4 ms·

The quoted polemic, supposedly written by a Greek banker, doesn't make much sense. It starts off by describing Greeks as some of the world's richest people, th

The quoted polemic, supposedly written by a Greek banker, doesn't make much sense. It starts off by describing Greeks as some of the world's richest people, then it claims that France and Germany are the problem (because their investment industry was looking for higher returns) and not Greece (which only took the money and misused it), and finally rejects the notion that Greeks will accept austerity because the money was actually stolen by the oligarchy that controls Greek businesses. If Greeks are so wealthy then they must certainly be able to solve the problem by increasing taxes and seriously pursuing evasion while cutting the bloated public sector. The actual fact is that the Greek government and large international banks have basically conspired to steal money from French and German taxpayers, and the average Greek on the street has joined the conspiracy by refusing to accept that the promises made to them by their government in terms of benefits and services were simply a fabrication that had no basis in reality.

_delirium 17y ago
They are making some attempts along those lines, which is interesting for a socialist government. There's a public-sector wage freeze, and significantly stepped-up attempts to go after tax evasion. Fun fact: in 2008, the average Greek doctor reported less than €10,000 in income. If you were to make a demographic map of Athens based on official income data from tax returns, most of the wealthy suburbs would look like ghettos.
houseabsolute 17y ago
Hmm, except the oligarchy aspect at the end, I thought the analysis was cogent enough. I liked his points about the bailouts being a wealth transfer to baby boomers in particular. It basically boils down to a few claims. For why Greece is not the loser: * A decrease in the amount our government is able to borrow will not hurt us very much. (This jives with your claim that Greece squandered the money lent to them.) * Investors have short memories. They'll be knocking at our door again soon enough. For why either baby boomers or the current generation do stand to lose: * Bailouts represent a wealth transfer from the current generation, who will pay for them over time in taxes, to the baby boomers, whose investments are the ones being bailed out. I'm not sure if his claims were about who was the problem so much as a pragmatic analysis of who stands to lose. I've always thought that when bankruptcy and default are options, the debtor is in fact the one that holds the power in the lender-lendee relationship, and this situation seems to lend credence to that view.

_delirium 17y ago

They are making some attempts along those lines, which is interesting for a socialist government. There's a public-sector wage freeze, and significantly stepped-up attempts to go after tax evasion. Fun fact: in 2008, the average Greek doctor reported less than €10,000 in income. If you were to make a demographic map of Athens based on official income data from tax returns, most of the wealthy suburbs would look like ghettos.

houseabsolute 17y ago

Hmm, except the oligarchy aspect at the end, I thought the analysis was cogent enough. I liked his points about the bailouts being a wealth transfer to baby boomers in particular. It basically boils down to a few claims. For why Greece is not the loser: * A decrease in the amount our government is able to borrow will not hurt us very much. (This jives with your claim that Greece squandered the money lent to them.) * Investors have short memories. They'll be knocking at our door again soon enough. For why either baby boomers or the current generation do stand to lose: * Bailouts represent a wealth transfer from the current generation, who will pay for them over time in taxes, to the baby boomers, whose investments are the ones being bailed out. I'm not sure if his claims were about who was the problem so much as a pragmatic analysis of who stands to lose. I've always thought that when bankruptcy and default are options, the debtor is in fact the one that holds the power in the lender-lendee relationship, and this situation seems to lend credence to that view.