4 ms·

Yeah...funny thing is blaming the EU. The banks were lending out the money on what turned out to be bad assets, not sure there's any cure for that where deposi

by qdog 14y ago

Yeah...funny thing is blaming the EU. The banks were lending out the money on what turned out to be bad assets, not sure there's any cure for that where deposits don't get wrecked. Iceland before, Cyprus now, not sure what they think will happen to Carribean banks in the long run. Bitcoin might be an ok solution for people who don't care about earning interest, but if you still want the interest you have to deal with a lending institution.

natermer 14y ago
Most banks have 'negative interest'. Not only because the interest rates they offer for savings and checking accounts no where near is able to keep up with real inflation (which means you lose money by saving, from the get-go), but they charge as many service fees as they feel they can get away with.
cinquemb 14y ago
even funnier thing is thinking that these haircuts are gonna do much… the template according to troika is to do more of the same :D granted the only future i see in bitcoins is in actual business transactions and not earnings interests,which with typical fiat are subject to the whims of ZIRP and central m̶a̶n̶i̶p̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ planning :D (which [number of business transactions with bitcoins for goods or services] has gone up these couple of years if you look beyond the hype) and the fact that it would be pretty hard for .gov reallocate funds in a .dat :P
- qdog 14y ago
  You would lend out your bitcoins at interest, just like you do with any other currency. Unless you want to be a direct lender, you'd still use a bank. Maybe the EU's policies led to the propagation of all the bad assets, but Cypriot banks were offering a higher interest to attract deposits. You can't get that higher interest without investing in somewhat riskier assets. Even assuming the EU policy is terrible (I am no expert on the EU and want no part of that argument, btw), the problem with the Cyprus banks was poor controls and risk management, which was by design to attract deposits. Pretty simple, unless you had a very good reason (tax avoidance, money laundering, interest rate), parking money in the Cyprus banking system was a very bad idea. So either the person with 700k was avoiding taxes, laundering money, enjoying a higher than normal interest rate, or being foolish with their money. I have no idea which it was, but if I personally had to oversee such a sum, I wouldn't be parking it in such a risky place.
  - cinquemb 14y ago
    Lending is one thing, storing your wealth in a currency under ZIRP is another. I'm lucky that I at least get dividends on my savings being with a local credit union. And only half of their banking system consisted of foreign deposits (not to mention most of those deposits were able to leave the country via loopholes). Where does that leave the individuals and small business native to cyprus? Is it such a horrid idea of storing your money in your own country? And since the ECB is calling cyprus the template, where does this leave the next country that needs to be bailed out (which will happen again[1 bailout in 2010,1 bailout in 2011, 2 bailouts in 2012, 1 so far in 2013; this is starting to look like Fibonacci's work :P]) will banking in portugal, italy, ireland, greece, and spain be a very bad idea for people who live there, or are they all banking in their home country for tax avoidance,money laundering and for ZIRP to negative interest rates on their savings?
    - qdog 14y ago
      If you ever read The Wealth of Nations, it has a long history of the value of silver(commonly used for money at the time), and the effect new mines had on the value (overnight 1/3 value loss not unheard of). There is essentially nothing in the world guaranteed to hold or increase in value that we use or have ever used as money. If you are lucky enough to have money over the limit, at least in the US, you can open accounts at different banks to try and have more insurance. For the native Cypriot running a legit business, yes, it's unfortunate, but that's what has led to a central banking system. If you look back a hundred years, bank runs were much more common, but people still had to use banks. I don't offer financial advice, but it certainly would seem that maintaining bank accounts above the insured limit in any of the countries you listed is very high risk at the moment.
      - cinquemb 14y ago
        >I don't offer financial advice, but it certainly would seem that maintaining bank accounts above the insured limit in any of the countries you listed is very high risk at the moment. I'd agree, but i'd like to add that one would have to be fooling themselves if this high risk is anything but contained to the PIIGS or the EU. ex: Some british pension accounts were hit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944544/British-pensioners-fear-for-savings-as-Cyprus-proposes-capital-controls.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944... I guess in any case, having any bank account over "insurance" limits in any country isn't sound (as we've seen that even those limits can be changed [usually changed or able to be removed at any time like what the FDIC announced in December]). But then again, people don't usually act in a logical manner (which I guess in a weird sense they shouldn't since any currency is ultimately built upon trust or belief which is not directly connected to logic). I guess it's just better to stick to the basics (food,water,shelter) and let the bankers worry about when their fellow citizens or russian oligarchs will come for their heads which according to history, eventually happens :P
- bayesianhorse 14y ago
  There hasn't been a lot of evidence for the idea that having no fiscal policy is better than having a bad or moderate one. Finance can deal with inflation and deflation. Economies can't usually deal well with either, but deflation seems to be worse, and constant value is impossible and probably not better than inflation. People are more than their bank statements. They breath their money through their life style and even survival. That is why money shouldn't stay still.

