G20: Obama on the back foot

So even if the Chinese allow some appreciation of their currency is that really going to relieve the USA of its economic woes?
Years of run down of their (and UK's) manufacturing base cannot be overcome in months and anyway depreciation worsens the terms of trade not to mention giving a good push to domestic inflation. It is the religion of monetarism and the mythology of 'free trade' (including financial services) that is the root of their problems. A trade war trade is not only inevitable but desirable.

Paul Krugman blog 31 December 2009: "For something I’m working on: we know that China is pursuing a mercantilist policy: keeping the renminbi weak through a combination of capital controls and intervention, leading to trade surpluses and capital exports in a country that might well be a natural capital importer. We also know, or should know, that this amounts to a beggar-thy-neighbor policy — or, more accurately, a beggar-everyone but yourself policy — when the world’s major economies are in a liquidity trap.
But how big is the impact? Here’s a quick back-of-the-envelope assessment.
Start with the Chinese surplus. It has been temporarily depressed by the world trade collapse, but seems to be on the rise again. Blanchard and Milesi-Ferretti, at the IMF but speaking for themselves, project a Chinese current account surplus for 2010-2014 of 0.9 percent of gross world product.
You can think of this as a negative shock to rest-of-world net exports. (Technically, that’s not quite correct — because the shock depresses res-of-world GDP and hence rest-of-world imports from China, the realized trade surplus is smaller than the shock. But that’s a small correction.)
In turn, this negative shock is like a negative shock to government purchases of goods and services. So it should have a similar multiplier. Multiplier estimates are all over the place, but tend to cluster around 1.5. So we’re looking at a negative impact on gross world product of around 1.4 percent. Not huge — China isn’t the principal obstacle to recovery — but significant.
And, if we think of the United States as bearing a proportionate share, and also use the rule of thumb that one point of GDP = 1 million jobs, we’re looking at 1.4 million U.S. jobs lost due to Chinese mercantilism."

One-term banker puppet.

There is no recovery in America and there will not be until the debt is de-leveraged. The dollar is doomed.

Realistically, the only way the countries can deal with the vast private debts of the banks, that they stupidly converted into sovereign debt, is to engineer a steady depreciation of the value of their currencise. Cuts in public expenditure will not work, because they weaken the economy and make it more difficult to generate the surpluses needed to pay down the debt. In the case of the Eurozone countries it is necessary to think in terms of pooling the debts.

The change in atmosphere over the last year is probably because this reality has been accepted by most G20 leaders, although for obvious reasons they are not saying so. President Obama has accepted that more QE is necessary, and even in the UK the Governor of the Bank of England has admitted that inflation will continue to be over target. He claims that we will be back on target in the medium term, but has he not been saying this for a couple of years already.

In fact, controlled inflation is the best solution. Those siting on large liquid assets will be encouraged to spend before their assets lose their value and help economic recovery, and those with large debts, including the government, will see the real value of those debts decline. Entrepreneurs will realise that borrowing at virtually zero real interest rates and investing in profitable ventures, is an easy way to make a fortune.

Re: Watriler

All the things that you are in favour of, were in existence in the Soviet Union. They had a huge manufacturing base, did not participate in 'free trade' and did not believe in 'monetarism. What was the result? They were poor, everything was in short supply, including bread, and there was no freedom.

So the economic climate is looking stronger, say who. In every report and briefing I have read over the last two or so weeks there have been so many caveats that it made them worthless.

Lets face it the US's economy is is not quite terminal but it is as near as it can be without the last rights being administered.

The Middle East is suffering from poor investments and is only afloat due to the oil that is still pumping through its economic veins.

China is in somewhat of a predicament, for on the one hand they need growth so they need a vibrant global economy however on the other they already hold so much US debt they must be feeling exposed if the Dollar slides.

And the EU, well the EU and the Euro are a basket case. Firstly you have the PIIGS who are collectively sliding towards the edge and are dragging the rest along with them. So like a mountain climber, do you die trying to hang on to your comrades or do you cut them loose and save yourself. Also the EU's desire to continue to expand can only expose them further due to the nations who they are going to invite to be members.

So where are the "Green Shoots" that going to become the drivers for the recovery of the global economy or is that just going to be further credit or to put it another way National Debt?

