Patterico's Pontifications

3/26/2013

Cyprus Could Be Taking 40 Percent

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:28 am



Did we say 30 percent? Well, that was then and this is now:

In the €10 billion, or $13 billion, bailout agreement announced Monday, only insured accounts up to €100,000 were protected from taxation to help fund the bailout, with estimates that uninsured depositors with larger accounts could face losses of up to 40 percent.

D’oh!

At least it’s only Cyprus:

Savings accounts in Spain, Italy and other European countries will be raided if needed to preserve Europe’s single currency by propping up failing banks, a senior eurozone official has announced.

D’oh!

The guy has since retracted his statements, so rest easy, Spanish and Italian bank depositors. Your money is safe.

Just remember: the next time they talk about a “haircut,” that thing they’re holding behind their back? Yeah, that’s a set of number one clippers. You’ll get your “haircut” all right. Now hold still.

Thanks to gary gulrud for the second link.

74 Responses to “Cyprus Could Be Taking 40 Percent”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. At least one media outlet suggests that the official — who it described as “Merkel’s pawn” — was actually preparing the EU for similar bailouts in Spain and Italy. The key is that this appears to be what Germany wants.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  3. Forgot the link.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  4. I still think you’re looking at this from a too-critical angle.

    While depositors like to think of their deposits as being ‘their’ money which they can always get in full anytime they like, in reality they’re a trading partner of that bank. Their claim is only as good as the underlying finances of the bank. If they make the mistake of loaning money to a bank that blows it chasing high yields, they should suffer (as opposed to having taxpayers have to cover the losses).

    Absent this ‘rescue’, depositors could have lost more than 40%. It isn’t that Cyprus is ‘taking’ 40%, it is that depositors are getting as much as 60 cents back on the dollar.

    To describe it as you are doing implies that depositors have some god given right to 100 cents on the dollar… and if the bank isn’t able to come up with the money then taxpayers/society/someone else is supposed to. Shouldn’t creditors (which is what depositors are) suffer if they’ve loaned money to someone who for one reason or another can’t pay it back?

    steve (369bc6)

  5. What’s 10% or so among friends?

    dfbaskwill (ca54bb)

  6. Steve: I think the point remains that depositors don’t generally believe themselves to be at risk for this kind of loss, and that the sane and rational response for most depositors facing this kind of loss is to withdraw their money.

    But: widespread withdrawal of money will cause the system to collapse. Which is bad for *everyone*.

    aphrael (c41e1e)

  7. Steve, Isn’t the problem of money being taken from banks to prop up a bankrupt government? Is the one bank that is being shut down really in that much trouble or are they closing the bank to pillage depositor’s accounts to pay for a bankrupt government?

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  8. Aphrael: I agree depositors don’t think they’re at risk, but they should. And the system won’t collapse (although some portions will) as when depositors take what remains of their money from bad banks, and realizing that nobody is going to make them whole, they will put it someplace safer.. for example, banks that don’t chase Greek bonds.

    steve (369bc6)

  9. I know about as much about banking and economics as Winnie the Pooh, who is a bear of very little brain.
    But I agree that people put money in a bank expecting it to be safe rather than having a big return. Certainly this is true when people have CD’s and savings accounts and such in the US in amounts that are insured.
    I don’t know what Cyprus or the Eurozone have that may be like the FDIC (or whatever the organization is now), and whether this new move overrules that, or if there is no such thing.

    Whatever the case, I find it hard to imagine people leaving money in places perceived to be at risk, which obviously risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy and a crash.

    Is there an international equivalent of “Cloward-Piven”?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  10. Tanny: The government may be corrupt, but (I believe) it is the bank that is failing. I don’t think the bailout money or deposits are going to the Cypriot government.

    steve (369bc6)

  11. In most of the western world, the “average” person has been trained for three generations to view bank deposits as essentially safe.

