2 ms·

The specific example are right there, Germany and France were the first countries to break the treaty and they got away scott-free. The Compact doesn't forbid

The specific example are right there, Germany and France were the first countries to break the treaty and they got away scott-free. The Compact doesn't forbid public investment per-se, but the goals it sets, combined with the current situation of some countries makes any policy other than maximum austerity unfeasable. If we can't even decide how to pay our own loans, the government turns into a bunch of bureaucrats with no real power, might as well be annexed by the loan sharks. Market Share in commercial bank should provide a metric to the size of the bank in relation to the entire financial system. It's the whole base of the "too big to fail" ethos.

antr 12y ago
This is getting ridiculous, you are digging yourself into a hole. No, in the specific link there is no mention of "ignored the deficit limits to increase investment in their economies had no sanctions". Your words, not mine. Ok, so we can agree that "smaller countries are forced into signing treaties that forbid public investment" is a false statement. Again, you are mixing the vanity metric of market share with capital structure. What do you define as "market share"? Is it volume of deposits, assets on the balance sheets, assets under management, number of employees, number of clients? What market share are you referring too? Your "market share" argument is like saying that your javascript doesn't work because your company doesn't have enough Facebook likes... Haven't you ever heard of the Basel Accords?! I can't believe I'm reading your comments on Hacker News. Before I give up on this conversation: "Too big to fail" does not refer to market size. It refers to the entities that systemically affect risk with one another, and it includes institutions that are non-depository in the financial system... unlike the Portuguese banks you mentioned. It's really frustrating to read comments like yours on Hacker News, based on loose buzz words, but empty in substance.

antr 12y ago

This is getting ridiculous, you are digging yourself into a hole. No, in the specific link there is no mention of "ignored the deficit limits to increase investment in their economies had no sanctions". Your words, not mine. Ok, so we can agree that "smaller countries are forced into signing treaties that forbid public investment" is a false statement. Again, you are mixing the vanity metric of market share with capital structure. What do you define as "market share"? Is it volume of deposits, assets on the balance sheets, assets under management, number of employees, number of clients? What market share are you referring too? Your "market share" argument is like saying that your javascript doesn't work because your company doesn't have enough Facebook likes... Haven't you ever heard of the Basel Accords?! I can't believe I'm reading your comments on Hacker News. Before I give up on this conversation: "Too big to fail" does not refer to market size. It refers to the entities that systemically affect risk with one another, and it includes institutions that are non-depository in the financial system... unlike the Portuguese banks you mentioned. It's really frustrating to read comments like yours on Hacker News, based on loose buzz words, but empty in substance.