I'd say they were definitely towards the unreasonable end of the spectrum, stevenlmeyer.

>>How much? On what? Not really unreasonable questions are they?<<

The EFSF is not a supermarket where you do your weekly shopping. If it were, you should certainly be expected to know what you bought. It is instead a quasi-bank, into which funds are pledged, and used to assist member States as and when they are required.

As far as the "how much" is concerned, the new German pledge of an additional $211 billion is simply an extension of a credit line, not a physical expenditure. The money will at some point be converted into bonds, or similar instruments, which - theoretically at least - have repayment terms attached to them. Also, who exactly will ultimately be the beneficiary of this particular extension of credit is by definition unknown.

So, in my view, your oversimplification of the questions to "how much, on what?" is misleading.

There is no doubt that the parliamentarians concerned should have been properly briefed on the headline number. That's just spin-management 101. But given the complexity of the financial re-arrangements in Europe right now, not knowing off the top of your head which countries had been supported by which particular scheme might not be the crime you seem to think it is. And before a politician answers a journalist's question that includes that heavily-loaded phrase "bank bail-out", I suggest he has every right to be cautious.

A personal suggestion, stevelmeyer. Stop taking Business Spectator articles so seriously, and start instead to question their stance a little. Oliver Hartwich is not even the worst offender - Robert Gottliebsen is an even more painful read - but he tends more often than not to ride his hobby-horse into the ground, and in doing so generates more heat than light.

Pericles wrote:

>>Stop taking Business Spectator articles so seriously>>

LOL Pericles, I never take the media too seriously. Long ago I learned there is no such thing as "impartial media" or "objective reporting."

However the passage I quoted is a matter of fact - it was also reported on Bayerische Rundfunk which I occasionally listen to over the internet. I was not relying on Hartwich's opinion.

The Bundestag members were asked these questions and most could not supply answers. Given the amounts involved I would have thought they should be able to answer these basic questions.

I take your point that it is not actually expenditure but a line of credit. However it is a line of credit extended to risky parties and the Germans are unlikely to get it all back. Certainly they will not get an interest commensurate with the risk.

BTW why do you find it necessary to defend Bundestag members on this?

its funny...we know its a line of credit
supplied by govt..by giving a bond to the bank
that the bank monetises..to bail out govt[because previous bank bailouts by other govts..had to do the same thing

its a clever cycle
banks lend to govt
govt lends to banks

govt assumes the bank debt
and the bank debt grows as an ever bigger burden upon the people

a bailout..that neds a bigger bailout
that feeds a bigger bailout

and govt hold's the people hostage
for the banker bailout debt

this after the banks
stole govt control OVER bankers from govt

this after much colluded fraud

that extends so far as to diable my internet acces
by a clever bug inserted into my computer[that dont allow the page to be read]..or open..

[without first switching off the page i half downloaded
the last time i was on the net]

that then refuses to paste
unless i do some other clever tricks
[still not knowing if the post uploaded
till i repeat the first trick..to read the new page

[ie after uploading it..shutting off my computer..
then hoping enough was uploaded to read it..next time i switch on]

yesthere are those with big secrets
who know how to close down those who resist them

while others readilly defend them
anyhow i go to post...again and again and again
little caring that guilt makes you deaf

you do what you like
and i will keep trying to do what i like

Nothing to do with the Bundestag, stevenlmeyer.

>>BTW why do you find it necessary to defend Bundestag members on this?<<

Just doing my bit to un-spin some unfair spin. I'd do it for Tony Abbott, if it were ever necessary.

And the Business Spectator reference was just obiter dicta. Hartwich was stirring the pot with some feigned outrage, as he so often does, and you obediently helped it along. But BS itself has some good commentators too. Gottliebsen being the shining exception.

No harm in passing these things on, of course. But it's like Arjay's conspiracy nonsense - it would be easy to let it through to the 'keeper, but I'm a sucker for realism, and tend to encourage it where I find it.

Pericles wrote:

>>And the Business Spectator reference was just obiter dicta. Hartwich was stirring the pot with some feigned outrage, as he so often does, and you obediently helped it along.>>

In fairness, Pericles, my post was confined to the fact that German legislators were voting on a bill that involved a lot of money by anyone’s standards without many of them knowing how much was involved and for what the money was to be used.

Don’t you think that is a sad commentary on the state of parliamentary democracy in Germany?

It is you who brought up all the rest.