Talk:European debt crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

According to Merkel, the bailed out are imposing financial propaganda ("speculation") [source to include]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-23/merkel-slams-euro-speculation-warns-of-resentment-update1-.html German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized market speculation against the euro, saying that financial institutions bailed out with public funds are exploiting the budget crisis in Greece and elsewhere. --212.54.219.232 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

[Sources inclusion] Hedge Funds betting against the Euro after private meeting on Feb 8 - US Department of Justice investigating legality - Orders them to keep transaction records for investigation

Reuters article on the meeting: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2515219020100226

BusinessWeek article on the DoJustice investigation: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/u-s-said-to-tell-hedge-funds-to-save-euro-records-update2-.html

Bloomberg article on the investigation: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGwpiEXSgoxs&pos=3

Wall Street Journal article on the Hedge Funds' "ganging" of euro. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703795004575087741848074392.html --AaThinker (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumors of a Hostile Takeover of all 3 Rating Agencies by the EU to reduce payments

Many EU bonds have clauses that LEGALLY tie the interest rate to the the official rating by the 3 rating agencies. When bonds are downgraded, interest rates can automatically be increased under these clauses very substantially. This amounts to 100s of billions of dollars of interest rate payments if the 3 agencies were purchased by the EU and subsequently reversed the rating, or simply made all bonds AAA.

The current market capitalization of the three main rating agencies combined is less than 20 billion USD.

Bloomberg.com lists the following data on the MARKET CAP of the 3 rating agencies (or their parent companies) (Prices are in US dollars.)  :

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., (NYSE: MHP) (parent of Standard and Poor's) - Market Cap : 10.70 Billion

Moody's Corporation (NYSE: MCO) - Market Cap : 5.89 Billion

Fimalac (FIM) majority owner of Fitch - Market Cap : 1.17 Billion.

Allowing even for a substantial premium a HOSTILE TAKEOVER would still be substantially cheaper than paying junk bond interest rates. Costs for the bailout of Greece alone are esimated at 70 billion and approximately 700 billion for the EU in total.

Naturally, a hostile takeover and forced AAA rating of bonds would permanently damage the rating agencies' reputations and would likely result in the end of the practice of explicitly tying bond interest rates to the opinion of rating agency analysts, however, this - it could be argued - would be a positive benefit for the markets, and the size of the savings to the EU are hard to argue with.

To date, however, there is NO SUBSTANTIATION to the RUMOR that the rating agencies' stock are now in play.

Sources :

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177011719842.htm?chan=magazine+channel_news+-+global+economics

http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=getComment&productId=53101&reviewId=637038#637038

http://www.bloomberg.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.64.80 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Great contribution!! Congrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearieme (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for spreading unsubstantaited rumours. --Boson (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We most possibly have a propaganda war of Sources. US-controlled agencies that

a) Were having AAA+ ratings on Junk Mortgage Assets for years

b) Are controlled by US based interests

c) Are giving junk ratings to mostly European countries

Is it really a surprise they would have US-based Sources supporting them? --195.74.253.136 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Source on Standard & Poor's reliablity

This France24 Report is largely a criticism http://www.france24.com/en/2010-04-28-Greece-Spain-Portugal-credit-ratings-downgraded (of the type "They weren't accurate on a Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis, why are they reliable now that they downgrade largely European countries?". --212.54.199.46 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So the issue is what? You want to remove the reference because? Or u already have removed the reference? (Dearieme (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I just added it here, for information. --195.74.253.136 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Translating this Page into Another Language

How do I do that? And how do I then add a link (I note there is a link to this page with a translation in French which does not correspond to the current page in English - no matter) I would like to translate the page as it is now into another language, what should I do?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearieme (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're reasonably fluent in a language other than English (or French) you can go to that language's version of Wikipedia and start the article there with your translation. E.g., if you speak German, go to http://de.wikipedia.org . Before you get deep into it, look around to see if there's already an article under some name which just hasn't been linked here. Actually, it's kind of surprising there aren't versions in German and Greek already. You may find that computer translation can give you a headstart; Google's app is at http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en . You can plug in the URL for this article or copy&paste a chunk of text, and see if it gives you something useful.

—WWoods (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Organization

To me it makes the most sense to follow a basic chronological narrative. Start with background and causes, then on to how the crisis developed and where things stand currently, and then the future possibility such as solutions, bailouts, default and contagion. Finally the article would discuss the secondary controversies, such as the media and ratings agencies. This is a logical approach, and it is also a standard pattern for Wikipedia articles like this. (e.g. the Financial crisis of 2007–2010, Great Depression, and Dot-com bubble all follow this rough model). - SimonP (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that is your idea. I do not agree. There is a chronology at the end of the page which is appropriate. Chronologies, particularly when there is so much going on, become un necessarily cumbersome quite quickly. Please stop just re doing the ENTIRE page without getting agreement on what you would like to do. Thank u.(Dearieme (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Why do you disagree? Please present some argument for the arrangement that you prefer. This is a pretty straghtforward article, much simpler than those examples I cited. Why would a linear approach work there, but not here? What are the reasons behind the ordering that you prefer? To me it makes no sense, and as a reader I would be deeply confused. - SimonP (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has a chronology. It has an international dimension. An economic dimension. At present that is way the article is organised and that is fine. why do you want a to organise it as a chronology of events when there is already a chronology at the end of the article?(Dearieme (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

There is a timeline at the end, that differs from a chronology. Past->Present->Future is pretty much the default way of organizing things, and you need to present some argument for why that doesn't work. Could you please explain the logic behind your organization? To me it just makes no sense. Maybe I'm just missing something, but if I am then I'm sure readers will as well. Also could you explain why you are removing much of the referenced content I've added? You've presented no reasoning for removing any of that information. - SimonP (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

U removed whole sections including references. I reverted. Do not reorganise until and unless you have consensus on what the categories should be and how they should be organised.(Dearieme (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Could you show me what I removed? I rearranged things, but to my knowledge I removed no actual content, other than some small bits like Enron. Could you also explain why my version needs to have consensus, but you need no consensus to revert back to your version? - SimonP (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seriously expect me to forensically examine every edit you did and then post them here do you? Reality check pls. (Dearieme (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes I do, if you are going to remove referenced content you have to give a reason for it. If you can't justify doing so, then how can you remove it? How can consensus emerge without discussion? The same goes for me, if there is anything that you think I shouldn't have removed then I promise to give you a detailed explanation for why it does not belong. - SimonP (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So can I take your silence on this matter to mean that you are alright with my reorganizing the page? - SimonP (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to an AN3 report - have you two managed to settle your differences?--Tznkai (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I want to avoid an edit ward, so I'm not going to revert back to my preferred version, but it is difficult to settle anything when Dearieme refuses to discuss why he keeps reverting any additions I make. - SimonP (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You accused him of removing "whole sections including references". If that's true then it doesn't require forensic examination. – Smyth\^talk 14:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of SimonP's reorganization. It actually has a structure, compared to the old layout which looks like a collection of independent articles with no coherency at all. While I haven't given the two versions a detailed enough comparison to say whether anything important has been removed, the onus is surely on Dearieme to point out what he thinks is missing, and to consider reintroducing it into the new structure rather than reverting. – Smyth\^talk 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the onus on me to explain why I prefer the current page organisation. Isn't the onus on SimonP to present his outline FIRST, explain why it is better and get agreement before taking on a wholesale edit of the ENTIRE page without discussion or agreement? (Dearieme (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

He has presented his outline and explained why it's better, and I've agreed with him. What do you think is "cumbersome" about it? – Smyth\^talk 16:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is this outline explained? I see no categories. (Dearieme (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Seeing as Dearieme is the only user to object, I've gone back to the other organization, somewhat revised due to recent developments. I hope you can now see how it is structured? Start with causes, on to the initial attempts at a solution, then forward to the bailout, after that a discussion of what might have happened without a bailout, finally a discussion of some of the controversies that have been associated with the event. - SimonP (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As further evidence that this is a more natural way of ordering, the French article is done pretty much the same way. (Even without the corrupting influence of the Anglo-Saxon media!) - SimonP (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You did the French article so you think it's 'natural'. (Dearieme (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Why do you think that? I have had nothing to with that article, as a quick check of the history will show. (Nor would I have the capability of writing a page like that. I can read French, but my written French is far below that level.) - SimonP (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dearieme, stop being evasive. He explained it in the very first paragraph of this talk section, and now he's done it again. I know two against one is not a clear consensus, but it's been a couple of days now since you offered any substantive objections. – Smyth\^talk 13:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Two to one. Right great consensus. Tough luck. We'll see how this plays out. Next week the Fed completes its bond buying programme, the U.S. has 1.7 trillion to fund and we have reached record levels of short against the Euro. Sounds like a perfect storm to me but not in Europe, that's for sure. (Dearieme (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Lack of Neutrality

This article shows a remarkable lack of neutrality for Wikipedia. 80% seems to be denying the crisis or implicitly ranting against the Anglo Saxon financial world. It needs to be far more objective - reporting the market reaction is valid, criticising the that reaction in a one sized way is not. The article should cover the twists and turns of the story more, and how the market has reacted to the various official pronouncments. Heart of the matter is that Greece needs to find a lot of euros to repay its maturing debt (and other spending) and unlike the US or UK can't print them - the crisis is very real. If have more time will try and add something, but felt compiled to flag it. 86.23.99.244 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Mark M 1.5.2010

Greece needs to find a lot of euros to repay its maturing debt (and other spending) and unlike the US or UK can't print them that is your opinion. The US and the UK need other people's savings to finance their external accounts and their deficits. The US relies on foreign buyers at EVERY Treasury auction to the tune of AROUND 40%. That is a very big vulnerability. Next week the FED stops buying Treasuries, that is an even bigger problem. Your grasp of the facts is limited, I'm afraid. What has been written in the English speaking media is not necesarily a reflection of the facts. The facts ARE that all of Greece's government bond auctions this year have been oversubscribed, which means that THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. Yields are not as low as they were but it can be argued that yields in Greece were pushed way too low prior to the 2007 global crash. A rise in yields is normal and should have been allowed to remain the ONLY cost to Greece for having a large deficit to finance IMVHO. (Dearieme (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

And the 'printing money option' is the Weimer Republic option or, if you prefer the Zimbabwe option. It's the short road to disaster. (Dearieme (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

