Jump to content

Talk:European debt crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.92.153.12 (talk) at 13:32, 5 March 2012 (→France). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Amount of Irish bailout?

According to the German version of this article, part of Ireland's "bailout" came from raiding a national person fund, so the actual amount of external loans was only 67.5 billion, not 85 billion. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is solved. --spitzl (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge PIGS (economics) into European sovereign debt crisis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep the two articles separate.spitzl (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that PIGS (economics) should be merged into European sovereign debt crisis, since PIIGS is a subtopic of the European sovereign debt crisis. It is just a shorthand to refer to the countries affected by the European sovereign debt crisis. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the term PIGS has been used long before the current crisis. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that? The term was coined in 2008, the debt crisis started in 2008. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to keep them separate as they serve different purposes. Perhaps they could be cross-referenced by including PIGS under See also. - Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. Term "PIIGS" is used in the print since 2007.[1] This crisis started in (december) 2009. --Samofi (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "PIGS" term is related to the sovereign debt crisis, but they're not one and the same. A merger with European social model#Mediterranean model to create a new article about the Mediterranean model would be more appropriate, and an interesting read if backed by an adequate number of sources.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. No reason to merge these two articles with quite different topics.--spitzl (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. PIIGS is not a subtopic of European sovereign debt crisis. It is a term that stands by itself. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. Article has multiple PIGS reference dating at least as far back as 1997 - long before the Euro, and clearly long, long before the European sovereign debt crisis (even before the debt itself was created for that matter...). 99.64.0.215 (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gfcvoice and IP99.* VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to merge two biased euro-bashing article will not make a neutral encyclopedic one. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about the procedure in case of merging requests. I do notice though that pretty much everyone seems to be against merging the two articles. If that's the case, when do we remove the tag? Are we waiting for an admin to make a decision? --spitzl (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French economy

It appears tha also French economy is affected by the crisis. French public debt is not high but in other hand French primary budget, deficit and unemployement rate are even worse that in Italian one. Some references should be provided in relation to French bank system as the situation of Dexia or Credit Agricole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every bit of a news about potential threats is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Would you read that in other encyclopedias? Above all, if we included it, then we would also have to add all news about potential opportunities, in order to keep the balance. I don't think an encyclopedia is the right place for that. I do agree regarding your point about Dexia and Credit Agricole though. Be bold.--spitzl (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited facts. please be nice and do not be insulting. This is Wikipedia and not a Ostmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear "93.92.153.12", I apologize, if you took my statement as an offense. It wasn't meant to be one. As I said, feel free to introduce your share but remember this is an encyclopedia. Btw, your quote about Ostmark is beneath you, sorry.--spitzl (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

By now, the intro has grown a little bit long. It contains simplified and biased 'cause and effect' analyses which shouldn't be part of an intro.--Sustainlogic (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing so I made some changes. Hope they make sense.--spitzl (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is on everybody's mouth that this so called European sovereign debt crisis that popped out of no-where and no matter how many money is putted in the crisis keeps going, it is a fabrication by the US and the UK allied with their 100% non neutral rating agencies, banks like Goldman Sachs, and news sources for an attack on the euro given the fact that the pound and the dollar, just like the Zimbabwe dollar, are kept on float by printing machines, it is said by bankers, politicians, even people from governments, and several clues where given since early 2010 to this fact even by the Queen of England, and it is plain obvious. there is very little on this in the article and some people even tried to removed even what the former prime minister of Spain said. more attention to these facts are needed on the article. --Pedro (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are quite right, this Euro-bashing article heavily promotes US and UK positions, apparently to hide their own monetary and fiscal lax policies. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course the most important reason for all this is the dollar position as a world reserve currency. The European Union Market authority is currently investigating the rating agencies, trying to find evidences on this. We need someone willing to write on the article and patient enough to add sources, because there is a lot of ground to write on this. -Pedro (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you guys seem to be conspiracy theorists. To deny that the EU is in a fiscal crisis is just disingenuous. And the 'reasons' for bias in the article that Pedro brought up are so conspiracy-driven as to be laughable. ("The US and UK are just tryin' to make us look bad! Rabble, rabble, rabble!") 24.231.216.185 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so as not to use the conspiracy theory phrase, just a financial speculation opportunity and something that make forget the much worse fiscal situation of the US and the UK. A pity that rating agencies do not rate central banks, that would give an idea of what the Fed's asset portfolio is worth. Oops, I forgot that the Fed is deemed independent of the political power and would never create money to fund its end of month's incapacity to pay its bills;-))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgreenfinch (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euro breakup section

