• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it a DEFAULT?

Is it a DEFAULT or WHAT?


  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Contagion fears back on Greek bailout uncertainty

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie..._CRISIS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=

"But new jitters were creeping into markets as worries grew about a default in Greece next month. The country has yet to clinch deals for a bailout worth euro130 billion ($170 billion) and an accompanying euro100 billion ($131 billion) debt writedown by private bondholders."


Perhaps the "Mighty Wurlitzer" doesn't want the word default to appear in the perception mechanisms.
Are the Greeks deadbeats?
When money is backed by confidence, is this where the confidence is perceived?
At any rate, why is a writedown not publicized as a default?
This is where "media manipulation" begins and is anyone interested?
 
Last edited:
A writedown isn't a default at all. A default is when you are unwilling or unable to pay the debts that you owe-- a writedown is when your creditors agree to reduce the amount of your debt. This is quite often in their best interests as well; those "private bondholders" would be wiped out by a Greek economic collapse, whether Greece forfeited on its debts or not.
 
Technically what you have said is true. Now imagine that you are a creditor and your debtor obviously is going to be unable to pay his debt. He will be in default, but instead you opt to accept a lesser payment than the debt. Getting what you can get. The creditor eats the bad debt just as if he had to eat any other debt not paid. Now, normally anyone who didn't make the payment would be an unsatisfactory credit risk, but in this instance they get to borrow even more just as if all involved were sane bankers who don't actually do banking. All of this to keep the nasty word "default" out of any headlines. This is about media manipulation, not banking.
 
Technically what you have said is true. Now imagine that you are a creditor and your debtor obviously is going to be unable to pay his debt. He will be in default, but instead you opt to accept a lesser payment than the debt. Getting what you can get. The creditor eats the bad debt just as if he had to eat any other debt not paid. Now, normally anyone who didn't make the payment would be an unsatisfactory credit risk, but in this instance they get to borrow even more just as if all involved were sane bankers who don't actually do banking. All of this to keep the nasty word "default" out of any headlines. This is about media manipulation, not banking.
You obviously haven't been following the interest rates the Greeks are paying.
 
You obviously haven't been following the interest rates the Greeks are paying.

The price for bad credit is higher interest rates. The PIIGS countries can all verify that. What we are really discussing is "fiat" currencies that are not backed by any tangible asset, such as, gold, silver, platinum, real estate, but more specifically by "the full faith and credit," or a blessing from the Pope. The fiat currencies work on confidence. You have confidence in the "full faith and credit" mantra. In our current world, picture a big hot air balloon full of confidence. When the balloon springs a leak, you fix it. NO, NO, NO, and I repeat NO. That is not how it is working. When the balloon leaks, you get a bigger confidence pump and pump in more confidence. More leaks, more and bigger pumps. Pumps are TV, big media events with Bernanke, Geithner, Greenspan, World Leaders all repeating that they are confident that their confidence is justified by their continuuing confidence. Balloons are big and expandable. Pumps are confidence and come in larger and larger sizes. Debts are leaks. Defaults are huge leaks. Writedowns are the same as defaults but invisible to big media because they cannot be put in the confidence pumps. As an matter of fact, if you call the writedown a default, it may gum up the confidence pump. Reality is an illusion, perhaps even perception management. Don't you think?
 
I think any time you have communication you're talking about perception whether it's money or the girl next door doesn't matter. The writer/speaker and the reader/listener take certain phrases to mean certain things regardless of the actual words being used. Unlike personal credit a country's credit history is clearly visible for all to see whether inside the banking sector or not. If you would prefer to think "default" when you see the words "write-down" then who is anyone to judge? The bankers, investors, and other people involved will see what they want to see regardless of what word(s) is used and in full knowledge of the credit history involved, just as you do. I don't think anyone in the financial sector has any blinders on about what's happening in Europe so, to me, whatever language is used in the popular press is irrelevant to the financial community. If you think write-down is being used to deceive them I'd have to disagree.


I should also point out I do see a difference between "write-down" and "default". Write-down has in inherent implication that negotiations are or have been going on between the creditor and debtor. It may still be a type of default but it's an admission of failure on the part of the debtor along with a willingness to do whatever is possible to right the wrong. Default is the debtor flipping off the creditor and saying "Come get me", which requires legal action and all the other nastiness involved. In that light, don't you see a difference in those two terms?
 
I think any time you have communication you're talking about perception whether it's money or the girl next door doesn't matter. The writer/speaker and the reader/listener take certain phrases to mean certain things regardless of the actual words being used. Unlike personal credit a country's credit history is clearly visible for all to see whether inside the banking sector or not. If you would prefer to think "default" when you see the words "write-down" then who is anyone to judge? The bankers, investors, and other people involved will see what they want to see regardless of what word(s) is used and in full knowledge of the credit history involved, just as you do. I don't think anyone in the financial sector has any blinders on about what's happening in Europe so, to me, whatever language is used in the popular press is irrelevant to the financial community. If you think write-down is being used to deceive them I'd have to disagree.


I should also point out I do see a difference between "write-down" and "default". Write-down has in inherent implication that negotiations are or have been going on between the creditor and debtor. It may still be a type of default but it's an admission of failure on the part of the debtor along with a willingness to do whatever is possible to right the wrong. Default is the debtor flipping off the creditor and saying "Come get me", which requires legal action and all the other nastiness involved. In that light, don't you see a difference in those two terms?

