3 ms·
I wonder who would be suitable to decide what is reasonable. Is it: a) a country with a record of mismanagement and debt it cannot pay back b) a set of countr
by oneplane 6y ago
I wonder who would be suitable to decide what is reasonable.
Is it:
a) a country with a record of mismanagement and debt it cannot pay back
b) a set of countries that do not have a record of mismanagement and have the ability to help out a country that is in debt
If we take your metaphor we could say the choice is:
a) do not accept the terms and starve to death
b) cut off your arm and live with rules to live by to prevent the scenario from repeating
- dash2 6y agoI think it is widely accepted that the terms imposed on Greece were unreasonable – not just because they caused very high unemployment and poverty, but also because they were based on a completely unrealistic assessment of the country’s ability to pay back its debt. A good book on the topic (and much else) is Adam Tooze’s Crashed.
- phs318u 6y agoLet me rephrase your first (b). b) a set of banks who were willingly ignorant that they were lending to a state with a history of bankruptcy over many decades, because they believed/knew that when push came to shove the EU (taxpayers) would bail them out (which they did. You realise that the Greek "bailout" was a bailout of the EU banks that lent to the Greek state).