|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 23 2016 19:40 RoomOfMush wrote:
Well, greece is in a bad spot for many reasons, but I think its more important to discuss what could actually be done to improve the situation.
Suspending the payment of the debt would be the minimum, and a partial cancellation is unavoidable. Requiring such a high primary surplus from Greece is also nonsensical in that situation. There are also legal basis in the international law to suspend the application of the memorandum.
But the sticking point is political. The official scenario still states that Greeks alone are to be blamed for everything that happened and that further efforts are needed (!!), so the troïka has no intention to change its plans. The IMF director swept aside any possibility of inflexion, despite internal voices criticizing the crisis management and asking for less severe measures. The Syriza-Anel government capitulated and is only fighting over details. The Greek people is probably too disgusted, disillusioned and/or busy surviving after several years of waterboarding to resist collectively.
The problem is actually to find the social/political forces needed to put forward the solutions, and bringing back the fanatics to reality.
|
On August 23 2016 04:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 01:51 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2016 01:40 TheDwf wrote:On August 23 2016 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2016 00:17 TheDwf wrote:On August 22 2016 23:47 Gorsameth wrote:On August 22 2016 23:22 TheDwf wrote:'Nobody believes in anything anymore': Why Greece's economic crisis is not over
With Europe facing pressing crises including the refugee crisis, economic slowdown and political disintegration following the Brexit vote, it's easy to forget that Greece's political and economic crisis dominated headlines last summer.
One year on and a third bailout worth 86 billion euros ($96.1 billion) later, arrived at after tortuous negotiations between Greece and its lenders, and the situation in Greece is a game of two halves with many Greeks suffering - and some trying to make something out of a bad situation.
Greece's government has been forced to make widespread spending cuts over the course of its three separate bailout programs, making life harder for most Greeks of ordinary means. The cuts have affected all ages with unemployment rising to the highest level in Europe.
A survey by independent analysis firm DiaNEOsis in June revealed that many Greeks were facing an increasing struggle to get by. Extreme poverty in the Greek population (of 11 million people) had risen from 2.2 percent in 2009, to 15 percent in 2015, the public opinion survey of 1,300 people showed, with 1.6 million people now living below in extreme poverty.
One resident of the northern Greek city of Thessaloniki, Evangelos Kyrimlis, told CNBC that the Greece's crisis had taken its toll on society, both at a local and national level.
"Disillusionment is the first big thing that's going on," he noted. "Nobody believes in anything anymore."
"The second big thing is withdrawal. People have retreated to their families and fight only for the family survival. Society has been fragmented," he said. Kyrimlis works for his partner's family firm, having returned to Greece after working for an engineering consultancy in London.
Returning to Greece in the midst of the country's financial breakdown, he said he now noted an increase in animosity between people, saying there was a "widespread hatred not directed to anyone in particular, it's like all against all."
(...) http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/22/nobody-believes-in-anything-anymore-why-greeces-economic-crisis-is-not-over.html Should have just payed those taxes. Corruption and fiscal desertion are a thing, the criminal intransigence of the troïka to save French and German banks and the eurozone while cynically claiming it was “helping Greece” is another one. You know the pillage went through the roof when even the IMF says that orthodox measures were enforced too harshly. Lots of economists warned that the so-called “cure” would simply mutilate the patient and extend its agony, yet austerity is still the only horizon. The Greek people voted OXI, the government ignored it. Here's the disastrous result of this mess. I was never a fan of austerity, I don't believe you can cut your way out of a recession and the Eurozone certainly hurt Greece badly but when its not your money your spending then your giving up a lot of autonomy in how you can spend it. But I certainly think we should not ignore how Greece got itself into the dire situation it was in. And if the Eurozone had given them a financial injection without forcing Greece to restructure its financial situation they would have continued just as before and get into trouble again and again. Sure, the corrupt Greek elites have a major responsibility in that crisis, through endemic cronyism, refusal to tax the rich, having an overall weak administration, cheating with the help of Goldman Sachs' banksters, etc. They also should not have entered the eurozone in the first place. But the eurozone, under German control, was less interested in fixing fiscal inequality or excessive military spending than in using this opportunity to reinforce their “golden rules” at all costs. The austerity plans were mathematically unviable (some debt haircut was unavoidable), so unless they're completely dumb the guardians of the orthodox temple wanted to make an example: punish Greece to send a message to other countries. Not just the elites, tax dodging was (still is?) rampant at all levels of society. Plus I consider a society responsible for the leaders it elects.. Sure, but by definition fraudsters aren't going to pay, so it was up to people who ran the State to fix this. They were either uncapable or unwilling to do that. Fair enough.
