Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:18:30 AM EST
Apologetic Swiss banks sweat it out as U.S., Europe mull redress | Reuters

(Reuters) - Swiss banks hoping to atone for decades of complicity in tax evasion may be left to sweat it out for months as the United States and Germany ponder the right level of punishment.

Switzerland has long dodged U.S. accusations of hiding money for wealthy Americans. But now eleven Swiss banks are under investigation in the United States and there is pressure too from Europe where burdened taxpayers want scalps after numerous banking scandals. The Swiss need a deal to remove the taint from their financial industry.

However, Washington must factor forthcoming elections into its thinking, and Germany is delaying ratification of a tax deal key to Switzerland's efforts to strike similar agreements elsewhere in Europe. So the Swiss may be in limbo for a while.

The wait is painful for a country which counts on banking for 7 percent of its economic output: until Swiss banks know how much information they need to share with foreign tax authorities they will struggle to attract new clients.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 03:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... as the United States and Germany ponder the right level of punishment.

Invade. That always works.

I have a t-shirt with that on it. And whatever you do, DON'T BLINK!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 07:50:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I think the United States has been punished enough by its recent invasions, I'm not sure it can take any more.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 03:09:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bank of England's King says banks can learn from Games | Reuters

(Reuters) - Bank of England governor Mervyn King took a swipe at bankers on Sunday, saying they should take a lesson about fair play from the Olympic Games, which have shown that money is not the only motivator for success.

King, who has previously criticised banks for excessive pay and shoddy customer treatment, also called for international cooperation to ease a global economic crisis in a column in the Mail on Sunday newspaper on the final day of the London Games.

"As recent scandals have shown, banks could learn a thing or two about fair play from the Olympic movement," said King, a keen sports fan who is fond of using sporting analogies to clarify economic policy.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 03:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
""As recent scandals have shown, banks could learn a thing or two about fair play from the Olympic movement," "

Does he mean that the athletes were even better at cheating than the banksters? That they had developped better concealing techniques?
Or is he polydelusional?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 02:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
no, he's talking about the level of state support for elite athletes and the willingness of the government to underwrite any financial and operational shortcomings.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 03:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He means they should have special lanes on highways reserved for bankers.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 07:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is the U.S. picking on our banks? | The Great Debate UK

By Kathleen Brooks. The opinions expressed are her own.

Standard Chartered is the latest UK-based bank that seems to be getting it in the neck from our friends across the water. Firstly, there was Barclays and the Libor scandal, then there was HSBC which was fined for allowing drug-trafficked money from Mexico to go through its system and now there is Standard Chartered which is charged with "wilfully misleading" the New York Department of Financial Services and clearing $250 billion of Iranian transactions through its U.S. operation.

Two can be a coincidence, but three in as many months? Since the news on Standard Chartered broke there has been a torrent of investors, politicians and even some in the media who have queried whether this is just an attempt by Washington to discredit London and re-establish New York as the world's financial centre.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 04:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Why is everybody always picking on them?"

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 07:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How can three UK banks all be in trouble with US regulators? Are there three of comparable size that have not had regulatory issues in the US?    Oh, wait! since 'regulatory forbearance' the miracle is if any 'systemically important' bank even get publicly identified as having regulatory issues. The rest of the society, you know, is not 'systemically important'.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 07:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as Wall st have bought and paid for the regulatory authorities and relevant politicians in DC, it would be unlikely that they'd allow their own transgressions to be criticized. However, it is opportune to both appease public sentiment by saying "it's those bad guys in Britain" as well as take out business competitors.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 03:17:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the actual article linked to, the author replies in the negative to the question in her title. Persuasively or not, it's up to you to judge.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 10:02:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hopeless unemployment | New Europe

BERKELEY - However bad you think the global economy is today in terms of the business cycle, that is only one lens through which to view the world. In terms of global life expectancy, total world wealth, the overall level of technology, growth prospects in emerging economies, and global income distribution, things look rather good, while on still other dimensions - say, global warming or domestic income inequality and its effects on countries' social solidarity - they look bad.

Even on the business-cycle dimension, conditions have been far worse in the past than they are today. Consider the Great Depression and the implications of market economies' inability back then to recover on their own, owing to the burden of long-term unemployment.

