Severity of Greek Austerity Measures

Going Forward

Does anyone else believe that the severity of the austerity measures being imposed on Greece is immoral?

And I'm not interested in the economic justification, I'm talking about the private, personal, individual consequences of the cuts.

Consider the estimated 40% increase in suicides there in 2011 for starters.

Heres a list of some of the measures: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13940431

This treatment of a people is either morally acceptable or it is not.



Which is it?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

Does anyone else believe that the severity of the austerity measures being imposed on Greece is immoral?

It's an interesting way to frame a discussion. It carefully excludes such trivial considerations as whether or not the austerity measures are necessary, or avoidable.

If there's a question of morality in play here, it should involve the wider question of the morality of a government that allows its country to slide into morass of un-repayable debt in the process of corruptly buying power and influence.

If you choose to frame the discussion in those terms, it becomes a much tougher - but ultimately a much more interesting and rewarding - conversation. If, instead, you want to ignore the immorality that got the country into this position and want to focus solely on the "immorality" of getting it out of it, feel free, but count me out.

View

Going Forward wrote: »

Does anyone else believe that the severity of the austerity measures being imposed on Greece is immoral?

Budgets are primarily about math and only very distantly about morality.

Either you have the money to pay for your services or you don't. Greece in case you missed it doesn't have the money and - I suspect - if you had to vote to give them your money to cover the shortfall you'd probably vote against doing do.

cyberhog

I think the severity of the austerity measures is morally unacceptable. The Greek Government is protecting the bondholders; the ECB is protecting the bondholders; the IMF is protecting the bondholders; No one is protecting the people.

View wrote: »

Either you have the money to pay for your services or you don't. Greece in case you missed it doesn't have the money and - I suspect - if you had to vote to give them your money to cover the shortfall you'd probably vote against doing do.

Germany has been in the same situation as Greece in the past and it was only because of the sacrifices of the United States that Germany was able to rebuild its economy.

Ritschl: ... during the 20th century, Germany was responsible for what were the biggest national bankruptcies in recent history. It is only thanks to the United States, which sacrificed vast amounts of money after both World War I and World War II, that Germany is financially stable today and holds the status of Europe's headmaster. That fact, unfortunately, often seems to be forgotten.

...

Ritschl: The anti-Greek sentiment that is widespread in many German media outlets is highly dangerous. And we are sitting in a glass house: Germany's resurgence has only been possible through waiving extensive debt payments and stopping reparations to its World War II victims.

...


Ritschl: The German bankruptcies in the last century show that the sensible thing to do now would be to have a real reduction of the debt. Anyone who has lent money to Greece would then have to give up a considerable part of what they were owed. Some banks would not be able to cope with that, so there would have to be new aid programs. For Germany, this could be expensive, but we will have to pay either way. At least Greece would then have the chance to start over.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,769703,00.html

Scofflaw

Also, why the picture of the guy setting himself on fire, given that it's a repeat performance?

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Am I right in saying the Greek government has failed to collect taxes correctly for years?

aftermn

It's the lesser of two evils, i'm afraid. Immoral yes, but less immoral then letting Greece go down the tubes completely.
At least with the 'programme', there is a policeman to come to the aid of your suicide example. After a complete crash, there would be no money to pay the CS and no-one to come to his aid.

catbear

Even if they left the Euro, they'd still have the same wealth sharing problems in a new currency and they know it. At the moment there is no real alternative except making their society more accountable to itself and those it trades with.

Every other alternative leaves them poorer again.

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, why the picture of the guy setting himself on fire, given that it's a repeat performance?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A performance?

I felt pity for him.

Going Forward

meglome wrote: »

Am I right in saying the Greek government has failed to collect taxes correctly for years?

Yes, that appears to be the case, along with an admittance in 2004 of previously using imaginative accounting practices to meet the conditions of entry to the Eurozone.

Going Forward

aftermn wrote: »

It's the lesser of two evils, i'm afraid. Immoral yes, but less immoral then letting Greece go down the tubes completely.
At least with the 'programme', there is a policeman to come to the aid of your suicide example. After a complete crash, there would be no money to pay the CS and no-one to come to his aid.

