Greece what now

[castellan]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Or

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gr...of-debt-2015-7

Greece has effectively voted to default on its debt to the IMF and the EU, and it is a massive defeat for Germany’s Angela Merkel and the troika she led, which insisted there was no way out for Greece but to pay back its massive debts.
The vote is huge lesson for conservatives and anyone else who thinks this is about a dilettante government of left-wing idealists who think they can flout the law while staging some kind of Che Guevara-esque dream:
Wrong.
This is what capitalism is really about.
From the beginning, Merkel and the EU have operated from the position that because Greece took on debt, Greece now needs to pay it back. That position assumed — bizarrely, in hindsight — that debt only works one way: if you lend someone money, then they pay it back.
But that is NOT how free markets work.
Debt is not a guarantee of future payments in full. Rather, it is a risk that creditors take, in hopes of maybe being paid tomorrow.
The key word there is “risk.”
If you’re willing to take the risk, you’ll get a premium — in the form of interest.
But the downside of that risk is that you lose your money. And Greece just called Germany’s bluff.
The IMF loaned Greece 1.5 billion euros, due back in June, and Greece isn’t paying it back. Greece has another 3.5 billion due to the ECB in July, and that looks really doubtful right now.
This is how capitalism works. The fact that it took a democratically elected government whose own offices are adorned with posters of Lenin, Engels and Guevara to teach this lesson to Germany is astonishing.
More astonishing still is that Merkel et al knew Greece could not pay back this debt before these negotiations started. The IMF’s own assessment of Greek debt, published just a few days ago, states: “Coming on top of the very high existing debt, these new financing needs render the debt dynamics unsustainable …”
“Unsustainable”! Germany’s own bankers knew Greece couldn’t pay this back. And yet Merkel persisted.
Take a look at Greek GDP. In order to pay back debt, you have to have a growing economy. That’s a basic law of economics. It’s how credit cards work. It’s how mortgages work. And it is how sovereign/central bank debt works. But Greece’s economy was never in a position to benefit from debt, because it has been shrinking for years:
image
There is another key fact that the Greeks are keenly aware of (but which everyone else has forgotten). This debt was initially owed to private investment banks, like Goldman Sachs. But the IMF and the ECB made the suicidal decision to let those private banks transfer that debt to EU insitutions and the IMF to “rescue” Greece. As Business Insider reported back in April, former ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet insisted that the debt transfer take place:

The ECB president “blew up,” according to one attendee. “Trichet said, ‘We are an economic and monetary union, and there must be no debt restructuring!'” this person recalled. “He was shouting.”

The result was that the ECB made this catastrophically stupid deal with Greece, according to our April report:

And so there was no restructuring agreed for Greece. The country paid off its immediate debts to the private financial sector — investment banks, basically — and replacement debt was laid onto European taxpayers. The government agreed to a package of harsh government spending cuts and structural reforms in exchange for loans totalling €110 billion over three years.

Trichet made a colossal, elementary mistake. The right place for risky debt by definition is in the private markets, like Goldman. The entire point of private debt investment is that those creditors are prepared for a haircut. The risk absolutely should not be borne by central banks who rely on taxpayer money for bailouts.
In fact, had Trichet made the opposite decision — and left the Greek debt with Goldman et al — then today’s vote would be a footnote rather than a headline in history. “Goldman Sachs takes a bath on Greek debt.” Who cares? Goldman shareholders and clients, surely. But it would not have triggered a crisis at the heart of the EU.
Now Italy, Spain and Portugal are watching Greece closely, and thinking, hey, maybe we can get out of this mess too.
Now, before we all start singing “The Red Flag” and breaking out old videos of “The Young Ones” in celebration, let’s inject a note of realism. Greece isn’t actually a country full of crazy socialists who don’t understand how the FX markets work. In fact, a huge chunk of its tax collection problems stem from the fact that there are two and a half times more self-employed and small business people in Greece than there are in the average country. And small businesses are expert at avoiding tax, Greece’s former tax collector told Business Insider’s Mike Bird recently.
Conservatives who hate paying taxes and who urge small businesses to pursue tax avoidance strategies take note: Your dream just came true in Greece.
If Greece was more socialist — more like Germany, with its giant corporations that have massive unionised workforces paying taxes off their payrolls — then tax collection would be a lot higher in Greece.
Greece is now likely an international pariah on the debt markets. It may have to start printing its own devalued drachma currency. It will have no access to credit. Sure, olive oil, feta and raki will suddenly become incredibly cheap commodities on the export markets. Tourism in Greece is about to become awesome. But mostly it will be awful. Unemployment will increase as Greece’s economy implodes.
But the awfulness will be Greece’s alone. Greece is now on its own path. It is deciding its own fate.
There is something admirable about that.

