Obbligazioni perpetue e subordinate Discussioni metaperpetuali
- Creatore Discussione maxolone
- Data di Inizio
belindo
Guest
Ma per me questo è il vero problema.
POsso concordare che Berlusconi deve dimettersi ma in questa situazione c'è qualcun altro che può fare le riforme necessarie?
Monti con la Lega che fa le pernacchie e probabilmente la mani legate sulle pansioni?
Letta che resta comunque il braccio destro del premier ma che sarebbe appoggiato da Fini
Bersani che fino a che ha Vendola non legherà mai con i centristi?
Montezemolo, Della valle, Marcegaglia ma con i voti di chi?
Tobia
Forumer storico
alleniamo e facciamo fare la dieta sempre ai soliti però
e alla fine attorno all'osso ciccia non ce n'è piùritorniamo all'ires del 2007 và
Zorba
Bos 4 Mod
alleniamo e facciamo fare la dieta sempre ai soliti però
ritorniamo all'ires del 2007 và
Sacrosanta verità.
Rottweiler
Forumer storico
La lega non mi pare di sinistra
Se, come immagino, segui la politica da qualche tempo, saprai anche che la Lega ha ben altre "parole d'ordine", intoccabili.
"Pensioni" è una parola che non ha nulla a che fare con l'ideologia (parola grossa...) leghista, mentre è innervata nel DNA di SEL, Federazione della Sinistra, FIOM, etc. E' diventata una bandiera leghista dell'ultima ora o quasi, un tentativo di distinguersi dal PdL e di lucrare qualche voto in più alle prossime elezioni presso la propria base popolare.
Zorba
Bos 4 Mod
Credo abbiate visto tutti l'editoriale del FT. Tutti, ma proprio tutti (anche Alfano, Letta, Verdini...) stanno dicendo a Berlusconi di fare un passo indietro. Lo faccia, così vedremo se davvero era lui il male dell'Europa.
*.*.*
In God’s name, go!
In a Group of 20 summit that fell well short of what was needed, the world’s most powerful leaders were powerless in the face of the manoeuvres by two European premiers: George Papandreou and Silvio Berlusconi.
The similarities between the two prime ministers are striking: both men rely on a thin and shrinking parliamentary majority and they are both squabbling with their own ministers of finance. Most importantly, they both have a dangerous tendency to renege on their promises at a time when markets worry about their countries’ public finances. There is, however, one important difference: having reached €1,900bn, Italy’s public debt is so high that its potential to destabilise the world economy is way above that of Athens.
The good news, of course, is that Italy is still a solvent country. However, the interest rate on its debt is becoming ever less sustainable. The spreads between Italian and German 10-year bonds have doubled over the summer. Yesterday, they reached a euro-era record of 463 basis points and would have probably been higher if the European Central Bank was not buying Italian bonds. Although Rome can sustain high interest rates for a limited time period, this process must be halted before it becomes unmanageable. Next year Italy has to refinance nearly €300bn worth of debt. As the eurozone crisis has shown too well, once spreads have risen, they are extremely difficult to bring down.
The most troubling aspect is that this is happening even as Italy has agreed, in principle, to the structural reforms recommended by Europe and the G20. That the International Monetary Fund will monitor Rome’s progress can only be a good thing. However, this risks being undermined while the country retains its current leader. Having failed to pass reforms in his two decades in politics, Mr Berlusconi lacks the credibility to bring about meaningful change.
It would be naive to assume that, when Mr Berlusconi goes, Italy will instantly reclaim the full confidence of the markets. Clouds remain over the political future of the country and structural reforms will take time before they can affect growth rates. A change of leadership, however, is imperative. A new prime minister committed to the reform agenda would reassure the markets, which are desperate for a credible plan to end the run on the world’s fourth largest debt. This would make it easier for the European Central Bank to continue its bond-purchasing scheme, as it would make it less likely that Italy will renege on its promises.
After two decades of ineffective showmanship, the only words to say to Mr Berlusconi echo those once used by Oliver Cromwell.