I accept that.
I am concerned that the level of austerity there will lead to a serious depression scenario with no or very little growth for generations to come.

Mr Trade In

That is some ruthless measures being brought in there, why have the parliament not resigned. Given the mood of the people what are the chances of war breaking out? If these moves prove successful could we be subject to similar and would the Irish people band together as the Greeks have?

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

A performance?

I felt pity for him.

Sure - he's done it before. Also, his point is that he's unable to pay debts contracted by his company, as far as I recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jc84

I feel bad for Greece those are some excessive and savage measures being brought in, to me they seem way too extreme and will have a negative effect on growth, but I guess they have to if they are to get the next trench of funds

meglome

Mr Trade In wrote: »

That is some ruthless measures being brought in there, why have the parliament not resigned. Given the mood of the people what are the chances of war breaking out? If these moves prove successful could we be subject to similar and would the Irish people band together as the Greeks have?

Oh there's a chance anything could happen, the Greeks can be volatile. However I hope they don't lose sight of the fact they repeatedly elected the people who caused the mess. It seems large numbers of people also happily avoided paying their taxes for many years. They really must have had a notion that things were not being run right but now they want to protest as they have to suffer the consequences.

It's never nice to see ordinary people suffer financial hardships but they also made their own bed and now they will have to lie in it.

oscarBravo

Mr Trade In wrote: »

...would the Irish people band together as the Greeks have?

To what end?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

To what end?

To be unrealistic....together!

apologies,
Scofflaw

dsmythy

The Greeks need some perspective on their standard of living compared to the rest of the world it seems.

View

cyberhog wrote: »

I think the severity of the austerity measures is morally unacceptable. The Greek Government is protecting the bondholders; the ECB is protecting the bondholders; the IMF is protecting the bondholders; No one is protecting the people.

Well, the Greeks can quite happily tell the bondholders to get lost when they don't need to borrow to fund their day-to-day government spending. Until that time comes, they have the slight problem that doing so would leave them facing an even bigger set of cut-backs then they currently face.

And, if the current cut-backs are "morally unacceptable" then presumably an even bigger set of cut-backs would be even more "morally unacceptable"...

cyberhog

The Greek debt fiasco won't be resolved unless the bondholders are forced to take a big cut. Even Junker has said "we can’t let the banks lead us by the nose"

“Private investors, the banks, the private sector, have to participate in quite a substantial way to ensure that Greece’s debt burden becomes bearable in the long term,” Juncker said Oct. 22 on RTL Luxembourg Television. “We said in July that it had to be 21 percent. This will clearly not be enough. It has to be considerably higher. About 50 percent, 60 percent is what’s being talked about.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/juncker-says-greek-psi-talks-focus-on-50-60-bondholder-loss.html

easychair

cyberhog wrote: »

The Greek debt fiasco won't be resolved unless the bondholders are forced to take a big cut. Even Junker has said "we can’t let the banks lead us by the nose"



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/juncker-says-greek-psi-talks-focus-on-50-60-bondholder-loss.html

That's a bit late as the bankers across the world, and in Ireland, have shown they can run rings around politicians and those meant to be running countries and running the EU.

It's interesting that the only thing which separates run and ruin is one little letter.

Scofflaw

Ironically, the ability to rein in the actions of multinational banks and markets relies rather a lot on the kind of international pooling of sovereignty you decry.

amused,
Scofflaw

cyberhog

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ironically, the ability to rein in the actions of multinational banks and markets relies rather a lot on the kind of international pooling of sovereignty you decry.

amused,
Scofflaw

Europe doesn't need a fiscal union to rein in banks.

Europe's financial system would be safer if new banking regulation induced banks to move their portfolios toward European Safe Bonds, since this would cut the contagion link.

...

