Cyprus Banks and possible 'domino effect'

georgeingozo wrote:

There is no need to take 25% of all deposits, in fact 15-16% of only those over 100,000 would be sufficient

...........well that seems alright then George.

redmik wrote:

03.02 Uk Time.
Eurozone finance ministers have agreed a deal on a 10bn-euro bailout for Cyprus to prevent its banking system collapsing and keep the country in the eurozone.

Laiki (Popular) Bank - the country's second-biggest - will be wound down and holders of deposits of more than 100,000 euros will face big losses.

However, all deposits under 100,000 euros will be "fully guaranteed".

The European Central Bank had set a deadline of Monday for a deal.

Laiki will be split into "good" and "bad" banks, with its good assets eventually merged into Bank of Cyprus.

I see that they are saying 40% for deposits over €100,000 in Laiki bank and less % in other banks. Does this mean that someone with € 98,000 pays nothing but if you have €101,000 you pay 40%? seems harsh.
I like the bit about "under €100,000 fully guaranteed" as they have already said that they will stop any large transfers to stop a run on the banks, it may be safe but you won't be able to use it!

Terry

ricky wrote:

Hi Mike,

as someone who has lived many years in Germany,has worked many years in Germany, has had to pay taxes in Germany most of his life and, luckily, with most of my Euro's in a German bank, can you please explain who you come to the conclusion that Germany has the biggest money laundering problem in Europe and possibly globally?

Or is it just the usual German bashing and kill the messenger?

Cheers
Ricky

See this link http://www.dw.de/germany-a-safe-haven-f … a-16343313

Even the EU  are concerned that Germany is turning a blind eye to the problem.

Terry

ricky wrote:

Hi Mike,

as someone who has lived many years in Germany,has worked many years in Germany, has had to pay taxes in Germany most of his life and, luckily, with most of my Euro's in a German bank, can you please explain who you come to the conclusion that Germany has the biggest money laundering problem in Europe and possibly globally?

Or is it just the usual German bashing and kill the messenger?

Cheers
Ricky

Hi Ricky

as someone who has lived many years in the UK, has worked many years in many different countries (28 years in the Royal Air Force), paid my taxes and for the last 10 years has been charged with educating the 'underclass' of this once proud country (if I'm not told to 'F' off at least twice a day by the 'children' I feel incomplete) I think that I've 'been around a bit'.  However, notwithstanding the poor parenting, scrounging, rage ridden, often lazy populous I live within I'm not that 'touchy' when someone has proper criticism about who we are or what we have become......I am, after all, a realist.

To paraphrase Nick Ferrari (Sunday Express) - Angela Merkel is left seething in Berlin and orders the Cypriot Government to deal only with "the Troika", as the EC, ECF and IMF like to be known.

I'm not alone with these views and would never consider myself as a 'German basher', however, the truth hurts and in the coming years we will all see the fallout from the arrogant European leaders.

My apologies if you took my comments personally.

Finally.......thank you Terry for the link (you beat me to it chap).

Cheers

Mike

MikeInPoulton wrote:

Anyway another example of the Illuninati sponsored banking system

Mike

Sorry Mike, you lost me there....

redmik wrote:

Sorry Mike but I have to say that using the Sunday Express as a source of evidence is not in my opinion a good move.

indeed Mick.....actually I take the Sunday Telegraph (a throwback from my 'previous' life I suppose), much, much better sports coverage than any 'raggy redtop' or competing broadsheet.....it's Rose who prefers the 'easy' read.

I feel your pain having had to work as a legal Social Worker - I too get it from the parents with the many TAF meetings and the recent Working Together With Families initiative - if these families and their 'offspring' are our future heaven help us.

Hi Ricky

at least we share some common ground on the subject, however,

ricky wrote:

The UK never joined the Eurozone  so the exchange rates can go up and down against other countries ..... at the moment more down than up , but that can change too.

.......and thus allows us to operate independently of those around us, controlling our own financial business and setting our own agenda. 

ricky wrote:

I don't see any reason to blame countries with strong fiscal policies for the shortfalls of countries that lack financial responsibility.