You cannot expect the entity that caused the problem in the first place (i.e. the clientelistic Greek state) to solve the problem. Even Syriza, regardless of their ultimate kowtow to the Troika, refused to tackle the biggest elephant in the Greek room: the Greek public sector and its stranglehold on pretty much the whole country. Quite on the contrary, Syriza proved relatively quickly how Greek they were by granting several friends of Tsipras high positions in some kind of ministry.
Greek politicians refuse to deal with the public sector because it is simply filled with voters: as a "thank you" for voting for them, politicians would grant people a comfortable, well paid job in the public sector. As a consequence it actually came to a point where the private sector could simply no longer compete salary-wise with the public sector, which is utterly disastrous: a country's public sector is usually funded by taxes levied on people working in the private sector, and it destroys all incentive for people to actually pursue a career in the private sector. The result is a big water-headed institution that exists mainly to preserve itself.
A country's state institution is usually a reflection of the people it governs, of their own cultural values.
|
You cannot expect the entity that caused the problem in the first place (i.e. the clientelistic Greek state) to solve the problem.
Boring to still hear such false arguments in 2016. What created the problem is the euro and how it was sold to the Greek (i.e. to permit massive debt at a low interest rate). Before the crisis, Greece was viewed as an exemple for the euro zone, with high growth and catching on other states. But its high debt, permitted by the euro, and the lack of control on monetary policies (because it's the german in frankfurt who have that power) were major flaws. Because of those, the american subprime crisis came harder on Greece than most other european countries.
Well anyway, I've been posting about it for years now. Turns out what not-stupid-economists - such as Stiglitz or Sapir - have been saying for years is true and everything you say about Greece has no importance whatsoever because the problem is not Greece. Greece will never catch up with the euro as it is.
On August 23 2016 03:46 zatic wrote:
So Sarko running again. Any of our French friends want to comment? What are his chances?
He could very well win. All french politicians are hated to a certain degree by the majority of the population, with Hollande and Sarkozy as the two biggest exemple of that. But they can still be elected if they get to the second turn against Le Pen, and that's their dream. That's actually the only way for an idiot like Hollande or Sarkozy to be a president again.
People understate the importance of the old part of our population in voting. This population alone will never vote for something else than either the right (UMP / Republicains) of the left (PS).
|
On August 23 2016 03:59 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:46 zatic wrote:
So Sarko running again. Any of our French friends want to comment? What are his chances? His chances of winning the primary are about 40%, with Juppé being at the same chances, Fillon at 15% and the remaining <5% corresponding to someone else winning. Coming back is imo a big mistake if he actually wins the primary, because then he'll offer the presidency to Marine Le Pen on a silver platter (I mean seriously, people tend to forget it because of Hollande, but Sarkozy was like really unpopular, even among its own party. There's a reason he lost to fucking Holland in the 2012 elections), because then she'll have no difficulty to establish her election narratives. If he loses and Juppé can edge out Le Pen, he'll likely get some random Ministry to harvest some money and talk shit in the medias, so it'll be all good for him.
i fail to see how Le Pen would get the presidency though, the rise of the FN, orchestrated by Mitterand back then, was a well made plan to divide the right and it worked pretty damn well, offering free win for whoever face them
2002 is gonna happen most of the time right now
and between sarkozy and le pen, most would go for sarkozy, he's far from being out of the competition despite what the media are saying
|
If Greece is not the problem then why is Greece the only eurozone member in such a deep crisis? What prevented Spain or Portugal from having a 15% extreme poverty rate ?
15% sounds crazy btw, I find it hard to believe.
|
On August 24 2016 03:13 Sent. wrote:
If Greece is not the problem then why is Greece the only eurozone member in such a deep crisis? What prevented Spain or Portugal from having a 15% extreme poverty rate ?
