If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Zero Hedge)   Yesterday: Cyprus problem solved by taking from Russian tax evaders. Today: Cypriot businesses can't make payroll   (zerohedge.com) divider line 154
    More: Asinine, Cypriot, Cyprus, Russians, problem solves, insolvent, current accounts, small businesses  
•       •       •

10305 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-29 10:24:59 AM  
Yeah, it's not like small businesses are just stuffing all of that money in the bank as profit.  Creditors want their checks to clear.
 
2013-03-29 10:54:45 AM  
Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.
 
2013-03-29 11:14:44 AM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


how about the small local businesses that weren't laundering money?
 
2013-03-29 11:20:53 AM  
Beeriot taxpayers, on the other hand, are doin' peachy.

i25.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 11:22:58 AM  

doglover: Beeriot taxpayers, on the other hand, are doin' peachy.

[i25.photobucket.com image 480x320]


Aren't they always.
 
2013-03-29 11:27:37 AM  

basemetal: Yeah, it's not like small businesses are just stuffing all of that money in the bank as profit.  Creditors want their checks to clear.


And then the Government will want them to pay taxes too. You think just because they emptied out their accounts today they'll let them pass on paying taxes tomorrow?!?
 
2013-03-29 11:33:58 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: basemetal: Yeah, it's not like small businesses are just stuffing all of that money in the bank as profit.  Creditors want their checks to clear.

And then the Government will want them to pay taxes too. You think just because they emptied out their accounts today they'll let them pass on paying taxes tomorrow?!?


No, I suppose many small businesses will struggle to survive, and many will go belly up, which will also decrease tax revenue.
 
2013-03-29 11:41:55 AM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


Yeah, that.
The Russian bastards can all fark themselves with a syringe full of krokodil.
 
2013-03-29 11:42:06 AM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


Of course.  Because the system is corrupt, let's take everything from the legit businesses.
 
2013-03-29 11:42:07 AM  
Only a leftist would not connect point A (stealing money out of the banks) to point B (people/company having no money to make payrool).
 
2013-03-29 11:43:45 AM  
It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.
 
2013-03-29 11:44:49 AM  

basemetal: The Stealth Hippopotamus: basemetal: Yeah, it's not like small businesses are just stuffing all of that money in the bank as profit.  Creditors want their checks to clear.

And then the Government will want them to pay taxes too. You think just because they emptied out their accounts today they'll let them pass on paying taxes tomorrow?!?

No, I suppose many small businesses will struggle to survive, and many will go belly up, which will also decrease tax revenue.


Got it in one, guys.  Plus apparently most of the big money was "relocated" in February....  The only people getting b*ggered by the measures are the little people.
 
2013-03-29 11:45:22 AM  
"forever to feed the creeping insolvent Euro-monster"

Yeah, that, or it's actually only Cyprus that doesn't have any money.

/the EU can't be insolvent, given that it prints its own money. But whatever, morons gotta be morons.
 
2013-03-29 11:45:44 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.

Yeah, that.
The Russian bastards can all fark themselves with a syringe full of krokodil.


The point is that not everybody with 100k Euros in a Cypriot bank is a Russian sleazebag.

And most of the Russian sleazebags got their money out already.

/subby
 
2013-03-29 11:50:50 AM  
Oh Lord, they linked to a bitcoin thread.

I have never seen a bitcoin thread and now I never want to again.
 
2013-03-29 11:50:56 AM  
I'm not Russian oligarch, but just European medium size IT business... We are moving to small Caribbean country where authorities have more respect to people's assets. Also we are thinking about using Bitcoin to pay wages and for payments between our partners.

Sounds legit - a European IT business should have no problem firing all their workers and hiring up on the Cayman Islands. And the Bitcoin reference makes me think this is another wire service duped by what is clearly satire.
 
2013-03-29 11:51:12 AM  
Cock the hammer it's time for action.
 
2013-03-29 11:54:22 AM  

Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.


Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.

Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

/aren't accounts insured to a point in the EU as they are here
//what idiot puts all his eggs in one basket
 
2013-03-29 11:54:24 AM  
img.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-03-29 11:57:06 AM  
Your "proof" is a bitcoin site?  This seems legit.
 
2013-03-29 11:58:31 AM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.

Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

/aren't accounts insured to a point in the EU as they are here
//what idiot puts all his eggs in one basket


Great so the owners get shares, but can't make payroll. So, the littlest guys either work for a promise of pay which may or may not happen, or get laid off.
 
2013-03-29 11:58:42 AM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.

Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

/aren't accounts insured to a point in the EU as they are here
//what idiot puts all his eggs in one basket


Can I pay off my mortgage with that? Buy a car? I didn't borrow any money. Now mine is gone.Call it whatever you like. My money is gone.

Theft seems right. Or bank robbery.
 
2013-03-29 12:00:17 PM  
Can anyone provide a source, that isn't the author or Alex Jones, that people were indeed allowed to withdraw money from foreign branches?
 
2013-03-29 12:00:25 PM  
Cyprus has a lot of entitlements and free healthcare. In the recession, they continued to spend money.  How come they aren't rich by now? Did John Kerry lie to us
 
2013-03-29 12:02:38 PM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


No, save your feel bad for when that economy no longer feeds, shelters or protects you.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:59 PM  

Erebus1954: a_room_with_a_moose: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.

Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

/aren't accounts insured to a point in the EU as they are here
//what idiot puts all his eggs in one basket

Can I pay off my mortgage with that? Buy a car? I didn't borrow any money. Now mine is gone.Call it whatever you like. My money is gone.

Theft seems right. Or bank robbery.


And yet my points remain unaddressed.

Such shocking behavior for Fark...
 
2013-03-29 12:05:54 PM  
The only other option was to let the banks collapse. Try making payroll when the bank no longer exists.

/Option A is shiatty
//Option B was worse
 
2013-03-29 12:08:04 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: a_room_with_a_moose: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.

Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

/aren't accounts insured to a point in the EU as they are here
//what idiot puts all his eggs in one basket

Great so the owners get shares, but can't make payroll. So, the littlest guys either work for a promise of pay which may or may not happen, or get laid off.


Equity in a bankrupt institution is worth the paper the certificates are printed on (these days you probably don't even get the paper).

digistil: Can anyone provide a source, that isn't the author or Alex Jones, that people were indeed allowed to withdraw money from foreign branches?

Is this good enough?
http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-branches-cypriot-banks-reassure-sa ver s
From the article:
But unlike Cypriot banks, which have placed a €100-per-day on ATM withdrawals, a Laiki Bank spokesperson said yesterday that the bank's London branches were open as normal and there were no limits on withdrawals and no change to conditions.
Laiki also operates three branches in London - including a head office in central Mayfair - and one in Birmingham, as well as running a private and corporate business bank.
Bank of Cyprus also owns 80 per cent of Russia's Uniastrum Bank, which said it had not put any restrictions on withdrawals in Russia.


Laiki is another name for Cyprus Popular Bank (the one that failed Tuesday).  City AM is a free daily paper in the City of London, hopefully that's not too Alex Jonesy.
 
2013-03-29 12:09:04 PM  
I am not a seer.  But I saw this coming a mile away.

Sometimes train wrecks aren't as interesting as total economic collapse.
 
2013-03-29 12:11:58 PM  
"Equity in a bankrupt institution is worth the paper the certificates are printed on (these days you probably don't even get the paper)."

What will the currency be worth if the economy folds or goes into runaway inflation.

Take your time...
 
2013-03-29 12:13:20 PM  

nelsonal: Slaves2Darkness: a_room_with_a_moose: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.

Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

/aren't accounts insured to a point in the EU as they are here
//what idiot puts all his eggs in one basket

Great so the owners get shares, but can't make payroll. So, the littlest guys either work for a promise of pay which may or may not happen, or get laid off.

Equity in a bankrupt institution is worth the paper the certificates are printed on (these days you probably don't even get the paper).

digistil: Can anyone provide a source, that isn't the author or Alex Jones, that people were indeed allowed to withdraw money from foreign branches?
Is this good enough?
http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-branches-cypriot-banks-reassure-sa ver s
From the article:
But unlike Cypriot banks, which have placed a €100-per-day on ATM withdrawals, a Laiki Bank spokesperson said yesterday that the bank's London branches were open as normal and there were no limits on withdrawals and no change to conditions.
Laiki also operates three branches in London - including a head office in central Mayfair - and one in Birmingham, as well as running a private and corporate business bank.
Bank of Cyprus also owns 80 per cent of Russia's Uniastrum Bank, which said it had not put any restrictions on withdrawals in Russia.

Laiki is another name for Cyprus Popular Bank (the one that failed Tuesday).  City AM is a free daily paper in the City of London, hopefully that's not too Alex Jonesy.


What I figured. I don't know about you all , but I'm saving to buy some farm ground and learning to grow my own food. I really hope it does not get this nasty in the US, but some planning for everything going tits up seems in order.
 
2013-03-29 12:15:19 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.

Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

/aren't accounts insured to a point in the EU as they are here
//what idiot puts all his eggs in one basket


Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.  This isn't about the money though, it's a power grab and the setting of a precedent.  Merkel's up for re-election in September and she wants to be able to tell her voters they're not getting shafted - which they are, quite frankly.  And the EU is busy consolidating its control.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:01 PM  
Off to Qwickee Mart for a loaf of bread.

mashopsimg.com
 
2013-03-29 12:18:05 PM  
Isn't the Euro worth more than the dollar?
 
2013-03-29 12:18:52 PM  
You may be right, but a citation would be nice.

As of yesterday, it was only accounts over 100,000 euros.
 
2013-03-29 12:19:37 PM  
Well, who saw this coming?  Restrict bank access, force banks to remain closed for over a week and suddenly employers can't pay their people.  How much longer until people in Cypress start bartering for goods and services?
 
2013-03-29 12:20:28 PM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


THIS!
 
2013-03-29 12:22:17 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: "Equity in a bankrupt institution is worth the paper the certificates are printed on (these days you probably don't even get the paper)."

What will the currency be worth if the economy folds or goes into runaway inflation.

Take your time...


Hey everybody, Henry Potter's offering you 5 cents on every dollar share in the bank!
 
2013-03-29 12:22:32 PM  
my money is in lead, brass, carbon, saltpeter and sulfur.
the delivery system is stainless steel, and the recipient gets a real bang out of it!
 
2013-03-29 12:29:43 PM  

SlothB77: bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.

how about the small local businesses that weren't laundering money?


By Fark progressive definition if they had 100,000 plus Euros in the bank they are evil or they would not have that much money. Taking it from them  has no impact on the average guy according to them and if it does that is what government welfare is for..
 
2013-03-29 12:31:58 PM  
I've seen this on several sites? Why is it just this one guy? I'm suspecting his image isn't the full truth. I'm not going to believe it till I hear of several other business in similar situations all saying the same thing.

Even if the "image" is true, he could have had 7 million in the account, they then froze 10%, and he took it all out but a little bit. Then took this picture.
 
2013-03-29 12:32:54 PM  
HAHAHA...yes please secure your funds in bitcoin.

That stupid thing is the 2013 version of the blinking punch the monkey ads.   Here's a fun exercise:  type bitcoin into the little search box on the top right.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:54 PM  

MindStalker: I've seen this on several sites? Why is it just this one guy? I'm suspecting his image isn't the full truth. I'm not going to believe it till I hear of several other business in similar situations all saying the same thing.

Even if the "image" is true, he could have had 7 million in the account, they then froze 10%, and he took it all out but a little bit. Then took this picture.


It's bitcoin spamming.  The higher it goes the more the buttcoin idiots spam that garbage, have you ever had a friend involved in a MLM scheme?  It's obnoxious.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:22 PM  

IRQ12: HAHAHA...yes please secure your funds in bitcoin.

