> A new loan that can never be repaid, and its only purpose is to prevent an immediate default, it just as good as a default in my books. That's quite a stretc

> A new loan that can never be repaid, and its only purpose is to prevent an immediate default, it just as good as a default in my books. That's quite a stretch of the term "default". A default is when a debtor declares that he can't pay and therefore he won't pay. Getting into a new loan doesn't qualify as default. > Maybe not from the point of view of the creditors (they will get some of their money back), but still having very similar consequences to the debtors: difficulty in loaning new money, financial destruction, a take-over-of-control by the creditors' intermediaries and the liquifying any valuable state assets. With a real default, there would be less financial destruction. At least the bleed of paying the loans would stop. > It already started with indiscriminately stealing 6% from the bank account holders and can only go downhill. Agreed. > > That is, what percentage isn't going to be paid at all? > Lots of it. Following the same process as with Greece et al, there is definitely going to be a "haircut". Then it will be a (partial) default on the new loans, but it isn't yet.