back to article C'mon! Greece isn't really bust and it can pay its debts

As I write we've just got the latest news that Greece has been saved from default, bankruptcy, being thrown out of the euro and everything is going to be lovely for The Men Without Ties. Which is, of course, lovely, but there really wasn't quite as much to worry about as people seemed to think. It could, obviously, all have …

Page:

  1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

    And as Tim points out, it was never going to work and isn't working now.

    What was needed was something that allowed a single currency to be *spent* all over Europe, at the exchange rate of the day - if only to avoid the idiocy of travelling across the continent with fifteen different currencies in your pocket, getting shafted coming and going on exchange rates.

    Even an international debit/credit card doesn't work properly because it's not accepted everywhere.

    But that said, I do think the common market was a good idea and I think the right to move and live in any of the countries a good idea - though there are obvious issues (for example, the one that gets everybody agitated - use of local services by immigrants: just require their home nation to pay their social security/hospital bills/unemployment benefit/school costs/whatever and let them pay their taxes back home. We'd still get their VAT...)

    1. Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik

      Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

      Been thinking the same(for a long time). There should be the Euro but it should be a currency on top of national currencies with an exchange rate relative to them. People could still pay with it, get paid with it but it should always be relative to the national currency(until such a time as it would make the optimal currency area a sense).

      As for the EU... I'm still on the fence. It did do some good things but at the same time some bad things. Will see how it goes.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

        Multiple currencies - a national and a regional - are a very good idea. George Monbiot once wrote a very good article in their favour which, iirc, I came across in the Economist some years ago. The most important part of the EU is the freedom of movement and the trade benefits (internal is part of it, but it is also not for nothing that most of the world has bundled itself up into trade blocs for negotiating power). The single currency is a way of achieving that. But as you can see from the UK, we have those without monetary union so it's possible.

        Multiple currencies might be a way of getting some of the good from both joining and staying out. You effectively allow two currencies to compete against each other.

      2. Tim Worstal

        Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

        That's John Major's idea of the "hard ecu". A new currency that's legal tender across Europe, but with variable exchange rates to each of the national ones.

        1. Cliff

          Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

          I'm still fond of European integration as opposed to 'plucky little Britain against the world' which some people want to go back to. Think how many wars we had in Europe before we all started to rely on each other more, and intertwine our economies. I'm pretty sure we'd have them again if we were isolated and devolved again. Doesn't mean having to share a currency, but for all the bad things that the EU is, mutual dependency of the member states has saved us billions and millions of lives wasted in fighting one another.

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

            Agreed. There's also the fact that any remotely respectable nation is now part of some powerful trade bloc these days. That gives you a lot of negotiating power. Obligations too, but better in than out or countries wouldn't be members. I for one don't want to be dwarfed by the EU, NAFTA and others. I want to be able to negotiate on parity. And even if some people have an inflated idea of the UK's size on the world stage, we can't do that by ourselves.

          2. The Axe

            Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

            @Cliff, Its a myth that the EU stops the European countries fighting each other. If anything it makes it more likely as different countries compete to gain the advantage within a system that doesn't allow it leading to the only way to bypass it being the people themselves (not the politicians) starting the fights. Witness the protests across the EU as each country's population complains that they are being forgotten about.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

              @TheAxe. You just argued that the EU made things worse because it "didn't allow" wars to be started by politicians and led to people staring them themselves. Evidence? Because my knowledge of history is that it is the leaders who commonly start wars and the people who have to die for them who are usually most reluctant.

              1. disgruntled yank Silver badge

                Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

                It generally is the leaders who start the wars; however, the reluctance varies greatly. In 1914 there was considerable enthusiasm in quite a few countries, likewise in 1861 in the American Civil War.

            2. veti Silver badge

              Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

              @The Axe: Since the foundation of the ECSC, number of wars started between members of that, the Common Market, the EEC, EC, EU as it's varyingly been called?

              Zero. Not a one.

              Wars started, during the same timespan, between other countries who are not members? Quite a lot. Even involving NATO members. Even between NATO members (Greece/Turkey, over Cyprus).

