Eurovision: walking to Baku 2012! (XIX)

I lack very few countries for comment. Here is my comment for two more choices.

Montenegro and Rambo Amadeus 
And after an absence of two years, this Balkan country is back. After having participated as Serbia and Montenegro in 2004 and 2005, reaching the 2nd and 7th places respectively, of the three times it participated as an independent country Montenegro has never reached the final, the best being a 11th place in 2009.


This year Montenegro will have the honor of opening the 1st semi-final, and for all purposes to inaugurate the series of songs in competition with the song "Euro Neuro", interpreted by the singer 48 years, Rambo Amadeus.
And we have here another case of a song very comical. Because there is no live version - at least officially - I'll rely on official music video. All video is hilarious, as both the letter and message.


Not doubting that Rambo Amadeus may have a good voice quality, the truth is that this music does not show the vocal talents of the artist. And this is another case of a song that will be very difficult to find a live interpretation worthy of ... such music.
Surely this song will appeal more to public than to juries, that should stand it between the least voted.

Unfortunately for Montenegro, the only neighbor who'll have to vote in the same semi-final where it will participate, will be Albania, which is not even the countries that has given you more points. All other neighbors in the Balkans are on the 2nd semifinal.
Not believing that the final pass, at least one thing is certain: Eurovision 2012 will start the most hilarious way possible: it is that unlike other "comedies" in the competition this year, this is not as annoying or smug.

Israel and Izabo

I will now speak of a country that could leave a very own and distinct mark in Eurovision despite its last big hit was the 4th place in 2005.
Israel is famous for several of its holdings, particularly at the victory of artist Dana International in 1998, the first transsexual to win the contest (in a year when almost all countries were based on the televoting to pick their favorite), which reinforces a great connection with this contest to LGBT culture.
This was the third and final victory of Israel. However, since the introduction of semifinals in 2004, despite never having reached TOP3 has achieved reasonable ratings (just failed to qualify in 2004, 2007 and 2011).


After the failure of last year, which failed to pass to the final, being represented accurately by Dana International (was the first time that a winner back to Eurovision and failed to pass the final), this year the country bet in a band , Izabo, and a very original theme, Time.
As the choice of representation was in charge of Israeli broadcaster IBA, I'll just focus on the choice made ​​(since there isn't other competition).


Although it is not the songs I like the most, I recognize that this is another case of a good comic song, with a very unique and original identity in this year. However, it fell into the good graces of the majority of the public, judging by the polls and reviews of the performance videos on youtube and on several websites and blogs. Still, although there is no a live presentation, at least officially, I don't believe that this music is the most voted on by juries than by televoting.
In fact the qualities of the singer are only moderately good.

Of the countries that tend to give more votes to Israel and will be in the same semifinal it, are Finland, Belgium, Romania and Albania.



Good luck to both countries!!!!






Who do you think should go to the final of Eurovision? Go HERE and give your opinion.  

Eurovision: walking to Baku 2012! (XVIII)

Unfortunately, several problems have caused me to delay in analyzing the choices of each country to the Eurovision this year, but I hope to have everything commented as soon as possible.

AZERBAIJAN AND SABINA BABAYEVA 
I will now speak of the host country this year, who chose to be represented by a very peculiar selection which already I will speak then.

Before that, I will talk about the path of Azerbaijan at the festival. Currently holds, together with Greece, the record for, as long as there semifinals, have always passed to the final and have been in the Top 10. But as I said in the message of Greece, Azerbaijan debuted only in 2008, so the feat is not so admirable as that of Greece. Even so, the route of Azerbaijan has been remarkable: his worst classification was in the rookie year,  2008, with an 8th place. The very next year reached the 3rd place and 5th place in 2010. Until last year earned the victory. However, it was one of the least significant victories in all history of Eurovision, and since there is a voting system of 50-50 in the finas, thid was the first time that the winner in the opinion of the televoting televoting was different that the winner according to the jury. For this victory greatly contributed the fact that neither Turkey nor Armenia have passed the final, which attracted many votes from the diaspora to Azerbaijan.


Furthermore, Azerbaijan was not the country that received more 12 points, was not even the 2nd. Received 12 points only from three countries (much less than in 2010), along with 4 other countries. And there were 12 countries that in the final did not attribute a single point to Azerbaijan, which confirms very little significant victory of Azerbaijan.
Personally, although the music be good, would not be a winner. And both songs from 2009 and 2010 deserve much more to win.