That stupid thing is the 2013 version of the blinking punch the monkey ads.   Here's a fun exercise:  type bitcoin into the little search box on the top right.


I always secure my savings in places that can vanish if something goes BEEEEEEEeeeeeoooooooop."
 
2013-03-29 12:38:43 PM  
Remember, it can't happen here.
 
2013-03-29 12:38:56 PM  
www.ridelust.com
All HAIL the new CYPRUS KING!
King CASH
 
2013-03-29 12:43:44 PM  

scarmig: Remember, it can't happen here.


Exactly!
Cyprus = Small island country that's used as a tax haven
United States = Large 1/3 of continent country with a world reserve currency & a huge GDP as well as world military.

They cannot/will-not do what Cyprus did, since it would do more harm than good in the long run.
Plus we have the option to print more dollars, Cyprus is at the mercy of the Euro.
 
2013-03-29 12:44:16 PM  

IRQ12: HAHAHA...yes please secure your funds in bitcoin.

That stupid thing is the 2013 version of the blinking punch the monkey ads.   Here's a fun exercise:  type bitcoin into the little search box on the top right.


I've got my money tied up in tulips.
 
2013-03-29 12:46:20 PM  

IRQ12: HAHAHA...yes please secure your funds in bitcoin.

That stupid thing is the 2013 version of the blinking punch the monkey ads.   Here's a fun exercise:  type bitcoin into the little search box on the top right.


I try to maintain a healthy skepticism about bitcoins, but they do offer one significant advantage (from the individual Cypriot's perspective) over the Euro: the government can't go to the bank and seize your bitcoins.

Which is not to say that there aren't better alternatives, but I doubt any of them are as easily accessible to individuals as bitcoin.
 
2013-03-29 12:46:26 PM  
Why not go the other way with it -- let the banks disintegrate.  Either you let people take their money out and then those Euros become worth less or you let the deposits crumble with the bank and no 100k for no one.  Option 3 ("what they did do") doesn't seem quite as awful anymore.
 
2013-03-29 12:47:15 PM  
The Law of Unintended Consequences.  Not necessarily unforeseen, certainly not unpredicted.  Just unintended.
 
2013-03-29 12:52:05 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.


Thats not exactly how I would put it.

"The Cypriot Government was reported requesting a bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility or the European Stability Mechanism on 25 June 2012, citing difficulties in supporting its banking sector from the exposure to the Greek debt."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%932013_Cypriot_financial_cr isi s

The banking sector in Cyprus (and its liabilities) was far larger than the GDP of Cyprus.

The banks bought risky assets (mostly Greek Bonds) which lead to heavy losses.

The losses were so large that the government of Cyprus could not bail out the banks. (Unlike the U.S. Cyprus could not print/create money to solve this problem.)

The government of Cyprus then sought a load from the EU but it came with conditions.

 
Cyprus didn't "borrow like a drunken sot" but its banks did make poor investments.


//Keep in mind that prior to the financial crisis the EU insisted that Greek bonds were sound.
 
2013-03-29 12:55:04 PM  

Flargan: The government of Cyprus then sought a load from the EU but it came with conditions.


Can't seem to use edit but I meant to say:

The government of Cyprus then sought a loan from the EU but it came with conditions.
 
2013-03-29 12:55:31 PM  

Flargan: a_room_with_a_moose: Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

Thats not exactly how I would put it.

"The Cypriot Government was reported requesting a bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility or the European Stability Mechanism on 25 June 2012, citing difficulties in supporting its banking sector from the exposure to the Greek debt."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%932013_Cypriot_financial_cr isi s

The banking sector in Cyprus (and its liabilities) was far larger than the GDP of Cyprus.

The banks bought risky assets (mostly Greek Bonds) which lead to heavy losses.

The losses were so large that the government of Cyprus could not bail out the banks. (Unlike the U.S. Cyprus could not print/create money to solve this problem.)

The government of Cyprus then sought a load from the EU but it came with conditions.

 
Cyprus didn't "borrow like a drunken sot" but its banks did make poor investments.


//Keep in mind that prior to the financial crisis the EU insisted that Greek bonds were sound.


Well, then the banks borrowed like sots and the government let them.

I'm guessing the banks made those investments with their customer's funds.

It amounts to the same thing, in the end.
 
2013-03-29 12:56:26 PM  
Alas, those same individuals are likely to have been least affected, as subsequent discoveries of capital control breaches by the "richest and best connected" reveal, while increasingly it appears that the uninsured depositors on whose back the nation of Cyprus was bailed out are small and medium corporations, who had been parking cash for net working capital purposes with Cyprus' banks, cash which is now gone forever to feed the creeping insolvent Euro-monster, and which can't be used to fund such day to day business activities as payroll, purchases, and business operations.

One.  Sentence.  Article.
 
2013-03-29 12:56:51 PM  

NostroZ: scarmig: Remember, it can't happen here.

Exactly!
Cyprus = Small island country that's used as a tax haven
United States = Large 1/3 of continent country with a world reserve currency & a huge GDP as well as world military.

They cannot/will-not do what Cyprus did, since it would do more harm than good in the long run.
Plus we have the option to print more dollars, Cyprus is at the mercy of the Euro.


Yup.  Anytime, the FED can just append another couple of zeros onto the debt, and we'll all be rich.

Problem solved.
 
2013-03-29 12:58:41 PM  
Coming soon to Canada.
 
2013-03-29 01:03:14 PM  

Gosling: I always secure my savings in places that can vanish if something goes BEEEEEEEeeeeeoooooooop."


Yes you do, for example the mainframe at your bank. The reason you probably don't worry about it is because there are backups that can restore your balance if that ever happens. Bitcoin also has this property. There isn't any central server; your "coins" are stored on your own computer (and as many backup devices as you want) until you send them to someone else.
 
2013-03-29 01:04:39 PM  

ACunningPlan: Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.


Not true. That was proposed, everyone said WTF?, was a major policy clusterfark, and the final settlement leaves those under 100k fully intact.
 
2013-03-29 01:05:50 PM  
While the rest of you farkers cry in dispair or blame the democrats, I got off my ass and found a solution.


www.shescribes.com
 
2013-03-29 01:06:00 PM  

scarmig: NostroZ: scarmig: Remember, it can't happen here.

Exactly!
Cyprus = Small island country that's used as a tax haven
United States = Large 1/3 of continent country with a world reserve currency & a huge GDP as well as world military.

They cannot/will-not do what Cyprus did, since it would do more harm than good in the long run.
Plus we have the option to print more dollars, Cyprus is at the mercy of the Euro.

Yup.  Anytime, the FED can just append another couple of zeros onto the debt, and we'll all be rich.

Problem solved.


I'm certainly for MORE options to solve problems vs. less.
The FED is privately owned and the shareholders of which are major banks and their proprietors.  Therefore, the individuals at the helm also answer to other rich people, as well as their own self interest, and sometimes to the tax-payer.  Yet, I'd argue that in this case, what's good for the goose is good for the gander*.

*Considering the 'goose' is an oversized banking sector headed by the TBTFs and the Fed and the 'gander' is the rest of us not in the sphere of power.
 
2013-03-29 01:11:03 PM  

Surpheon: ACunningPlan: Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.

Not true. That was proposed, everyone said WTF?, was a major policy clusterfark, and the final settlement leaves those under 100k fully intact.


That is what I thought. Reuters isn't without its faults as a news source, but I can't believe they would have neglected to mention a "solidarity tax".
 
2013-03-29 01:12:20 PM  

MythDragon: While the rest of you farkers cry in dispair or blame the democrats, I got off my ass and found a solution.


Usury.

Is it wrong that I find that woman smoking hot?
 
2013-03-29 01:20:19 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: MythDragon: While the rest of you farkers cry in dispair or blame the democrats, I got off my ass and found a solution.

Usury.

Is it wrong that I find that woman smoking hot?


No, that's the whole point of Poke-a-HotAss.

Before they had a slim Indian guy, but went for the "sex sells" theme:
i3.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-29 01:22:45 PM  

NostroZ: a_room_with_a_moose: MythDragon: While the rest of you farkers cry in dispair or blame the democrats, I got off my ass and found a solution.

Usury.

Is it wrong that I find that woman smoking hot?

No, that's the whole point of Poke-a-HotAss.

Before they had a slim Indian guy, but went for the "sex sells" theme:


Poke-a-HotAss.

Oh, my, that amused me.
 
2013-03-29 01:30:55 PM  

anfrind: IRQ12: HAHAHA...yes please secure your funds in bitcoin.

That stupid thing is the 2013 version of the blinking punch the monkey ads.   Here's a fun exercise:  type bitcoin into the little search box on the top right.

I try to maintain a healthy skepticism about bitcoins, but they do offer one significant advantage (from the individual Cypriot's perspective) over the Euro: the government can't go to the bank and seize your bitcoins.

Which is not to say that there aren't better alternatives, but I doubt any of them are as easily accessible to individuals as bitcoin.


It's an awesome idea, the execution is the problem.

Does a government need to seize your bitcoins when they run the infrastructure that makes them a viable form of trade?  That's what's so funny about the bitcoin fanatics, they're all like a bunch of 15 year old boys who think they have figured out all of these "simple" worlds problems....because they don't understand the wider cause and effect of things.
 
2013-03-29 01:31:58 PM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


If the story is accurate, it sounds like the oligarchs that this was supposed to target got their money smuggled out of the country using their vast connections before it could be confiscated, leaving the honest folks to pick up the tab while the criminals who likely had a large hand in creating the problem got to sail off into the sunset on a solid gold yacht filled with hookers and blow. I'm pretty sure that nothing like that has ever happened before. Usually the rich and powerful get screwed while the little guys laugh. There is no way that anyone could have seen this coming.
 
2013-03-29 01:38:43 PM  

mod3072: bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.

If the story is accurate, it sounds like the oligarchs that this was supposed to target got their money smuggled out of the country using their vast connections before it could be confiscated, leaving the honest folks to pick up the tab while the criminals who likely had a large hand in creating the problem got to sail off into the sunset on a solid gold yacht filled with hookers and blow. I'm pretty sure that nothing like that has ever happened before. Usually the rich and powerful get screwed while the little guys laugh. There is no way that anyone could have seen this coming.


They didn't get their money "smuggled out." The banks that closed in Cyprus left open their branches on the London exchanges. The Russian mafia simply withdrew its money through London. The Central Bank of Cyprus had no legal authority to close those branches and the bankers decided they liked living above ground, so they gave the Russians their money.
 
2013-03-29 01:39:35 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Well, then the banks borrowed like sots and the government let them.

I'm guessing the banks made those investments with their customer's funds.

It amounts to the same thing, in the end.


Kinda, (I apologize in advance if you already knew all this stuff)

 
Banks don't "borrow", they issue loans.

 
They can take your current account (and the accounts of others) and create loans with values much much higher than what they have in liquid assets. (This is more or less what Fractional Reserve Banking is all about) The bank loans are its assets and your account is their liability. This creates an obvious mismatch between liabilities and assets. When the FED or the media speaks of leverage they are talking about the size of this mismatch. And bank leverage had alot to do with what caused the Financial Crisis in the U.S. In fact many of the banks in the U.S. had assets (toxic mortgages) that were so worthless they essentially had nothing of value to balance out their large liabilities. (They basically had a balance sheet of nothing but liabilities)

 
Now normally your current account (any deposit really) is considered the most senior and most secure of all bank liabilities. So during a bankruptcy multiple tears of investors lose their money before your deposit takes a hit. So the real question is what happened to those multiple tears of investors?