              The point of NATO is not to preserve the peace, it's to "keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down". Which means that right now, NATO is underperforming just as badly as the EU.

          3. Tom 13

            Re: mutual dependency of the member states has saved us

            No, it hasn't. What's stopped all the wars that kill that many people is the nuclear bomb. For the last 70 or so years most governments have been afraid that if they start wailing on each other like that, the nukes will fly.

            That too is about to change. This is NOT a good thing.

      3. P. Lee Silver badge

        Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

        Its the single monetary policy which brings the benefits. Using a credit card allows you to spend all over Europe easily. What business wanted was to be free from currency fluctuation which makes it difficult to pick the "best" country to locate business. They don't want to build a factory, (taking on debt) for interest rates to rise relative to other countries and have someone else build a cheaper factory elsewhere.

        Unfortunately, a single monetary policy doesn't work without a single government. You normally want a single government who can apply more localised fiscal measures to balance out the bad bits of monetary policy.

        As far as QE goes, there was no discussion in the article about competitive devaluation. Those that don't devalue are stuffed because others are doing it, not because it is an intrinsically good idea. When everyone does it, there is little point to it. You add a few noughts to prices and carry on. Also stated was the idea that debt isn't a problem - it is a problem. Governments continue to live beyond their means. It is a massive problem - it makes people poor. You can tax to pay the debt but the governments have taken the cowardly way out - printing money. Inflation is what reduces the value of the debt so that it becomes manageable again but it means that the people's wealth is "taken" by inflation to pay the debt. Either way is bad, but I'd suggest a better way is to balance the books, stop waging expensive wars and stop piling up expensive election promises and diversions. This may mean reduced government services. That's too bad - we simply can't afford them, but let's cut back on the things which don't benefit the people first.

        As far as German taxpayers picking up the tab for Greece, isn't that the point? When you loan money, you take on risk in the hope of reward. Now the banks have been bailed out by governments buying the debt, which never should have happened. Shareholders should have taken the risk and CEO's should have taken the blame and lost their investment. By getting involved, government messed with the market and now the banks will take on more risk, pick up the fees and profit and know if it all goes south, government will pick up the tab. So we'll have more irresponsible lending. Not that messing with the market should be verboten, but do it through regulation to prevent a disastrous situation from occurring, not to allow consequence-free business practise. At a simple level, perhaps stop financial institutions from getting so large that you can't allow them to fail.

        1. Tim Worstal

          Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

          I fear you've got very slightly confused over the technical terms here.

          "Monetary policy" refers to things like the size of the money supply, interest rates and so on.

          "Currency policy" refers to having the one currency or multiple ones.

          And this is the heart of this idea of "optimal" currency areas. Currency policy means that the larger the area covered the better. Monetary policy means that the larger the area the more problems we can potentially have. The two are in tension, which is why we can have an optimal area. Where we get the maximum possible of one while only getting a little bit of the problems of the other.

          We can also reduce the monetary problems by having integrated fiscal policy (ie, taxes raised in one area are shifted to pay for problems in another area). But the EU doesn't have that.

          1. John 62

            Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

            "We can also reduce the monetary problems by having integrated fiscal policy (ie, taxes raised in one area are shifted to pay for problems in another area). But the EU doesn't have that."

            True, but there is a boat-load of money being pumped into the EU periphery via various funds. The Hilton Hotel in Belfast has a 'Part-funded by the EU... fund' plaque beside the front door (the Euro-crats need somewhere to stay, when they visit, after all*) as well as the trains**, some of the recent motorways, etc.). Along with infrastructure, there's also the Peace and Reconciliation funding for a lot of pretty soft projects and the EU Social fund that props up many charities and social services.

            * Though I'm sure they'd all probably book into the Fitzwilliam instead because the Hilton was built beside a busy railway.

