23-07-2002 17:52									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Roland I don't believe you and I won't look it up.

Where would you put it then? I'd like to see if you have the better claim to being correct.

	23-07-2002 17:57									#182
	Inflate your Upload Space

Those are developments that take a lot of time. Pinning it down to a year has only symbolic value. If I had to say a year, 1789. The US revolution wasn't really national, so it is when the larger part of the french estates of the realm declared and constituted itself as the NATIONAL assembly claiming sovereignty.

	23-07-2002 18:35									#183
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin quote: If the policies harmonized upon are lousy, they most certainly won't lead to more stable - or efficient - environments. Quite the contrary. So ditch Europe because we might harmonise to the wrong level.

Nope. I claim that the EU already has harmonized at the wrong level. Mere potential has nothing to do with it, unfortunately.

quote: That is only likely if people don't get involved and just ***** about it. If you give proactive support rather than remain a naysayer you will get the type of European Union that you want/feel more comfortable with. If you don't help design it, don't complain if it comes out differently to how you wanted it.

It's perfectly acceptable wanting to dismantle something you feel is beyond repair, if your belief is that reforms aren't likely to give satisfactory results. As far as the EU is concerned, I think cut your losses is the best policy European states can pursue.

And while I agree that anyone showing indifference to the whole question has only himself to blame, being opposed to the notion entirely is certainly as valid a stance as trying to paint over the cracks.

	23-07-2002 18:41									#184
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin If you don't have foreign exchange transactions you can not have foreign exchange losses and thus foreign exchange risk is removed. I think the conclusion definitely follows from the assertion. How can it not?

In this particular case it does not follow, since the EU has yet to accomplish the sell of the Euro as a currency to our most important trade partner, the US. Only intra-community currency risk is reduced, which I certainly don't think is worth the strains the Euro carries with it.

And those strains will show, never fear. The EU does not have the mechanisms in place that makes the dollar work reasonably well for a country as disparate as the US.

	23-07-2002 22:19									#185
	Put an end to popups!

Moomin :
When did the US harmonize their money ? Half 19th century I think... When did the dollar become the most widely used money ? After WW2, replacing the pound. If you say "Euro sucks because it's not internationally worshipped after 3 years of existence and 1 year of fiducial presence", than you have definitely a short sight.

	23-07-2002 22:40									#186
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by moominparatrooper since the EU has yet to accomplish the sell of the Euro as a currency to our most important trade partner, the US. Only intra-community currency risk is reduced, which I certainly don't think is worth the strains the Euro carries with it.

European countries largest trade partner is not the US, it is the rest of Europe. Intoducing the Euro has removed FX risk from all intra-Euroland trade - over 50% of EU members' international trade.

The US acceptance is of no consequence here.

	24-07-2002 02:08									#187
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin European countries largest trade partner is not the US, it is the rest of Europe.

That's quite correct.

quote: Intoducing the Euro has removed FX risk from all intra-Euroland trade - over 50% of EU members' international trade.

Only in theory, alas. For most high-end trade (the kind that all the EU politicos tell us is going to secure the jobs and social services of tomorrow, you know) even intra-EU trade relies heavily on components and services purchased elsewhere - and that's invariably priced in USDs. So are all commodities and all raw materials that are needed in the European industry - consider the price fluctuations at you local gas stop every time the dollar goes up and down.

I'm not saying that the Euro doesn't increase price transparency and decrease currency risk - I'm just saying that it doesn't do so nearly to the extent that its proponents would have us believe.

And I think that those positive effects come at a very high price.

	24-07-2002 02:45									#188
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You can always emigrate to the US once the EU has become one, moomin

	24-07-2002 02:48									#189
	Put an end to popups!

Yeah, get shut of him. We don't want the malcontent around once we have unity

	24-07-2002 02:49									#190
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Moomin : When did the US harmonize their money ? Half 19th century I think...