In the name of God, Italy and Europe, go!
*.*.*
In God’s name, go!
In a Group of 20 summit that fell well short of what was needed, the world’s most powerful leaders were powerless in the face of the manoeuvres by two European premiers: George Papandreou and Silvio Berlusconi.
The similarities between the two prime ministers are striking: both men rely on a thin and shrinking parliamentary majority and they are both squabbling with their own ministers of finance. Most importantly, they both have a dangerous tendency to renege on their promises at a time when markets worry about their countries’ public finances. There is, however, one important difference: having reached €1,900bn, Italy’s public debt is so high that its potential to destabilise the world economy is way above that of Athens.
The good news, of course, is that Italy is still a solvent country. However, the interest rate on its debt is becoming ever less sustainable. The spreads between Italian and German 10-year bonds have doubled over the summer. Yesterday, they reached a euro-era record of 463 basis points and would have probably been higher if the European Central Bank was not buying Italian bonds. Although Rome can sustain high interest rates for a limited time period, this process must be halted before it becomes unmanageable. Next year Italy has to refinance nearly €300bn worth of debt. As the eurozone crisis has shown too well, once spreads have risen, they are extremely difficult to bring down.
The most troubling aspect is that this is happening even as Italy has agreed, in principle, to the structural reforms recommended by Europe and the G20. That the International Monetary Fund will monitor Rome’s progress can only be a good thing. However, this risks being undermined while the country retains its current leader. Having failed to pass reforms in his two decades in politics, Mr Berlusconi lacks the credibility to bring about meaningful change.
It would be naive to assume that, when Mr Berlusconi goes, Italy will instantly reclaim the full confidence of the markets. Clouds remain over the political future of the country and structural reforms will take time before they can affect growth rates. A change of leadership, however, is imperative. A new prime minister committed to the reform agenda would reassure the markets, which are desperate for a credible plan to end the run on the world’s fourth largest debt. This would make it easier for the European Central Bank to continue its bond-purchasing scheme, as it would make it less likely that Italy will renege on its promises.
After two decades of ineffective showmanship, the only words to say to Mr Berlusconi echo those once used by Oliver Cromwell.
In the name of God, Italy and Europe, go!
Ultima modifica:
Zorba
Bos 4 Mod
La lega è un altro partito che ha fallito clamorosamente. E' stata una decade al governo e cosa ha fatto per il federalismo? Niente. Anzi ha votato delle belle sforbiciate agli enti locali con conseguente peggioramento dei servizi.
Rottweiler
Forumer storico
Dovrebbe essere chiaro che non citavo quei personaggi per proporli come "alternativa", ma come esempi di personalità pragmatiche, capaci di andare controcorrente rispetto all'ideologia tradizionale della propria parte.
Se però vuoi una risposta alla tua domanda, ti dirò, un po' provocatoriamente che, nelle condizioni attuali, chiunque, pur con le sue imperfezioni, sarebbe meglio di B per l'Italia.
Ultima modifica:
Zorba
Bos 4 Mod
Non mi riferivo a te. La mia era una considerazione generale.
maybeoneday
Forumer attivo
Beh, se si tratta di cedere un po' di sovranità nazionale (in campo fiscale ed economico, ad esempio) per avere in cambio un sistema europeo ben strutturato (quello che Claudio sostiene giustamente che manca dietro all'Euro), io firmo subito.
Voglio dire, se in tutti questi incontri UE, oltre a proporre soluzioni per l'emergenza attuale, avessere impostato le fondamenta di un futuro governo economico europeo (= una vera Banca Centrale Europea), forse il futuro sembrerebbe piu' roseo.
Chiaro che si tratta di un processo lungo e faticoso, ma proprio per questo continuare a rimandarlo e stare ognuno a fare rivendicazioni per il proprio orticello, cercando di scaricare le colpe a rotazione su una lettera dei PIIGS, mi sembra masochista.
Se poi invece non si vuole l'euro, allora, avanti cosi'....