            ** built in Spain instead of Derby, probably so that the profits don't go to Canada

        2. Tom 13

          @P. Lee - Minor nit

          Debt might or might not be a problem. Debt (long term money due) coupled with deficit (current FY outlays) is always a problem, and is the Greek problem. It's probably best to pair "deficit" with "debt" explicitly and not use "debt" to mean both even though it can.

          The even bigger problem is that outside of maybe Germany, I'm hard pressed to think of any country in the world that hasn't been running both debt and deficit at the same time. So far the nations which are less close to the brink of disaster have been bailing out the ones who are closer, but all the time the group as a whole keeps moving closer.

      4. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. keithpeter
      Windows

      Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

      ...if only to avoid the idiocy of travelling across the continent with fifteen different currencies in your pocket, getting shafted coming and going on exchange rates.

      Isn't it the ability of one currency to float against all the others that Worstall is on about? If Germany had the DM, it would have risen relative to other currencies and made German exports more expensive &c. As it is the Germans are selling goods at a lower Euro wide rate.

    3. peter_dtm
      Mushroom

      Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

      I think you'll find the recent period of peace through out Europe has rahter more to do with

      NATO

      the Cold War

      than any movement aiming to federalise Europe (what do you think 'ever closer Union' means ?)

      Devoltion is NOT a UK weirdness - see also Spain (Catalonia; Basques) France (Basques) and of course the ex Soviet Balkan contries.

      If anything the imposition of so many foreign laws through out the EU is upsetting people; and (as evidenced in France; Greece; Portugal even Germany) there is a popular backlash against pro EU parties - that the MSM still keeps trying to describe in terms of Left-Right politics.

      EU responisblye for the Peace Dividend post WWII ? - no sorry; self agrandismation by a bunch of anti democratic plutocrats that we know as the EU.

      1. Cliff

        Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

        I'm not pro-federalisation, I am pro-trading bloc with some political harmonisation and interdependency to make it harder for some of our more belligerent partners to get ideas again.

        It's easy to get caught up in semantics about which particular bodies provided or provide the entanglement that makes war seem impossible now, but this is still the longest period of peace in Western Europe since the Roman empire. That counts for quite a lot.

        1. Tom 13

          @Cliff

          It's extremely difficult to have your cake and eat it too. The more you try to harmonize trade, the more you move to federalization. So long as there is essential common ground, this isn't a problem. It's not clear the EU has sufficient essential common ground for it to work. Hence all the problems.

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

        >>"If anything the imposition of so many foreign laws through out the EU is upsetting people"

        Not me. The European laws are better than the UK laws on human rights, data protection, food standards, farming practices... The UK government would sell us as chattel if they could.

        If the UK laws on human rights were more comprehensive than the EU ones, why would our government be trying to back out of the European Human Rights act? And using boiler-plate patriotism about "restore sovereignty to the UK" to try and whip up public support for something which, in every practical sense, reduces their protection from state abuse.

        No-one can argue with a straight-face that the UK government has our best interests as its primary goal.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

          European Human Rights act Is NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU. and I really would'nt agree about farming practices and food standards either, we have some of the best practices and legislation in the World

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

            >>"European Human Rights act Is NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU."

            You are mistaken. The European Council and the European Union are separate bodies, which is where you are coming from. But the EU court (part of the EU) is expected to accede to the Convention on Human Rights (what we're talking about) and the Treaty of Lisbon includes binding by the European Council's court. They are meant to work together though as I stated, the UK is trying to be an exception to this rule. Signing the European Convention on Human Rights is now a condition of membership to the EU, even though they are separate bodies. One can sign up to the act without being a member of the EU, but the reverse is not the case anymore.

            1. Tim Worstal

              Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

              Ouch. The European Council and the Council of Europe are not the same thing.

              The European Council (aka the Council of the European Union) is an EU body. The Council of Europe, which manages the human rights act, is a much wider body. Includes Russia for example (about the only non-member in anything like Europe is Belarus).

              True, you must be a member of the Council of Europe to be a member of the EU but it's still an entirely different body. The ECJ is an EU body, the ECHR, which administers the human rights stuff, is not.