 
I am pretty sure that even if the Cyprus banks went into bankruptcy the depositors would lose a great deal. Even with some version of FDIC insurance the losses would be huge. 

//I think I more or less got the above right but I am not the best at describing the inner workings of banking
//Most of what I know is based on the work of others.
 
2013-03-29 01:41:55 PM  

MythDragon: While the rest of you farkers cry in dispair or blame the democrats, I got off my ass and found a solution.


[www.shescribes.com image 425x272]


Wherever you live must really suck.  She trusts me with up to 10,000 dollars where I live.  I didn't know they changed the price based on the area you live...
 
2013-03-29 01:46:13 PM  

Flargan: a_room_with_a_moose: Well, then the banks borrowed like sots and the government let them.

I'm guessing the banks made those investments with their customer's funds.

It amounts to the same thing, in the end.

Kinda, (I apologize in advance if you already knew all this stuff)

 
Banks don't "borrow", they issue loans.

 
They can take your current account (and the accounts of others) and create loans with values much much higher than what they have in liquid assets. (This is more or less what Fractional Reserve Banking is all about) The bank loans are its assets and your account is their liability. This creates an obvious mismatch between liabilities and assets. When the FED or the media speaks of leverage they are talking about the size of this mismatch. And bank leverage had alot to do with what caused the Financial Crisis in the U.S. In fact many of the banks in the U.S. had assets (toxic mortgages) that were so worthless they essentially had nothing of value to balance out their large liabilities. (They basically had a balance sheet of nothing but liabilities)

 
Now normally your current account (any deposit really) is considered the most senior and most secure of all bank liabilities. So during a bankruptcy multiple tears of investors lose their money before your deposit takes a hit. So the real question is what happened to those multiple tears of investors?

 
I am pretty sure that even if the Cyprus banks went into bankruptcy the depositors would lose a great deal. Even with some version of FDIC insurance the losses would be huge. 

//I think I more or less got the above right but I am not the best at describing the inner workings of banking
//Most of what I know is based on the work of others.


Thank you, srsly. That was about what I thought, I just oversimplified it.

I forget most farkers are a little more learned than my good but rather simple neighbors here in southern WV.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:42 PM  

FullMetalPanda: MythDragon: While the rest of you farkers cry in dispair or blame the democrats, I got off my ass and found a solution.


[www.shescribes.com image 425x272]

Wherever you live must really suck.  She trusts me with up to 10,000 dollars where I live.  I didn't know they changed the price based on the area you live...


I think different states have different laws as to amounts and interest.

It is 10 large in WV also.
 
2013-03-29 01:51:11 PM  

Triumph: mod3072: bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.

If the story is accurate, it sounds like the oligarchs that this was supposed to target got their money smuggled out of the country using their vast connections before it could be confiscated, leaving the honest folks to pick up the tab while the criminals who likely had a large hand in creating the problem got to sail off into the sunset on a solid gold yacht filled with hookers and blow. I'm pretty sure that nothing like that has ever happened before. Usually the rich and powerful get screwed while the little guys laugh. There is no way that anyone could have seen this coming.

They didn't get their money "smuggled out." The banks that closed in Cyprus left open their branches on the London exchanges. The Russian mafia simply withdrew its money through London. The Central Bank of Cyprus had no legal authority to close those branches and the bankers decided they liked living above ground, so they gave the Russians their money.


That's why I prefaced my statement with "If the story is accurate". The article clearly implies that the wealthy Russians used their influence and connections to get their money out of the country before it could be confiscated. Not that I would be at all surprised if an article on the internet were not 100% completely accurate or a little biased.
 
2013-03-29 01:51:55 PM  
ACunningPlan: 
Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.  This isn't about the money though, it's a power grab and the setting of a precedent.  Merkel's up for re-election in September and she wants to be able to tell her voters they're not getting shafted - which they are, quite frankly.  And the EU is busy consolidating its control.

That's not true. The plan Cyprus put forth to the EU was to tax the small savers, then Cyprus voted their own moronic plan down, and thusly had to come up with a new one that could pass (and be accepted by the EU).

It's blatantly false, and sadly widely spread, that it was the EU that imposed it on Cyprus to tax small savers. It fits with the FUD of Euro haters, but it's a lie.
 
2013-03-29 01:52:17 PM  

Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.


Yes, fark the one-percenters.  Every last of of 'em.
 
2013-03-29 01:55:13 PM  

Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.


I don't really care about money in excess of €100k.  They knew the deposits were only guaranteed to that amount.  Just as we know that here with the FDIC.  The bank failed.  If they had more than that amount, tough shiat.

It's the attempt to grab from people below the insurance threshold that should scare the shiat out of anybody with money in a European bank.  The EU opened Pandora's box with that bullshiat.  I'd be moving my money to Britain or Switzerland ASAP if I were a Spaniard or Irish.
 
2013-03-29 01:55:17 PM  

Surpheon: ACunningPlan: Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.

Not true. That was proposed, everyone said WTF?, was a major policy clusterfark, and the final settlement leaves those under 100k fully intact.



 I didn't think so: thought they reduced the final settlement, but it does tap accounts under 100K also?
 
2013-03-29 02:01:57 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Flargan: a_room_with_a_moose: Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

Thats not exactly how I would put it.

"The Cypriot Government was reported requesting a bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility or the European Stability Mechanism on 25 June 2012, citing difficulties in supporting its banking sector from the exposure to the Greek debt."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%932013_Cypriot_financial_cr isi s

The banking sector in Cyprus (and its liabilities) was far larger than the GDP of Cyprus.

The banks bought risky assets (mostly Greek Bonds) which lead to heavy losses.

The losses were so large that the government of Cyprus could not bail out the banks. (Unlike the U.S. Cyprus could not print/create money to solve this problem.)

The government of Cyprus then sought a load from the EU but it came with conditions.


Cyprus didn't "borrow like a drunken sot" but its banks did make poor investments.


//Keep in mind that prior to the financial crisis the EU insisted that Greek bonds were sound.

Well, then the banks borrowed like sots and the government let them.

I'm guessing the banks made those investments with their customer's funds.

It amounts to the same thing, in the end.


The Cypriot banks were not in all that bad shape until the EU forced the greek bond devaluation on them

You can find the details here

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/world/europe/europeans-planted-see ds -of-crisis-in-cyprus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


But the path that led to Cyprus's current crisis - big banks bereft of money, a government in disarray and citizens filled with angry despair - leads back, at least in part, to a fateful decision made 17 months ago by the same guardians of financial discipline that now demand that Cyprus shape up.


That decision, like the onerous bailout package for Cyprus announced early Monday, was sealed in Brussels in secretive emergency sessions in the dead of night in late October 2011. That was when the European Union, then struggling to contain a debt crisis in Greece, effectively planted a time bomb that would blow a big hole in Cyprus's banking system - and set off a chain reaction of unintended and ever escalating ugly consequences.

"It was 3 o'clock in the morning," recalled Kikis Kazamias, Cyprus's finance minister at the time. "I was not happy. Nobody was happy, but what could we do?"

He was in Brussels as European leaders and the International Monetary Fund engineered a 50 percent write-down of Greek government bonds. This meant that those holding the bonds - notably the then-cash-rich banks of the Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus - would lose at least half the money they thought they had. Eventual losses came close to 75 percent of the bonds' face value.

For Cypriot banks, particularly Laiki Bank, at the center of the current storm, however, these conclusions foretold a disaster: Altogether, they lost more than four billion euros, a huge amount in a country with a gross domestic product of just 18 billion euros. Laiki, also known as Cyprus Popular Bank, alone took a hit of 2.3 billion euros, according to its 2011 annual report.



It's tough to keep your bank solvent under those conditions.

/a box of gold and silver coins is looking better and better
 
2013-03-29 02:04:14 PM  
IRQ12: 


Does a government need to seize your bitcoins when they run the infrastructure that makes them a viable form of trade?  That's what's so funny about the bitcoin fanatics, they're all like a bunch of 15 year old boys who think they have figured out all of these "simple" worlds problems....because they don't understand the wider cause and effect of things.

You're also a fanatic, but you're not funny, just annoying with your ignorance.

Bitcoins in their distributed nature can't be seized, and the government doesn't and can't control the means of which they're traded.

Futhermore, the value of the Bitcoin is irrelevant in so far as it's efficiency of making a purchase. Noone gives a shiat whether it's worth 10 cents or 100 dollars, you just purchase, and transfer, the correct amount of Bitcoins. The problem only arises if you insist on keeping your money in Bitcoins. I think that's a bad idea, and not what the Bitcoin was created for.

By using Bitcoins I can make a purchase to someone across the world, with instant payment, without having to involve banks or credit cards and their associated fees, delays, demands for documentation etc.

Some people do see the Bitcoin as an investment, but it's kinda hard to argue with them if they bought them at 2USD a piece. Let's just hope for them that another crash isn't comming, something that will only affect investors though, as outlined above.
 
2013-03-29 02:06:37 PM  

spawn73: ACunningPlan:
Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.  This isn't about the money though, it's a power grab and the setting of a precedent.  Merkel's up for re-election in September and she wants to be able to tell her voters they're not getting shafted - which they are, quite frankly.  And the EU is busy consolidating its control.

That's not true. The plan Cyprus put forth to the EU was to tax the small savers, then Cyprus voted their own moronic plan down, and thusly had to come up with a new one that could pass (and be accepted by the EU).

It's blatantly false, and sadly widely spread, that it was the EU that imposed it on Cyprus to tax small savers. It fits with the FUD of Euro haters, but it's a lie.


That's definitely not true: the original plan voted down was an also EU construct.  Then the Cypriot's went to the Russians, then they went back to the EU and the "hair cut" was imposed..  Only this time, it was smarter because it by-passed the need to have the democratically elected parliament of Cyprus vote on the matter.
 
2013-03-29 02:10:54 PM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

I don't really care about money in excess of €100k.  They knew the deposits were only guaranteed to that amount.  Just as we know that here with the FDIC.  The bank failed.  If they had more than that amount, tough shiat.

It's the attempt to grab from people below the insurance threshold that should scare the shiat out of anybody with money in a European bank.  The EU opened Pandora's box with that bullshiat.  I'd be moving my money to Britain or Switzerland ASAP if I were a Spaniard or Irish.


Yeah fark Cyprus tbh.

But anyway, what I'd do at least, if I had more money than 100k Euro (I wish), was to look into the solvency of my bank. Fortunatly I live in a country where the government checks the banks constantly for solvency, but I guess they didn't in Cyprus since this apparently came as a surprise for them, in that they didn't act before it was too late.

(you do realise that Great Britain and Switzerland are also in Europe? Your comments are a bit strange (GB is in the EU as well) I'd certainly trust GB or Swizz banks more than Irish for sure though.).
 
2013-03-29 02:17:20 PM  
realityVSperception:
He was in Brussels as European leaders and the International Monetary Fund engineered a 50 percent write-down of Greek government bonds. This meant that those holding the bonds - notably the then-cash-rich banks of the Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus - would lose at least half the money they thought they had. Eventual losses came close to 75 percent of the bonds' face value.
For Cypriot banks, particularly Laiki Bank, at the center of the current storm, however, these conclusions foretold a disaster: Altogether, they lost more than four billion euros, a huge amount in a country with a gross domestic product of just 18 billion euros. Laiki, also known as Cyprus Popular Bank, alone took a hit of 2.3 billion euros, according to its 2011 annual report.

It's tough to keep your bank solvent under those conditions.
/a box of gold and silver coins is looking better and better


It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

They invested in them because they were greedy, ie. they probably paid up to 20%.

Of course the EU, and Greece, would say to anyone who cares to listen that Greek was safe, and their bonds were safe. That's their farking job to say, they're not going to go out there and talk the Greek economy even further into the shiatter.