We are well aware this is your opinion, but this talk page makes pretty clear that no other editors share your opinion. Please stop adding you original research to this article. - SimonP (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact you are posting from Netherlands isn't very comforting either. It may sound very Nationalistic, but it's quite.. Nationalistic what is going on lately. The German Press for example is entertaining lately blanket statements such as "Greeks are Worthless, Lazy and want to steal our money"; this is borderline racist but those are Sources that wikipedia may take as reasonable. .. In any way, this is a heated environment that has to be partly dealt with like those articles about "Israel invades Gaza": Take the facts very clearly, be careful of Sources Bias and cross reference the Sources themselves. --194.219.163.151 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the U.S. hasn't monetized it's debt take a look at this:. Why anyone would want to hold USDs in that environment or US Treasuries really is an open question. (Dearieme (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Bare URL's

Anyone interested in avoiding their use may use a citation generator that automatically fills in a WP news citation template. One example is this. Simply copy the relevant url in one of the empty boxes and press Enter. There are many others including Mozila add-ins that can do the job in a sec. Hope that helps.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning these up. I'm too blame for a bunch of them, and will work on fixing them as well. - SimonP (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

PIGS countries

I just made a change ([1]) to reflect the PIGS countries fenomenon, and properly sourced. Hope no one gets offended. It's what the Wall Street Journal says these countries are called. --sulmues (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your bad faith is disgusting. One more such edit and I will report you. Athenean (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The "PIGS myth", you mean. If the people who coined that acronym had any real foresight, the I would have stood for Iceland. Nowadays the term's only use is for some Anglosaxon economic press to divert attention from the United Kingdom's own situation. It seems that some editors took their bait (certainly in good faith): the UK is not even named in this article, yet its 10-year bonds spread exceeds both Italy's and Spain's, and is closer to Portugal's: http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/04/euro-bond-spreads-april-8-2010.html. 93.32.191.158 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The UK needs to be mentioned in this article.--Polysophia (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Describing the Economist as "sober" is a POV statement IMHO. Please change if appropriate.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've remove the word. I'm also not certain about the fair use rights to use that image on this page. This article isn't critical commentary on the Economist or its covers. - SimonP (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The image should be removed. Its inclusion is not covered by Wikipedia fair use guidelines. --Boson (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, it is used to convey the public perception of the crisis. Per WP:NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I argue that the inclusion of the cover significantly and immediately helps readers understand the impact and significance of what otherwise reads like a fairly dry text on macroeconomics.  Sandstein  21:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But non-free images should only be used when the purpose cannot be otherwise achieved (WP:NFCC#1). If the article were about the Economist, that could be argued, but I don't see that we can argue that for an arbitrarily chosen magazine cover.Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?. --Boson (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Boson. I really fail to see how the image significantly increases our reader's understanding. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is really getting good. I've added some questions for specification in the list of austerity measures if anyone can help, and it'd be really appreciated if someone more knowledgeable than myself could get that info. Also, I think the word "bailout" should generally be avoided. It doesn't really mean anything; if it's a loan, then it's a loan; if money is given as a gift, then it should be called that or a grant or something. Bailout is deliberately negative, and opponents of helping countries, or refinancing the banks have used it, as has the media. I'm not sure we should follow that example! Cheers, Wikidea 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bond auction results

In stark contrast, according to the Financial Times, "A German sovereign bond auction failed" on February 11, 2009 and "was the second successive failure" "of a 10-year German Bund auction" "as demand fell 20 per cent short of the €6bn the German government wanted. Gary Jenkins, head of fixed income at Evolution, said: "The failure of a German bond auction is a sign of the difficulties governments are going to face in raising debt at these historically low yields.""[6]

Similarly in March 2009, according to Bloomberg newswires, "The U.K. failed to find enough buyers for 1.75 billion pounds ($2.55 billion) of bonds. The last time the U.K. government was unable to attract enough investors was in 2002." In February 2010, a €500 million government bond auction in Portugal only successfully raised €300 million, raising the cost of insuring against a Portuguese debt default. [7]

Despite the fact that Greece in 2010 has seen investors flock to its bond auctions, which offer higher yields than other Euro Area debt markets [8], following downgradings by Fitch, Moody's and S&P [9], Greek bond yields and spreads relative to German government bonds rose in 2010. Given the strong investor demand for high yielding Greek Government bonds Greece can easily roll over existing debt which is coming to expiry in 2010 and finance its Government 2010 deficit. Despite this fact, some Greek officials have raised concern about the rising cost of financing government debt and fiscal austerity [10] has been introduced in an attempt to both reduce Greek government borrowing and bring down the cost of financing the debt.

Whoever wrote this section it seems to be trying to insinuate that the German and UK public debts are becoming just as unmanageable as the Greek one, though there is no reference supporting this interpretation. But my understanding is that the only thing implied by the under/over-subscription of bond auctions is mismatched expectations between the government and the investors. If the government attempts to sell bonds at a maturity which investors aren't so interested in, or which investors simply don't expect it to be possible to get a good yield, then the auction may be under-subscribed. But this will be a self-correcting situation, as investors realize that they could have got a better yield than expected and thus increase their interest in future auctions. This interpretation is supported by this article. – Smyth\^talk 11:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these multiple references to bond auction failures shows a misunderstanding of how government bond auctions work. It is part of an overall campaign by one user to try to portray Greece as being in a similar situation to other European countries. - SimonP (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair I don't think that the article proves that the UK and German auctions did not FAIL. All it gives is the opinion of some officials who suggest that even though there weren't enough bids the auctions weren't failures. And then there are all sorts of weak excuses given, like well er the wrong time of year to hold an auction. PLEASE. They would say that, wouldn't they? I think the full extent of Bond auction failures should be listed here because it adds context about what is going on. (Dearieme (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I think the problem is that you aren't clear on how bond auctions work. A failure is not even definitely a bad thing. When a bond auction "fails" it means that the government did not get enough subscribers at a level they were prepared to sell at. This shows a disconnect between the government and the market, but it also shows that the government is comfortable reducing its bond issue to wait for a later date. A government will only do this if they think that waiting a bit will mean they will get a better rate. If auctions fail regularly then there is a problem, but that doesn't happen as the government at that point just accepts that they will have to pay the higher price. This is also why Greece's sales being successful doesn't mean much. That the government of Greece has agreed to issue bonds with such high yields is evidence that they are both in desperate circumstances and that they don't expect their circumstances to get any better. - SimonP (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's yr interpretation though, isn't it? What is clear is that everyone in the media seemed to be 'surprised' that the Greek auctions were over-subscribed. There is obviously appetite for high yielding debt and not a great deal of appetite for low yielding paper. And fact is we don't know just how much paper has been absorbed by Central Banks, murky area. Bond auction failures are bond auction failures. You can put whatever spin u like on it, it is just SPIN. (Dearieme (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

It's not interpretation, it's basic economics. Greece managed to sell its bond at 6.3%. Analysts were surprised at how much interest there was at that price, but it is still much higher than other countries, and much higher than Greece paid in the past. A country having a failure at 3%, like Germany, is in much better shape than one having a successful sale at 6.3%. Worst case for Germany is that they have to come back in a month and accept 3.1%. - SimonP (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

in the past, ho ho. Depends what u mean, don't it? In the past, prior to Euro entry and the arrival of all that nice foreign capital from the eurozone, yields were WAY, WAY higher. So, no not higher than the past, unless u only want to discuss the short term. Germany has domestic savings so yeah worse case is not so bad. The UK on the other hand DOES NOT, so the worse case could be considerably worse than that. AND it wouldn't be the first time the UK went to the IMF either. (Dearieme (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

By in the past I meant last decade, during the first years of Greece being on the euro. Domestic savings have some effect on risk, but a fairly small one, which is why the US with no savings gets to pay far less than a country like Italy. You are free to disagree with this, but if you honestly believe your position I suggest not posting here and throwing everything you own into betting on the bond market, because if you are right you would make a fortune. At the moment all the numbers disagree with your theory, and I'm afraid that Wikipedia policy is to go by what is verifiable not what users believe in their heart of hearts, not matter how hard they believe it. - SimonP (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the government makes no restrictions on what it's prepared to sell at (see [2]). So Dearieme was actually right to say that these "failures" indicate that the total amount of bids were less than the total amount on offer, and thus additional participants could have gotten whatever yield they asked for (subject to [3] section 356.33 for ridiculous bids). But that still doesn't change my original argument: unless undersubscription is happening repeatedly, it only indicates a miscommunication rather than a judgement of the country's creditworthiness, so it has no place in this article. – Smyth\^talk 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It might vary by country. In the UK each tender as a minimum acceptable price attached and "in the case of the issue being undersubscribed, the common price will be the minimum price specified in the tender."[4] Logically it seems like the US treasury must have some safeguard against over large bids. When treasury bills are sold every bidder gets the highest maximum yield accepted. If the auction was under-subscribed and a single bidder put in a bi for 10%, the treasury would be forced to pay a hugely inflated yield for that entire issue. My guess is that they will use their section 356.33 to reduce the size of the issue until any bids they don't like are excluded, but I haven't been able to find a ref for that. - SimonP (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read that section 356.33, it clearly says that the Treasury can reject any bid for any reason, so they can't be "forced" to do anything. – Smyth\^talk 13:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So you accept the facts are correct but you removed them because you didn't like what you assumed was implied by those facts? Does that conceal some bias on your part? The fact is that all governments in the OECD have very large funding requirements this year, there is intense competition for funding and failures of government bond auctions anywhere in the world HIGHLIGHT that fact. It also puts in context THE FACT that Greek government bond auctions did not FAIL precisely because they were HIGH YIELDING, whereas other auction attempts did fail because those governments ASSUMED they could fund themselves at low rates, and they were proved wrong. They are the bald facts, now you can try to cloud the issue with the use of esoteric details but the facts don't change. And your 'guesses' are just that. I suppose you are now going to try and post your 'guesses' to replace what were and are FACTS. Nice one. (Dearieme (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

The basic fact is that yield is by far the best way of measuring how stable markets believe a country's bonds are. If a failed auction indicated a serious problem, you would see yields spike afterward, and while they do go up a bit the change is fairly minor. These are not "esoteric details" they are basic economic fundamentals. - SimonP (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the FT: "even the strongest triple-A rated countries, such as the US, Germany and the UK, have had their fraught moments as investors have shunned bond auctions because of worries over their public finances and economic outlook. For example, Germany suffered two bond auction failures last year as not enough investors turned up to buy their debt. For Europe’s benchmark economy to suffer such an embarrassment is a telling sign of the strains in the market." And they were writing this in the context of Greece, you don't like it, don't accept it and remove it. In violation of the rules. (Dearieme (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

We've drifted away from the original question, which is whether the debt situations of Germany, the US and the UK are sufficiently dangerous for these auctions to be mentioned in the context of this article. The "strains" and "embarrassments" these three countries have gone through are worrying to me as well, but they're currently a long way from the risk of imminent default which Greece was facing. – Smyth\^talk 00:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

yield on Grecian 10 year bonds is 10.17 percent as I write this CorvetteZ51 (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rating agencies

