Topic: If Greece defaults - page 19. (Read 45224 times)
Made some calculations. For the next 50 years or so, the Greeks should pay the troika somewhere around €7 billion to €10 billion every year. And the potential revenues from the Turkish Stream project is €1 billion to €2 billion per year. So it is clear that Russia won't be able to help them much. And since there is no other revenue source for the Greek government, it is certain that they will default. But when?
The writing is already on the wall -- just get it over with. Grexit will be painful in the short term for the Euro, but bullish longterm. Expel the weak link and pick up the pieces.
(On the other hand, this may empower anti-austerity parties in Portugal, Spain
)
(On the other hand, this may empower anti-austerity parties in Portugal, Spain
)An anti austerity party will probably win in Spain already. Maybe another will in Ireland too. But Spain is too large. It can't be kicked out of the eurozone like that. Austerity policies can't go on forever.
It is not necessary for Greeks to pay the EU taxpayers and IMF in euros. They can pay them in drachmas.
That is assuming anyone will take drachmas as payments. But won't the drachma be too devalued even if that happens? How will Greece import what it needs from other countries then?
The writing is already on the wall -- just get it over with. Grexit will be painful in the short term for the Euro, but bullish longterm. Expel the weak link and pick up the pieces.
(On the other hand, this may empower anti-austerity parties in Portugal, Spain)
(On the other hand, this may empower anti-austerity parties in Portugal, Spain
) 
The keynesians are busy saying "come on, we have to save europe", meaning: pay the the fuckers and move on. This might in fact happen, it is just that it does not solve the problem, mostly because all the countries are insolvent. There will be political pressure to expand the states, and there will be downward pressure on the euro itself. So it will not help, but it can fool the market actors, who are mostly keynesians too, and the people, who also are keynesians just about all of them (or believe whatever the politicians say). There is no solution in sight.
One step closer to a western economy inside the Eurozone collapsing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33106990
No more than just information noise (aka bullshit)
Quote
The Athens stock exchange closed nearly 6% lower. Germany's Dax and France's Cac 40 ended more than 1% lower.
Quote
Shares also fell in the US, with the Dow Jones index dropping 0.8%.
Stocks fall and rise everyday, 0.8-1% range (and a way higher) is nothing to talk about
At least, we're getting closer to a solution. I'm really fed up with Greece's problems making top headlines news. Every month, it's the same story with the country on verge of bankruptcy because it's unable to pay its debts. This just cannot go on for years. When there's a problem between a bank and an individual, the matter is settled much quicker.
One step closer to a western economy inside the Eurozone collapsing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33106990
Greece won't deault but it's likely it will leave the Euro, eurusd will probably dip and then pump hard after that as Greece leaving will be a relief for the european situation thus giving some breathing space, then markets will resume their risk off mode and for btc there will be no hope because king dollar.
Still gonna see the US' hand in this?
I am sure that the Americans are behind frau Merklel's change of mind. And I don't want to speculate their reasons to do so. Possible reasons might be the Qatari LNG, or a change in the US strategy towards Russia. Now you'll ask me why the Qatari LNG became a factor all of a sudden. Don't have an answer for that also.
I'd rather ask whether the Qatari LNG became a factor at all (since then) and whether the US strategy towards Russia really changed back then (I mean, in 2012). Why didn't it change in 2008 then, after the US fiasco in Georgia? But it doesn't actually matter, since you are evidently trying to interpret information in such a way that confirms your assumptions, and, at the same time, ignoring factors and facts that work against it (that is called confirmation bias, by the way), e.g. the history of the South Stream project (which is almost as old as its Northern sibling)...
The sudden change in frau Merkel's attitude is pretty well explained by more prosaic reasons (and the 50% deployment of the Nord Stream too), as well as the fate of the South Stream pipeline (remember, its history as well as problems started long before the Ukrainian crisis or frau Merkel's blowout)
Still gonna see the US' hand in this?
I am sure that the Americans are behind frau Merklel's change of mind. And I don't want to speculate their reasons to do so. Possible reasons might be the Qatari LNG, or a change in the US strategy towards Russia. Now you'll ask me why the Qatari LNG became a factor all of a sudden. Don't have an answer for that also.
I don't say they would (for the moment), but does the current turmoil in the relationship of the European Union with Russia have anything to do with that?
Right now, the European Union (which includes Germany) has imposed financial sanctions on Russia, and Russia has also taken retaliatory measures (such as banning agricultural products) against the European Union. Therefore there is no chance of the EU granting permission to any major Russian project (including the Turkish Stream) anytime in the near future.
I wouldn't be so religious about this. But that's not the point I tried to make. If you didn't forget,
Quote
The US, on the otherhand want to prevent Russians from supplying piped natural gas to Europe. They want the Europeans to source their gas from either the American suppliers or from the Qataris.
Doesn't it appear rather strange to you that frau Merkel is at first very enthusiastic about Nord Stream insofar as to ask (in fact, demand) other members of the EU to support this project, and then, after it is complete (actually, two lines of it), she, all of a sudden, goes ballistic about expanding it?
Still gonna see the US' hand in this?
I don't say they would (for the moment), but does the current turmoil in the relationship of the European Union with Russia have anything to do with that?
Right now, the European Union (which includes Germany) has imposed financial sanctions on Russia, and Russia has also taken retaliatory measures (such as banning agricultural products) against the European Union. Therefore there is no chance of the EU granting permission to any major Russian project (including the Turkish Stream) anytime in the near future.
