Elerond

First all the ME countries must do there part then the West can get involved , the Syrians are Muslims FFS so it would be great to actually see the Muslim world take responsibility. But no as usual its always the West who has to make the real effort. Yet it will still get criticized and attacked and accused of Colonialism It is actually Muslim majority countries that currently do most for the Syria crises and West actually does quite little. As currently Muslim majority countries give most aid for Syrian, they do most of the air strikes against ISIL, they take most of the refugees and they take most of the economical hits that said crises cause. But currently everybody look after their own interest instead actually trying to find real solutions to the crises and probably hoping that crises fill burn themselves out without need of much of actual effort, but currently it seems that those hopes will not come true anytime soon and especially so that those crises don't create new crises closer to home. I don't like disagreeing with you because we often agree on almost all SJ issues, you are a very reasonable liberal whose opinion is actually shaped on his real life experiences so I can always understand where you coming from. But I need to correct a few things about your view on this matter as I want you on my side and when I'm finished I'm sure you will agree So statistically of course some ME countries that border Syria have taken in Syrians, Turkey has 2.1 million Syrians. But here is the problem, all Syrian refugees are not integrated but kept in Refugee Camps....they are safe, have meager supplies and have some services but they can't work in the outside world or travel freely. They just stay in the camps, its not a very nice life This would be considered inhumane in Western countries and not be allowed. I didn't want to mention this before because it is shameful that the Syrians are literally seen as outsiders and NO effort in these ME countries is made to integrate them. When the West integrates refugees it properly integrates them. They get housing, benefits and citizenship. So please don't think for a second when we talk about " accepting Syrian refugees" this means the same effort and intergration for the West and ME Now the aid point, people say " the Saudi give aid to Syria" ( and this applies to all countries ) but lets break this down. The Saudis do give aid to the free Syrian army fighting in Syria, they are the main ones shipping weapons and they are very involved in the war as one of the main backers of forces opposed to Assad. I dont have an issue with this, its good that the Saudis are getting more hands on in the ME and not expecting the West to do it. But these refugees are coming out from ISIS territories. If anything the Saudis should feel responsible for this. Why cant they take in tens of thousands of Syrians, I have worked in Saudi Arabia for 3 months and trust me that country has loads of space and empty desert where they could build refugee camps Yes I agree that there is a cost to maintaining these "camps " but guess what ...do you know how much aid these ME countries have been given by the international community? The EU has given 3.9 Billion Euro alone ...don't think for a second these ME countries don't accept aid. So I'm not sure where this economic issue is ? So in summary the ME has done very little meaningful effort for the Syrians ....and there are countries that even refuse to house any Syrians. We need to get to a point where the ME must take responsibility for its own social issues ...the West can't carry the load because it creates a constant cycle of lack of responsibility And Im tired of it because despite all this compromise the West is still resented and blamed I think your wrong mental image how majority of Syrian refugees are accommodate in EU, because they are in camps that would look similar to those in ME if there were same number of people, because currently there are no concrete plans how those people should be accommodated. Especially in Hungary and Greece's isles refugees are in quite bad conditions, which is at least one reason why they try to continue their flight towards northern Europe where they think things are better, but that is not necessary true, as refugees are mainly put in refugee centers that are currently over crowded and for example in Finland quite lot of refugees has to sleep in broom closets and similar small spaces. Which has lead to situation where private citizens offer to take refugees to live in their houses until government get their head straight with this situation and can organize more refugee centers (as I am quite sure that more refugee centers will be the solution that they come up in month or two when EU's decision of refugee divination finalizes ) So refugee camps in Turkey , Lebanon and Jordan aren't actually that much inhumane that places where we put Syrian refugees here, but we only need to deal with couple thousand and they need to deal with millions, which is absolutely more difficult problem especially for Lebanon where number of refugees is about fifth of whole population, meaning that economical and infrastructural burden they cause is absolutely massive, especially when you compare it to that fact that, EU which has over 500 million citizen and is one of the world riches area with very good infrastructure that is capable to support much higher population, has taken less refugees and people here start to claim that we don't have money to support them. To sum my point, we should not belittle efforts that Turkey, Jordan and especially Lebanon have put to help Syrian refugees and we should not give too much credit for EU doing good job with them, as EU currently really do about minimum what is demanded from them by The 1951 Refugee Convention, and quite lot of our leaders would like to find way to do less. And USA's efforts to help Syrian refugees has currently been nearly nonexistent as nation. 3.9 Billion (it is about how much Finland gives aid to domestic agriculture) is quite marginal sum for EU countries collectively is quite small numbers as their collective GDP is more than 15 000 billion euros, and there is currently plans (and some cases there already has been cuts) to cut from development aid. Meaning that we really don't really financially burden us really by giving money to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan so that they would handle Syrian refugees.

