6 ms·

For context, this person was part of PASOK[0], one of the two political parties that created the Greek debt crisis and is rife with corruption scandals [1][2][3

by epilys 4y ago

For context, this person was part of PASOK[0], one of the two political parties that created the Greek debt crisis and is rife with corruption scandals [1][2][3][4][5]. She was removed from the party some days ago. The other political party is in power today. They both plundered the Greek public sector, privatized public owned industries and subsequently cooked the numbers to let Greece in the Eurozone even with the massive debt they had caused. Vote abstention is around 40-45% in Greece, and higher among the youth. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PASOK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PASOK [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Papandreou#%22Koskotas_scandal%22,_trial_and_return_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Papandreou#%22Koskotas... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akis_Tsochatzopoulos#Corruption_accusations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akis_Tsochatzopoulos#Corruptio... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagarde_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagarde_list [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis#Corruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis#Corruption [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Greek_bribery_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Greek_bribery_scandal

4gotunameagain 4y ago
Probably worth adding that a hefty number of scandals involving corrupt Greek politicians had huge German companies involved (Siemens, HDW, Rheinmetall..) Plus Germany benefited greatly from the introduction of import based economies in the Eurozone, and the financial crisis. It is no wonder they like corrupt politicians in power.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Same with Romania and Eastern Europe in general. Western EU countries criticize them immensely for corruption in the public eye, yet their governments, banks and major corporations profit immensely from the business deals corruption there enables them to do, and so they have a vested interest to keep just enough corruption there so they can keep profiteering, while maintaining enough rule of law so that their investments there are safe and ensures the free flow of profits back home.
  - nayroclade 4y ago
    This is boilerplate conspiratorial nonsense. West European countries would benefit far more from East European countries being free from the economic drag imposed by endemic corruption. The EU internal market overall would be much richer and stronger, and those banks and corporations would have a better quality consumer and labor base. Banks and corporations can make plenty of money in high-trust societies just as in low-trust ones, and they get more regulatory certainty as well.
    - JetSpiegel 4y ago
      Most corruption cases benefit the German companies, so no, they would not benefit more, otherwise they would just lobby their local governments for fiscal transfer to the poorer countries. The opposite happens, the German constitutional court can veto foreign budgets if they don't pay the Danegeld (i.e. not wasting all european funds buying goods and services from Germany). The litmus test is this: can a EU country use european funds to create a new carmaker to compete with central european carmakers? Hell no. But you can spend all european funds buying cars from Germany, that's never wasteful. The EU has no policy to enrich the entire union, only the central countries. The EU funds are basically a workaround for direct transfers of money from the German government to German companies, via foreign countries. I'm not from a Eastern European country, but I do live in a poor Eastern European economy, it's the same dynamic.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      >This is boilerplate conspiratorial nonsense It's not though. EU wide corruption scandals prove this. Western EU companies routinely pay bribes to dump plastics and toxic waste in Romanian landfills under the disguise of "recyclable material". This way those private companies save a few bucks to stay competitive, and their countries keep getting to call themselves "green" by exporting their environmental damage across the border. IKEA, plus Austrian and German wood companies routinely paid bribes in the Romanian timber industry to be able to perform mass deforestation. Austrian companies, like STR*BAG, paid bribes to Romanian politicians to get preferential juicy building contracts, sometimes using EU funds, for highways that never get completed due to various technicalities that got intentionally omitted from the contract so that the building company can just bail out from the deal without having built anything while getting paid in full. Basically, the EU taxpayer is paying for a western EU company to make bank in the east, all through EU funds funneled trough Romania, to build roads that never get built. All this high level corruption benefits major western EU companies, and corrupt eastern EU politicians a lot. Western EU politicians also benefit from this as the major companies in their countries lobby for them to keep this corrupt system going so they can keep making bank. The EU is a great thing, but it's also ripe with corruption that's costing the taxpayers tens of billions.