But, while we are not at that point today, the Great Depression is no less relevant for us, because it is increasingly likely that long-term unemployment will become a similar impediment to recovery within the next two years.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 04:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Chrystia Freeland | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

Forget America's fiscal cliff, Europe's currency troubles or the emerging-markets slowdown. The most important story in the global economy today may well be some good news that isn't yet making as many headlines - the coming surge in oil production around the world.

Until very recently, our collective assumption was that oil was running out. That was partly a matter of what seemed like geological common sense. It took millions of years for the earth to crush plankton into fossil fuels; it is logical to think that it would take millions of years to create more. The rise of the emerging markets, with their energy-hungry billions, was a further reason it seemed obvious we would have less oil and gas in 2020 than we do today.

Obvious - but wrong. Thanks in part to technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking, we are entering a new age of abundant oil. As the energy expert Leonardo Maugeri contends in a recent report published by the Belfer Center at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, "contrary to what most people believe, oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption."

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 04:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
See this on Monbiot's peak-oil u-turn
Much of the article was spent regurgitating a recent report by Leonardo Maugeri, a former executive with the Italian oil company Eni, which Monbiot breathlessly reported "provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom has begun".

Plenty of ink has already been spilled by oil depletion experts exposing some of the wildly optimistic assumptions contained in Maugeri's report. More damning is that the work is shot through with crass mistakes that render its forecast worthless.

Chrystia Freeland, by the way, is just your usual Reaganite hack.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 12th, 2012 at 05:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To the extent that her byline above this narrative stamps it with the "big-business-compliant communications coming soon to a media outlet near you" imprint.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 02:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was also a rather unfair representation of Monbiot's article.
His point whas that those who were hoping that peak oil would make it all fine and dandy on the global warming front would be in for a major disappointment. It would come too late to prevent a major increase in temperature. He probably did not have enough knowledge in the field to identify the weaknesses of the report, but regardless of how much fossil fuels will actually be added, shale gas has ALREADY created a boom in the US when we need a very fast drop.

His other message was one of despair, as he could not see how to fight the entranched oil companies when countries seemed to be rushing towards any new fossil fuel prospect (again, when we already had too much "proven resources" for the climate to handle).

Hardly a resounding endorsement of the oil based society...

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 05:17:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cyrille, don't let Monbiot fool you. He his not what he wants you to believe. In the article on Maugeri, Monbiot broke much of what he has been touting the past few years on AGW, Science rigours and etc. And with that taking clear sides on this particular issue.

Vencit omnia veritas.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 08:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was Monbiot's "point", but the thrust of his post was validation of the Maugeri report. Which determines the overall sense of his communication for many readers.

He's been in the polemics business for long enough to know what he's doing.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 10:08:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"he could not see how to fight the entranched oil companies"

That's easy. A summer with three months straight of temps over 110 F (43 C) and a few million people dying as a result, and the politics will turn right around. Probably in a decade or so...

by asdf on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Washington Post: Will Erskine Bowles be our next Treasury Secretary? (Ezra Klein, August 10, 2012)
But next year is different. Next year is the year the fiscal deal has to be made. And if Bowles is Treasury Secretary, he'll be the guy making the deal. That's way better than leading a commission. It's even better than being well-liked by both sides. That's legacy material.
Obama's legacy: a repeat of Roosevelt's fiscal contraction of 1937 and recession of 1938-9.
For the Obama administration, Bowles has a number of qualifications. For one thing, Republicans adore him. Ryan has called him "my favorite Democrat." Appointing Bowles to be Treasury Secretary would ensure a smooth confirmation, and it would be interpreted as a sign of goodwill and "seriousness" both by Republicans and by the media. Coming after a bitterly partisan election and at the outset of a hugely consequential series of negotiations, that could have real appeal to the White House.
Does the fact that Ryan is now the presumptive GOP nominee for VP make a Bowles appointment more or less likely? What does it tell us that a likely treaury secretary is a favourite of the congressman who wants to abolish medicare and social security?
One reservation you often hear when playing the "who will be the next Treasury Secretary" guessing game is, "but they have no market experience." For better or worse, it's considered crucial that the Treasury Secretary understand, and be capable of working with, markets. Bowles was an investment banker before he entered politics, and he currently serves on the board of directors for both Morgan Stanley and GE. He's also personally beloved by Wall Street, where "Simpson-Bowles" has deep and fervent supporters, including many who have no real idea what's in it. Appointing Bowles would be a signal to them that Washington is getting serious.
Simson-Bowles refers to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Nuff said.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:38:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series