First all the ME countries must do there part then the West can get involved , the Syrians are Muslims FFS so it would be great to actually see the Muslim world take responsibility. But no as usual its always the West who has to make the real effort. Yet it will still get criticized and attacked and accused of Colonialism It is actually Muslim majority countries that currently do most for the Syria crises and West actually does quite little. As currently Muslim majority countries give most aid for Syrian, they do most of the air strikes against ISIL, they take most of the refugees and they take most of the economical hits that said crises cause. But currently everybody look after their own interest instead actually trying to find real solutions to the crises and probably hoping that crises fill burn themselves out without need of much of actual effort, but currently it seems that those hopes will not come true anytime soon and especially so that those crises don't create new crises closer to home.

Oh yes, the US invaded Iraq because Amerians wanted to sprinkle fairy dust on Iraqis, bring Jesus to them, give them Christmas presents and Easter eggs and Disneyland, yadda yadda yadda. Talk about denial and the white savior/superiority complex. Sure because a Democracy and having a free society is a bad idea right ...where do you live again North Korea? If USA's goal was to implement a democratic system in Iraq they failed quite miserably in their efforts. Because they failed, for example, to ensure Iraq's government has control over the land, remove power from local militant leaders, ensure democratic right for entire Iraq's population, not just for Shias, they failed to secure Iraq's boarders after they demolished secure forces from Saddam's regime. And quite lot of other mistakes that were made during invasion in Iraq. And this don't take account it how strange and undemocratic it is for outside power to push democratic system in country where there is no clear demand for such. But anyway because of lot of things there is civil war in Iraq which results will determine what kind country (countries) it will become and what kind of governance they will have. Currently free society and democracy don't seem to be the winning side.

Europeans fled in other European countries and USA during WW2. Nearly 100k Finns (although they were mostly children) fled to Sweden and thousands fled in USA (before they become enemy state) to get safe from Russians and after WW2 tens of thousands migrated to Sweden and USA to get better life. When people decide to flee their homes they usually flee, if they are able, towards something that they see better than what they had instead of something that they feel to be worse.

Yes, it has been especially confusing that Finnish press has given this story so much of their time.

But Amentep what would happen if she was found to be stealing? Court could give her punishment according to law, but she would not lose her position as county clerk without impeachment procedure or until her time in office runs out and she isn't elected back. In my knowledge it is same for all elected officials in Kentucky and many other states in US (Also lots of other countries have similar protections for elected officials).