Perhaps Cyprus is just to small to be able to run a banking system themselves if it came as a surprise to them that Greek bonds was a risky investment that you´d be a complete moron, or a Cypriotic, to bet your house on. Because that's what they did, and it's noones fault but their own.
 
2013-03-29 02:17:41 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Thank you, srsly. That was about what I thought, I just oversimplified it.

I forget most farkers are a little more learned than my good but rather simple neighbors here in southern WV.


Glad to help,

 
I should mention that there isn't much of a consensus as to whether or not banks are reserve constrained (i.e. Do they need more money to lend or does lending come first regardless?) and most of the public believes that we operate under a full reserve system (every loan is backed by a deposit).

 
Also, most economists downplay the economic impact of the loans a bank creates.

But those loans are really a form of money called endogenous money and have the same economic impact as real money. In fact most of the money creation in the U.S. occurs in the banks.

 
"Changes in the quantity of money may originate with actions of the Federal Reserve System (the central bank), depository institutions (principally commercial banks), or the public. The major control, however, rests with the central bank. The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks."

 -the Chicago Fed
 
2013-03-29 02:22:02 PM  

ACunningPlan: spawn73: ACunningPlan:
Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.  This isn't about the money though, it's a power grab and the setting of a precedent.  Merkel's up for re-election in September and she wants to be able to tell her voters they're not getting shafted - which they are, quite frankly.  And the EU is busy consolidating its control.

That's not true. The plan Cyprus put forth to the EU was to tax the small savers, then Cyprus voted their own moronic plan down, and thusly had to come up with a new one that could pass (and be accepted by the EU).

It's blatantly false, and sadly widely spread, that it was the EU that imposed it on Cyprus to tax small savers. It fits with the FUD of Euro haters, but it's a lie.

That's definitely not true: the original plan voted down was an also EU construct.  Then the Cypriot's went to the Russians, then they went back to the EU and the "hair cut" was imposed..  Only this time, it was smarter because it by-passed the need to have the democratically elected parliament of Cyprus vote on the matter.


No it wasn't, that was the plan that Cyprus proposed to the EU, which the EU deemed acceptable.

Cyprus proposed it, the EU is just demanding to see the money. What Cyprus proposed satisfied that part of it, so the EU and Cyprus presented that as the plan.

That's how it works. The EU doesn't outline in details how, in this case, Cyprus has to come up with the money, only deems whether or not it is satisfactory. I hope the EU had told Cyprus that their plan was stupid, but who knows. I gather they did, but Cyprus insisted on it because they wanted to protect their status as international banking heaven (something they can kiss goodbye now obviously).
 
2013-03-29 02:29:34 PM  

Triumph: They didn't get their money "smuggled out." The banks that closed in Cyprus left open their branches on the London exchanges. The Russian mafia simply withdrew its money through London. The Central Bank of Cyprus had no legal authority to close those branches and the bankers decided they liked living above ground, so they gave the Russians their money.


You managed the perfect combination of information, wit, and snark
 
2013-03-29 02:41:34 PM  

spawn73: It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.


AAA is junk status now? Ok.
 
2013-03-29 02:42:40 PM  
Whatever.  This, like all other problems, can be solved by making the rich pay more taxes.
 
2013-03-29 02:45:25 PM  

spawn73: Yeah fark Cyprus tbh.

But anyway, what I'd do at least, if I had more money than 100k Euro (I wish), was to look into the solvency of my bank. Fortunatly I live in a country where the government checks the banks constantly for solvency, but I guess they didn't in Cyprus since this apparently came as a surprise for them, in that they didn't act before it was too late.

(you do realise that Great Britain and Switzerland are also in Europe? Your comments are a bit strange (GB is in the EU as well) I'd certainly trust GB or Swizz banks more than Irish for sure though.).


Yes, having lived in Britain, I'm well-aware of the fact that they're in the EU.  They have their own currency, as does Switzerland, so they're not beholden to the wishes of scumbags like Schauble and Asmussen.

People keep thinking this is a debt crisis.  It's not.  It's a currency crisis.  As long as these idiots hold on to that moronic currency, their people are screwed.
 
2013-03-29 02:46:55 PM  

spawn73: IRQ12:


Does a government need to seize your bitcoins when they run the infrastructure that makes them a viable form of trade?  That's what's so funny about the bitcoin fanatics, they're all like a bunch of 15 year old boys who think they have figured out all of these "simple" worlds problems....because they don't understand the wider cause and effect of things.

You're also a fanatic, but you're not funny, just annoying with your ignorance.

Bitcoins in their distributed nature can't be seized, and the government doesn't and can't control the means of which they're traded.

Futhermore, the value of the Bitcoin is irrelevant in so far as it's efficiency of making a purchase. Noone gives a shiat whether it's worth 10 cents or 100 dollars, you just purchase, and transfer, the correct amount of Bitcoins. The problem only arises if you insist on keeping your money in Bitcoins. I think that's a bad idea, and not what the Bitcoin was created for.

By using Bitcoins I can make a purchase to someone across the world, with instant payment, without having to involve banks or credit cards and their associated fees, delays, demands for documentation etc.

Some people do see the Bitcoin as an investment, but it's kinda hard to argue with them if they bought them at 2USD a piece. Let's just hope for them that another crash isn't comming, something that will only affect investors though, as outlined above.


Considering how idiotic the idea of seizing cash from everyone's savings was, I wouldn't put it past them to try to stop money from flowing out of the country by similarly idiotic measures, such as shutting down or severely restricting Internet access.  I know that there are smartphone apps to maintain bitcoin wallets and even transfer bitcoins from one phone to another, but would that still work without access to the bitcoin network?

At this point, if I had to move from the U.S. to a Eurozone country, I'd be highly motivated to keep my existing credit union accounts if at all possible.

spawn73: (you do realise that Great Britain and Switzerland are also in Europe? Your comments are a bit strange (GB is in the EU as well) I'd certainly trust GB or Swizz banks more than Irish for sure though.).


The United Kingdom and Switzerland are part of the European Union, but are not part of the Eurozone.  As such, they still have their own national currencies.
 
2013-03-29 02:47:20 PM  

spawn73: RickyWilliams'sBong: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

I don't really care about money in excess of €100k.  They knew the deposits were only guaranteed to that amount.  Just as we know that here with the FDIC.  The bank failed.  If they had more than that amount, tough shiat.

It's the attempt to grab from people below the insurance threshold that should scare the shiat out of anybody with money in a European bank.  The EU opened Pandora's box with that bullshiat.  I'd be moving my money to Britain or Switzerland ASAP if I were a Spaniard or Irish.

Yeah fark Cyprus tbh.

But anyway, what I'd do at least, if I had more money than 100k Euro (I wish), was to look into the solvency of my bank. Fortunatly I live in a country where the government checks the banks constantly for solvency, but I guess they didn't in Cyprus since this apparently came as a surprise for them, in that they didn't act before it was too late.

(you do realise that Great Britain and Switzerland are also in Europe? Your comments are a bit strange (GB is in the EU as well) I'd certainly trust GB or Swizz banks more than Irish for sure though.).


Yah. The Irish would just drink your money up.

/Irish-American
//self-loathing?
 
2013-03-29 02:47:57 PM  

Evil High Priest: AAA is junk status now? Ok.


Well... we did have alot of CDOs (bundles of bad mortgages) that were marked AAA despite the fact that they had little to no value. But most investors (savvy or not) took the AAA at face value and never asked any questions. 2008 wasn't that long ago and everyone was making the same poor choices whether it was a Greek bond or a U.S. CDO.

 
//I still wonder why its ok for the credit rating agencies to get paid by the companies they rate products for.

//"This thing is awful but if we don't mark it AAA someone else will."
 
2013-03-29 02:50:58 PM  

realityVSperception: a_room_with_a_moose: Flargan: a_room_with_a_moose: Fact is, Cyprus borrowed like a drunken sot. Now they need to pay the tab.

Thats not exactly how I would put it.

"The Cypriot Government was reported requesting a bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility or the European Stability Mechanism on 25 June 2012, citing difficulties in supporting its banking sector from the exposure to the Greek debt."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%932013_Cypriot_financial_cr isi s

The banking sector in Cyprus (and its liabilities) was far larger than the GDP of Cyprus.

The banks bought risky assets (mostly Greek Bonds) which lead to heavy losses.

The losses were so large that the government of Cyprus could not bail out the banks. (Unlike the U.S. Cyprus could not print/create money to solve this problem.)

The government of Cyprus then sought a load from the EU but it came with conditions.


Cyprus didn't "borrow like a drunken sot" but its banks did make poor investments.


//Keep in mind that prior to the financial crisis the EU insisted that Greek bonds were sound.

Well, then the banks borrowed like sots and the government let them.

I'm guessing the banks made those investments with their customer's funds.

It amounts to the same thing, in the end.

The Cypriot banks were not in all that bad shape until the EU forced the greek bond devaluation on them

You can find the details here

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/world/europe/europeans-planted-see ds -of-crisis-in-cyprus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


But the path that led to Cyprus's current crisis - big banks bereft of money, a government in disarray and citizens filled with angry despair - leads back, at least in part, to a fateful decision made 17 months ago by the same guardians of financial discipline that now demand that Cyprus shape up.


That decision, like the onerous bailout package for Cyprus announced early Monday, was sealed in Brussels in secretive emergency sessions in the dead of night in late October 2011. That was when the European Union, then struggling to contain a debt crisis in Greece, effectively planted a time bomb that would blow a big hole in Cyprus's banking system - and set off a chain reaction of unintended and ever escalating ugly consequences.

"It was 3 o'clock in the morning," recalled Kikis Kazamias, Cyprus's finance minister at the time. "I was not happy. Nobody was happy, but what could we do?"

He was in Brussels as European leaders and the International Monetary Fund engineered a 50 percent write-down of Greek government bonds. This meant that those holding the bonds - notably the then-cash-rich banks of the Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus - would lose at least half the money they thought they had. Eventual losses came close to 75 percent of the bonds' face value.

For Cypriot banks, particularly Laiki Bank, at the center of the current storm, however, these conclusions foretold a disaster: Altogether, they lost more than four billion euros, a huge amount in a country with a gross domestic product of just 18 billion euros. Laiki, also known as Cyprus Popular Bank, alone took a hit of 2.3 billion euros, according to its 2011 annual report.


It's tough to keep your bank solvent under those conditions.

/a box of gold and silver coins is looking better and better


Can't disagree with the gold and silver thing for saving.

If there was no faith that the Greek government would be able to redeem the bonds, why shouldn't they have been devalued? Not being critical, just curious.
 
2013-03-29 02:53:18 PM  

spawn73: ACunningPlan: spawn73: ACunningPlan:
Accounts up to 100k Euros were insured, but the EU decided to impose a "solidarity tax" on smaller savers.  This isn't about the money though, it's a power grab and the setting of a precedent.  Merkel's up for re-election in September and she wants to be able to tell her voters they're not getting shafted - which they are, quite frankly.  And the EU is busy consolidating its control.

That's not true. The plan Cyprus put forth to the EU was to tax the small savers, then Cyprus voted their own moronic plan down, and thusly had to come up with a new one that could pass (and be accepted by the EU).

It's blatantly false, and sadly widely spread, that it was the EU that imposed it on Cyprus to tax small savers. It fits with the FUD of Euro haters, but it's a lie.

That's definitely not true: the original plan voted down was an also EU construct.  Then the Cypriot's went to the Russians, then they went back to the EU and the "hair cut" was imposed..  Only this time, it was smarter because it by-passed the need to have the democratically elected parliament of Cyprus vote on the matter.

No it wasn't, that was the plan that Cyprus proposed to the EU, which the EU deemed acceptable.

