Trouble in ?-land may lead to break-up analyst say

[tigger]

I remember the Lib Lab Pact.

The '77 one or when Blair was talking about a coalition it in '97?

 

[MacGuffin]

Not smug - just damn glad not in the EURO, begging Germany for money, which they would turn down like last time.

Well, you're forgetting that if you were in the EURO from the start, you'd probably not be in such big trouble right now in the first place and maybe wouldn't need to ask the EU for money anyway -- because membership in the EURO zone would have forced Britain to follow a more sustainable and less excessive monetary policy.

Anyway, the situation now seems to be grim:

A Prayer from the Death Bed
Great Britain Stars in Its Own Greek Tragedy

By Marco Evers

Greece's budget deficit is impossibly high. But Great Britain's is even higher. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has his work cut out for him in this election year -- and the coming cuts will be painful.

For the darkest hours in the fight against Adolf Hitler, the British Ministry of Information -- which existed for the duration of World War II -- had set aside a special poster. Intended to bring calm to the home front, it depicted the crown of King George VI against a red background, with the words "Keep Calm and Carry On" printed beneath the image.

The situation never became sufficiently desperate to justify using the poster, and the millions of copies that had been printed were stored away unused. Ten years ago, a bookseller discovered a single copy and hung it up in his shop. That may well have been the end of the poster's career, but then the country was suddenly faced with multiple crises: terrorist attacks, a banking debacle and, finally, the economic and credit crisis.

The bright-red poster now hangs in the offices of directors and members of parliament, in soldiers' barracks and student dormitories. Entire ministries are using it to boost morale, and framed versions of the posters are even said to grace the walls of No. 10 Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

If only keeping calm and carrying on were that easy this time around. The British pound is tottering. The economy finds itself in its worst crisis since 1931, and the country came within a hair's breadth of a deep recession. Speculators are betting against an upturn. Instability in the banking sector has had a more severe impact on government finances in Great Britain than in other industrialized countries. London's budget deficit will amount to ?186 billion (?205 billion, or $280 billion) this year -- fully 12.9 percent of gross domestic product.

Nobody Knows How to Fix the Problem

The country that was once referred to as "Cool Britannia" is in a serious crisis, with a hole in its budget even bigger than Greece's budget deficit, now at 12.2 percent. And nobody knows how to fix the problem.

Indeed, the problem has become so worrisome, that the European Commission told London on Wednesday to do more to tighten its budget, according to a draft report leaked to Reuters earlier this week. "The fiscal strategy outlined in the United Kingdom's convergence program does not foresee the correction of the excessive deficit by the fiscal year 2014/2015, as recommended by the Council," the European Commission said in a statement.

To complicate matters, Britons will go to the polls in a few weeks, probably on May 6. The next prime minister will have his work cut out for him: reducing the massive budget deficit, restructuring the banking industry and successfully reorienting the economy. And he'll have to do it all on a shoestring budget.

Both candidates provide voters with reason to question their qualifications for the tasks at hand. Incumbent Gordon Brown, 59, in his former position as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the government of his predecessor, Tony Blair, boasted of having put an end to the ups and downs of the economy once and for all. But he had hardly taken the reins from Blair before the economy plunged into the cellar.

Brown was ridiculed in the press, faced revolts within his party and encountered contempt from the people. But he was persistent. He swallowed the criticism and gradually acquired a reputation as a capable crisis manager, at least during the global economic crisis. Polls in recent weeks show that while few Britons like him, more and more are willing to vote for him anyway.

Higher Taxes and Fees

Brown's strong showing is primarily attributable to his Conservative challenger David Cameron, 43, part of the arrogant upper class whose stint as a special advisor to the chancellor of the exchequer, during the 1992 crash of the British pound, is seen as his only experience in coping with economic difficulties. Furthermore, even his fellow Tories question the qualifications of George Osborne, 38, Cameron's designated chancellor of the exchequer.

Tough times are ahead for the United Kingdom, so tough, in fact, that none of the parties has dared to say out loud what many in their ranks already know. At a minimum, Britons can look forward to higher taxes and fees. "We will have to make a lot of sacrifices," says economist Carl Emmerson of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies in London. "The cuts," he says, "will be more drastic than those under (former Prime Minister) Margaret Thatcher."

Tougher than Thatcher. Such words still trigger a flight instinct today -- away from the Conservatives. In the 1980s, barricades were set on fire and police clashed with protestors in the streets. It was a time many Britons haven't forgotten.