The representative of Azerbaijan, Sabina Babayeva, 32 years old, was the winner of the 7th round, one of the winners of the semifinal and the final winner.
As for music, the power ballad "When the Music Dies" was chosen internally by a jury composed expressly for this purpose.
Also this song was much better than last year. Being directly in the final, most likely will not be that Azerbaijan will break its record. The singer's voice quality is fairly good (though there is no live version, at least officially, of this song) and as I said, we are in the presence of a ballad very powerful and emotional and with a rich instrumental.

Certainly it will be highly scored by Turkey (12 points), Georgia, Ukraine (possibly also with 12 points), Russia and some Eastern European countries.

Slovakia and Max Jason May

I now turn to the opposite extreme: from the existence of semifinals that Slovakia, which returned in 2009, never passed the final, being the nearest place a 13th place last year, with artists TWiiNS.
But prior to the absence of 10 years, Slovakia's participation also was not marked by great successes: before 2009, it participated in 1994, 96 and 98, never getting more than the 18th place in 1996. And let us not forget that Slovakia is within the European continent and surrounded by so many countries: this is another example of the voting neighborhood does not always work.


The choice this year was in charge of Slovak broadcaster RTVs. Despite strong rumors still circulating in 2011 about a possible absence of this year, and after having confirmed the presence of the artist Miro Šmajda, better known as Max Jason May, to represent Slovakia, being latter contradicted by the same, this would to be confirmed on March 7 as the representative for Slovakia this year's Eurovision interpreting the theme "Don't Close your Eyes".
Absence of other competitors, I'll just concentrate on this song.
This is a clear example of a music in a rock / heavy metal genre, which is not very common in Eurovision, despite having already been successful in some cases (the most familiar being the victory of Finland in 2006).


This year is the only country to be represented with a song of its kind, that brings in one hand the advantage of originality (being able to attract the votes of supporters of this type of music), but has the disadvantage of not being a very common genre in Eurovision and not very pleasing to most eurofas, not to mention again the problem of absence of political vote in favor of this country.

As the artist, despite the originality and own style, the vocal qualities are nothing special, and that basing myself in the studio version because there is no live version - at least officially - which certainly will not attract many votes of the juries.


The song has everything to give a great show in the second semi-final where he will act, which may represent an additional charge because a bad performance (or a median performance) can completely ruin the chances of Slovakia to the final pass, which isn't currently very much.

Despite being a song that would be interesting to see in the final, the prospects are not encouraging which results in additional weight to Max Jason Mai. According to the countries that tend to give more votes to Slovakia and will vote it in the same semifinal, this eastern European country should rely on votes from Ukraine and Malta.



Good luck to both countries!!!






Who do you think should go to the final of Eurovision? Go HERE and give your opinion. 

Restructuring of Greek's debt

The big problems that Greece is facing nowadays is the massive and rising debts, and the loss of competitiveness.
Unfortunatly, this country only has bad options to solve this crisis. But the least bad alternative for Greece, is an ordely resstruction of greek's debt, as soon as creditors are better prepared to deal with this shock.

Greece has also the problem of a very small tax net and a large informal economy. Because of that, is very unlikely that Greece can make an unsuspected tax windfall, and alter this conclusion.

The Greeks problems began before the establishment of euro. In that period, Greece has one of the worst economic performances of all Euro area members: high inflation, the slowest GDP growth, and the highest borrowing premium to pay.
With the adoption of the euro, many of these problems seems to be solved. Now, Greece was more attractive to the FDI.


Capital became more cheaper, the domestic demand rose and all this confidence led to an increase of public deficit from 3.7 percent of GDP in 1997 to 14.4 percent in 2008.
With the growth of domestic demand, the prices increased to the Euro-area average, leading to a increasing in domestic labor costs and a decline in Greek competitiveness.
Also since 1997, both the consumer prices and the por capita employee compensation increased more than the Euro-area average.
The issue of competitiveness has been aggravated with the expansion of non-tradable sectors of the economy at the expense of the tradable sectors.