Cyprus proposed it, the EU is just demanding to see the money. What Cyprus proposed satisfied that part of it, so the EU and Cyprus presented that as the plan.

That's how it works. The EU doesn't outline in details how, in this case, Cyprus has to come up with the money, only deems whether or not it is satisfactory. I hope the EU had told Cyprus that their plan was stupid, but who knows. I gather they did, but Cyprus insisted on it because they wanted to protect their status as international banking heaven (something they can kiss goodbye now obviously).


That's not my understanding of how events unfolded.  But we're not going to reach consensus on this subject - you're in favor & I'm against - so can we amicably agree to disagree:)
 
2013-03-29 02:55:02 PM  

Evil High Priest: spawn73: It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

AAA is junk status now? Ok.


This is why Europe is royally farked.  Zee Germans make up the story as they go along and know nothing about economics.

Germany: "You have to agree to this haircut on Greek debt, Cyrprus, in the interest of EU solidarity and stability.  We'll back you up if you run into problems."

Cyprus: "Okay, we did that, and now our banks are insolvent.  Help please?"

Germany: "Pfffffft.  biatch, please.  Give us your deposits.  And cripple yourselves with budget cuts and deflation while you're at it."
 
2013-03-29 03:08:14 PM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: Evil High Priest: spawn73: It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

AAA is junk status now? Ok.

This is why Europe is royally farked.  Zee Germans make up the story as they go along and know nothing about economics.

Germany: "You have to agree to this haircut on Greek debt, Cyrprus, in the interest of EU solidarity and stability.  We'll back you up if you run into problems."

Cyprus: "Okay, we did that, and now our banks are insolvent.  Help please?"

Germany: "Pfffffft.  biatch, please.  Give us your deposits.  And cripple yourselves with budget cuts and deflation while you're at it."


Well, if there is anything to take away from this, it is that Germans are just plain evil.

I'm sure the other strong Eurozone states like France had nothing to do with this crisis.
 
2013-03-29 03:09:02 PM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


And never mind that the collapse is because they were chasing yield and bought a ton of Greek debt.
 
2013-03-29 03:14:54 PM  

Evil High Priest: spawn73: It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

AAA is junk status now? Ok.


I'd love to live in your world, it sounds nice. Do you have unicorns as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating

Sadly in reality Greece is still close to junk, and they're doing good now relative to when the banks in Cyprus made the decision to invest the Russians mafias money in them.
 
2013-03-29 03:18:33 PM  

spawn73: realityVSperception:
He was in Brussels as European leaders and the International Monetary Fund engineered a 50 percent write-down of Greek government bonds. This meant that those holding the bonds - notably the then-cash-rich banks of the Greek-speaking Republic of Cyprus - would lose at least half the money they thought they had. Eventual losses came close to 75 percent of the bonds' face value.
For Cypriot banks, particularly Laiki Bank, at the center of the current storm, however, these conclusions foretold a disaster: Altogether, they lost more than four billion euros, a huge amount in a country with a gross domestic product of just 18 billion euros. Laiki, also known as Cyprus Popular Bank, alone took a hit of 2.3 billion euros, according to its 2011 annual report.

It's tough to keep your bank solvent under those conditions.
/a box of gold and silver coins is looking better and better

It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

They invested in them because they were greedy, ie. they probably paid up to 20%.

Of course the EU, and Greece, would say to anyone who cares to listen that Greek was safe, and their bonds were safe. That's their farking job to say, they're not going to go out there and talk the Greek economy even further into the shiatter.

Perhaps Cyprus is just to small to be able to run a banking system themselves if it came as a surprise to them that Greek bonds was a risky investment that you´d be a complete moron, or a Cypriotic, to bet your house on. Because that's what they did, and it's noones fault but their own.


The EU is the one who failed to due diligence when they allowed Greece to join the euro in the 1st place.
Greece actively hid its debt levels with help from Goldman Sachs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251280/Goldman-Sachs-new-st or m-secret-deal-mask-Greek-debts.html

How was a Cyprus bank suppose to detect the fraud when even the EU ministers in Brussels were fooled?

Actually Greek bonds were not rated as junk, and paid typical rates around 5% leading up to the crisis.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/government-bond-yield

The whole point of the EU is to allow small countries to participate in and have the benefits of a continental size economy. It shouldn't matter how small the individual country is, otherwise, why bother having the EU in the first place?

So even though Greece actively committed fraud, and the EU forced the losses on the Cyprus banks, you think the Cyprus banks are entirely at fault for creating a financial industry and buying investment rated government debt backed by the EU?
 
2013-03-29 03:27:24 PM  

spawn73: Evil High Priest: spawn73: It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

AAA is junk status now? Ok.

I'd love to live in your world, it sounds nice. Do you have unicorns as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating

Sadly in reality Greece is still close to junk, and they're doing good now relative to when the banks in Cyprus made the decision to invest the Russians mafias money in them.


Everyone knows the Greek banks are junk now, the issue is when they bought the bonds back in 2008, when they were A1 rated (more importantly they were considered by EU bank regulators to be in the safest class of assets banks could hold).  Bonds once you hit the level of buying billions at a time are quite illiquid so by the time a credit downgrade occurs owners are already farked.  In addition to the Greek Sovereign haircut/default, an awful lot of Cypriot bank loans were to Greek business that slowed in the austerity plans that followed.
 
2013-03-29 03:32:10 PM  

spawn73: IRQ12: 


Does a government need to seize your bitcoins when they run the infrastructure that makes them a viable form of trade?  That's what's so funny about the bitcoin fanatics, they're all like a bunch of 15 year old boys who think they have figured out all of these "simple" worlds problems....because they don't understand the wider cause and effect of things.

You're also a fanatic, but you're not funny, just annoying with your ignorance.

Bitcoins in their distributed nature can't be seized, and the government doesn't and can't control the means of which they're traded.

Futhermore, the value of the Bitcoin is irrelevant in so far as it's efficiency of making a purchase. Noone gives a shiat whether it's worth 10 cents or 100 dollars, you just purchase, and transfer, the correct amount of Bitcoins. The problem only arises if you insist on keeping your money in Bitcoins. I think that's a bad idea, and not what the Bitcoin was created for.

By using Bitcoins I can make a purchase to someone across the world, with instant payment, without having to involve banks or credit cards and their associated fees, delays, demands for documentation etc.

Some people do see the Bitcoin as an investment, but it's kinda hard to argue with them if they bought them at 2USD a piece. Let's just hope for them that another crash isn't comming, something that will only affect investors though, as outlined above.


Furthermore, another person who completely misses the point that the governments control the infrastructure that makes the whole thing possible.

Trust me, with all of the scammers, pumpers, fools, etc out littering the internet with their get rich quick scheme they have also made it much more visible.  If you think bitcoin is immune to government control you are very mistaken.  There's a reason money laundering is one of the top federal crimes in this country.  The government wants their cut.
 
2013-03-29 03:48:38 PM  
Sounds like an excuse for a struggling business would make.
 
2013-03-29 03:50:13 PM  

nelsonal: spawn73: Evil High Priest: spawn73: It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

AAA is junk status now? Ok.

I'd love to live in your world, it sounds nice. Do you have unicorns as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating

Sadly in reality Greece is still close to junk, and they're doing good now relative to when the banks in Cyprus made the decision to invest the Russians mafias money in them.

Everyone knows the Greek banks are junk now, the issue is when they bought the bonds back in 2008, when they were A1 rated (more importantly they were considered by EU bank regulators to be in the safest class of assets banks could hold).  Bonds once you hit the level of buying billions at a time are quite illiquid so by the time a credit downgrade occurs owners are already farked.  In addition to the Greek Sovereign haircut/default, an awful lot of Cypriot bank loans were to Greek business that slowed in the austerity plans that followed.


What I took away from this was that the Cypriotic banks had invested heavily in Greek bonds while the yield were high based on them being a risky investment.

If they didn't, then my bad, though then I wonder why they put all their money in Greek bonds if there weren't any yield incentive. Why didn't they spread them out like normal banks do?
 
2013-03-29 03:54:23 PM  
A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?
 
2013-03-29 03:56:34 PM  
IRQ12: 
Furthermore, another person who completely misses the point that the governments control the infrastructure that makes the whole thing possible.

Trust me, with all of the scammers, pumpers, fools, etc out littering the internet with their get rich quick scheme they have also made it much more visible.  If you think bitcoin is immune to government control you are very mistaken.  There's a reason money laundering is one of the top federal crimes in this country.  The government wants their cut.


No the government doesn't. And yes, Bitcoin in its nature is immune to government control, and I'm not mistaken.

What could potentially happen is that governments of the world decides to close the internet, uh yeah, that could in theory happen, but it wont of course. If the bitcoin clients can't communicate with each other, then they don't work.

The government could also make it illegal to have a Bitcoin client running, and make it illegal to accept Bitcoins. But that's not control.


Look, why don't you try and read about how the Bitcoin system works, then you could make some informed arguments against it, instead of this nonsense. That is, if you still hate it afterwards.
 
2013-03-29 04:01:28 PM  

snocone: bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.

No, save your feel bad for when that economy no longer feeds, shelters or protects you.


The Cypriot economy will feed, shelter, and protect me (and likely bronyaur1) as much today as it did yesterday or will tomorrow.
 
2013-03-29 04:07:39 PM  

MugzyBrown: government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.


I love how people can become so deranged they seem to believe that The Government is some sort of alien lifeform that came down from the skies one day, as opposed to a bunch of people who doled out services and tax money to the exact same people who are now aghast they may have to pay some of it back.
 
2013-03-29 04:17:05 PM  

MugzyBrown: A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?


Except the Cypriot government is matching the money with bank shares.

Better than the banks folding and people losing everything.

I don't think you have much of a grasp on this.
 
2013-03-29 04:19:51 PM  

Surpheon: MugzyBrown: government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

I love how people can become so deranged they seem to believe that The Government is some sort of alien lifeform that came down from the skies one day, as opposed to a bunch of people who doled out services and tax money to the exact same people who are now aghast they may have to pay some of it back.


That was snarky awesome!
 
2013-03-29 04:35:00 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: MugzyBrown: A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?

Except the Cypriot government is matching the money with bank shares.

Better than the banks folding and people losing everything.

I don't think you have much of a grasp on this.


The bank wouldn't fail if it wasn't allowed to lend out a multiple of its deposits.
 
2013-03-29 04:35:23 PM  
spawn73: ...
Look, why don't you try and read about how the Bitcoin system works, then you could make some informed arguments against it, instead of this nonsense. That is, if you still hate it afterwards.

Ahh...the battle cry of the bitcoin warrior.

I know  exactlyhow it works.  I don't  hate bitcoin I hate the idiots spamming it all over the internet trying to pump up their bubble.

I actually think the concept is great.  The implementation of it in this case is almost like a ponzi scheme.  Do I have a better solution?  No, but I certainly will speak my piece about a bubble where the late comers take on all of the risk.

Just look at the FAQ:

"Early adopters have a large number of bitcoins now because they took a risk and invested resources in an unproven technology. By so doing, they have helped Bitcoin become what it is now and what it will be in the future (hopefully, a ubiquitous decentralized digital currency). It is only fair they will reap the benefits of their successful investment. "

Yes early adopters mined of of their idle CPU and picked the low hanging fruit with almost no effort, of course they should compensated richly!  The late comer who spent 10k on a ASIC farm should get a modest return on his investment, because that's the easy stuff.

I'll put this here just in case you are English as a second language:

con·trol
3.To hold in restraint; check: 
4.To reduce or prevent the spread of:

Let's imagine this purely hypothetical situation in which a government(s) could regulate the the flow of traffic on the internet and the financial institutions where the bitcoins are converted into cash.  That might sound like they are able to control them, wouldn't it?  Naw that's ridiculous, just look how popular online gambling is!
 