The section on "Euro breakup" could use some work/updates. In my opinion, some notice should probably be made of the fact that the EU leaders, Commission, etc. have resolutely stated that the Euro will not break up. Although the article covers the economics of the situation very well, I think the political dynamic at play here could use some mention. This part of the article is also funny to read by the way, "In early October 2011, policy expert Philippa Malmgren believed[195] that "the Germans will announce they are re-introducing the Deutschmark" in the coming weeks. As of early December 2011, this has not happened." ... is the intention to continually change December 2011 until the Deutschmark reappears? I think we can just remove this - she was obviously wrong. Every day I read about another economist or expert predicting the Euro's collapse - the newest favoured date is Q1 2012. I also remember being told in April when I took a trip to Italy that the Euro was going to collapse for sure while I was there. These predictions are becoming something of a farce akin to trying to predict doomsday. IMO probably best to leave them out of the article altogether unless someone with some actual authority or control over the situation says something on the matter. Rant over! (Connolly15 (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that the section has some severe problems. It is flirting with contravening both WP:crystal and WP:NPOV. To meet NPOV, we really need RS surveys of economists, rather than editors gathering views that they find, if we're going to report predictions of Euro break-up or general economist views on the Euro in relation to the problem of sovereign debt. As Connolly15 points out, much of what is written is highly speculative; it's also unassessed by other experts. We need to be very careful about whose views we include to remain encyclopedic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you. Please go ahead and fix these problems. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EUobserver.com

As a courtesy note: I've raised EUObserver.com at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#EUObserver.com. I wanted to get a general opinion on it. It's associated with, possibly funded by, Eurosceptic political parties. I can find nothing much written on its quality and perspective other than some believe it is "independent" and others that it has Eurosceptic leanings. It's used in this article, which is why I went and asked.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merkozy - Sarkel?

If Merkozy is a redirect to this article now, shouldn't we also add a disambig link at Sarkel? =) JIP | Talk 20:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European sovereign debt crisis of affect to Spain

European sovereign debt crisis of affect to Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.109.116.134 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spain is already covered in the article. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

article too long

On 8 January the article was tagged for eventually being too long? I agree to some extent but I'd like to discuss first, what we could do to improve the situation. IMHO we could cut the following sections and outsource most information, while retaining only short summaries in this article:

  • Causes -> Causes of the European sovereign debt crisis (reduce original text by 2/3)
  • Greece -> Greek government debt crisis (reduce by 1/2)  Done
  • Possible spread to other countries -> ? (most of this section is speculation)  Done
  • European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) -> European Financial Stability Facility (reduce by 1/3)  Done
  • European fiscal union and revision of the Lisbon Treaty -> European Fiscal Union (reduce by 1/3)  Done
  • Eurobonds -> Eurobonds (reduce by 1/3)  Done
  • Speculation of the breakup of the Eurozone -> ? (reduce by 1/2; most if this section is indeed speculation)  Done

I guess, altogether it should be possible to reduce the length of the article by at least 1/3. Any other suggestions or comments? --spitzl (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and cut down the article considerably. Some sections were worth archiving (see "archived material" below). Maybe we can use them in some other way.--spitzl (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

archived material

Ireland

The December 2008 hidden loans controversy within Anglo Irish Bank had led to the resignations of three executives, including chief executive Seán FitzPatrick. A mysterious "Golden Circle" of ten businessmen were being investigated over shares they purchased in Anglo Irish Bank, using loans from the bank, in 2008. The Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Act 2009 was passed to nationalise Anglo Irish Bank was voted through Dáil Éireann and passed through Seanad Éireann without a vote on 20 January 2009.[1] President Mary McAleese then signed the bill at Áras an Uachtaráin the following day, confirming the bank's nationalisation.[2]

In April 2010, following a marked increase in Irish two-year bond yields, Ireland's NTMA state debt agency said that it had "no major refinancing obligations" in 2010. Its requirement for €20 billion in 2010 was matched by a €23 billion cash balance, and it remarked: "We're very comfortably circumstanced".[3] On 18 May the NTMA tested the market and sold a €1.5 billion issue that was three times oversubscribed.[4]

