Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Anti-austerity coalition government in Greece


keithisco
 Share

Recommended Posts

Where you are quite wrong. The EU (That is the Commission, Council and Parliament in agreement) supersedes national governments in many aspects of local legislation, especially when it comes to commerce, environment and labor laws. Whatever the EU Parliament decides has to be adopted as national law.

That's why I'm steadily coming to agree with the lady in Steve's video above...
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I'm steadily coming to agree with the lady in Steve's video above...

Well, strangely, strangely, that same Lady was who was at the negotiation table at the time.... she could have quit then without a problem. Guess what? She did not, she just wanted the usual special rights for Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. The protests of Greece are quite selfish. It's understandable but they knew the 'rules' when they accepted membership - just as the EU knew Greece's actual situation. Greece presumed it was getting a great deal, and it did for a while. Now it is paying for that great deal. Swings and roundabouts.

If they are able to meet their debt commitments without austerity, then all power to them. But can they?

I think the answer to that is probably "No". The Greek people can vote for whatever internal govt policy they want, that doesn't make Greece's obligations to other nation partners 'disappear'.

I don't know how much more pain the ordinary people of Greece can take, Greece has been in a recession and actually crossed over into a depression, lasting more than six years unheard of, what are the figures 30% unemployment, 60% youth unemployment. debts 170%+ of GDP. and cuts to public services and these cuts are not only cutting close to the bone but they've actually started cutting into the bone. the debt is driving Greece into the dirt. if Greece is to continue to accept the bailouts then when will it all end? The ECB wont alter interest rates in favour of helping Greece, the ECB wont devalue the currency to help Greece. The Best thing Greece could do is leave the Eurozone, get back its own currency and once again have the levers of power over its own economy.

Where you are quite wrong. The EU (That is the Commission, Council and Parliament in agreement) supersedes national governments in many aspects of local legislation, especially when it comes to commerce, environment and labor laws. Whatever the EU Parliament decides has to be adopted as national law.

And the other thing you are wrong about is that the rest of the Eurozone actually "has" to pay for Greece's debts. Art. 125 of the Euro contract is a no-bailout clause, meaning it prohibits the other countries from bailing out any other Eurozone member from whatever. They can give them a credit... but that is the end of the legal possibilities. And credits come with conditions. Greece is not willing to accept those so there is no credit. That simple.

Im glad you raised the point about National Democracy and Sovereignty, in regard to the EU - In the forthcoming UK referendum on our continued membership, this is the battle ground the referendum should be fought on. not namby pamby trade, trade happens regardless of status, But that is exactly the ground David Cameron will try to win this Referendum, on Trade, Welfare-Benefits and immigration, and the Pro-EU Media like the BBC and Papers such as the Guardian will be happy to go along with that. - this is why we need UKIP and Nigel Farage to bring the spotlight on National Democracy and Sovereignty. just like he shifted the spotlight onto immigration.

But the crux of the matter is National Sovereignty, Sovereignty of which the British public wont agree to handing over, regardless of the price, and once the British people become fully aware of the erosion, just like i've been highlighting on here since 2007- they will overwhelmingly vote to leave the EU. So please Questionmark you keep posting about the erosion of National Sovereignty, and do the good fight for us.

Edit to add, In fact Q, can you post sources to show how Sovereignty is being eroded. in regard to what you posted -

The EU (That is the Commission, Council and Parliament in agreement) supersedes national governments in many aspects of local legislation, especially when it comes to commerce, environment and labor laws. Whatever the EU Parliament decides has to be adopted as national law.
Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, strangely, strangely, that same Lady was who was at the negotiation table at the time.... she could have quit then without a problem. Guess what? She did not, she just wanted the usual special rights for Britain.

so does there seem anything wrong to you to the idea that a government that no one has any say in electing has the power to override national governments? That doesn't seem fair to me, and i really don't understand how people are willing to accept it, apart of course from those who see the EU as a great big cow from which they can squeeze as much cash whenever they want.

