> The greek government did provide a plan without much detail, one you would not get any money from your bank for a house or any money You've got it completely

> The greek government did provide a plan without much detail, one you would not get any money from your bank for a house or any money You've got it completely backwards: Greece is the equivalent of a person who desperately needs to declare bankruptcy, but is prevented by his creditors from doing so. Instead he is forced to borrow ever more money to pay off his old debts. Eventually, no-one can pretend this is working anymore, so the creditor suggests he sell his house, his car, all his work implements. And if we take the analogy back a thousand years, even his children, himself. "Debt peonage", it was called, and it has been incredibly common through human history. Of course we abolished it in the developed world with things like bankruptcy laws, which acknowledge that no debt is absolute -- ability to pay matters, and the risk assumed by creditors has sometimes to result in losses. But there is no equivalent international law for entire countries. Instead, the winners are the usual suspects -- the IMF, rich countries, American hedge funds. And the losers get 'structural adjustment': their infrastructure and natural resources sold off, their local industries subject to ahistorical competition, and their social safety nets shredded -- people actually die -- but of course the predatory loans are repaid. Greece's Varoufakis proposed the only sane alternative: GDP-linked bonds, which ensure that the creditor and the debtor actually have their interests aligned, and Greece's payments can represent what they are actually humanly able to pay. That way it ends up mattering to Germany that Greece's economy has shrunk 25% -- how is that going to help them pay back? Of course, that was totally ignored. > Greece hopes to get billions of $ based on some napkin calculations. No, let's keep the emphasis in the right place, so it is clear who is being unreasonable here: Greece needs short-term loans to pay back existing loans, and it needs that time so that it can put forward more detailed proposals that challenge the neoliberal austerity doctrine, which is really a convenient facade for deeper political strategems. > Reason is Greece does not want to commit to any foreign influence because it feels nationally threatened. Foreign influence? Is that a euphemism for when your national infrastructure is privatized and sold off to foreign companies, for when your pensioners resort to begging, for when hospitals shut down, your young people have 40% unemployment, etc? I mean, the active destruction and plunder of your country? And the emphasis on foreign is misplaced: continued austerity will kindle yet more nationalistic, fascistic, racist, and xenophobic political movements across the continent. It stands to reason: inflict economic violence on entire nations and people within them become enraged and violent, although they direct their own violence against those even weaker and more disenfranchised. I feel like I shouldn't have to point out that the second world war followed the debt crisis of a nation that was put under a completely unrealistic, punitive repayment regime. > The IMF enforces a way by which it hopes to a.) get the money back it puts in b.) no need to put money back in 5y in the future. You could make this about money or investment, or you can make this about right-wing/left-wing. There's a moral dimension, independent of politics. Should an international bank, whose shareholders are the very richest countries, profit at the expense of the ruination of a small nation that happens to be the actual seat of democracy?