Possible spread to other countries

Belgium

In 2010, Belgium's public debt was 100% of its GDP—the third highest in the eurozone after Greece and Italy[5] and there were doubts about the financial stability of the banks,[6] following the country's major financial crisis in 2008–2009. After inconclusive elections in June 2010, by November 2011[7] the country still had only a caretaker government as parties from the two main language groups in the country (Flemish and Walloon) were unable to reach agreement on how to form a majority government.[5] In November 2010 financial analysts forecast that Belgium would be the next country to be hit by the financial crisis as Belgium's borrowing costs rose.[6]

However the government deficit of 5% was relatively modest and Belgian government 10-year bond yields in November 2010 of 3.7% were still below those of Ireland (9.2%), Portugal (7%) and Spain (5.2%).[6] Furthermore, thanks to Belgium's high personal savings rate, the Belgian Government financed the deficit from mainly domestic savings, making it less prone to fluctuations of international credit markets.[8] Nevertheless on 25 November 2011, Belgium's long-term sovereign credit rating was downgraded from AA+ to AA by Standard and Poor[9] and 10-year bond yields reached 5.66%.[7] Shortly after, Belgian negotiating parties reached an agreement to form a new government. The deal includes spending cuts and tax rises worth about €11 billion, which should bring the budget deficit down to 2.8% of GDP by 2012, and to balance the books in 2015.[10] Following the announcement Belgium 10-year bond yields fell sharply to 4.6%.[11]

France

France's public debt in 2010 was approximately U.S. $2.1 trillion and 83% GDP, with a 2010 budget deficit of 7% GDP.[12] By 16 November 2011, France's bond yield spreads vs. Germany had widened 450% since July, 2011.[13] France's C.D.S. contract value rose 300% in the same period.[14] On 1 December 2011, France's bond yield had retreated and the country successfully auctioned €4.3 billion worth of 10 year bonds at an average yield of 3.18%, well below the perceived critical level of 7%.[15] By early February 2012, yields on French 10 year bonds had fallen to 2.84%.[16]

United Kingdom

According to the Financial Policy Committee "Any associated disruption to bank funding markets could spill over to UK banks."[17] Bank of England governor Mervyn King declared that the UK is very much at risk from a domino-fall of defaults and called on banks to build up more capital when financial conditions allowed. This is because the UK has the highest gross foreign debt of any European country (€7.3 trillion; €117,580 per person) due in large part to its highly leveraged financial industry, which is closely connected with both the United States and the eurozone.[18]

Growth

In Q4 2011, the Eurozone economy contracted by 0.3%. It was the first contraction since Q2 2009, although it was better than had been predicted. Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal entered a technical recession as they recorded six months of negative growth.[19][20]

Speculation about the breakup of the eurozone

The former president of the German Industries, Hans-Olaf Henkel suggested that "southern countries" could retain their competitiveness through a greater tolerance for inflation and corresponding regular devaluations, once they are freed of the "straitjacket of Germanic stability phobia".[21]

Some think-tanks such as the World Pensions Council have argued that a profound revision of the Lisbon Treaty would be unavoidable if Germany were to succeed in imposing its economic views, as stringent orthodoxy across the budgetary, fiscal and regulatory fronts would necessarily go beyond the treaty in its current form, thus further reducing the individual prerogatives of national governments.[22]

On 26 December 2011, Jim Rogers in an interview with the BBC responded to the assertion that the euro was responsible for the crisis saying, "No, absolutely not. It's not the euro. The world needs the euro or something like it to compete with the US dollar... The eurozone as a whole is not a big debtor nation. The eurozone has some debtor problems, some debtor nations, debtor states, but it's not a big, big problem. The euro is good for the world. It needs to work."[23]

