The CYPRUS TEMPLATE

[JKoulouris]

ΥΨΗΛΉ ΠΡΟΤΕΡΑΙΟΤΗΤΑ ; LPAC - EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) REPORT - The CYPRUS TEMPLATE - YOUR MONEY AND YOUR LIFE - Who Planned The Seizure of the Depositors Funds and the CYPRUS Bank Collapse? (Report and Document Attached)

/////// LPAC - ΈΚΘΕΣΗ EIR (εκτελεστική αναθεώρηση νοημοσύνης) - το ΠΡΌΤΥΠΟ της ΚΎΠΡΟΥ - τα ΧΡΉΜΑΤΆ ΣΑΣ ΚΑΙ η ΖΩΗ ΣΑΣ - Ποιοι προγραμμάτισαν τη σύλληψη των Ταμείων καταθετών και της κατάρρευσης τράπεζας της ΚΎΠΡΟΥ? (Έκθεση και έγγραφο Συνημμένo)‏

document attached- το συνημμένο έγγραφο:

[box=]22 Economics EIR April 5, 2013
The following is an edited transcript of a video posted
on LaRouchePAC-TV on April 1, 2013.
April 2—As the story of the Cyprus template for world
financial reorganization unfolds, it is becoming clear
that the British Empire’s policy is, “Your money and
your life.”
What’s going on in the case of the recent developments
is that The Great Cyprus Bank Heist, where the
entire banking sector of Cyprus has in fact been
frozen—there is a 100% freeze on liquidity—is not
something that was done by the European Commission,
the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund, the well-known and well-despised Troika,
as a response to the crisis in Cyprus. That’s nonsense.
This was something that was long planned, and goes
back, minimally, to a December 2012 planning document,
jointly issued by the Bank of England (BOE) and
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) of
the United States, working with input of the Federal
Reserve system of the United States.
In fact, it goes back, according to the best evidence
that we have in hand so far, to planning documents
issued six months earlier than that, by the European
Union. That’s as far back as we have it at this point, of
the black-and-white check stubs-in-hand evidence, of
the planning that is going on for global seizure of your
money, and your life, by the British Empire, to try to
salvage their completely bankrupt and unsalvagable financial
system, and implement their stated policy of intentional
genocide and depopulation.
There is legislation that is planned; it is so stated by
the European Union. There are documents being presented
to the European Parliament, and to the nations
involved. And there is also existing legislation in the
United States, including the notorious Dodd-Frank bill;
and there is additional legislation planned, which is designed
to bring about this great global bank heist.
Now, leaving all of the specific facts aside for the
moment—and we will go through some of these facts—
it was clearly evident, going back quite some time, that
this policy was in fact the intention of the British
Empire, even before it had stated that it was their intention.
The fact of the matter is, that, as Lyndon LaRouche
has repeatedly noted, it is intention that is the causal
guiding force, not only in human history, and in the
economy, but in the physical universe as well. And this
is a lesson, a deeper, more profound lesson to be learned,
from the current scandal underway.
Now, regarding the latest developments: yesterday,
March 31—I’m speaking to you today on April 1—
Lyndon LaRouche commented that what is now going
on involves a crime so great that the people responsible,
in particular, your Congressman, your Senators, will be
held accountable. Lyndon LaRouche said, and I quote:
“The enactment of such a provision, now, would be,
The Cyprus Template:
Your Money And Your Life
by Dennis Small
EIR Economics
April 5, 2013 EIR Economics 23
in effect, an act of treason against the United States,
because it means the destruction of the United States.
And the members of the Senate, or other bodies, which
go for this, are guilty, in terms of intention, of treason,
of a treasonous action. Not to support Glass-Steagall is
already tantamount to treason, because only the Glass-
Steagall Act would save the United States from collapse.
We don’t need to save any of the big banks. They
go down, they go down. We save the nation.”
You Can’t Get Your Money
Now, let’s review what is underway at this point, to
survey the battlefield as of this moment.
In Cyprus, in the course of last week, the authorities
of the European Union and the Cypriot government announced
what they would be doing with the largest
banks, including the Bank of Cyprus, under the bail-out
regimen being implemented, or what they’re calling the
“bail-in” mechanism. Thirty-seven and a half percent
of all deposits in the Bank of Cyprus, above
EU100,000—they claim they will fully honor all deposits
up to that amount—will be forcibly converted
into common stock in the Bank of Cyprus. In other
words, 37.5% of what you thought you owned, over
EU100,000: “Congratulations! You now are part owner
of a completely bankrupt, insolvent bank! No choices;
it’s yours!”
Of the remainder, there is 22.5%