As the BBC reports " Spain's tepid economic growth has ground to a halt with official figures showing the economy did not expand between July and September compared with the previous three months." This does not bowed well for them and the other PIIGS. For these were the big months for Spain's tourist industry that they were hoping was going to kick start their recovery.

1. At 10:15am on 11 Nov 2010, watriler wrote:
So even if the Chinese allow some appreciation of their currency is that really going to relieve the USA of its economic woes?

Rhetorical question? I believe that even if the Chinese did allow the yuan to appreciate there would be very little change in the fundamental problem of grotesque over-dependence on personal debt-driven consumption pursued by Western economies. From my perspective, we haven't even started to address the real issues yet so we're looking at change in maybe 10-20 years from now (after all the boomers have finally retired and things have really 'bottomed out'). I try to never underestimate our capacity to procrastinate. That way I'm not disappointed or disillusioned.

3. At 10:44am on 11 Nov 2010, truths33k3r wrote:
The dollar is doomed.

Yeah. Ironic isn't it. Now I wonder who wants to be the new Reserve Currency? Anyone put their hand up for that one? Thought not.

6. At 11:39am on 11 Nov 2010, Chris London wrote:

....they (China) already hold so much US debt they must be feeling exposed if the Dollar slides.

If? We've just had another $600bn pumped into......well....anyway gold hit a record high, oil's heading for $89/barrel, and food's set for a bull run.

As for the Euro I'm giving it til mid-2011 before the bandaids split. Call me pessimistic if you like, but at least that way I won't be surprised if it happens and if it doesn't, it's a welcome bonus.

[quote]
In fact, controlled inflation is the best solution. Those siting on large liquid assets will be encouraged to spend before their assets lose their value and help economic recovery, and those with large debts, including the government, will see the real value of those debts decline.
[/quote]

But we're also seeing wage deflation accelerating for most people because they're afraid of losing their jobs and therefore willing to accept lower wages. Therefore the situation for private sector debt would worsen, private sector defaults would increase and the banks will need more handouts from governments. Governments are taking too many risks without understanding the side effects. Those with liquid assets have been buying up value stores for years now and that will just continue. Combining the inflation option with increasing wealth inequalities will not do anything to fix economic fundamentals. The inflation route would only work with wage inflation for those in debt. We need strategic investment but it's clearly not going to happen.

#6 Chris London,

"So the economic climate is looking stronger, say who. In every report and briefing I have read over the last two or so weeks there have been so many caveats that it made them worthless."

I have to agree with you. That is why nothing at the G20 will have any true value. That is why you have the comments of Jim O'Neill. That is why we are now experiencing a media campaign talking up any short term sign of recovery whilst damming any talk of protectionism.

Seriously, did they expect President Obama to come work miracles. The problem that emerged in the U.S. was because of overspending. Right now if the Chinese' dollar is posing a threat to U.S. exports and competitiveness, then something should be done. If Finance Minister of Brazil and Chancellor in Germany want to criticize the last thing for President Obama to do is to put in place some corrective measures. Try to make your exports more competitive, invest some more in technology and machinery and impose tariffs on goods that are posing threats to U.S.' exports.Right now all governments should find ways to reduce debt figures,increase export levels, make exports more competitive and create jobs in all sectors. Most of all prevent overspending.

"That is quite a turnaround. Especially when you consider that the US is one of the handful of countries in the G20 that does not fix its national currency, or directly intervene in the markets to change its value."
ha ha ha, is that a joke, or do you think QE not change its value?

The dollar has fallen against most currencies since the summer. But it is still stronger against the pound and the euro than it was at the start of the year. And last week's move by the Fed did not produce a major slide: in fact, thanks to the latest round of worries about eurozone debt, against the euro, the dollar has gone slightly up.

.......
Stephanie, but what about the price of GOLD. If the dollar was strong the price would be dropping.

5. At 11:26am on 11 Nov 2010, ingeniousAlwaysRight wrote:
Re: Watriler

"They were poor, everything was in short supply, including bread, and there was no freedom."

Sounds like us in 2012, what with commodity prices rising, people being unable to afford anything, and a government in the pockets of the bankers.

This constant bashing of export oriented economies by the US is getting on my nerves. Equating export orientation with lack of domestic demand is just a way of muddling up the discussion. I find it extremely pervert that the US is printing money and lecturing countries like Germany to reign in their export. So the Chinese, please do not buy BMWs, do the social work and buy the Chevrolet instead, even if you know its trash. Laughable.