Edited by Norbert the Incredible
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im glad you raised the point about National Democracy and Sovereignty, in regard to the EU - In the forthcoming UK referendum on our continued membership, this is the battle ground the referendum should be fought on. not namby pamby trade, trade happens regardless of status, But that is exactly the ground David Cameron will try to win this Referendum, on Trade, Welfare-Benefits and immigration, and the Pro-EU Media like the BBC and Papers such as the Guardian will be happy to go along with that. - this is why we need UKIP and Nigel Farage to bring the spotlight on National Democracy and Sovereignty. just like he shifted the spotlight onto immigration.

But the crux of the matter is National Sovereignty, Sovereignty of which the British public wont agree to handing over, regardless of the price, and once the British people become fully aware of the erosion, just like i've been highlighting on here since 2007- they will overwhelmingly vote to leave the EU. So please Questionmark you keep posting about the erosion of National Sovereignty, and do the good fight for us.

I must admit I've never understood the argument they often use that "90% (or whatever) of Britain's trade is with europe", as if that would suddenly cease the moment Britain left the EU. Britain isn't, as far as I'm aware, part of a political or economic union with Japan or China or Korea, and we seem to trade rather a lot with them. :-?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so does there seem anything wrong to you to the idea that a government that no one has any say in electing has the power to override national governments? That doesn't seem fair to me, and i really don't understand how people are willing to accept it, apart of course from those who see the EU as a great big cow from which they can squeeze as much cash whenever they want.

Soo, if the EU parliament has no authority why the hell do you get to elect it?

That was the first chapter of the treaty of Maastricht and later the Lisbon treaty. Everybody was free to leave or to say no. Nobody did.

The only thing some said no to (and the reason had nothing to do with the thingy itself) was a constitution giving European people more rights... so the obligations passed through and the rights went down the drain (at the time the Europhobes were cheering and applauding as I recall)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is all this trade with Europe anyway? Most of it seems to be buying cars from Germany. Why would that stop the moment Britain left the EU? Would BMWs and mercedes suddenly become prohibitively expensive? It might be a problem for VW, but people who buy BMWs and Mercs and Audis tend not to have cost as a first consideration, do they. And similarly exports, cars being one of the main things we do still make that we do export quite successfully; would BMW suddenly stop producing MINIs if Britain left the EU and Trade Barriers were erected? Would Jaguar Land Rover suddenly find that the bottom had fallen out of the European market? Again, cost isn't the first priority for customers for any of these, so would it make that huge a difference?

Edited by Norbert the Incredible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I've never understood the argument they often use that "90% (or whatever) of Britain's trade is with europe", as if that would suddenly cease the moment Britain left the EU. Britain isn't, as far as I'm aware, part of a political or economic union with Japan or China or Korea, and we seem to trade rather a lot with them. :-?

Once they slap tariffs on each other wares the UK becomes non-competitive in Europe (probably most of Europe non competitive with Britain too, but most of Europe is loosing a hell of a lot less business).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soo, if the EU parliament has no authority why the hell do you get to elect it?

That was the first chapter of the treaty of Maastricht and later the Lisbon treaty. Everybody was free to leave or to say no. Nobody did.

The only thing some said no to (and the reason had nothing to do with the thingy itself) was a constitution giving European people more rights... so the obligations passed through and the rights went down the drain (at the time the Europhobes were cheering and applauding as I recall)

People may get the chance to elect the EU parliament, for all the good that's likely to do, but do they get to elect the Big Cheeses who make all the decisions? Even less so than with one's ordinary Cabinet in one's own country (which no one gets the chance to vote on either, do they). Do they get to elect the Council of Ministers or whatever they call themselves, all the various Departments that issue these Proclamations and dictats that, as you say, override national law if they feel it suits them? Does anyone get to elect the Big Chief Bigwig himself, the Head of the European Union? Does anyone really think the EU Parliament has the slightest ability to affect anything?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once they slap tariffs on each other wares the UK becomes non-competitive in Europe (probably most of Europe non competitive with Britain too, but most of Europe is loosing a hell of a lot less business).