              1. h4rm0ny

                Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

                >>"The European Council (aka the Council of the European Union) is an EU body. The Council of Europe, which manages the human rights act, is a much wider body. Includes Russia for example (about the only non-member in anything like Europe is Belarus)."

                Yes, that's all what I said too. The important part is the bit you admit in the last paragraph: "True, you must be a member of the Council of Europe to be a member of the EU ". Any new member that wishes to join the EU must sign up to the convention of human rights, the treaty of Lisbon makes it part of EU law and the EU court accedes to it. As I pointed out before you, they are separate bodies but linked in these basic ways. US president is not the same thing as US Citizen, but to apply to be the former one must fall into the second group.

        2. Kubla Cant Silver badge

          Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

          "The European laws are better than the UK laws on human rights, data protection, food standards, farming practices.

          The fact that they are more preseciptive or restrictive does not necessarily make them better.

      3. Tom 13

        @peter_dtm

        Astute observations.

        It seems to me the problem is that the EU is a meta-government with no direct accountability to the people whom it ought to benefit. It might function if it were a representative body of the people, but it isn't. Of course, making it a representative is problematic because that tends to move what is currently the national allegiance to the new EU, something very few people in the current nation state's want.

    4. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

      As I've described it: common currency yes, single currency no.

  2. James 51 Silver badge

    The economist had an article saying why this wasn't the case and used the US as prove. It was years ago but will have to see if I can dig it out.

    1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

      I wouldn't be convinced by anything that starts with the premise that the US and Europe are similar.

      1. James 51 Silver badge

        IIRC the thrust of their argument was that interest rates which should adversely affect some areas and benefit others could be made to work. Of course while they effective have 50 countries they have the federal overlay to make it work.

      2. h4rm0ny

        The Economist is good but has the occasional US-centric blindspot. I recall an analysis in there saying how Hollande was very unlikely to be elected because he was "too Socialist". Which showed a great grasp of French society, I must say! :D Their take on the attacks on Libya was either staggeringly ignorant or had to mendacious in how completely they followed the US government's party line on it being an internal popular uprising. Generally they're pretty good but nobody is without weaknesses.

  3. h4rm0ny

    That's a lot of words...

    I have a shorter article of about three sentences: "Greece only got into the EU because Goldman Sachs helped them fiddle their financials and because some of the EU leaders were keen on expansion for political reasons. It never was a good fit and should never have been allowed in. And when they crashed rather than infinite bailouts for which the taxpayer takes the risk, they should have been allowed to crash out of the EU rather than dragging everyone else down with them."

    Any of the above would make the rest of what was said academic. Yes, there are problems with a currency zone but there are benefits too. Not everything is about setting the most perfect interest rate possible. In reality, Tim is talking about, in his example, people in the North of England being charged more for debt than those in the South, or vice versa. Contrary to his article above, there are downsides to such discrimination.

    The EU can certainly absorb a little imprecision in interest rates for all the benefits such as negotiating as a large trade bloc, ease of labour migration, ease of internal trade. This is much like one of those interminable Windows vs. Linux arguments of the AGW debates we have on here where someone picks out one element and says: "Look, this could be better" and tries to turn the whole discussion into one facet rather than the whole picture.

    It is survivable that Spain is in the same currency union as Germany. Not ideal, but not critical either. In general, the rich drag up the poor a little bit as a consequence. Which is a good thing long term because otherwise you just get ever widening gaps which end extremely badly. What the EU can't survive is a country as rife with corruption and reckless borrowing as Greece. They should have been kicked out long before (or not admitted). Then we wouldn't be having this conversation because the issues Tim is talking about would be far less exacerbated by the general malaise Greece is largely responsible for. Spain and Ireland would pick up quickly enough. Such peaks and troughs are inevitable, not a consequence of monetary union.

    1. Chris Miller

      Re: That's a lot of words...

      It was partly a cultural thing. I've asked German friends why on earth they believed the numbers that the Greek government (aided by the Vampire Squid) produced in order to demonstrate that they met the criteria for entry into the eurozone. Their answer: "Of course we believed them, they were Official Government Statistics. Whereas what the Greeks thought (in their own minds) was: "These are our Official Government Statistics. And, if you don't like them, we have others."