While the issue of the role rating agencies played in this crisis is an important one, it is not the central issue. There is no need to have it at the top of the article. The rating agencies played even larger role in the Subprime mortgage crisis, but on that page the rating agencies are not given the second section. What we really need is an overall causes section that goes over the various issues of Greek government policy, constraints imposed by the euro, increase bond supply, ratings agencies, etc. - SimonP (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion. On the front page of the FT in the article on Greece, and I quote: credit ratings agencies have been criticised for their role in the financial crisis". Sorry but their role here has been pivotal. ALL the bond market sell offs happened following downgrading. I am not happy to have this issue shoved to the bottom of the page. And I don't care if u are short the euro or various euro bond markets right now.(Dearieme (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

"Have been criticized" pretty far from "pivotal." There are many causes, and the other causes (such as Greek financial mismanagement) have had many more front pages than the ratings agencies. Find me a reliable source that says rating agency failure is the pivotal cause of the crisis, and that would justify the pride of place you are giving this, but until then all the references just put it as one issue among many. Also Assume good faith- SimonP (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I currently have no opinion on this question, but I second that. He raised a reasonable point and you responded by accusing him of ulterior motives. Please be constructive. – Smyth\^talk 13:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I accept the criticism. Every single slide on the European bond market this year has been in response to downgradings. That is an easily verifiable fact. The pivotal role of the Credit Ratings Agencies can hardly been disputed. Do you actually want a chronology for that? The recent blow up came after the agency downgrades, not after new news on the economic front from any of the countries involved. (Dearieme (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

We don't need chronologies or the times of responses, we need verifiable references that say "the credit agencies were the central cause of the collapse." Doing our own correlations is original research. This is especially the case here, where there are many reasons to believe that correlation does not imply causation. Also note that both the BBC and CNN don't include the rating agencies as one of the causes of the crisis in their own summaries. - SimonP (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Simon CNN now includes the rating agencies as a cause http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/05/04/credit.ratings.agencies/index.html?hpt=C1 --Polysophia (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good article. I've added some stuff from it to the article. At the same time the article doesn't present the ratings agencies as a cause of the crisis, it more goes over their various failures during the crises. - SimonP (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish secret service are currently investigating the role of the UK and US media in creating this crisis so I'm not sure chronologies posted by the BBC or CNN have all that much credibility or, if you like, the final word. The European commission has warned the agencies today about their conduct and they have been widely criticised for helping create this crisis. I have added references to that effect on the page. I can get more because more are certainly available. (Dearieme (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

I removed the below section, due to several issues:

"The international credit rating agencies – Moody's, S&P and Fitch – have played a pivotal and controversial role in the current European bond market crisis. These agencies entered 2010 with their reputations already severely damaged by their consistent failure to identify real risks evident in their failure to downgrade U.S. sub-prime mortgage bonds in 2007 prior to the recent financial crisis. The failures of agencies to accurately identify risk where it exists dates back decades, ratings agencies did not identify Enron as a risk, they failed to predict the bankruptcy of all the largest Icelandic banks in 2008 and the consequent severe financial weakening of Iceland itself, they failed to identify risks in the Newly Industrialised Countries in Asia before the Asian crisis of the 1990s and they failed in Latin America."

None of the references state that the ratings agencies caused the crisis, as the text seems to imply. Rather the references give the standard view that the ratings agencies tend to somewhat belatedly reflect developments that have already happened. It also throws in a lot of tangential information (Enron?) that have no references connecting it to the current event. - SimonP (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "pivotal role" and "causing" the crisis. Clearly the Ratings Agencies have been a significant part of what happened and the European Commission has clearly made that point and issued a warning to the agencies about their conduct. Now, as for Enron etc. I'm ambivalent on that. It does give historical background and context on the behaviour of the agencies. In fact it could be added that the agencies downgraded Japan to below Botswana - so they aren't always BEHIND events - of course they had no impact because Japanese bonds are held by the Japanese and they ignored the agencies. Given the importance of ratings for banks and funds the ROLE of the downgradings can not be shoved to one side. Sorry I continue to disagree with you on this. (Dearieme (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Your disagreement doesn't really matter. What you need to provide are references. Your opinions are fine, but Wikipedia can't use them. Give me a ref for the agenceis playing a pivotal role, and not just issuing downgrades that reflect what everyone already knows. - SimonP (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The references have been posted. Spend some time reading them and stop moving this section. (Dearieme (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Thinking more about this, I think the problem with all of these sections is that while everyone agrees that the rating agencies have failed badly here and elsewhere, there are two opposite ways to how they failed. One is that ratings agencies have been too slow to act, that like in the housing bubble, Iceland, and Enron, they are at best a trailing indicator. Much of the concern is that "by assigning top notch ratings to essentially rubbish debt, the agencies also help cause the initial misallocation of capital in the first place."[5] Then there is the almost opposite concern that the ratings agencies have gone too far too quickly to downgrade Greece and other countries. The problem with the current article is it mixes both these things together without any differentiation. - SimonP (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope European ministers today specifically talked about conflict of interest with and I quote "U.S.-based" ratings agencies. We are not talking about being slow to act we are talking about malicious intent. That's what is being discussed by European ministers. (Dearieme (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes some people are saying that, I added refs to that effect myself. My point is that more of the complaints are by people saying that they have been too slow to act. (For the record, the too fast to act argument is pretty completely undermined by the fact that the bonds were trading at junk levels well before the ratings agencies chose to downgrade them. - SimonP (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

another bit of selective thinking there mate. Portgual and Spain were not trading at junk levels and are still not but the rating downgrading had its impact on their yields that's for sure. Greece has been splashed all over the Anglo Saxon media and the slightly dodgey Greek politicians (who have been parachuted in for the occasion) have certainly helped. So Greece has been chosen as the Achille's heel (HOW appropriate), still don't think they can pull it off. But just wait till this thing turns and the focus is the UK and US, then the fun really starts. No funds, lots of debt...... (Dearieme (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Portugal and Spain were not downgraded to junk levels either. Only Greece, which was already trading as such, was moved to junk status. Both Spain and Portugal were already trading at levels that matched their current status well before the ratings agencies downgraded them. Ratings are a lagging indicator, and there is very little evidence to indicate otherwise. - SimonP (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the 'markets' necessarily KNOW what is going on BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE and that ratings agencies are 'catching up' with the market is laughable. The market is an autistic herd which is why we continually see massive corrections. If the market KNOWS things we don't know then what did they know when the Nikkei was at 38.000? Or when the Euro was at 85 cents to the dollar? Or when the Nasdaq was above 4500? The idea that because something is being traded at a certain price then ipso facto that price is the RIGHT price assumes that markets are EFFICIENT. And you'd have to have been living in a cave for the past thirty years to believe that one. Sorry but I don't buy the 'magic of the markets' and the efficient allocation and all the rest of the dogma so I don't agree that the ratings agencies are 'catching up' with prices. A panic is being created and the Ratings Agencies are front and centre in that. (Dearieme (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Here is a chart of Greek bond yields. The big downgrade happened on April 27. If you just look at that chart, you can see that the yields had moved up sharply prior to that happening, and that by two days after the downgrade the yields had actually fallen considerably. This is hardly evidence for a ratings agency led panic. - SimonP (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That is original research. You have to do better than that. (Dearieme (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Why do you keep reverting me on this. The line I added to article states: "In the case of Greece, the market responded to the crisis before the downgrades, with Greek bonds trading at junk levels several weeks before the ratings agencies began to describe them as such." The article it is referenced to states that "Greece's debt, Brenner noted, has been trading at junk levels for weeks." How is what I wrote not a reflection of the article? - SimonP (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For the other sentence I wrote that "the agencies have been accused of being too generous with their ratings." This is referenced to a piece that states that "by assigning top notch ratings to essentially rubbish debt, the agencies also help cause the initial misallocation of capital in the first place." - SimonP (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The UK needs to be added to this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/05/06/uk.election.impact/index.html?iref=allsearch http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/06/sovereign-debt-crisis-uk-banking http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/05/uk-budget-deficit-worse-than-greece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) --Polysophia (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename this page to 2010 Greek debt crisis

Obviously, the Greek crisis is far more prominent and burdening than the other countries. So, mixing the other countries (Italy, Portugal, etc.) in the same category with Greece, at this time, is speculative to say the least. Unlike the others, specifically for Greece the following events have occurred:

• The government economic statistics have been found by the EU to be fake for some years back
• The EU has appointed a watchdog to revise and monitor the statistics
• There has been a special plan designed by EU and IMF to cope specifically with the Greek debt
• The Euro has fallen on several occasions specifically due to Greece debt news
• etc.

Furthermore, it is not an issue of sovereign debt crisis, but rather, according to S&P, it is a matter of general debt crisis, involving the banks, and the corporate sectors. The other countries should be only mentioned in one section as "others".

So obviously, this article should be renamed. Crnorizec (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the Euro zone periphery economies even if it is much more pronounced in Greece. Yesterday S&P downgraded Greece and Portugal . Investors are already scared of Portugal and Spain while there is risk of Italy getting hit as well with spreads in all three economies rising.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And there's this from Bloomberg today:

April 28 (Bloomberg) -- Europe’s worsening debt crisis is intensifying pressure on policy makers to widen a bailout package beyond Greece after a cut in the nation’s rating to junk drove up borrowing costs from Italy to Portugal and Ireland.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but to compare the Greek periphery economy, as you put it, with Spain or Italy is not realistic. Spanish economy is the fourth in Europe. And furthermore, the ratings of Spain and Portugal are in the AA and A range, while Greece is 6-8 scales below, to B levels. Also, "Barack Obama joined expressions of concern about how a debt crisis which began in Greece might affect economies across Europe and beyond" - so the problem is in fact triggered by Greek potential default, rather than being a common issue.

