My bank account's got robbed by European Commission. Over 700k is lost.

[myrkul]

This is exactly the EU fault, not Cyprus' government.
EU forced insolvent Cyprus to repay their liabilities by the funds from confiscated bank accounts. This is absolutely unfair. This is illegal.

What do you mean 'forced'? The fact that they were insolvent meant that they couldn't honour their obligations under Cypriot deposit insurance scheme. The EU didn't force them, their lack of money did.

You said it yourself, they could have sold stuff off.

[mmeijeri]

You said it yourself, they could have sold stuff off.

Sure, but the EU didn't prevent them from doing that, this was their own fault. Or to be more precise, they were stupid / corrupt enough to guarantee the deposits of untrustworthy banks and then unable to uphold their obligations when the shit hit the fan. This was a crisis all of their own making, and I resent being blamed by a bunch of ingrates when we're actually helping the fuckers get their act together.

[myrkul]

You said it yourself, they could have sold stuff off.

Sure, but the EU didn't prevent them from doing that, this was their own fault. Or to be more precise, they were stupid / corrupt enough to guarantee the deposits of untrustworthy banks and then unable to uphold their obligations when the shit hit the fan. This was a crisis all of their own making, and I resent being blamed by a bunch of ingrates when we're actually helping the fuckers get their act together.

You're a member of the ECB?

[mmeijeri]

You're a member of the ECB?

No, but I am an EU taxpayer.

[myrkul]

You're a member of the ECB?

No, but I am an EU taxpayer.

Then why did you include yourself?

Nobody's blaming the slaves. Just the dude with the whip.

[cho]

But please note that "insured" under-100k deposits were compensated not by state, but by those over-100k account holders.

That may be true, but also note that the Cypriot government would have been unable to uphold its obligations under its deposit insurance laws. A state default would have been a better outcome and then more assets would have had to be sold off. The fact that this wasn't done does indeed harm large depositors. Instead of the Cypriot government selling off all its assets, the EU pitched in. So if there was any theft, it was theft by the Cypriot government from large depositors and a theft of EU taxpayers' money by the other member states, not theft of Cypriot money by the EU.

Wait a minute, who designed the plan to take money from big accounts and use them to insure small accounts ? Wasn't it the Troika, of whose the EU is one third ? Doesn't that make them stealers ?

[DoomDumas]

That's horrible. I couldn't imagine not being able to access my money. Hope that doesn't happen in the US.

No, in US they've chosen another approach - you still have the same amount in bank, but it is worth less every day. Some people call it "Effect of helicopter Ben" :-)

+1

Well said !  Completely agree

[mmeijeri]

Then why did you include yourself?

Because it's my money the EC is taking, not the Cypriots' money.

[myrkul]

Then why did you include yourself?

Because it's my money the EC is taking, not the Cypriots' money.

Once again, I was asking why you said this:

This was a crisis all of their own making, and I resent being blamed by a bunch of ingrates

Nobody is blaming you. Unless your name is on this list?

Special thanks to:

- Jeroen Dijsselbloem
- Angela Merkel
- Manuel Barroso
- the rest of officials of "European Comission"

[mmeijeri]

Wait a minute, who designed the plan to take money from big accounts and use them to insure small accounts ? Wasn't it the Troika, of whose the EU is one third ? Doesn't that make them stealers ?

I don't know who came up with it, but the fact is that without outside help the Cypriot government would have been unable to uphold its obligations. And help can come with strings attached.

Also, on reflection, I'm not so sure that the deposit insurance scheme would have made much of a difference to large depositors. I suspect that under Cypriot law the Cypriot government would have been on the hook for safeguarding the deposits below E100k and if there weren't enough assets left in the banks to cover those, all assets would go to the Cypriot government, and not a penny to depositors for their holdings above the E100k limit.

So then the question is whether there was more money in the banks than necessary to honour at least the deposits up to a limit of E100k. I don't know, but I suspect there wasn't.

[mmeijeri]

Once again, I was asking why you said this:

This was a crisis all of their own making, and I resent being blamed by a bunch of ingrates

I reluctantly agree with some sort of bailout, even though I don't think it was handled well.

Nobody is blaming you. Unless your name is on this list?

Special thanks to:

- Jeroen Dijsselbloem
- Angela Merkel
- Manuel Barroso
- the rest of officials of "European Comission"

They're still being blamed for things they didn't do, instead of things they did do.

[myrkul]

Once again, I was asking why you said this:

This was a crisis all of their own making, and I resent being blamed by a bunch of ingrates

I reluctantly agree with some sort of bailout, even though I don't think it was handled well.

Then why are you complaining about them taking your money? I must say, you're not being very consistent with your position on this.

Nobody is blaming you. Unless your name is on this list?

Special thanks to:

- Jeroen Dijsselbloem
- Angela Merkel
- Manuel Barroso
- the rest of officials of "European Comission"

They're still being blamed for things they didn't do, instead of things they did do.

Requiring that the deposits be forfeited? No, they did that. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery.

[mmeijeri]

Then why are you complaining about them taking your money? I must say, you're not being very consistent with your position on this.

Because I don't think the bail-out was handled well. And I'm also complaining that people are falsely accusing the EU of taking Cypriots' money, when in fact they were taking EU taxpayers' money.

Requiring that the deposits be forfeited? No, they did that. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery.