But, this period hadn't only bad aspects: the Greek economic received also benefits. Betwen 1997 and 2007 Greek economy growth was one of the highest in all Euro-area. And, because of tax revenues increase, the Government rapidly increased its spending, specialy in public sector wages and social transfers (unlike what happened in western Europe). At the same time, public deficits remained high and justifiable. Unfortunatly, this good scenario changed when the global financial crisis started and when markets realized that Greece could not meet its financial commitments.
Worries about Greek capacity to repay its loans rapidly spread throughout all troubled South Europe Countries.

The situation came to the extreme of Greece has the need receive external financial aid from EU and IMF.

This aid had the objective of restructuring the debt and the economic struture.
For Greece receive the aid program, was established an agreement between the creditors and the Greek government. This agreement consists on:

-reduction of debt-GDP ratio by 2013 due to fiscal policy adjustements, and decrease of government deficit below 3 percent of GDP by 2014.
The total adjustement, with an impact of 11 percent on GDP, is composed by: reductions in spending of 5.3 percent of GDP, tax increases in order of 4 percent and an increased in 1.8 percent of GDP thanks to strutural reforms.
- those structural reforms want to enhance government produtivity and transparency, increase the wage flexibility in the private sector and the improvement on good business climate and competitiveness among Greek firms.
- the government problems also affected the financial sector, that had big problems to acess to international markets. The aid also be focused in the banks capitalization.

The big concern about Greece is the alck of liquidity: any improvement is achieved by a fiscal adjustement, based mainly in many cuts in a lot of sectors.
Of course these cuts are accentuating the recession both in the public and private sectors: wage and price deflation, that will hinder the output growth and tax revenues.
The IMF estimated that Greece will need its debt in proportion of GDP in 120 percent by 2020. Given the competitive problem of Greece, this is an objective very difficult to achieve.
The reality is more problematic: the austerity is increasing the recession.

And, this black scenario leads the creditors to believe that, after the EU-IMF program end, Greece will have again problems to pay its commitments.
In this situation, debt restructuring is totally necessary, but not enough, to drive Greece back to the growth path.
The country will need to promote the export sector to restart economic growth. But, with the competitiveness problems that could be agravated by the debt restructuring, this will not be easy.

Besides that, the big part of Greek exports goes to the EU countries. And the fiscal austerity programs in these countries will negative affect the domestic demand, and consequently the imports (including from Greece).
The other way is reducing the competitiveness by wage reduction, deflation and increases in produtivity. However, this measures take a long time to make visible effects. But, if even with these measures, the Greek situation doesn't improve, the other solution is to Greece leave the Euro (staying in the EU).

Finally, as the Greek problem due to a large informal economy, with large scale tax evasion and doubtful statistics, an adequate politic reform could solve this problem very quickly.

de MERKOZY a MERKOLLANDE?

Apesar da vitória mais do que assegurada, os efeitos da mudança política na presidência francesa não foram mesmo assim atenuados.

Começo por falar da primeira volta das eleições presidenciais. A grande surpresa foi o resultado obtido pela líder de extrema-direita, Marine Le Pen: com 17.9% dos votos, o seu partido tornou-se a terceira força política, e no fundo, um dos grandes vencedores destas eleições.
Os 7 milhões de eleitores que escolheram Marine Le Pen, foram suficientes para a líder acreditar numa reformulação de toda a corrente política de extrema-direita na França, e num maior peso desta corrente partidária no contexto político francês.

E a verdade é que o conseguiu, logo depois da divulgação dos resultados da primeira volta.
Na disputa dos votos entre Sarkozy e Hollande, os votos de todos os outros candidatos estavam praticamente assegurados para um ou outro: todos, excepto os de Marine Le Pen. E com 7 milhões de votantes, e com uma diferença tão pequena entre Hollande e Sarkozy na primeira volta (de apenas 1.45%), o candidato que os conseguisse obter, teria o caminho para o Eliseu bem mais facilitado.

Quem parece ter levado este pormenor muito a sério foi Nicolas Sarkozy, que durante a campanha para a 2ª volta alterou a temática dos seus discursos centrando-se nos temas mais caros à Frente Nacional: o problema da imigração e da insegurança pública, e a oposição ao projecto europeu.

E as surpresas continuaram na segunda volta: venceu François Hollande (de acordo com as previsões), o que significou a primeira vez na História da V República Francesa, que o Presidente perde na corrida para o segundo mandato. E desde 1995 que a França não tinha um presidente socialista.