And the entire article is in this unrealistic style: comparing US loans crisis with Greek sovereign debt crisis is also not very fortunate choice, for example. The government in the US had exactly the opposite role in their case. This article needs renaming and thorough reworking. Crnorizec (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

From a piece by Danske bank yesterday: "The current situation is not only about the future of Greece. The entire EMU system is being tested. If Germany votes not to help Greece then a Greek default is very likely that could initiate a series of sovereign defaults"--Anothroskon (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It may spread, and is relevant in many ways to other eurozone members. But the problem didn't start in 2009, it started when we found that Greece had misled everyone to gain membership back in 2001. I'd like to see a link to that. Then (IMHO) the ECB compounded the deception by not monitoring Greek spending closely enough, and allowing the situation to run away with itself.Red Hurley (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Greece's fudging of numbers to gain entry to the EMU was known since 2004 when the new ND government revealed the financial trickery of the previous PASOK govt (before proceeding to do the same itself). But the markets did not react so negatively to that. It was to the news of the excessive hidden deficit revealed in 2009 that they reacted thus precipitating the crisis. That said it could be a good idea to include the details of the GS swaps etc as well.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also some more from DanskeBank today, from its Euro Debt Crisis Watch publication:"Southern European debt markets have entered panic mode. The purpose of this monitor is to watch developments in local and global financial markets to keep track of the contagion from the crisis. So far, local contagion to the other PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) is evident, global contagion is limited."--Anothroskon (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No contagion has been reported with regard to the Italian bond market. Yields have risen marginally in Spain. Contagion so far is largely a myth. Not sure what is going on in Ireland but they don't even have any auctions scheduled this year. Would be interested to here what is going on in the Portugese bond market. (Dearieme (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Looking at the content of the article, and the discussion here, I have changed the name as proposed. Crnorizec (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

and I have cleaned up this double redirect which was a result of the above move. The Main Page "In the news" section has a link to Greek debt crisis which was failing. It works now. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just found and fixed three more double redirects: 1, 2, 3. I don't think there are any more. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've just had to fix it again. Please clean up after page moves. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Two more double redirects fixed: 1, 2. What you should do immediately following a page move is to click "What links here". If the top part has "Hide links", click that so that it becomes "Show links". You then get a list something like this:

• 2010 european sovereign debt crisis (redirect page) (links)
• Greek Bond Crisis (redirect page) (links)
• Greek credit crisis (redirect page) (links)
• Greek debt crisis (redirect page) (links)
• 2010 Greek sovereign debt crisis (redirect page) (links)
  • Greece debt crisis 2010 (redirect page) (links)
  • Greek debt crisis of 2010 (redirect page) (links)

Those bottom two are indented further than the rest, so they're double-redirects. Click on each, edit, and amend so that it redirects to the top-level page which is presently [[2010 European sovereign debt crisis]]. Refresh the "What links here" page, and repeat until all those bullets are at the same level. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Bad Debts and Other Deleted Nonsense? — Rickyrab | Talk 09:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Marfin Bank incident

Anothroskon is constantly trying to push the POV that the killings in the Marfin Bank were caused by protesters, in fact leftist protesters. This is clearly not supported by the majority of the sources, certainly not the NYT one. It clearly says: "In midafternoon, in a nearby neighborhood, a firebomb was flung into the Marfin Egnatia Bank, trapping at least 20 people."[6]

Do you see any anarchists or protesters there? Because, I don't. Discuss first, before you break the 3RR. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a collection of Greek newspapers covering the incident: [7]. I assume you can read it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a translation:[8]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to a group of masked people. It's NPOV, it's how the Greek media refer to them. Let's leave it at that. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the killers were protesters taking advantage of the bona fide protesters.Red Hurley (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Should Greek quit from Euro?

It would have been much easier to inflate off some problems rather than asking Greek government to order each of her citizens to cut his/her own salaries. More street protests are expected.

Moreover, after inflate off some of the treasure bones, in long term, will help Greek more easily to pay the coupon. 120% government borrowing over GDP, means Greek will have to pay more than 6% of its GDP to its borrowers. And this burden, finally, represent as a very high tax rate will keep taking effect on Greek economy for at least the next 20 years. As which, even Greek successfully remain a seat in Euro, she will have the poorest investment environment in Euro Zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.192.1.27 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article.--Boson (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that belongs at Economy of Greece (they even invented the oxymoron).Red Hurley (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Default and exit

If Greece defaults, why would it have to leave the Eurozone? Greek law could still keep the euro legal tender. Because the deficit is substantially higher than the interest payments, there would obviously be a problem of continuing to pay government employees and contractors, which would lead to a chaotic situation. As a solution it seems likely that Greece would leave the Eurozone, but does this happen necessarily? Maybe the current plan is really reducing the deficit to the amount of interest payments and then defaulting? The transition would be smoother because government employees continue to get paid. MMMMM742 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

This external link " http://www.euro-crisis.com/ The Euro Crisis (Independent Digital Newspaper) " was recently added, and even more recently changed to "http://www.euro-crisis.org". Does anybody know anything about this site? A single-topic "Independent Digital Newspaper" seems rather odd. There seems to be no information available on who is behind the site. --Boson (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

External links should be links that are being referenced by multiple reliable sources as important sources of information. I'd suggest removing three of the four links (all except for the NYT link).  Cs32en Talk to me  18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I support that proposal. --Boson (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hedge funds have been accused of exacerbating Greece's borrowing difficulties by betting against its debt"

Source, REUTERS: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64H14X20100518 For inclusion in article. --212.54.222.41 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Reuters report says

Hedge funds have been accused of exacerbating Greece's borrowing difficulties by betting against its debt, although there are few trading records to prove that [or?] how much such betting took place.

Whatever Reuters' policies are, I think Wikipedia needs a source that says who has been doing the accusing. Preferably not: unnamed people (left-wing journalists? right-wing politicians? central bankers?) made accusations against unnamed institutions; named or unnamed people then speculated as to who the unnamed institutions might be. We would also need to include the bit about the lack of records to back the accusations. And we should probably find a source that clarifies what is meant by "betting against its debt". Presumably it doesn't just mean that some banks and/or hedge funds were sometimes long and other banks and/or hedge funds were sometimes short. --Boson (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious link in lede

The first sentence mentions Ireland (among others) as being a country of concern. The reference given for the inclusion of Ireland is a blog posting by a financial consulting firm in Roswell GA. I'm not knowledgable enough to contribute on this topic, but that particular reference doesn't smell RS to me. 203.173.37.146 (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but rumour is part of the market process. Anyway I've cited the Irish Times today about yesterday's test Irish issue which was 3 times oversubscribed. Proof of the pudding. Let us be a concern - it makes our idiot politicians more careful, and it's nice for the "experts" to get it wrong too.Red Hurley (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May 9 rescue package Keynesian?

Hello! I added a link to Keynesian Economics on the opening paragraph that I think accurately describes the economic theories European leaders are following in their bailout. Any thoughts?--Gniniv (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a point of view / original research, inserted into an existing sentence and not supported by the citation given for that sentence. It should be removed. The connection with Keynesian economics for the action described in that sentence is tenuous, to say the least. Also, it doesn't belong in the lede. If you wanted to include it elsewhere in relation to this action, you would need a reference that showed what part of Keynesian theory is being referred to; to avoid misleading the reader, it would also need to be made clear what proportion of the "almost a trillion dollars" is interpreted as having a "Keynesian" effect (and preferably why). --Boson (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. How is this an attempt to boost aggregate demand? Not all economic interventions are Keynesian. - SimonP (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the conditionality attached to the rescue package, the overall policy is not Keynesian. To be precise, Keynesianism is a theory, not a type of action, so the mere fact of boosting demand would not be Keynesian in itself anyway.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC now talks that 'Greece's Bonds were in effect Boycotted'. Can someone decipher it?

Don't be too insulted if you're British, but it's clear the British Media are often Hostile towards the Euro for National reasons. Hence, can someone decipher what they mean by that? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10157432.stm "Concerns over the level of Greece's debts have led to an effective boycott of Greek debt on the world markets,[..]" That sounds quite of a 'shady' conclusion. I mean, you don't "Boycott" in economics, you just drop demand. "Boycott" is something extreme, it doesn't mean "a huge 20% drop in value", it means a deliberate targeted attack to a product, not just a personal economic decision that happened to bring something. And in this case there are several sources reporting the huge drops in Greek debt were artificial or at least unrealistic. --Leladax (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound at all nefarious to me. Just a journalistic way of saying that the effect was as if a large proportion of potential buyers had decided to stop buying something. --Boson (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding Default

This idea has been beaten up in the UK and US press, however, let's first discuss the realities of the situation before you make this the central issue here. Default can only happen if investors do not turn up to Government auctions. And then it can happen to any Government running a deficit or rolling over existing debt. Including, in this case, clearly the U.S. (Dearieme (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

This could also happen if the Government refuses to sell bonds at the return the market demands (i.e. investors are there but Govt doesn't want to pay that much for them). And even if the investors weren't there this only leads to default where the government can't a) dip into reserves, b) restructure the debt or c) just print some money for the payment. The US can do this last one if it wanted to (not an easy path) but Greece can't (the ECB could do it for them).

196.4.18.10 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Investors will always show up for government auctions if the rate is high enough. That could still cause a default. Greece owes ~115% of its GDP in debt. Thus every 1% increase in the amount it needs to pay to cover the debt will increase the deficit by 1.15%. At a certain level this creates an infinite spiral of debt and deficit. It is when a country hits that spiral that it has no choice but to take drastic action. But we don't need to debate the economics. Our job is to report what reliable sources are saying, and discussions of the potential and the ramifications of a default have filled the newspapers in recent months. - SimonP (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Default can only happen if investors do not turn up to Government auctions ... I'm confused. Isn't defaulting a decision made by the obligor, not the obligee? Clearly, not finding new creditors forces the obligor to default or restructure, but concluding that this would be the only way for a default to happen is, I think, not valid. Admittedly, in case of early action, restructuring dept seems to be the preferrable way to go (in order not to completely upset creditors). -- Qzmufu (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK so what would the deal be if investors got scared away by ratings agencies and the press? Lets take a doomsday scenario here. How could a Govt restructure? That would mean rescheduling? Which would be a quasi default. Printing money would be the Weimer Republic option. In any case the Governments most at risk are those where domestic savings are insufficient, or where domestic investors get scared off. In the Euro Area (current account approx zero) savings are sufficient. So it's a question if foreign holders of Govt Greek bonds keep turning up (so far they have in droves) and these investors are Euro based anyway. Have I misunderstood the technicalities here? (Dearieme (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Your experience with the so-called debt spiral is limited. Italy had debt to GDP of 120 in 1980 or so. Capital controls meant that foreign savers were excluded from the market. 97% of the debt was never traded, used as a kind of savings deposit and rolled over every 6 months or so pretty much automatically. Today Italy has a debt of circa 100 percent, a primary surplus and no problem because foreign investors are not big holders of the debt. Japan also has no problem, despite the Botswana move by Moody's in 2002, yields are circa 2% despite a debt of 180 percent of GDP. Your idea about this inevitable debt spiral is just an idea which hasn't happened in countries with this type of debt. What can happen and DOES is capital flight where foreign capital is involved. So you need to look at the role of foreigners in debt auctions. Hearsay analysis when reported as fact is not the bible. (Dearieme (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Oh and by the way at the time yields were in double digits (1980s) and last time I look Italy was still standing. I have seen this before. Goldman went around telling investors circa 1996 that Italy was going to default. They tried it on. Got nowhere. (Dearieme (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Most countries in similar situations either print money or revalue their currency (this is what happened in Thailand in 1997 and Russia in 1998). Greece can't do this unless it abandons the euro. It can thus renege on its debts, e.g. say that everyone we owe $100 to we know own $50 to. It's a country so it could pass laws making it's debt worth zero, but that would make it very difficult to ever borrow again. Thus more likely would be a negotiated agreement with the IMF and creditors. The danger of Greece suddenly reneging on its obligations is that creditors to similar countries will become very nervous, and start to demand higher interest rates, setting off "death spiral" in those nations as well, with Portugal the most precarious. You are right about Italy and Spain being in a safer position because most of their debts are held internally. It is unlikely that confidence will fall sharply enough for Spain or Italy to be forced into a default, but the consequences of such a thing happening are so disastrous that no one wants to get anywhere close to that happening. - SimonP (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As to Italy in the 1980s, it also had inflation of 21.2% in 1980.[9]. Thus the outstanding debt was shrinking at that rate, and yields had to be that high to attract any buyers. High yields + high inflation will not set off a spiral, you need high yields and low inflation, which is what the PIIGS are potentially facing. - SimonP (talk)