    My expectation is that if that belief is shown to be nonsense, the average person isn’t going to distinguish between good banks and bad banks; they’re going to simply not trust banks *at all*. Not forever, but for a good decade at least.

    If i’m right, that *will* cause the system to collapse.

    aphrael (c41e1e)

  12. #11, Yes, but, first it will cause the price of gold and silver to skyrocket.

    ropelight (75d434)

  13. steve,

    I thought Cyprus has some form of federally insured deposits up to the approximate equivalent of $100,000. If so, then the issue for smaller depositors is the solvency of the government, not the bank. In this case, the government is insolvent so I agree that one could reasonably argue the depositors should have known this might happen. But I also agree with aphrael that it’s not the banks’ solvency that is the real issue for small depositors. It’s the government’s solvency that is the issue.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  14. The Russians (the real target of the exercise) have already pulled a lot of their money from the banks via various back doors. Ya gave ’em too much time.

    So, now you’ve seriously pissed off some very unpleasant and powerful folks, and have squat to show for it.

    Congratulations.

    mojo (8096f2)

  15. Perhaps a sufficient quantity of funds were removed between the proposal and the freezing of transfers that to get the required amount, 40% (rather than 30%) of the funds then available will be required.

    htom (412a17)

  16. Pointing out the obvious here: if you put your money in a bank, you’re not an equity partner in that bank – i.e. you do not get any part of the billion-dollar profits that a bank may make. There is often no “reward” for keeping your money in a bank (except preventing theft, or a measly sub-inflation interest rate), so it’s kind of hard to say that depositors are knowingly taking risks, or are taking risk.

    bridget (55e4a2)

  17. No, you’re not an equity partner, but anytime you give your money to someone else (a bank, a friend, your spouse) you’re taking a risk that they may not pay you back… and I don’t want you looking at me to come up with money to make you whole.

    steve (369bc6)

  18. The government of Cyprus is a majority owner in at least one of the 2 banks. So when that bank is bankrupt, the money comes from the government.

    The 100,000 euro (129k US) deposit insurance is an EU requirement and comes from the government of the country in question. Cyprus is already bankrupt and has to borrow money to come up with that.

    So will ye or nill ye, the money is coming from the government of Cyprus to bolster this failed bank.

    I too have read that the big russian mobster types have already gotten their money out through the satellite banks that stayed open, but that confuses me. If the bank has no liquidity, it has no money, how are they getting money out?

    Doesn’t the guy at the computer at the branch bank try to transfer the funds and get an ‘insufficient funds’ error? Normally, banks auto-lend one another micro-amounts to cover this kind of thing but isn’t that turned off right now?

    luagha (5cbe06)

  19. Didn’t a rich expat russian just end up dead? (by “Suicide”)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  20. In scanning many articles yesterday, I came upon one that said that the Cyprus banks had London and Russian branches that were not closed for business during the recent hiatus, which agrees with #14 and #18. It will be interesting to see if the banks still have $30B in Russian deposits. My guess is that much of this money now resides in non-Euro banks. Which leaves the non-mobile big depositors to take the fall. If the Russian accounts have been swept, then 40% may be too little to cover the Cyprus losses. I do think it would be best if this liquidation went thru the courts as this would perhaps provide a little more visibility. It would also provide some acknowledgement of the rule of law. Granting more and more power to Brussels will prove to be a big mistake, even if it promises to expedite the transition and thus reduce the amount of negative publicity. Which, of course, is all that the political class is concerned with. This will all be forgotten in a few weeks, right?

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  21. 11. My expectation is that if that belief is shown to be nonsense, the average person isn’t going to distinguish between good banks and bad banks; they’re going to simply not trust banks *at all*. Not forever, but for a good decade at least.

    If i’m right, that *will* cause the system to collapse.

    Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:57 am

    It’s now impossible to distinguish between good and bad banks.

