Dont know if we could buy ourselves out of this time bomb
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14169940 ]Eight Banks Fail EU Stress Test With 16 In Danger Zone ![/url]
It seems that America is being allowed to dictate the headlines, thats where the big problems lie, grease, portugal, spain and italy are insignificant by comparison.
[img] 
[/img]
Insignificant? I THINK NOT!
Yes. Keep your job and batten down the hatches. The Murdoch thing is just a sideshow.
It's going to get rough. 🙁
Spain is always going to have a high failure rate as there a hundreds of Cajas (building societies) which have high costs and small customer bases as they are often very local. The solution to this is mergers, which is happening at the moment. That's going to have a knock on effect of increasing unemployment and put pressure on other areas.
Zapatero said last week that the eurozone countries need to recognise their responsibilities and pull together. The words of sense putting pressure on the stronger economies to say that we're all in it together, or the words of someone putting out the begging bowl because he hasn't got the answers himself?
My point of view is that you have to help yourself and no-one is going to bail you out. And what I see at street level is a country simply waiting for someone to find the answers.
I'm out of here as soon as the mechanic gets my car ready. 😀
Be interesting to see how the local politicians handle it here in Spain, as don simon points out the banks with problems are the small local building societies, and many of them are run by local governments...
If BBVA or Santander had failed, that would be a whole different matter.
Funny how the BBC seems to think the UK banks passing the test indicates that they are OK then casts aspersions on the tests regarding other banks. How about a balanced view from different commentators BBC instead of quoting someone with a vested interest and meaningless credentials. Why not go the whole hog and quote Standard and Poor's usual nonsense.
In answer to the OP's question, no.
Yes. Keep your job and batten down the hatches. The Murdoch thing is just a sideshow.
Yep.
Hahaha! the **** ing planet is losing the capacity to sustain us as a species.
We are running out of fossil fuels and using up massive amounts of natural resources because the philosophy(analysis technique) and as such the actions of our species are disorganized and without any real driving force, mostly because those who are in charge lack scope of vision or intuition.
That said let us focus not on a universal perspective on the situation, but on an individual one, we have packs of wild feral children roaming our streets, attacking everything that looks like it will not put up a fight, we have slavery of a sexual nature, organised gangs of drug dealers, pimps, rapists, peadophiles and of course the police.
We on a day to day basis breath in toxic waste(polution) that kills more of us than tobacco and alcohol combined. We have a way of life that is hollow and empty and that leaves us as individuals and as a culture moraly and spiritualy bankrupt.
Suicide / murder / violent crime / crime caused by poverty / child abuse in all of it's revolting forms / severe phsychological disorders. All are on the rise, for one simple reason, humanity was never destined to be slaves to the will of fools.
I think that what you mean is that the comfy life that those who are allied to the government and thier masters, is in question, here's a news flash for quite a few people out there, for a lot of us the shit is always hitting the fan, their money, their jobs, their way of running everything, where has following those who have power led us ❓
If we have not seen enough over the last 2000 years and the last 150 years in particular, to come to the understanding that those who are in charge of the destiny of our species, are the biggest bunch of trecherous, honourless, incompetent scum this world has ever spawned, then we have learned nothing from the lessons of history and deserve out fate!
kaesae is cressers and I claim my £5
doom has always been forecast, and advances sorts it out, albeit with some population adjustments
There's a lot in there but this bit was the funniest.
Suicide / murder / violent crime / crime caused by poverty / child abuse in all of it's revolting forms / severe phsychological disorders. All are on the rise, for one simple reason, humanity was never destined to be slaves to the will of fools.
All of the above (in the west at least) are at an all time low.
I blame history teachers.
We're [i]always[/i] close to a disaster, always have been since the current system evolved its way into place, and it was a disaster for the system before it. Globalisation means interdependance, the structure's only as strong as the weakest links in it and there's no actual control over what becomes a part of the structure and what doesn't. It's not a stable system and it's not under control.
The current system of the world is done for. But then so was the last one and so will the next one be, nothing lasts forever. We don't know what will replace it but equally nobody knew that this one was going to become the status quo before it happened. But sooner or later if the "money runs out" as people are fond of saying, someone'll say "Well so what?" Money, after all, isn't wealth. The value of a barrel of oil isn't seen just in what it can power or what it can produce any more, it's also an abstract thing for people to trade with and speculate with. The value of a share is largely disconnected from the value of a company (and a profitable company can be destroyed by a run on its shares, and an unprofitable company seen as a success because people are buying high). Money can be "created" with imaginative financial practice but when you follow the trail back it only exists on spreadsheets. Liabilities can be packaged up and sold as assets. The value a worker creates by working rarely goes back to him. And so on.