JP

I don't agree that it's the Conservatives that hate too pay taxes, but they do expect value for the tax money that they fork out and they are not foolish when it comes to money and it's this that differentiates them from the extreme lefties who are off with the pixies with everything and have a devil may care attitude with no firm foundations that are worth jack.

It's the extreme right wing that are totally against paying tax at all, from the people I have come across in my time.
But there are small business around that cop it real hard from the tax system.

But I do know personally many extreme right wing people that have no interest in anything truly but themselves, as they just dismiss everyone other as just idiots, because with their ego they see the world as their own oyster and they just play the game, now if I question them on this subject, they just say that they are smart ?
I say such people are a degenerates and people like so, just happen to give power to only feed the ignorance of socialist and communist.

The extreme right and left are just filthy degenerates who cause all the problems in the world, leading others down the garden path with their miserable madness.

The system is made by such people in governments, with all the loop holes for themselves to exploit.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by castellan

I don't agree that it's the Conservatives that hate too pay taxes,

from what i have read, both sides of many arguments it's apparently a long standing tradition amongst the Greeks, stemming back many centuries to the ottomans to 'avoid' paying dues, this culture remains strong today, inept governments of all persuasions not clamping down on it haven't helped. No offense to the Greeks its their system, play it for what it is, cash economy anyone, prevalent here too, weed all do it if we could

Originally Posted by castellan

The extreme right and left are just filthy degenerates who cause all the problems in the world, leading others down the garden path with their miserable madness.

agreed!, however i believe its rare in 'westernised' countries however to have true extremes of either persuasion in charge. Here in Australia we really have moderate central politics with mild leanings one way or tother. Sure there are individuals within each power bloc we like to accuse of extremism, but lets be honest, this government is spending more than the last and the last wasn't really looking after workers, bit of same same but different central policy going on.
Greece is the same the last few Governments have been pretty mild. As elsewhere its pretty hard to be extreme when you spend your entire time feathering your own nest and getting re-elected to build on the feathers.

JP

[Trump]

Originally Posted by castellan

The extreme right and left are just filthy degenerates who cause all the problems in the world, leading others down the garden path with their miserable madness.

You do realise that the right/left dichotomy is a false one right?

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

You do realise that the right/left dichotomy is a false one right?

Yes they are much the same as each other in one way in fact.

I like to refer to a clock for example, where the 12 o clock to 3 is considered as the far right wing and the 9 to 12 o clock is the left wing and the 3 to 9 o clock is the ones they from 9 to 3 try to lead down the garden path for their own ends.

Both the big party's are a work in progress, they need one and another because they are sort of married, but two different company's that work mainly for their own ends, not the voting peoples so much especially now, with the NWO in control our vote means bugger all.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by castellan

Yes they are much the same as each other in one way in fact.

I like to refer to a clock for example, where the 12 o clock to 3 is considered as the far right wing and the 9 to 12 o clock is the left wing and the 3 to 9 o clock is the ones they from 9 to 3 try to lead down the garden path for their own ends.