.......but we must blame them.  It was these very countries (with strong fiscal policies) that have actively encouraged those 'smaller' ones to join with promises of 'pots of gold' in subsidies and a better long term stability. Politically driven, at all levels, the big 'players' in Central Europe knew exactly what they were doing - the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them and, in my opinion, it was an inevitability that certain economies and banking systems would fail thus leaving leaving them at the mercy of the stronger ones - as we now see with Cyprus (and to an extent Greece, Ireland et al).

I notice, also, that as soon as Russia came sniffing around with offers of billions to help ease the burden in exchange for access to the huge field of 'natural resources' not far from Cypriot shores the great 'German Machine' stepped in to change the parameters of the offer.

It's the long game, and Europe are acting in the same manner as the USA did in the Oil Iraq war (the UK are just as guilty) but this is another matter for discussion in the future. Controlling the 'smaller economies' effectively links them all together to make one larger, much stronger, unit....by example the UK has an exposure of some £1.2 Billion in the Cypriot financial sector alone.

However, back on point, after all of these shenanigans do we feel safe in Malta now (similar economy) or will we see a 'Med Domino Effect' leading to a separation of economic interests in the future. 

Jeanniebx must be beside herself......and who exactly is caring about this apart from us few on a message board - and she is not alone. Toon has it right........it's Theft and not a black mask among them.

Cheers

Mike

Seat 0A wrote:

MikeInPoulton wrote:

Anyway another example of the Illuninati sponsored banking system

Mike

Sorry Mike, you lost me there....

.......don't worry Seat OA.  It's only important to those who know.

Cheers

Mike

toonarmy9752 wrote:

tried the money laundering once - nobody wanted wet notes.....

MikeInPoulton wrote:

ricky wrote:

I don't see any reason to blame countries with strong fiscal policies for the shortfalls of countries that lack financial responsibility.

.......but we must blame them.  It was these very countries (with strong fiscal policies) that have actively encouraged those 'smaller' ones to join with promises of 'pots of gold' in subsidies and a better long term stability. Politically driven, at all levels, the big 'players' in Central Europe knew exactly what they were doing - the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them and, in my opinion, it was an inevitability that certain economies and banking systems would fail thus leaving leaving them at the mercy of the stronger ones - as we now see with Cyprus (and to an extent Greece, Ireland et al).

I think Finland with a GDP smaller than the one of Greece and just a little bigger than the one of Ireland breaks your theory.

Lusco wrote:

MikeInPoulton wrote:

ricky wrote:

I don't see any reason to blame countries with strong fiscal policies for the shortfalls of countries that lack financial responsibility.

.......but we must blame them.  It was these very countries (with strong fiscal policies) that have actively encouraged those 'smaller' ones to join with promises of 'pots of gold' in subsidies and a better long term stability. Politically driven, at all levels, the big 'players' in Central Europe knew exactly what they were doing - the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them and, in my opinion, it was an inevitability that certain economies and banking systems would fail thus leaving leaving them at the mercy of the stronger ones - as we now see with Cyprus (and to an extent Greece, Ireland et al).

I think Finland with a GDP smaller than the one of Greece and just a little bigger than the one of Ireland breaks your theory.

Nah!

I was clear to mention those countries with "strong fiscal policies" and I opined that "certain economies and banking systems would fail" in my narrative.

You use Finland as a theory breaker (it isn't my theory just my observations and opinions), however,

See here.......

I particularly like the bit about rapid economic development and that it is quoted as "one of the worlds wealthiest nations" - of course this is subject to economic verification.........Finland, I believe, has a higher GDP per capita than even Germany.

My "opinion", Sir, is sound.

Cheers

Mike

MikeInPoulton wrote:

Yep, so true.....

but I feel it's still 'Acropolis Now for the Cypriot economy'

MikeInPoulton wrote:

Nah!

I was clear to mention those countries with "strong fiscal policies" and I opined that "certain economies and banking systems would fail" in my narrative.