Deixando as questões de política interna para os Franceses, vou falar daquilo que toda a gente fala, e que realmente preocupa mais à Europa e ao mundo: a questão da crise europeia e da sua gestão.
A posição de Hollande foi sempre bem definida: aliviar a corrente de austeridade severa imposta pela Alemanha. Mas, certamente como forma de tentar agradar a todos, o discurso de Hollande foi sempre ambíguo nesta matéria:
- prometeu uma revisão do novo Tratado Orçamental, que impõe a obrigação de os governos, a médio/longo prazo conceberem orçamentos equilibrados. Mas também referiu que o aceitaria, como complemento à criação de um Pacto para o Crescimento;
- assegurou querer rever os estatutos do BCE, para que este se possa tornar um "emprestador" em último recurso para os Estados em dificuldade. No entanto, não referiu nada disso explicitamente no seu programa de governo;

Passo a analisar cada aspecto com mais detalhe:

Tratado Orçamental: mesmo recebendo Hollande de braços abertos, Merkel afirma que não vai abrir mão, nem vai renegociar o Tratado Orçamental. O que ainda está para ser definido é a data a partir da qual, todos os países da zona euro serão obrigados a ter orçamentos cumpridores da regra de ouro.

Pacto de Crescimento: A Alemanha está disposta a negociar o "pacto de crescimento" mas sem abrir mão da garantia de que todos os países mantém o compromisso de apresentar contas públicas controladas, aplicando as reformas estruturais necessárias para tal.

Empréstimo do BCE: Hollande deverá rebuscar a proposta de Sarkozy de alterar o mandato do BCE e possibilitar que este seja credor directo dos governos em dificuldade, como última instância.
Esta ideia concretizar-se-ia na transformação do FEEF, em bancos com a capacidade de se refinanciarem junto do BCE. Esta hipótese permitiria que os fundos de resgate do euro tivessem capacidade quase ilimitada, pois poderiam comprar dívida soberana nos mercados primário e secundário e obtendo liquidez junto do BCE, dando-a como colateral.

Eurobonds: Hollande é favorável à criação dos "project bonds" porpostos pela Comissão Europeia para financiar projectos de investimento concretos que suscitem o interesse comum e que favoreçam o crescimento.
A Comissão Europeia partilha desta visão: defende que a União deve emitir dívida europeia até um limite de 50 milhões de euros, juntamente com o reforço do capital do Banco Europeu de Investimento. Até agora tem prevalecido a posição da Alemanha que é contra esta medida...

Quanto aos mercados financeiros, apesar do impasse político criado pelas eleições na Grécia, reagiram razoavelmente bem à vitória de Hollande, o que trouxe um grande alívio sobretudo para Espanha e Itália.

Em relação ao futuro, só o tempo dirá o que vai acontecer. Mas o mais certo é que "Merkollande" não se desvie muito de Merkozy. Mesmo que Hollande tenha que actuar contra aquilo que disse durante a campanha, se não seguir a linha política da Alemanha, o mais provável é acabar na mesma condição que os países do Sul da Europa.

Eurovision: walking to Baku 2012! (XVII)

I'm almost done the analysis to all countries. Here are reviews of two more countries.

United Kingdom and Engelbert Humperdinck 

I begin by talking about one of the compelling countries in the history of Eurovision. Has participated since 1957 (the 2nd edition), since the debut year of the festival uploaded their music after the period has ended, and since its entry into the Festival only lacked in 1958.
It is one of the most successful countries with five wins and a record of more times in 2nd place (15 times in total).
However, after its last victory in 1997, that good luck began to turn away from this country. Later that year, there is only to highlight a 3rd place in 2002, and is also in the first decade of this century that the UK gets first the last place in 2003, returning to this place again in 2008 and 2010.


No wonder that the BBC, the British broadcaster responsible for transmitting the Eurovision and choose the English representative, is desperate to make the UK back to the golden times of yesteryear and up again to host the festival.



This year, the choice is quite peculiar. The representative is the singer Engelbert Humperdinck, 75 years old, who will interpret the theme "Love Will Set You Free" (one of the longest titles of this year).
Although the choice has been made by internal selection over the BBC, many rumors circulated prior to the presentation of the artist and subject.
Also in 2011, more precisely in August rumors circulated that the famous girl band Spice Girls would meet again only to represent the Eurovision Festival. Later, on 26 February this year there were rumors that the UK would be representative of the girl band Atomic Kitten, but soon all the group members denied these rumors.
Finally, almost at the end of the deadline for submitting applications is that the BBC announced it would be Engelbert Humperdinck to represent the country. On March 19 it announced the music.