I guess the regular anti Euro brigade predicting the demise of the Euro every second day has nothing to say about this wonderful economics of printing money! Nor the loud colleagues from the US who sees only red in Europe! Pity

Surely it is now time to fully reflect on the sheer impossibility of the concept of eternal growth. 5% growth per year equates to a growth relative to today of 131 times over a hundred year period. We are running out of resources in every area that you care to consider. Does anyone think that this growth is achievable? Could anyone qualified as an economist give their views on this? Stephanie?

The lesson is clear. The best way to buy your way out of economic problems is to buy an exporting, manufacturing industry. The second best way is mineral resources.

So dear Mr President and everyone else, go print some money and buy China or Germany and fit ti in the Great Lakes. Or buy Canada or Australia and fit them in the Gulf of Mexico.

Of course, if we'd maintained manufacturing industries, instead of listening to the guys in smart suits who said trade paper, we wouldn't have the problem.

Most of the EU and Britain are looking at austerity measures to cut back as they have lived beyond their means, borrowed money to spend without investing it in the future.
I do not see any such measures coming out of the US. How can they arrogantly believe they can just print more money and carry on living the same lifestyle without sacrificing something themselves and expect others to bail them out.
The cost of gasoline is still riduclously low compared to Europe. I think there is plenty of room to increase taxes there to fund investment in jobs whilst still have lower $/gal than EU. Don't forget that most of the $ spent on oil goes straight to oil exporting countries and that is adding to the trade deficit.
Also the US military budget is vast, $700 Billion at the last count. I'm sure the US could take a leaf out of UK book and cut the number of planes on aircraft carriers.
As BP has recently demonstrated, when you make a cock up, you will have to pay for it. They have now had to sell off many assets to pay for their mistake. I do not see BP going to the copier room and printing funny money!

#17

Buy mineral resources?

That's why the S Koreans bought Dana Petroleum and that numpty Vince Cable let them. It's also why the Chinese are investing in new oil/gas developments in Africa and elsewhere. Western oil/gas companies should be prevented from takeover by any state owned company.

firstly: if you have ever been around American money people you will know that they will do what they want to do, when they want to do it and how they want to do it! It may well be that some of the rest of the world have said enough is enough. America will only do what it thinks is best for them.

Secondly: Who says we need growth? Growth in what? Just think for a second, who is actully telling us that we need growth - money establishments! it is a self perpetual circle. It will take guts to get off the roundabout.

Thirdly: Why not fix the pound against another currancy? Imho the euro is the best because it is the closest. This would not only strength both but would go someway to stop the city sh**ing on it's own?!

Finally: How can have 'i'll do right by you if you do right by me' when it is open to speculators - sorry I am repeating my second point again.

just simple thoughts (K.I.S.S)

18. At 2:49pm on 11 Nov 2010, Corrado Blaise wrote:
I do not see any such measures coming out of the US. How can they arrogantly believe they can just print more money and carry on living the same lifestyle without sacrificing something themselves and expect others to bail them out.

They are not printing money. They are swapping bonds for cash or, depending how liquid you think bonds are, they are swapping cash for cash.
Any resulting inflation will only result if the cash gets spent and as bigger reserves don't increase lending which comes from the desire or need to borrow, don't fret so.
The Fed have also confirmed that they will increase reserve requirements if the need arise.
China and Germany have their own reason for not liking what the yanks are up to but if you will run up export surpluses and expect the US to bail you out every time you need to wake up and start sniffing the cocoa.

20 common_man_123

We need growth because without it we will not reduce unemployment and poverty - the two will always go hand-in-hand.

The last thing we should do is to peg our currency. Doing so ties the hands of government to stimulate the economy as it forces the main focus of policy onto maintaining that peg - this is why the Bretton Woods agreement was abandoned in the first place back in '71.

Kind Regards

You cant blame US for doing this rightly or wrongly as they want to put Americans back to work.

The idea that you are going to tell the unemployed, don't worry you'll get a job with next 5 to 10 years once we paid of our debts and our economy has been rebalanced is really stupid and is just asking for trouble ie mass social unrest .

The rebalancing must start now with or without the co-operation other net exporting countries. With regards to them complaining about it they are about as responsible for this economic mess as the countries who borrowed to much. The idea they can be immune from the painful solution to it is just despicable.