Incorrect scale on chart of long-term interest rates

The vertical scale on the chart of long-term interest rates (the first chart) is incorrect. The horiz lines are evenly spaced but the scale alternates between jumping 2 percentage points and 3 points, eg, 0, 2, 5, 7, 10. It appears that the graduations should be 2.5 points each, eg, 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10. With the incorrect scale, it looks like Italy, for example, peaked below 7% in Nov 2011, when it actually peaked at 7.06%. When the caption refers to the significance of the 7% level specifically, it is important to have the 7 or 7.5 level marked correctly. The chart is otherwise very illuminating, so it's worth getting right. Nurg (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the note. How do you like the new scale? --spitzl (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly better in that the 7% graduation is now correct. But overall it is still incorrect. For example, it looks like France has been over 4%, which is not correct. Can you not just space the horizontal lines an even 2 percentage points apart? Nurg (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I could but then we lose the 7% marker line. The current 4% mark is in fact (a rounded up) 3.5%! I could change the scale to 3.5, 7.0, 10.5, 14.5, 17.5, 21.0 but these numbers would display as 3,5 etc. (comma instead of dot) because I use a German copy of Numbers. In German language, commas are used instead of dots to indicate decimal points. The other option would be to use a scale that only marks 7%, 14% and 21%. --spitzl (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to lose the 7% line. The important thing is accuracy - rather than having 3.5 labelled as 4, or having 7.5 labelled as 7. Lines an even 2 percentage points apart would be fine. People could judge by eye whether something was more or less than halfway between 6 and 8. I appreciate your efforts with this. Nurg (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I was promising too much. Using an even spacing of two percentage points I could only slice the scale into 10 parts. This means the maximum value would be 20, not 21, which is needed for Greece. I now switched to 3 percentage points intervals and increased the maximum value to 24 ((3, 6, 9,...24). It's not 100% perfect but it solves the problem. Above all, given the current situation in Greece, we may have to increase the scale anyway next month. --spitzl (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bring out official EU Council decisions

  1. redirect Talk:Greek_government_debt_crisis#Bring_out_official_EU_Council_decisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lip gloss for2 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma

We should add a proper first sentence that describes "European sovereign debt crisis". To start the discussion I propose the following. Fell free to add your own versions. --spitzl (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The European sovereign debt crisis is an ongoing financial crisis starting in late 2009, which made it difficult or impossible for some countries of the Euro area to re-finance their government debts without aid of third parties.
  2. European sovereign debt crisis describes the ongoing problems of some members states of the Euro area to re-finance their government debts without aid of third parties.
Dilemma, you mean? I think people know what a "debt crisis" is (and if not, a page should be created to explain what the expression "debt crisis" means, perhaps in Wiktionary), so I would emphasize the cause and effect, and focus on the specificity of this debt crisis in Europe. Some combination, not all, of the the following expressions might be used :
  • Backlash from the 2007 financial crisis (Cause)
  • Plunged into recession (Effect)
  • Abysmal deficits and debt in peripheral countries
  • Expectations of default by the market as reflected in CDS spreads, leaving the paradigm of sovereign = safe
  • Credit rationing by the markets as reflected in skyrocketing sovereign rates
  • Bailouts by the ECB, IMF, and EU, which is known as the troika" (Emergency solutions)
  • Contagion to the big economies as evidenced by sovereign rating downgrades in 2011".
  • Rethinking of the EU architecture (integration rather than breaking up) and a new macroeconomic direction (austerity, rather than the Keynesian view).
To some degree, this is visible in the structure of the article. For example,
The European sovereign debt crisis initially began as a backlash of the 2007 financial crisis, plunging the weaker smaller economies (a.k.a peripheral countries) into recession, abysmal deficits and debt, resulting in credit rationing by the markets and bailouts by ECB, IMF, and EU, which is known as the troika.
It could be followed up like this, although I'm fine with what already exists:
In a second stage, the larger economies, exposed to the problems of the periphery through their contributions to the bailouts, were engulfed in the debt crisis which became visible through the credit downgrade of some, a complete change in paradigm from that which presumes that sovereign is a safe asset (as codified, for instance, in the Basel capital adequacy requirements). The strategy pursued by the EU authorities has been one of austerity and opening a path towards greater integration (the EFSF marking a first step thereof), but there are dissenting schools of thought on both of these co-dependent matters. Some prefer a breakup that would restore competitiveness via devaluations and more leeway to steer the economy using classic macro-economic tools. Others favor integration too, but to leverage the credibility that comes with it (it is a condition for a monetary union to work, as is in effect in the U.S), to pursue a Keynesian policy at the EU level.
Lip gloss for2 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a lemma description to the article. Lets see how people like it.--spitzl (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spread to other countries

