply rooted than just another absorption of the proverbial Manchu has occurred. I fear that American commercialism may have done what all the powers of the world and all the centuries of history have been unable to do: destroy the Chinese soul. Russell also felt that if the Chinese were unable to preserve their culture, they would not be worth "saving" and that they were useless to the world. I am curious as to your thoughts on all this...
Oh unbelievable. I wrote a response to your post, Plymouth and it took a good few minutes. When I hit post, it disappeared into the ether. The tech issues are no longer funny.
Hahaha...you are funny Al. None of you is white, btw. You are Amurcan tan or darker and evolving every day into people whose skin protects them from their climate's sunny rays. Scottish people and northerners are white, like milk...(it's not v attractive in reality)
I had the same problem... I wonder what the webmaster does with the $500 that is donated monthly... Anyways -- I'm really disappointed in Plymouth and his comments made me feel a bit sad today.
Well, just your China comments and your post in the Greenspan thread that you don't want Europeans to be your friends...
What about them? That's not what I said. I said I don't want an alliance with Europe. If I were European, I would not want an alliance with the US either. In fact, I believe Europe, as far as the political standing of its population is concerned, is in a better position to advocate the type of viewpoint that I am coming around to, which is basically the destruction of globalism (NOT to be confused with the destruction of multi-lateralism -- although, you could argue that the US has already done that!). I doubt very much that your governments will be interested in that, though, especially those like the French and the British. Certainly America would scoff at the idea, as our financiers run the whole crooked affair.
Virtually the entire American right is hostile to Europeans. European leftists hold us in such contempt that we now include all Europeans in our reciprocal hatred for you. The day will come when Europe again asks for American help. We can't wait for that day and the opportunity to spurn Europe.
Cultures and civilizations operate at many levels. The Han, and that is who we are really talking about, were very self-satisfied with their culture. They still are. Experience taught them that theirs was the Middle Kingdom around which everything revolved. They had aborbed wave after wave of nomads, barbarians, free booters, and conquerors. In each case the interlopers were Sinicized. The Han were not only the masters of the Chinese heartland, but also often they were the masters of tributary states such as Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. In the early fifteenth century the Han, in the form of the Ming Dynasty, sailed the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean all the way to East Africa. If they had continued on that path Ming Dynasty junks would have sailed into the ports of Europe before the time of Prince Henry the Navigator. But they did not continue down that path. Instead they made one of the greatest geopolitical blunders in human history, and they paid for it for a very long time. The Ming turned inward and burned the logs of the voyages of Admiral Zheng He. About ninety years later the first of the Europeans sailed into Chinese waters and changed Chinese history. The Han could not adapt to this altered state of affairs. Even the Qing replacements of the Ming could not adapt. There were divisions at court about whether to adopt the new Western ways or to continue as they had before. They decided to continue. They met defeat after defeat. The Han did finally adapt the concept of the nation state in theory, but devolved into warlordism. It took a group of Han who were prepared to adopt the theory of Marx, and the prinicples of Leninism to change the course of China. Mao's great accomplishment was to apply Marxist-Leninism to a rural peasant population and to drive out the last of the foreigners. But that doesn't change the fact that the Han had to adopt a foreign ideology to regain their independence. The beauty of Han culture is marred by the deficit in religion and political theory. After the Cultural Revolution Deng Xiaoping adopted a form of capitalism and grafted it on to Leninism. That is where the Chinese Communist Party is today. Despite having a culture that binds the people together, China has not truly had any great political philosophers since Confucius and Mencius. Today China is held together by a ruthless authoritarian Party, fierce nationalism based on a sense of grievance, and crass commercialism. There are at least one hundred million Christians in China. The Chinese people yearn for something to believe in. If history teaches us anything it is to expect the unexpected.
Plymouth, China is nothing to aspire to, and their society's certainly isn't! Not to mention that Chinese folks seek nothing less than to be European and look American...
Not anymore, certainly. But at one point they had some excellent cultural qualities to aspire to. I would suggest you read the book as well -- it's very interesting. Right, which I'm quickly finding issue with.
Plymouth, you would be a very good Belgian for sure! I'm sure you would love it here. Why read an entire book, when Flemish TV airs segments about this problems on China every other month on the newsbroadcast, the news analysis program or a foreign documentry?! Chinese are to blame themselves, e.g. they erected a statue of Confucius of about 10m high. It was seen as a rehabilitation of Confucius. Then, overnight, the statue dissappeared after 4 months. Hello?
Sorry, but I very much doubt that Flemish broadcasters could have anything on Russell. Or any intelligent author, really. Reading gives one time to absorb arguments and ponder, and the message is often delivered in much more high-minded manner. Besides, there is nothing better than reading old books -- one often comes across little facts deemed obtuse or inconvenient by modern historians. I'm not really sure what to make of that. But I think that the commercialistic side of the Chinese -- the side that has become obsessed with pursuing material ends -- is most certainly America's fault. This global liberalization, commercialism, and interconnectivity that we've pushed is our equivalent of empire.
Yes. But what choice did they have? None really. Adapt or die. Those are the rules. It's the same choice made by the Persians after the Arab conquest.