of your deposits that you will never
see again, and you’ll not receive any
interest on it either. Forty percent you
will also never see—unless, of
course, the bank does wonderfully
well, which has zero chance of occurring—
but you supposedly will accrue
interest on that 40%.
Now, there’s only one problem
here, which is that, all of this supposed
money, both the interest accrued
and what you’re possibly going
to get later, is completely frozen and
locked up in the Cypriot banking
system! You can’t get it. You can only
get EU300 a day—which may sound
like a lot, if the economy were simply
people going out to buy lunch or
something like that, or going to the
gas station. But businesses cannot
function under that regime. In fact,
what is going on right now in Cyprus, since banks do
not cash checks, they will not take credit cards, everything
is frozen to steal the money to bail out the trans-
Atlantic banking system, there’s no longer a monetary
system of any significance whatsoever in Cyprus.
Restaurants are functioning on a cash basis. They
have to pay their providers on a cash basis. Checks
don’t work, credit cards don’t work, ATMs don’t
work—your money is worthless. It was worthless
before, in point of fact, but now it is completely unavailable.
And the economy is beginning to grind to a
halt. How many days or weeks this will last is anybody’s
guess, but you already have shortages of everything.
The ports in Cyprus are not functioning. The restaurants
are closing down. Businesses are closing down.
People are not able to eat—the food lines are growing
in many of the cities in Cyprus. And there is growing
panic in the population, a cross between panic and resignation
and despair.
A Europeanwide Policy
That’s just Cyprus. But the exact same thing, the
exact same policy, this “Cyprus template” which we
have been discussing, is in fact, already underway, actively,
in Spain as well. In that case, depositors in Spanish
banks were swindled into buying preferred stocks in
those same banks, which now have gone bankrupt, like
Cypriot depositors line up at the Laiki Bank ATM, in hopes of withdrawing funds
before they are frozen, by order of the Troika.
24 Economics EIR April 5, 2013
the famous case of Bankia bank. So you are now the
proud owner of worthless bank stock, just like in
Cyprus, where it was done involuntarily; except in
Spain, they swindled you into doing it. And you now
own stock, which is worth .1% of what it was worth two
weeks ago.
Parenthetically, that is exactly what was done in the
United States, by First National City Bank, in the early
1930s. And it was the subject, among other things, of
the famous Pecora Commission under Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, which at the time led to the 1933 Glass-
Steagall law. And it has to lead to that again today. It’s
the same crimes; it’s the same cast of characters; it’s the
same requirement; and this time, it has to end, as
it did under Roosevelt, with a return to Glass-
Steagall (see p. 30).
But it’s not just Cyprus and Spain. This is the
active policy, for example, throughout the
whole European Union. It was stated by Joeren
Dijsselbloem, who is the new president of the
Eurogroup, on March 25, where he said,
“Cyprus is the template.” Four days later, on
March 29, just to make it clear that this was no
false statement by Dijsselbloem—he may have
been a little excessively frank about what the
policy was, but this is the policy—a member of
the governing council of the European Central
Bank, Klaas Knot, said this approach of swiping
deposits “will be part of the European liquidation
policy.”
On the same day, a Swiss member of the European
Parliament, Gunnar Hokmark, said, “You
need to be able to do the bail-in as well with deposits.”
And he announced that there is specific
legislation to this effect, that has been prepared
and presented to the European Parliament.
Perhaps most explicit of all, on March 26,
was the statement, at a press conference given by
Chantal Hughes, the spokeswoman of Michel
Barnier, who is the European Commissioner in
charge of financial robbery—excuse me, of financial
regulation. What she said was: “At no
point is it possible to bail in depositors under
EU100,000”—Oh, heavens no—except that it
just happened in Cyprus, but it won’t happen
anywhere else—“either now or in the future. But
in the Commission’s proposal, which is under
discussion, it is not excluded that deposits over
EU100,000 could be instruments eligible for
bail-in. It is a possibility.”
There are also reports that we have from Canada, of
the Economic Action Plan of 2013, laying out the same
policy, which is to swipe people’s deposits to try to bail
out the bankrupt banks. And so on and so forth.
So let’s take a step back, and look at the entire world.
What you’re talking about is an interconnected chain, a