There being no other candidates for me to comment, I will only focus on the representative and the music chosen. Is unquestionable the musical quality of the singer, the evidence for its long and solid career (which leads me to wonder why is that never before participated in the contest).
As for the music is undoubtedly a unique style this year, and that reminds me of the other songs at the Eurovision a long time ago (especially in the 80s and 90s): It is very quiet and with a very simple and "friendly" message!
Although I do not believe that this song is among the crowd favorite, I also doubt that they place it among the last places. In relation to the juries, which may arise here is unexpected results. Surely this song will appeal more to juries than to televoting, but for me it is unknown how the jury might react to this song: both can make a success (TOP10), as another year to forget for United Kingdom.


Being a member of the Big Five that is automatically in the final 26 at least no one will take place in the UK.

Belgium and Iris
Returning to the Continental Europe, I will now speak of Belgium, which despite being nowhere near as successful as the UK (already got eight times the unloved last place, three of them in the 60s and the others in the 2000s) the truth is that recent years have not been discussed by many successes. On the contrary, since the existence of the semifinals, only in 2010 that Belgium is able to pass the final, getting the 1st place in the semifinal and the 6th place in the final. A success that many voices accused that  was imitated last year by Switzerland and Finland, though far from having the same success as Belgium.



The choice of this year fell on the singer Iris, only 17 years old, who plays the theme "Would You". The choice of the artist was in charge of the Flemish broadcaster VRT, responsible for transmitting the Eurovision in Belgium. The same station had two songs to be chosen by the public during a festival. The choice, with a small margin (53% versus 47% of other music) fell on "Would You" which also reminds me of the music at the Eurovision in other times (80 and 90). The music is very simple, both the melody and the lyrics, and the message is very positive and fresh.
The image itself of Iris when she presented the two songs, is reminiscent of the Eurovision performers of yesteryear.



As for the other song "Safety net" despite being the same kind, is certainly calmer, and would also be a good choice to represent Belgium in the Eurovision. In fact, Belgium had almost the same chance of being successful with either one as with the other.


Although it is quite obvious that Belgium does not have great chances to get even in the Top 10, I consider overkill so many negative comments circulating on the internet and youtube videos in this music, on the choice of Belgium.
This just proves that, however bad a song is sung, provided only a show and create a ridiculous interpretation, pleases more the audience than the songs like this that what stands out most is the quality of the singer's voice (which should be the most important argument in a music festival).



Belgium will participate in the 1st semifinal, and among the countries that gave more votes to Belgium since 1975 and will also vote in this semifinal is just Spain.
This shows that the outlook for Belgium is nothing exciting: only juries can secure a passage from Belgium to the final.








Good luck to both countries!!!

The Euro and the problem of PIIGS (I)

Here I begin a series of posts analyzing the problem of the most "famous" countries of the West: the PIIGS.

PIIGS: the junction of the first letter of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain.

It is an expression that already has a few good years of use but that since the beginning of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe has gained prominence as never before had acquired.

In fact, the problem of sovereign debt crisis has these five countries as the main stage.

The worst situation is obviously fa Greece currently has a debt as a percentage of GDP of around 160% and a deficit in the order of 6.7% of GDP (Forecasts for this year made ​​in late February 2012).

However, this country generally reflects what is happening in PIIGS: some more than others, all these countries have serious budget deficits, and structural problems more or less worrying.

Being the "poorest" in the club of the rich, it becomes very difficult for these countries can impose itself on the world economic context.

But to see how these countries, even after joining the most powerful economic bloc in the world, came to this catastrophic situation, I have to go back to the time when each joined the common currency.

With its accession to the Euro, it was easier to obtain loans for each country since Germany became the reference point in obtaining loans, which increased the confidence of the markets in all countries of the euro.

As the whole process of creation and implementation of the common currency was based on the credibility and robustness of the German mark, nothing compared to the instability and fragility of the currencies of PIIGS, this would eventually cause problems for these countries. The increases in prices, wages and other costs were generally higher than productivity gains.