They didn't demand the deposits be forfeited, they simply refused to put any money into the banks they never guaranteed in the first place. If the Cypriot government had been solvent, had exercised proper oversight, or had been prudent enough not to guarantee deposits in untrustworthy banks, then it would have been able to uphold its obligations. It was their insolvency that caused them to do what they did, not the EU. Without the EU, the mess would have been even greater for the Cypriots.

[myrkul]

Then why are you complaining about them taking your money? I must say, you're not being very consistent with your position on this.

Because I don't think the bail-out was handled well. And I'm also complaining that people are falsely accusing the EU of taking Cypriots' money, when in fact they were taking EU taxpayers' money.

If it were "handled well," you'd be OK with them stealing your money for it?

Requiring that the deposits be forfeited? No, they did that. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery.

They didn't demand the deposits be forfeited, they simply refused to put any money into the banks they never guaranteed in the first place. If the Cypriot government had been solvent, had exercised proper oversight, or had been prudent enough not to guarantee deposits in untrustworthy banks, then it would have been able to uphold its obligations. It was their insolvency that caused them to do what they did, not the EU. Without the EU, the mess would have been even greater for the Cypriots.

Maybe. Maybe it wouldn't even have occurred.

[cho]

Also, on reflection, I'm not so sure that the deposit insurance scheme would have made much of a difference to large depositors. I suspect that under Cypriot law the Cypriot government would have been on the hook for safeguarding the deposits below E100k and if there weren't enough assets left in the banks to cover those, all assets would go to the Cypriot government, and not a penny to depositors for their holdings above the E100k limit.

So then the question is whether there was more money in the banks than necessary to honour at least the deposits up to a limit of E100k. I don't know, but I suspect there wasn't.

AFAIU, the proper fail procedure is to use capital to cover the losses. There is a hierarchy of risk at the bottom of which are deposits. Laiki banks fails : high to medium risk capital sources are depleted first. Deposits are then used to fill the remaining hole ; all deposit accounts are depleted of the same percentage, whatever the amount. Then the cyprus state refills any account having fallen below 100k. I think that's the proper way of doing things.
Instead of that, the Troika (ECB+EU+IMF) tries to shove a first plan implementing a x% haircut on all deposits. Remember that the cyprus parliament denied that first plan ! Here they did their job. Then the Troika built a second plan, under which <100k accounts were to be moved to a good bank, and all other accounts were to stay and die. This second plan goes contrary to what had been promised to capital holders, and thus, is theft. Moreover, that second plan was designed to purposefully bypass parliament agreement. In other words, the EU and its two friends made their best to remain deaf to cyprus voice.

On one hand, I agree with you that cyprus made a lot of mistakes to dive in so much trouble (one the mistakes being to join the eurozone), on the other hand, I still want to point that once the crisis had blown out, the EU commited theft and various other lawless and unjust deeds.
To sum it up, in my view, the cyprus gov and the cyprus central bank are high-level thiefs, whereas the EU+IMF+ECB are grandmaster thiefs. Just my opinion.

[cho]

They didn't demand the deposits be forfeited

Yes they did ! They did exactly that ! They first asked all depositors to pay for the losses, then they asked 100k+ deposits to pay for the losses.

[mmeijeri]

If it were "handled well," you'd be OK with them stealing your money for it?

Theoretically no, just like most of the things governments do seem to me to be usurpation of citizens' freedoms, but pragmatically, yes.

Maybe. Maybe it wouldn't even have occurred.

What makes you even suspect that could be the case? Through what mechanism did the EU cause the Cypriot government to be delinquent in its supervisory duties?

[mmeijeri]

AFAIU, the proper fail procedure is to use capital to cover the losses. There is a hierarchy of risk at the bottom of which are deposits. Laiki banks fails : high to medium risk capital sources are depleted first. Deposits are then used to fill the remaining hole ; all deposit accounts are depleted of the same percentage, whatever the amount. Then the cyprus state refills any account having fallen below 100k. I think that's the proper way of doing things.

That's a good point, but I don't think that's how it works under a deposit insurance scheme. There the state gets all assets first and only then bails out depositors to a limit of E100k. I think deposit insurance is a bad idea, and if you didn't have it, then you'd get the normal bankruptcy process, which works as you described except for the actual deposit insurance at the end. If that procedure had been followed, then small depositors would have received less, and large depositors might have received more. But that's probably not what the law said under the deposit insurance scheme.

[myrkul]

If it were "handled well," you'd be OK with them stealing your money for it?

Theoretically no, just like most of the things governments do seem to me to be usurpation of citizens' freedoms, but pragmatically, yes.

So you'd be complaining either way?

Maybe. Maybe it wouldn't even have occurred.

What makes you even suspect that could be the case? Through what mechanism did the EU cause the Cypriot government to be delinquent in its supervisory duties?

Ask, instead: Through what mechanism did the EU cause the economies in both Cyprus and Greece to be fucked up enough to need bailing out?

(hint: check your pocket)

[mmeijeri]

So you'd be complaining either way?

More loudly now than if they hadn't handled it badly. But as I said, I do accept democracy as the lesser evil, and the least bad viable form of government. Maybe in the future other forms with more respect for property rights and individual liberties will become viable. I certainly hope so.

Ask, instead: Through what mechanism did the EU cause the economies in both Cyprus and Greece to be fucked up enough to need bailing out?

Through no mechanism at all because the mechanisms that caused this were implemented by national governments long before there ever was an EU. Mandatory deposit insurance, defective government oversight instead of strict market discipline, legal tender laws, fiat currencies, politically motivated accounting rules instead of market discipline and so on, and so on.