Just a few facts. The Nord Stream pipeline was built in 2010-2011 whereas Angela Merkel has been the chancellor of Germany since 2005. Actually, it was not Schröder (which had been long out of power by then), but Merkel herself who in January 2009 asked the European Union and its member states for full support for the Nord Stream. But just a year later after the pipeline exploitation of the pipeline had started (that is in 2012), the same frau Merkel snubbed talks concerning Nord Stream’s third line saying that Germany would not need third, fourth and fifth lines of the Nord Stream. Mind this had been two years before the Ukrainian events started to unfold and the EU tensions with Russia to run up...
How come?
How come?
In that case I was wrong. I was thinking that the approval for the Nord Stream was granted when Schröder was in power. Neverthless, he was one of the most vocal supporters of the project. And he is currently the chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG. And regarding frau backstabbing Russia on Nord Stream, honestly I don't know the answer, and I don't want to speculate.
But you did say (read speculate) the affirmative (wtf) NO that they (Germany) would not grant permission to build the Nord Stream pipeline today (given the present political disposition in Europe). I don't say they would (for the moment), but does the current turmoil in the relationship of the European Union with Russia have anything to do with that?
Just a few facts. The Nord Stream pipeline was built in 2010-2011 whereas Angela Merkel has been the chancellor of Germany since 2005. Actually, it was not Schröder (which had been long out of power by then), but Merkel herself who in January 2009 asked the European Union and its member states for full support for the Nord Stream. But just a year later after the pipeline exploitation of the pipeline had started (that is in 2012), the same frau Merkel snubbed talks concerning Nord Stream’s third line saying that Germany would not need third, fourth and fifth lines of the Nord Stream. Mind this had been two years before the Ukrainian events started to unfold and the EU tensions with Russia to run up...
How come?
How come?
In that case I was wrong. I was thinking that the approval for the Nord Stream was granted when Schröder was in power. Neverthless, he was one of the most vocal supporters of the project. And he is currently the chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG. And regarding frau backstabbing Russia on Nord Stream, honestly I don't know the answer, and I don't want to speculate.
But you didn't answer my question. Would Germany give its consent to build the Nord Stream today, Merkel or no Merkel? What do you personally think?
The answer would be NO. They will not grant permission to build the Nord Stream today, given the political situation prevailing in Europe. Also, you should remember that Germany is not allowing Russia to use the Nord Stream to the full capacity. Russia is allowed to use only around 50% of the total capacity.
Just a few facts. The Nord Stream pipeline was built in 2010-2011 whereas Angela Merkel has been the chancellor of Germany since 2005. Actually, it was not Schröder (which had been long out of power by then), but Merkel herself who in January 2009 asked the European Union and its member states for full support for the Nord Stream. But just a year later after the pipeline exploitation of the pipeline had started (that is in 2012), the same frau Merkel snubbed talks concerning Nord Stream’s third line saying that Germany would not need third, fourth and fifth lines of the Nord Stream. Mind this had been two years before the Ukrainian events started to unfold and the EU tensions with Russia to run up...
How come?
It is not necessary for Greeks to pay the EU taxpayers and IMF in euros. They can pay them in drachmas.
But you didn't answer my question. Would Germany give its consent to build the Nord Stream today, Merkel or no Merkel? What do you personally think?
The answer would be NO. They will not grant permission to build the Nord Stream today, given the political situation prevailing in Europe. Also, you should remember that Germany is not allowing Russia to use the Nord Stream to the full capacity. Russia is allowed to use only around 50% of the total capacity.
Greece vs the EU taxpayers and IMF is a fascinating fight.
On one hand you have a downtrodden population that's sick of austerity and can see no way out. The situation is hopeless mathematically.
On the other you have taxpayers who don't want to keep bailing out Greece but also know if they stop then hundreds of billions of Euros in debt will be paid back by them, and not the Greeks.
Varofakis stated last week that he wished Greece had defaulted four years ago. Greece has gained nothing over the past four years except far more debt than it originally had.
On one hand you have a downtrodden population that's sick of austerity and can see no way out. The situation is hopeless mathematically.
On the other you have taxpayers who don't want to keep bailing out Greece but also know if they stop then hundreds of billions of Euros in debt will be paid back by them, and not the Greeks.
Varofakis stated last week that he wished Greece had defaulted four years ago. Greece has gained nothing over the past four years except far more debt than it originally had.
Greece has made an important concession that not only giveing up the former standpoint, but also considering the discussion with Brussel Group which had regular meetings with Greece and its technical team in the past few months .
If Germany helps them with a staggered deal, that doesn't solve a single problem here. It juts kicks the can even further down the road, and more debt will pile up and go unpaid.
If you give a junkie another heroin fix, does that cure his drug addiction..? of course not. It might feel good for the moment, but problem still there.
I'm always confused that markets are just looking for a sign of hope that maybe some party will "possibly" lend more money to a broke and insolvent country.
If you give a junkie another heroin fix, does that cure his drug addiction..? of course not. It might feel good for the moment, but problem still there.
I'm always confused that markets are just looking for a sign of hope that maybe some party will "possibly" lend more money to a broke and insolvent country.
Greece is running a small budget surplus and a small trade surplus for now. Not counting the interest on the debt of course. Problem is they aren't allowed conditions that let them grow the economy again. And that wouldn't even need debt forgiveness or reduction. Which I think should be done. It could be enough to let them have a smaller primary surplus. That means less austerity, and more of the money could be used to rebuild the country.
Jump to: