Talk:PIGS (economics)

Article Name Change

Forgive me if I'm presenting this wrong as I'm not an experienced user.

Anyways, the name of the article on a whole should be changed to PIIGS. The acronym refers to the countries use of the EURO currency, and the subsequent weakness displayed of that currency relative to the dollar and yen. There were concerns that the currency as a whole might collaspe. Portugal Italy Greece and Spain were included; this was later amended due to deterioration in Ireland's financial condition. This creates the final PIIGS.

For this reason, the addition of countries such as the U.K., Romania, and Iceland are off point and misused by the media. Also, in reading this discussion, I must point out that the acronym is commonly used in American economic publications and journals such as the WSJ, the Economist, etc. It is not a U.K. creation that was to demean the countries. It is an economic acronym.

There is an excellent comment above that this article should mimic the BRIC article about Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Would an editor please attend to this because in light of Ireland's recent bailout, the inaccuracies and lack of information is disheartening for those who would turn to this site for information about the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.146.247 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 == There's no PIIGGS ==

The citations for the extra G are pathetic. I've never seen any reference to PIIGGS (except by bloggers from P, I, G, and S with wishful thinking). PIGS is a real term used in the markets. Don't use this article to assuage national self-esteem. Unless better sources are inserted in a week, I'm going to delete UK from this article. DeCausa (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

- This is correct. I've tried to remove references, but cannot change the map/file names for the map and bar chart.94.142.32.114 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

- Sources Below - No Removal Justified

Rodolfou (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"I" in PIGS

Shouldn't the "I" in PIGS stand for Ireland? Italy should be the second "I" in PIIGS. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8510603.stm and also http://bx.businessweek.com/irelands-economy/europes-pigs-country-by-country/15556830359292323753-3751dfb9e72be6533f8227d23e647349/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.27.244.146 (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that's true. The Economist, in two stories that are both critical of Italy [1] [2], says that the I now stands for Ireland. The only dated source in the article from this or last year is a BBC story, which also says it's Ireland. A cursory search of Gnews reveals the same [3]. I think it's fair to change the article to say that it originally stood for Italy, but now stands for Ireland.--Chaser (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture should be updated too. --93.33.244.38 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is Hard to Find Sources for The Core of The Matter

The main controversy behind the acronym is that it is purposefully discriminatory (e.g., “brown-people discrimination”) as alternatives such as GIPS (but not the possibly derogatory GIPSI or GIPSIs) would still configure a readable acronym without inflaming a North-South divide/conflict (as the original I was for Italy, not Ireland) between Euro-nations and promoting a narrative of “help” from Northern states to Southern states (instead of alternative narratives, e.g. of bank bailouts in disguise).

Other Insulting/Derogatory Acronyms

STUPID - Spain, Turkey, UK, Portugal, Italy and Dubai

FUKD - France, UK and Deutschland

FUKDUS - France, UK, Deutschland and US

Possible Citations

And when you think about that unflattering acronym -- PIGS – you have to ask yourself, who invented it? Where did it come from? My understanding was that it came from an analyst at Goldman Sachs. If so, one is entitled to doubt that was entirely accidental. And I suggest that perhaps it might be useful going forward to change the referent of that acronym to its true meaning: Principal Instigator Goldman Sachs. Comments by James K. Galbraith at a Symposium of the Global Progressive Forum, Res Publica and the Parliamentary European Socialists, Lisbon, July 9, 2010. http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/Flyers/Galbraith%20Lisbon%20I.pdf

But some investors warn that such acronyms, droll as they are, can make the markets less safe. Gerard Fitzpatrick, senior portfolio manager at Russell Investments in London, says: “These acronyms can spread systemic risk. They create herd behaviour, with investors mindlessly running from anything tarred with the PIGS brush.” Jerome Booth agrees: “The problem with all these acronyms is they’re short-cuts. They save you the effort of thinking. Thinking is hard work.” From BRICs to PIGS: what’s in a name? Jules Evans December 6, 2010 http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/12/06/from-brics-to-pigs-whats-in-a-name/

A particular worry is what could be called the PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, Europe's negative version of the fast-growing BRICs. The fear is that these countries may be in a hole they cannot easily climb out of and that the ECB will be pressed into running a looser monetary policy to save them. The ECB at ten - A decade in the sun. The Economist. Jun 5th 2008 | from the print edition http://www.economist.com/node/11487440?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11487440 Rodolfou (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Accronym Does Not Reflect Government Debt Country Rankings

General government net debt (% of GDP) International Monetary Fund, April 2011 World Economic Outlook Net debt is calculated as gross debt minus financial assets corresponding to debt instruments. These financial assets are: monetary gold and SDRs, currency and deposits, debt securities, loans, insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee schemes, and other accounts receivable.

Greece (152%), Japan (128%), Italy (101%), Ireland (95%), Portugal (86%), Belgium (82%), France (78%), U.K. (75%), U.S.A. (72%), Hungary (71%), Iceland (70%), Israel (70%), Euro zone (67%), Germany (55%), Spain (53%)

Google Public Data Explorer

General government net lending/borrowing (% of GDP) International Monetary Fund, April 2011 World Economic Outlook Net lending (+)/ borrowing (–) is calculated as revenue minus total expenditure. This is a core GFS balance that measures the extent to which general government is either putting financial resources at the disposal of other sectors in the e...conomy and nonresidents (net lending), or utilizing the financial resources generated by other sectors and nonresidents (net borrowing). This balance may be viewed as an indicator of the financial impact of general government activity on the rest of the economy and nonresidents (GFSM 2001, paragraph 4.17). Note: Net lending (+)/borrowing (–) is also equal to net acquisition of financial assets minus net incurrence of liabilities.

Ireland (-10,8%), U.S.A.(-10,8%), Japan (-10%), U.K. (-8,6%), Greece (-7,4%), Croacia (-6,3%), Spain (-6,2%), New Zeland (-6%), Poland (-5,7%), Portugal (-5,6%), Euro Zone (-4-4%)

Google Public Data Explorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfou (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And it is not meant to. It was developed generations ago to group the economic related economies of southern Europe, it's a grouping acronym and nothing more. 76.239.18.21 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

You forgot Iceland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.234.164 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Iceland? If it has relevance to this article it needs to be backed up by RS. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY INFO?

I had posted info on the articale that Spain has the lowest public debt according to the graph thats INCLUDED in the article. For some unknown, bizarre reason, you deleted it. I even provided the URL of the graph as excellent reference. Why are you doing this? Are you ok? 12.20.4.100 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.4.100 (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear where that graph came from. As that, it fails WP:RS. You should cite where it came from, not where you uploaded it to. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So, if I find another source that shows this or similar graph, can I use it?

12.20.4.100 (talk)

Yes, if you find a reliable source, it would be fine. We shouldn't keep well-sourced, on-topic material out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if i can use the graph on the article in conjunction with references I found somewhere else. This will add more support to the citation.

12.20.4.100 (talk)

Nazis called their "inferiors" pigs.

Coincidence? I think not. --195.74.250.209 (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that makes the connection between the epithet PIGS and Nazism, then it may be worth including. The article itself already acknowledges the term is seen as offensive by some.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)