20. At 3:26pm on 11 Nov 2010, common_man_123 wrote:
Thirdly: Why not fix the pound against another currancy? Imho the euro is the best because it is the closest

Because of whats happening in Ireland.

"Bizarrely, now it's the US that is on the defensive for manipulating its currency."

I am surprised that you are still writing such stuff Stephanie, nearly everybody else knows that it is one of the objectives of all the US monetary easing.I guess it goes with your statement on the US that bond yields fell after the FOMC meeting, a statement which rather contrasts with the situation of the US long bond....

Hooray for Jim O'Neill's breath of realism. It really is time the US and Europe got used to the idea that US hegemony is coming to its natural end. All empires die some time, and the US's time has has come. Also, not all countries must have continuous growth.

To those who say to Jim O'Neill "so where is this 'growth' you're talking about?", you weren't listening (and maybe Justin was just too eager to talk over Jim). Not only the BRIC countries but several other Asian and S American countries are doing quite well, thank you.

The idea that free trade and free markets are the best ways to achieve continuing economic growth makes sense only of you accept a certain view of history - ie the western (ie US) view. Maybe it's time to review the theory? As Keynes wrote (in his General Theory) " "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling the frenzy of some academic scribbler of a few years back'". Are all of those in Korea really sane, or just unwilling to accept that the (western) king has no clothes on???

I don't see any sign of greed being mentioned in this string.

#21 Morpheus

Help me here. I know they are buying bonds (cash for cash?) but if the money is not going to be spent or get into the real economy - so risking inflation - what good will it do?

Presumably, the game is not to stimulate the economy at all - but to bolster ther reserves of "failing?" banks and/or to allow them to buy more bonds from a failing government.

Is there more to this?

Only problem with the USA's QE is that it will NOT get people back to work all that it will do is infalte ecnomic bubbles in the stockmarket and property areas.

REAL valuable QE has to be directed to creating jobs and building infrastructure - economists should know this from the 1930s.

The two fools from Harvard - Ben and Merv haven't a clue!

28. At 4:49pm on 11 Nov 2010, tFoth wrote:
#21 Morpheus
Help me here. I know they are buying bonds (cash for cash?) but if the money is not going to be spent or get into the real economy - so risking inflation - what good will it do?

Not much in my view. By judicious bond buying they think they can bring down the interest rates on longer term bonds. These are the investment rates at which companies tend to borrow at to invest. So if they are cheaper they figure more investment will take place. Investment is part of GDP so in theory again it should increase output and jobs

Trouble is the thinking is all supply-side you know "If we build it, they will come". I say again people and businesses are deleveraging for the time being and this won't change that in my view. It may help a bit though.

24. At 4:07pm on 11 Nov 2010, Morpheus wrote:
"China and Germany have their own reason for not liking what the yanks are up to but if you will run up export surpluses and expect the US to bail you out every time you need to wake up and start sniffing the cocoa."
I'm sure the US has profited with huge export surpluses from their ill gotten gains in the last hundred years or so. It's just now that the scales are being tipped to the other side they are bitching about how unfair it is.
Can you explain how Germany, with a well paid work force has also been able to run up a trade surplus if currency was an issue?
Is it because they have planned ahead and looked after their industries?
Is it because they produce things that other countries want?
Is it because they don't put money into their military and go warmongering any more?
If Germany did not have to subsidise the EU then I'm sure they would be even closer, if not exceed China in world trade.
Also, the Chinese did not hold a gun to the head to the likes of Apple, Dell, HP, Intel etc to open factories in China. They went there because the shareholders demanded bigger profits and the consumers wanted cheaper products. All searching for a quick buck and a short term consumer fix.

28 tFoth,
"Help me here. I know they are buying bonds (cash for cash?) but if the money is not going to be spent or get into the real economy - so risking inflation - ...."

Inflation is created at the point-of-sale, so it's the other way round - if money is being saved rather than spent in the real economy, then it will not contribute to inflation. If this money ever gets spent at sometime, it is unlikely to be spent all at once in the real economy, and raising taxes can control excessive inflation.

Kind Regards
Charlie

22 Charles Jurcich

We need growth because without it we will not reduce unemployment and poverty - the two will always go hand-in-hand

Why?