    Moral hazard has been baked into the cake for quite a while. The housing bubble was caused because banks were beaten with the stick of “red lining lawsuits” if they didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers, enticed with the carrot of injections of cash from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who’d buy those loans and repackage them in a form that no one could accurately gauge the risk.

    Bit always it was implicit that the feds would guarantee the gamble.

    Now Dodd-Frank expands that guarantee:

    NYT: One Safety Net That Needs to Shrink

    Many Americans probably think the Dodd-Frank financial reform law will protect taxpayers from future bailouts. Wrong. In fact, Dodd-Frank actually widened the federal safety net for big institutions. Under that law, eight more giants were granted the right to tap the Federal Reserve for funding when the next crisis hits. At the same time, those eight may avoid Dodd-Frank measures that govern how we’re supposed to wind down institutions that get into trouble.

    In other words, these lucky eight got the best of both worlds: access to the Fed’s money and no penalty for failure.

    In the past, banks that engaged in risky behavior failed. No more. Really, financial institutions that don’t engage in risky government-backed behavior aren’t maximizing the return for their investors, and conservative bankers are getting squeezed out in favor of the John Corzine’s and the London Whales.

    The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation: London Whale is the Cost of Too Big to Fail

    The conventional wisdom in many circles is that the losses caused by the trades are regrettable but we can all move on. After all, JPMorgan’s equity cushion can readily absorb it. Private shareholders and managers have paid the price – shareholders lost $6bn and several senior managers have black marks against their names. The episode is embarrassing but the bank can earn more than $20bn a year. “A tempest in a teapot,” said Jamie Dimon, its chief executive, last year.

    But before the London Whale sinks from view, consider what would befall a conventional industrial company that suffered such a horrendous, expensive managerial lapse. If JPMorgan were in the business of making things, it would have already attracted significant corporate governance activity. The loss might be the trigger for a takeover and break-up effort.

    It is certainly believed by many on Wall Street and in Washington that banking behemoths such as JPMorgan that deal in complex financial products have become too big to manage effectively. On a conventional analysis, if this were true, breaking them up would unlock shareholder value. The thinking goes that if synergies in the big financials are few and managerial degradation common, shareholders would, in time, have incentives to make that happen. Corporate governance activists have already circled around JPMorgan and other behemoths, thus far to little effect.

    A closer look tells us why they cannot yet succeed in forcing big finance to spin off units to be better run, nimbler, more competitive and more effective in the manner of the big 1980s and 1990s industrial takeovers and conglomerate restructurings. Consider the incentives for restructuring too-big-to-fail financial firms. Suppose active shareholders were to decide that, say, a large bank would be better run if its biggest units were spun off into smaller ones. An active investor – in the mould of Carl Icahn or T. Boone Pickens – might eye up the companies and naively agitate for a break-up. “A company this big and complex can’t be managed well, no matter how good the chief executive is,” they might say. “It is worth twice as much broken up.” But once they began working through the maths of a restructuring, they would find that shareholder values would not shift upwards in the way they might have predicted.

    If the banking conglomerates were carved up into their constituent parts, the individual units would have a much higher cost of capital. Today, when financial conglomerates such as JPMorgan borrow to finance themselves, their creditors know the government will probably pay them back in full even if the bank fails because the systemic economic costs of their failing to do so is too large. Creditors therefore charge the conglomerate less. So the firm’s cost of capital becomes cheaper.

    The dollar estimates of the too-big-to-fail subsidy to the largest banks range into very high numbers. One significant study, by economists associated with the IMF, suggested that banks could borrow 0.8 percentage points more cheaply because of their unshuttable status. The numbers may sound small but this subsidy can readily amount to half of the big banks’ profits. Moody’s, the credit rating agency, estimates Citigroup would be near to junk bond status in credit quality if it were not for the fact that the state is assumed to back it. It is only because lenders lower their interest rate to too-big-to-fail companies such as Citi that its debt is anywhere near investment grade.