Very good analogy, with one mechanism driving all three clock hands (team red, team blue, team green)...

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by castellan

Yes they are much the same as each other in one way in fact.

I like to refer to a clock for example, where the 12 o clock to 3 is considered as the far right wing and the 9 to 12 o clock is the left wing and the 3 to 9 o clock is the ones they from 9 to 3 try to lead down the garden path for their own ends.

Both the big party's are a work in progress, they need one and another because they are sort of married, but two different company's that work mainly for their own ends, not the voting peoples so much especially now, with the NWO in control our vote means bugger all.

When did Australians start thinking politically the same as Americans. in regards to their far out of whack political spectrum?

My country invented fascism... the ideology is totally different to socialism communism.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by MethodX

When did Australians start thinking politically the same as Americans. in regards to their far out of whack political spectrum?

My country invented fascism... the ideology is totally different to socialism communism.

Both totalitarian?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by superyob

Both totalitarian?

Not necessarily and very unlikely. There are of course several countries that have totalitarian regimes controlling the proletariat, such as North Korea, and china, previous examples of totalitarianism, which have fallen include Iraq, Italy, Germany and Russia

Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. the overarching idiom is supported by means of a single-party monopoly of power, police repression not only of all forms of dissent and opposition but also of all forms of independent private organizations as such, rigorous censorship of the mass media, centralized state planning and administration of the economy, and pervasive propaganda to inculcate the principles of the obligatory official ideology.

Socialism is a socio economic system where the state (not the government) advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The ideas of politics and economy also need to be divorced;

We need to view economic systems as feudalistic, capitalistic, socialistic, and communistic.

Then we need to view political systems as anarchy, totaltarianism/divine rule (which would also include fascism), oliarchy, and then democracy.

Australia is best described as a semi social capitalist democracy. We have both private and state ownership, government regulation rather than control and the ability to vote for individuals or independent political parties. This is a long way from the totalitarian regimes you question and in previous post allude to existing in modern western countries.

Many European countries claim to be socialist, rather than falsely hide behind a 'capitalist' label, several of them are amongst the richest communities in the world, weathered the 2008 GFC very well and held those responsible to account. The great bastions of 'Capitalism' like the USA did not fare so well, but the reality is the USA is still a similar sub semi socialist country with a less regulated capitalist economy, Think of the socialist act of propping up large banks and private corporations with public funds, hardly a capitalist thing to do.

I think the reason socialism is a dirty word, despite most western countries actually being partial to full socialist is the connection with fascist dictators like the National Socialist party of Germany, or Nazis, and the USSR in the first half of the twentieth century. The expression of government practiced by these regimes was a far cry from anything considered socialist by modern peoples, but the use of language, incorrectly is so very powerful.

I for one am happy with a socialist politic and capitalist economy, they balance each other, holding one another to account and in check.

JP

[superyob]

Thanks for your detailed answer JP. One more question if you please?

If 'Socialism is a socio economic system where the state (not the government) advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole' , do fascist countries utilise the private sector in the same way that socialists command state resources? (Hope that made sense...)

[Harrison]

Politics in Australia seems to me a bit like Holden vs Ford Supercar racing, hollowed out shells providing an illusion of competition with internal machinations entirely controlled and regulated by an overseeing body.

Not so long ago the Liberal Party was far more socialist than the Labor Party of today in some respects. Now that asset sales are the flavour of the day and hard fought for workers' rights are in the process of being thoroughly eroded, the term' socialism' is being trampled into the dirt by the corporate propagandists (MSM).


Unfortunately we have been duped into believing that the right to vote is the bastion of democracy, rather than actually running a country according to the desires of the majority.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/...ing-china-fta/

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/...et-deal-china/



As for Greece, NO was probably never really an option. The banksters don't give up easily.