financial chain, which has two weak links. The first
weak link, as we’re seeing clearly, is the case of Cyprus.
The second “weak link” of the chain is the entire
trans-Atlantic financial system. The entire chain, in
fact, is gone. And don’t assume for a second, that somehow
South America, or Africa, or even Asia, will fare
EIRNS/James Rea
The LaRouche movement in Germany, BüSo, organizes in Berlin March
6, for “The Real Trennbanken System,” the equivalent of FDR’s
Glass-Steagall.
April 5, 2013 EIR Economics 25
well under these circumstances. The entire thing is
coming down.
Now, since we’ve taken a step back to get a global
view geographically, let’s do so conceptually as well.
British Imperial Intention Is Genocide
Lyndon LaRouche foresaw that exactly this was the
British plan. That, as they have stated, they can no
longer run another bailout, like they did in 2008, by
fleecing taxpayers directly; they have to go about it by
fleecing the taxpayers indirectly, by stealing “unsecured
creditor” accounts, meaning depositors. La-
Rouche foresaw this, knowing none of the details that
I’ve presented so far, and none of those that I will present
momentarily, as well.
Because what LaRouche recognized was the actual
intention of where the British Empire was heading,
which he presented in a Feb. 15, 2013 webcast, pointing
to exactly this development. He said:
“The vast mass of debt, which is represented by the
monetarist operation, would be cancelled. In its place,
they would have a new system of finances, which ignores
entirely all the obligations associated with the
old! Which would mean that most of the people of the
world would be starving to death, quickly. . . . I know
exactly what they’re doing, because I know how systems
work.
“This is the greatest population-reduction scheme
so far in known history. And that’s what the policy of
the people who oppose Glass-Steagall is—whether
they themselves know it or not. But they will be held accountable
for the effect of that policy.”
In other words, what LaRouche was operating on—
and what you need to operate on, if you want to understand
the nature of the enemy, and where the world is
going, instead of relying on gossip and media accounts
to determine how to act—is: You have to know the intention.
And often the intention is unknown to the actors
in the drama itself.
The universe as a whole, physically as well as in history
and economy, is guided by intention, by an overriding
causal direction of where things are heading. In
the case of the economy, to survive and implement their
depopulation policy, the British Empire had to do what
they’re now doing, which is what LaRouche knew and
said they would do. So the question of intention, not the
simple “facts” and “evidence” and sense-certainty
which are presented to us on a daily basis, is actually
the governing causality. It is this standpoint of La-
Rouche’s, and only this standpoint, which can allow accurate
forecasting, such as LaRouche has engaged in
repeatedly.
Bailing Out the Cancer
Now we have further documentation in hand. For
example, we have revisited an earlier document, published
on Dec. 10, 2012, jointly written by the Bank of
England and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
of the United States. It is a document which has a
very unlikely title: “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically
Important Financial Institutions,” which, for
the cognoscenti, are known as “G-SIFIs.” For the purposes
of our discussion today, there are four points from
this document that are worth underlining, all hung together
under the guiding line that we have to bail out the
speculative cancer, come what may.
First, they say that what they call “unsecured creditors”
are fair game. Now, “unsecured creditors” can
mean various things. It can mean, in fact, depositors
above a certain amount that is supposedly guaranteed,
either by the FDIC in the United States, or guaranteed
by the EU in Europe. Now, that latter guarantee has
just been ripped up into little pieces of confetti in the
case of Cyprus, so I wouldn’t rely on that particularly.
But the argument about “unsecured creditors” is that,
what will now be allowed is to simply lift, steal, rob,
seize, the unsecured creditors, i.e. deposits in these financial
institutions, for the purpose of bailing them
out.
This is completely unheard of. Let’s be clear: Under
current standing regulations and practice, which are
now being destroyed, what supposedly happens is that
the FDIC-insured amount in the United States is protected,
in the case of a bank going bankrupt and being
rolled up, going out of business. The FDIC takes care of
you to that level. If you have more than that: “Sorry sir,
sorry ma’am, you just lost it.”
However, what’s being proposed now, is that you’re
going to lose your deposits, not to put the bank out of
business, but to keep the bank in business, to keep the