The history of the USD is far from clean-cut. Take a peek at the development of dollar at:

http://www.ustreas.gov/adc/newcur6.pdf

Fascinating stuff.

quote: When did the dollar become the most widely used money ? After WW2, replacing the pound. If you say "Euro sucks because it's not internationally worshipped after 3 years of existence and 1 year of fiducial presence", than you have definitely a short sight.

Then it's fortunate I'm not saying that, isn't it? What I'm saying is that the often-toted line that the Euro eliminates currency risk isn't true ieven n Euroland.

	24-07-2002 02:51									#191
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by moominparatrooper Only in theory, alas. For most high-end trade (the kind that all the EU politicos tell us is going to secure the jobs and social services of tomorrow, you know) even intra-EU trade relies heavily on components and services purchased elsewhere - and that's invariably priced in USDs.

That is irrelevant - the source of primary components is a sunk cost. A French company purchasing from Italy cares not if the raw goods were originally from the US, or China, valued in Yen or Dongs. The only thing that matters is the cost and risk of the intra-European transaction - if the transaction were in Euros there would be no risk, if it was in Francs and Lira there would be a risk.

Hence it is the value and not the nature of intra-Europe transaction that is relevant. Your argument holds no weight.

	24-07-2002 03:11									#192
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin That is irrelevant - the source of primary components is a sunk cost.

In some cases. However, I'd go so far as to say that most goods today is being contracted and sold before it's even been produced, and these contracts regularly have standard currency adjustment clauses anyway.

quote: Hence it is the value and not the nature of intra-Europe transaction that is relevant. Your argument holds no weight.

I'm sure companies like Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel and their 3G customers will be delighted to hear that.

	24-07-2002 03:19									#193
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: In some cases. However, I'd go so far as to say that most goods today is being contracted and sold before it's even been produced, and these contracts regularly have standard currency adjustment clauses anyway.

Not between countries trading in the same currency. If they did, domestic transactions would also do the same thing to reduce their exposure. Purchases are usually agreed in a particular currency and thats it, no changes on account of currency fluctuation are usually made unless you have really strong purchasing/supplier power. You're grasping at straws here.

quote: I'm sure companies like Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel and their 3G customers will be delighted to hear that

What is that supposed to mean?

	24-07-2002 17:37									#194
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin quote: In some cases. However, I'd go so far as to say that most goods today is being contracted and sold before it's even been produced, and these contracts regularly have standard currency adjustment clauses anyway. Not between countries trading in the same currency. If they did, domestic transactions would also do the same thing to reduce their exposure.

Well... duh. They do, you know.

quote: Purchases are usually agreed in a particular currency and thats it, no changes on account of currency fluctuation are usually made unless you have really strong purchasing/supplier power.

In certain indistries. In others, long-term contracts that don't hold all kinds of adjustment clauses - including, of course, currency clauses - are almost unheard-of.

quote: You're grasping at straws here.

I really don't think so. I'd be interested to tell us why you believe that. I'm referring to quite ordinary business practices.

quote: quote: I'm sure companies like Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel and their 3G customers will be delighted to hear that What is that supposed to mean?

It means nobody sells teleco systems due for delivery 2005 for a fixed price. The reason you never hear the exact amount given as deals are presented isn't that they don't want to brag - beacuse they do! - but that any number presented at this point is a ballpark figure anyway, due to be adjusted by any of a huge number of circumstances that are all regulated in the deal. There's nothing mysterious or fishy about all this, and it's normal business practice even with certain long-term service contracts these days.

	24-07-2002 17:49									#195
	Tired of ads?

quote: Well... duh. They do, you know

Give an example then.

quote: In certain indistries. In others, long-term contracts that don't hold all kinds of adjustment clauses - including, of course, currency clauses - are almost unheard-of

If you agree a contract at a given price in a given currency you will not change that price due to currency fluctuation. If you are the person gaining why would you agree to change the contract price?

quote: I really don't think so. I'd be interested to tell us why you believe that. I'm referring to quite ordinary business practices

Not ordinary.

quote: It means nobody sells teleco systems due for delivery 2005 for a fixed price. The reason you never hear the exact amount given as deals are presented isn't that they don't want to brag - beacuse they do! - but that any number presented at this point is a ballpark figure anyway, due to be adjusted by any of a huge number of circumstances that are all regulated in the deal. There's nothing mysterious or fishy about all this, and it's normal business practice even with certain long-term service contracts these days

The relevance of contract pricing to FX exposure is?