Being under the same currency, the increasing divergence in costs between Germany and the PIIGS, led to an imbalance in real exchange rates and a worsening in the balance of current transactions in these countries while, on the contrary, the balance of Germany's relations with the outside had a growing surplus.

Moreover, the cost containment policy applied by the engine of the Eurozone during the first decade of this century, eventually worsen the balance of PIIGS with the outside.

Greece would become the exponent of these problems that have affected the euro area. Hence, the problems that can happen to this country, affecting not only the remaining PIIGS, as shakes the whole structure in which was mounted the single currency.

This crisis has also warned of the problem of, standing before a union only economic, not political also, there is a uniform monetary policy and exchange rate while there are numerous economic policies, either both in the way of managing economic activity in times of expansion and how to solve the problems of recession, as many as the member countries of the Eurozone.

The result was the continued deterioration in the budgetary situation and the high foreign debt. The low growth prospects for the coming years for these countries, have further aggravated the situation: the economy's growth will not contribute almost nothing to cover the budget hole.

The situation becomes more bleak when it notes that most debt securities of euro area countries is in the hands of banks in other countries that also belong to the eurozone.

This created a vicious cycle that makes it even more difficult the task of finding a way out of this chaotic situation: could not resort to monetary policy instruments, the threat of failure looms with such intensity leading to reduction of the value of debt securities of affected countries. With these bonds in the hands of banks, which already are indirectly affected by what happens in the state where they are, are directly affected by the loss of value of such securities.

The dream of flying PIIGS seems to be coming to an end.
Finding the reasons for this leads us to the years prior to its accession to the EURO.

And this loss that banks suffer ultimately affect the states where they are. And vicious cycle is created, which extended to the four corners of the world, thanks to another part of the public debt in the hands of banks and states outside the eurozone. To minimize these losses, banks outside the euro area also sell its assets to other countries.

In short, the whole world-system turns out to be affected by this crisis originating in the PIIGS.

After World War II, the 1st organization to include several European countries was NATO, which was under the influence of the USA.

In economic terms, was in 1957 that six European countries created a common market: the EEC. Italy was a founding member.

As for the remaining PIIGS, Ireland joined in 1973, Greece in 1981 and Portugal, along with Spain, in 1986. In 1992 the Treaty of Maastricht enshrined a single market for EU countries with free movement of persons, goods, services and capital between them. From then until the end of this decade has intensified the economic union between the Member States, and prepared to create a zone with a single currency, a common central bank and a single monetary policy.

However, ever since the 70s that tried to create a common currency for all members of the European common market, always failing.
The decisive steps for the creation of the single currency were the creation of the EMS (European Monetary System) in 1979 with the aim of creating between the Member States an area with stable exchange rates and prices (imposing limits to the fluctuation of the currencies of each country), and the consecration of the Delors Plan (1989) in the Maastricht Treaty, which established three essential steps for the creation of the common currency:

- Formulation of monetary policy by the European System of Central Banks (European Central Bank more Central Banks of each Member States);
- Harmonization of economic policies of each Member State by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers;
- Maintenance of price stability over the European Central Bank;

In 1994 was created the European Monetary Institute, in order to coordinate the monetary policies and to prepare the creation of the single currency, a process started officially on January 1, 1997. At that time, it was agreed that on 1 January 1999, would adopt the single currency the countries that met the following economic convergence criteria:

- The public deficit should not exceed 3% of GDP;
- Government debt should not exceed 60% of GDP;
- The inflation rate could not be more than 1.5% above the rate of the three countries with the lowest inflation;
- Interest rates on government debt in the long term, should not exceed by more than 2% the rate that applied in the same three countries (referred to in previous point);
- The exchange rate should be kept for two years, within the limits set by the SME may not occur any significant exchange rate depreciation or appreciation;

In short: to participate in the Economic and Monetary Union many countries had to change their economic policies, because it was necessary to verify the convergence of inflation and interest rates so that there is exchange rate stability, as well as a strong control over deficits and debt.

At the time of negotiation of the accession agreement, there were few countries that complied with these criteria. However, eleven countries have signed.
Greece was left out because, however much they tried to soften things, the situation in Greece was too far from acceptable.