I like everything that you have said here but that doesn't mean that I agree. From beancounter's point of view, if you don't pay $130 billion, it is a loss, whether you call it a default or a writedown. You must admit that world currencies are backed by hot air called "confidence," and that basic accounting fundamentals are ignored. Whole economies are propped up by rigged data regarding manufacturing, employment, interest rates, QEs, and where does one find this data etc. In the media. Ergo, if you can exert some influence on/in the media, you can manipulate perception. I am saying we are being perception managed by the use of the term writedown because a default was inevitable and the perception can be managed that a writedown is not the same, although the beancounter is still at a $130 billion loss. We are not talking about gold and Fort Knox, but reality and perception of reality. The "Mighty Wurlitzer" must maintain confidence to prevent the collapse that occurs with lack of confidence. If you beat me out of $130 billion, we will no longer do business. Yet, in this case, more business is going to be done. Does that seem to fit your narrative? I am saying that world currencies are a confidence game. I am not saying that the system is not working, nor would I want a crash, but reality is a tough game. Perception holds this house of cards in place, not reality. I am identifying a source of perception management that influences the entire world and exposing it for what it is. Can you see that?
 
I like everything that you have said here but that doesn't mean that I agree. From beancounter's point of view, if you don't pay $130 billion, it is a loss, whether you call it a default or a writedown. You must admit that world currencies are backed by hot air called "confidence," and that basic accounting fundamentals are ignored. Whole economies are propped up by rigged data regarding manufacturing, employment, interest rates, QEs, and where does one find this data etc. In the media. Ergo, if you can exert some influence on/in the media, you can manipulate perception. I am saying we are being perception managed by the use of the term writedown because a default was inevitable and the perception can be managed that a writedown is not the same, although the beancounter is still at a $130 billion loss. We are not talking about gold and Fort Knox, but reality and perception of reality. The "Mighty Wurlitzer" must maintain confidence to prevent the collapse that occurs with lack of confidence. If you beat me out of $130 billion, we will no longer do business. Yet, in this case, more business is going to be done. Does that seem to fit your narrative? I am saying that world currencies are a confidence game. I am not saying that the system is not working, nor would I want a crash, but reality is a tough game. Perception holds this house of cards in place, not reality. I am identifying a source of perception management that influences the entire world and exposing it for what it is. Can you see that?
Maybe it's different for me since I actually remember a time when there was a gold standard and money didn't float. Nixon changed all that (among other financial things in DC) and the world was pretty much forced to live with it. That was 40 years ago. While I do understand that you're "identifying a source of perception management" I'm not sure you're "exposing" anything, which is the point I was trying to make. What you're saying is no different to me than someone posting "The world could be in nuclear winter tomorrow". That's the world as it has been for decades, the world I grew up in; there's nothing new here. And politicians have been using "perception management" (aka, "spin") even longer than that.


I do have to disagree with your assessment of economic data sources. I am a firm believer in the data published by various governments and usually confirmed (with acceptable variation) by private industry. Many, I'd even say most, of that data is available free of charge to anyone willing to spend the time grabbing the raw numbers and analyzing them for themselves. If there's manipulation going on there it's industry wide and cuts across country, party, and economic boundaries. I find such a huge conspiracy, maintained over the course of decades, hard to believe.
 
"Maybe it's different for me since I actually remember a time when there was a gold standard and money didn't float. Nixon changed all that (among other financial things in DC) and the world was pretty much forced to live with it."


That quote is an excellent example of "perception management." Did you know that Nixon did not go off the gold standard, as is so commonly repeated in this country, but, We, The USA defaulted on the Bretton Woods Agreement. We did not honor DeGaulle's $300 million demand for gold for USDollars that financed the Vietnam debacle. We defaulted. WE didn't just go off the gold standard. With that default, there was no more gold standard.
 
"Maybe it's different for me since I actually remember a time when there was a gold standard and money didn't float. Nixon changed all that (among other financial things in DC) and the world was pretty much forced to live with it."


That quote is an excellent example of "perception management." Did you know that Nixon did not go off the gold standard, as is so commonly repeated in this country, but, We, The USA defaulted on the Bretton Woods Agreement. We did not honor DeGaulle's $300 million demand for gold for USDollars that financed the Vietnam debacle. We defaulted. WE didn't just go off the gold standard. With that default, there was no more gold standard.
Yes, I am aware of the trigger. It wasn't quite current events, that class was a few years later, but it was covered in HS. If you would like to think of it as DeGaulle pushing the world off the gold standard that's fine with me. I personally don't see that it matters and, as far as the common person of the time was concerned, I know it didn't matter to them, either.
 
Yes, I am aware of the trigger. It wasn't quite current events, that class was a few years later, but it was covered in HS. If you would like to think of it as DeGaulle pushing the world off the gold standard that's fine with me. I personally don't see that it matters and, as far as the common person of the time was concerned, I know it didn't matter to them, either.

My point was perception management and it has been cranking the "Mighty Wurlitzer" for a long time. It was a straight out default and DeGaulle did nothing wrong. Newspapers in the USA never mentioned that we defaulted on the BrettonWoods agreement. All the newspapers in the rest of the world headlined the USA defaulted. Perception management. Nothing has changed, just intensified. I'm just trying to state this clearly and truthfully without trying to manipulate the reader. The Media in the USA played this event down as if it was another day in the park, and it was a really big worldwide deal. We were/are the world's reserve currency.
 
Are the Greeks deadbeats?

Unfortunately, Greece will most likely default. Let it default, it won't be the first country to do that. Go back to the drahma, print your own money, abolish the euro.
 
Back
Top Bottom