European Safe Bonds are not euro bonds. They do not require one country's taxes to pay for another country's spending, nor do they require changes to the European treaties.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ckHk7mIZsE8J:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576594353277663720.html+http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204831304576594353277663720.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

as is advocated by a new international academic working group (www.euro-nomics.com), it is possible to create a European safe bond (or ESBie, for short) through a combination of financial engineering and regulatory reform. A European debt agency could purchase national sovereign bonds (up to a fixed limit) and issue a mix of low-risk senior bonds (ESBies) and higher-risk junior bonds. Through diversification, the tranching of risk between senior and junior bonds and the provision of credit enhancements (by the EFSF, for example), the ESBies would constitute super-safe bonds and provide stability for bank balance sheets.

Importantly, this proposal does not require any cross-guarantees of national sovereign bonds, so it does not require the degree of fiscal integration that is barrier to eurobonds.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0927/1224304799693.html

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ironically, the ability to rein in the actions of multinational banks and markets relies rather a lot on the kind of international pooling of sovereignty you decry.

amused,
Scofflaw

It is quite possible to rein in the banks, the multinationals, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, without 40 years, or more, of pooling sovereignty on fishing rights, or employment laws, or the CAP and so on.

The real irony is that Ireland had been effectively banned, by the very "partners" with which it has pooled so much sovereignty over the last 40 years or so, from penalising the banks which have caused so much damage to Ireland, and the poor Irish taxpayers are left with picking up the tab, probably for the next 40 years or so.

I'd rather be someone who questions things, rather than, as you appear, to to be so enthusiastic for the concept of ever closer union with our partners that it appears to lead you to be blinded by anything which shows that to be less than desirable, unable to brook any criticism of closer ties of any sort with our "partners", and appearing to see yourself here as a self appointed partisan spokesman for the EU.

Normally I wouldn't make such observations, but your incorrect accusation that I decry any international pooling of sovereignty was cheap, incorrect and an attempt to divert attention from the issue to the person by making personal remarks.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

It is quite possible to rein in the banks, the multinationals, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, without 40 years, or more, of pooling sovereignty on fishing rights, or employment laws, or the CAP and so on.

The real irony is that Ireland had been effectively banned, by the very "partners" with which it has pooled so much sovereignty over the last 40 years or so, from penalising the banks which have caused so much damage to Ireland, and the poor Irish taxpayers are left with picking up the tab, probably for the next 40 years or so.

I'd rather be someone who questions things, rather than, as you appear, to to be so enthusiastic for the concept of ever closer union with our partners that it appears to lead you to be blinded by anything which shows that to be less than desirable, unable to brook any criticism of closer ties of any sort with our "partners", and appearing to see yourself here as a self appointed partisan spokesman for the EU.

Normally I wouldn't make such observations, but your incorrect accusation that I decry any international pooling of sovereignty was cheap, incorrect and an attempt to divert attention from the issue to the person by making personal remarks.

The only possible conclusions from the fact that the EU Member States are discussing closer union as a way of dealing with the current set of issues is either (a) they feel it's what's necessary; or (b) they're involved in some kind of NWO conspiracy. That's a general pair of options that applies to all the other issues you mention - fishing, employment, etc.

Since I don't go with the latter, I go with the former. You appear to have to go with the latter - and hence my remarks.

regards,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

The only possible conclusions from the fact that the EU Member States are discussing closer union as a way of dealing with the current set of issues is either (a) they feel it's what's necessary; or (b) they're involved in some kind of NWO conspiracy. That's a general pair of options that applies to all the other issues you mention - fishing, employment, etc.

Since I don't go with the latter, I go with the former. You appear to have to go with the latter - and hence my remarks.

regards,
Scofflaw

You do consistently come across as a cheerleader for the EU.

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

You do consistently come across as a cheerleader for the EU.

It's there because it's necessary, and the structures are, to be frank, a lot more democratic, careful, and transparent than our own - and where they fall down on those features tends to be where the national governments take over. The CFP is a good example of the latter.

So, as a framework for joint action by the European countries, I support it very strongly. In terms of the decisions it makes or is used to make, not necessarily. By and large, though, criticism of the EU tends to be of the structures, or more commonly of its existence, rather than of the specific decisions, so I tend to be engaged on one particular side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

The only possible conclusions from the fact that the EU Member States are discussing closer union as a way of dealing with the current set of issues is either (a) they feel it's what's necessary; or (b) they're involved in some kind of NWO conspiracy. That's a general pair of options that applies to all the other issues you mention - fishing, employment, etc.