I'm sure you have the information at your fingertips, could you provide a breakdown of what this 90% (or whatever it is) of Britain's trade that's with Europe actually consists oy?

* of, not oy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People may get the chance to elect the EU parliament, for all the good that's likely to do, but do they get to elect the Big Cheeses who make all the decisions? Even less so than with one's ordinary Cabinet in one's own country (which no one gets the chance to vote on either, do they). Do they get to elect the Council of Ministers or whatever they call themselves, all the various Departments that issue these Proclamations and dictats that, as you say, override national law if they feel it suits them? Does anyone get to elect the Big Chief Bigwig himself, the Head of the European Union? Does anyone really think the EU Parliament has the slightest ability to affect anything?

Yes, since this election the party who has most votes gets the Prezz of the commission (in case you missed that last year), the rest of the members he puts forward are to be approved by the European Parliament (which are already elected) and the third group is the European Heads of State (also called the Council) who are, without exception, democratically elected (though some may consider democracy bothersome).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you have the information at your fingertips, could you provide a breakdown of what this 90% (or whatever it is) of Britain's trade that's with Europe actually consists oy?

* of, not oy.

According to Economy Watch: Primary exports - commodities: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the people of the UK got to elect Jean-Claude Junker, did they? or whatever his name is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the people of the UK got to elect Jean-Claude Junker, did they? or whatever his name is.

They did not, because Mr. Cameron decided to leave the European Popular Party and join the European Conservatives and Reformist leaving the British disenfranchised.... Nobody ran for the EPP in Britain. So they all had no choice but to elect the loosing parties.

But that is not the EPPs fault... nor the parliaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did not, because Mr. Cameron decided to leave the European Popular Party and join the European Conservatives and Reformist leaving the British disenfranchised.... Nobody ran for the EPP in Britain. So they all had no choice but to elect the loosing parties.

But that is not the EPPs fault... nor the parliaments.

Huh? If Mr C hadn't left the European Popular Party the people would have had the opportunity to choose the Supreme Leader, is that what you're saying? Really? You really believe that your vote can make a difference in who becomes El Supremo? You really think the people would have any say at all? Frankly FIFA seems more democratic and transparent in the way it chooses its leaders than the EU.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? If Mr C hadn't left the European Popular Party the people would have had the opportunity to choose the Supreme Leader, is that what you're saying? Really? You really believe that your vote can make a difference in who becomes El Supremo? You really think the people would have any say at all? Frankly FIFA seems more democratic and transparent in the way it chooses its leaders than the EU.

Well, that just denotes your willful ignorance about how the EU works. If you don't like it you don't like it. But you don't have to invent your own reality to justify not liking it. Yes, you get to elect in Europe, and no, your vote might not make any difference because everybody else votes for those you don't. But that is how it works. In Europe and in Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so does there seem anything wrong to you to the idea that a government that no one has any say in electing has the power to override national governments? That doesn't seem fair to me, and i really don't understand how people are willing to accept it, apart of course from those who see the EU as a great big cow from which they can squeeze as much cash whenever they want.

The situation in the EU is very similar to that in the US, it being more a Republic than what you would term a 'true democracy'. However, the election of EU ministers is still 'democratic' - just not at the same level as the election of nation-state member ministers.

It seems to me that most of the complaint regarding the function of the EU is because of the difference in scale when compared to any of it's member states. There really is no, or not much, difference in how the government operates at either level, and both are actually representative of those who elect them. Policies at the EU level are functionally identical to those at the national level here in the UK, only the scale at which they are applied is far greater.

Steve,

I don't know how much more pain the ordinary people of Greece can take, Greece has been in a recession and actually crossed over into a depression, lasting more than six years unheard of, what are the figures 30% unemployment, 60% youth unemployment.

