5 ms·

Your comment made me realize a more appropriate title would be : "Current croatian government cancels poor citizen's debts one year before election". But that

by bsaul 12y ago

Your comment made me realize a more appropriate title would be : "Current croatian government cancels poor citizen's debts one year before election". But that would probably cast a VERY different light on the event. The original intent was probably to give the (positive i guess) impression that the greek trend of not paying debts is spreading.

riffraff 12y ago
> the greek trend of not paying debts is spreading. I don't think that trend exists (yet) but _canceling_ debt (creditor) and not paying debt (debtor) are quite different.
- bsaul 12y ago
  I don't know the details but i suppose the debts weren't owned by the state (nobody borrows from a state) but rather by credits corporations or banks.
  - riffraff 12y ago
    yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the croatian government would have persuaded/forced the banks to cancel the debt, it's not the people with a loan who decided not to pay.
    - bsaul 12y ago
      Well, then you must agree it's neither the side in debt neither the side who's supposed to get the money that decided to cancel the debt. Which leaves that situation in a very very weird place. I would say, the government probably expect citizen that got their debt cancelled to vote for them in return (and they'll probably do, because those tricks unfortunately always work). Which makes them both a bit on the same "side" of the transaction.
    - nl 12y ago
      Given the 30-300 million euro cost associated with it, I think the government is paying the debts for the people.
      - bmelton 12y ago
        The article specifically states that they are not.
Moru 12y ago
Greek trend? I can remember quite a few american banks doing just this recently.
- bsaul 12y ago
  Debt cancellation indeed has always existed, greeks just bringed it to another level, with their magic combo : fraud the state's accountings, get as much as you can from the eurozone before the crisis, get as much as you can from other european countries after the crisis, and then 2 years later when things start to stabilize, declare unilaterally that you're not going to reemburse people, and party in the streets over that decision. At least US banks had the decency to not laugh about it publicly.
  - BSousa 12y ago
    Geesh. I'm no Greek and not fond of Syriza, but god damn, the brainwashing is strong here. a) fraud the state's accountings: True, but the difference was minimal (2.7% or so to 3.07%, and by fraud you mean they accounted for the expenses on arrival and not when ordering, not cook your books). Also, this was well known by all the other countries and none of them made a peep at the time b) get as many as you can before the crisis from banks that (correctly) assumed they would get their money anyway. c) get as much as you can from european countries after the crisis to pay the mostly German and French banks what they have loaned before, moving private debt to the hand of the tax payer (of the 250b, only about 27 billion were for greek gov. usage and all the rest was for debt payment/interest/etc [1]) d) they never said they won't pay, they just want to change terms and not just keep getting more and more indebted to foreign institutions that through their mandate are actually 'ruling' the countries. Again, no fan of Syriza, but enough is enough. Folks in Greece (and Portugal and Spain) are in a very bad shape, poverty is up and the only thing the troika cares is about the deficit reduction and nothing else.
    - briandear 12y ago
      And why is Greece in bad shape? Mightn't the deficit and fiscal mismanagement be the problem? How else should they solve it?
ivanhoe 12y ago
Actually, this law was proposed way before the elections in Greece were held, so it wasn't related in any way.. except that Croatia and Greece are in a similar positions debt wise, so similar political moves can be expected
- adventured 12y ago
  To be fair a portion of the Greek government has been arguing - quite publicly - for debt forgiveness for a long time. That didn't begin with the Greek elections.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  However, there is the significant difference that Croatia has its own currency, so it has one tool that Greece does not: devaluation. It's of course like pissing in your pants when it's cold - only a temporary relief - but it may help sometimes.

by bsaul 12y ago

riffraff 12y ago

> the greek trend of not paying debts is spreading. I don't think that trend exists (yet) but _canceling_ debt (creditor) and not paying debt (debtor) are quite different.

bsaul 12y ago
I don't know the details but i suppose the debts weren't owned by the state (nobody borrows from a state) but rather by credits corporations or banks.
- riffraff 12y ago
  yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the croatian government would have persuaded/forced the banks to cancel the debt, it's not the people with a loan who decided not to pay.
  - bsaul 12y ago
    Well, then you must agree it's neither the side in debt neither the side who's supposed to get the money that decided to cancel the debt. Which leaves that situation in a very very weird place. I would say, the government probably expect citizen that got their debt cancelled to vote for them in return (and they'll probably do, because those tricks unfortunately always work). Which makes them both a bit on the same "side" of the transaction.
  - nl 12y ago
    Given the 30-300 million euro cost associated with it, I think the government is paying the debts for the people.
    - bmelton 12y ago
      The article specifically states that they are not.

Moru 12y ago

Greek trend? I can remember quite a few american banks doing just this recently.

bsaul 12y ago
Debt cancellation indeed has always existed, greeks just bringed it to another level, with their magic combo : fraud the state's accountings, get as much as you can from the eurozone before the crisis, get as much as you can from other european countries after the crisis, and then 2 years later when things start to stabilize, declare unilaterally that you're not going to reemburse people, and party in the streets over that decision. At least US banks had the decency to not laugh about it publicly.
- BSousa 12y ago
  Geesh. I'm no Greek and not fond of Syriza, but god damn, the brainwashing is strong here. a) fraud the state's accountings: True, but the difference was minimal (2.7% or so to 3.07%, and by fraud you mean they accounted for the expenses on arrival and not when ordering, not cook your books). Also, this was well known by all the other countries and none of them made a peep at the time b) get as many as you can before the crisis from banks that (correctly) assumed they would get their money anyway. c) get as much as you can from european countries after the crisis to pay the mostly German and French banks what they have loaned before, moving private debt to the hand of the tax payer (of the 250b, only about 27 billion were for greek gov. usage and all the rest was for debt payment/interest/etc [1]) d) they never said they won't pay, they just want to change terms and not just keep getting more and more indebted to foreign institutions that through their mandate are actually 'ruling' the countries. Again, no fan of Syriza, but enough is enough. Folks in Greece (and Portugal and Spain) are in a very bad shape, poverty is up and the only thing the troika cares is about the deficit reduction and nothing else.
  - briandear 12y ago
    And why is Greece in bad shape? Mightn't the deficit and fiscal mismanagement be the problem? How else should they solve it?

ivanhoe 12y ago

Actually, this law was proposed way before the elections in Greece were held, so it wasn't related in any way.. except that Croatia and Greece are in a similar positions debt wise, so similar political moves can be expected

adventured 12y ago
To be fair a portion of the Greek government has been arguing - quite publicly - for debt forgiveness for a long time. That didn't begin with the Greek elections.
ptaipale 12y ago
However, there is the significant difference that Croatia has its own currency, so it has one tool that Greece does not: devaluation. It's of course like pissing in your pants when it's cold - only a temporary relief - but it may help sometimes.