15% sounds crazy btw, I find it hard to believe.
Only an ignorant could really argue that only Greece is in deep crisis. Italy, Spain, Portugal, have extreme level of unemployment. France is not great. Poverty has been rising almost everywhere (even in Germany !), except France due to its social security (at the expense of its debt). Overall, the eurozone is in a shitty economic situation, and is a drag for the international economy.
The only difference is that Greece is the weakest member of the south, but the reason for its difficulties are the same : it's the euro, and the european institutions.
On August 24 2016 03:06 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:59 OtherWorld wrote:On August 23 2016 03:46 zatic wrote:
So Sarko running again. Any of our French friends want to comment? What are his chances? His chances of winning the primary are about 40%, with Juppé being at the same chances, Fillon at 15% and the remaining <5% corresponding to someone else winning. Coming back is imo a big mistake if he actually wins the primary, because then he'll offer the presidency to Marine Le Pen on a silver platter (I mean seriously, people tend to forget it because of Hollande, but Sarkozy was like really unpopular, even among its own party. There's a reason he lost to fucking Holland in the 2012 elections), because then she'll have no difficulty to establish her election narratives. If he loses and Juppé can edge out Le Pen, he'll likely get some random Ministry to harvest some money and talk shit in the medias, so it'll be all good for him. i fail to see how Le Pen would get the presidency though, the rise of the FN, orchestrated by Mitterand back then, was a well made plan to divide the right and it worked pretty damn well, offering free win for whoever face them 2002 is gonna happen most of the time right now and between sarkozy and le pen, most would go for sarkozy, he's far from being out of the competition despite what the media are saying
What the FN could have is a ton of parliament representatives. And a Sarkozy president who needs the FN to get the majority vote in the national assembly is worse than a Le Pen to me : autoritary and liberal.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 23 2016 04:54 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:
I remember some time ago Sarkozy was being investigated for election fraud after losing to Hollande. What came of that? He is charged. Twice, actually. (The second mise en examen is for another case.) Failing your mandate, announcing that you definitely retire from political life if you lose, cheating, losing, yet coming back despite being charged twice: isn't it glorious? We abolished monarchy, but clearly some people still think they are de droit divin...
Still in process? Convicted? Acquitted?
|
On August 24 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 04:54 TheDwf wrote:On August 23 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:
I remember some time ago Sarkozy was being investigated for election fraud after losing to Hollande. What came of that? He is charged. Twice, actually. (The second mise en examen is for another case.) Failing your mandate, announcing that you definitely retire from political life if you lose, cheating, losing, yet coming back despite being charged twice: isn't it glorious? We abolished monarchy, but clearly some people still think they are de droit divin... Still in process? Convicted? Acquitted?
Still in process yes (that's also why he wants immunity for 5 years...).
|
On August 24 2016 03:06 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:59 OtherWorld wrote:On August 23 2016 03:46 zatic wrote:
So Sarko running again. Any of our French friends want to comment? What are his chances? His chances of winning the primary are about 40%, with Juppé being at the same chances, Fillon at 15% and the remaining <5% corresponding to someone else winning. Coming back is imo a big mistake if he actually wins the primary, because then he'll offer the presidency to Marine Le Pen on a silver platter (I mean seriously, people tend to forget it because of Hollande, but Sarkozy was like really unpopular, even among its own party. There's a reason he lost to fucking Holland in the 2012 elections), because then she'll have no difficulty to establish her election narratives. If he loses and Juppé can edge out Le Pen, he'll likely get some random Ministry to harvest some money and talk shit in the medias, so it'll be all good for him. i fail to see how Le Pen would get the presidency though, the rise of the FN, orchestrated by Mitterand back then, was a well made plan to divide the right and it worked pretty damn well, offering free win for whoever face them 2002 is gonna happen most of the time right now and between sarkozy and le pen, most would go for sarkozy, he's far from being out of the competition despite what the media are saying
Same, despite what polls are saying I think she would even lose against Hollande in the second round. Not that it matters since he won't reach it anyway.