Since I don't go with the latter, I go with the former. You appear to have to go with the latter - and hence my remarks.

regards,
Scofflaw

You feel they are the only possible conclusions, and from those you yourself extrapolate what I must be thinking?

Quite apart from the fact that I am bemused as to why you want to spend your time working out what I might or might not be thinking, (which has now led you in this thread to two incorrect assumptions in as many days), I’d rather tackle the arguments and not the person.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I tend to be engaged on one particular side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tend? That implies that you are balanced but occasionally tip to one side.

From observation, I’d say you appear to be much more an uncritical cheerleader for the EU and everything it does. And that stance often seems to blind you into rushing to defend everything about the EU.

Of course, that’s a perfectly respectable position, and if you say you only “tend” to the side of the EU, then I accept that, even if the evidence of observation seems to suggest much more than “tending” to the side of the EU.

Scofflaw

easychair wrote: »

You feel they are the only possible conclusions, and from those you yourself extrapolate what I must be thinking?

Quite apart from the fact that I am bemused as to why you want to spend your time working out what I might or might not be thinking, (which has now led you in this thread to two incorrect assumptions in as many days), I’d rather tackle the arguments and not the person.

You're welcome to present another option if you have one you favour.

easychair wrote: »

Tend? That implies that you are balanced but occasionally tip to one side.

From observation, I’d say you appear to be much more an uncritical cheerleader for the EU and everything it does. And that stance often seems to blind you into rushing to defend everything about the EU.

Of course, that’s a perfectly respectable position, and if you say you only “tend” to the side of the EU, then I accept that, even if the evidence of observation seems to suggest much more than “tending” to the side of the EU.

I do only "tend" to be engaged one way in EU discussions, for the reason I gave. EU matters only really seem to generate interest amongst the eurosceptical, so the discussion rapidly gets framed as criticism of the existence of the EU versus defence of it, and as I said, I'm on one side on that one.

I don't think much of the current political mess of the eurozone crisis, nor of the design of the euro itself, but my criticisms there are rather different from most people's. Same goes for the CFP. The EU itself deserves much of the usual criticisms one can level at any bureaucracy, from unintended consequences of legislation to excessive caution and box-checking rather than real action, but those are non-unique features.

Many of the more 'popular' criticisms of the EU I do consider either false or inaccurate - the regular "ooh they haven't had their accounts signed off" or "we can't sell curved bananas" stuff is ridiculous, for example - and many other criticisms tend to display a misunderstanding of constitutional structures.

Most of it, though, simply comes down to the way that strongly worded paeans of praise for the EU that I would probably disagree with are rarer than hen's teeth, while strongly worded attacks are relatively common. Most people just think the EU is kind of OK, which doesn't inspire them to say much about it at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're welcome to present another option if you have one you favour.



I do only "tend" to be engaged one way in EU discussions, for the reason I gave. EU matters only really seem to generate interest amongst the eurosceptical, so the discussion rapidly gets framed as criticism of the existence of the EU versus defence of it, and as I said, I'm on one side on that one.

I don't think much of the current political mess of the eurozone crisis, nor of the design of the euro itself, but my criticisms there are rather different from most people's. Same goes for the CFP. The EU itself deserves much of the usual criticisms one can level at any bureaucracy, from unintended consequences of legislation to excessive caution and box-checking rather than real action, but those are non-unique features.

Many of the more 'popular' criticisms of the EU I do consider either false or inaccurate - the regular "ooh they haven't had their accounts signed off" or "we can't sell curved bananas" stuff is ridiculous, for example - and many other criticisms tend to display a misunderstanding of constitutional structures.

Most of it, though, simply comes down to the way that strongly worded paeans of praise for the EU that I would probably disagree with are rarer than hen's teeth, while strongly worded attacks are relatively common. Most people just think the EU is kind of OK, which doesn't inspire them to say much about it at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For me, there seems to be an absence of government at both domestic and EU level. While we can see the results of how appallingly Ireland has been governed by the Irish political system, there is also no debate on how to reform that system to produce better governance.