Nonsense. If low inflation and high debt is a problem then why does Japan have no trouble refunding its debt? Pls. Inflation doesn't shrink debt except in real terms. Italy had low growth, high inflation, high interest rates and no trouble in refinancing its debt. There was no default because investors kept turning up to auctions. Scare investors off and any government in the world right now could be in default: the UK, the US, France and Japan. Its easier to scare off investors when they are foreign investors.(Dearieme (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

It's not low inflation high debt that's a problem. It's low inflation and high yields. Japan has very low inflation, but they pay a low rate to service their debt so it's not an issue. - SimonP (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All you need for any Government to default is for investors not to rollover existing debt. And all you need for that is to have the ratings downgrade, add some media and a lot of foreign investors holding the debt and you're done. Look mum no hands. (Dearieme (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

The Asian Crisis and the Russian crisis both involved foreign capital, specifically foreign capital flight. In Russia the Government went to external lenders and then ran into trouble in Asia countries had allowed foreign portfolio investment with a fixed exchange rate when that capital took flight (following remarks by Camdessus about devaluation, they had a BoP crisis. Devaluation followed in Asia and in Russia they were forced into radical reform by foreign lenders. Still the idea that there are defaults on the cards just because some analysts are bandying about the possibility isn't proven. (Dearieme (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

People are more than giving opinions, they are also spending billions on credit default swaps because of the greater perceived risk of a Spanish default[10]. Internal investors just as much as foreign ones need to cover for risk, and will demand higher yields as danger increases. In part because of the euro, it is also easy for even internal investors to flee for safer harbours. There are also some different dangers to internal debt, such as to the banking sector. - SimonP (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"have filled the newspapers" indeed which is why Zapatero has got the Spanish intelligence service investigating the role of the UK and US press. What we have here is international competition for savings. Some countries don't have any and, in my opinion, those are behind the crisis: media and ratings agencies. NIce work if u can get it. (Dearieme (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

No question there is a lot of money on the table. (Dearieme (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Allegations of media conspiracy are simply nonsense being touted by the same elected officials who plunged their nations into the crisis who are looking for someone for the public to blame other than themselves. - SimonP (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem like nonsense to you, it seems in Europe they are being taken very seriously. As indeed is the issue of the role of the ratings agencies. (Dearieme (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

If u feel there are risks then u have to accept that the risks extend to the U.S., both in regard to the banking sector, the reliance on foreign capital and the huge issuing schedule that the U.S. has, not to mention the rather sad auction results of late. What I want in this discussion is balance and context. (Dearieme (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

The US position isn't great, but it can (and to a degree is) devaluating its currency to deal with its debt load. Its debt and foreign reserves are also far better than the PIIGS. For now no one really thinks there is danger, but that is one of the concerns of the dominoes that Greece could start falling. If a Greek default leads to one by Portugal, and then Ireland, and then Spain, and then Italy, and then the UK, the US could be next. This is highly unlikely, but it would also mean the end of the global economy as we know it. - SimonP (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah? How bout this: 1.7 trillion to issue, Chinese are not coming to auctions because the USD is gonna go down vs the RMB soon, so why would they, to lose money? U.S. domestic savings are low (non-existant) and there are not a lot of alternative sources of funding. Yields are going up and fast. Reliance on foreign capital is a crucial weakness. Absolutely crucial. I think this whole rush to downgrade and the entire Euro bond circus (created pretty much by ratings and media) is a smokescreen for some pretty dire developments in the U.S. bond market. Time will tell. (Dearieme (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

This is getting very off topic, but China and Japan will keep buying because they hold so many US treasuries already. They are perfectly fine to lose bit of money keeping the US afloat, because they would lose an incredible amount of money if they ever stopped doing so. That adds a pretty enormous cushion, that smaller states, like those of Europe, do not have. - SimonP (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ho.Ho. They have to keep funding the U.S. just because. Basically the Chinese face this choice: take the hit now on U.S. govt debt or take it later. Weakest argument in the world, in the meantime U.S. debt auction results look terrible. (Dearieme (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Please note there has been no agreement on this issue. None. (Dearieme (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

SimonP, what makes you think that Italy would default before the UK does? Italy is in a similar situation to Japan: it has a high public debt, but most of it is internally held, and households have enough savings to cover the public debt many times over. In fact, if you look at the external debt, Italy is in a better situation than the US, and much better than the UK. Italy's government deficit is also much better than the UK's; in fact, it's better than the EU and Eurozone average, as you can see in the graph on the main article. Can we drop the "PIGS" thing already? 87.18.243.134 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

UK and US are preparing the ground for an eventual Greek default. This could spark another recession and, in that case, the other countries need to be prepared. It is now known that the Iraq war was made in order to sell iraqui petrol in dollars (Iraq planned to sell its petrol in Euros). It would not be a surprise if they were trying to put pressure on the Euro again. In Zapatero (Spanish prime minister) press conferences, journalists keep asking nonsense questions: "Is it true that Spain is planning to ask the EU for 500bn € soon in order to avoid defaulting?". Well, Spanish public debt is 60% of GDP yet, it would be just nonsense that Spain asked now for 500 billion in order to pay its debt, because 60% is certainly not an alarming level, and obviously not near default. I think this is an example of a journalist who is asking what the White House has told him to ask. 83.43.239.180 (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom is not a part of the Euro crisis

The United Kingdom does not use the Euro nor is it a part of the Eurozone. The United Kingdom has its own currency, the Pound Sterling. A country which does not use the Euro and is not a part of the Eurozone cannot be a part of the crisis involving the Euro. It's like including the United States in the article. The United Kingdom has large debts and a large deficit, just like the United States, and similarly to the United States the United Kingdom has its own currency, therefore not tied to any other economy via a single currency. The United Kingdom is no more tied to the Euro economies than the United States is. The Euro crisis is not about troubled economies of the European Union, it's about troubled economies of the Euro, the trouble Euro economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, economies tied to each other via a single currency, the Euro. Hence, the Pound Sterling using United Kingdom, unlike Euro using Germany and France, hasn't and won't pay a single penny towards propping up Euro using Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy or the Euro itself. 88.106.80.96 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true, the UK will be contributing to the fund that will potentially be used to defend the Euro. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While the UK's contribution will not be used to defend the exchange rate of the Euro, it may be used to financially rescue EU countries. The article is about the "2010 European sovereign debt crisis", which is not restricted to those aspects that affect the Euro.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources state the United Kingdom will not be contributing towards propping up the Euro."France attacks UK over attitude to bail-out fund". EUObserver. 11 May 2010. Retrieved 12 May 2010. You both ignore that the United Kingdom is not a part of the Euro and not a part of the Euro crisis. This crisis is a crisis of the Euro and nothing else. 88.106.80.216 (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does this page even mention the UK? There is pretty much nothing in the text mentioning it. Based on the references there should be more, not less discussion of Britain. It is not in the Euro, but it faces many of the same challenges as the vulnerable Eurozone countries and could be dramatically affected if the situation gets much worse. See 'Very real' threat that Greek contagion could spread to Britain and Britain's deficit third worst in the world, table, both of which are already used as refs but their main conclusions about trouble in the UK are nowhere to be found in the article. - SimonP (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, please see this [11]. As clarified by Cs32en above, the UK will be part of funding one of the mechanisms used to loan to countries who cannot fund their debt obligations, which is part of the overall "defence of the euro" strategy. And as has been aptly pointed out, this article is not about the euro. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

“However, by agreeing to the creation of that crisis fund, euro economies have implicitly committed themselves to taking action against the soaring, debt increasing spending that sparked the current calamity in the first place.”

why is it important to have credible commitments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.94.183 (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

eurozone vs ireland, eu vs greece

its quite difficult to distinguish the colors used for cases stated in the title of this section, which is furthermore unfortunate because Ireland and Greece have such large deficits, unlike EU or Eurozone as a whole, so can give readers quite a wrong impression. Aryah (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Need page on 'Sovereign debt crisis' or 'Sovereign default'

There is a page on Sovereign bonds and a page on Government debt and a page on Financial crisis. But Sovereign debt crisis is missing (it redirects to 2010 European sovereign debt crisis). Alternatively, there could be a page on Sovereign default, but that one redirects to Sovereign bond. Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is some possible material for a page on Sovereign default, under the assumption that sovereign debt crisis would redirect to sovereign default.

A sovereign default is a failure by the government of a sovereign state to pay back its debt in full.

If potential lenders or bond purchasers begin to suspect that a government may fail to pay back its debt, they may demand a high interest rate in compensation for the risk of default. A dramatic rise in the interest rate faced by a government due to fear that it will fail to honor its debt is sometimes called a sovereign debt crisis. Governments may be especially vulnerable to a sovereign debt crisis when they rely on financing through short-term bonds, since this creates a situation of asset-liability mismatch between their short-term bond financing and the long-term asset value of their tax base. They may also be vulnerable to a sovereign debt crisis if they are unable to issue bonds in their own currency, as a decrease in the value of their own currency may then make it prohibitively expensive to pay back their foreign-denominated bonds (see original sin).

Since a sovereign government, by definition, controls its own affairs, it cannot be obliged to pay back its debt. Nonetheless, a government which defaults may be excluded from further credit; some of its overseas assets may be seized; and it may face political pressure from its own domestic bondholders to pay back its debt. Therefore governments rarely default on the entire value of their debt. Instead, they often enter into negotiations with their bondholders to agree on a delay or partial reduction of their debt payments, which is often called a sovereign debt restructuring.

