The Greek government is too much. They probably think they are leading a union:
Stathis Kouvelakis said:
Stathis Kouvelakis said:https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/07/tsipras-varoufakis-kouvelakis-syriza-euro-debt/
Two things have to be said at this point. The first is that Tsipras and most of the people close to him thought it was going to be a walk in the park. And that was pretty much the case before the closure of the banks. The general sense was that the referendum would be won overwhelmingly, by over 70 percent.
This was quite realistic, without the banks closing down the referendum would have been easily won, but the political significance of No would have been changed, because it would have happened without the confrontational and dramatic atmosphere created by the bank closure and the reaction of the Europeans.
What happened in that cabinet meeting was that a certain number of people the rightist wing of the government, lead by Deputy Prime Minister Giannis Dragasakis disagreed with the move. Dragasakis is actually the person who has been monitoring the whole negotiation process on the Greek side. Everyone on the negotiating team with the exception of the new finance minister, Euclid Tsakalotos, are his people and he was the most prominent of those in the cabinet who really wanted to get rid of Varoufakis.
This wing thought that the referendum was a high-risk proposal, and they understood, in a way that Tsipras did not, that this was going to be a very confrontational move that would trigger a harsh reaction from the European side and they were proved right.
They were also afraid about the dynamic from below that would be released by this initiative. On the other hand, the Left Platforms leader and minister of energy and productive reconstruction, Panagiotis Lafazanis said that the referendum was the right decision, albeit one that came too late, but he also warned that this amounted to a declaration of war, that the other side would cut off the liquidity and we should expect within days to have the banks closed. Most of those present just laughed at this suggestion.
One of the things the Greek government should answer now is why despite all the *number* of reforms taken we cannot look at the Greek state and see a modern state there? And then comes the second question, is the Greek state trying to reform itself or are they just trying to appease creditors, meaning passing watered down legislation in order to keep much of the status quo ante intact. Given, for example, the corruption reports on the medical sector despite the 25% of unemployment, I think the answer is pretty clear for both questions.
Um, no. The EZ never demanded that Greece take all those austerity measures in the first place that completely destroyed the economy and created a 25%+ unemployment. The EZ said that IFF Greece wanted to be bailed out, then Greece had to take austerity measures to reduce its government spending so that people who have saved money could see some reasonable chance they would get their money back. No one forced Greece to take out loans, Greek political leadership decided that taking out those loans was the best alternative to get Greece out of its imminent collapse, a collapse due solely to Greece's own actions.Because it was your government and the rest of the EZ that demanded Greece to take all those austerity measures in the first place that completely destroyed the economy and created a 25%+ unemployment.
Did those people in the Baltic countries payed the same money as the Greek pensioners for their pensions ??? Because i see lot of people saying that Greek pensions are high but they dont take in consideration that Greeks payed handsomely in order to get those high pensions.
LMAO! +1I'd go with Grecnado. That's where bankers who are half man half shark, created by underground Nazi experiments, are sucked up out of the Mediterranean by a cyclone and descend upon Greece eating up all of the money. The only hope of salvation is from the intervention of a list of B-movie actors armed with flame throwers. They save Greece by killing all of the mutant sharks but also destroy Greece by burning all of the money.
edit: don't forget, Sharknado3 is coming to set top box near you soon.
The IMF has been saying that all along. That's been part of the impasse. The EZ has been saying no new loans unless the IMF is the major player, the IMF has been saying no new loans unless the EZ agrees to take big losses on existing loans, and Greece has been saying give us enough money to support ourselves plus even more so that we can grow our economy.Finally a small amount of common sense is being interjected in on this. The IMF is saying it won't back any deal unless there is a large cut to Greek debt payments in order to ease austerity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/business/international/imf-greece-debt-relief.html
Here's the paper:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15186.pdf?hootPostID=2cd94f17236d717acd9949448d794045
The EZ said that IFF Greece wanted to be bailed out, then Greece had to take austerity measures to reduce its government spending so that people who have saved money could see some reasonable chance they would get their money back. No one forced Greece to take out loans, Greek political leadership decided that taking out those loans was the best alternative to get Greece out of its imminent collapse, a collapse due solely to Greece's own actions.
It seems that it cannot occur to the Greek establishment that they might be actually responsible for the destiny of their own country. They always seem to blame either success or failure on foreign conditions/actors.
