What he can't understand, as a good capitalist, is why the Government would want to turn private debt into pubic debt and thus CREATE a sovereign debt crisis when there need be none.
What is the ideological/legal objection to turning bonds into shares? Debt equity swaps are a staple of any crisis management tool-kit. Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
In any case, as I said in the diary, the real problem isn't the real economy which is set to grow (marginally) this year despite the Government cutbacks. The real problem (in Ireland's case) is the taking on of an unsustainable debt burden. Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
The real problem (in Ireland's case) is the taking on of an unsustainable debt burden.
Because as long as there was a bubble everyone was happy piling up debt to 200% of GDP. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
Because as long as there was a bubble everyone was happy piling up debt to 200% of GDP.
No everybody wasn't happy because first time house buyers, in particular, were finding it impossible to get onto the housing ladder given the cost of buying or renting a house.
But there is a world of difference between people borrowing to buy a home and the sort of speculative "investment" the big banks and developers were getting into.
For one thing, there is no Nama for house buyers caught up in negative equity, unaffordable and rising interest rates, and redundancy.
Little people having their homes foreclosed is business as usual. When the big banks do the same the same distressed borrowers - amongst others - are supposed to bail them out? Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
What is the ideological/legal objection to turning bonds into shares?
Is there any mechanism to bring down this government and force new elections? As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Is there any mechanism to bring down this government and force new elections?
The Greens are the junior partners in the coalition Government and they conducted a mid-term review following a party conference last autumn. I genuinely thought they would reject Nama and precipitate a general election but they chose, instead, to go back into Government following some paltry concessions on fox hunting etc.
Now both parties know they will be devastated if they call an election any time soon and so are cli9nging on for dear life. Indeed the Minister, Eamonn Ryan, quoted in the Diary is a Green party Minister and leading apologist for the Government.
So the short answer is no, this Government will probably run its full term, after which Fianna Fail will no longer be the largest party, and the Greens will be obliterated. Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
after which Fianna Fail will no longer be the largest party,
I wouldn't be too sure of that, and it's not clear that the most likely party to take their place, Fine Gael, would be any better. They might be worse.
So, defaulting on the debt would free up over 25% of GDP making spending cuts unnecessary. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
Rolling over the debt doesn't entail Greece paying money, netwise. They repay a loan and issue another (albeit with a higher interest) to cover that repayment.
Interest on the other hand is a real cost, and when you're shut out of the capital markets because you've defaulted you'll either need to print money or reduce your deficit to zero, by definition. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The critical factor in bankruptcy prevention is the necessity of either paying off or rolling over as-due debt. Most entities today - and I don't care who they are - are not in a position to wind down on debt. Thus they have to work to carry it forward. All of these entities can, therefore, be "blackmailed" by the major financial institutions.
The usual bond payment structure is insane and encourages borrowers to engage in "speculative finance" in Minsky's terms. Adverse conditions leading to gradually increasing debt principal ("deficit") are "ponzi finance", at which point the entity is vulnerable to a run (defined as the inability to place debt of any maturity). By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
Imagine if the usual mortgage were 25 years of interest-only ... & etc.
Paying simple versus compound interest payments makes a difference, other than that .... yeah.
The usual bond payment structure is insane ...
Can't argue with that, either. Before the Loot and Scoot School of Management came 'round it was possible for companies to amass a sinking fund which, in theory and occasional practice, was used to retire the debt. Now that pile of loot is mere fodder for the predators and makes the company even that more of a take-over target.
Add interest payments are an above the line tax deduction and dividends (cost of equity payments) are an after tax disbursement, and the debt/equity ratios get shoved to the debt side.
Adverse conditions leading to gradually increasing debt principal ("deficit") are "ponzi finance", at which point the entity is vulnerable to a run
I firmly maintain ANY system containing a unregulated - of whatever nature - positive feedback loop WILL jump the shark/reach a Tipping Point. The singular, exact nature of such is dependent on the focus or 'core' of the phenomena or phenomenological system undergoing transition. For banks it's a run. For Logisitic systems it's our old friend the Feigenbaum Logistic Map.