Could then include a section on theory of sovereign debt (for example, Atkeson and Kehoe, Econometrica 1991), and a list of references.

Could also include a list of sovereign debt crises (including crises, restructurings, and defaults).

I've just created the page: sovereign default. Please contribute! Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline article

I created a separate timeline article and moved the current timeline section there. However, I have not modified the original timeline. Perhaps an active editor of this article could summarize the key dates (say 7-12 bullets) for this article.Farcaster (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what Eurasia review say or xyz from the Telegraph writes? I mean, are going to list all articles from all the newspaper covering the European debt crisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.22.251.45 (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

opinions

What Feldstein said is clearly an opinion. Opinions out there are by the millions and this specific is not in any way special or different. Therefore his name and specific wording is removed. The general assumptions remain.

Also a lot of TimeLine items are only opinions, therefore removable.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.53.26 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 

Press news bubble

preview for critic of press promotion of the "default" idea, and a place to gather and talk on relevant info before making it article.

- On May 21, 2010, Friday, Greece announces deficit reduction by 41.5% for the first four months (http://www.tovima.gr/default.asp?pid=2&ct=3&artid=333068&dt=21/05/2010)

- On May 22, 2010, Saturday, FT the previous turns into only ""Reasons to be cheerful keep hope alive for the moment"> No reference to Greece or deficit reduction in the head lines, not making it to the top also (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8e770e2-6539-11df-b648-00144feab49a.html)

- On May 27 and May 28, 2010 (two articles) FT "Bondholders jittery over who will bear Greek losses". Now sure that there will be.

(- On June 2, 2010 FT "Berlin backs naked short selling ban" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/df17e3cc-6e4a-11df-ab79-00144feabdc0.html) - On June 6, Sunday, 2010, The European finance ministers put the finishing touches on a rescue fund, making default much more difficult.)

- On June 7,8,9 three articles on FT on Greece starting with the word "Fear" mostly repeating old news.

- On June 9, 2010, Wednesday, Bloomberg Braking news "Greek Default Seen by Almost 75% in Poll". An internet poll. (http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aq_vuFaKzuVI). The news of May 21 never make it to the "breaking news".

- On June 23, 2010, Wednesday, Greece announces a reduction of the deficit for the first 5 months by 38.7% (ref 154, article)

- on June 28, 2010, Friday, Greece's minister said Greece might go to the market again by mid July. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSATH00554720100628)

- On June 28, 2010, Monday, FT set on the first page an article by Mr Roubini (known for his pessimistic views) That Greece's best option is an orderly default. Till that time did not mentioned anything about June 23 announcement, at least on its top news. This article was distributed globally as another "greece is defaulting". (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a3874e80-82e8-11df-8b15-00144feabdc0.html)

- On June 29, 2010, Monday, Bloomberg Braking news "Greece, Spain Lead Rise in Sovereign Debt Risk Near Record High " (http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a..L23nKy9MY), not on any new facts, again not mentioning anything about deficit reduction around that period, or before.

- On June 29, 2010, FT "Qatar in talks over Greek bank stake". Groundless, refuted, but the refuse never saw light.

- On Monday 5 July 2010, Greece announced a reduction of deficit for the first six-months by 41.8%.

- On Monday 5 July 2010, FT, first page: "It’s no secret: Greece is restructuring debt" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ac462f6-8600-11df-bc22-00144feabdc0.html), quite wrong, since it was about a years old negotiation of outrageous pricing from pharmaceutical companies. Not a word about deficit reduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.219.49 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been closely watching references in international media about the "Greek crisis" since October 2009, and I fully agree that it is worth making a research article on the topic. Scientifically and unbiased.

First thing one noticed was the frequency and intensity of such articles, especially in certain media (FT, nicknamed the "Greek Times" for a period, is an obvious case). What on Earth would justify 5 to 7 articles/analyses about Greece (all negative) in a single issue (for several consequtive issues)? What is much more disturbing, though, is the content. The selection of facts, the consistent repetition of inflammatory "keywords", appropriate phrasing that created certain impressions, etc. If an article in such a news media can affect profits or losses of millions of $, there is NO WAY such articles (especially in a form of a campaign) are "random" or "accidental". It is definitely worth collecting a number of cases/references - like the ones mentioned above - and making such an analysis. If anything, the question remains how far can media power go without any control or defence mechanisms. Skartsis (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable

"21 June: Transcript: Trichet’s Introductory Statement Before The EU Parliament Calling For Fiscal And Monetary Reform To Address The European Crisis, posted on ForexLive.com" - What is this but a shameless plug for some random, unknown forex website, blog or whatever? This is an encyclopedia, for crying out loud! You can cut Trichet's speech but come on! -- 113.39.24.226 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

- I agree. ( 88.218.56.116)

The text was a copyright violation. I removed it. MER-C 08:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: e.g. [12] [13] [14] [15]. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 08:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an obvious counterargument against CDS (that may need sources to be exposed)

It is probably against wikipedia policy as 'original research' to include it without sources though it's also common sense so I don't know it may be even possible to just add it (unless sources are found anyway,it's probably easy since it's so common sense). It's basically that: true, Credit Default Swaps' prices may reflect at least partly the real market in relation to a third party reference entity (e.g. a Country) but, what is obvious and common sense is that if the clients of such products have access to Media that overwhelm the reference entity (e.g. Soros VS little Greece) then the price may be manipulated. This is particularly easy in this case since the reference entity may be a completely separate party (seller or buyer distanced). --Leladax (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

it seems Greece is getting far more coverage on an article about the European crisis not the Greek crisis, either a split off page is warrants of less weight on Greece per WP:UNDUE. As it stands right now virtually the whole page, adn details timeline, pertains to Greece alone.

Article needs to include the PIIGS, UK, Hungary, etc. (perhaps mention Switzerland's good state right now, read bloomberg articles about this) Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And Estonia's good financial health (best in the EU i read somewhere)Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thomaswilliamson801

Debt Counseling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaswilliamson801 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Related institutional developments

Establishment/Changes to:

• European Securities and Markets Authority (Paris)
• European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (Frankfurt)
• European Banking Authority (London)
• Euratom Supply Agency (Luxembourg) [16] Alinor (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Germany's ban on naked short selling of credit default swaps

On May 19 the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority issued the above ban as well as the re-introduction of a ban on naked short selling of 10 banks and insurers companies. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article? Or did I mis it? __meco (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

With sources linking it to the crisis and that short selling apparently exasperates a downtrend. There could be an arguement for this. (not to mention the time it came, the timeline also bloats up then)(Lihaas (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)).

page move

to "2000's European..." as it was before 2010 and will certainly be after.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is a rate of 4.2% the slowest Eurozone growing?

"The Greek economy is one of the slowest growing in the eurozone during the 2000s; from 2000 to 2007 it grew at an annual rate of 4.2% as foreign capital flooded the country"

Would it be: "The Greek economy is one of the FASTEST growing in the eurozone during the 2000s; from 2000 to 2007 it grew at an annual rate of 4.2% as foreign capital flooded the country" ?

[]s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.85.67.2 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Long and rambling

this article is already way too long, and is becoming a home for a collection of loosely related topics that don't conform to the title. Northern rock, for example.CecilWard (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Attack by CDS

We're currently being attacked by CDS speculators. Include it in the article after being properly sourced. --94.69.48.24 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What kinds of attacks are these? Are they bombing Europe? MMMMM742 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

Thank you first of all to wikepedia. My specific question or comment is: according to the text, then the banks owed $14b, which is said to be 6 times Iceland's gdp. According to other sources, then the iceland GDP is more likely to be $12-14b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.76.132 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Title: 2010-2011?

As it is now 2011 and, as I see it, the European Sovereign debt crisis is still occurring, shouldn't the title read "2010-2011 European sovereign debt crisis"? If so, please change it. Gaandolf (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the title to European sovereign debt crisis of 2010–present as we are told to be bold. If anyone think of a better title we can talk about it here. --Quest for Truth (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What if we just call it European sovereign debt crisis? I don't think there's any previous pan-European crisis that people would confuse it with. - SimonP (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gaandolf. Changed. Carachi (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Major issues at hand

The article incorporates United Kingdom in the category of countries which are candidate entries to the crisis. But the UK is not in the Eurozone. All the countries so far in actual crisis are Eurozone members; this is a Eurozone-specific crisis. The crisis has spread (i.e. could not be controlled) amongst nations with disparate economies and varying economic indices because all Eurozone members lack the necessary fiscal policy tools to combat or control it. This merits extensive coverage, if not a significant re-write of the material to objectively reflect circumstances. (As it is, it is already infested with loaded words and some political posturing.)

On a relatively minor point, the historical background to the Greek crisis is full of inaccuracies. The military dictatorship was not "right-leaning" but extreme right-wing, as can be trivially referenced. Also, bringing "disenfranchised left-leaning portions of the population into the economic mainstream" did not start before 1981; before that time, right or center-right governments were being elected. Finally, it is not pointed out that the Greek PM of some 10 years or so, Andreas Papandreou, a Keynesian economist of note, was the instigator of the policies described in the article (active fiscal intervention; increased state sector; etc). It should also be mentioned, though, that the Papandreou-led governments maintained strict fiscal and monetary sovereignty throughout their terms. And a nation cannot default as long as it maintains monetary sovereignty and issues debt (if it chooses to issue debt) in its own currency.-The Gnome (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Map graphics

Hi, I'm just looking at the two map graphics here

Public debt as a percent of GDP (2007).

Public debt as a percent of GDP (2009/2010).