2013-03-29 05:02:02 PM  
I don't know if there are very many Russian tax evaders involved.  I'm no fan of the Russkies, but they do have some of the lowest corporate and individual tax rates around, and is a flat tax to boot.  Would hardly be worth to evade taxes.
 
2013-03-29 05:21:18 PM  
IRQ12: 
Let's imagine this purely hypothetical situation in which a government(s) could regulate the the flow of traffic on the internet and the financial institutions where the bitcoins are converted into cash.  That might sound like they are able to control them, wouldn't it?  Naw that's ridiculous, just look how popular online gambling is!

I read your post, only quoting part of it.

But well, no, those are not mechanisms that could be put in place to control peoples use of Bitcoin.

Hypothetically all governments in the world could regulate the financial institutions as to make converting bitcoins to cash difficult (it would have to be all countries in the world obviously), but that would do nothing to prevent the Bitcoin client and network from functioning as intended.

The thought that the internet could be shut down because of Bitcoin is far fetched, and doesn't matter. A HAM radio client would work just as fine.

That's really the premise, can or can't "the bogeyman" take your Bitcoins. And the answer is no.

I'm a bit surprised that you can come to any other conclusions from reading how it works, despite your eager building of strawmen.
 
2013-03-29 05:22:07 PM  

Flargan: //I still wonder why its ok for the credit rating agencies to get paid by the companies they rate products for.


It's not just that it's allowed, it's mandated.  You can't sell them until you pay someone to rate them, and we only allow 3 groups to rate.  It's a government created problem.
 
2013-03-29 05:38:47 PM  

spawn73: IRQ12: 


Does a government need to seize your bitcoins when they run the infrastructure that makes them a viable form of trade?  That's what's so funny about the bitcoin fanatics, they're all like a bunch of 15 year old boys who think they have figured out all of these "simple" worlds problems....because they don't understand the wider cause and effect of things.

You're also a fanatic, but you're not funny, just annoying with your ignorance.

Bitcoins in their distributed nature can't be seized, and the government doesn't and can't control the means of which they're traded.

Futhermore, the value of the Bitcoin is irrelevant in so far as it's efficiency of making a purchase. Noone gives a shiat whether it's worth 10 cents or 100 dollars, you just purchase, and transfer, the correct amount of Bitcoins. The problem only arises if you insist on keeping your money in Bitcoins. I think that's a bad idea, and not what the Bitcoin was created for.

By using Bitcoins I can make a purchase to someone across the world, with instant payment, without having to involve banks or credit cards and their associated fees, delays, demands for documentation etc.

Some people do see the Bitcoin as an investment, but it's kinda hard to argue with them if they bought them at 2USD a piece. Let's just hope for them that another crash isn't comming, something that will only affect investors though, as outlined above.


You might want to look a little more closely at our banking laws when it comes to regulating bitcoins.  Anyone who performs financial and bank-like transactions can be heavily regulated, and the transactions made via BTC are not immune to tax law either.  The organizations setting themselves up to handle BTC bank transfers are going to find they've become banks, and that means serious people from the government are going to impose serious restrictions.  For one thing, anonymity will end - the source and recipient of every transfer through those quasi-banks will be recorded so the government can find out who was involved in every transfer.  The government can most certainly outlaw the use of BTC for transactions.  They might not be able to prevent two parties from using a non-government backed currency, but they most certainly can tell businesses they are not allowed to accept transactions in BTC.  And yes, the government can seize your bitcoins by making it impossible for you to recover it.  As in you will transfer them to the government address as a literal gun is held to your head.  You then get to sit in a cell for 24 hours as those block chains get replicated.  Done - confiscation has taken place.  xkcd #538 is real.  But you are at least one step ahead of most BTC fanatics - you recognize that it wasn't designed to be a good value storage vehicle.  It was designed as a transaction platform with certain characteristics.  That the supply of BTC behaves like any other commodity is, well, because it is one.
 
2013-03-29 05:51:05 PM  

spawn73: IRQ12: 
Let's imagine this purely hypothetical situation in which a government(s) could regulate the the flow of traffic on the internet and the financial institutions where the bitcoins are converted into cash.  That might sound like they are able to control them, wouldn't it?  Naw that's ridiculous, just look how popular online gambling is!

I read your post, only quoting part of it.

But well, no, those are not mechanisms that could be put in place to control peoples use of Bitcoin.

Hypothetically all governments in the world could regulate the financial institutions as to make converting bitcoins to cash difficult (it would have to be all countries in the world obviously), but that would do nothing to prevent the Bitcoin client and network from functioning as intended.

The thought that the internet could be shut down because of Bitcoin is far fetched, and doesn't matter. A HAM radio client would work just as fine.

That's really the premise, can or can't "the bogeyman" take your Bitcoins. And the answer is no.

I'm a bit surprised that you can come to any other conclusions from reading how it works, despite your eager building of strawmen.


You are the one who doesn't understand how this works.

*Knock, Knock*
You:  Erm yes?
Me:  Hi, I'm from the government.  I'm here confiscate your illegal currency.
You: Go away
Me;  *Takes out weapon - waves hand at squad behind me*  Too bad - you are.
You: Urp!
Me:  *Points gun at your head* Let's sit down at your computer
You: Ok...
Me:  Here's the BTC address you are going to transfer everything to
You:  Right. *You comply - you don't want to be shot resisting arrest right now*
Me: *Phone rings*   Yup, OK.
Me: *Hangs up phone* OK, transaction went through.  Let's turn off your computer and discuss how this couldn't have happened, shall we?
You:  I guess I was wrong...

You should look at xkcd #538 and then realize how little the governments out there are worried about some crypto based currency system.  It doesn't have to play nice.  It will use force.  And it is already starting to happen.  On March 18 BTC currency exchanges were told they will be regulated as MSBs by the US treasury department.  It has begun...
 
2013-03-29 05:53:45 PM  
spawn73:
I'm a bit surprised that you can come to any other conclusions from reading how it works, despite your eager building of strawmen.

IRQ12:  The government does not need to seize your bitcoins when they control the infrastructure that makes it possible
spawn73:   Bitcoin in its nature is immune to government control, and I'm not mistaken
IRQ12:  **Pulls out the crayon to help spawn73 understand what the word control means and points out how easy with an example of how easy it is for them to control it by choking the conversion points.
spawn73:  STRAWMAN!

Rinse and repeat for every bitcoin debate ever had on the internet.  UP UP UP!

But go on thinking that the governments will just stand by saying "shucks foiled by bitcoin" should they want to *control* it.  Sure, they will never be able to completely halt its use but that's not really the topic.
 
2013-03-29 05:57:58 PM  

MugzyBrown: a_room_with_a_moose: MugzyBrown: A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?

Except the Cypriot government is matching the money with bank shares.

Better than the banks folding and people losing everything.

I don't think you have much of a grasp on this.

The bank wouldn't fail if it wasn't allowed to lend out a multiple of its deposits.


Yeah, because a business borrowing far in excess of its holdings always results in success.
 
2013-03-29 06:03:09 PM  

El Supe: I don't know if there are very many Russian tax evaders involved.  I'm no fan of the Russkies, but they do have some of the lowest corporate and individual tax rates around, and is a flat tax to boot.  Would hardly be worth to evade taxes.


I was under the impression that it wasn't tax evaders but illicit money laundering.
 
2013-03-29 06:08:00 PM  

MugzyBrown: The bank wouldn't fail if it wasn't allowed to lend out a multiple of its deposits.


If they didn't "lend out a multiple of its deposits" we would have a system of full-reserve banking.

I hardly ever read about full-reserve banking outside of the writings of Austrian economists.

It doesn't garner much support since it would make traditional banking (borrow long and lend short) rather difficult.
 
2013-03-29 06:12:43 PM  

spawn73: IRQ12:
Let's imagine this purely hypothetical situation in which a government(s) could regulate the the flow of traffic on the internet and the financial institutions where the bitcoins are converted into cash.  That might sound like they are able to control them, wouldn't it?  Naw that's ridiculous, just look how popular online gambling is!

I read your post, only quoting part of it.

But well, no, those are not mechanisms that could be put in place to control peoples use of Bitcoin.

Hypothetically all governments in the world could regulate the financial institutions as to make converting bitcoins to cash difficult (it would have to be all countries in the world obviously), but that would do nothing to prevent the Bitcoin client and network from functioning as intended.

The thought that the internet could be shut down because of Bitcoin is far fetched, and doesn't matter. A HAM radio client would work just as fine.

That's really the premise, can or can't "the bogeyman" take your Bitcoins. And the answer is no.

I'm a bit surprised that you can come to any other conclusions from reading how it works, despite your eager building of strawmen.


Out of curiosity, how much network connectivity do you need in order to use bitcoins?  If things were to get crazy enough that a Eurozone country decided to shut down the Internet in order to stop the flow of bitcoins,* would two people with bitcoin wallets on their phones still be able to exchange bitcoins, being able to talk to each other (e.g. using NFC) but not to any other device?  Would the anti-counterfeiting measures built into bitcoin stop working if the devices can talk to each other but not to the rest of the network?


* I know it seems crazy, but until about a week ago I thought a Eurozone country taking money from people's savings accounts to pay the country's debts was too crazy to ever happen.
 
2013-03-29 06:12:55 PM  

spawn73: nelsonal: spawn73: Evil High Priest: spawn73: It's hardly the EUs fault that the Cypriotic banks invested in bonds with junk status.

AAA is junk status now? Ok.

I'd love to live in your world, it sounds nice. Do you have unicorns as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating

Sadly in reality Greece is still close to junk, and they're doing good now relative to when the banks in Cyprus made the decision to invest the Russians mafias money in them.

Everyone knows the Greek banks are junk now, the issue is when they bought the bonds back in 2008, when they were A1 rated (more importantly they were considered by EU bank regulators to be in the safest class of assets banks could hold).  Bonds once you hit the level of buying billions at a time are quite illiquid so by the time a credit downgrade occurs owners are already farked.  In addition to the Greek Sovereign haircut/default, an awful lot of Cypriot bank loans were to Greek business that slowed in the austerity plans that followed.

What I took away from this was that the Cypriotic banks had invested heavily in Greek bonds while the yield were high based on them being a risky investment.

If they didn't, then my bad, though then I wonder why they put all their money in Greek bonds if there weren't any yield incentive. Why didn't they spread them out like normal banks do?


First, greece and greek cyprus have a long history together. Beyond a common language, there was also a big push to reunify with Greece when the British left-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/cyprus2.htm

And the Greeks backed them during the Turkish invasion in 1974.

Also, the banks were to some extent victims of their own success. They were not greedy, loaned cautiosly, and paid good returns. Here is an article with some details-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/22/us-cyprus-banks-idUSBRE92L 0C Q20130322

The island's 2008 entry to the euro zone was the first in a series of events which have led to a situation in which ATMs in Cyprus may soon run out of cash.

Before joining the euro, the Central Bank of Cyprus only allowed banks to use up to 30 percent of their foreign deposits to support local lending, a measure designed to prevent sizeable deposits from Greeks and Russians fuelling a bubble.

When Cyprus joined the single European currency, Greek and other euro area deposits were reclassified as domestic, leading to billions more local lending, Pambos Papageorgiou, a member of Cyprus's parliament and a former central bank board member said.

Banks' loan books expanded almost 32 percent in 2008 as its newly gained euro zone status made Cyprus a more attractive destination for banking and business generally, but Cypriot banks maintained the unusual position of funding almost all their lending from deposits.
"The banks were considered super conservative," said Alexander Apostolides an economic historian at Cyprus' European University, a private university on the outskirts of Nicosia.