I am not really happy with this section, which includes an arbitrary list of countries. Looking at long-term interest rates it should only include Cyprus, Italy and Slovenia (in that order), which are the only Euro countries above the 6% threshold. Spain could also be covered as it was under pressure until end of November 2011 when its newly elected government announced further austerity measures. It has since left the dangerous zone with its bonds trading at merely 5%. Belgium, France and the UK never reached dangerous levels, despite media reports that they could come under pressure as well. The other two European countries with high interest rates are Hungary (9.6%) and Romania (above 7%) but both are not in the Euro area. --spitzl (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite follow this argument. France lost its AAA rating, I believe on 13 January. Ireland and Portugal have been, in part, financed through the European_Financial_Stability_Facility. Are you suggesting that Ireland and France does not deserve a sub-section? This said, I agree with another of your statement, in general, "Not every bit of a news about potential threats is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia." in response to a comment on the French economy, except if it serves to illustrate, say, a critical pattern. Lip gloss for2 (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am only referring to the section "Possible spread to other countries". Greece, Ireland and Portugal all have their own sections. Rightly so, as these are the countries that experience the largest impact of the crisis. Looking at France and the UK, I am not so sure. I do see an exchange of blows between the French and British media as well as some comments of politicians, but lets stick to the facts. Neither France nor the UK ever got to the point, where investors have serious doubts about their ability to repay their debts. (The case of Belgium is a matter of discussion since it got very close to the 6% mark in November 2011) Sure one may argue that even France, the UK and many other countries could be seriously affected in the future. My answer to this would be, well, then lets add them, when this is the case. Up until now it is only speculation, which we should avoid in an encyclopedia. Basically I'm trying to introduce some kind of standard that helps us judge, whether a country gets its own section or not. I'd suggest the 6% threshold of long-term interest rates but I am open for other suggestions. P.S. Austria also lost its AAA rating but the country still finds it rather easy to re-finance its debt. --spitzl (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see, sorry. I also agree we need a benchmark for inclusion and avoiding writing overlapping stories (or worse, conflicting stories about the same topic) in various sections (in fact, we both agreed on the latter in the page for Greece and have yet to act on it).
  • Yeah, there's no need for this section "possible spread" between section Evolution of the crisis and a subset of the individual countries. If Spain is deemed worthy of inclusion, put it as a section right under Evolution of the crisis, and likewise for France, Italy etc. That's not to say we shouldn't identify a specific stage where contagion to large economies occur in the lead paragraph of section Evolution of the crisis.
  • Regarding the benchmark, I argued in favor of using EU official decisions as landmarks in the page for Greece. These decisions are distantly spaced in time, and they percolate through member countries (they have to execute, in principle) and the markets (they like it or dislike it). A credit downgrade is official but it comes from a private entity whose decisions are publicly disseminated, so it's on the fence. But I would much rather rely on that than arbitrary thresholds on CDS spreads or interest rates. As pertaining to France, the downgrade is unprecedented (unlike, say, Japan since the 1990s).
  • Regarding clarity, I feel too much is said about Spain, given that there is a main article: a few lines to motivate the redirection to the main article should be enough. This said, for some of the reasons laid above, I don't like section Government_bond_yields_rise in the main article. And I don't like the secondary section either, in some parts, e.g: "As one of the largest eurozone economies the condition of Spain's economy is of particular concern to international observers, and faced pressure from the United States, the IMF, other European countries and the European Commission to cut its deficit more aggressively". There's nothing specific about Spain in this paragraph. All Euro countries are under scrutiny, and all carry out austerity measures. It's the dominant direction in western economies, but, more specifically, the EU exerts a more important role in trying to enforce it in member countries than in the past. Again, it is at that level that things are important. There are "very specific things to say about Spain".. Lip gloss for2 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Post Scriptum on Spain, here Lip gloss for2 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with everything, well, almost. Three remarks: 1) Yep, we should cut the section about Spain. 2) Choosing long-term interest rates as a benchmark wasn't my idea but rather that of many media commentators. See e.g. this comment in the guardian, which suggests that if a country's long-term interest rate "hit 6%, that would indicate that financial markets have serious doubts about its credit-worthiness" and a level of "7% is the cut-off point, forcing each country to seek a bailout." I would change my mind though if you provided me with a better alternative. 3) I don't think we should get rid of the distinction between seriously affected countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal) on the one hand, and not so seriously affected countries (Italy, Spain,...) on the other. In fact, I believe that there are three categories: a) countries that had to be bailed out b) countries that were not bailed out but benefited from ECB interventions (Italy, Spain); and c) all other countries that implemented austerity measures to stay on the safe side. That list might become pretty large though, so we I'd say we get rid of them altogether. --spitzl (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. About 2). That guardian page only mentions "Greece, Portugal and Ireland all found that 7% is the cut-off point, forcing each country to seek a bailout.". That's hardly a science, and, by the way, the page is about Italy's downgrade, a type of event that I consider meaningful based on my definition of what the benchmark should be, because, in this case, it's unprecedented in recent history. About "I would change my mind though if you provided me with a better alternative": I've already provided a rationale for using official decisions (joint statements by the troika + downgrades) as a benchmark for inclusion, so feel free to debate on substance. About 3), I did not suggest "get rid of the distinction between seriously affected countries", did I? I'm against over-categorization, as it leads to deeply nested hierarchies that are maintenance nightmares. The best structure I can think of for section Evolution of the crisis is a timeline for ALL events that are deemed worthy of inclusion, based on an agreed benchmark. This benchmark would have to be more stringent than that we would use for a particular country such as Spain. Once we have this, it's easier to look for patterns, shifts etc, and, as necessary, we can add more structure with new sections, within/separately, to delineate/describe them. Also, we don't have to worry how other pages (e.g. Spain, France etc.) address the problem. What do you think? If you agree, we can first focus our attention on the benchmark. We can make a mock page somewhere to see how it goes and submit it for approval. Come to think of it, there's going to be a lot of overlap with Solutions and LT solutions, but we don't have to worry about it, yet. PS: The NY Times' index for Greece has a lead article that is useful.