Not necessarily, sorry to rain on your parade. We've absorbed close to 7 million immigrants, and despite the unemployment rates and economic crisis, far-right parties are still niche at best, without parliamentary representation or significant street support. Propaganda and hate-mongering are a bigger factor in the rise of extreme political movements than anything else, provided that people at large have their basic needs covered. And by the time they don't, you have bigger problems anyway. Oh, you mean over a 30 year period where most are from EU and Latin america, leaving about 750k from Marocco? And most in an orderly fashion? Yeah, exactly the same thing. https://www.facebook.com/LordChips/videos/10153011938595863/?fref=nf ^Shared over 6 million times. This is big. It is watched over 6 million times shared only 265900 times. So it is quite far behind your typical facebook cat video

In Syria's case it is difficult thing to decide which side one should fight if they want to protect their country, as country is currently ruled by Bashar al-Assad, who is considered by western nations to be dictator who is willing to use chemical weapons against civilian population. Other options are several militant opposition groups that are mostly considered being terrorist by western countries and who aren't offering anything bettern than al-Assad's regime. And then there is ISIL that is considered to be new Nazis by western countries and one of the worst terrorist organizations that world has seen, that preaches extremely radical Islam and is willing to do very horrendous things to those that opposite them and even those that support them in some cases if they break their extremists rules. In case of Iraq things are bit muddier, although Iraq has currently government made of shia muslims, who don't seem to have ability to control their country and who look dis-favorably Iraq's sunni muslim minority (that was in power during Saddam Hussein's era), which has created inner conflict that is helped ISIL take control over large parts of Iraq. Kurdi populations are oppressed in nearly every country they live in, although they seem to be people that are most willing to fight, probably because they see this crisis as opportunity to create new country for Kurdis. Libya is currently absolute mess where nobody really has control over the country which has created in many place very lawless environment and power vacuum where one has hard time to determine who they should support to power. Somalia has been in bad shape for long time now and current crisis in Middle East and north Africa has only made things worse. Although from western stand point there is government that has western support, but there are parts in Somalia where that government don't have any control over things, as they are controlled by extremists islamic groups. Meaning that it can be difficult to choose side in war where every side fights against your interests and world views.

This case seem so straightforward, but still it seems to cause so much dramatic statements from every side of issue One, County Clerk refuses to fulfill her obligations for her office and prevents her subordinates to fulfill their obligations to their offices, because of her personal convictions. Two, said County Clerk refuses to resign from her office Three, Kentucky's legislature's next regular session will be in January, which would be next time when they can rise impeachment procedure against said Clerk as Kentucky's governor has no plans to call special session for such matter. Four, Said Clerk refused to follow order from court to do their duty So it seem to me to be quite normal that said Clerk was held for contempt of court regardless of why she refused to do her duty and follow order from the court to do so. Meaning that is quite normal case of failure to do their duty by official, that turned additional round of fight about equal marriage in media, as articles about that subject has been good click collectors in the past few years.

Nonsense, the Palestinians living in West Bank / Gaza / Lebanon are not Israeli citizens, and simply stamping your foot and declaring them so because it fits your argument is a pretty childish thing to do. As long as Israel and most of world's other countries says that those areas where they live belongs in Israel, they are citizens of Israel regardless what government of Israel and other claim.

Military campaigns against its own citizens. Isolating its own citizens to areas that are walled off from rest of country, because they belong in minority and discriminatingly bombing said citizen because they live and move in areas where they (Israel's government) say criminals(terrorists) have said to keep their strongholds. Actively denying full rights of their citizens because they belong in minority that follow different religion than majority of the population. Denying right to vote from their citizens, because they belong in minority.

Soon™ strategy is something that has worked very well for Blizzard. It is vacation season and Obsidian don't have dedicate community manager(s) for PoE and this expansion isn't anymore part of their KS, but more traditionally published product. Which means that they probably will mostly give information about it through press releases (which they already did quite much with PoE itself).

Not much of a surprise really. I don't see why she even bothered writing a letter about it. It's not like her pro-Israel stance is some kinda mystery. It's one of the few topics where I agree with her. Why do you guys have a problem with it? I don't have a problem with Israel myself (don't know nearly enough about the Israeli-Palestinian situation to have an opinion on it). That is the problem. Currently there is just one country Israel but people treat it like there are two countries and that Palestinians are something else than full citizens of Israel, which has lead in situation where there are in arguably two countries inside one, but one of these countries don't really have any say what is going to happen for them. And when you add historic animosity between these two populations you get current cold war situation which looks like that it isn't solvable without very extreme actions that will change significantly dynamics between these two populations.

