Europe's banking union

Study the words

lambast(e) [lӕm^|beɪst] Criticize (someone or something) harshly (특히 공개적으로) 맹공격[비판]하다

unleash  Release from a leash or restraint  (강력한 반응・감정 등을) 촉발시키다[불러일으키다]

leash (개 등을 매어 두는) 가죽끈[줄], 사슬

counterblast  a vigorous and unrestrained response    (말이나 글로 하는) 강력한 반발[항의]

government heavyweights 정부 유력자(헤비급)

indignant Feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment 분개한, 분해 하는

dire Extremely serious or urgent 대단히 심각한, 엄청난, 지독한

constituent MPs 지역구 하원의원(Member of Parliament) ?

striking a chord (~의) 심금을 울리다

chancellor A senior state or legal official

riposte (특히 비판에 대한 기지 있는) 응수[반격]

bogeymen An imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children 아이들에게 겁을 줄 때 들먹이는) 귀신[부기맨] 

unsettle Cause to feel anxious or uneasy; disturb  (사람을) 불안하게 하다[동요시키다]

cliché-ridden 진부함에 사로잡힌

questionable  Doubtful as regards truth or quality 의심스런

Summary

: 172 German Economists criticize harshly the agreements made by Europe's leaders at a summit last week in Brussels. They lambaste the steps taken toward a banking union, as they warn of dire consequences of Germany assuming all euro-zone debt.

Of course, there were counterblast from government heavyweights and their advisory economists. They said it cannot be the job of economists to unsettle the public even more with cliché-ridden assertions and questionable arguments.

Organize the article

1. The agreement in Brussels. 

 : Europe’s leaders actually agreed on two things: to work towards joint bank supervision by the European Central Bank, and that euro-zone banks may be recapitalised directly by the European Financial Stability Facility and its future replacement, the European Stability Mechanism.

  The most a banking union, if it indeed comes, is likely to guarantee is the deposits of private savers up to €100,000—no more than each EU member state already guarantees at a national level. True, even that would be a lot of cash if there were a systemic bank run, but avoiding one is precisely the goal of joint supervision.

2. 172 German academics' criticism.

   172 German-speaking economists lambast(e) the steps taken towards a banking union. They are indignant and warn of dire consequences for German citizens when they end up guaranteeing balance-sheets three times the size of all euro-zone public debt. 

  A banking union means assuming “collective liability for the debts of the banks in the euro-system” thunder the professors. “Dear fellow citizens, please relay these concerns to your constituent MPs; our elected representatives must be alerted to the dangers that are threatening our economy,” they say. It appears more an attempt to fuel public fears that politicians are taking Germany down a slippery path towards assuming all euro-zone debt.

3. Counterblasts from government heavyweights and their economic advisers.

   It has unleashed a counterblast from government heavyweights and their economic advisers, leaving the public even more confused.

  Predictably, the government has come out fighting. Angela Merkel, the chancellor, urged people to study the actual decisions taken in Brussels. Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance minister, spluttered: “I find it outrageous. Economists should be more responsible in the way they handle the concept of bank debt.”

   A riposte from seven economic heavyweights (including Peter Bofinger and Bert Rürup, member and former member respectively of the Council of Economic Experts, which advises the government) has been posted on the website of the Handelsblatt, a business daily, under the headline “No bogeymen!” In these uncertain times, they write, “it cannot be the job of economists to unsettle the public even more with cliché-ridden assertions and questionable arguments.”

---

172 German professors can’t be wrong

OR PERHAPS they can. A letter from 172 German-speaking economists published by the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) lambasts the steps taken towards a banking union by euro-zone leaders at a summit last week in Brussels. It has unleashed a counterblast from government heavyweights and their economic advisers, leaving the public even more confused.

The euro-zone chiefs were far from agreeing on anything like a banking union—but let that pass. The 172 academics are indignant and warn of dire consequences for German citizens when they end up guaranteeing balance-sheets three times the size of all euro-zone public debt.

A banking union means assuming “collective liability for the debts of the banks in the euro-system” thunder the professors. “Dear fellow citizens, please relay these concerns to your constituent MPs; our elected representatives must be alerted to the dangers that are threatening our economy,” they say.

Europe’s leaders actually agreed on two things: to work towards joint bank supervision by the European Central Bank, and that euro-zone banks may be recapitalised directly by the European Financial Stability Facility and its future replacement, the European Stability Mechanism.

The most a banking union, if it indeed comes, is likely to guarantee is the deposits of private savers up to €100,000—no more than each EU member state already guarantees at a national level. True, even that would be a lot of cash if there were a systemic bank run, but avoiding one is precisely the goal of joint supervision.

The professors’ outburst suggests little readiness to get into detail. It appears more an attempt to fuel public fears that politicians are taking Germany down a slippery path towards assuming all euro-zone debt. Judging by the online comments they are striking a chord even with sophisticated FAZ readers. “At last, clear words from the professionals,” writes one.

Predictably, the government has come out fighting. Angela Merkel, the chancellor, urged people to study the actual decisions taken in Brussels. Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance minister, spluttered: “I find it outrageous. Economists should be more responsible in the way they handle the concept of bank debt.”

Only a handful of the signatories are much known outside their faculties, including Hans-Werner Sinn, head of the Institute for Economic Research in Munich, and Klaus Zimmermann, former head of the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin.

A riposte from seven economic heavyweights (including Peter Bofinger and Bert Rürup, member and former member respectively of the Council of Economic Experts, which advises the government) has been posted on the website of the Handelsblatt, a business daily, under the headline “No bogeymen!” In these uncertain times, they write, “it cannot be the job of economists to unsettle the public even more with cliché-ridden assertions and questionable arguments.”

The 172 professors have certainly broken new ground. The most remarkable thing, says one FAZ reader, is that “so many economists could agree on a single text :-) – incredible.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/europes-banking-union