The Iron Lady may have advocated austerity measures, but real government expenditures continued to grow from year to year under her aegis, with only one exception: 1988. Because of the budget deficit the next government, no matter who leads it, will have no choice but to sharply cut government spending.

The accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers have calculated that starting next year, Britain would have to make across-the-board budget cuts of 5 percent a year to come close to cutting the deficit in half by 2014. But because the Brown government has already declared the budgets for health, law enforcement and schools to be off-limits, cuts of up to 10 percent -- per year -- are to be expected in most areas, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. And things could even turn out to be much worse if there is no strong economic upturn during this period.

It Will Be Brutal

There is still disagreement over when the austerity measures would have to begin. Many Tories want them to take effect immediately, a view 20 leading economists advocated in a much-noticed letter in the Sunday Times.

A few days later, Labour supporters responded with two letters of their own, printed in the Financial Times and signed by more than 60 prominent economists, including two Nobel laureates. They warned that if harsh austerity measures were imposed now, they would inevitably reverse the frail economic recovery and trigger another recession.

No matter when this era of cutbacks begins, it will be brutal. More than 100,000 jobs in local governments are at acute risk, says Tony Travers of the London School of Economics. Some communities are already reducing personnel, and playing fields, libraries and social workers are threatened.

There will also be massive cuts in low-income housing construction and transportation, translating into even more dilapidated housing, more potholes on Britain's already miserable roads, and new cutbacks in high-speed train service. Universities have already lost close to ?1 billion in funding, and various think thanks predict that the defense budget could shrink by about 15 percent between now and 2015.

The Independent called such numbers games "unthinkable" or even "unintelligible." Others say they are unavoidable.

Paying for the Banks' Debts

"The British will spend the rest of their lives paying for the debts that the banks and this government have brought upon us," says Mike Whitby, the Tory mayor of Birmingham, who has just laid off 103 people, to be followed by as many as 2,000 more city employees this year.

Birmingham is one of England's oldest industrial cities, although it has almost no industry today. In the past, companies like Dunlop, Austin, Vickers and Morris had factories in the region, but since the beginning of Tony Blair's administration, another 130,000 jobs have been lost there.

The city, which is now heavily in debt, invested in shopping centers, new buildings in its downtown area and the country's most spectacular library, a ?190 million project. Birmingham decided to shift the focus of its economy to conventions and tourism, as well as to expand the service sector.

But even when the investments failed to produce new jobs, the city continued to pump money into its ambitious projects. There were piano teachers, diet assistants, debt counselors and park security guards on the city payroll. Birmingham was pursuing the same kind of public utility model that had developed throughout the country in the Labour years, a model that held up until the crisis began.

Today Mayor Whitby, an amateur boxer with a booming voice, ruefully admits that the city will have to develop new strategies, without the government. He is searching for new investors in China, India and the Gulf Emirates, and he has even had some success. There is a model car in his Victorian office, which he proudly shows off to visitors. Whitby convinced Chinese carmakers to buy up the residual assets of MG-Rover. The city's old MG plant is expected to start producing new models at the end of the year.

'Poorer Than It Thought'

Birmingham is a typical example of the British crisis. In large parts of the country, outside London, in places where the world's factory chimneys once belched smoke, the government has already become the biggest employer. The cradle of industrialization has become largely de-industrialized, refocusing its economy on banking and services. Manufacturing's share of GDP was already in decline under Thatcher, but it shrank even more quickly under Blair and Brown.

"The UK is poorer than it thought it was," writes the Financial Times. And there is nothing in sight that could provide the country with reliable support.

Brown intends to correct these mistakes after the election. He conjures up a new form of industrialization, saying that up to 1.5 million highly qualified jobs could be created in the next five years in key, future-oriented industries, like biotech, renewable energy, software and the Internet. The country needs engineers, not financial jugglers, says Brown. But the way Brown puts it, it sounds like a deathbed prayer.

But the country isn't completely without prospects. Great Britain has some of the world's top universities, and few nations are responsible for as many patent applications. Business parks and innovative high-tech firms have developed around the universities, and some are very successful.

Talented Oxford and Cambridge graduates will be working for these companies in the future and not, as in the past, for London investment banks. But while these business will undoubtedly employ larger numbers of young people, will it be 1.5 million, as Brown predicts?