Even if she won the presidency somehow, the Front National would never get 289 députés, so there would be a cohabitation.
|
On August 24 2016 03:06 Makro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 03:59 OtherWorld wrote:On August 23 2016 03:46 zatic wrote:
So Sarko running again. Any of our French friends want to comment? What are his chances? His chances of winning the primary are about 40%, with Juppé being at the same chances, Fillon at 15% and the remaining <5% corresponding to someone else winning. Coming back is imo a big mistake if he actually wins the primary, because then he'll offer the presidency to Marine Le Pen on a silver platter (I mean seriously, people tend to forget it because of Hollande, but Sarkozy was like really unpopular, even among its own party. There's a reason he lost to fucking Holland in the 2012 elections), because then she'll have no difficulty to establish her election narratives. If he loses and Juppé can edge out Le Pen, he'll likely get some random Ministry to harvest some money and talk shit in the medias, so it'll be all good for him. i fail to see how Le Pen would get the presidency though, the rise of the FN, orchestrated by Mitterand back then, was a well made plan to divide the right and it worked pretty damn well, offering free win for whoever face them 2002 is gonna happen most of the time right now and between sarkozy and le pen, most would go for sarkozy, he's far from being out of the competition despite what the media are saying
Common sense would say that, indeed, whoever faces the FN in 1on1 wins. However, presidential elections sometimes trump common sense (2002, 2012) because of how mediatized and dumbed-down they are. Presidential elections are mostly about narrative and "fast-food" politics, not so much about actual politics, and it will be even more now that exposure limit per candidate has been put to the grave. And what scenario could offer Le Pen a stronger narrative than facing either Sarkozy or Hollande in the second round? It would prove everything she stands for right. That the political class is incapable of renewing. That LR/PS are parties of the establishment, incapable of presenting to the people someone else than corrupt, unpopular former Presidents who, having tasted power at its highest level, are addicted by it. That the FN can only be better than these two weak politicians. Both Sarko and Hollande would get mauled in a debate, because she'd have no difficulty pointing out their failures during their terms, while they won't have anything substantial to attack her on, since her program is a strange agglomerate made to appeal to everyone.
Sarkozy is "popular" among the right atm because he's taking a hard, right of the right stance. But when facing other parties, it'll fail, just like it failed on the past. You can't out-right the far right, but apparently Sarkozy and its counselors strongly think it's possible.
|
But yes, her winning the presidency doesn't mean the FN would get the parliamentary majority. I actually think that her getting elected would lead to a stronger anti-FN vote in the parliamentaries.
|
On August 24 2016 03:13 Sent. wrote:
If Greece is not the problem then why is Greece the only eurozone member in such a deep crisis? What prevented Spain or Portugal from having a 15% extreme poverty rate ?
Well, they didn't get 6 years of troïka “therapy”? The Greek crisis would have been much less severe with a sensible approach from the European institutions. Greece had a few more weaknesses but nothing irrecoverable. Pure obstinacy is what terminated them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 24 2016 03:29 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On August 23 2016 04:54 TheDwf wrote:On August 23 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:
I remember some time ago Sarkozy was being investigated for election fraud after losing to Hollande. What came of that? He is charged. Twice, actually. (The second mise en examen is for another case.) Failing your mandate, announcing that you definitely retire from political life if you lose, cheating, losing, yet coming back despite being charged twice: isn't it glorious? We abolished monarchy, but clearly some people still think they are de droit divin... Still in process? Convicted? Acquitted? Still in process yes (that's also why he wants immunity for 5 years...).
Amazing that he can be running for the presidency and have a substantial base of support under those circumstances.
|
On August 24 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 03:29 TheDwf wrote:On August 24 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On August 23 2016 04:54 TheDwf wrote:On August 23 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:
I remember some time ago Sarkozy was being investigated for election fraud after losing to Hollande. What came of that? He is charged. Twice, actually. (The second mise en examen is for another case.) Failing your mandate, announcing that you definitely retire from political life if you lose, cheating, losing, yet coming back despite being charged twice: isn't it glorious? We abolished monarchy, but clearly some people still think they are de droit divin... Still in process? Convicted? Acquitted? Still in process yes (that's also why he wants immunity for 5 years...). Amazing that he can be running for the presidency and have a substantial base of support under those circumstances.