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: That's a lot of words...

        The Germans 'believed' the Greek numbers because they needed poor countries in the euro so the poor countries could borrow money at low interest rates to buy German cars.

        The whole point of the euro was to make German exports affordable.

  4. Naselus

    For once, I actually agree with Tim. I'm no 'kipper or Eurosceptic, but the Euro is basically a cunning way to keep the German currency artificially suppressed and so keep German export industries competitive while remaining consistent with free market orthodoxies. The PIIGS are basically used as Germany's weak hinterland, reducing the strength of the currency - which benefits the Northern industrial exporters and hurts the more agriculturally dependent Southern import-based economies.

    The exact same thing occurred on a much smaller scale in Italy, post-unification. The industrial North of the country benefited from a single currency with the poverty-stricken South, and the divide between them actually widened as the North always got it's own way whenever there was a policy choice to be made.

    1. h4rm0ny

      If that is the case, then surely Britain would similarly benefit if were were a "Northern industrial exporter" like Germany. I think the real question is why we aren't and for that, we have to look considerably closer to home than Brussels. If the EU benefits rich and productive countries (as you point out), our aim should be to be one of those countries, not to drop out of the race.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Britain isn't an industrial country, it is a real estate investment trust and an offshore banking center.

        It does a bit of manufacturing where there are enough tax breaks

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The problem here is not with the EU or the principle behind monetary union. Both have huge benefits to business as well as citizens, and I can't see how a dual currency would assist matters. Dual currency just adds another layer of complexity and gives banks another reason to impose charges on businesses and citizens. I'm actually surprised people have forgotten how much money the Euro has saved as the costs of transactions between countries has been reduced - banks before were always taking margins, and sometimes large margins at that (especially when most trade between EU countries is to other EU countries).

    The real problem is two fold. Greece has long been full of corruption with many citizens shafting the tax collecting authority as an almost sport for decades. Secondly the Drachma was placed into ERM long ago at the wrong rate (as has been the case for a number of other countries).

    What people forget however is that Germany benefitted massively for a long time, as guess which country the Greeks were buying goods and services from primarily...

    1. Chris Miller

      I don't think the benefits of currency union are as great as you make out. Sure, it's convenient when you go on holiday, but the fact that your UK credit card provider screws you when you withdraw euros at an ATM doesn't mean that the same level of screwing goes on if I'm in receipt of several million euros from a eurozone business deal. As evidence, the UK economy doesn't appear to be hamstrung by the costs of currency conversion (not even a rounding error).

      As Tim points out, not joining the eurozone was probably the only good decision Gordon McMental took as Chancellor (certainly better than flogging off half our gold reserves at the very bottom of the market). Of course, he only adopted this position (like nearly all his positions) just to spite Tony, who was desperate to join.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        >Sure, it's convenient when you go on holiday

        It's also convenient if you run a business. Our currency has dropped by 20% in the last few months so that fuel prices at the pump have actually gone up as the oil price tanked.

        Try running a tight margin international business with 10 different currencies that vary by 20%

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      This

      "The real problem is two fold. Greece has long been full of corruption with many citizens shafting the tax collecting authority as an almost sport for decades."

      This. Primary reason for the Greek financial problems. In isolation, it was easy to hide, ignore and/or work around. As part of a bigger financial entity, it becomes a problem which must be dealt with since not dealing with it causes problems, including the perceived unfairness seen by other EU countries, especially tax payers.

  6. Bill B

    First of all, I have to start with my father's opinion that "No two economists can agree on anything". As an economist himself he had a healthy degree of scepticism on the subject.

    I appreciate that Mr Worstall is having to tackle a wide subject in a short article, but even then, there seem to be a few short cuts in his article.