Nonsense, there is no causal link between overnutrition/wastefulness in the 1st world, and starvation in the 3rd world. If 1stworlders were more frugal with food, the consequence would not be more food on the tables in Africa, it would be more money left in the pockets of the 1stworders for other things (and less food getting produced in the first place). Hunger in the 3rd world is a consequence of: lack of infrastructure and technology which would be needed to produce enough food locally (irrigation etc.) lack of infrastructure which would be needed to live off non-local food (roads & transportation, supermarkets, non-corrupt authorities) lack of protection against natural disasters civil war and displacement governments that fail to protect property rights, and prevent the poor from having access to the market economy the success of the 1st world eco movement in banning and/or sabotaging GMO enhanced crops that could dramatically increase the productivity of poor farmers Although I never claimed that there is such causation, point behind my post was more to say that things like this is not done because there would not otherwise be enough food for human population and this kind additional food production happens mostly in countries that already produce so much food that it cause problems for them. Also one sad fact is that third world countries aren't only places where people suffer from malnutrition. Meaning that lack of food production or too much population aren't reasons why these whales were made to food. If we want to name reasons behind this act there seem to be three main reasons; tradition, economical, and culinary. Which are reasons which people should weight in when they ponder morality of this act, not need to produce food to feed people suffering from hunger, as it is very unlikely that this act actually cause any food to go for such people.

Although currently there is much more food produced for people in world than whole human population would needs with large margin, but still we have over billion people that suffer from malnutrition and countries that suffer from consequences of overnutrition and problems caused by wasted food.

I think you pick poor choice of example as Pallegina is godlike, who all are infertile

People have just understood bible's message wrong and god actually looks like sahelanthropus tchadensis, not homo sapiens

I find using ones privileges (member majority power in society, rich, healthy, full functional body, etc.) or handicaps (member of minority power in society, poor, sick, functional issues in body, etc.) as reason why their arguments don't or shouldn't count as very bad form of argumentation, although I concede that such have influence on how one sees and interprets issues. Reasonable arguments from one point of view, may look from another point view very unreasonable arguments. Which is why this kind arguments can be very unproductive and hostile. There sadly isn't easy answer how to solve such issues, as such bromides like "look things from other person perspective" are much easier to say than actually embraced.

Heavy crushing and lances weapons weren't solution against plate armors. Maces, War hammers, axes, etc. were upgraded so that they got better in penetrating plate armors by adding spikes and other things in them. But these weapons were mainly used by people that wore also plate armors, because their lack of reach made them poor weapons for rank and file troops, which is why they mainly used spears, pikes, halberds and pollaxes as their main weapons and swords/daggers as side arms. There is really no relation between weapon type bonuses in PoE and how those weapons work in real life. Weapon type bonuses are there for gameplay reason not because weapons try to be realistic. Also barbarians' carnage is really planed to be soul powered ability that barbarian class only has access, which is why it isn't depended on which weapon barbarian uses. Although changes to PoE's lore have made this bit obscure thing, to give barbarian less magic powered feeling. But really reason why carnage is same for all the weapons is to make sure that players option to choose weapons for their barbarians isn't restricted by disadvantages caused by game mechanics (of course some could say that current system still puts some weapons in disadvantageous position because of better carnage + weapon type bonus combination effects). Also carnage is same to all weapons because it is easier to implement single factor that determines size of carnage area than system with multiple factors that effect how large carnage area is.