Similarly, in the EU the quality of governance is dismal, and the results of both of these are where we have been led by the governments we have voted in.

Where to from here?

Voodoo_rasher

Going Forward wrote: »

I accept that.
I am concerned that the level of austerity there will lead to a serious depression scenario with no or very little growth for generations to come.

very little quality of life for generations...more like.

there are reported cases of child malnutritions in Athens and other cities, while

Greece is said to top the global list of per capita ownership of Porsche Cayennes

easychair

The real problem is that French, German and Dutch banks have lent €130 billion to the Greek Government that they have no hope of getting back. The EU leaders are more concerned about their domestic positions than the wider problem in the Eurozone, and that dichotomy is likely to become more acute as time ticks on.

BNP Paribas is in for €37 billion, Commerzabank €15 billion, and the EU leaders think they can solve what is an economic crises by force of political will. The discussion is not about how to repay these debts, but is more about concealing it and hoping it will go away. Mervyn King believes that the political inaction on the actual problem, rather than posturing about the symptoms, can last for, at most, about two more years, leaving the Euro economies stagnant and the position worsening, with the possibility of an implosion.

Italy’s economy hasn’t grown in 10 years, and it’s unlikely Greece can do better than that, and probably it will do worse.

The desperation to prop up the Euro will be exposed for the folly it is, and the damage done in the meantime will be untold.

It is a brave man who can predict anything with any degree of certainty, and the strains between the Euro countries will become more and more apparent.

Going Forward

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/05/greece-suicide-tributes-retired-pharmacist

This is worth resurrecting a dead thread for IMO.

murphaph

cyberhog wrote: »

Germany has been in the same situation as Greece in the past and it was only because of the sacrifices of the United States that Germany was able to rebuild its economy.

Do you know what life was like in post war Germany? The Marshall aid didn't see the average German out buying property. It kept the average German fed and allowed German companies to rebuild.

Germany wasn't handed its country back on a plate after the war. It took many years of 6 day weeks and 12 hour days of work by average Germans (who may retire at 68 by the way) to rebuild their country and actually REPAY with interest the Marshall aid they received. The United States didn't really sacrifice anything. They made loans which were repaid with interest.

Greece is not the same at all. They have received credit which they do not wish to repay in full. They do not work as long as Germans (or Americans for that matter) nor do they pay as much tax. I would say it's morally wrong for Greece to receive any breaks so long as they may retire so early.

Skopzz

murphaph wrote: »

Do you know what life was like in post war Germany? The Marshall aid didn't see the average German out buying property. It kept the average German fed and allowed German companies to rebuild.

Germany wasn't handed its country back on a plate after the war. It took many years of 6 day weeks and 12 hour days of work by average Germans (who may retire at 68 by the way) to rebuild their country and actually REPAY with interest the Marshall aid they received. The United States didn't really sacrifice anything. They made loans which were repaid with interest.

Greece is not the same at all. They have received credit which they do not wish to repay in full. They do not work as long as Germans (or Americans for that matter) nor do they pay as much tax. I would say it's morally wrong for Greece to receive any breaks so long as they may retire so early.

The biggest help however was the Allied creation of the current German constitution. The true cost of protecting Germany during the Cold War was over two trillion dollars. Without such a massive expenditure by the American Taxpayer, it could be argued that Germany might have been Putin’s plaything. But, German sensibilities would preclude such an acknowledgment. The trillions of dollars the American middle class has spent protecting your sorry a-- was and is the basis of your prosperity. The single currency allows Germany to essentially borrow at a vastly lower interest rate than market without having to actually borrow or even print the physical cash.

We should not forget that when the financial crisis broke out in 2008, about 30% of the billions of American dollars poured into AIG to cover its insurance obligations found their way into German banks that AIG had insured. Germany never acknowledged that transfer of funds that were crucial to prevent the German financial system from collapsing. You should be grateful for all this.