Course, none of that means it's going to be any fun when feudal capitalism does collapse, and none of it means the next big thing will be better.
But back to the Eurozone crisis.
Anyone hear work for a bank?
Funny how the BBC seems to think...
LOLling my arse off. You really need to get over this nonsensical bullshit you come out with Edukator. Tell us, what;'s the unbiased shit French media saying about it today? I'd watch France24 to see only it's beyond shit.
Oh come now Darcy, if any other media source quoted "one analyst" with no name or mention which organisation they work for you'd laugh at them and rightly suspect they were makiing it up, but as it's the BBC you swallow the propaganda.
No mention is made of the huge government bailout of the UK banking sector which is now conveniently being left out of the headline national debt figure; The 60% you see quoted excludes financial sector intervention.
Euroland governments can bail out their banks too but they can't print the money money to do it as the UK did, they have to borrow it. This makes the banks' plight and the country's debt highly visible.
Edit: I went Googling for a figure for debt with financial sector intervention and found [url= http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economics/the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics/ ]this which quotes 149%[/url]. It also provides a more balanced view of the UK's finances than the BBC.
Forget the Eurozone. The US [u]will[/u] run out of money on August 2nd unless their debt ceiling is increased from the current $14.5 Trillion limit. Talks are underway to increase their taxes and raise the limit but some of the international credit rating companies such as Moody's have already said they're likely to downgrade the US.
If the US default on their debt it will make the 2008 credit crunch seem insignificant.
Thinking of moving to Costa Rica.
But the US won't default, the republican house and democratic president will posture lots but they both know default is economic suicide and the republican house will raise the limit in exchange for republican policies.
...peadophiles...
So they're abusing vegetables now are they, kaesae? Damn, [i]will nobody think of the children?[/i]
Local authorities (the autonomous regions) are paying debts with land and not cash, reports say that Cataluña is bankrupt and Zapatero is demanding, I assume from political and economic position of strength, that the €urozone counties pull together to help the weaker nations (Spain?). No problems here.
as it's the BBC you swallow the propaganda.
Yeah, you've got it right there Edukator. Jeez though, you really embarrassed yourself on this subject the other day...or did that fact go completely over your head?
I don't feel a bit embarrassed, Darcy. The article that is the subject of this thread is further proof of the bias and a lack of professionalism that characterise BBC reporting. Are you not embarrassed for the BBC that in the article the BBC quotes a source without naming it and bigs up UK banks whilst failing to mention massive financial sector intervention by the British government. Misleading reporting in support of government is commonly known as propaganda.
They did exactly the same in the run up to Gulf war II quoting sourceless "intelligence" and trotting out Blair's lies.
[i]Are you not embarrassed for the BBC that in the article the BBC quotes a source without naming it[/i]
Having said that, it is a common practice of all media when the source doesn't want to be named, or it would be imprudent to name them. I.e. the classic 'sources close to the government'
I'm not asserting that this is necessarily the case in this instance, but I think you'd struggle to hold up that article as a benchmark of journalistic unprofessionalism.
"one analyst". It's not like financial analysts are covered by the offical secrets act. If an analyst states something he/she should be credited.
How long are we going to have to wait to see the Kelly whitewash? Long after the protagonists are dead.
"Sources close to the government", "intelligence sources". Propaganda, spin.
edukator - your ranting about the BBC is laughable. It is not biased in the way you think. go put your tinfoil hat on or the lizards will get you
"one analyst". It's not like financial analysts are covered by the offical secrets act. If an analyst states something he/she should be credited.
Unless it's an unauthorised quote that the employers haven't agreed to.
Just, for a second, let's pretend that in a parallel universe, your ridiculous assertion is true. How does the chain of command (in order to get the "propaganda" out) work?
Are you not embarrassed for the BBC that in the article the BBC quotes a source without naming it
Are you talking about the quote which if you read on, you see that it is attributed to Jason Karaian of the Economist Intelligence Unit ? Or are you talking about the quotes attributed to the European Banking Authority, Bank of Spain governor, the Bank of Portugal, the Financial Services Authority, and the German bank Helaba ?
Quite frankly if I were you I would be embarrassed that I was reduced to clutching straws and scraping the bottom of the barrel with my finger nails, so to speak, in a desperate and futile attempt to discredit the BBC.
I would also be far too embarrassed concerning the fact that I had completely falsely, and repeatedly, accused David Cameron of telling the police to investigate themselves, based on what I had allegedly seen on France 3, to remind everyone of that thread. Which is something that you have never issued an apology for btw - how about doing it now ? 💡
[i]"one analyst". It's not like financial analysts are covered by the offical secrets act. If an analyst states something he/she should be credited.[/i]
That's not how journalism works, in any county, outlet or media.