Some innovative graphic designers are already a step ahead. They have taken the successful "Keep Calm and Carry On" poster from World War II and adjusted it to suit the current situation -- creating an instant hit in the process. The new poster features an upside-down crown and the words: "Now Panic and Freak Out."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,683832,00.html

Well, Britain could cut its military budget of course -- and more than just 15 %. That's what our government did after the re-unification. The Bundeswehr is not even half the size it was before 1990 and big parts have been outsourced to private companies.

But I have a feeling that the British people would rather be starving, than cutting back the costs to maintain the forces.

 

[Plissken]

Screw you Greece, and the horse you came and hid in.

 

[WillDAQ]

Well, you're forgetting that if you were in the EURO from the start, you'd probably not be in such big trouble right now in the first place and maybe wouldn't need to ask the EU for money anyway -- because membership in the EURO zone would have forced Britain to follow a more sustainable and less excessive monetary policy.

What, like Greece? If anything the fact Greece and the UK have similar problems tends to suggest that the Euro makes very little difference... well apart from the enforced austerity measures for Greece and the associated national strikes...

Spiegel Article

Yeah, we know it's going to hurt but don't believe everything you read... such as the part about manufacturing in the UK. I suggest you read this. Manufacturing as an industry is at a historical high, but it represents a smaller fraction of our economy than it used to as it has a slower growth rate than things like finance. That article is a heavily biased opinion piece at best and just plain wrong at worst.

Well, Britain could cut its military budget of course -- and more than just 15 %. That's what our government did after the re-unification. The Bundeswehr is not even half the size it was before 1990 and big parts have been outsourced to private companies.

We have a nuclear deterrent and armed services capable of independent expeditionary warfare. This is why we have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and you don't. Sometimes the point is not what you do with something, but more that you have it at all.

 

[MacGuffin]

What, like Greece? If anything the fact Greece and the UK have similar problems tends to suggest that the Euro makes very little difference... well apart from the enforced austerity measures for Greece and the associated national strikes...

With one important example: Britain wouldn't have needed to cheat its way into the EURO!

The mess Greece is in now, is owed to actions that with a private person would be considered criminal behaviour.

And that you cannot generalize.

Yeah, we know it's going to hurt but don't believe everything you read... such as the part about manufacturing in the UK. I suggest you read this. Manufacturing as an industry is at a historical high, but it represents a smaller fraction of our economy than it used to as it has a slower growth rate than things like finance. That article is a heavily biased opinion piece at best and just plain wrong at worst.

So, according to that article you have "moved up the value chain". Can you give me a few examples, because as interesting as the article is, it hardly is naming any examples other then Rolls Royce turbines. So I kinda have trouble relating to what's written there.

We have a nuclear deterrent and armed services capable of independent expeditionary warfare. This is why we have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and you don't. Sometimes the point is not what you do with something, but more that you have it at all.

Well, I'm just saying that in a crisis like this, everything should be put onto the table and no cow should be too holy to not be considered slaughtering. You have a seat in the UN Security Council, yes... but what does it bring you, why do you need to be a nuclear power to keep it and what reason do you have to maintain a strong military force in the first place -- other than national pride?

We reduced our forces in the knowledge, that there isn't and probably won't be an immediate threat to our country for at least many decades -- if ever again at all.

The world today is too much intertwined with financial and economical connections to start a war between 1st world countries. I predict that the future will be dominated by a strong West-East axis of North America, Europe with Russia and East Asia, that will work together in more or less equal partnership.

Not because we will all be best friends but because wars have always been fought for faith and territory.

Territory isn't an issue anymore in the world of today. And faith only plays a role in countries, that really aren't a danger to us, if you're honest.

 

[SirEdward]

We have a nuclear deterrent and armed services capable of independent expeditionary warfare. This is why we have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and you don't.

Isn't that because, unlike Germany, UK won WWII? The same reason why UK is allowed to have nuclear weapons and Germany isn't and the same reason why UK's amry is not limited to self-defence and UN operations alone?

 

[AiR]

Well, you're forgetting that if you were in the EURO from the start, you'd probably not be in such big trouble right now in the first place and maybe wouldn't need to ask the EU for money anyway -- because membership in the EURO zone would have forced Britain to follow a more sustainable and less excessive monetary policy.

