vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It will affect Greeks as any bankruptcy affects the bankrupt. They already started reducing their welfare policies and government hand-outs. Default would mean that the government isn't able to meet its obligations. It's not only the external obligations, it's also the internal obligations - pensions, social security benefits, healthcare, public services, military (and the Greeks are in constant confrontation with the neighboring Turkey, with several armed conflicts throughout the years) - all that will get hit. Yes, they will get affected much more, definitely.
Yes.  When the currency of a country appreciates, it benefits some groups and disadvantages others.  In particular, exporters suffer when a currency increases in value relative to other countries.  In a country like the US, where exporters are small relative to the economy, this isn't a big deal.  In germany, where exporters make up a big part of the economy, a currency increasing in value leads to large numbers of layoffs and other negative net effects to the economy.
"This is precisely the problem.  Economic contraction scared people.  So instead of continuing making promises, they started paying off the promises they had (for fear that something in the future would make it so they couldn't).  This resulted in increased economic contraction because it became more difficult to trade money for service (because people basically valued paying off debt more than the service).  The biggest issue is that neither position is wrong, yet they don't work well together.  People paying off debt is fine so long as there is sill money for services, and people paying for service is fine so long as they don't rack up more debt than they can pay.  Really, it's the transitions that always get us.  Further, these transitions are constantly repeated, which is why the economic data so often displays ""patterns""."
&gt;The EU focus on fiscal deficit is completely mistaken. They are the result of the crisis, not the cause.  The fiscal deficit was *increased* by the crisis, but there would not have been a crisis at all if nobody had been running up debts either.  It's possible to shift private deficits to public (as happens if people borrow more money than they are taking in, default on loans, cause a bank to run out of money, and the government decides to transfer the bank's losses to its taxpaying public).  However, it's still ultimately driven by running a deficit until an unsustainable amount of debt is public, via one mechanism or other.
Italy has some real problems including a debt it can't pay without higher taxes or new sources of revenue.  Looks like they are going to force the pension funds to buy their debt.  I bet more governments follow their example and grab their people's assets.    I remember when the democrats controlled the congress they held committee hearings on replacing 401k savings with a federal pension program.  If they had done it, then it would have been worth $3.5 trillion in new money to the politicians. The people would have gotten another ponzi scheme like social security.
Fiscal dominance occurs when a national debt has reached levels such that a nation is unable to pay it down with taxes and requires monetary policy support in order to stay solvent. In such a situation, it is difficult to control inflation because raising interest rates can make it impossible for the government to pay its debt.  Japan's inflation was/is extremely low, and that was/is why fiscal dominance is an advantage for them. Not sure if this is applicable for the US.
Surely there's more to the picture than this.  Breaking the borrowing limit by going to 3.5% multiple times is surely no where near as bad as going to 18% once.  On top of this there was a fundamental difference in the use of capital.  Borrowing to invest (as Germany did) has been ridiculously beneficial for them.
ok fuck it then, you'd rather discuss how to pass the CFA five times a week? enjoy!  by the way - if you're going to be so condescending with your information - at least be correct when doing so. Ireland and Greece have both taken on debt to support failing banks - whether or not they did before the crisis, and whether or not it is only a small  % of total deficit, is irrelevant to his question. this is the entire reason direct recapitalizing has been implemented with ESF - to prevent further deterioration of country balance sheets
Tulip madness was likely a result of an expansion of money supply. Dutch govt initiated a subsidy program of gold minting before the bubble, attracting a lot of money into country and expanding the money supply(despite being on gold standard). See Doug French's free book on mises.org on this.  Similar stuff happened in Spain when the american gold hauls were imported.  And it matches the idea - banking system getting money first creates illusion of more credit being available than what savers are actually putting aside so the seeds for an unsustainable bubble are sewn.
Opening up a new bank account and converting all your Euro's to USD is not a bad idea in the slightest.  It is certainly possible to do, however you most likely won't be able to get the spot rate for USD/EUR (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=USDEUR=X).  Even though you will get a worse rate, I would be much more comfortable with this than holding Euro's in the coming months.