Finland is one of the countries in the world with the strongest fiscal policy and apart from that you also said "the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them".

MikeInPoulton wrote:

You use Finland as a theory breaker (it isn't my theory just my observations and opinions), however,

See here.......

I do not think I will need that since I already checked that wiki some time ago many times plus I lived in Finland.

MikeInPoulton wrote:

I particularly like the bit about rapid economic development and that it is quoted as "one of the worlds wealthiest nations" - of course this is subject to economic verification.........Finland, I believe, has a higher GDP per capita than even Germany.

That's the point. You were talking about the size of the economies and even you said '"small' countries" so that's why I used the GDP, since that is the most common way to measure the size of a economy. Now you are talking about GDP per capita and wealthiest economies, which you did not say in the previous post. Indeed you have also mentioned Ireland which indeed has a higher GDP per capita than Germany, but it is obviously a smaller economy. So, yes, I think Finland breaks the theory that "the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them". If you meant "the unhealthiest economies -including big economies such as Spain or Italy- could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them" I would probably not discuss it.

Lusco wrote:

That's the point. You were talking about the size of the economies and even you said '"small' countries" so that's why I used the GDP, since that is the most common way to measure the size of a economy. Now you are talking about GDP per capita and wealthiest economies, which you did not say in the previous post. Indeed you have also mentioned Ireland which indeed has a higher GDP per capita than Germany, but it is obviously a smaller economy. So, yes, I think Finland breaks the theory that "the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them". If you meant "the unhealthiest economies -including big economies such as Spain or Italy- could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them" I would probably not discuss it.

I didn't mean "the unhealthiest economies" or I would have said it.  I stand my my 'opinion' from previous posts and refer back to my point about 'those countries with strong fiscal policies' that appear to be determining the economic future of those recently joined and possibly do not have the mechanisms to keep up because of their inherent, internal 'poor housekeeping'. 

Redmiks' link above to the mental state/greed of those in this Cypriot crisis (for that is what it is) belies how their country was run before joining the euro and the failure of their government to arrest this.  May I cite a 'Jimmy Saville' anaolgy..........everyone knew what was going on but no-one had the bottle to do anything about it for fear of being implicated in the 'abhorrent crime' themselves..........John 8:7

I fear we will both disagree on this matter......I take (some) of your points, however, I remain with my view.....and I still predict a downfall in the not-to-distant future.

Cheers

Mike

jeanniebx wrote:

It's not easy, is it? It's a good job the sun is shining today

Jeanniebx...............

what a wonderful way of showing your strength in these tough times.  I'm sure your 'stoicism' will see you through and I feel that all here (on the Malta Blog) wish you well.  Just another reason to realize your dream of moving across the wonderful world that is Malta.

All the very best

Mike

MikeInPoulton wrote:

those recently joined and possibly do not have the mechanisms to keep up because of their inherent, internal 'poor housekeeping'.

My comments were made in relation to this: "the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them". So now you say "the recently joined" countries. That is a different story and I would not discuss that one. What I was trying to say was that I see no relation between "the size of the economies" (which was your previous comment) and their ability -or not- to deal with those policies.

Lusco wrote:

MikeInPoulton wrote:

those recently joined and possibly do not have the mechanisms to keep up because of their inherent, internal 'poor housekeeping'.

My comments were made in relation to this: "the smaller economies could never survive the, sometimes extreme, regulations placed upon them". So now you say "the recently joined" countries. That is a different story and I would not discuss that one. What I was trying to say was that I see no relation between "the size of the economies" (which was your previous comment) and their ability -or not- to deal with those policies.

You are fast becoming the 'king of semantics'......however your continuous taking out of context of what is quite obviously my opinion on the subject, to your own effect, doesn't detract from what I said earlier. I can say "the recently joined", and mean also those who cannot compete with the regulations thus imposed (whether that be now or in the future)....it's easy (it's just a language) - how you interpret that is for you and as you say....you cannot discuss that one. 

Thank you also for clarifying "what you were trying to say" - I just disagree.

Cheers and have a nice day

Mike