If you consider the 80/20 rule, then the top 20% will get 80% of the benifits from growth and the bottom 80%, 20%. Now if you use this rule again on the bottom 80% and so on, you can see why the rich get richer etc.

Governments can not ever stimulate economies this is a falacy and why the last 13 years have failed. It can stimulate the environment to help it but thats about it.

lets say I sell goods into europe and get paid quite rightly in euro's. When I quote for the work/price of goods, I have to build in what may happen to a floating pound, the money I have to pay to bankers to move the money, the money I have to pay bankers to convert it and the money I have to pay two banks one to take it out and the other to put it in. It would be more cost effective for some one to travel backwards and forwards with a draft. And I can budget i.e. know how many people I can employ. And don't forget if I buy parts fom europe the above happens twice.

The current system is less effective then pre 71 at reducing unenployment and poverty, and less stable. You have to have stability inorder to build. We have not got stability so how can we build and our current system cannot and will never provide the stability needed. Boom and bust seems apt at this point, with each increasing in magnatude with every cycle, there is only one winner in boom and bust (and war) - money establishments.

Kindest Regards

A common man

'When I discussed these issues on Today this morning Jim O'Neill, Goldman Sachs' economic supremo, said - with some justice - that I was focussing excessively on the problems of the West. You can listen to what we said and decide for yourself.'

..................

Well does it not it depend on what is meant by 'protectionism'?

There are many forms of protectionsism but if Jim O'Neil cannot see or will not admit that the UK and Britain are losing out because our economies have been and still are 'too open' (much to the profitability of Goldman Sachs, no doubt) and our politicians have been too 'protectionist' of free market policies and dogma ... then what Stephanies Flanders is saying makes much more sense to me than Mr O'Neill's stating of the blooming obvious i.e. Developing nations in Asia have a different prespective to that of the west.

Personally, I prefer the British perspective on Chinese 'protectionism', believe it or not, Mr O'Neil!

David Cameron's statement about stopping 'protectionism' in its tracks when most of the developed world know that China and other countries are heavily 'protectionist' by e.g. their language, culture, politics, structure or by overt acts of 'protectionism' is also 'highly questionable'.

It looks like discussions about fair trade based on considerations such as e.g. human rights, currency exchange etc would be more meaningful than discussing 'protectionism' - when the phrase is ill-defined and quite nefariously vague and as misused by all and sundry..

The fact is that production costs are higher in the US and UK than in e.g. China ... and the question should be about changes in global and national living standards/production costs and barriers to entry etc for western exporters in China.

Only import tariffs can help British manufacturing businesses recover/do better ... IN THE SHORT - MEDIUM TERM time horizon, due to the onslaught of cheaper foreign imports from countries such as China ... at some stage, western policy makers will have to get on and apply tariffs in the interests of 'fair trade'.

Within a few years the Chinese and others will simply buy out much of what they require/is available globally and only trade tariff sanctions will make any real difference in assisting the UK 'rebalance our economy'.

The UK and the USA cannot continie with massive unemployment due to massive differences in currency conditions and some countries tolerating massive poverty and living conditions that are much lower than western standards i.e keeping their manufacturing costs at extremely low levels relative to the UK and USA.

There is no easy solution to Britain's balance of payments dilemna because only import tariffs on certain cheap foreign goods can resolve the massive obstacles that now face Britain in terms of global trade. David Cameron must surely realise, at some point (and I do not like criticising him because I think that he is an excellent Prime Minister) that there is no market solution to Britain's difficulty ... we cannot export our way out of difficulty in the UK, IN THE SHORT-MEDIUM TERM ... because of ... 'protectionism' in some if not all of the preferred markets.

Austerity is not a choice for the UK ... it is being forced on us all by the changes in world order. The chinese leader has said, in effect ... each country must look after itself ... i.e. the devil will take the hindmost.

33 common_man_123
"If you consider the 80/20 rule, then the top 20% will get 80% of the benifits from growth and the bottom 80%, 20%. Now if you use this rule again on the bottom 80% and so on, you can see why the rich get richer etc.

Governments can not ever stimulate economies this is a falacy and why the last 13 years have failed. It can stimulate the environment to help it but thats about it."

