3 ms·

The point is, people lent them that money, without caring if they could or not pay... Those people are demanding their terms to be met, regardless of weather th

by phn 11y ago

The point is, people lent them that money, without caring if they could or not pay... Those people are demanding their terms to be met, regardless of weather that is a realistic demand or not. I am not saying who is wrong or who is right, but I don't think the blame falls only in one side. I'd argue that you take a risk when you lend money, and shit happens if you lend to people who can't pay.

zo1 11y ago
The way I'm seeing this is that "yes, Greece can pay", they just voted not to. If one looks at it that way, the whole argument about "lenders chose to lend to them, taking risk that they might not be able to pay, therefore they are to blame as well", falls wayside. This is because the risk they assumed to be taking was one of Greece "not being able to pay", not Greece choosing to not honour the deal. Tl;dr: There is a difference between the risk of not being able to pay, and the risk of choosing to default/not pay at all.
- phn 11y ago
  Sure, but the only way they can pay, is by borrowing more, it is just a vicious cycle that will eventually pop... The point is no one wants the bomb to blow up on their hands, and I get that, but meanwhile the situation in the country gets worse and worse... in the hopes that somehow the country generates more money. Here the "ideology" starts taking place in the discussion, there are proponents of austerity, saying the confidence generated by always paying out-weights the short term losses, and there are people that say it doesn't work, and that we should somehow try something different since this strategy has been tried and failed a couple of times already. Like, hey let the guys off the hook for part of their debt (lenders knew the risk...), and let the blow generate economic pressure for growth (e.g. Get out of the euro, and let the newly minted and devalued currency be extremely attractive to buy stuff out of Greece, making their economy move).

by phn 11y ago

zo1 11y ago

The way I'm seeing this is that "yes, Greece can pay", they just voted not to. If one looks at it that way, the whole argument about "lenders chose to lend to them, taking risk that they might not be able to pay, therefore they are to blame as well", falls wayside. This is because the risk they assumed to be taking was one of Greece "not being able to pay", not Greece choosing to not honour the deal. Tl;dr: There is a difference between the risk of not being able to pay, and the risk of choosing to default/not pay at all.

phn 11y ago
Sure, but the only way they can pay, is by borrowing more, it is just a vicious cycle that will eventually pop... The point is no one wants the bomb to blow up on their hands, and I get that, but meanwhile the situation in the country gets worse and worse... in the hopes that somehow the country generates more money. Here the "ideology" starts taking place in the discussion, there are proponents of austerity, saying the confidence generated by always paying out-weights the short term losses, and there are people that say it doesn't work, and that we should somehow try something different since this strategy has been tried and failed a couple of times already. Like, hey let the guys off the hook for part of their debt (lenders knew the risk...), and let the blow generate economic pressure for growth (e.g. Get out of the euro, and let the newly minted and devalued currency be extremely attractive to buy stuff out of Greece, making their economy move).