Talk:Eurozone crisis

Draft framework

I have set up a draft framework of paragraph headings, and a rudimentary timeline.

Comments and contributions will be welcome.

Nick Gardner 08:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Flow suggestions

Treat these as the comments of a reader with no special expertise in the matter.

There's a paragraph in the Overview that seems to jump:

During 2010, prospective investors became increasingly reluctant to buy the bonds isued by five Eurozone governments at the offered interest rates, and the governments concerned had to make a succession of increases in those rates. Two of those governments - Greece and Ireland - eventually decided that, without help, they would not be able to continue to finance their budget deficits, and they sought - and received - loans from other European governments. Those loans failed to reassure potential investors, and in November they demanded further increases in the interest rates on the government bonds of all five governments - including those of Portugal, Spain and Italy.

Let me offer some suggestions, and places where a transition might be needed. Underscores are additions or move targets

During 2010, prospective investors became increasingly reluctant to buy the bonds isued by the five PIIGS Eurozone governments (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) at the offered interest rates, and the governments concerned had to make a succession of increases in those rates. Two of those governments - Greece and Ireland - eventually decided that, without help, they would not be able to continue to finance their budget deficits, and they sought - and received - loans from other European governments.

Those loans failed to reassure potential investors, and in November they demanded further increases in the interest rates on the government bonds of all five governments. Missing at least some explanation of the problem with the other three. Is there some unsaid assumption here that the reader knows about special bond rules for these countries?

Howard C. Berkowitz 16:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Howard, your comment is helpful (as usual). I have made changes that, I hope, will make the meaning clear? Nick Gardner 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It's nice for someone to appreciate me on a talk page! :-) I'm having computer problems and may have limited access for a few days until I can get an adapter plug or a new power supply for my desktop computer. Grrr...rural areas. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese involvement

Nick, great article - very informative, and nice use of the subpages. It is a shame the ongoing nature of the crisis means the article can't be approved!

There has been a lot of speculation recently about the possibility of Chinese money helping to "bail out" Europe, as well as a lot of talk in China about why they might not wish to. Do you think that is worth a section of the article? David Finn 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

David, thanks for the words of encouragement. My understanding is that China has so far refused to help. That may be no more than a bargaining stance, of course. If it changes, I'll certainly add the relevant material.Nick Gardner 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Historic but not history

As the eurozone crisis is still on-going, it is hardly history. Certainly economic historians will be looking at this in 20+ years, but until then, it is current events, and not history. Russell D. Jones 16:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest.Nick Gardner 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)