I think the difference in our arguments about 'growth' are because I am making a narrow technical point, whereas you are making a wider philosophical point. My meaning is that as a matter of accounting, when a person is employed, someone is 'purchasing' someone else labour. Inevitably purchasing labour (like purchasing anything) will always show up as increasing GDP, everything else being equal. I make this point because the context of macro-economists' 'call for growth' is usually about reducing unemployment, not, say, increasing profits or market-share as it is with individual companies (this being micro-economics).

As for your second point, I agree that before the oil crisis things worked quite well, but it fell apart due to this supply-shock (the oil crisis). This in turn revealed that in difficult times the existing system did not give policy-makers room to both maintain full employment, and control inflation. Abandoning Bretton Woods provided that space. Shortly after this though, the lessons were forgotton as countries started to 'informally' control their exchange rates at the expense of employment, and unemployment began to increase. Until recently we have had an artificially high value for the £, and this is part of what is wrong.

Kind Regards

#31 Corrado Blaise

"They went there because the shareholders demanded bigger profits and the consumers wanted cheaper products."

Please substantiate the second part of this claim. I don't seem to remember consumers protesting about prices. You cannot blame consumers for taking advantage of lower prices but you cannot blame them for demanding driving globalisation and its consequential long term damage.

Question to Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke:
Instead of pointing a finger @ China, Germany and anybody else that exports its goods to your over-consuming country, why don't you try to make all companies return manufacturing back to the USA? Protectionist or not, if you want to revive your factory output, ergo create jobs, then you have to provide for the environment for this to happen. Or does "create jobs" in your language mean "opening vacancies behind office desks"? If so then barking at China, Germany and Japan is hypocritical !!
The money that you are printing MUST stay in the States but how can you stop it fm flowing to more profitable areas outside?
A tip - manufacturing an iPhone in China costs $6.90. How much does it sell in US? How much does it sell in Germany? Do you know that Apple sets a price of $1200 in some countries? What is that - free trade or greed?
Now, take notes:
China is what it is because of you - because YOUR Bill Gates, YOUR Steve Jobs and YOUR Warren Buffet poured money, technology and resource there. China is a communist country and they do not obey.Your stance "We will do what we want" will not work that much and for much longer.Period.
Create a proper environment for reviving your manufacturing capacity. That means that you will have to make Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and all the other Buffets accept to live with less.
And if the iPhones are manufactured in USA, they still will be sold to a huge success
Thus Jobs will create jobs

31. At 5:30pm on 11 Nov 2010, Corrado Blaise
Can you explain how Germany, with a well paid work force has also been able to run up a trade surplus if currency was an issue?
_______________________________________________________________
They run a trade surpus because they are good at making things and export more than they import. They benefit from a weaker currency becuase their currency is the same as Greece, Ireland,Spain & Portugal.


If Germany did not have to subsidise the EU then I'm sure they would be even closer, if not exceed China in world trade.
_________________________________________________________________

Not unless they too manipulated the Mark as they are effectively doing at the moment with the Euro. That is why the Euro will disappear soon.

I care about Ireland and they should leave the Euro immediately but I doubt Germany and France will allow this in the short term for the reasons stated so they will be bailed out.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

36. At 11:59pm on 11 Nov 2010, foredeckdave wrote:
"Please substantiate the second part of this claim. I don't seem to remember consumers protesting about prices. You cannot blame consumers for taking advantage of lower prices but you cannot blame them for demanding driving globalisation and its consequential long term damage."
The consumer didnt literally protest, he used his feet and went to the shop with the lowest price.
The consumer got lower prices for goods by shopping around the different retailers to get the best price. To keep market share the retailers reduce their prices, offered discounts. The retailers then maintained their profit margins using their purchasing power to demand lower wholesale prices from the manufacturer. The manufacturer retained his profit margins by going to low cost manufacturing countries.

38. At 06:19am on 12 Nov 2010, Morpheus wrote:
"I care about Ireland and they should leave the Euro immediately but I doubt Germany and France will allow this in the short term for the reasons stated so they will be bailed out."
I believe Ireland had massive EU grants to help build new high tech industries like semiconductors, biotech, and pharmaceuticals, things that the consumers want.
With this amount of assistance and a "weak Euro...ref #38" how has Ireland got itself in this mess?

Property prices, developers. Crooked bankers, politicians. The usual.

From Max Keiser:

"Crash JP Morgan buy silver"

An ounce of silver each to destroy one of the big Beast banks and bring sanity back to the markets................