4 ms·

A lot of money is spent on sustaining Greek economy. Not only by lending money to it, but by EU funds stretching back decades. This money can be spent in other

A lot of money is spent on sustaining Greek economy. Not only by lending money to it, but by EU funds stretching back decades. This money can be spent in other means: maybe a highway in Estonia or increasing pensions in Slovenia. Unemployment is not high only in Greece - Finland can also use funds to lower its own unemployment. Why would the money be spent on sustaining an early retirement in Greece, instead of adding Balkan countries, for example Albania, Macedonia and Monte Negro, to the European Union? After support from the EU for such a long time, I believe Greece should be at a point where it can help support development in other countries.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gonvaled 11y ago
The Marshall plan supported the rebuild of Europe after the WWII ("supported" in a much stronger way: it was based on donations, not credit), for a long time. Without that, Europe would have probably needed a longer time to recover - which would have been bad for the world (and particular for the American) economy. Let's not be naive here: the Americans did this because it was in their interest to do it. Long-term, it payed-out. And we need to learn from them in this regard: it is in the interest of Europe to "invest" in a stabilization of the Euro-area. We need to make clear that for a long-term solution, sacrifices and restructuring is necessary - but those can only go so far. Greece has done whatever it was able to. They have no more reform margin. Greece is technically bankrupt, and the Euro-area has to bail it out. In three decades time, we will be happy. This is the first serious crisis of the Euro: how we handle it, will define if the Euro has a long-term survival chance - even if it does not mean immediately collapse. Letting go of Greece will destroy the Euro; which is what lots of short-sighted euro-parties (or self-interested outside parties) want, interestingly.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

gonvaled 11y ago

The Marshall plan supported the rebuild of Europe after the WWII ("supported" in a much stronger way: it was based on donations, not credit), for a long time. Without that, Europe would have probably needed a longer time to recover - which would have been bad for the world (and particular for the American) economy. Let's not be naive here: the Americans did this because it was in their interest to do it. Long-term, it payed-out. And we need to learn from them in this regard: it is in the interest of Europe to "invest" in a stabilization of the Euro-area. We need to make clear that for a long-term solution, sacrifices and restructuring is necessary - but those can only go so far. Greece has done whatever it was able to. They have no more reform margin. Greece is technically bankrupt, and the Euro-area has to bail it out. In three decades time, we will be happy. This is the first serious crisis of the Euro: how we handle it, will define if the Euro has a long-term survival chance - even if it does not mean immediately collapse. Letting go of Greece will destroy the Euro; which is what lots of short-sighted euro-parties (or self-interested outside parties) want, interestingly.