The desire not to create a multi-speed and divided Europe, when it wanted the opposite, finally speak up, and these 11 countries have signed, since they undertook to satisfy the conditions of the convergence criteria, as well as they could.
By the end of 1996, would be set if the countries were able to begin its accession to monetary union. If so, it would make the creation of the ECB (European Central Bank) would start by dealing with the pre-launch of the euro, and the same issue.

The same countries that fueled the PIIGS, are now dropping them in the mud themselves.

Who does not fulfill the criteria, abandoned the accession process, going back to try again later.

According to economic theory, to find an optimum currency area is necessary to weighing the costs and benefits of participation for each country.
Germany and France joined the euro by a political question: even deny it, and come with the altruistic claims that Europe should be united and seen and treated as a whole, the euro has increased the supremacy and power of their economies .
As Denmark and Sweden, for different reasons, it seems that this unifying vision they went along (and maybe never have had as much reason as now). Already the UK, continues to behave like a mini-continent (it's a world apart ... admit).

What about the PIIGS? Not joined for political reasons.
Then weighed the benefits and costs, and concluded that the benefits were much greater than the costs (which were almost overlooked when it announced to the public the "wonders" of the single currency). Right? Wrong.

Returning to Economic Theory. In a monetary union may occur three types of benefits:
- Leaving there costs associated with foreign exchange, trade with the outside leaves favored, and therefore increases.
- The monetary integration leads to the integration of financial markets, which results in the implementation of a lower real interest rate (and it seems that everybody has seen good and never forgot this benefit);
- Especially for countries that do not have a central bank with a well-designed policy (that is, wandering), with monetary integration, the central bank gains credibility and strength to the political winds.

As these costs are summarized in the loss of monetary policy instruments and foreign exchange. Leaving there the interest rate, the monetary policy instruments in the hands of various countries, they they can no longer respond to any suffering shock.
Countries are thus limited to fiscal policy.

The whole scenario seems really exciting, especially for the countries of southern Europe. However, it was a specific group of these, known as PIIGS, which caused panic in the markets, leading to serious disturbances not only in their economies, as throughout the European Union.
What started out to be a serious case, but only restricted to Greece, is reaching gigantic proportions.


What happened then? I leave it to the next message.

Eurovision: walking to Baku 2012! (XVI)

Here are the comments for more two countries.

Bosnia-Herzegovina and Maya Sar 
I now return to the Balkans to talk about one of the most successful countries, despite never winning. Never miss a final, which proves the fact that Bosnia is a country much more benefit from the political vote, the only reason for the places that reached too good when it took very bad musics.

The performer of this year, has been present in previous editions of the Eurovision 2004 and 2011, making voice choir, and also playing piano in 2011.
I'm talking about the singer Maya Sar, 30 years old, who will play a power ballad titled "Ti Korake Znam." As the choice was made by internal selection over the Bosnian broadcaster BHRT, there is no competition that I can analyze or compare with the winner. With no also no official live performance of music, I can only be guided by the studio version of the official music video.
And so we see that this is a very emotional ballad with a touching and profound message.
Although not sung in English, this music can convey a message and does not leave the audience completely indifferent.

As Bosnia is in the same semifinal with many of its Balkan neighbors, and as is usually always scored highly for them, the passage to the final is practically guaranteed.
In addition to the neighbors in the Balkans, Bosnia must also receive enough points in the semifinal, from Turkey (probably 12 points), Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands.

Croatia and Nina Badric
I turn now to one of the bosnian neighbors, which has not been as successful as Bosnia. Since its debut in 1993, Croatia has been five times in the TOP10, the last time however, in 2000. It has failed 3 times to pass to the final.
This year Croatia invests in a loud voice of the singer Nina Badrić, 39 years old, which also brings us a ballad full of emotion entitled "Nebo". A example of Bosnia, the selection was also internal, incumbent upon the broadcaster HRT.
Standing before a singer with consistent career, the public expect a good participation from Croatia and a strong interpretation. It is possible that Croatia reverse the trend of the last two years and return to be present in the final.

But with Croatia can go to the same problem that Bosnia: a song with a message so rich, if not well understood in the contest and if not have on stage the essential elements to achieve adequately convey the message and emotion, the performances lose much with it.

Apart from the Balkan countries, is expected that Croatia receives in the semifinal, votes from Ukraine and Germany.
However, even if they qualify for the final should not get a very high rating.



Good luck to both countries!!!