Are you worried at all about the $5 trillion in bonds held by the FED?  It seems some of the Keynesian crowd on here isn't concerned at all or or at least pretending to have no concerns. Is there any precedent for a country canceling that amount of debt ever and kept reserve currency status?  I was just watching a documentary about WWI and Keynes said at the outset the war would have to stop after a few months because each side would run out of money. Kitchener said baloney, a war in progress would never stop and they would go into debt. Kitchener was right and the world descended into an apocalypse it's still working through. I wonder if any of the political leaders then made decisions based on his opinions. He was dead wrong about the most important event in Europe's history and maybe the world.
This would effectively be currency speculation, betting that the Pound will be stronger vs. the Euro in November (or whenever) than it is today.  This would be a profitable transaction if the exchange fees are less than the swing between the two. In my (very limited) experience, exchange fees are going to be at least a few percent, and she's going to have to do the exchange twice if she wants to turn current Euros into Pounds and back into Euros later; that's at least a 6% hit.   I'd recommend against this.  While it's quite plausible for the two currencies to move more than 6% against each other in that time, it's also quite possible for them to move the other way, causing her a large loss.   The unfortunate thing about large, heavily traded things like GBP/EUR is that you're very unlikely to have some information that the big traders don't.  While lots of people think that the pound is going to become stronger, just as many people think that the Euro is going to be stronger.  These two camps are constantly bidding against each other, resulting in the 1.15 Pounds/Euro exchange rate as of this writing.  The current price and current direction that the line is moving in no way tells you what it's going to do next.
"Just a thought exercise - finance is so heavily dependent on rule of law and political stability that there is a possibility that none of the ME countries will be the largest Islamic financial centers in the long run. If I was a HNW investor or institution, I'd be very worried about the risk inherent in any number of regional developments - Saudi Arabia budget deficits, ongoing Syria conflict, Qatar-SA conflict, potential civil unrest or civil war, oil prices, capital controls, etc. Perhaps Dubai may be competitive, but would be severely affected by regional unrest, and like the quote, ""bull markets are ridden up in escalators, bear markets are ridden down in elevators"", instability could manifest very quickly causing capital to flee. Nothing motivates action like the risk of losing 100% of your capital.  European banking centers will likely start providing more and more Islamic finance services, especially given the rapidly changing demographics of many EU countries.   Other possibilities for growth include offshore centers such as Mauritius (closer to ME and huge Muslim populations in India and Pakistan) and Singapore, which is at the center of the very large and growing Southeast Asia Muslim region (growing population and incomes).   Specific to finance, Malaysia and Indonesia have their own issues with capital mobility, currency stability, political outlook, etc., they just have not proven to be very good places to store capital over any long period of time in recent history. Malaysia has an onshore ""offshore"" center that is meant to build a financial industry, but I'd be worried about the overall situation there, (the 1MDB scandal is just another example of serious governance issues).  Edit: one possible area for growth - Brunei. The government there knows that they will run out of oil in XX years, they've been looking to build domestic industries, financial services is probably one of their only options (small Muslim country, small population, high concentration of wealth, etc)"
Just like Switzerland lost its banking privileges by not being in the EU, huh?   The truth is none of us really know what's going to happen so we all need to stop throwing out opinions as fact.  London has an already established stable banking climate and the cost and effort of relocating to other places might prove to be too high as opposed to just working something out between the Brits and the Europeans. We just don't know yet.
"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote ""5,000"" than it is to denote ""50.00"". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros."
"A currency devaluation isn't a hard default, please don't confuse the two. Although most times a sizable devaluation does lead to default and usually most successful defaults are accompanied by a devaluation.   Here is an [article](http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/how-the-necessary-greek-devaluation-and-default-should-and-hopefully-would-happen/).   &gt;There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts.  I'm sure Greece would love to do that if they could. You really think Greece with a GDP to Debt ratio of 164% (as of 2011) is going to be able to pay back it's debts in a orderly fashion? Come on. Austerity is only going to result in recession/stagnation and at best slower growth and since they are getting loans from the IMF/EU - they are taking on even more debt! So they are being put into a position of no economic growth while expanding their debt burden - yeah that's really sustainable! ;).   &gt;AFTER the ""evil capitalists"" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve  Just because I think the most viable option for Greece is a currency devaluation does not make me a ""evil capitalist""."