This is interesting -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...n-rumours.html

[Trump]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. the overarching idiom is supported by means of a single-party monopoly of power, police repression not only of all forms of dissent and opposition but also of all forms of independent private organizations as such, rigorous censorship of the mass media, centralized state planning and administration of the economy, and pervasive propaganda to inculcate the principles of the obligatory official ideology.

Perfect definition JP. However a discussion with an elderly gentleman this morning has me asking this question, we know what an overt totalitarian state looks like, is it possible for such a state to exist covertly?

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Socialism is a socio economic system where the state (not the government) advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

You make a distinction between the state and government. What is your reasoning behind such a claim?

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The ideas of politics and economy also need to be divorced;
We need to view economic systems as feudalistic, capitalistic, socialistic, and communistic.

Are they distinct and separate concepts or are they branches of the same tree, all with a common root?

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Then we need to view political systems as anarchy, totaltarianism/divine rule (which would also include fascism), oliarchy, and then democracy.

Is anarchy a political system though as it is an absence of anything resembling a political and/or governing structure?

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Australia is best described as a semi social capitalist democracy. We have both private and state ownership, government regulation rather than control and the ability to vote for individuals or independent political parties. This is a long way from the totalitarian regimes you question and in previous post allude to existing in modern western countries.

Many European countries claim to be socialist, rather than falsely hide behind a 'capitalist' label, several of them are amongst the richest communities in the world, weathered the 2008 GFC very well and held those responsible to account. The great bastions of 'Capitalism' like the USA did not fare so well, but the reality is the USA is still a similar sub semi socialist country with a less regulated capitalist economy, Think of the socialist act of propping up large banks and private corporations with public funds, hardly a capitalist thing to do.

I think the reason socialism is a dirty word, despite most western countries actually being partial to full socialist is the connection with fascist dictators like the National Socialist party of Germany, or Nazis, and the USSR in the first half of the twentieth century. The expression of government practiced by these regimes was a far cry from anything considered socialist by modern peoples, but the use of language, incorrectly is so very powerful.

I for one am happy with a socialist politic and capitalist economy, they balance each other, holding one another to account and in check.

JP

I agree with this entire passage of text except your last line. In the context of Australia, I don't actually think the two facets hold each other to account. I will contend that Australia is in such a huge quagmire is because the accountability is non existent and masquerading in its place is something more akin to a collusion between the two ideologies.

[marty351]

I wonder is Mick Gatto and crew have been contacted to mediate this little problem?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Perfect definition JP. However a discussion with an elderly gentleman this morning has me asking this question, we know what an overt totalitarian state looks like, is it possible for such a state to exist covertly?.

No, I think you know if you are oppressed, if you don't know you aren't. Sure you may not be happy but living under a totalitarian dictatorship or similar is pretty easy to identify

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

You make a distinction between the state and government. What is your reasoning behind such a claim?.

We the people are the state, the government should work for us not against us. A democratically elected government is a tool of balance within the community of competing needs, demands and desires.
I use the term should as too many times I fear the governors are working for themselves or the vested interests of minorities both left, right, up and down. The government should own nothing, it's the state property if not privately owned, but manage it on our behalf. This is why I have issues with the term govco. 'co' suggests ownership, profit and legal entity.

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Are they distinct and separate concepts or are they branches of the same tree, all with a common root?.

I think they are entwined and need one another, others would be one without the other see Anarchism vs Fascism

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Is anarchy a political system though as it is an absence of anything resembling a political and/or governing structure?.

Anarchy in the context of politics is absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. liberal socialism! absence of government or self governing is still a means of management. The reliance on self negotiation to govern for the individuals against the other individuals

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

I agree with this entire passage of text except your last line. In the context of Australia, I don't actually think the two facets hold each other to account. I will contend that Australia is in such a huge quagmire is because the accountability is non existent and masquerading in its place is something more akin to a collusion between the two ideologies.

