In either way it could have gone back in 2010, the profligacy of the Greek state would not have been ignored. Had it defaulted to the private creditors at the t

In either way it could have gone back in 2010, the profligacy of the Greek state would not have been ignored. Had it defaulted to the private creditors at the time, the country's borrowing costs would have shot through the roof. People hear "default" and think that it's a get out of jail free card. It's not. Money would be harder to come by for the state to fund its operations, which may have provided the backpressure needed for meaningful reforms to take place without shrinking the national income by 1/3. But since they didn't default, and instead the banks holding the bad debt were bailed out indirectly though loans to Greece (a tiny fraction of which remained in Greece, mind you), national income did shrink by 1/3 because of many of the changes that the institutions insisted take place _did_ take place. Now the likelihood of those loans getting paid back is as close to nil as non-failed state can get. So, to look to the future rather than the past, everybody should be trying to figure out how to repay the institutions as much money as possible. Shrinking national income further isn't going to do that. With respect to the "completely bogus referendum", not gonna bite.