4 ms·

Link please? Anyhow, having lost a part of their investment, and taking the deserved loss without being unnecessarily shielded by the institutions are differen

Link please? Anyhow, having lost a part of their investment, and taking the deserved loss without being unnecessarily shielded by the institutions are different things: it does not matter if they lost 50bn, if the European institutions saved them from losing another 50bn by piling up the risk on the European taxpayer. There were probably sound reasons why we helped the banks back then (contagion risk, instability of financial markets, ...). What is being argued now is that there are equally (even more valid, since they involve human suffering) reasons to help the Greek now.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago
>Link please? Eurozone crisis: banks agree 50% reduction on Greece's debt http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/27/eurozone-crisis-banks-50-greece http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/27/eurozone-crisis... >What is being argued now is that there are equally (even more valid, since they involve human suffering) reasons to help the Greek now. Absolutely! The question is not whether help is necessary, the question is what kind of structural reforms should be demanded in exchange for debt relief so they don't simply run up new debt.
- gonvaled 11y ago
  So I guess we are in the same camp here: the Greeks need to implement some reforms, and the financial markets need to take a hit. The exact details need to be worked out. As far as I know, the Troika has been refusing to accept a haircut on the Greek debt as a part of the negotiations, which is one of the factors that has escalated the problem.