[24]. Lip gloss for2 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add, that the sections Solutions and LT solutions are well thought of (I skimmed through). Lip gloss for2 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there joint troika statements for all countries? I thought they only judge countries that asked for a bailout, namely Greece, Ireland and Portugal. If that is true than we'd still need a benchmark for inclusion of all other countries. (It is only this second group, for which I suggested the 6% yield of long-term interest rates.) Furthermore, if we want to use credit ratings as a benchmark for inclusion as well, then we must first decide which ones we want to rely on. Austria e.g. has two top ratings by Fitch and Moody's but it was cut one level by S&P. How are we going to deal with that? There is a list of countries by credit ratings and even a list with direct comparison but no list of countries by some kind of weighted average of all major credit ratings. And which benchmark do you suggest for the timeline? Would that be some kind of summary of the (unfortunately outdated) article 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline? --spitzl (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A timeline is something like this. It's an easy thing to do that eliminates the need for intellectualizing the structure, except for the benchmark. Rather than argue over the benchmark, I would suggest to put in the timeline everything that seems intuitively worthy of inclusion in a mock page and take it from there. As for the credit downgrade, I already said, twice, that "unprecedented" would be a criterion. It doesn't matter if it's Fitch, S&P or Moody's. Lip gloss for2 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling we don't really get anywhere in our discussion. I already explained my rationale above but I'm afraid I'm still missing yours. Maybe you could just name the countries that would fulfill your criteria "joint statements by the troika" + "unprecedented downgrades". That would make it clearer for everyone what you mean. And about the timeline: I think it's not necessary (and actually discouraged by Wikipedia) to include information that is already covered elsewhere. Instead we could simply move the link to the 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline from the bottom of the page to the beginning of the section Evolution_of_the_crisis. That should do the trick. --spitzl (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of replacing the content of Evolution_of_the_crisis with a timeline you are "afraid [you are] missing"? On the face of it, this
"I think it's not necessary (and actually discouraged by Wikipedia) to include information that is already covered elsewhere"
runs contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'd suggest you revise that statement or provide a Wiki-link to substantiate it and explain exactly how it relates to my suggestion. Lip gloss for2 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the entire section "Evolution of the crisis"? I am only referring to the sub section "Possible spread to other countries" (which is the topic of this thread). If so, then this might be the root of misunderstanding. Sure you can transform the text preceding the sub section into a timeline as long as you avoid unnecessary splits, given that there already is 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline. With "elsewhere" I meant this timeline article. Needless to say I am strongly pro verifiability.
Now, talking about the sub section "Possible spread to other countries": I'm not sure a timeline suits this specific section, as it mostly covers arguments and country facts that possibly explain future events. Here we need to focus more on explanation, rather than merely listing past events. IMHO this sub section is fine the way it is. My question was only about an objective rationale that we could apply to objectively decide, which countries we should include or not include (in this specific section). My suggestion was long-term interest rates. Your suggestion was a mix of "joint statements by the troika" and "unprecedented downgrades". To better understand your proposal it would be great if you could list the countries that meet your criteria.--spitzl (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  1. ^ "Dáil votes to nationalise Anglo Irish". RTÉ. 20 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.
  2. ^ "McAleese signs Anglo Irish Bank Bill". RTÉ. 21 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.
  3. ^ The Irish Times, 28 April 2010, p.18.
  4. ^ Irish Times, 19 May 2010, p.15.
  5. ^ a b Maddox, David Europe in freefall – Belgium could be next to need help The Scotsman, 26 November 2010, Retrieved 27 November 2010
  6. ^ a b c Robinson, Francis Belgian Debt and Contagion, The Wall Street Journal, 26 November 2010, Retrieved 27 November 2010
  7. ^ a b Bowen, Andrew and Connor, Richard (28 November 2011) Belgian budget breakthrough builds hopes for new government Deutsche Welle, DW-World.DE, Retrieved 1 December 2011
  8. ^ "Belgium". US Department of State. April 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
  9. ^ Gill, Frank (25 November 2011) Ratings On Belgium Lowered To 'AA' On Financial Sector Risks To Public Finances; Outlook Negative Standard and Poors Rating Service, Retrieved 1 December 2011
  10. ^ "An end to waffle?". Economist magazine. 2011-12-02. Retrieved 2011-12-02.
  11. ^ "Belgium Govt Bonds 10 YR Note Belgium BB". Bloomberg. 2011-12-02. Retrieved 2011-12-02.
  12. ^ CIA Factbook-France-Retrieved December 2011
  13. ^ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c9acf040-0fac-11e1-a468-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dt6bCax5
  14. ^ Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=CFRTR1U5:IND. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  15. ^ Charlton, Emma (1 December 2011). "French Bond Yields Decline Most in 20 Years, Spanish Debt Rises on Auction". Bloomberg. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
  16. ^ "Italian, French Bonds Trade Higher". The Wall Street Journal. 6 February 2012. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference FPC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ "Eurozone debt web: Who owes what to whom?". BBC News. 18 November 2011. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
  19. ^ "Eurozone economy shrinks 0.3% in Q4". Retrieved February 16, 2012.
  20. ^ "Ironically, EU GDP Better Than Expected Despite 0.3% Contraction". Forbes. 15 February 2012. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  21. ^ Henkel, Hans-Olaf (13 March 2011). "Germany needs to resist the euro's sweet-smelling poison". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  22. ^ Template:Fr icon M Nicolas Firzli. "Orthodoxie financière et régulation bancaire: les leçons du Glass-Steagall Act (Bank Regulation and Financial Orthodoxy: the Lessons from the Glass-Steagall Act)" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-01-08.
  23. ^ "Euro is not to blame for crisis". BBC News. 26 December 2011. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
  24. ^ "Greece". nytimes.com.