Balance is holistic, beyond policy and not a day to day revelation nor individually based. The two competing demands of the individual too, on one hand reap profit but the other wanting to maintain the social safety net.
Daily accountability is an issue but our democracy for better or worse and manipulated as it is by media and propaganda is a measure of accountability of the government by the state.
I submit that it is this balance of left and right or social capitalism we experience or moderate central politic that has produced a generally great country, one free of tyranny, internal war, wealth and happiness. sure the weather helps but that alone wont defend against too strong a pull towards one extreme or the other fascism (right) and anarchism (left)

[Trump]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

No, I think you know if you are oppressed, if you don't know you aren't. Sure you may not be happy but living under a totalitarian dictatorship or similar is pretty easy to identify

Yes and no. If one views a totalitarian state as the Soviet Union, East Germany and China, then yes it is easy to tell. However, with the evolution of the US (and Australia) into quasi police states, the distinctions become much harder to discern. In such an environment, the bonds of servitude to such a state are near on impossible to see unless one looks for them.

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

We the people are the state, the government should work for us not against us. A democratically elected government is a tool of balance within the community of competing needs, demands and desires.

I disagree. I would argue that the "state" in terms of a polity is a legal fiction. For example:

- If the state is real, are the people living in Italy still subject to the laws of the Ancient Roman Empire? If not, why? Perhaps the state was only imposed on the people by violent thugs?
- If a state is real and permanent, how can it be replaced by another seemingly as "permanent" and "real" as its predecessor?

I liken the state to playing Monopoly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. None of it is real, things are bought and sold using pretty pieces of paper, everyone loses except one player, everyone except the bank gets screwed as they travel around the board and at some point, everyone has a spell behind bars.

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

I use the term should as too many times I fear the governors are working for themselves or the vested interests of minorities both left, right, up and down. The government should own nothing, it's the state property if not privately owned, but manage it on our behalf. This is why I have issues with the term govco. 'co' suggests ownership, profit and legal entity.

You raise a very good point. In theory a government cannot own anything as it isn't a human being. However governments do own quite a lot. They have done this by adopting another legal fiction: corporate personhood. They achieve this personhood by incorporation. Corporations are a legal fiction created to limit liability for shareholders. However, the legal fiction extends to declaring corporations legal persons, able to sue and be sued. It is via this legal fiction governments are able to "own" so much and not merely administer and manage. But I contend that it goes even further: that government is a corporation in and of itself. For the government to conduct its day to day operations with people, it requires the existence of this legal fiction as non-persons can't conduct commerce or other business with persons. It is why I use the term you mention with Metamucil-like regularity: govco.

The question is, who or what owns govco?

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Balance is holistic, beyond policy and not a day to day revelation nor individually based. The two competing demands of the individual too, on one hand reap profit but the other wanting to maintain the social safety net. Daily accountability is an issue but our democracy for better or worse and manipulated as it is by media and propaganda is a measure of accountability of the government by the state.

A measure of accountability isn't actual accountability. Beyond the token circus known as election day, the populace has no means to hold the actions of those supposed to represent the people to account. What is worse is the fact that the populace are completely unable to hold the bureaucracy to any form of accountability.

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

I submit that it is this balance of left and right or social capitalism we experience or moderate central politic that has produced a generally great country, one free of tyranny, internal war, wealth and happiness. sure the weather helps but that alone wont defend against too strong a pull towards one extreme or the other fascism (right) and anarchism (left)

If it were 1978, I'd be in 100% agreement with you. However, it is not, it is 2015 and the left/right balance you speak of is no more. The nation is in a woeful state due to at best ineptitude by those in charge and at worst, outright criminality. Personal debt is at all time highs, the so-called public debt is also sailing unchartered territory (with absolutely nothing to show for it), a war is being waged on the freedoms and rights most Australians take for granted, social media has spread like a disease, infecting society (yes that one is my opinion).

Oh and I don't wear a foil hat

[buggerlugs]

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ch...081022355.html
Another one coming out and saying we are worrying about the wrong country......