All of which can the blame for can be laid squarely with the Greek authorities and those among the population who supported their laissez faire approach to 'nonessentials' such as taxation. I sympathise with the pain Greece is going through and the EU is doing all it can under the regulations all EU members must abide by to help, but Greece is the author of their own misfortune and the sooner they realise that and stop trying to place the blame externally, the quicker they will be able to start climbing out of the hole they are in. It will still take a long time but under their current delusion that they are not to blame it will take considerably longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I've never understood the argument they often use that "90% (or whatever) of Britain's trade is with europe", as if that would suddenly cease the moment Britain left the EU. Britain isn't, as far as I'm aware, part of a political or economic union with Japan or China or Korea, and we seem to trade rather a lot with them. :-?

Well, the figures are, 90% of the British economy is here within the UK itself, just 10% of the economy is made up of overseas Trade of that 10% of that 4.6% is with the EU. yet the almost 90% of our economy that does NOT trade with the EU still has to follow all those EU directives and red tape - all this costs money.

We import more from Europe than Europe imports from us, We Buy more German Cars than anyone else in Europe. is Germany going to put a 10% tax on our exports, when they have more to lose. No is the answer, it seems people forget Trade is made up of Markets, not Charity organisations.

Somehow the Pro-EU supporters seem to think companies are only in the UK trading because we are members of the EU, well, doesn't anyone else think that's rather funny. because the UK has to be one of the most EU-sceptic country within the EU. - Why haven't they moved already? they could move production to mainland Europe were they are Pro-EU, - Why are they here now? out of goodwill? Charity maybe? well business doesn't work like that. The size of the UK economy would make it harder for the EU to engage in the punitive trade taxation, too many people in Europe need to buy goods or services from Britain. The argument that Britain can't afford to lose trade with Europe actually works both ways as much as it works at all. but it doesnt stop the likes of Questionmark using it as an argument.

When it comes to Trade the EU is outdated, custom unions are old school, We joined the EU when there was very little global free trade, now the whole world is free trade and guess what they aren't part of the EU, google search customs union, wiki will do, how many are there and who are they. - the result says it all. There is simple no need to be in the EU customs Union, the evidence shows we dont even have to be in the free trade area neither. Dont forget when it comes to trade the EU still as to abide by the WTO rules.

The Pro-EU members love to talk trade all day, no other benefit for the working man being in the EU, -but be careful not to get side tracked - Its Democracy and Sovereignty we need to be discussing, trade will look after itself, its what trade does where an open market and as one of the oldest global trading Nations on earth it comes Natural to us.

The EU is not a free trade area but a customs union

Here’s your starter for ten: what’s the difference between a free trade area and a customs union? It might sound like a technical question, but it goes to the heart of our relationship with the EU. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that lots of people, including economics correspondents, don’t really know the answer, which makes it hard to have a meaningful debate about our options.

A free trade area is a group of states which have eliminated most or all tariffs and quotas on their trade. Sometimes, their agreement covers only manufactured goods and commodities. Sometimes it applies to services, too. In a few cases, it incorporates free movement of labour. Examples of free trade areas are Nafta (Canada, the United States and Mexico) and ASEAN (ten South East Asian states).

A customs union involves internal free trade, but also a common external tariff. Its members surrender their separate commercial policies, and give up the right to sign trade agreements. Instead, trade negotiations are conducted, and treaties signed, by the bloc as a whole. Customs unions often exist where one state administers another, or where a tiny nation contracts out its trade policy to a larger neighbour: Swaziland and Lesotho are in a customs union with South Africa, Liechtenstein with Switzerland, Israel with the Palestinian territories. Other than the EU, the two chief customs unions on the planet are Mercosur and the Andean Community. (Though Brussels was so heavily involved in launching these two blocs that they might almost be considered creatures of the EU).

One way to think of the difference is this: Nafta could accept Britain while allowing it to enjoy free trade with the EU; but the reverse is not true.