    So that’s the choice for the shareholder: they can own a degraded, too-big-to-fail behemoth, but one with a hefty, not fully visible too-big-to-fail subsidy. Or they can have one that is well run, allocates capital effectively and does well by its customers, but does not enjoy the subsidy that creates much of the present shareholder value.

    The Cypriot bailout means we are guaranteed more Cypruses.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  22. R.I.P. Mildred Manning, last of the Angels of Bataan and Corregidor.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  23. DRJ wrote:

    I thought Cyprus has some form of federally insured deposits up to the approximate equivalent of $100,000. If so, then the issue for smaller depositors is the solvency of the government, not the bank.

    Actually €100,000, or $128,550. The euro hit a four month low against the dollar today.

    My guess is that, in the stronger countries, you’ll see more diversification of accounts, with cash depositors staying below the insurance threshold, and more depositors spreading their accounts among multiple banks. Right now, anything else would be foolish.

    Switzerland and the Grand Cayman Islands look good, but don’t be surprised if the Chinese take real advantage of this through banks in Hong Kong.

    The financier Dana (3e4784)

  24. “so it’s kind of hard to say that depositors are knowingly taking risks, or are taking risk”

    bridget – Not necessarily so for a business which has multiple points of exposure to an individual bank. Bank balances, even if only temporary, can approach a significant percentage of a depositary institution’s equity and many corporations establish limits by individual bank of maximum deposit or total risk exposure.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. This is what terrifies me about our skyrocketing national debt. Obama can “level the field” by seizing assets ostensibly to cover our debts but in reality to make sure on one has more than their fair share…. As often as I hav e heard Dems propose confiscating 401k assets for a “guaranteed government annuity” I wouldn’t at all be surprised if that is not the goal. Plus it wouldn’t affect his voters. They haven’t been working 60 hour work weeks for 30 years to build some sort of comfortable retirement. His voters Are the young, the government workers, union members and dthe extremely wealthy trust fund types, none of whom would be affected by Obama seizing 401K assets. Scary!

    TexasMom2012 (cee89f)

  26. OMG, the skyrocketing debt will allow Obama to implement his plan for WORLD DOMINATION and DESTRUCTION!!!

    Y’all can go back to hiding under your bed and sucking your thumb now, just like your Elders want.

    High caliber (b4c0e5)

  27. TexasMom2012, Democrat congressmen have not explicitly called for nationalizing 401K/IRA accounts yet. But the idea seems to simmer along underneath the currents in D.C., pop up and get denied in a desultory fashion, and go back to simmering under the surface.

    SPQR (768505)

  28. People need a short course on banking. Buying a CD is a loan to the bank, it has a defined period and interest rate. A demand deposit is NOT a loan, it is money entrusted to the bank to hold in stewardship, the depositor can withdraw any part, or all of it, at any time.

    Treating part of demand-deposits as loans is called “fractional reserve banking”, but the accurate term is embezzlement. Governments encourage this practice so that they can profit from it.

    See the chapters on fractional reserve banking in Jeses de Soto’s Money, Bank Credit, and Business Cycles

    LarryD (3df552)

  29. Were the high-caliber clown college tryouts scheduled for today?

    Icy (f2b455)

  30. Supposedly it’s only 40% of the amount above €100,000; so if you have €110,000 you will only lose €4,000. Could be worse.

    Icy (f2b455)

  31. Are they really saving Cyprus? Are they saving the Euro? Why not let it fall?

    Anyone?

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  32. 28

    TexasMom2012, Democrat congressmen have not explicitly called for nationalizing 401K/IRA accounts yet. But the idea seems to simmer along underneath the currents in D.C., pop up and get denied in a desultory fashion, and go back to simmering under the surface.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:01 pm

    The ruling class is very reluctant to warn ahead of time when it develops designs on the wealth of those they rule. What happened in Cyprus is typical of how these thefts go down.

    They make the announcement after the banks are closed. (Anyone care to bet that Cypriot officials negotiating with the EU wired their money into German banks before giving everyone else the bad news?)