I should mention the Anglo Irish Bank bailout by the Irish taxpayers. The Irish never consented to guaranteeing the German bondholders of our banks yet you expect us to pay 32% of our GDP to speculators based in Germany and across Europe and the US. I find it amazing how you then oppose the ECB from keeping our interest rates low - if Germany had yields above 6% you would be crying out loud for an ECB bazooka.

murphaph

Skopzz wrote: »

The biggest help however was the Allied creation of the current German constitution. The true cost of protecting Germany during the Cold War was over two trillion dollars. Without such a massive expenditure by the American Taxpayer, it could be argued that Germany might have been Putin’s plaything. But, German sensibilities would preclude such an acknowledgment. The trillions of dollars the American middle class has spent protecting your sorry a-- was and is the basis of your prosperity. The single currency allows Germany to essentially borrow at a vastly lower interest rate than market without having to actually borrow or even print the physical cash.

We should not forget that when the financial crisis broke out in 2008, about 30% of the billions of American dollars poured into AIG to cover its insurance obligations found their way into German banks that AIG had insured. Germany never acknowledged that transfer of funds that were crucial to prevent the German financial system from collapsing. You should be grateful for all this.

I should mention the Anglo Irish Bank bailout by the Irish taxpayers. The Irish never consented to guaranteeing the German bondholders of our banks yet you expect us to pay 32% of our GDP to speculators based in Germany and across Europe and the US. I find it amazing how you then oppose the ECB from keeping our interest rates low - if Germany had yields above 6% you would be crying out loud for an ECB bazooka.

You've made some amazing assumptions about my thoughts on many various issues there.

Firstly, I'm not German. I'm Irish. I just live in Germany.

This thread is about Greece. I never mentioned my feelings about Ireland, yet you have stated:

The Irish never consented to guaranteeing the German bondholders of our banks yet you expect us to pay 32% of our GDP to speculators based in Germany and across Europe and the US

I mean, wtf?

I actually think the blanket guarantee was an amazing mistake. I believe Ireland should have created a state bank to carry out the basic banking functions such as cheque clearance and so on and I'd have let Anglo, AIB, BoI and the whole lot of them go to the wall and if they took down German banks with them then so be it: private banks should never be bailed out by public money.

You say Germany was "protected" during the cold war. The US did not station missiles and troops in Europe to protect Europeans. They placed them there to be able to hit the USSR faster than the USSR could hit the Americans. That's why the US reacted so badly when the USSR tried to "protect" Cuba by stationing nuclear missiles on it. Do you really think the USSR (and by extension the US in Western Europe) was acting in Cuba's best interests, or its own?

America looks after America, nothing wrong with that, but please don't believe everything the US does is in some benign benevolent way for someone else's benefit. They calculate the benefit to themselves first.

The point still stands: Germany was not handed back a "fixed up" country in 1945. It was a shocking place to live with hunger and mass homelessness. Germany brought it all on themselves of course, but to compare the suffering of a German child born in 1945 to a Greek child born in 2012 is a bad joke. It is also a bad joke to suggest that the Greeks would work their way out of their mess if they only got a little help "like those Germans".

thebman

It isn't really a million miles from what we are taking and planning to do TBH.

This was interesting I thought:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0406/1224314441366.html

KyussBishop

I read entries on Adam Curtis's blog when I can (people probably know his excellent documentaries; his blog is equally excellent), and am currently going through a backlog, as haven't read it in about half a year.

There is a brilliant entry on Greece, which puts the current economic crisis in some historical context; watch the hour-long documentary at the end, am just part way into it, but it's very good:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/11/the_ghost_of_the_colonels.html

EDIT: Finished watching that documentary at the end of the article; it is a seriously good documentary, and the events toward the end (detailing the Athens Polytechnic uprising) are pretty shocking.

Going Forward

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/cuts-j20.shtml

An update. Inhumane IMO.

poeticseraphim

The Austerity vrs Stimulus debate is a fake one...what is needed is reforms structered toward growth.

However weak caretaker Govts in Greece Italy etc and weak Govt here too have not undertaken such measures.