- looping__lui 4y ago
  Or maybe you are mixing up cause and effect: Greek politicians demanded hefty bribes to do business in the first place. Yes, Germany is a real winner in bailing out Greek and all the southern European economies than cannot pay their bills. You are aware that exporting stuff to countries that take a loan and don’t pay it back is like not exactly “beneficial”. Greek should never have been in the EU in the first place. They lied about their financial situation and deliberately stole money from their European neighbors.
  - 4gotunameagain 4y ago
    You know that all the money sent to the Greeks were only used to bail out European banks, right ? And that they framed it that way because they had already bailed out said banks ? Anyway, of course I don't know exactly what's going on. I'm just a rando with no skin in the game
    - makomk 4y ago
      In particular, the money was used to bail out a bunch of German banks, who as far as I can understand it ended up with all that debt because Germany was running a trade surplus with Greece directly enabled by the structure of the Eurozone without any corresponding fiscal transfers that would balance it out, and that in turm directly benefitted Germany as well.
      - looping__lui 4y ago
        Maybe Greek should have paid taxes after all: https://www.businessinsider.com/corruption-in-greese-hampering-economic-recovery-2010-1?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/corruption-in-greese-hamperi... But the funny thing is: Greek themselves find their country too corrupt and bloated that they aren’t willing to pay for it with THEIR OWN money… Much of Greeks debt problem would not have existed had the Greek citizens paid taxes like the rest of Europe.
      - Gibbon1 4y ago
        That whole bit caused me to rethink the fiscal transfers between regions in the US. So California sends a bunch of money to the feds who turn around an give some to Mississippi? Okay fine because that's way better than what the EU did to the schmucks living in Greece. Or if the banks fail in Texas it's the FED that's not on the hook not random Texans. The underlying thing is in the US states give up being able to use monetary policy to balance trade. In return the Fed's backstop a lot of stuff and transfer money around. Overall that's fair. In the EU states give up being able to use monetary policy to balance trade. In return no fiscal transfers. And the EU backstop's French and German banks by squeezing poorer states. That's not fair at all.
gbil 4y ago
I suggest you take a lot here with a grain of salt because either of personal opinions or half-reporting data, eg: - She was removed from the party just yesterday afternoon after the publication of the topic - Vote abstention is around 40-45% out of ~9,98m registered to vote (on 2019 elections) on a country of 10,4m people (census 2021) !!!!!! Never understood how this is even possible - The specific person entered politics after a lot of the listed topics took place and her background was not a political one anyhow EDIT: format
- bpfrh 4y ago
  The vote abstention should be right, I searched on the greek voting system and I don't see any requirement besides[1]: * having the greek citizenship * being older than 17 * Not being dissalowed by the court to vote All citizens get automatically added to the "registered vote" after they turn 17. E.g. A greek citizen is always a registered voter even if he doesn't go and vote. If we take the 2019 numbers we have: 9961718 registered voters 4192215 voters who didn't fill out the forms (I assume non voters are counted this way) (4192215×100)÷9961718 ~=42% Are non voters [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Greece [2]https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlamentswahl_in_Griechenland_2019#Wahlsystem https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlamentswahl_in_Griechenland... Edit: formatting, add a note about what the 42% means
  - gbil 4y ago
    Your math is fine starting from the 9,9m number but you didn't take into account what I wrote, which is that the total population of greece is 10,4 millions. Registered voters are those >=17 years old so only 500k are <17 which of course is not valid EDIT: adding more data, official numbers state ~1,5m of age 0-14. Let's say 200k more in the 15-16 range, that is ~1,7m 10,4-1,7 = 8,7m >=17 years old. Population of Greece dropped by about 400k between the previous and current census (2011-2021) while the registered voters number from 2009 elections hasn't changed. I'm afraid that 1,7m gap is not justified at all, we locals have long heard of how bad the registered voters records are, still including a lot of dead people etc. To not lose track, this thread is just to justify why the numbers in the OP are to be taken with a grain of salt
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by epilys 4y ago

