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 bo

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.