It's a bit difficult to understand them at a glance - anyone have the skills required to change them? - I'd like some kind of colour replacement so that they have the same colours in the key, and can easily be compared, but I don't think I have the tech. Suppose it might just be a hue change in photoshop? EdwardLane (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, why are these in different colours? Allows no comparison to be made on how the % has changed with time for countries. --Dr DBW (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Crisis still going on

This newspaper article suggest there's still a crisis in Europe, but the Wikipedia article doesn't make it clear the crisis is still going on. Does this Wikipedia article still refer to the same crisis, and if so, where are the details of what's going on now? I'm trying to link from Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing to the right Wikipedia article to provide more information, but I'm just not sure.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Debt stabilizing primary deficits

Based on a graph from Deutsche Bank and OECD, the author of this blog writes "the Greek government will have to run a primary budget surplus of more than 10% of GDP in order to simply stabilize its level of debt." Maybe that could be useful information for this article. The problem is I couldn't find the original source.--spitzl (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

remove Baltic States section

I suggest to remove the section about the Balitic States. First of all, there is only information about Latvia. Second, as far as I know Estonia is not affected by the current debt crisis. In fact their public debt is only 7.2 percent of GDP. So listing the Baltics in this article is unjustified. --spitzl (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the information there is also quite out of date. - SimonP (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove it then. --spitzl (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

At second thought. I think we should also remove Slovenia. Yes they issued bonds but why is that newsworthy? Did anyone ever doubt that there would be a problem? Keeping Slovenia means we need to add tons of other countries as well. The only country people are speculating about (also in this article) is the U.S. Maybe they would deserve a section.--spitzl (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Slovenia, it's factual information, just not very relevant. In an article that's too long already, it should go. I've thus removed it. I don't see to much here about the US. I don't think it's a bad idea to have some stuff on the States, to provide some broader context for the events. - SimonP (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"effect would be small"

I deleted the sentence: "The overall effect of a probable Greek default on the rest of Europe would be small." 1) Not sure what it even means 2) Extremely editorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemorr (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Most at risk"

"The countries most at risk are those that rely on foreign investors to fund their government sector." So is the U.S. most at risk? All debtor nations rely on foreign investors to fund their government sector. I argue this sentence is unnecessary and possibly untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemorr (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

PIIGGS?

I'll try to delete all references to PIIGGS and replace them with a larger table for all European countries involved. The acronyms 'PIGS' and later 'PIIGS' (or 'GIPSI', I've seen) were used fairly spitefully by the UK press, playing to certain British prejudices. From what I can see, the acronym 'PIIGGS' was used by a couple of lone academics, presumably as an understandably annoyed anti-British reaction, and then (by them?) in a few articles on Wikipedia, where it became standard. This should not be used for two reasons - it's originally fairly offensive, immature, and too speicific for such a widespread problem, and the extra 'G' is not widespread enough, making this effectively original research. It's taken off a bit on the internet now, but this is due to Wikipedia influencing its potential sources, not reflecting them. The whole PI(I)G(G)S idea is stupid (why Italy and Britain and not Iceland... why not PIIGGGFBS...?) and Wikipedia should rise above it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.24 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

- Sources Below - No Removal Justified - see Talk:PIGS_(economics)

Rodolfou (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjective opinion of Kathimerini newspaper

The opinion expressed in the beginning of the article "After the removal of the right leaning military junta, the government wanted to bring disenfranchised left-leaning portions of the population into the economic mainstream.[25] In order to do so, successive Greek governments have, among other things, customarily run large deficits to finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits" is highly objective and untrue .It is well known that Kathimerini newspaper generally supports right and neoliberal politics,so i don't see the reason for it to be in the text. Once again, the average retirement age in greece (61.4) is higher than the european,and public spending or public employees are less than the average european (you can search the data for that in official websites ). The reason for high debt was under-taxation of profits compared to other european states,avoiding of taxes,corruption,as well as the enormous spending for weapons,but all of these are subjective and dont have a place in a encyclopedia. But the situation worsened dramatically since the entrance in the eurozone and especially after the world crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliasviolinist (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read the section and I really can't see that it contains any obvious untruths. However, you are right that it doesn't identify tax evasion as being a serious part of the problem (and indeed an important factor in the northern States unwillingness to help). So if you can find an appropriate citation, please add text that says so. --Red King (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Spead beyond Greece - the UK

The incoming Coalition government declared its austerity measures to be essential lest the markets lose confidence in the UK too, that its situation was essentially the same as Portugal's but that it was merely fortunate in having long-dated debt. We don't have any mention of this. The problem of course is to find the citations in newspaper archives. Mervyn King has just declared that the UK is very much at risk from a domino-fall of defaults (Eurozone 'mess' is a risk to UK banks, Bank of England governor admits). Anyone feeling keen? --Red King (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on your suggestion I have added sections for the UK and US; one citation still needed. --spitzl (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Spitzl, I removed the section about the US because it is not part of Europe. A discussion regarding the sovereign debt of the US would be better suited to a separate article. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Need for general update

While I am not an economist, I have been reading through this article with interest. Unfortunately it looks to me as if it is in need of a general update. At the moment, many sections and paragraphs appear to be based essentially on data from 2010 (mainly compiled by Dearieme between 2010-04-22 and 2010-05-03) with subsequent updates relating to 2010 and one or two additions from 2011. Over the past two or three months quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with the result that some of the data and related explanations may well be misleading. Perhaps a timeline of key developments from 2009 to the present also would be helpful. The article is rated top importance and therefore deserves priority treatment. - Ipigott (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ipigott, you make some good points, however there already is a "timeline" article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_European_sovereign_debt_crisis_timeline

There is a link to this article in the "See also" section. There are also links within the article to separate articles discussing the debt crisis as it relates to Spain and Ireland. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the timeline under See also. Perhaps it could be introduced in the body of the article. I simply did not see it. I do however maintain that a general revision would be useful. Alternatively, a separate article could be written on development during the year 2011. - Ipigott (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • several countries are missing: such as the UK and especially the USA out of the Eurozone, often refered.
  • people also refer this as an Euro vs Dollar war.
  • Other European countries: Spain, Italy, Cyprus. Spain has always been part of the news in this issue, despite its low public debt (need to clarify why is this).
  • France and Germany, the core of the Eurozone.

--Pedro (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the European Sovereign Debt Crisis, therefore a discussion of sovereign debt in the USA is outside the scope of this article. Gfcvoice (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

that is just your POV. I don't think so... a lot of people and media doesnt think so as the subject is related and intertwined (Euro vs dollar war/world reserve currency for instance and the behavior of rating agencies). --Pedro (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If content regarding US sovereign debt was included (I don't think it should be), then the title "European Sovereign Debt Crisis" would no longer be appropriate. The title of the article would need to change to something more relevant such as "European and US Sovereign Debt Crises" or "Global Sovereign Debt Crises" Gfcvoice (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The US developments are of course relevant as they result from problems common to the US and many European countries: the impact of cheap imports from China and India causing cut backs and closures in key industries. In my opinion, this needs to be addressed in the background which currently overemphasizes the Greek problems. - Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbers

Guys, these numbers from the article (and also compared with the map on the right) don't make any sense at all:

In 2009, the government of George Papandreou revised its deficit from an estimated 6% (8% if a special tax for building irregularities were not to be applied) to 12.7%.[32] In May 2010, the Greek government deficit was estimated to be 13.6%[33] which is one of the highest in the world relative to GDP.[34] Greek government debt was estimated at €216 billion in January 2010.[35] Accumulated government debt was forecast, according to some estimates, to hit 120% of GDP in 2010.

Could somebody please clean it up ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.222.184.132 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This article badly needs a summary table or graph for all countries

This article badly needs a summary/comparison table or graph for all relevant European countries, that lists the absolute public debt, debt to GDP ratio, GDP, GDP growth, and yearly budget deficit for each country.

The table/graph should be UPDATED (There are maps and graphs, but they are not updated to 2011) .

A table/graph is worth a thousand words in the article. 109.186.92.173 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Most likely this ref gives the answer [17] Arnoutf (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

required fiscal adjustment in % of GDP

According to this IMF paper (see table on page 26) Greece would need to reduce its fiscal deficit by 15.5% of GDP to bring its debt to a sustainable level of 60% of GDP by 2030. Ireland would need to adjust 13.5% of GDP, followed by Japan (13.4%), USA (10.6%), UK (10.4%) and Spain (9.4%). Bloomberg sets the data for the USA even at 17%. Should we add this to the article? If so, where would it fit? --spitzl (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Malta; edit summaries

This edit may have done some good, but I'd just stumbled on the change of "Netherlands" as yet-to-vote for "Malta". Luckily the editor had edited just the section ("Finland collateral") or I would have had no clue (due to lack of mention of Malta, for instance, in the Edit summary) amongst the say 15 edits since the 3 Oct. edit which had added the Netherlands (with due "The Netherlands too" Edit summary; cap. "T" maybe wrong; not in text of edit). I didn't have the time to search all 15. But with the Finland hint I lucked out and was able to identify the specific edit with some ease. I still had to look up the source for the Netherlands citation again to make sure there hadn't been a mistake, then finish executing ... today's edit, with Edit summary "reverse vandalism or unattributed correction re: Malta; update on Slovakia".

Basically I didn't have time for this. And inadequate to non-existent edit summaries have been a building peeve of mine. And of course we're no closer to knowing if Malta should be in or out. But I've let off steam; hopefully been a little additionally productive here; and I'll let the editor in question know. No hard feelings, right? Right. Just trying to encourage ... better work, right? Right.

Cheers. Swliv (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thought which has been building (not quite a peeve; an observation):

Because the edit of a section (as opposed to the whole article) does not give an editor a view of the footnotes of the section when doing a preview, there's a strong bias for me toward editing the whole article rather than a section. That bias has two negative outcomes I can see right off the bat: (1) the above circumstance showed why the editing of a section is preferable: it gives a better indication of the content (or target) of a given edit. But my longer-developing feeling is (2) that if (and I don't know that this is true, yet, on Wikipedia) the edit of a section could be "stand-alone" in terms of edit conflicts, then more editing of sections v. editing of articles would lower the number of (extremely inefficient) edit conflicts. In other words, if I'm editing the "Finland collateral" section and someone else then started editing the "Eurozone sovereign debt concerns" section, we would not encounter a conflict if I failed to save first (and vice versa). I know this point #2 has nothing to do with this article but I haven't figured how to register it with the larger Wikipedia community and wanted to get it written down here while it is fresh in my mind. I hope to find a better place to register it along with the other edit-process issues herein, in the future.