When Lehman Brothers collapsed in the summer of 2008, most of the world's banks suffered in the fallout, but not Cyprus's.
"Everyone here was sitting pretty," said Fiona Mullen, a Nicosia-based economist, reflecting on the fact Cypriot banks did not depend on capital markets for funding and did not invest in complex financial products that felled other institutions.

A source at one of the banks, who asked not to be named, said his institution did not have "serious problems with lending", adding that Cypriot banks typically demanded a down payment of 30 percent for home loans, well above the average in most countries.
The rapid expansion left Cyprus with a banking system eight times the size of its national output, as its accommodative regime of not taxing foreigners' dividends and capital gains lured investors from countries like Russia.

It also offered rates which could not be matched.

A depositor would have earned 31,000 euros on a 100,000 euros deposit held for the last five year in Cyprus, compared to the 15,000 to 18,000 euros the same deposit would have made in Italy and Spain, and the 8,000 interest it would have earned in Germany, according to figures from UniCredit.

Bulging deposit books not only fuelled lending expansion at home, it also drove Cypriot banks overseas. Greece, where many Cypriots claim heritage, was the destination of choice for the island's two biggest lenders, Cyprus Popular Bank -- formerly called Laiki -- and Bank of Cyprus

Simona Mihai, assistant professor at Cyprus European University's banking and finance department, said the banks' exposure stemmed from a desire to help their nearest neighbors, and a belief that Greece could recover.

"People are thinking in hope," she said. "They do not see it from an analytical perspective."


Obviously, in hindsight, this led to overexposure to greek bonds. Which the article also goes into. But personally I don't find it suprising that a bank from a Greek speaking country with historical ties to greece that go back centuries should gravitate into greek investments when hit with large amounts of deposits to invest.
 
2013-03-29 06:16:20 PM  

Flargan: MugzyBrown: The bank wouldn't fail if it wasn't allowed to lend out a multiple of its deposits.

If they didn't "lend out a multiple of its deposits" we would have a system of full-reserve banking.

I hardly ever read about full-reserve banking outside of the writings of Austrian economists.

It doesn't garner much support since it would make traditional banking (borrow long and lend short) rather difficult.


OK. You just got faved. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on economics and I like your explainations.
 
2013-03-29 06:21:15 PM  

Flargan: //I still wonder why its ok for the credit rating agencies to get paid by the companies they rate products for.


Who would you have pay the credit rating agencies, the investor?

/not snark
 
2013-03-29 06:32:55 PM  

AdolfClamwacker: Flargan: //I still wonder why its ok for the credit rating agencies to get paid by the companies they rate products for.

Who would you have pay the credit rating agencies, the investor?

/not snark


Out of curiosity, who pays the rating for personal credit? I know I have a rating though I never paid to have it done.
 
2013-03-29 06:33:24 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: OK. You just got faved. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on economics and I like your explainations.


Thank you,
 
2013-03-29 06:35:57 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: AdolfClamwacker: Flargan: //I still wonder why its ok for the credit rating agencies to get paid by the companies they rate products for.

Who would you have pay the credit rating agencies, the investor?

/not snark

Out of curiosity, who pays the rating for personal credit? I know I have a rating though I never paid to have it done.


The folks running credit checks typically have a subscription with the credit agencies as I understand it.
 
2013-03-29 06:36:22 PM  

Flargan: a_room_with_a_moose: OK. You just got faved. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on economics and I like your explainations.

Thank you,


Thank you for taking the time to patch up the gaps in my understanding of things.

/it is a never ending task...
 
2013-03-29 06:36:57 PM  

AdolfClamwacker: a_room_with_a_moose: AdolfClamwacker: Flargan: //I still wonder why its ok for the credit rating agencies to get paid by the companies they rate products for.

Who would you have pay the credit rating agencies, the investor?

/not snark

Out of curiosity, who pays the rating for personal credit? I know I have a rating though I never paid to have it done.

The folks running credit checks typically have a subscription with the credit agencies as I understand it.


Thx
 
2013-03-29 06:48:43 PM  

AdolfClamwacker: Who would you have pay the credit rating agencies, the investor?

/not snark


It is a tough choice.

If the investor pays then it would be similar to paying the cost of home inspection. (Probably not the best analogy but its all I have for the moment) The problem is that paying the cost would be burdensome.

My other option would be creating a government agency to perform the task. I fear such an agency would be staffed by those who want to participate in a revolving door between that agency and the groups that sell the products they rate.

I guess I would have to opt for a government agency.

Like I said, its a tough choice.
 
2013-03-29 07:19:35 PM  
Is the Cypriot banking system run by the same yahoo that ran Hostrail?
 
2013-03-29 07:26:27 PM  
Ok, calling it a 'haircut' is offensive because this is more like a 'scalping'. Losing some hair doesn't hurt you.

That being said, which is more insidious? Taking the money outright in a 'cash grab' like that, or to do what most governments do, inflate the money supply to reduce the country's real debt?

If things get too terrible with China, I imagine the USA will go into hyperinflation in order to rid itself of its debt. The world will tailspin for about 20 years after that. I realy hope it happens after I'm dead of old age.
 
2013-03-29 07:33:10 PM  

MadSkillz: Ok, calling it a 'haircut' is offensive because this is more like a 'scalping'. Losing some hair doesn't hurt you.

That being said, which is more insidious? Taking the money outright in a 'cash grab' like that, or to do what most governments do, inflate the money supply to reduce the country's real debt?

If things get too terrible with China, I imagine the USA will go into hyperinflation in order to rid itself of its debt. The world will tailspin for about 20 years after that. I realy hope it happens after I'm dead of old age.


Well they don't control their own currency so that's not an option. I like the cash grab, except they should have made the lower limit ~1,000,000 or so. Then, offer to take off 100,000 for each banker you help convict for fraud.
 
2013-03-29 08:24:34 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: MugzyBrown: A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?

Except the Cypriot government is matching the money with bank shares.

Better than the banks folding and people losing everything.

I don't think you have much of a grasp on this.


But the shares are pretty much worthless.
Right now people are pulling their money out as fast as they are allowed.
NO ONE IS GOING TO DEPOSIT ANY MORE MONEY
So the banks are going under. It's just a matter of when
 
2013-03-29 11:14:26 PM  

CujoQuarrel: a_room_with_a_moose: MugzyBrown: A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?

Except the Cypriot government is matching the money with bank shares.

Better than the banks folding and people losing everything.

I don't think you have much of a grasp on this.

But the shares are pretty much worthless.
Right now people are pulling their money out as fast as they are allowed.
NO ONE IS GOING TO DEPOSIT ANY MORE MONEY
So the banks are going under. It's just a matter of when


Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky
Consequence: People start pulling their money out
Result: Pretty soon, the bank is financially shaky

On a more macro scale, people pull their money out of all the nation's banks, pretty soon the country itself is financially shaky. Which is happening in Cyprus right now. The rest of the Euro countries have to be looking at this and wondering if they're next. I wouldn't have my money in a bank in the Euro zone, where they have shown they have no reservation about stealing people's savings to cover government deficits. What is happening in Cyprus is theft, pure and simple.
 
2013-03-29 11:37:25 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Flargan: MugzyBrown: The bank wouldn't fail if it wasn't allowed to lend out a multiple of its deposits.

If they didn't "lend out a multiple of its deposits" we would have a system of full-reserve banking.

I hardly ever read about full-reserve banking outside of the writings of Austrian economists.

It doesn't garner much support since it would make traditional banking (borrow long and lend short) rather difficult.

OK. You just got faved. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on economics and I like your explainations.


That's not what fractional reserve banking means. Fractional reserve banking means a bank must keep a portion of deposits 'in reserve' in case of a run. For example, if my country requires a reserve of 20%, I may only lend out 80%, and must keep 20% of deposits on hand at all times. This is the bank's 'reserves'.

The bank does NOT get to lend out more than 100% of its deposits. Where would it get this money? And if Full Reserve banking were in effect, if every dollar deposited must physically stay in the vaults, how would a bank make any loans at all? It would make depositors pointless.

This is a common conflation of two completly separate concepts: fractional reserve banking and the different, but related ability called the Federal Reserve's money multplier effect.
 
2013-03-29 11:37:59 PM  

MythDragon: While the rest of you farkers cry in dispair or blame the democrats, I got off my ass and found a solution.


[www.shescribes.com image 425x272]


upload.wikimedia.org

Then again, you'd need to be drunk to take that deal.
 
2013-03-30 12:30:20 AM  

dustman81: CujoQuarrel: a_room_with_a_moose: MugzyBrown: A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?

Except the Cypriot government is matching the money with bank shares.

Better than the banks folding and people losing everything.

I don't think you have much of a grasp on this.

But the shares are pretty much worthless.
Right now people are pulling their money out as fast as they are allowed.
NO ONE IS GOING TO DEPOSIT ANY MORE MONEY
So the banks are going under. It's just a matter of when

Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky
Consequence: People start pulling their money out
Result: Pretty soon, the bank is financially shaky

On a more macro scale, people pull their money out of all the nation's banks, pretty soon the country itself is financially shaky. Which is happening in Cyprus right now. The rest of the Euro countries have to be looking at this and wondering if they're next. I wouldn't have my money in a bank in the Euro zone, where they have shown they have no reservation about stealing people's savings to cover government deficits. What is happening in Cyprus is theft, pure and simple.


 You know I bet Cyprus would be a great market for home safes. Let's face it , it's safer than putting your money in the bank.

Going to be a lot of cash transactions there from now on.
 
2013-03-30 01:36:59 AM  

dustman81: CujoQuarrel: a_room_with_a_moose: MugzyBrown: A government simply steals the savings of people from their bank accounts to solve a problem they created themselves... and people in here defend it.

You'll swallow everything your betters put in your mouth, eh?

Except the Cypriot government is matching the money with bank shares.

Better than the banks folding and people losing everything.

I don't think you have much of a grasp on this.

But the shares are pretty much worthless.
Right now people are pulling their money out as fast as they are allowed.
NO ONE IS GOING TO DEPOSIT ANY MORE MONEY
So the banks are going under. It's just a matter of when

Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky
Consequence: People start pulling their money out
Result: Pretty soon, the bank is financially shaky

On a more macro scale, people pull their money out of all the nation's banks, pretty soon the country itself is financially shaky. Which is happening in Cyprus right now. The rest of the Euro countries have to be looking at this and wondering if they're next. I wouldn't have my money in a bank in the Euro zone, where they have shown they have no reservation about stealing people's savings to cover government deficits. What is happening in Cyprus is theft, pure and simple.


It can also happen in the USA and England

a December 2012 joint paper of the FDIC and the Bank of England planning for systemic collapse

http://www.fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf

From the paper's conclusions


In both the U.S. and the U.K., legislative reforms already made or planned in response to the financial crisis provide new powers for resolving failed or failing G-SIFIs. The FDIC and the Bank of England have developed resolution strategies that take control of the failed company at the top of the group, impose losses on shareholders and unsecured creditors-not on taxpayers

I've seen the case being made that this strategy of taking deposits has two ulterior motives. The first is to force cash out of the banks and into the economy to try to get an economic recovery, and second, by reducing bank assets through account withdrawals, the government can reduce the size and power of the 'too big to fail' banks and then bring them to heel. If that is the case, its a very risky strategy that could blow up in spectacular fashion.

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2013/3/2 9_ The_Most_Dangerous_%26_Potentially_Fatal_Gamble_In_History.html
 
2013-03-30 02:17:38 AM  

Sim Tree: a_room_with_a_moose: Flargan: MugzyBrown: The bank wouldn't fail if it wasn't allowed to lend out a multiple of its deposits.

