3 ms·

> "Greece ... was in the same situation as 10 other EU countries" not really - Greece is especially troublesome, because it was not able to collect enough taxes

by tpm 10y ago

> "Greece ... was in the same situation as 10 other EU countries" not really - Greece is especially troublesome, because it was not able to collect enough taxes from its own citizens and businesses, and also there was huge corruption. > "Of the government support "given to Greece" between 80% and 90% ended up propping of foreign banks." Yes - the alternative was to cut Greece out of the loop and only save the banks. Also, you have to consider the public sentiment of helping countries: in a lot of them, people made (and sometimes still make) much less money than the average Greek. So why should we send them money, people ask? Now don't get me wrong, I think the EU help for Greece is a good thing, but also let's not kid ourselves - the country borrowed a lot of money and spent most of it very ineffectively. >"Greece is a sovereign state and should just have the choice not to repay it's debts." And it does. What it does not have is the choice to stay within the Eurozone and not repay its debts - such is the thing with international bodies, they have rules and you must adhere to them to stay in the club. >"And frankly, the EU knows perfectly well what it's doing to these people" Thing is, the peripheral countries were given a _lot_ of money during the last 30-40 years in cohesive funding etc; the wages and living standards climbed accordingly; people got used to it. Then the financial crisis came and coutries which invested wisely were able to withstand it, others less so. Without the EU, the Greeks would be poor (look at the Bulgarian or Macedonian GDP per capita); the EU gave them a chance to change that; it does not seem they used it well. > "Any system in which a majority of the population does not have the option to block laws is not a democracy." Never heard such a definition. Anyway you are saying that a majority of EU population does not have the option to block laws? I don't think that's true. >"Start reading there, read at least the next 2 pages, then continue here" Or maybe you could tell me what your point is. >"The council stop is a joke" No it's not, the Council is in fact the most powerful body of the EU, and decisions there are taken by heads of the countries. I don't like that, but it's the current state of affairs. >"the legislative power is 100% in the hands of the EU commission" Which, again, consists of people nominated by the member countries. >claiming that this huge mass of people experiences this "era" as the "most prosperous ever" Good thing then I don't claim that. ('most', as I said) >"It is neither the fault of these states" Oh but it absolutely is. Companies don't employ new (young) people, because it's way too expensive to do that if the national legislation makes it so. On the other hand, there is record low unemployment in some countries (at least czech republic, slovakia, possibly poland, and I think also Germany, possibly others). So evidently some countries are doing something good. See also my point about some countries not investing effectively.

candiodari 10y ago
> "Of the government support "given to Greece" between 80% and 90% ended up propping of foreign banks." Yes - the alternative was to cut Greece No of course not. The alternative was to let Greece go bankrupt, as it has done many times before and not repay the banks. I can't believe you don't mention this option. You see, the whole point of loans is that they carry risk. On occasion they are not repaid. That's why they require interest. The rest of your comment is similarly somewhere between unbelievably naive ("the thing with international bodies, they have rules and you must adhere to them to stay in the club." - There is no country in the EU, not a single one, that has followed the spending rules of the EU. Greece was nowhere near the worst until they got screwed, and yet, no action. Not against Spain. Not against Italy. Not against France. And yet, far worse spending than Greece. Rules don't work in the real world, and fact of the matter is that kicking France, Italy or Spain out would have been the end of the EU and it's rules. THAT and nothing else is why they were allowed to overspend and Greece got shit on. Goliath can beat David senseless for jaywalking, but David isn't even allowed to mention that Goliath openly defrauds it. Why ? "That wouldn't be credible" is the answer that keeps popping up, and indeed, it wouldn't be) and "is this guy for real" misrepresentations (like claiming the EC and the council aren't the same organisation, somehow outright missing the option and purpose of bankruptcy, ...) Can we please assume that this is not a class on "what is right and wrong" for 5 year olds and establish basic principles: In the real world there are no rules. Anything that is in the rulebook but you can't enforce does not count. If A hires B and completely controls him, you cannot expect B to act separately from A.
- tpm 10y ago
  > The alternative was to let Greece go bankrupt, as it has done many times before and not repay the banks. Yes, but this is the very systemic contagion of the Eurozone financial sector they (the architects of the rescue) were trying to prevent, in the turbulent crisis of that time. Because that would cause much bigger problems. We don't really know whether it really would, and now we will never know, but it is possible. Also a bankrupt Greece in the Eurozone is very different to a bankrupt Greece with its own currency, which it can devalue, limit capital outflows etc. And when you let a country go bankrupt, you have to somehow still pay for the medicine food energy etc., and nobody has a plan how Greece would do that - the Greek governement didn't have primary surplus (without debt repayment) for years, so it needed outside money just to (somehow) properly function. What would be the source of this money - or should people just die because of lack of essentials? > There is no country in the EU, not a single one, that has followed the spending rules of the EU. Probably no country follows them all the time (with the possible exception of Estonia, with a government debt of 10% GDP and usually an yearly surplus), but most of the countries at least aim to do that. The ones you mention are the worst offenders and as a result, their financial possibilities are severely constrained. And it shows - they are stagnating. > And yet, far worse spending than Greece. And yet they didn't have to be rescued on such a scale. > like claiming the EC and the council aren't the same organisation They are not though. They are two different organisations.