cancer operational! It’s absolutely scandalous! And the
size of the cancer, the size of the bubble that they plan
to keep intact with your money, if you have any, is enormous.
You’re talking about quadrillions of dollars! And
that’s why it’s both your life and your money that
they’re talking about seizing.
And they’re not just intent on doing it; they are
doing it. It’s happening now. It’s happening in Cyprus;
26 Economics EIR April 5, 2013
it’s happening in Spain; it’s happening across the EU;
and it’s about to happen in Canada, the U.K., and the
United States. Like they say, “It’s coming to a bank near
you”!
So that’s point number one of the BOE-FDIC document:
they intend to take the “unsecured creditors” to
the cleaners.
Number two: they are talking about using this process
to transform the cancer, the speculative bubble,
into a leaner, meaner banking system, which is exactly
what LaRouche was describing. To this end, they are
using the arguments of the idea of “Too Big To Fail,” of
ring-fencing, and of the Dodd-Frank bill.
The Fraud of ‘Too Big To Fail’
Take Too Big To Fail, or TBTF as it is called: First
of all, the whole idea is nonsense. What do you mean,
“too big to fail?” They have failed! They’re gone! To
argue that the problem is TBTF, is to argue that the
problem will be solved by splitting the banks up. It’s
like saying: Well, let’s take this metastasized cancer,
and divide it up into different portions, and place the
different cancerous portions all over the body. That’s
the “Too Big to Fail” argument.
Furthermore, the problem is not the size of banks or
bank lending. The problem is the function; and if the
function is to feed the cancer, it’s all got to go. And if
the function is not to feed the cancer, as under Glass-
Steagall, we salvage it. But what’s happening with
TBTF is that this is now the basis—and it is explicitly
stated in the BOE-FDIC document—to push through
their fascist banking reorganization.
The same thing with ring-fencing, and they’re
quite explicit about that too: “The resulting new private
sector operations would be smaller, more manageable—
and perhaps more profitable. . . . Ring-fencing
of a banking group’s retail banking activities from
the group’s investment banking activities would prove
particularly valuable in facilitating such a restructuring.”
So, it’s not simply that TBTF, ring-fencing, the
Liikanen proposal, electrified ring-fencing, Dodd-
Frank, and all of these things are merely distractions
from Glass-Steagall. They are actually part of the enemy’s
genocidal plan, and anybody who is using that as
an excuse to not back Glass-Steagall, as LaRouche
said, is committing acts tantamount to treason. Because
the effect of this—as is clear, from this document, and
as LaRouche foresaw—is that the world’s population is
going to lose not just their money, but their lives. This
is a case of your money and your life.
The third point of the BOE-FDIC document, is that
they announce that the joint coordination between the
United Kingdom and the United States will best go
ahead only after the point that the British banking
system is reorganized under a new regulatory authority,
which will incorporate all of the non-deposit-taking financial
institutions. That means the Goldman Sachses
of the financial universe: the investment banks, the insurers,
everybody involved in the derivatives bubble. In
other words, prior to including these institutions under
the regulatory scheme, the British side of the operation
was not in place and assured, from their standpoint.
But, they inform the reader, they will be shortly. When?
Today, April 1, 2013. And this is no April Fool’s joke.
The British side is now operational to be able to do this.
All systems are go, and this is what they’re planning to
proceed with.
The fourth and final point, is that they announce that
they will have, by the end of this year, a detailed plan—
bank by bank—of the G-SIFIs, which are the banks that
they’re going to save, and let the other ones go to hell.
But the G-SIFIs will be bailed out, and they will have
them identified, bank by bank, with the exact mechanism
for each case, by the end of this year.
No Alternative to Glass-Steagall
All of this was knowable, and in fact it was all
known, without knowing any of the details or any of the
predicates, some of which I’ve presented to you today.
If you think like LaRouche; if you understand what the
actual causal relationships are in the physical universe
and in the political universe, and are not distracted by
sense perception and the nonsense idea that somehow
truth is based on that which you perceive, you will recognize
that truth is not based on what you perceive—
such things are knowable. Truth is based on understanding
the underlying universal physical principles
that are operating—often, with the absolute ignorance