by qdog 14y ago

natermer 14y ago

Most banks have 'negative interest'. Not only because the interest rates they offer for savings and checking accounts no where near is able to keep up with real inflation (which means you lose money by saving, from the get-go), but they charge as many service fees as they feel they can get away with.

cinquemb 14y ago

even funnier thing is thinking that these haircuts are gonna do much… the template according to troika is to do more of the same :D granted the only future i see in bitcoins is in actual business transactions and not earnings interests,which with typical fiat are subject to the whims of ZIRP and central m̶a̶n̶i̶p̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ planning :D (which [number of business transactions with bitcoins for goods or services] has gone up these couple of years if you look beyond the hype) and the fact that it would be pretty hard for .gov reallocate funds in a .dat :P

qdog 14y ago
You would lend out your bitcoins at interest, just like you do with any other currency. Unless you want to be a direct lender, you'd still use a bank. Maybe the EU's policies led to the propagation of all the bad assets, but Cypriot banks were offering a higher interest to attract deposits. You can't get that higher interest without investing in somewhat riskier assets. Even assuming the EU policy is terrible (I am no expert on the EU and want no part of that argument, btw), the problem with the Cyprus banks was poor controls and risk management, which was by design to attract deposits. Pretty simple, unless you had a very good reason (tax avoidance, money laundering, interest rate), parking money in the Cyprus banking system was a very bad idea. So either the person with 700k was avoiding taxes, laundering money, enjoying a higher than normal interest rate, or being foolish with their money. I have no idea which it was, but if I personally had to oversee such a sum, I wouldn't be parking it in such a risky place.
- cinquemb 14y ago
  Lending is one thing, storing your wealth in a currency under ZIRP is another. I'm lucky that I at least get dividends on my savings being with a local credit union. And only half of their banking system consisted of foreign deposits (not to mention most of those deposits were able to leave the country via loopholes). Where does that leave the individuals and small business native to cyprus? Is it such a horrid idea of storing your money in your own country? And since the ECB is calling cyprus the template, where does this leave the next country that needs to be bailed out (which will happen again[1 bailout in 2010,1 bailout in 2011, 2 bailouts in 2012, 1 so far in 2013; this is starting to look like Fibonacci's work :P]) will banking in portugal, italy, ireland, greece, and spain be a very bad idea for people who live there, or are they all banking in their home country for tax avoidance,money laundering and for ZIRP to negative interest rates on their savings?
  - qdog 14y ago
    If you ever read The Wealth of Nations, it has a long history of the value of silver(commonly used for money at the time), and the effect new mines had on the value (overnight 1/3 value loss not unheard of). There is essentially nothing in the world guaranteed to hold or increase in value that we use or have ever used as money. If you are lucky enough to have money over the limit, at least in the US, you can open accounts at different banks to try and have more insurance. For the native Cypriot running a legit business, yes, it's unfortunate, but that's what has led to a central banking system. If you look back a hundred years, bank runs were much more common, but people still had to use banks. I don't offer financial advice, but it certainly would seem that maintaining bank accounts above the insured limit in any of the countries you listed is very high risk at the moment.
    - cinquemb 14y ago
      >I don't offer financial advice, but it certainly would seem that maintaining bank accounts above the insured limit in any of the countries you listed is very high risk at the moment. I'd agree, but i'd like to add that one would have to be fooling themselves if this high risk is anything but contained to the PIIGS or the EU. ex: Some british pension accounts were hit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944544/British-pensioners-fear-for-savings-as-Cyprus-proposes-capital-controls.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944... I guess in any case, having any bank account over "insurance" limits in any country isn't sound (as we've seen that even those limits can be changed [usually changed or able to be removed at any time like what the FDIC announced in December]). But then again, people don't usually act in a logical manner (which I guess in a weird sense they shouldn't since any currency is ultimately built upon trust or belief which is not directly connected to logic). I guess it's just better to stick to the basics (food,water,shelter) and let the bankers worry about when their fellow citizens or russian oligarchs will come for their heads which according to history, eventually happens :P
bayesianhorse 14y ago
There hasn't been a lot of evidence for the idea that having no fiscal policy is better than having a bad or moderate one. Finance can deal with inflation and deflation. Economies can't usually deal well with either, but deflation seems to be worse, and constant value is impossible and probably not better than inflation. People are more than their bank statements. They breath their money through their life style and even survival. That is why money shouldn't stay still.