Yeah its interesting, we all seem to have the same general view of Trump " ha ha...its Trump. Look at the silly things he says...he has NO chance" Yet his support makes me wonder if we all aren't missing something. Anyway it is early in the GOP presidential race so I am sure he will implode on his own It's his inhabitation to speak his mind that brings him support, especially in polls when other candidates try to be somewhat careful with what they say, currently he eats support from Ted Crush, Chris Cristine, and Rand Paul who have previously been those candidates who have seen most politically incorrect. Also Jeb Bush has lost his support in polls, but that is probably more because it took so long from him to decide that he will run and he has been very conservative in giving any statements of anything. Contrarians, which is role that Trump seems to play, always find their support, but usually they can't persuade majority of population to change their opinions of things, which is usually needed if one wants to be president, in parliament/congress/senate/etc. elections contrarians usually have easier time to become elected.

1. second change revives character whose endurance has gone to zero back to action with small amount of endurance 2. Those are OK for start and later on you can upgrade fine to exceptional and add one of the slaying enchantments to it. 3. hard to say. I am not sure what you actually want to do. Formations can help when you want to get party members in positions that you want them. 4. There is not really any really good info about expansion yet.

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game. we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error. have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game? as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious. good move by obsidian. HA! Good Fun! If that was the goal, a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save would've served. This doesn't maintain the integrity of PoE as a roleplaying game, it undermines it. Roleplaying games are about choices made, including the development of the character(s). There's no reason it should be exempt and the game allow you to yo-yo your character any more than the game should allow you to take back decisions made as part of the storyline or in quests. From that picture it is difficult to say how many times player can respec/retrain one character. True, but from it's placement I think it's fair to say that it's "in-universe". Once or twice or prohbiatively expensive doesn't really matter at that point. In that respect I don't see it to be any different from ability to hire and change companions in every inn or from ability to control stronghold from anywhere in the world, or unlimited stash, etc.. Meaning that it is just gameplay function that helps players life not something that is tied to be part of world of Eora. In my opinion such UI button is much better implementation than for example respec amulets in DA:I or respec potion in Witcher 3, or any other in-game world version of respect that we have seen in multitude of the games.

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game. we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error. have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game? as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious. good move by obsidian. HA! Good Fun! If that was the goal, a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save would've served. This doesn't maintain the integrity of PoE as a roleplaying game, it undermines it. Roleplaying games are about choices made, including the development of the character(s). There's no reason it should be exempt and the game allow you to yo-yo your character any more than the game should allow you to take back decisions made as part of the storyline or in quests. From that picture it is difficult to say how many times player can respec/retrain one character.