The two models coexist in Europe. EFTA is a free trade area. Its members buy and sell unrestrictedly with each other and with the EU. They can also sign commercial accords with non-European countries. Switzerland, for example, has signed a free trade agreement with Canada, and is negotiating one with China. Britain, despite its historical links to Canada, can’t sign such an accord. Nor can it press home the advantage of its growing exports to China (up 40 per cent in two years, as the PM delightedly told his party conference). In both cases, it must wait for the EU to negotiate on its behalf.

We suffer disproportionately from the EU’s common commercial policy because we conduct an exceptionally high percentage of our trade outside Europe. In 2011, non-EU markets accounted for 57 per cent of our exports; the equivalent figure for Belgium was 22 per cent. The EU’s Common External Tariff averages between five and nine per cent – higher than Britain had in the 1920s.

The optimum deal for the United Kingdom is surely to be in a European free trade area but not in a customs union. Again and again, we have been forced to sign less liberal accords than we would have negotiated bilaterally in order to accommodate some protectionist interest on the Continent.

And, of course, membership of the customs union has sundered us from our hinterland. Among the countries with which the EU has negotiated no trade deals at all, beyond the WTO minimum, are the United States, Australia and New Zealand (it is lumberingly getting around to talking to Canada, long after Norway and Switzerland signed their own treaties there).

This is, oddly enough, more of a disadvantage now than it was 40 years ago, because the Commonwealth has grown much faster than the EU, and is forecast to grow at an astonishing 7.3 per cent annually for the next five years. We have purchased membership of a stagnant customs union at the expense of free trade with growing global markets.

Why isn’t this a bigger talking point? Why don’t we hear the statistics more often? Precisely because trade policy ceased to be an issue when we handed it over to Brussels in 1973. In other countries, commercial accords are the major component of foreign policy. Legislators debate them all the time. Journalists take sides. Academics publish detailed papers. Here, as in other EU states, trade has more or less disappeared from public discourse.

Consider, for example, the exchange I had on Twitter a couple of days ago with Evan Davis, the able and impressive BBC presenter:

ED: But among get-outers, what % d'yu think have favoured customs union & single-market as opposed to complete & total withdrawal?

DH: Please understand that the customs union and the single market are two very different things

ED: Indeed fair point. The two are very different. So we have three options. a) Into SEM and Customs union; B) Into customs union, out of Single mkt, and c) out of both.

DH: Er, no. d) IN a free trade area but OUT of the customs union, free to sign an FTA with China.

ED: OK, I won't argue. Let's assume others will allow us (d).Then how do sceptics divide between (a) to (d)? Roughly

DH: d) is what Switzerland does and is the preferred choice of most people I talk to.

ED: But I'm right in thinking CH adopts the single market regs? I thought some UKIP folk were against that, no?

Not really, Evan. Switzerland applies some single market measures as a result of its bilateral free trade accords with the EU. It does so as a sovereign country, through domestic legislation, rather than through the direct applicability which pertains on EU territory. But the percentage is lower than in Norway, and immensely lower than Britain. Switzerland has implemented fewer than 2,000 single market directives since 1992; the United Kingdom more than 30,000.

To put it another way, although Swiss exporters must meet EU standards when selling to the EU – just as they must meet Japanese standards when selling to Japan – they are not usually obliged to apply those rules to their domestic sales. In consequence, Switzerland enjoys a competitive advantage with no depreciation of its exports to the EU. In 2011, Switzerland's sales to the EU were, in per capita terms, four-and-a-half times as much as Britain’s.

Evan Davis is an economics journalist, and a good one. He knows all about this sort of thing. If even he is so far from understanding what Eurosceptics want, we plainly have a great deal of work to do.

I realise that this has already been a very long post, but it’s important, in advance of any referendum, to define our terms. Politicians and pundits often use labels like ‘renegotiation’ and ‘complete withdrawal’ without being clear about what they mean.