Good article nomination

The page rating (see bottom of main page) rewards our article full five points in all categories. How about a Good article nomination? --spitzl (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but wouldn't it quick fail as: "5.The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." (WP:RGA) I guess it doesn't really have a definite endpoint... ? Connolly15 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and try. At worst you'll get some good advice on how to improve the article. The main problem for me at the moment is the rather mediocre level of English. Just take the beginning: "The European sovereign debt crisis is an ongoing financial crisis that made it difficult or impossible for some countries of the Euro area to re-finance their government debts without aid of third parties." should be "The European sovereign debt crisis is an ongoing financial crisis that has made it difficult or impossible for some countries in the Euro area (or zone?) to re-finance their government debts without assistance from third parties." When I have an hour or so to spare, I'll try to go through the whole thing. - Ipigott (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. In that case I'll wait a bit and then start the nomination process.--spitzl (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx. I have now asked for the article to be reviewed. That may take a while.--spitzl (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been though the whole thing, correcting the most obvious errors but there are still conflicts between American and British English, particularly some of the dates using the American month/day/year while most use the British day/month/year, both U.S. and US occur as do U.K. and UK, program occurs side by side with programme, etc. I've tried to change Euro to euro throughout but attention should also be given to the way amounts are expressed, with the euro sign before the figure or just euro after it. In my opinion, some of the sections also require careful revision, particular the one on "Evolution of the Crisis" where many of the passages from 2010 and 2011 now need to be rewritten. I also think the article should be cut back by about one third, especially as some of the passages are either covered in other articles or are no longer of interest. Some paras contain no refs and a few of the refs are dead links. Have fun! - Ipigott (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