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people. Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No? The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund. Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties). It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners. You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU Funds aren't banks. They are corporations that handle financial matters for somebody else, like for example buy and sell stocks for people. Many banks have funds that they use to offer such services for their customers, but in this case we speak about new independent (not owned by anybody) fund that will handle selling of those assets. Devaluating currency is very over valued method to solve economical problems of state. Of course it is nice for state that has lot of income in other currencies to say that their own currency is now only tenth of its previous value in those other currencies and then pay loans that they have taken in their own currency off, nice and easy. But it isn't nice and easy for citizen of state, because such measure means that they lose quite lot money which can often be destatating amount. For example it was November when Finnish goverment decided to devalue Finnish mark, which meant that thousads of businesses had just ordered stuff that they planed to sell in Christmas markets and most of those companies had all their monetary assets in Finnish marks, which meant that overnight value of their orders had rised to tenfold in Finnish marks, meaning that most of them didn't have money to pay their orders, which lead flood of bankruptcies. Also banks that had loaned money to goverment and who had bussiness in abroad found themselves in situation where they didn't have money to give people which lead their bankruptcies, which mean that hundreds of thousands Finns lose their savings. This cause massive rise of suicades in Finland. So in my opinion stability of euro even with all it problems is much better for general population of Finland than give back ability to control our currency to our government. And if you think that devaluting currency isn't very extremely form of austerity then I think you don't know what you speak. Funds are created directly by banks or with bank support in the background as a creditor, which again makes them the owner of the funds. There is no such things as "not owned by anyone" that should be clear, someone somewhere owns that. Even if its the bonds or the dept directly. I mean seriously if that would be true i could get a credit that is owmed by noone..give me a million...no ones own it..nope..someone owns my ass then I understand what you say, yes a devaluation has always negative sides. No question there. But in the end it helps not only to hinder or mild a crisis but it also gives the power to your national bank and with that to your country. Your country has done that very often and it helped. What do you do know? nothing, you are bound to the euro and the eurozone. You can´t decide, you as your country. You are ****ed. You are a good canditate to be the next greece, has austeriy helped you? Has the EU law helped you? Has the Euro helped you? No. It hasnt. Just like here, for everything you gained (your expansion out of your crisis) you had to pay...now comes the end. Example, the Fin export went up, but as soon as the euro went up dozens of companies had to close and thousands lost their job. Well, it was the same here. Devaluting your currency is NOT austerity, this doesnt even come close, and i that means i don´t know a thing, than so be it. I think i have a very clear view. Funds aren't created to work as creditor, but instance that handles somebody elses money. Creditors are instances that give people, corporations and goverments loans. Banks have usually both and if they aren't pure finnancical banks they also offer possiblity to deposit money which their creditor side usually then loans forward partially (because these days bank usually aren't allowed to loan full amount). In case of Greece's privatization fund there is created new institution (which funded by EU and itself) that should not have ties to banks and governments, which only purpose is to find buyers for the assets that Greece government decides to sell and then they control money that is get from those trades so that 25 billion goes to fund Greece's banks, 12.5 billion is put to pay their debts and 12.5 billion will be invested in Greece. Of course it is possibility that some bank will bought those assets that are put on sale, but most probably buyers will be international mega corporations (which some own banks) and richer citizens and corporations of Greece. And until point where assets are sold they are owned by Greece's state and Greece goverment is able to take them off from sale and put something else to be sold instead. So Greece don't relinquish any their assets before they get paid, but they can't change where money goes as it is already decided, except in case of surplus (they get more than 50 billion). It is much more important (for general public) to have stable currency than be able to control it fully. There is always other means to balance your economy and it also works as incentive for goverments actually do financically solid decisions as they can't just but everything to shoulders of others when they mess up. Devaluating a currency is austerity method, it is extreme method for government to cut their spendings by cutting value of their debt and this cut is heavilly paid by people of state because value of their money drops. In my opinon goverment should always use much more controlled methods of austerity where it is much easier to predict consequences of choosen actions. In devaluating it is always blind strike in darkness and then hope for the best, because there is always so much unforseen consequences.

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people. Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No? The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund. Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties). It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners. You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU Funds aren't banks. They are corporations that handle financial matters for somebody else, like for example buy and sell stocks for people. Many banks have funds that they use to offer such services for their customers, but in this case we speak about new independent (not owned by anybody) fund that will handle selling of those assets. Devaluating currency is very over valued method to solve economical problems of state. Of course it is nice for state that has lot of income in other currencies to say that their own currency is now only tenth of its previous value in those other currencies and then pay loans that they have taken in their own currency off, nice and easy. But it isn't nice and easy for citizen of state, because such measure means that they lose quite lot money which can often be destatating amount. For example it was November when Finnish goverment decided to devalue Finnish mark, which meant that thousads of businesses had just ordered stuff that they planed to sell in Christmas markets and most of those companies had all their monetary assets in Finnish marks, which meant that overnight value of their orders had rised to tenfold in Finnish marks, meaning that most of them didn't have money to pay their orders, which lead flood of bankruptcies. Also banks that had loaned money to goverment and who had bussiness in abroad found themselves in situation where they didn't have money to give people which lead their bankruptcies, which mean that hundreds of thousands Finns lose their savings. This cause massive rise of suicades in Finland. So in my opinion stability of euro even with all it problems is much better for general population of Finland than give back ability to control our currency to our government. And if you think that devaluting currency isn't very extremely form of austerity then I think you don't know what you speak.