    The statement that "low interest rates screwed Ireland" seems to be one of those shortcuts. I thought it was Ireland taking advantage of those low interest rates without any thought of the future that screwed them. Note what I've done there. I've made the responsibility for Ireland's economic woes their responsibility not, as the article suggests .. Germany's or the EU's.

    Similarly, I thought that Greece's problem was that they cooked the books and hid several bad debts in order to look as if their economy was sufficiently sound to join the EU. Similarly to Ireland, they took advantage of easy money and then found they couldn't pay when things got tough.

    The idea that an area is too large for a single currency should also be challenged. What is required is that that area has to appreciate that the rich will subsidise the poor. As a regular reader of the London Evening Standard (I live in the Midlands but pick up the occasional discarded paper) I am often amused by the attitude of "why are we paying our wealth to those poor people up North?". The problem at the moment with Greece appears to be that Germany has the same attitude ... except that it's the poor lot down south they object to.

    However, as always an interesting thought provoking article ... as long as you appreciate that Mr Worstall is not necessarily right!

    1. Tim Worstal

      Yes

      "The idea that an area is too large for a single currency should also be challenged. What is required is that that area has to appreciate that the rich will subsidise the poor."

      That's the point that I mention, that fiscal policy can enlarge that optimal area.

      1. Jim99

        Re: Yes

        If I recall from undergraduate economics, other features that will help a currency union work:

        - free movement of labour allowing migration from poorer to richer areas. The US scores well here, but Britain less so (for several reasons such as regional disparities in house prices and a lack of social housing down south making it hard to up sticks); free movement is possible in the EU, but language and cultural barriers greatly lessen its incidence compared to America.

        - a financial system (whether banks, bond markets, stock markets) able to transfer people's savings to investors across the system as a whole: the $ and £ areas do well on this, but the eurozone lacks continent-wide banks and makes less use of shares and bonds to raise money for businesses than in the US.

        - a common legal system so contracts, bankruptcies, etc. dealt with in a predictable way in the event of a "shock": US and UK have this: Eurozone less so.

        - free trade in goods - US, UK and EU all have this within the currency areas.

        - free trade in services - EU still has barriers in place here: e.g. different legal arrangements, regulatory arrangements for the professions. So does the US to a degree with State-level regulation of some services.

        There were probably other factors I forgot. I am pleased to read an article that mentions optimum currency areas: anyone looking at the problem without using this lens will probably make the same mistake the Euro's architects did, i.e. look at the currency as a political project, rather than an economic one.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Yes

          It still seems odd that the financial markets in London and Frankfurt are so massively different that a single currency is ludicrous and yet Barnes and Barnsley face such similar economic issues that any difference in response to them would be unthinkable.

    2. Ossi

      "The statement that "low interest rates screwed Ireland" seems to be one of those shortcuts. I thought it was Ireland taking advantage of those low interest rates without any thought of the future that screwed them."

      I think you're rather anthropomorphising a complex system there. It seems that by 'Ireland' you mean the Irish economy, which you can't credit with consciousness. It's odd to try to blame it. The reaction of the Irish economy to low interest rates was simply exactly how any economy would react.

      If by 'Ireland' you mean the Irish government, then I think you'll find that it was fiscally responsible during this period and ran a surplus.

      1. bep

        Maybe

        "The statement that "low interest rates screwed Ireland" seems to be one of those shortcuts. I thought it was Ireland taking advantage of those low interest rates without any thought of the future that screwed them."

        I think you're rather anthropomorphising a complex system there. It seems that by 'Ireland' you mean the Irish economy, which you can't credit with consciousness. It's odd to try to blame it. The reaction of the Irish economy to low interest rates was simply exactly how any economy would react.

        If by 'Ireland' you mean the Irish government, then I think you'll find that it was fiscally responsible during this period and ran a surplus."

        Meanwhile in Spain there was certainly a property speculation bubble, but they built a lot of infrastructure as well. This may well stand them in better stead if and when their economy recovers.

  7. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Infinite debt

    If the Germany, the UK and the US have debts at over 100% of GDP and haven't managed to pay them off the PIGS haven't got a cat in hell's chance.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019