of the participants themselves.
But the problem here, with the Senate of the United
States and with the Congress of the United States, is not
principally ignorance. Not that they’re not ignorant;
they are. But the problem is cowardice. The problem is
refusing to see what’s directly in front of their eyes, because
they don’t like the implications of acting on that.
April 5, 2013 EIR Economics 27
So we have this national problem of a cowardly, and
therefore willfully blind, group of elected officials—
Senators and Congressmen, and so forth—whom La-
Rouche has made it very clear will be held accountable
and must be pressured into adopting Glass-Steagall immediately,
because there is no other alternative than
that to this type of worldwide thievery and robbery and
global genocide.
Documentation
BOE/FDIC/Dodd-Frank
Plan To Save the Banks
“Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important,
Financial Institutions” (G-SIFIs) a joint paper by the
U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the
Bank of England, was published on Dec. 10, 2012. The
following are the four relevant policy topics identified
in the lead article of this package:
1. “The unsecured debt holders can expect that their
claims would be written down to reflect any losses that
shareholders cannot cover, with some converted partly
into equity in order to provide sufficient capital to return
the sound business of the G-SIFI to private sector operations.
. . . In all likelihood, shareholders would lose
all value and unsecured creditors should thus expect
that their claims would be written down to reflect any
losses that shareholders did not cover. . . . The new
equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of
being shareholders in a financial institution.
“Under a top-down resolution, shareholders and
certain creditors at the top of the group absorb losses
and recapitalize the group as a whole. For a top-down
approach to work, there must be sufficient loss-absorbing
capacity available at the top of the group to absorb
losses sustained within operational subsidiaries.”
Paragraph 47 is ambiguous as to whether depositors
are to be considered “unsecured creditors”: “Retail or
corporate depositors should not have an incentive to
‘run’ from the firm under resolution insofar as their
banking arrangements, transacted at the operating company
level, remain unaffected.”
2. “The resulting new private sector operations
would be smaller, more manageable—and perhaps
more profitable. . . . Ring-fencing of a banking group’s
retail banking activities from the group’s investment
banking activities would prove particularly valuable in
facilitating such a restructuring. . . . The newly resolved
group would be solvent and viable, and should be in a
position therefore to access market funding or, if necessary,
funding from the authorities as discussed above. . . .
The contingency plans are designed to minimize the
triggering of cross-defaults or closeout of netting arrangements
at the operating companies.”
3. “Once the Financial Services Bill comes into
force in 2013, the Financial Services Authority will be
replaced by two new regulatory bodies, the PRA [Prudential
Regulation Authority] and the Financial Conduct
Authority. The PRA, a subsidiary of the Bank of
England, will become the prudential regulator of deposit
takers, insurers, and the largest investment firms.
“In both the U.S. and the U.K., legislative reforms
already made [Dodd-Frank in the U.S.—ed.] or planned
in response to the financial crisis provide new powers
for resolving failed or failing G-SIFIs . . . to impose
losses on shareholders and unsecured creditors—not on
taxpayers.”
4. “The strategies will be translated into detailed
resolution plans for each firm during the first half of
2013. . . . Subsequently, firm-specific resolvability assessments
will be developed by the end of 2013.”
The G-SIBs (Global Systemically Important Banks)
listed by the BOE-FDIC document are: Citigroup,
Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays,
BNP Paribas, Bank of America, Bank of New York
Mellon, Crédit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Mitsubishi,
Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, Bank
of China, BBVA, Groupe BPCE, Groupe Crédit Agricole,
ING Bank, Mizuho FG, Nordea, Santander, Société
Générale, Standard Chartered, State Street, Sumitomo
Mitsui, Unicredit Group, and Wells Fargo.
EC To Use Deposits To
‘Bail-In’ Failing Banks
Here is EIR’s transcript of the Q&A at the March 26,
2013 European Commission briefing on the Commission’s
response to the banking crisis. Chantal Hughes,
28 Economics EIR April 5, 2013
a spokeswoman for Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner
for Internal Market and Services, responded
to a question on the EC’s June 2012 proposal for a bailin
mechanism. The exchange was in English.