It is basically the same situation what US was when the crash happened. People took on debt without the means to pay, even with awful credit records. But the problem isn't the debt people take on themselves, but with the limited disposable income they have how efficiently can their debts be serviced. And how do banks who lend out money can recover their money. When banks lend money to all and sundry, they have to take care of defaults and that is when financial wizardry comes into play. In US people have the option to default on their debt and refinance it, so banks assumed default and tried to hedge their risks. If this is an option in Australia, be ready for a crash else not to worry about much. If banks continue lending expect higher inflation rates, higher interest rates and maybe a downgrade of bonds issued by the Australian government. Higher import costs and a boom in exports because of devalued Australian dollar.
"I'd like to see a credible source for ""the highest"", but it's certainly fairly high. Household debt could be broadly categorized as debt for housing and debt for consumption. Housing prices seem very high compared to equivalent rental income.  This is generating a great deal of debt.  Keynes(?) said that ""if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.""  Just when it will stop, and whether it will stop suddenly or gradually is a matter of great interest.  Obviously there are huge vested interests, including the large fraction of the population who already own property and do not wish to see it fall.  Nobody really knows; my guess would be on a very-long-term plateau in nominal prices and decline in real prices. The Australian stock market is unlike the US: since it's a small country, a lot of the big companies are export-driven, either by directly exporting physical goods (miners, agriculture) or by FDI (property trusts, banks).  So a local recession will hurt the stock market, but not across the board.  A decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be very good news for some of these companies. Debt for consumption I think is the smaller fraction.  Arguably it's driven by a wealth effect of Australia having had a reasonably good crisis with low unemployment and increasing international purchasing power.  If this tops out, you'd expect to see reduced earnings for consumer discretionary companies."
But the even larger risk is the potential loss of the dollar’s “reserve currency” status — a key support of the world economy for the last four decades. It started with the 1973 Saudi commitment to accept only US dollars as payment for oil, followed by OPEC’s 1975 agreement to trade only in dollars. Trading of other commodities came to be priced in dollars, reinforcing the dollar’s “reserve” status. As a result, central banks worldwide have held onto large reserves of dollars to facilitate trade. That, in turn, has enabled the US to print much larger amounts of its currency, with seemingly little inflationary consequences. It’s also made it easier for Americans to import more than they export, to consume more than they produce, and to spend more than they earn. But all that is changing rapidly. A number of countries are abandoning the dollar for the Chinese yuan. Last December, Japan and China agreed to trade in yen and yuan. In January, the 10 nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations finalized a non-dollar credit agreement equivalent to $240 billion, strengthening their economies’ links with China, Japan and South Korea. That same month, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao signed a currency-swap agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which holds 7 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Iran has agreed to accept rubles and yuan in trade with Russia and China, and now is trading oil with India in rupees and gold. In late March, the China Development Bank agreed with its counterparts in Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa to eschew dollar lending and extend credit to each other in their own respective currencies. With global demand for dollars falling, central banks around the world will inevitably reduce their dollar reserves. That selloff further weakens the dollar against other currencies and in turn drives up inflation. All this comes as US federal debt is soaring, adding to concerns about the future value of that debt and of the dollar. It’s suddenly much easier to imagine a dollar collapse — which would be a highly unexpected occurrence, known as a “black swan” event. This would precipitate unprecedented disruption, because the dollar remains the world’s most important currency. Let’s hope we can avert a global crisis triggered by reckless US government spending.
I'm worried that it's, as so many observers or commentators seem to be doing with these crises, pre-empting events. I do wish news reporters would stick to reporting the news, rather than panicking people by putting forward their view that something is going to happen, such as Greece exiting the euro and adopting a new currency.  As with these things, expectations are key, and this is by no means helping.