You're drawing the parallel that having the Euro automagically equals responsible financial spending, which is a false assumption. In fact if we look at the latest report from the EC on the matter (the same report Spiegel bases their article on, officially published by the EC yesterday), we see that out of the top five countries with the lowest deficits in percent of GDP, only two are members of the Euro zone. Take note that the report does not include all countries within the union, missing for example Denmark and Luxembourg.

 

[Karoug]

You're drawing the parallel that having the Euro automagically equals responsible financial spending, which is a false assumption. In fact if we look at the latest report from the EC on the matter, we see that out of the top five countries in terms of public spending and deficits, only two are members of the Euro zone.

https://pic.armedcats.net/k/ka/karoug/2010/03/18/Citation-Needed-wikipedia-819731_500_271.jpg

Mostly because i can't be arsed to dig for it myself..

 

[AiR]

Sydsvenskan to the rescue! (in swedish)
http://sydsvenskan.se/sverige/article639071/Sverige-inte-bast-pa-finansbalans.html

 

[Dr_Grip]

Isn't that because, unlike Germany, UK won WWII? The same reason why UK is allowed to have nuclear weapons and Germany isn't and the same reason why UK's amry is not limited to self-defence and UN operations alone?

Ah, finally, a Godwin!

 

[SirEdward]

Ah, finally, a Godwin!

I must disagree... I have never mentioned any German dictator whatsoever

But, seriously: the UN Security Council was established around 1946, and the five permanent members haven't changed since, if not by direct inheritance (China, Russia), so the reason why UK is sitting there clearly climbs up to that date or before, and it's not because the UK has a strong military force or nuclear weapon; these are the consequences, not hte cause.

 

[WillDAQ]

With one important example: Britain wouldn't have needed to cheat its way into the EURO!

The mess Greece is in now, is owed to actions that with a private person would be considered criminal behaviour.

And that you cannot generalize.

But you get to generalise about the state of the UK?

So, according to that article you have "moved up the value chain". Can you give me a few examples, because as interesting as the article is, it hardly is naming any examples other then Rolls Royce turbines. So I kinda have trouble relating to what's written there.

Well for one the entire aerospace sector, the southwest of the UK has the highest density of aerospace companies anywhere in the world. We have a disproportionately huge UK space sector even though the govt. spends hardly anything on it.

Automotive, the days of cars being badged as a Cosworth or Lotus are long gone, but these firms continue to be subcontracted by the major brands because they are able to achieve results the big manufacturers can't. For example the GT-R is essentially a British designed car with a Nissan badge on it. That's before mentioning high tech motorsport, which the UK dominates.

In IT the big multinationals like IBM and HP all have UK research wings coming up with technology to match anything developed elsewhere.

The list just goes on and on, however unlike the big German industries which are supported by a sympathetic government, these are industries thriving largely because the UK govt. is indifferent to them.

Well, I'm just saying that in a crisis like this, everything should be put onto the table and no cow should be too holy to not be considered slaughtering. You have a seat in the UN Security Council, yes... but what does it bring you, why do you need to be a nuclear power to keep it and what reason do you have to maintain a strong military force in the first place -- other than national pride?

In a word, influence. The permanent members are those capable of acting unilaterally (think the Falklands) which is what earns them the veto right. They hold the military assets necessary to exert significant power wherever they want. As a result when it comes to military issues on the world stage in the west there's the US, UK, France and people who have no influence. Take the Iraq war, the only two nations the US actually needed support from, the UK and France. The lack of support from France was considered a major snub while the support of the UK was a major boost without which the war would likely have not happened. No one cared what Germany thought.

Japan is another good example, big military but not active overseas and no nukes, so no permanent seat.

We reduced our forces in the knowledge, that there isn't and probably won't be an immediate threat to our country for at least many decades -- if ever again at all. The world today is too much intertwined with financial and economical connections to start a war between 1st world countries. Not because we will all be best friends but because wars have always been fought for faith and territory. Territory isn't an issue anymore in the world of today. And faith only plays a role in countries, that really aren't a danger to us, if you're honest.

Wars are fought for resources, of which land is just one. By reducing the size of the military Germany is essentially betting that in the future co-operation and good diplomacy is all that's needed to ensure it can get the required resources. It's why the UK will never join a single European military, it actually removes the nation states sovereignty over their own security and requires other nations to agree before a country can act in it's own best interest.

 

[MacGuffin]

But you get to generalise about the state of the UK?

Why not? Why should we be the only victims of generalizations all the time?