If they didn't "lend out a multiple of its deposits" we would have a system of full-reserve banking.

I hardly ever read about full-reserve banking outside of the writings of Austrian economists.

It doesn't garner much support since it would make traditional banking (borrow long and lend short) rather difficult.

OK. You just got faved. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on economics and I like your explainations.

That's not what fractional reserve banking means. Fractional reserve banking means a bank must keep a portion of deposits 'in reserve' in case of a run. For example, if my country requires a reserve of 20%, I may only lend out 80%, and must keep 20% of deposits on hand at all times. This is the bank's 'reserves'.

The bank does NOT get to lend out more than 100% of its deposits. Where would it get this money? And if Full Reserve banking were in effect, if every dollar deposited must physically stay in the vaults, how would a bank make any loans at all? It would make depositors pointless.

This is a common conflation of two completly separate concepts: fractional reserve banking and the different, but related ability called the Federal Reserve's money multplier effect.


Where do they get the money? In the US, certain banks can borrow directly from the federal reserve bank at near 0% rates and use that money to make loans.

Depository borrowings from the fed-

2013-02: 0.465 Billions of Dollars    Hide Last 5 Observations

2013-01:0.5652012-12:0.7952012-11:1.0512012-10:1.466
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW" data-cke-saved-href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORR OW">http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW


Also, the fed can reduce the amount of reserves required to near zero.

Plus bank assets do not need to be marked to market value, they can be carried at face value. (e.g. that $300k loan on a house that is now worth $150k is still carried at $300k, not the current market value of the house)

As a result, many banks are upside down. If you look at the numbers generated by the FDIC from shut down banks, assets typically come in 25% or more below the value the banks carried them at.

Normally many banks currently open would be closed,  but the FDIC simply doesn't have the resources to do so. They can only go after the very worst. This is one reason there isn't much of a recovery- many banks are barely solvent on paper, and are insolvent if they marked assets to market.

This is also the reason the Fed is buying mortgage securities from the banks and moving it onto its balance sheet. In an effort to keep the government and banking system solvent, the Fed has printed money to buy a trillion dollars in MBS alone from the banks

On December 12, 2012, the Federal OpenMarket

Committee (FOMC) announced that in order to

support a stronger economic recovery and to help

ensure that inflation, over time, is at a rate consistent

with its statutory mandate, the FOMC would

continue purchasing additional agencyMBS at a

pace of $40 billion per month. The FOMC also

announced that it would begin purchasing longerterm

Treasury securities after its program to extend

the average maturity of its holdings of Treasury

securities is completed at the end of 2012, initially

at a pace of $45 billion per month. In addition, the

FOMC decided to maintain its existing policy of

reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of

agency debt and agencyMBS in agencyMBS and,

in January, to resume rolling over maturing Treasury

securities at auction. Taken together, these

actions should maintain downward pressure on

longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets,

and help to make broader financial conditions
more accommodative

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly_balance _s heet_developments_report_201303.pdf
 
2013-03-30 02:19:16 AM  

IRQ12: But go on thinking that the governments will just stand by saying "shucks foiled by bitcoin" should they want to *control* it.  Sure, they will never be able to completely halt its use but that's not really the topic.


The issue is not even that there is a government problem with Bitcoins.  The government has an issue with completely anonymous and untracable financial transfer systems.

There is no characteristic of bitcoins that some other form of value transfer does not also share.  Things like the Hawala system, cash, and precious medal based currencies each cover a few of these aspects far better than bitcoins do.  The only advantage bitcoins have right now is obscurity.

Unfortunately the main selling point of bitcoins also makes them very attractive to aspects of humanity that you really do not want to be associated with.  People who buy shockingly illegal things (I am not talking about silk road purchases of pot)

Individuals may not be interested in bitcoins for their less than above board uses, but that does not mean that they will not be associated with people who are interested in them for all the wrong reasons.  Right now it is easier to buy child porn than gas or groceries with bitcoins.  As long as this is true, they will never take off.  The only way to change this is to change the fundemental nature of bitcoins.

TLDR:  Paypal or amazon payments are closer to creating a widely adopted digital value transfer mechanism than the people backing bitcoins, and they have not even tried.
 
2013-03-30 04:36:41 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Only a leftist would not connect point A (stealing money out of the banks) to point B (people/company having no money to make payrool).


"But we have GOOD INTENTIONS! And good intentions do not lead to bad results, only bad intentions do that!"

/it's actually possible, when you can declare that anything you supported yesterday is something you always opposed today with no guilt or shame
//today it's doublespeak, tomorrow it'll be doublethink
 
2013-03-30 05:05:19 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.

Yeah, that.
The Russian bastards can all fark themselves with a syringe full of krokodil.


I think you two got caught up in the excuse rather than the real crime here.  The banks literally used the mechanism of government to prop up that very same corrupt financial system...you know...the one HSBC is a part of that was laundering money from various south/central american drug cartels.  Yeah those guys.  Oh noes russian tax evaders!  Clearly that means you have to nuke the savings of EVERYONE (just to be sure of course).

when in doubt nuke it from orbit.  This was a pure wealth grab...and its not even a tax...they call it a haircut...except the people who used poor judgement and made poor business decisions were not the depositors...not even the kleptocrats of Russian/other origin were necessarily responsible for the banks being unable to manage risk and return.  This is also a phenomenon of fractional reserve banking where they don't multiply their reserves by an y reasonable multiplier...but many times beyond what would be considered reasonable exposure.

The rabbit hole goes down deep in this case and in this case the money went from the depositors in to the account of the bank itself.  This was theft plain and simple.  There is no reasonable reaction to this kind of action by a government and the banks.  You either lay down and take it...or hang em high so they don't ever try this shiat again.  *currently watching em lay down and take it*
 
2013-03-30 08:54:40 AM  
He's businessman, but didn't do the research in possibly ways of getting his money out? My business currently has around £10K in an account, and trust me, if you told me I would lose 80% of it, I'd be spending at least a day on the phone to people I know trying to find a legal way to avoid it, probably resulting in me hiring a lawyer in London to walk into the branch, withdraw the money and stuff it in a mattress somewhere.
 
2013-03-30 10:55:08 AM  
Even in 2008, it would take a off the derp end lefty to have faith in Greek bonds. Why would you ever trust a Mediterranean people in any matter of business? They lie and cheat more than the Chinese government.
 
2013-03-30 11:14:04 AM  
The WindowLicker: Right now it is easier to buy child porn than gas or groceries with bitcoins.  As long as this is true, they will never take off.  The only way to change this is to change the fundemental nature of bitcoins.

I'm not sure the barrier is that high for buying and selling legitimate goods.  I checked the Google Play store yesterday, and found a bitcoin wallet app that claims to be able to both store bitcoins and transfer them to another phone using nothing but QR codes (i.e. all your phone would need to send and receive bitcoins is a camera).  It also supports NFC, although only newer Android phones have that capability.

I haven't actually tried it, but if it works as easily as the developers say it does, it wouldn't be that hard for a vendor at e.g. a farmer's market to use their phone to accept bitcoin payments.  Of course, it may not be worth the effort if there aren't enough shoppers who would want to pay for goods using bitcoins, and few shoppers are going to want to set up bitcoin wallets if no vendors accept them, thus a chicken-and-egg problem.

As for iPhone, it looks like there are apps available on the iTunes store, but only for certain online bitcoin wallet services like Coinbase.  There doesn't appear to be a way to actually store the wallet on an iPhone.
 
2013-03-30 06:10:37 PM  

IlGreven: bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.

Of course.  Because the system is corrupt, let's take everything from the legit businesses.


According to some reports coming out, it's only the legit folk who got stung. The tax-dodging oligarchs got early word and moved their dough before all this went down.

If Cyprus having a banking sector multiple times the size of its GDP is an indication that its dealing in shady money, then the same must be true of the UK, France, and a number of other Western nations. So get ready, your money is next to be taken, you scumbag criminals.
 
2013-03-31 12:40:17 AM  
Why are we giving any kind of sh*t about the Cypriot economy?

Just a reason to be bearish? No one cares. Move on with your life.
 
2013-03-31 04:39:43 AM  

bronyaur1: Am I supposed to feel bad for an economy that based itself on sheltering and laundering shady money? Don't hold your breath for that.


THIS.

Now can the rest of the tax domiciles go the way of Cyprus?  Perhaps it would make clear that that tax evasion has visible, detrimental, and destructive consequences - for both ends of the equation, not just the taxing side.
 
2013-03-31 06:54:50 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Why are we giving any kind of sh*t about the Cypriot economy?


We dont, but I care about what kind of actions that EU takes to maintain the value of the Euro.  The actions they take when dealing with smaller and weaker economies can indicate how they will manage the eurozone as a whole.  I do care about what happens with the eurozone.
 
2013-03-31 06:55:43 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: a_room_with_a_moose: Erebus1954: It's okay because 100% of people who have accumulated more than 100,000 Euros are criminals and deserved to have their life savings seized.

Seized implies the money was taken and nothing given in return.

Yesterday Reuters reported that all money taken is being matched by bank (stock) shares.

Granted, the shares my not account for much at the moment, but seized us not the word you are looking for.


ih1.redbubble.net
Catch-22
 
2013-03-31 09:49:00 AM  

The WindowLicker: The actions they take when dealing with smaller and weaker economies can indicate how they will manage the eurozone as a whole.


Do we honestly think they would try this with Italy or Spain or the like? I doubt it. It looks like they realized they could treat Cyprus like the insignificant economy it is and rape their depositors.

I just can't see them doing anything similar in a larger economy. The blow-back would be quite palpable.
 
2013-03-31 02:32:47 PM  

NewportBarGuy: The WindowLicker: The actions they take when dealing with smaller and weaker economies can indicate how they will manage the eurozone as a whole.

Do we honestly think they would try this with Italy or Spain or the like? I doubt it. It looks like they realized they could treat Cyprus like the insignificant economy it is and rape their depositors.

I just can't see them doing anything similar in a larger economy. The blow-back would be quite palpable.


Italy and Spain arent tax domiciles - Cyprus is.  It wont matter if you're a larger economy, the country will fall if it aids and abets tax dodging; it will be saved if the country suffers from it.
 
2013-03-31 06:53:45 PM  

sethstorm: Italy and Spain arent tax domiciles - Cyprus is.  It wont matter if you're a larger economy, the country will fall if it aids and abets tax dodging; it will be saved if the country suffers from it.


Oh wow, we're going back to the old faith healer dodge, "Well, it didn't work because they didn't believe hard enough." Yes, I'm sure the mathematics will work out totally differently for faithful countries like Italy and Spain, even though it's been a complete and predictable disaster for that faithless Cyprus.

/at least people are blaming the Russians, instead of the CIA
//unfortunately, that might actually indicate the Russians are a more credible world power now than the USA
///all exactly as Obama promised
 
2013-04-01 02:49:33 PM  

Tatterdemalian: sethstorm: Italy and Spain arent tax domiciles - Cyprus is.  It wont matter if you're a larger economy, the country will fall if it aids and abets tax dodging; it will be saved if the country suffers from it.

Oh wow, we're going back to the old faith healer dodge, "Well, it didn't work because they didn't believe hard enough." Yes, I'm sure the mathematics will work out totally differently for faithful countries like Italy and Spain, even though it's been a complete and predictable disaster for that faithless Cyprus.


The problem with that is math has nothing to do with it - tax haven status has everything to do with Cyprus.   As for some despotic country that lost the Cold War - Russia - they just happened to be the criminals in the region; it does not imply any status that they won't get.
 
Displayed 154 of 154 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report