	24-07-2002 18:07									#196
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin quote: Well... duh. They do, you know Give an example then.

Well, if you insist. When the Swedish state handed out licences to mobile operators for 3G-networks, they all had to commit to elaborate plans detailing how, where and when they were going to build what. All these plans have now been contacted network equipment operators such as Ericsson, Nokia and Alcatel. The prices may be in local currency, but rest assured that actual figures are due to be adjusted for any number of factors including currency fluctuations.

quote: quote: In certain indistries. In others, long-term contracts that don't hold all kinds of adjustment clauses - including, of course, currency clauses - are almost unheard-of If you agree a contract at a given price in a given currency you will not change that price due to currency fluctuation. If you are the person gaining why would you agree to change the contract price?

Because you're not selling otherwise. Look, contactual risk management is nothing new - if a client absolutely wants a fixed price of future delivery, he has to pony up with a risk bonus - the manufacturer will try to do reasonably close worst-case estimate of future costs - including exchange costs - and hand over the bill. The reason people accept contacts with adjustment price clauses is that they are cheaper and therefor more effective most of the time.

quote: quote: I really don't think so. I'd be interested to tell us why you believe that. I'm referring to quite ordinary business practices Not ordinary.

Then we can only conclude you conduct business in your own way in Britain. Not that it would be the only thing you do differently

quote: quote: It means nobody sells teleco systems due for delivery 2005 for a fixed price. The reason you never hear the exact amount given as deals are presented isn't that they don't want to brag - beacuse they do! - but that any number presented at this point is a ballpark figure anyway, due to be adjusted by any of a huge number of circumstances that are all regulated in the deal. There's nothing mysterious or fishy about all this, and it's normal business practice even with certain long-term service contracts these days The relevance of contract pricing to FX exposure is?

That contact princing allows for FX exposure, among other risks.

	24-07-2002 22:27									#197
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: When the Swedish state handed out licences to mobile operators for 3G-networks, they all had to commit to elaborate plans detailing how, where and when they were going to build what. All these plans have now been contacted network equipment operators such as Ericsson, Nokia and Alcatel. The prices may be in local currency, but rest assured that actual figures are due to be adjusted for any number of factors including currency fluctuations.

If tender prices are in Krona, and changes are due to currency fluctuations between the Krona and currency X, Y and Z that is effectively stating that the contract is not being agreed in Krona, but in currency X, Y and Z.

All you are doing is stating the contract in a convoluted way. Far simpler to just state the contract in the currency for which adjustments would have to be made. However the chance of a government stating that they will agree a contract price in a foreign currency is unlikely. But that is what they are doing.

	24-07-2002 22:40									#198
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Then it's fortunate I'm not saying that, isn't it? What I'm saying is that the often-toted line that the Euro eliminates currency risk isn't true ieven n Euroland.

If all European countries used the Euro, then no new FX risks would be introduced by intra-Europe trading.

If you have 15 countries trading in 15 currencies you have risk introduced with every transaction. Over half of all transaction would have risk due to intra Europe trading, and under half due to extra-Europe trading. Using a single currency removes over half the risk generated in the EU.

Sure there can be FX risks passed on as costs within Europe, but they will not be compounded risks, as I said before, they are sunk costs/risk.

	28-07-2002 04:49									#199
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Europeans to use EU flag as a flag icon...

Not all europeans live in the EU remember. Sometimes i get the feeling the EU is nothing but another german attempt to rule their neighbours, the fourth Reich this time. Other times i think the EU is a good idea though

	28-07-2002 05:00									#200
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

and the eu flag looks really evil

	28-07-2002 05:46									#201
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

200