You know, I often have the feeling that the winners of the last WW are still somehow stuck in the thinking patterns of the past, while the losers of the war have -- through their experience -- learned to leave the thinking patterns of the past behind and look towards the future with new ideas and visions.

I know, I know, it's a generalization again -- but it's the impression I've gotten over time.

 

[WillDAQ]

Why not? Why should we be the only victims of generalizations all the time?

You know, I often have the feeling that the winners of the last WW are still somehow stuck in the thinking patterns of the past, while the losers of the war have -- through their experience -- learned to leave the thinking patterns of the past behind and look towards the future with new ideas and visions.

I know, I know, it's a generalization again -- but it's the impression I've gotten over time.

That is to some extent to be expected, the mentality of "why change what's not broken" is a strong one in the same way that "well that didn't work, time to change" is.

 

[jetsetter]

Well, Britain could cut its military budget of course -- and more than just 15 %. That's what our government did after the re-unification. The Bundeswehr is not even half the size it was before 1990 and big parts have been outsourced to private companies.

But I have a feeling that the British people would rather be starving, than cutting back the costs to maintain the forces.

The British military has already been cut enough. Any more cuts would be even more irresponsible. At the moment the U.K. only spends 2.4% of its GDP on its military. I say cut some of the welfare and bump it up to 3%.

We reduced our forces in the knowledge, that there isn't and probably won't be an immediate threat to our country for at least many decades -- if ever again at all.

That kind of thinking has made many countries unprepared to face unforeseen challenges.

 

[Cobol74]

I remember the Lib Lab Pact.

The '77 one or when Blair was talking about a coalition it in '97?

The 1977 one. Disaster for the Libs.

The British military has already been cut enough. Any more cuts would be even more irresponsible. At the moment the U.K. only spends 2.4% of its GDP on its military. I say cut some of the welfare and bump it up to 3%.



That kind of thinking has made many countries unprepared to face unforeseen challenges.

No soldiers, airmen nor Sailors but plenty of PR men - we can out PR any army in the world!

 

[AiR]

House-God Paul Krugman writes

How Reversible Is The Euro?
April 28, 2010, 7:56

For a long time my view on the euro has been that it may well have been a mistake, but that bygones were bygones ? it could not be undone. I was strongly influenced by the view expressed by Barry Eichengreen in a classic 2007 article (although I had heard that argument ? maybe from Barry? ? long before that piece was published): as Eichengreen argued, any move to leave the euro would require time and preparation, and during the transition period there would be devastating bank runs. So the idea of a euro breakup was a non-starter.

But now I?m reconsidering, for a simple reason: the Eichengreen argument is a reason not to plan on leaving the euro ? but what if the bank runs and financial crisis happen anyway? In that case the marginal cost of leaving falls dramatically, and in fact the decision may effectively be taken out of policymakers? hands.

Actually, Argentina?s departure from the convertibility law had some of that aspect. A deliberate decision to change the law would have triggered a banking crisis; but by 2001 a banking crisis was already in full swing, as were emergency restrictions on bank withdrawals. So the infeasible became feasible.

Think of it this way: the Greek government cannot announce a policy of leaving the euro ? and I?m sure it has no intention of doing that. But at this point it?s all too easy to imagine a default on debt, triggering a crisis of confidence, which forces the government to impose a banking holiday ? and at that point the logic of hanging on to the common currency come hell or high water becomes a lot less compelling.

And if Greece is in effect forced out of the euro, what happens to other shaky members?

I think I?ll go hide under the table now.

And the people pulling the strings, the credit companies, are still at large

'We Sold Our Soul to the Devil for Revenue'

For a century, the rating agencies have acted as Wall Street's trusted referees. "But now, that trust has been broken," states Senator Levin's committee. "And they did it for the money."

From 2002 to 2007, the three top credit rating agencies doubled their revenues, from less than $3 billion to over $6 billion per year. Most of this increase came from ratings. Their executives got paid "Wall Street-sized salaries," according to the Senate committee.

"It's like one of the parties in court paying the judge's salary, or one of the teams in a competition paying the salary of the referee," the report continues. The New York Times put it this way: "It is as if Hollywood studios paid movie critics to review their would-be blockbusters."

Not that they weren't aware of it themselves. Back in 2006, an S&P employee wrote in an internal email: "We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it." The next year, one of Moody's executives complained to his superiors that he felt "like we sold our soul to the devil for revenue."