As to Malta, it's been taken further here and here, probably on the way to full resolution. Swliv (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian economy

Italian economy is in a mess. High public debt, no growth, unemployement political unstability. The italian economic situation is worst that Ireland, Spain United Kingdom and maybe also of Greece. Why there is not a section whcih adress the country deemed to be the "Sick man of Europe" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• List of countries by unemployment rate (better than France and United States);
• List of countries by real GDP growth rate (latest year) (better than United Kingdom). --Enok (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not forgot italy is the the most important member of PIGS and

• List of sovereign states by public debt (worst than Sudan and Angola) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12

Are you trolling? Japan has a debt even higher, but this does not cause a crisis. --Enok (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am jsut asking to talk about the situation of Italy. Please refreain ftom that "tifoso" attitude and accept that also your country can be criticized. Your insult are unacceptable, this is wikipedia not an italian talk show. Please be polite and keep the debat civilian. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the comparison with Sudan and Angola seemed like a trolling post to me. Go ahead with your accurate analysis. --Enok (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

93.92.153.12, you are welcome to start a section discussing Italy. Some suggested starting points include

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/s-revises-italys-credit-outlook-to.html and http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/01/italy-invisible-elephant.html Gfcvoice (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Japan may have a higher debt, but unlike Japan, Italy cannot deflate the debt away and cannot print her way out of debt because she is bound to the Eurozone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, It is very hard to create a section for Italy since there aare a lots of conflicting opinions. For istance I've seen a clip wherein a Financial Time expert stated that core of the Italian economy is healthy whilst other experts are of the opinoon taht Italy is going to collapse. For instance, the Italian debt is high but in the same time has a budget position which is better than French one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

oh for crying out loud the italian yeilds are allready 6 percent, to we have to wait untill thay acutaly defualt before we get a section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.130.62 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

External links development

I, yes, again stumbled, today on this quirky element of this article's "External links" section. Turns out the Ivo Pezzuto listings are replicated exactly across 16+- Wiki articles but with no other (that I found) Wiki links or references for the writer. As I say at the "quirky" link, I'm basically OK with the listings. As I imply there, I'm not ready to fix the typo (non-English-speaker pronoun misuse, I'm thinking) and implement the upgrade bits across the 16: The form of the situation is too poor, it must be said (while the content is probably OK; that's my point; and quandry).

I have to leave it at that for now. My work today on this article is here. (All for Martin Wolf, really, I guess. Well, Wolf and Simon Johnson.) Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Spread Beyond Greece Section

This section repeatedly references, "Tuesday", as if they're live news headlines. We don't know when "Tuesday" was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.121.20 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Map of the Eurozone and dependent countries based on cumulative current account balance.

It's important to include this on the esdc page because it shows what countries are largely responsible for the crisis in the first place and which countries are going to be held largely responsible for bailing them out. (so there maybe a better spot to put it then the two-currency speculation section)

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green-ops (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

From the file description: "Picture demonstrates a plausible two currency Eurozone, one green/yellow green and one red/orange." So it is in fact WP:OR and even if it were simply meant to show the ccab (and it's not) there are no sources for the underlying data on which the map is based.

it shows what countries are largely responsible for the crisis in the first place and which countries are going to be held largely responsible for bailing them out

That's simply not true, especially as the inclusion criteria for countries on the map are utterly arbitrary and open to countless interpretations ("relevant to the survivability of the economic zone and it's currency." Certainly the US/China are closer to this definition than Serbia or Iceland.)--Lady Pablo (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The map has been properly sourced, and no it is not OR. It even stated in the description that is was not OR (bad spot for it nevertheless) 04:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Green-ops — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green-ops (talk • contribs)

The picture itself is not an OR but connection of this picture with Two-currencies speculations is clear WP:OR coz no source speaks about Cumulative Current Account Balance of European countries 1980-2008 (IMF) as the reason for a speculations about 2 currencies. Btw, which impact has the Cumulative Current Account Balance for exmaple in 1980-2000 for present time Two-currencies speculations? --Samofi (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Icelandic citizens refused to bail out foreign banks in a referendum"?

I thought the referendum was about Icelandic banks that had already been bailed out by foreign governments - the Icelanders refused to repay foreign governments, not foreign banks. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue seems to have been resolved. --spitzl (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Two-currencies speculation

I removed the following two sentences from the article.

The German-led bloc will be less inflationary than the euro, but it will not be as widely used internationally as the euro. This two-currency system can benefit all of Europe, dependent on the political or economic goals of each EU member state, that is stability versus international usage.

Feel free to put it back if you find a source. --spitzl (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless and until it can be re-wrtitten to adequately reflect reliable sources, this section should be removed. It is full of mis-attributed (and possibly outdated) speculation. As an example, take the first two sentences: Bloomberg has suggested that . . ., "The Wall Street Journal conjectures that . . .". There are clear disclaimers or indications of source that show that these are not the speculations of the respective works (Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal). The use of tenses ("has suggested", conjectures") implies that this is still current thinking, though the cited articles were published quite a while ago. The formulations do not adequately reflect the speculative nature of the articles. Another source given is Newsmax.com; it looks sensationalist/biased, and I couldn't find their alleged quotation from Greenspan in other media; is this a reliable source within the meaning of Wikipedia guidelines? --Boson (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I just re-wrote the section and removed the following unsourced parts.

The German-led bloc can lawfully exit the eurozone, by simply breaking the Maastricht criteria for membership, for example the three percent deficit to GDP rule, or by negotiating an exit with the rest of the eurozone if there is a failure of any of the bailouts. The French-led euro bloc is expected to grow its combined current account deficits, comparable to the United States, increasing its usage overseas and improving its status as reserve currency. A monetary union of all the remaining current account deficit countries would create the world's second largest deficit bloc, second only to the United States, the owner of the world's primary reserve currency.

In order to reduce the dollar's Triffin dilemma and become a more influential currency union, the eurozone must do the following. First, let the German-led bloc exit the eurozone orderly. Second, give up the stability mandate copied from the Bundesbank, in order to purchase government debts of Greece, Italy, and the other indebted countries. Third, import more goods and export more of the currency overseas. And fourth, build economic governance and fiscal union in the leftover eurozone.

--spitzl (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Title change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

European sovereign debt crisis → Eurozone sovereign debt crisis – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I think this article should be moved to "Eurozone sovereign debt crisis", as only one of the three countries mentioned in the "Other European countries" section is experiencing a sovereign debt crisis (Iceland) and that country is mentioned only briefly, is not part of the EFSF and does not share the same difficulties which are discussed at length in the article, namely the inability to deflate its currency. Lady Pablo (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Upon looking at the introduction of the article, and thinking also of Britain, I have become more comfortable with the title as it stands and am amending my earlier agreement with the proposal. I think some editing in the intro, maybe a clarification paragraph early on to specify more sharply that Eurozone is the primary focus, would help the article fit (more) comfortably under the title. Retitling and explicitly excluding Iceland, Britain, and others maybe, would be almost as bad as the maybe-awkward inclusion now. Poland comes to mind as one outside the Eurozone; Scandinavians, Baltics, maybe. This is not my specialty, but I can see improvement to clarify in-zone v. out-of-zone without a titling change. I'll keep thinking about it, see if I can help in this direction. Swliv (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But none of these countries is in the middle of a sovereign debt crisis, and we already have an article about the Late 2000s recession in Europe.--Lady Pablo (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

But there's PIIIGS and PIIGGS... one adding Iceland, the other adding Great Britain... to PIIGS, neither of which use the Euro. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't base the title of an article on a single (widely scorned) economic term. Britain is not experiencing a sovereign debt crisis, and Iceland is a completely different case from all the other countries discussed in this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ireland

Is it perhaps worth mentioning in the Ireland section the huge fall in Irish government bond yields seen over the last few months? On July 15, 10 year bonds were yielding 14% as of today they are yielding only 8.2% (and were actually below 8% last week). Admittedly I don't know a lot about this, but it seems that the Irish sovereign debt market is improving? The article currently leaves events at the end of 2010 and doesn't mention any of this. (Connolly15 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

In fact the last article about Ireland is from July 2011. But I agree, we should mention at some point that market participants believe more and more that Irish government bonds have become less risky. Anyways, I think we should still wait a bit. As the article states, financial markets have serious doubts about a country's credit-worthiness if the yield of government bonds is above 6%, which is still the case with Ireland. In fact the 10 year bond yield is now rising again.--spitzl (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Given the numerous positive reports about Ireland I have now added a paragraph on the increasingly optimistic outlook for the country.--spitzl (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Solutions

Could us some discussion about:

Monetizing the debt. This has negative and positive possible consequences. It may be possible, however, if the economy needs more capital for a central bank to buy the debt and keep it on its books indefinitely, with the central bank taking the haircut on the lack of payment on this debt. Essentially forgive the poor countries that cannot make their payments. The downside here is inflation.

Methods of retiring sovereign debt. Perhaps there are some yet to be used methods for retiring debt. Monetizing debt is one, perhaps there are others.

A European TARP. Central bank injecting a special type of capital that only banks can own into the banks taking the haircut on Greek bonds. In the US, this was preferred stock.

Removing Greece from the EU. Let Greece go back on the Dracma. Greece defaults on its bonds, but gets a new start. Possible similar treatment of Portugal and whoever else cannot continue to borrow while in the EU. This is draconian, but it IS a solution.

It seems to me it was a mistake to let Greece into the EU. But the rest of the EU allowed it. Now they have to pay for it. Traditionally this is what happens regardless. The wealthier countries end up helping the poorer countries when the poor country defaults. May not be any way around this fundamental principal. I don't really know.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Solutions are obvious: Instituting EU treaty change that levels the difference in competitiveness expressed in difference in interest rates between the Core and Periphery by facilitating wealth transfer (print money, sell bonds, increase inflation) via a EU central bank and provide liquitity to exposed banks. Too bad, this will take YEARS because it's a political process, so as far as I'm concerned, EU is really screwed. Euro might not collapse, but European Union integration project is done for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.15.166 (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

possible Greek default

Three options for Greece, voluntary restructuring being most likely, says Credit Suisse study: Greece: A restructuring scenario analysis (16 May 2011). The study contains lots of background information that could also be useful for this article. --spitzl (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Be bold! Include what you think is necessary. - Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Voluntary restructuring is just a another term for a default.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reprofiling, restructuring, whatever they call it, Greece is going to default. In many cases, taking a haircut on debt, Greece is already in the process of defaulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.15.166 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ECB buying national bonds

According to ECB to Buy Covered Bonds, Offer Longer Loans the ECB is buying national bonds worth €40 billion. How does the ECB finance that? By inventing bank assets in the ECB itself? Equivalent to printing bank notes? Is that a solution to the debt crisis ? --BIL (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If European central banks buy bonds they will expand their balance sheets.

For that to happen, you need EU treaty change, more fiscal integration, a process that arguably takes years if not decades. Interest rates within the international bond market operate at light-speed, and simply cannot wait for the decade effort to unify national budget balance sheets under a single supervisory centralized treasury to win investor confidence in time. The only solution would to keep Eurozone, ditch EU over the long term in an organized long term process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.15.166 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As of 2011 Q1 Barclays Capital estimates that the ECB (to be correct: rather the national central banks of the eurosystem) are the largest creditor with EUR 45 billion.[18] See also coverage of forbes: [19]. Maybe wikipedia could help to boost the public debate how many bonds at which rates are bought. Since the beginning of the crisis other banks may have profited of bargains that include overvalued prices to sellers of greek bonds that are rated junk. Such a deal prevents banks to adjust their valuations of greek bonds in their balance sheets, thus avoiding the need to bear losses.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)