    The theft can occur in a variety of ways. As many have pointed out the government steals our savings by printing $85 billion every month. FDR stole everyone’s gold by first calling them “hoarders” and then demanding everyone turn it all in at an artificially low price so he could sell at a profit. Italy levied every account .6% in 1992. Which demonstrates that these levies are not one off occurrences. The governments that engage in them are the kind of governments that must repeat them later.

    The Boston Consulting Group produced a study (you’ve got to register to read it) that shows western governments will have to seize 29% of the wealth in private hands. Some countries, such as Ireland, don’t have enough wealth to seize. The Irish government could seize 100% of the wealth in private hands and it would still be in debt.

    But they will seize the wealth anyway. Just as all the “rich” will be “asked to contribute” their “fair share” in this country. And by rich I mean anyone with money in the bank. It’s only a matter of time. Which is why I believe people are withdrawing funds from their retirement accounts. I believe more and more people are becoming aware there’s no way our spend, spend, spend government can resist going after such juicy targets.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  33. 33. Are they really saving Cyprus? Are they saving the Euro? Why not let it fall?

    Anyone?

    Comment by AZ Bob (c11d35) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:17 pm

    No. The predictable is already occurring.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-24/meanwhile-cash-exodus-cyprus-surges-despite-bank-closures

    When Cyprus put its banks into lockdown last weekend until… well indefinitely, now that capital controls are established, the main reason was to halt all capital outflows from the henceforth liquidity starved island whose banks will only exist as long as the ECB provides an ever greater dose of liquidity to account for the collapse in deposit funding. Which is why it is surprising, make that shocking, that as Germany FAZ reports, in the past week there has been a surge in cash outflows from Cyprus, even as its financial system has been supposedly ringfenced from the world, which by the way is the only thing preventing the EUR17 billion bailout from soaring by orders of magnitude because should a liquidity leak be discovered, it is all over for the country’s financial system.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  34. I remember (in the ’50s) of hearing about those who lived through the bank failures of the Great Depression having multiple savings accounts, none of which were over the FDIC insured limit. They are starting to look prescient.

    roy in nipomo (160066)

  35. This is an opportunity for Turkey, in financial extremis, to start a nationalist distraction.

    The Turkish minority in Cyprus will be hollering anyway, and contra Greeks is a favorite complaint.

    Look for invasion in weeks.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  36. I thin it was the Col. who said on a related thread the Bernank has already relieved us of our 40%:

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-inflation-genie-every-nation-is.html

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  37. As often as I hav e heard Dems propose confiscating 401k assets for a “guaranteed government annuity” I wouldn’t at all be surprised if that is not the goal.

    Someone once said to me that there are three piles of money that the government would love to get its hands on:
    1. 401(k)s;
    2. College endowments; and
    3. The assets of insurance companies.

    (Many insurance companies invest premiums in addition to managing risk. So basically, they take your premiums now, invest them, pay out a certain amount later, and make a pile of money.)

    Does modern government policy all make more sense now, TexasMom2012?

    bridget (55e4a2)

  38. To answer my own question at 18:

    The banks haven’t been called ‘bankrupt.’ They are still being provided emergency liquidity by various EU banks.

    Under the emergency liquidity rules, humanitarian aid payments and ‘certain special payments’ can still go out of the bank even though there’s a halt.

    So anyone with pull can still sneak their money out of the Cypress banks. Which means any favored clients at those Russian bank branches that are still open just ask the clerk to click the special box that says, “This is a special payment!” and say ‘Yes’ when it asks ‘Are you sure?’

    So while they issued a ‘hold’ on the bank their ‘hold’ is full of holds. Only a bankruptcy could have saved them but that means the avalanche has begun and it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  39. ‘hold’ is full of holes, sorry

    luagha (5cbe06)

  40. gary, Turkey still occupies a part of Cyprus. “Illegally” but no one ever mentions this, just Israel.