Q: The resolution proposals from the Commission
from last year—there is a bail-in instrument in this
proposal. What would that mean concretely in a case
like Cyprus, where there are not many bondholders?
Would it be possible under this proposal to bail in depositors?
Chantal Hughes: One very, very clear statement
to start with: At no point is it possible to bail in depositors
under EU100,000, neither now, or in the
future. At no point is that possible. When we’re talking
about uninsured depositors, you quite rightly point
out that, in the resolution framework which was proposed
last year in June, one of the tools is indeed bailin.
What does bail-in do? Bail-in allows a bank to be
recapitalized, with shareholders wiped out or diluted,
and creditors will have their claims reduced or converted
to shares. As part of that framework, there will
be a predefined order in terms of the seniority of
claims, in order for the institution to regain viability.
Now, in the Commission’s proposal, which is currently,
as I say, under discussion, so I can’t tell you
what the final agreement will be, it is not excluded
that deposits over EU100,000 could be instruments
eligible for bail-ins. I repeat, it’s not excluded, it is a
possibility. At the moment, in terms of the proposal
made by the Commission, that the uninsured depositors
over EU100,000—only over EU100,000—could
be bailed-in.
From the June 6, 2012 European Commission document,
“A Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council”:
Insolvency laws are not always apt to deal efficiently
with the failure of financial institutions insofar as they
do not appropriately consider the need to avoid disruptions
to financial stability. Resolution constitutes
an alternative to normal insolvency procedures [and]
limit taxpayer exposure to loss from solvency support.
In the process, it should also ensure legal certainty,
transparency and predictability regarding the treatment
of shareholders and bank creditors, and preserve
value which might otherwise be destroyed in bankruptcy.
In addition, by removing the implicit certainty
of a publicly funded bailout for institutions, the option
of resolution should encourage uninsured creditors to
better assess the risk associated with their investment.
. . .
[Once the] trigger conditions for resolution are satisfied,
resolution authorities will have the power to
apply the following resolution tools: (a) sale of business;
(b) bridge institution; (c) asset separation; (d)
bail-in. . . .
The resolution authorities should have the power to
bail in all the liabilities of the institution. There are,
however some liabilities that would be excluded exante
(such as secured liabilities, covered deposits and
liabilities with a residual maturity of less than one
month).
[By subtraction, this means that “non-covered” deposits
(above the EU100,000 mark) would not be excluded—
ed.]
From Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed by the U.S.
Congress in June 2010:
Similar to the rules governing other insolvency regimes,
the Act requires that all claimants who are similarly
situated be treated in a similar manner (except
that, as noted above, claims of the United States are
paid first).
Unlike other insolvency regimes, however, the
FDIC may deviate from this principle as necessary to
maximize the value of the assets of the covered financial
company; to initiate and continue operations essential
to implementation of the receivership or any
bridge financial company; to maximize the present
value return from the sale or other disposition of the
assets of the company; or to minimize the amount of
any loss realized upon the sale or other disposition of
the assets of the company. . . .. In disposing of assets,
the FDIC must use best efforts to maximize returns,
minimize losses and mitigate the potential for serious
adverse effects to the financial system. In deciding
upon a course of action, the FDIC also must determine
that such action is necessary for the financial stability
of the United States. . . . [And it must] ensure that unsecured
and uninsured creditors bear losses in accordance
with the priority of claim provisions [emphasis
added].[/box]

[Dread]

Αφ´ ενός ειναι ενα πολύ μακρύ κείμενο το οποίο δεν ξέρω ποτέ θα εχω την διάθεση να το διαβάσω,
και αφ´ εταίρου ειναι στα αγγλικά. Και αρκετοί δεν μπορούν να το διαβάσουν.

Μια περίληψη και κάποια σχόλια θα ήταν αναγκαία.

(Χώρια που η μετάφραση του αρχικού κειμένου κάνει μπαμ οτι ειναι απο αυτόματο translate )

[ArELa]

this is the English speaking forum dear Dread.
Read this!

if you need to discuss it in Greek, take it to a Greek subforum like οικονομία. sorry for striking your post, but posts written in Greek are not allowed in this forum.
Thanks

[ArELa]

Τranslation in Greek here http://www.ideografhmata.gr/forum/viewt ... 73#p205673

[Dread]

My fault.
Sorry...