Any stimulus is evaporated in the instability.The markets react to the uncertainty of caretaker govts and social unrest as much as fears of bank runs euro collapse and defaults.

Infact the markets have reacted severly to political unrest and elections. They need to reform and enforce corporate laws.

I do think they(germany and France ) have been using collective action clauses and chanelling bailouts through sovereign debt as a way of trying to secure there own bondholders and relieve them of accountability. It might actually simply be cheaper for them to recapitalize their own banks.

Eurobonds are not going to help as they would be destructive to the German economy and to be honest EU debt is still unsustainable no matter where it is.

I wonder sometimes if the closer union is genuine or used as a bluff to get out of requests for Eurobonds. They all ask for things they know they know govts will never give in to so they can be seen to be trying to show leadership and union but cannot get blamed for the stalemate.

It has to be said the current strategy has failed.

Merkel may be right in saying there cannot be eurobonds and banking union without greater poloitical union (she is probably right) but it does get her of the hook as other leaders cannot give this. They all have their own electorate to answer to also. And Merkels first responsibilty is to her electorate and the same goes for Hollande etc. Monti being an unelected leader of Italy has less of a mandate to press her on issues. Which is a shame with him being an economist.

They will all try to get a union that best suits them.(if that is what happens)..as that is their moral duty to their electotrates.

The fact that EU citizens in some countries are prepared to let child malnutrition go on in other EU countries is disgusting to me.

Putting money into insolvent banks is stupid and immoral. It wastes money and encourages people to keep their savings in unsafe banks. There is no reason why insolvent banks could not have been wound down in a structured way and certain banks supported. Perhaps worry over certain bondholders..but certainly contagion could have been prevented that way. No scenario is a nightmare if it is managed well.

There was no need for it to it to be such a disaster.

Putting banks on welfare is not capitalism it is protectionism it is corporate facism.

To protect the banking sector it should have been audited legally (instead of Irish accountants hiding stuff) and partially bailed out. The rest wound down gradually. And slowly along with growth stimulating reforms and a strengthening of banking and corporate law to help market confidence and public confidence.

It has been totally mismanaged.

Monty Burnz

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

very little quality of life for generations...more like.

there are reported cases of child malnutritions in Athens and other cities, while

Greece is said to top the global list of per capita ownership of Porsche Cayennes

This is the type of system the Greeks voted for. They sowed the wind.

Monty Burnz

Going Forward wrote: »

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/cuts-j20.shtml

An update. Inhumane IMO.

It's inhumane in Greece when they can't afford all the luxuries of 21st century society - but it's ok in South America, Africa, Asia?

There's a massive double standard at work here. The Greeks lived off credit for a decade or more and are now discovering that they have to repay (some of) it. Perhaps you feel they are too stupid to govern themselves?

poeticseraphim

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's inhumane in Greece when they can't afford all the luxuries of 21st century society - but it's ok in South America, Africa, Asia?

There's a massive double standard at work here. The Greeks lived off credit for a decade or more and are now discovering that they have to repay (some of) it. Perhaps you feel they are too stupid to govern themselves?

IT IS WRONG EVERYWHERE...but just because we can't do everything everywhere does not mean we should do nothing here now...

And we should help everywhere ...where we can

CANCEL ALL DEBT!

Monty Burnz

poeticseraphim wrote: »

IT IS WRONG EVERYWHERE...but just because we can't do everything everywhere does not mean we should do nothing here now...

And we should help everywhere ...where we can

There's nothing stopping you giving away your money, is there?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

CANCEL ALL DEBT!

You realise that one man's debt is another man's savings? CANCEL ALL SAVINGS AND PENSIONS!

PopeBuckfastXVI

poeticseraphim wrote: »

CANCEL ALL DEBT!

If debt, and by extension, lending were cancelled tomorrow, Greece, not to mention Ireland would be absolutely and completely f*cked.

Austerity? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's inhumane in Greece when they can't afford all the luxuries of 21st century society - but it's ok in South America, Africa, Asia?