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Yes and no. If one views a totalitarian state as the Soviet Union, East Germany and China, then yes it is easy to tell. However, with the evolution of the US (and Australia) into quasi police states, the distinctions become much harder to discern. In such an environment, the bonds of servitude to such a state are near on impossible to see unless one looks for them.

I didn't really want to discuss current affairs as we get into so much trouble. But you are right, erosion of rights, increased in powers of police et al are evident. the hallmarks of totalitarianism could be summarised as

• Elaborate extreme guiding ideology.
• Single party, typically led by a dictator.
• System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret police.
• Monopoly on weapons.
• Monopoly on the means of communication.
• Central direction and control of the economy through state planning.
  

And you could argue the USA (and another local country which shall remain un-named but famed for falcons) certainly has policy heading towards totalitarianism. But I see these as fringe policy compared to the vast freedoms we do have. Perhaps Im not as cynical and I am certainly not a government apologist.

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

I disagree. I would argue that the "state" in terms of a polity is a legal fiction. For example:

- If the state is real, are the people living in Italy still subject to the laws of the Ancient Roman Empire? If not, why? Perhaps the state was only imposed on the people by violent thugs?
- If a state is real and permanent, how can it be replaced by another seemingly as "permanent" and "real" as its predecessor?

I don't follow? But the 'state' (and I am concerned my terminology may be the culprit here so I will redefine) a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries.

In my mind, with socialist leanings the state owns everything that is not privately owned. the land the air the oceans etc and this is held in trust for current and future use by and for the people. It is managed on our behalf by a government who doesn't own the assets. The government is in effect a CEO heading the corporation of the state. when the proletariat want change the CEO doesn't walk away with the country as they had no ownership their role is one of a caretaker, their decision making is for and off the people or the state.
Governments change, but states endure.

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

I liken the state to playing Monopoly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. None of it is real, things are bought and sold using pretty pieces of paper, everyone loses except one player, everyone except the bank gets screwed as they travel around the board and at some point, everyone has a spell behind bars.

I liken that to life within a state.

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

You raise a very good point. In theory a government cannot own anything as it isn't a human being. However governments do own quite a lot. They have done this by adopting another legal fiction: corporate personhood. They achieve this personhood by incorporation. Corporations are a legal fiction created to limit liability for shareholders. However, the legal fiction extends to declaring corporations legal persons, able to sue and be sued. It is via this legal fiction governments are able to "own" so much and not merely administer and manage. But I contend that it goes even further: that government is a corporation in and of itself. For the government to conduct its day to day operations with people, it requires the existence of this legal fiction as non-persons can't conduct commerce or other business with persons. It is why I use the term you mention with Metamucil-like regularity: govco.

The question is, who or what owns govco?

I guess the difference here is one of definition of 'state' between you and I . Governments are employed to manage our state, the legal status is commensurate with its needs to act for the state.
The government does not have resources, does not have money to make purchases. Its bankrolled by the 'state' through collections of taxes royalties and speeding fines and spends accordingly to suit the demands of the 'state'.
when a government is unelected they don't take the assets with them, as caretakers they are employees.

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

A measure of accountability isn't actual accountability. Beyond the token circus known as election day, the populace has no means to hold the actions of those supposed to represent the people to account. What is worse is the fact that the populace are completely unable to hold the bureaucracy to any form of accountability.

I agree when it comes to individual actions of politicians. but in our democracy we 'still' have the right to elect a new government to replace the incumbent. if we and enough of us disagree enough with the actions of the current' team' we don't vote for them. In a functioning democratic 'state' majority rules and if the majority agree we have governmental change. A new set of caretakers. Again I'm less cynical but agree erosion of these principles is happening and only history will record that some of the tin foil hat wearers were actually right

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

If it were 1978, I'd be in 100% agreement with you. However, it is not, it is 2015 and the left/right balance you speak of is no more. The nation is in a woeful state due to at best ineptitude by those in charge and at worst, outright criminality. Personal debt is at all time highs, the so-called public debt is also sailing unchartered territory (with absolutely nothing to show for it), a war is being waged on the freedoms and rights most Australians take for granted, social media has spread like a disease, infecting society (yes that one is my opinion).