4gotunameagain 4y ago

Probably worth adding that a hefty number of scandals involving corrupt Greek politicians had huge German companies involved (Siemens, HDW, Rheinmetall..) Plus Germany benefited greatly from the introduction of import based economies in the Eurozone, and the financial crisis. It is no wonder they like corrupt politicians in power.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Same with Romania and Eastern Europe in general. Western EU countries criticize them immensely for corruption in the public eye, yet their governments, banks and major corporations profit immensely from the business deals corruption there enables them to do, and so they have a vested interest to keep just enough corruption there so they can keep profiteering, while maintaining enough rule of law so that their investments there are safe and ensures the free flow of profits back home.
- nayroclade 4y ago
  This is boilerplate conspiratorial nonsense. West European countries would benefit far more from East European countries being free from the economic drag imposed by endemic corruption. The EU internal market overall would be much richer and stronger, and those banks and corporations would have a better quality consumer and labor base. Banks and corporations can make plenty of money in high-trust societies just as in low-trust ones, and they get more regulatory certainty as well.
  - JetSpiegel 4y ago
    Most corruption cases benefit the German companies, so no, they would not benefit more, otherwise they would just lobby their local governments for fiscal transfer to the poorer countries. The opposite happens, the German constitutional court can veto foreign budgets if they don't pay the Danegeld (i.e. not wasting all european funds buying goods and services from Germany). The litmus test is this: can a EU country use european funds to create a new carmaker to compete with central european carmakers? Hell no. But you can spend all european funds buying cars from Germany, that's never wasteful. The EU has no policy to enrich the entire union, only the central countries. The EU funds are basically a workaround for direct transfers of money from the German government to German companies, via foreign countries. I'm not from a Eastern European country, but I do live in a poor Eastern European economy, it's the same dynamic.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >This is boilerplate conspiratorial nonsense It's not though. EU wide corruption scandals prove this. Western EU companies routinely pay bribes to dump plastics and toxic waste in Romanian landfills under the disguise of "recyclable material". This way those private companies save a few bucks to stay competitive, and their countries keep getting to call themselves "green" by exporting their environmental damage across the border. IKEA, plus Austrian and German wood companies routinely paid bribes in the Romanian timber industry to be able to perform mass deforestation. Austrian companies, like STR*BAG, paid bribes to Romanian politicians to get preferential juicy building contracts, sometimes using EU funds, for highways that never get completed due to various technicalities that got intentionally omitted from the contract so that the building company can just bail out from the deal without having built anything while getting paid in full. Basically, the EU taxpayer is paying for a western EU company to make bank in the east, all through EU funds funneled trough Romania, to build roads that never get built. All this high level corruption benefits major western EU companies, and corrupt eastern EU politicians a lot. Western EU politicians also benefit from this as the major companies in their countries lobby for them to keep this corrupt system going so they can keep making bank. The EU is a great thing, but it's also ripe with corruption that's costing the taxpayers tens of billions.
looping__lui 4y ago
Or maybe you are mixing up cause and effect: Greek politicians demanded hefty bribes to do business in the first place. Yes, Germany is a real winner in bailing out Greek and all the southern European economies than cannot pay their bills. You are aware that exporting stuff to countries that take a loan and don’t pay it back is like not exactly “beneficial”. Greek should never have been in the EU in the first place. They lied about their financial situation and deliberately stole money from their European neighbors.
- 4gotunameagain 4y ago
  You know that all the money sent to the Greeks were only used to bail out European banks, right ? And that they framed it that way because they had already bailed out said banks ? Anyway, of course I don't know exactly what's going on. I'm just a rando with no skin in the game
  - makomk 4y ago
    In particular, the money was used to bail out a bunch of German banks, who as far as I can understand it ended up with all that debt because Germany was running a trade surplus with Greece directly enabled by the structure of the Eurozone without any corresponding fiscal transfers that would balance it out, and that in turm directly benefitted Germany as well.
    - looping__lui 4y ago
      Maybe Greek should have paid taxes after all: https://www.businessinsider.com/corruption-in-greese-hampering-economic-recovery-2010-1?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/corruption-in-greese-hamperi... But the funny thing is: Greek themselves find their country too corrupt and bloated that they aren’t willing to pay for it with THEIR OWN money… Much of Greeks debt problem would not have existed had the Greek citizens paid taxes like the rest of Europe.
    - Gibbon1 4y ago
      That whole bit caused me to rethink the fiscal transfers between regions in the US. So California sends a bunch of money to the feds who turn around an give some to Mississippi? Okay fine because that's way better than what the EU did to the schmucks living in Greece. Or if the banks fail in Texas it's the FED that's not on the hook not random Texans. The underlying thing is in the US states give up being able to use monetary policy to balance trade. In return the Fed's backstop a lot of stuff and transfer money around. Overall that's fair. In the EU states give up being able to use monetary policy to balance trade. In return no fiscal transfers. And the EU backstop's French and German banks by squeezing poorer states. That's not fair at all.

gbil 4y ago

I suggest you take a lot here with a grain of salt because either of personal opinions or half-reporting data, eg: - She was removed from the party just yesterday afternoon after the publication of the topic - Vote abstention is around 40-45% out of ~9,98m registered to vote (on 2019 elections) on a country of 10,4m people (census 2021) !!!!!! Never understood how this is even possible - The specific person entered politics after a lot of the listed topics took place and her background was not a political one anyhow EDIT: format

bpfrh 4y ago
The vote abstention should be right, I searched on the greek voting system and I don't see any requirement besides[1]: * having the greek citizenship * being older than 17 * Not being dissalowed by the court to vote All citizens get automatically added to the "registered vote" after they turn 17. E.g. A greek citizen is always a registered voter even if he doesn't go and vote. If we take the 2019 numbers we have: 9961718 registered voters 4192215 voters who didn't fill out the forms (I assume non voters are counted this way) (4192215×100)÷9961718 ~=42% Are non voters [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Greece [2]https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlamentswahl_in_Griechenland_2019#Wahlsystem https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlamentswahl_in_Griechenland... Edit: formatting, add a note about what the 42% means
- gbil 4y ago
  Your math is fine starting from the 9,9m number but you didn't take into account what I wrote, which is that the total population of greece is 10,4 millions. Registered voters are those >=17 years old so only 500k are <17 which of course is not valid EDIT: adding more data, official numbers state ~1,5m of age 0-14. Let's say 200k more in the 15-16 range, that is ~1,7m 10,4-1,7 = 8,7m >=17 years old. Population of Greece dropped by about 400k between the previous and current census (2011-2021) while the registered voters number from 2009 elections hasn't changed. I'm afraid that 1,7m gap is not justified at all, we locals have long heard of how bad the registered voters records are, still including a lot of dead people etc. To not lose track, this thread is just to justify why the numbers in the OP are to be taken with a grain of salt

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]