There's a massive double standard at work here. The Greeks lived off credit for a decade or more and are now discovering that they have to repay (some of) it. Perhaps you feel they are too stupid to govern themselves?

Why muddy the water talking about other countries?
You do realise that you're responding to a thread in the European Union forum?

Do you really believe that life is so black and white that any and all austerity measures levelled against a country's people can be justified to get figures on a balance sheet to look acceptable?

The WORLD, not just Greece has lived off credit for the past decade- there is a global crisis that you may not have noticed.

The lack of sympathy or interest shown to to the Greeks here is highly unnerving.

PS: Look up the definition of a sociopath and you might get a shock.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's nothing stopping you giving away your money, is there?

You realise that one man's debt is another man's savings? CANCEL ALL SAVINGS AND PENSIONS!

And, the value of your investments may fall as well as rise.

If the bankers had adhered to their old safer traditional lending criteria instead of shovelling money out of their doors to whoever could put an X on the dotted line, the world would not be in such a financial mess now.

Some sort of debt cancellation is required; it will make little difference to lending as that's all but dried up anyway.

Monty Burnz

Going Forward wrote: »

Why muddy the water talking about other countries?
You do realise that you're responding to a thread in the European Union forum?

So providing any sort of context is 'muddying the waters'?

Going Forward wrote: »

Do you really believe that life is so black and white that any and all austerity measures levelled against a country's people can be justified to get figures on a balance sheet to look acceptable?

You are living in a world of fiction. Greece has no money. This is why it cannot pay for stuff - they have imposed austerity on themselves. And of course they have already spent around a hundred billion euros of borrowed money that they will never pay back - money that came out of the pockets of pension funds and other institutional investors. They have had a whale of a party, now let them clean up.

Going Forward wrote: »

The WORLD, not just Greece has lived off credit for the past decade- there is a global crisis that you may not have noticed.

And THE WORLD intends to pay back what it owes. But not Greece.

Going Forward wrote: »

The lack of sympathy or interest shown to to the Greeks here is highly unnerving.

I have tremendous interest in the Greek story. I dare say I've been following it longer than you have. They have my sympathy, but they used their sovereignty to mismanage themselves into a disaster. You seem to feel there should be no consequences? Here's a suggestion - send a Greek charity all of your money. When you've done that, come back to the rest of us and you might have a shred of credibility.

Going Forward wrote: »

PS: Look up the definition of a sociopath and you might get a shock.

You can look up 'ad hominem' while you are at it. It's usually collocated with 'losing argument'.

Blowfish

Going Forward wrote: »

Do you really believe that life is so black and white that any and all austerity measures levelled against a country's people can be justified to get figures on a balance sheet to look acceptable?

So you think they should be able to keep borrowing and not pay it back indefinitely?

Monty Burnz

Blowfish wrote: »

So you think they should be able to keep borrowing and not pay it back indefinitely?

So it would seem.

Going Forward

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So providing any sort of context is 'muddying the waters'?

You are living in a world of fiction. Greece has no money. This is why it cannot pay for stuff - they have imposed austerity on themselves. And of course they have already spent around a hundred billion euros of borrowed money that they will never pay back - money that came out of the pockets of pension funds and other institutional investors. They have had a whale of a party, now let them clean up.

And THE WORLD intends to pay back what it owes. But not Greece.

I have tremendous interest in the Greek story. I dare say I've been following it longer than you have. They have my sympathy, but they used their sovereignty to mismanage themselves into a disaster. You seem to feel there should be no consequences? Here's a suggestion - send a Greek charity all of your money. When you've done that, come back to the rest of us and you might have a shred of credibility.

You can look up 'ad hominem' while you are at it. It's usually collocated with 'losing argument'.

This is very simple.
The WORLD has not got a hope in hell of paying back the debt it has racked up.

What you term the "stuff" that Greece cannot pay for, essential medicine, food, electricity, let them live without, to punish and teach them a little lesson, is that right?

This cruel socio political experiment is a futile effort to correct professionally mismanaged pension funds and investments.

You may well have an interest in the Greek crisis, but its obviously purely academic.