Could Britain withdraw from the Common Commercial Policy while still calling itself a member of the EU? Probably not, but even here possibilities exist. The most protected element of the EU’s economy is agriculture. Recent reforms have seen a shift in the CAP away from guaranteed prices toward direct subsidies, paid at national level. Having come this far, it is much more feasible for a county to opt out altogether, which would mean, in practice, withdrawal from the largest element of Euro-tariffs.

When it comes to services, the rules are still being developed. There are growing areas of the economy where, in practice, no external tariff applies.

And, of course, as the WTO lowers tariffs on all goods worldwide, the issue becomes easier to resolve.

We need to be clear about what is in our national interest. We are a trading nation, with few natural resources, dependent on what we buy and sell. The central economic fact of this century is the embourgeoisement of what we still think of as developing countries. In the last three months for which we have figures, our exports to the EU fell by 7.3 per cent while our exports to the rest of the world rose by 13.2 per cent. We need to familiarise ourselves with these statistics; it may not be long before, in a referendum campaign, we are deploying them in anger.

http://blogs.telegra...is-meaningless/

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without debt reduction, more of the same reforms are just torturing the Greek people. And that's what it's all about now since the IMF has left the negotiating table cause the EU and ECB won't partake of it. Anyway, the Greeks are fundamentally to blame but the ridiculously massive amount of money that's been lent to them just won't ever get paid back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without debt reduction, more of the same reforms are just torturing the Greek people. And that's what it's all about now since the IMF has left the negotiating table cause the EU and ECB won't partake of it. Anyway, the Greeks are fundamentally to blame but the ridiculously massive amount of money that's been lent to them just won't ever get paid back...

Greece has the capacity to pay the debt they have accumulated. What is holding them back is the govt reticence in tackling the revenue issue - largely centred around taxation. For a long time Greece has been very lax in enforcing tax regulations and to sort this out properly now would be a very unpopular move. The politicians don't want to address these internal issues because they know they would lose their support amongst the voters, and also they got themselves elected by promising the moon on a stick.

Now they want the EU to forgive them the debt without troubling themselves to change their attitude towards self-reliance.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greece has the capacity to pay the debt they have accumulated. What is holding them back is the govt reticence in tackling the revenue issue - largely centred around taxation. For a long time Greece has been very lax in enforcing tax regulations and to sort this out properly now would be a very unpopular move. The politicians don't want to address these internal issues because they know they would lose their support amongst the voters, and also they got themselves elected by promising the moon on a stick.

Now they want the EU to forgive them the debt without troubling themselves to change their attitude towards self-reliance.

As if you know better than the IMF???

May 5 (Reuters) - Investors shed Greek bonds and stocks on Tuesday on reports that the International Monetary Fund may cut a funding lifeline to Greece unless its European partners accept more debt writedowns.

http://www.reuters.c...N0XW3MO20150505

Greek government adjustments to date:

  • The public sector’s structural, or cyclically adjusted, fiscal deficit turned into a surplus on the back of a ‘world record beating’ 20% adjustment
  • Wages fell by 37%
  • Pensions were reduced by up to 48%
  • State employment diminished by 30%
  • Consumer spending was curtailed by 33%
  • Even the nation’s chronic current account deficit dropped by 16%.

And the social and economic costs associated with making these adjustment:

  • Aggregate real GDP fell by 27% while nominal GDP continued to fall quarter-in-quarter-out for 18 quarters non-stop to this day
  • Unemployment skyrocketed to 27%
  • Undeclared labour reached 34%
  • Banks are labouring under non-performing loans that exceed 40% in value
  • Public debt has exceeded 180% of GDP
  • Young well-qualified people are abandoning Greece in droves
  • Poverty, hunger and energy deprivation have registered increases usually associated with a state at war
  • Investment in productive capacity has evaporated.

http://yanisvaroufak...days-eurogroup/

​If the economy is stagnate and going backward i can't really see them collecting MORE tax.