France

I do not see any reasons to remove France from the list of countries wherein the crisis may be spreaded up. The comment on the section related to France are persuasive and no valid argumentation have been provided in order to remove it from the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your change for now as you haven't reintroduced the text properly (i.e. the citations don't work because you haven't copied the code over). I didn't delete it originally, but looking at the article at the moment it's strange to have just Italy, Spain and France listed. Connolly15 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was too long. That is the reason why I removed France together with Belgium and the UK, all countries that were never really at risk, judged by their long-term interest rates. The sections are archived on this talk page, see above. I leave it up to the discussion here whether we should or should not remove France from the article for good. In any case, if we decide to re-introduce France than we need to re-introduce the other countries too. --spitzl (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So according to Monsieur Spitzl, the article was very long and therefore something had to be removed. He chose, in the name of CONCISENESS, to remove the section related to France because it is "obvious" that an article related to Crisis and to France is a non-sense. After all, France is immune to CRisis as Standard and Poor had confirmed... Generally speaking, I think the CHAUVISNIM should be banned from Wikipedia, at least from the English version of Wikipedia. Should the article be deemed to be too long it would be possible either to express some concepts in a more concise way or reorganizing some section. It is not possible to REMOVE a whole section based only on personal , in this case SpitzlY, feeling. The article related to France was full of citations and well discussed. Mr Spritzle removed it without providing any concret argument. This is really unacceptable.
To be fair, by your logic we should include a section on every country in the Eurozone and potential spread. The "threat" to France was in the media for about 2 weeks and has since sputtered out. If you could provide some concrete reasons why France should be included over any of the other Eurozone countries it would be helpful. The reasons why Spain and Italy are included seem self-evident given the press coverage. Personally attacking other editors who are doing an exemplary job at maintaining and updating this article is not productive. Connolly15 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the removal of subject-matter without providing any argument cannot be labeled as "exemplary" working. Again the press coverage, in a context as the economical context, is not a valid basis to remove or add an article. Why the press coverage is so "self-evident" for Italy and Spain and not for France? Do you want some sources? Simply have a look to 8 (EIGHT!!!) sources concerning France that Monsiuer Sprotzl arbitrary removed. Should the section concerning France be not restored I will ask the Moderator to label the whole article as NOT NEUTRAL
So would you propose adding back in the UK and Belgium as well? What about other Eurozone countries not mentioned? Connolly15 (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. France, Uk and Belgium as well other not mentioned Eurozone countries should be added. Obviously it will be possible to do that only when someone will write the sections related to these countries. At this time we have sections, well discussed and supported by sources, related to France, Uk and Belgium. Therefore there is not reason to arbitrary remove the sections related to these 3 countries and mentioning only Spain and Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 11:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I don't think it is neecessary to have subsections on France, the UK, Belgium and every other Eurozone country and it is quite right to limit it to Spain and Italy for the time being. Would others care to say whether they support or not this idea so that we can get a consensus on how to proceed? Connolly15 (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the interest rates France is the 11th most affected country. Also French CDS are trading substantially lower than the CDS of crisis countries. If we want to include more countries then we should start with Cyprus (#3), Slovenia (#5) and Malta (#9) before picking a country further down the list. What makes France so special to be included, except that some people seem to have a strong feeling about it? --spitzl (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reaspn to limit the analysis to Italy and Spain.. As Monsiuer Spitzl stated in the above there are a lots of countries (obviuolsy no France...) which should be included in the list. Again NO REASONS have been provided to justify such a removal. The article therefore should be deemed as not NEUTRAL.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_debt_crisis&oldid=480318447"