    SPQR (768505)

  41. 43. Oh, the tangled web

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  42. Forgot the link, surprise!

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/cypriot-banks-see-first-ripples-of-bailout-tsunami/

    Global Meltageddon on pace for lucky ’13.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  43. Nothing but bad economic news today.

    U3 up, PMI down, EU suck.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  44. Forgot the link, surprise!

    The many links you’ve posted through the months that pertain to reports on economic matters are often quite interesting to me and much appreciated.

    Mark (c480bd)

  45. 47. Thanks, oh, and Q4 GDP revised upward from 0.1% to 0.4. Unadjusted for real inflation, no doubt.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  46. There is an Eddie Murphy movie where they tell the bride she gets 50 percent in a divorce. I love the way she said “50 percent.” Can’t find the youtube.

    I’m glad that my secret money is in British Pounds.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  47. Fifty, Eddie. Fifty!

    JD (3cbfc7)

  48. Eddie Murphy “Raw” is on Netflix instant. What a throwback that was; we pissed ourselves laughing. But now Netflix wants me to watch DL Hughley or something.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  49. didnt trump also back when he was thinking about running against BUSH didnt he also muse about seizing this very same amount?though From Americans

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  50. The clown that is the Donald.


    Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich

    By Phil Hirschkorn/CNN

    November 9, 1999
    Web posted at: 6:24 p.m. EST (2324 GMT)

    NEW YORK (CNN) — Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

    Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time “net worth tax” on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

    By Trump’s calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.

    The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

    The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trump’s economic plan released Tuesday morning.

    “No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium,” Trump said in a written statement.

    “The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac,” Trump said.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  51. So yeah, EPJW, for definitions of “very same amount” that mean 14 = 40.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  52. Not that I am a particular fan or critic of the Donald, but at least he proposed it ahead of time and presumably would have it passed as a law through Congress.

    And it would be totally inadequate today.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  53. carlitos,

    propose 14% to tax fattened hyenas -get 40% right?

    so my 15 year old memory isnt all that good – but he did propose it didnt he and we worship the guy as some kind of conservative icon

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  54. 33. Are they really saving Cyprus? Are they saving the Euro? Why not let it fall?

    Anyone?

    Comment by AZ Bob (c11d35) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:17 pm

    Your instincts are correct. The European Union can’t save Cyprus by destroying it. Which is what the EU is doing.

    But the EU isn’t so much trying to save the Euro for it’s own sake but to force a superstate upon the member countries. Now that the countries have been locked into a single currency, they need a single government to go with.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9957999/Cyprus-has-finally-killed-myth-that-EMU-is-benign.html

    It is not a bail-out. There is no debt relief for the state of Cyprus. The Diktat will push the island’s debt ratio to 120pc in short order, with a high risk of an economic death spiral, a la Grecque.

    Capital controls have shattered the monetary unity of EMU. A Cypriot euro is no longer a core euro. We wait to hear the first stories of shops across Europe refusing to accept euro notes issued by Cyprus, with a G in the serial number.

    The curbs are draconian. There will be a forced rollover of debt. Cheques may not be cashed. Basic cross-border trade is severely curtailed. Credit card use abroad will be limited to €5,000 (£4,200) a month. “We wonder how such capital controls could eventually be lifted with no obvious cure of the underlying problem,” said Credit Suisse.

    … The country has just lost its core industry, a banking system with assets equal to eight times GDP, and has little to replace it with. Cyprus cannot hope to claw its way back to viability with a tourist boom because EMU membership has made it shockingly expensive. Turkey, Croatia or Egypt are all much cheaper. Manufacturing is just 7pc of GDP. The IMF says the labour cost index has risen even faster than in Greece, Spain or Italy since the late 1990s.