Another problem: The agencies and the banks are not just connected by money -- but also by personnel. In 2005, Goldman hired Shin Yukawa, a ratings expert, away from Fitch. Yukawa immediately put his knowledge to good use -- in Goldman's mortgage department, which created "structured" credit products and made sure they got splendid ratings. One of these products was "Abacus 2007-AC1."

Little Chance of Reform

Yet a reform of the system is not in sight. The Democrats' current proposals to further regulate the US financial industry contain little about the rating agencies, apart from a tepid appeal to "strengthen" their regulation.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,692007,00.html

And Merkel speaks

After weeks of hesitation over the German response to the Greek crisis, Chancellor Angela Merkel is suddenly calling for swift action.

"It is clear that the negotiations must now be accelerated," she said Wednesday at an appearance with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in Berlin. A serious-looking Merkel called for an agreement to assist Greece "within the next few days," adding: "We will not back out."

Observers were surprised by Merkel's strong words. Until now, the chancellor has not exactly come across as a driving force when it comes to action on the Greek crisis.

Sitting Out the Crisis

Merkel has long been reluctant to promise the Greeks billions of euros in European aid, something which has earned her the nickname "Madame Non" in the European Union. At home in Germany, however, she has been feted by the tabloid press as the "Iron Chancellor" because she had rebuffed the "bankrupt Greeks."

Merkel thought she could sit out the crisis, postponing any unpopular promise to give aid to the Greeks at least until after key state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia on May 9. The vote is crucial to Merkel because it will determine whether her conservative Christian Democrats and their coalition partner, the business-friendly Free Democrats, are able to maintain their majority in the Bundesrat, Germany's upper legislative chamber which represents the interests of the states.

But Merkel's calculation that the markets could be kept calm until then with vague promises did not work out. After all, global economic forces do not care about a German state election.

Hectic Pace

Greece is not only looking shaky; it is positively tumbling. A national bankruptcy is getting closer. And after Portugal's credit rating was downgraded on Tuesday, followed by a downgrade for Spain on Wednesday, the prospects for other euro-zone members are also looking bleak. Observers fear a wildfire could break out in the euro zone. The stability of the European single currency is at stake.

Now things are moving at a hectic pace, and the chancellor is acting like there's no tomorrow. The government has drafted a concise law authorizing Berlin to provide cash injections for Athens. Merkel's cabinet could approve the draft as soon as next Monday, and Germany's two legislative chambers, the Bundestag and Bundesrat, could pass it before the North Rhine-Westphalia election.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691969,00.html

And today we find ourself in a rather interesting situation, with a majority of the Greek people not wanting to be bailed out by Germans and others, and a majority of Germans (and others) do not want to bail out Greece. However since Greece has surrendered control of their currency, they have no choice but to accept the foreign money, or leave the EMU. The other Eurozone-members have no choice but to give their money to Greece, lest they risk capsizing the EMU.

Quite a big mess that's currently valued at ?120 billion, which is alot.

After a meeting yesterday with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief, and Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the European Central Bank, German MPs said that Greece would need ?120 billion over three years. That would almost triple the size of the bailout fund agreed in principle by the eurozone states and IMF under which the member states would contribute ?30 billion and the IMF ?15 billion.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article7111633.ece

 

[MacGuffin]

I think it's a good idea for Greece to start selling islands.

 

[narf]

I think it's a good idea for Greece to start selling islands.

I call Lesbos.

 

[Interrobang]

And today we find ourself in a rather interesting situation, with a majority of the Greek people not wanting to be bailed out by Germans and others, and a majority of Germans (and others) do not want to bail out Greece.[...]

We?ll bail out greece in a heartbeat if that solves the problem and not just delays it a couple of years or decades. But the Greek people on the streets against (what comes across as) any change, isn?t helping the thought that we?re just patching up someone who?ll end up in the shit again some years down the line. Sure, it?s not the greek peoples fault (well, not directly - supporting politics that build on sand is their fault) but it?s also not ours and the (roughly) 250? that this will cost every german, doesn?t grow on trees either in these difficult times. 20bn ? from germany alone. That?s 1800? per Greek citizen from germany alone. Is it asking too much that every greek (on average of course) will put up the same kind of money out of his paycheck, in taxes or however? I don?t think so ... (the 120bn number would even mean almost 11000? for each greek citizen paid by the rest of europe)