Edited by Harry_Dresden
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the program agreed in 2012 by Greece with its European partners, the answer was: Greece was to generate enough of a primary surplus to limit its indebtedness. It also agreed to a number of reforms which should lead to higher growth. In consideration, and subject to Greek implementation of the program, European creditors were to provide the needed financing, and provide debt relief if debt exceeded 120% by the end of the decade.

http://blog-imfdirec...s-by-all-sides/

So the original bailout plan was factored in at no more than 120% of GDP... the current Greek debt load is hovering around 180%. The EU/ECB/IMF plan has failed miserably since the economy has contracted by 30% perpetuating the problem further. The Greeks have every reason and right to question not just the bailout plan but also debt reduction to bring it in line with a target of 120% by the end of the decade.

Edited by Harry_Dresden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if you know better than the IMF???

May 5 (Reuters) - Investors shed Greek bonds and stocks on Tuesday on reports that the International Monetary Fund may cut a funding lifeline to Greece unless its European partners accept more debt writedowns.

http://www.reuters.c...N0XW3MO20150505

Greek government adjustments to date:

  • The public sector’s structural, or cyclically adjusted, fiscal deficit turned into a surplus on the back of a ‘world record beating’ 20% adjustment
  • Wages fell by 37%
  • Pensions were reduced by up to 48%
  • State employment diminished by 30%
  • Consumer spending was curtailed by 33%
  • Even the nation’s chronic current account deficit dropped by 16%.

And the social and economic costs associated with making these adjustment:

  • Aggregate real GDP fell by 27% while nominal GDP continued to fall quarter-in-quarter-out for 18 quarters non-stop to this day
  • Unemployment skyrocketed to 27%
  • Undeclared labour reached 34%
  • Banks are labouring under non-performing loans that exceed 40% in value
  • Public debt has exceeded 180% of GDP
  • Young well-qualified people are abandoning Greece in droves
  • Poverty, hunger and energy deprivation have registered increases usually associated with a state at war
  • Investment in productive capacity has evaporated.

http://yanisvaroufak...days-eurogroup/

​If the economy is stagnate and going backward i can't really see them collecting MORE tax.

Lets see... Heck, lets compare cost of living in Lithuania and Greece. And then average pension in Lithuania (~ 250 EUR, May, 2015) and Greece (put here correct number, i.e. after 48% reduction)...

Edited by bmk1245
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see... Heck, lets compare cost of living in Lithuania and Greece. And then average pension in Lithuania (~ 250 EUR, May, 2015) and Greece (put here correct number, i.e. after 48% reduction)...

I'm not gonna compare apples with oranges. The fact is that Germany has demonised Greece and treated it like chit in order to stop bad debt from destroying the EURO. Greece has become the whipping boy for Merkel and i don't think the Greeks need to sit still for anymore German beatings. Certainly not for another 5 years. The EU/ECB/IMF plan has failed to help Greece. Greece has done everything that it could to appease the Germans but that just isn't enough so i fully support the Greeks and the IMF in looking for substantial debt relief.

There are serious questions that need to be asked why 3 political and financial institutions like the troika could get it so wrong and I'm not just talking about the financial aspect but on a humanitarian level. Shameful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without debt reduction, more of the same reforms are just torturing the Greek people. And that's what it's all about now since the IMF has left the negotiating table cause the EU and ECB won't partake of it. Anyway, the Greeks are fundamentally to blame but the ridiculously massive amount of money that's been lent to them just won't ever get paid back...

We already know what happens with a "debt reform", the month after the banks will be eager to give Greece all the money it can carry and when that is spent know that somebody will "reform" the debt.

The only honorable way to get out of debt is to spend less than you are making. That goes for countries as well as for persons. The other way is to declare bankruptcy.

And this is not about people, it is about 2 billion Euros that the creditors ask Greece to spend less every year, and that could easily be achieved without anybody suffering (save some Northern European arms manufacturers) by cutting the military budget 20%. But Greek governments preferred to take it from the little people... the current government prefers to spend 2 billion more at the expense of the rest of Europe. The rest of Europe is in no way inclined to humor them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.