by tpm 10y ago

candiodari 10y ago

> "Of the government support "given to Greece" between 80% and 90% ended up propping of foreign banks." Yes - the alternative was to cut Greece No of course not. The alternative was to let Greece go bankrupt, as it has done many times before and not repay the banks. I can't believe you don't mention this option. You see, the whole point of loans is that they carry risk. On occasion they are not repaid. That's why they require interest. The rest of your comment is similarly somewhere between unbelievably naive ("the thing with international bodies, they have rules and you must adhere to them to stay in the club." - There is no country in the EU, not a single one, that has followed the spending rules of the EU. Greece was nowhere near the worst until they got screwed, and yet, no action. Not against Spain. Not against Italy. Not against France. And yet, far worse spending than Greece. Rules don't work in the real world, and fact of the matter is that kicking France, Italy or Spain out would have been the end of the EU and it's rules. THAT and nothing else is why they were allowed to overspend and Greece got shit on. Goliath can beat David senseless for jaywalking, but David isn't even allowed to mention that Goliath openly defrauds it. Why ? "That wouldn't be credible" is the answer that keeps popping up, and indeed, it wouldn't be) and "is this guy for real" misrepresentations (like claiming the EC and the council aren't the same organisation, somehow outright missing the option and purpose of bankruptcy, ...) Can we please assume that this is not a class on "what is right and wrong" for 5 year olds and establish basic principles: In the real world there are no rules. Anything that is in the rulebook but you can't enforce does not count. If A hires B and completely controls him, you cannot expect B to act separately from A.

tpm 10y ago
> The alternative was to let Greece go bankrupt, as it has done many times before and not repay the banks. Yes, but this is the very systemic contagion of the Eurozone financial sector they (the architects of the rescue) were trying to prevent, in the turbulent crisis of that time. Because that would cause much bigger problems. We don't really know whether it really would, and now we will never know, but it is possible. Also a bankrupt Greece in the Eurozone is very different to a bankrupt Greece with its own currency, which it can devalue, limit capital outflows etc. And when you let a country go bankrupt, you have to somehow still pay for the medicine food energy etc., and nobody has a plan how Greece would do that - the Greek governement didn't have primary surplus (without debt repayment) for years, so it needed outside money just to (somehow) properly function. What would be the source of this money - or should people just die because of lack of essentials? > There is no country in the EU, not a single one, that has followed the spending rules of the EU. Probably no country follows them all the time (with the possible exception of Estonia, with a government debt of 10% GDP and usually an yearly surplus), but most of the countries at least aim to do that. The ones you mention are the worst offenders and as a result, their financial possibilities are severely constrained. And it shows - they are stagnating. > And yet, far worse spending than Greece. And yet they didn't have to be rescued on such a scale. > like claiming the EC and the council aren't the same organisation They are not though. They are two different organisations.