    What saved Iceland from mass unemployment after its banks blew up – or saved Sweden and Finland in the early 1990s – was a currency devaluation that brought industries back from the dead. Iceland’s krona has fallen low enough to make it worthwhile growing tomatoes for sale in greenhouses near the Arctic Circle.

    If Cyprus tries to claw back competitiveness with an “internal devaluation”, it will drive unemployment to Greek levels (27pc) and cause the economy to contract so fast that the debt ratio explodes.

    … The Cyprus debacle has taught us yet again that EMU has gone off the rails, is a danger to stability, and should be dismantled before it destroys Europe’s post-War order.

    …The denouement will arrive when the democracies of southern Europe conclude that recovery is a false promise and that the only way to end mass unemployment is to break free of EMU’s contractionary regime.

    It will be decided by Italy, not Cyprus.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  55. We? Donald Trump is a f***ing moron. That this a$$hole can speak at CPAC after his birth certificate nonsense is a cluebat that the conservative train is off of the rails.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  56. Steve57 interuppted my ritmo y suave:

    we worship the guy as some kind of conservative icon

    Comment by EPJW, who is a moron

    We? Donald Trump is a f***ing moron. That this a$$hole can speak at CPAC after his birth certificate nonsense is a cluebat that the conservative train is off of the rails.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  57. and we worship the guy as some kind of conservative icon

    Speak for yourself. Maybe you praised him in conjunction with Scozzafava.

    JD (b63a52)

  58. JD

    Oh he’s the tea darling flavor of the month

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  59. JD

    Oh he’s the tea darling flavor of the month

    No. You said “we”, and you most assuredly do not support the teatards. Everyone with 2 brain cells knows Trump supports Trump, and has no history as a conservative, much to the contrary.

    JD (b63a52)

  60. JD

    didnt every single republican presidential candidate try to seek attention from the donald?

    and you are right – that was my point he isnt a conservative – never was

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  61. You said “we”. Not he, or they, or them. We. Which includes you, and the community of people you did not identify, but from the markers, referred to the community here.

    JD (b63a52)

  62. EPJW – what time zone is it on your planet, where “we” support Donald Trump?

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  63. JD

    nope, thats not what I meant. When I say we – I mean the community in general –

    Markers?

    Now we have markers?

    Look fire away I’m heading to Florida have a good easter, enjoy the fam

    I apopreciate the loyalty you show your friends

    EPWJ (6140f6)

  64. Now there’s a big question of when Cyprus might remove their capital controls (restrictions on moving money out of the country, and even between different banks).

    So far they are saying this is only for an emergency

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  65. JD

    nope, thats not what I meant. When I say we – I mean the community in general –

    And there is no evidence that this community in general supported Trump

    JD (b63a52)

  66. Cypriot students studying abroad can get more money than others.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  67. Comment by LarryD (3df552) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:17 pm

    A demand deposit is NOT a loan, it is money entrusted to the bank to hold in stewardship, the depositor can withdraw any part, or all of it, at any time.

    It is a loan, but just a loan that can be recalled at any time.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  68. 68. Now there’s a big question of when Cyprus might remove their capital controls (restrictions on moving money out of the country, and even between different banks).

    So far they are saying this is only for an emergency

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/28/2013 @ 3:35 pm

    There is nothing so permanent as a temporary emergency measure.

    New York State legislators defend the War Emergency Tenant Protection Act—also known as rent control—as a way of protecting tenants from war-related housing shortages. The war referred to in the law is not the 2003 war in Iraq, however, or the Vietnam War; it is World War II. That is when rent control started in New York City. Of course, war has very little to do with apartment shortages. On the contrary, the shortage is created by rent control, the supposed solution.

    Steve57 (be3310)

  69. There is nothing so permanent as a temporary emergency measure.

    When you buy wine or liquor in Pennsylvania, you still pay the Johnstown Flood Tax. The last Johnstown flood was in 1936.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  70. Make that 60%.

    http://usat.ly/10mv1eH

    meh (db5dcf)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1118 secs.