Oh and I don't wear a foil hat

Im gathering you are circa 60+ years old? yes there is as I have agreed major problems with the politic in this country, fuelled by private owned propaganda machines and political, social and media bread and circuses. As mentioned elsewhere Australia's debt is still manageable and at the 'state' level sometimes it is necessary and a very different mechanism to the home mortgage, I however do hope it reduces soon as it has still climbed substantially overt the last couple years despite 'austerity'.
The current 'status' oft he country however does not negate the terminology, philosophy and reality of our discussion.

As for Greece, Im an armchair anarchist, Im watching intently to see what happens. A lesson could be learnt globally, and what of the major economies likely to follow a grexit of spain, Italy et al

JP

[Syndrome]

The problem is Greece should never have been admitted to the EU in the first place. It was well known how the Greek economy operated and this was always going to be at odds when compared to the stronger EU members.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Very good analogy, with one mechanism driving all three clock hands (team red, team blue, team green)...

As far as team green goes, they do not show up in the 3 to 9 spot at all.

[superyob]

Loud_Noises, JP and Castellan; the subject of government would be an interesting thread discussion in its own right... Should I or someone create it so that we are not constantly straying off the topic of Greece and its financial woes?

[xwgs302]

I agree Syndrome.
The day the Euro started, word from relatives told of how expensive everything suddenly got, even for basic foods. Then went worse from then. If you had plenty of money, most would have invested it abroad, or stashed it in Swiss accounts and fudged the books.
In my opinion, they are trying tune an engine that's in need of a full rebuild, or tuning a broken Bouzouki.

My folks consider themselves more Mediterranean than European anyway.

[JG66ME]

Interesting read.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-eurozone.html

[Trump]

Originally Posted by superyob

Loud_Noises, JP and Castellan; the subject of government would be an interesting thread discussion in its own right... Should I or someone create it so that we are not constantly straying off the topic of Greece and its financial woes?

That would be fantastic, but I fear it wouldn't last long.

The reason it seems to stray off-topic is that Greece's ills (and ultimately any country that uses fractional reserve banking and has the outward appearance of a democracy) stem from a very poor comprehension of the nature of governance, legitimacy and credit creation

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by xwgs302

I agree Syndrome.
The day the Euro started, word from relatives told of how expensive everything suddenly got, even for basic foods. Then went worse from then. If you had plenty of money, most would have invested it abroad, or stashed it in Swiss accounts and fudged the books.
In my opinion, they are trying tune an engine that's in need of a full rebuild, or tuning a broken Bouzouki.

My folks consider themselves more Mediterranean than European anyway.

Same thing happened in Italy.

[castellan]

Their are wheels within wheels in everything and the human nature is, that corruption abounds in everything and every system you could think of.
Democracy does not save you, it's only a tool and what is needed is a healthy Democracy.

Is or was Greece a healthy Democracy ?
Is Australia a healthy Democracy, if not when and why did the rot set in.

If one is to put money in a bank, one would think that company has in place virtuous standards that could stand up to any scrutiny and it's the same with a government in all it's dealings and if not, that's what the governor general job it is to start cracking heads.

[Trump]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/greek...12-giao2w.html

[Harrison]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-fas...greece/5462072

[kaniSS]

Originally Posted by The Yeti

The Greece situation is explained simply in this short video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa1Megzxf8g

" You Mad Bastard"

[Syndrome]

There is no hope of recovering the situation in Greece.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

There is no hope of recovering the situation in Greece.

Agree. Only postponing the inevitable with this bailout.

[Yellow_Festiva]

I want the drachma back because I collect the money from all the countries I visit and the euro has made it boring.

If only I was born 10 years earlier!