It would be inexcusable in an academic paper, but that has a different set of values, ones that at first may seem preferable to those of news media but if applied would produce a paucity of reported news.
If it's not an authorised quote it's a personal view of no more value than my posts on this thread. Except that I'm happy to be quoted so long as you quote me in full and in context.
Reputable medai quote their sources when it concerns the financial well-being of miilions or the lives of hundreds of thousands.
Nothing better than insult today, TJ?
No need for a chain of command, Darcy, just a few people with vested interests, a personal political or religious agenda, or a lack of resistance to being duped.
Oh, it's a conspiracy theory then. That's brilliant, that is. Who are the people with vested interests that are duping us gullible eejits then?
[i]Reputable medai quote their sources when it concerns the financial well-being of miilions or the lives of hundreds of thousands.[/i]
Out of interest, what's your list of reputable media?
Here you are Edukator, do you prefer the Sky News article on the subject :
[url= http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Eight-European-Banks-Fail-EU-Stress-Test-Four-UK-Banks-Subjected-To-The-Test-Pass/Article/201107316031248?DCMP=News-search-sslc&lid=ARTICLE_16031248_EightEuropeanBanksFailEUStressTest,FourUKBanksSubjectedToTheTestPass&lpos=searchresults ]Eight European Banks Fail EU Stress Test[/url]
They don't quote anyone at all - maybe that works better for you ?
But wait.........they say :
[i]"Critics have argued that the criteria should have included a bank's ability to withstand a default by Greece on its debts, which many believe is an inevitable outcome to its financial crisis"[/i]
Who are these "critics" ? Why don't they name them ? It sounds to me as if it might just be [i]propaganda[/i] by Rupert Murdoch.
I didn't say it was a conspiracy theory, Darcy, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. George Bush, with vested oil interests tried to dupe Chirac claiming he was fulfilliing biblical prophecies (read Chirac's memoires). Blair and his catholic wife were happy to go along unlike Chirac and Blair used his government services to provide the BBC with spin and misleading information to make his war proposals paletable to the vast majority of the unthinking British public.
Or the FT
EU stress test pass rate under fire
[i]
The other failures were Austria’s Volksbanken and Germany’s Helaba, which withheld its result after a row with the European Banking Authority, the testing body, over the quality of its capital.
Analysts had predicted as many as 15 banks would fail.[/i]
Blair and his catholic wife were happy to go along .......
LOL so now it's all because Cherie was a catholic ! 😀
You've obviously completely forgotten that the Pope was very strongly opposed to going to war in Iraq.
Or maybe you just don't follow the news very well.
Well well. The FT. An independent newspaper (according to Ken Livingstone) that agrees with the Murdoch press! What IS the world coming to?
This is the complete quote from the article, Ernie:
[i]"One analyst told the BBC that, while some people would find the results reassuring, others would see them as evidence that the tests were not credible.
He said that demands from the financial authorities that banks began immediately to bolster their core capital "is an acknowledgement that there is a risk of sovereign default".
The failed banks would have to find an estimated 2.5bn euros in new funding by the end of the year, he said."[/i]
The BBC uses the quote of an anonymous analyst to devalue the stress tests thus making the situation appear worse than it is in Europe. The whole article bigs up the UK whilst undermining confidence in Euroland finances. Who benefits from this sort of propaganda? The city, Biritish financial institutions and the British government. In that it is not a true reflection of the economic states of the UK and Euroland it may lead UK citizens to make choices that are not in their best interests but in the best interests of the City, Uk financial institutions and the British government.
I mean who are the people with vested interests in the BBC?
Perhaps you could persuade everyone at the BBC to disclose their interests, Darcy. I don't think you'll be able to though. Vested interests can be financial, political, religious, romantic... . Just as well Ernie doesn't work for the Beeb eh!
What do you think of Nigel Farrage, "Edukator"?
The BBC uses the quote of an anonymous analyst to devalue the stress tests ......
No, they name the analyst who 'devalues the stress tests', it's Jason Karaian of The Economist Intelligence Unit. And the Guardian, the Daily Express, and the Daily Mail, all quote him in his criticism of the stress tests.
And the Daily Express for example, does exactly the same as the BBC, ie, they refer to analysts before naming Jason Karaian of The Economist Intelligence Unit in a later paragraph.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/259210/Markets-tense-as-8-banks-fails-EU-stress-test
It's just basic journalism - you provide the overall picture initially, and then provide the fine details as the article progresses. Often the reader of an article only wants to know the overall picture without bothering with the fine details and stops reading the article before reaching the end - they then move onto another article. That's why headlines try to cram in as much information about the story as they can, and the first paragraph of a news story has so little detail.