Berlusconi managed under worse conditions.
|
On August 24 2016 03:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 03:13 Sent. wrote:
If Greece is not the problem then why is Greece the only eurozone member in such a deep crisis? What prevented Spain or Portugal from having a 15% extreme poverty rate ? Well, they didn't get 6 years of troïka “therapy”? The Greek crisis would have been much less severe with a sensible approach from the European institutions. Greece had a few more weaknesses but nothing irrecoverable. Pure obstinacy is what terminated them.
Well Spain and Portugal actually did get a similar treatment. Not that they're in good shape but nobody can seriously argue that the disfunctional Greek state and private sector isn't responsible for the situation the country is in. It's essentially impossible to start a business in Greece.
|
On August 24 2016 04:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 03:47 TheDwf wrote:On August 24 2016 03:13 Sent. wrote:
If Greece is not the problem then why is Greece the only eurozone member in such a deep crisis? What prevented Spain or Portugal from having a 15% extreme poverty rate ? Well, they didn't get 6 years of troïka “therapy”? The Greek crisis would have been much less severe with a sensible approach from the European institutions. Greece had a few more weaknesses but nothing irrecoverable. Pure obstinacy is what terminated them. Well Spain and Portugal actually did get a similar treatment. Not that they're in good shape but nobody can seriously argue that the disfunctional Greek state and private sector isn't responsible for the situation the country is in. It's essentially impossible to start a business in Greece.
There are economic facts, and then there's the pro european cult that just love to shit on Greeks. You're going to tell us that they don't work much too ?
Whatever their economic problems, they were there BEFORE the crisis - when growth in Greece was at an all time high. It's just basic logic that they are not the core reason for Greece difficulties.
|
I didn't actually say that and I wouldn't because Greeks on average don't work less than anybody else in Europe. They do in fact rank horribly in every metric that tries to determine how easy it is to do business in a given country. That's also an economic fact.
|
On August 24 2016 04:23 Nyxisto wrote:
I didn't actually say that and I wouldn't because Greeks on average don't work less than anybody else in Europe. They do in fact rank horribly in every metric that tries to determine how easy it is to do business in a given country. That's also an economic fact.
Yes and their labor productivity is really bad. This is a fact.
But those two facts were true before the crisis, when growth was high, that's a fact too.
|
Well a lot of growth was pushed by rapidly rising debt and wages that increased a lot faster than productivity. Sure the Euro enabled it in the first place but it's not like it would've been sustainable or as if Greece could've reached the same standard of living without the currency and without making any policy changes.
The flaw in design was to start out with the currency and just hope that all countries will converge towards same standards in governance and productivity, but Greece isn't going to be better off if they drop out. Even Syriza acknowledges it.
And sure austerity makes it probably worse but there is no political capital left in the rest of Europe to just change policy purely based on belief again. Not only in Germany but especially in Eastern Europe who are pretty staunchly opposed to "free-rider" policies.
|
On August 24 2016 04:46 Nyxisto wrote:
Well a lot of growth was pushed by rapidly rising debt and wages that increased a lot faster than productivity. Sure the Euro enabled it in the first place but it's not like it would've been sustainable or as if Greece could've reached the same standard of living without the currency and without making any policy changes.
The flaw in design was to start out with the currency and just hope that all countries will converge towards same standards in governance and productivity, but Greece isn't going to be better off if they drop out. Even Syriza acknowledges it.
And sure austerity makes it probably worse but there is no political capital left in the rest of Europe to just change policy purely based on belief again. Not only in Germany but especially in Eastern Europe who are pretty staunchly opposed to "free-rider" policies.
You say one thing then contredict it the next sentence.
1) Greece would never reached same standard of living without the euro : absurb assertion. In fact Greece would have reached the same situation ;
2) Yes ! The flaw in design is indeed the euro, because it do not help convergence it actually increase divergence, as was forecast by many economist years before the euro (by people such as Krugman and the geographic economics in 1993), and as is now proved by every measure we have ;
3) "Greece isn't going to be better off if they drop out" : we don't know but what we know for sure is that Greece can't get out without dropping from the euro or without a huge fiscal transfer from the north to Greece. Aside from that, everything is rubbish. Your assertion is similar to a "remain" arguing that London cannot grow out of europe - we now know the brexit didn't have any major negative effect. The euro will be similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