Wynne Godley
The British economist wrote about his own concerns in a 1992 article for the London Review of Books:
What happens if a whole country—a potential ‘region’ in a fully integrated community—suffers a structural setback? So long as it is a sovereign state, it can devalue its currency. It can then trade successfully at full employment provided its people accept the necessary cut in their real incomes. With an economic and monetary union, this recourse is obviously barred, and its prospect is grave indeed unless federal budgeting arrangements are made which fulfil a redistributive role. ... If a country or region has no power to devalue, and if it is not the beneficiary of a system of fiscal equalisation, then there is nothing to stop it suffering a process of cumulative and terminal decline leading, in the end, to emigration as the only alternative to poverty or starvation.
It just boggles the mind that Euro was created in the first place, with these concerns unaddressed, and adapted by several hundred million people. It looks like the biggest scam ever.
That seems to be a recurring theme. How can you have an economic union without some sort of fiscal oversight. It seems ludicrous. But that was the supposed to be the purpose of the entry requirements. Greece's "eligibility year" was 1999 even though they didn't join until 2001. And think there was always some doubt about the metrics that were used. BTW, the bank fraud courtesy of Goldman Sachs and other didn't occur until after Greece joined IIRC.It just boggles the mind that Euro was created in the first place, with these concerns unaddressed, and adapted by several hundred million people. It looks like the biggest scam ever.
Good point.That seems to be a recurring theme. How can you have an economic union without some sort of fiscal oversight. It seems ludicrous. But that was the supposed to be the purpose of the entry requirements. Greece's "eligibility year" was 1999 even though they didn't join until 2001. And think there was always some doubt about the metrics that were used. BTW, the bank fraud courtesy of Goldman Sachs and other didn't occur until after Greece joined IIRC.
But however they measured Greece's eligibility, it obviously wasn't enough. And even if it had been, shit happens. Just because you seem good in one year doesn't mean that your economy won't go to hell 10 years later.
If we continue like that, there will be a time very soon, that people will pay more than what they will get as a pension
Simple math dictates that if one country produces more than it consumes, there must be at least one country that consumes more than it produces, since total production equals total consumption.
Welcome to US' Social Security system.
Another reason to not rely on government for your life.
Ahh yes, im talking with my fellow Greeks about this situation for the past 15 years. Im against the State Pension system, It should be reformed to a private pension system.
Right now I can spend less to a private security firm for pension and health care, than what I pay for the current State pension+health system, and have higher quality services from the private firm than what i will have from the state.
The cost to services delta will only continue to increase in favor of the private firms the next years and many, including myself are seriously thinking to stop paying their current state pensions and start a new with a private security firm.
Are you legally allowed to opt out of the state system?
You've argued many times that simple math doesn't apply to national economies, simple math like the law of exponents to be very specific.
Highlights from the IMF report here - http://www.businessinsider.com/you-...emo-on-the-greece-bailout-its-horrific-2015-7Finally a small amount of common sense is being interjected in on this. The IMF is saying it won't back any deal unless there is a large cut to Greek debt payments in order to ease austerity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/business/international/imf-greece-debt-relief.html
Here's the paper:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15186.pdf?hootPostID=2cd94f17236d717acd9949448d794045
From what I understand, bailouts are also expressly forbidden under EU rules but that didn't seem to stop anyone. You start to get the feeling a lot of what can and can't be done is subject to debate.Schauble is saying a haircut can't happen under Euro-zone rules. Which rule specifically is he talking about?
Seems kind of stupid to design a monetary system under the assumption of no sovereign debt crises. Especially when such system facilitates such crises by removing monetary flexibility.
The roadmap required that Greece pass legislation enacting the reforms promised by Wednesday. I have seen nothing either way on that, so I suppose that was a bit more, um, flexible than represented. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing I suppose; legislation fundamentally reforming one's socioeconomic system, even if it is just enacting the reforms promised over the last five years, is probably not best done in two days.Wasn't there going to be a vote on more bailout money a day or two back? I don't see anything about it in the news.
Schauble is saying a haircut can't happen under Euro-zone rules. Which rule specifically is he talking about?
Seems kind of stupid to design a monetary system under the assumption of no sovereign debt crises. Especially when such system facilitates such crises by removing monetary flexibility.
The member banks need to man-up to their own fuck-ups, take a haircut on Greek debt.
There are two at fault parties here- the Greeks & the banks. Greeks can't pay all of it, so the banks need to eat the rest, one way or another. Or Germans can continue to buy into the faux morality play laid out by the bankers, end up paying for it themselves.