Just as well Ernie doesn't work for the Beeb eh!
How do you know I don't ?
Mr Farrange has some interesting views. He no doubt represents the opions of many Britons if you look at polls on Europe. My dual nationality means I don't have to worry about Mr Farrange too much but the million or so British expats living/working/retired in EU coutries would be well advised to vote against him.
So Edukator- where's your retraction, now that you've been shown that the article does identify it's analyst, and that your entire rant was inspired by a lack of reading?
Something you said about London Underground suggests you don't work for the Beeb, Ernie, but no, I don't know if you work for the Beeb.
That is your interpretation of whom the journalist is, Ernie. There is absolutely nothing in the lexical construction of the article, its sections, paragraphs or sentences to indicate whom it might be. It is not "just basic journalism"; it's bad, misleading journalism. You should never have to guess who is being quoted. In this case you really have no idea who "one analyst" is.
Something you said about London Underground suggests you don't work for the Beeb
Did I say I have to take the tube everyday to Holborn - the nearest station to Bush House ?
It is not "just basic journalism"
Yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about. Have a look how the Daily Express constructed their article :
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/259210/Markets-tense-as-8-banks-fails-EU-stress-test <
That Express article is well constructed and respects conventions, the BBC one does not. The article starts with "analysts" in general then as soon as it quotes Jason in particular it gives his name.
The BBC makes it clear that the analyst is [i]"analyst Jason Karaian of the Economist Intelligence Unit "[/i] if you can't figure that out, then I suggest to write to the BBC expressing your outrage over the matter. And in future shun all BBC News articles relying instead on the journalistic skills of the Daily Express.
The section I've quoted at the top of this page stands alone Ernie. It starts "one analyst" and ends "he said". It is not refered to before or after and includes no information on the person being quoted.
Getting back to the OP's question. No we are not close to a uniquely European disaster. If a disaster there is it will be a worldwide disaster and the UK is no better placed to deal with it than the Euro zone. The BBCs bigging up of the UK banks is misleading in that the British government has already propped up British financial institutions which are no safer than the vast majority of Euroland banks. The Euroland banks at risk are small and saving them significantly less onerous than the saving already done by the British government.
The main question is whether the Euro zone countries will be as willling to print money and hand it over as the British government. Germany is reluctant, France willing and a compromise has to be found. It's a question of management that can be managed.
It is not refered to before or after and includes no information on the person being quoted.
In that case, where does ernie get:
The BBC makes it clear that the analyst is "analyst Jason Karaian of the Economist Intelligence Unit "
and why can't you?
Given that the source IS quoted by the BBC, this would seem to invalidate your argument to the point of making you look foolish. Or a bit dim, "Edukator"...
One analyst told the BBC that, while some people would find the results reassuring, others would see them as evidence that the tests were not credible.He said that demands from the financial authorities that banks began immediately to bolster their core capital "is an acknowledgement that there is a risk of sovereign default".
The failed banks would have to find an estimated 2.5bn euros in new funding by the end of the year, he said.
German bank Helaba disputes the way the authorities carried out its assessment
But analyst Jason Karaian of the Economist Intelligence Unit said that the total extra funding needed by banks would be far higher in the long run.
you are letting your view of the BBC affect your view of this article IMHO.
There is bias here but I think it is yours rather than the BBCs's.
It would have been better to name him first but they clearly name "the analyst"
More insult, Woppit. I'll answer with sound analysis of the English. The BBC introduces Mr Karaian's wisdom with the word "But" at the start of the paragraph. The word "but" indicates a contrast with the paragraphs that went before. Not only is one left guessing who the "one analyst" might be but that Karaian holds a different view.
I salute your clutching of straws- it is among the very finest.
And your anti-Edukator bias shows up as usual, Junkyard.
It would have been better to name him first but they clearly name "the analyst"
It's ambiguous, one could read it as naming "an analyst" who is different from the "one analyst" mentioned earlier.
Why use "one" if you're not going to talk about a second?
And what Edukator said about "but" giving the idea if introducing a contradictory idea.
And your anti-Edukator bias shows up as usual, Junkyard
you are paranoid. I have nothing against you it is your argument/view I am disagreeing with. You would have been better served defending that than suggesting I have an agenda against you. I disagree with you on one issue. I generally find your contribution to the forum to be positive and informative. I admire the way you walk the walk for your own viewpoint as well and make sacrifices to live life the way you think it should be. This is worthy of respect and admiration.
DS yes it is not great I agree.
Paranoid maybe but I don't feel I make sacrifices to live the way I live. On the contrary, I consider it a privilege.
FFS you cant even take a compliment without complaining 😉
Isn't that what being paranoid is all about?
😆