Dithering in the dark Quantifying the effect of political uncertainty on the global economy EUROPE teeters at the edge of an economic abyss, its fate in the hands of political leaders at odds over how to solve the continent’s twin debt and bank crises. America may be pushed over a “fiscal cliff” at the end of the year by political dysfunction. And even China, although unlikely to take a deep dive, is hostage to the will and ability of its government to stimulate growth. More than at any point in recent history, the global economy’s fate is tied to the capriciousness of policymakers. How much does such uncertainty cost? Anecdotal evidence suggests that it costs a lot. Customers of Cisco Systems, the world’s biggest maker of internet gear, are taking longer to make decisions, according to John Chambers, the company’s boss. Their orders tend to be smaller than before, and to require more in-house approvals. They say they are planning to buy more stuff later this year, reported Mr Chambers recently, but “then in the very next breath they say it depends on what happens on a global and macro scale.”In Europe firms must reckon not only with recession but also with the risk that their investments may be redenominated in a different currency or locked in by capital controls. Robert Bergqvist of SEB, a Swedish bank, says that several Swedish corporate customers have put investment projects on hold because they don’t know how the euro crisis will unfold. If America falls over the “fiscal cliff”, it would suffer a fiscal squeeze of 5% of GDP, easily enough to push the economy into recession. Last summer, as America’s government came perilously close to exhausting its legal authority to borrow, Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress could not resolve their fiscal differences. Instead, they kicked the can down the road, agreeing on huge automatic spending cuts that would start on January 2nd, just as all of George Bush’s tax cuts are due to expire, along with a separate temporary payroll tax cut. No deal to avoid this double whammy is likely before the November 6th election. So any firm that sells to the federal government is left in limbo.
Have seen analysis that at least one state won't be able to repay their obligations using reasonable assumptions, I'm sure it applies to more.  A lot of greed went into securitizing those payments the way they did.
Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.
&gt; A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money -- today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.
&gt;we cannot sustain deficit spending forever. Our government has been spending money it doesn't have for decades.   Is the government, the issuer of the dollar, going to run out of dollars? *Can* it run out of dollars?  It certainly can run *into* inflation but that has an entirely different set of implications for how sustainability is defined.
"Fake News  there is no deficit, there is just a magnificent, beautiful, great gap between what the government earns and what it spends and by cutting taxes on the rich and adding a hidden vat we will make the poor cover the gap.  See . .no Gap  . .""Fake News"""
&gt; budget would reduce the deficit by $160 billion, while increasing the GDP  Sounds great until you learn that $160 billion is only 11% of [the $1400 billion the government borrowed in 2016](http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_deficit) and the US GDP is only going up because the deficit isn't shrinking as quickly as it would under current spending levels.
"&gt;Staggering levels of national debt that is only growing due to continued budget deficits. As it stands now, the national debt stands at over 100% of annual GDP, and that figure is only growing as the deficit remains huge.  Debt as a percentage of GDP is a useless metric. Debt can be paid off over decades while GDP is at one point in time. Japan isn't too worried about their debt.   &gt;Governments from municipal to states in financial disarray.  It's been like this for centuries. It's a short term problem that eventually gets resolved with a stronger economy.   &gt;Crumbling infrastructure after decades of insufficient funding and maintenance throughout the country.  ""Crumbling"" gets thrown out a lot. Just because we don't build high speed trains that we cannot afford doesn't mean our infrastructure is crumbling. We have the best freight railroad network in the world, the best highway system in the world, and cities all over the country are heavily investing in mass transit.   &gt;A population grown completely accustomed to a resource-intensive, globalized lifestyle relative to that enjoyed by almost any other country on Earth.  So?   &gt;And finally, the combination of the game of economic dominoes unfolding in Europe and a slowing Chinese economy.  Again, Europe is a temporary problem. Greece, Spain, Italy, etc are all in hell right now but they are offset but the gains made by Germany and the Netherlands."