Jump to content

Talk:Euro area crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.185.146.24 (talk) at 22:03, 24 June 2011 (PIIGGS?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, the information there is also quite out of date. - SimonP (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll remove it then. --spitzl (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.