Greece Debt Crisis - Après Oxi

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the most pyrrhic victories of all time in that case.

What's 'pyrrhic' about illuminating the problems that nobody wants to sort out?

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'victory' (there was never going to be one as such) for the left is the fact that this has shown to anybody with an eye in there heads what the faults and deficiencies in the EU and it's institutions are.
Kicking the problem of debt down the road never was and never will be a soution and if this deal is done then that is all that has been achieved sadly. We will just wait until the next crisis, just as likely to be in Greece as anywhere else.

The EU are kicking the debt down the road? Not the country who didn't actually need any more debt relief 9 months ago but now need an additional €50-60bn bailout? Not the country that didn't pay their debt on time? Not the country seriously considering default?

This has not been a victory for anyone. This should never have happened. If anything it shows exactly what damage hard-line left-wing nationalist parties can do trying to promote their populist clap-trap. Thankfully they never got enough popular support in recent years here to do the same.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

What's 'pyrrhic' about illuminating the problems that nobody wants to sort out?

Pyrrhic Victory

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory").

Possibly a perfect example.

Thomas_.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What's 'pyrrhic' about illuminating the problems that nobody wants to sort out?

It´s the Greeks themselves who created their mess and it´s up to them in the first place to sort their problems out.

I have no understanding for why the whole of the EU Member states (yes, the whole of it, not just the members of the Eurozone) shall pay for the privileges of the Greek People whereas in other European countries one can´t have them as well.

Tsipras was leading the whole of the EU by her nose for long enough. It was time that he faced the critics from the EP as it has been done by the former Belgian PM on Wednesday. Looks as if he "got the message" and realises that there´s no more room for continueing that game he played.

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

The EU are kicking the debt down the road? Not the country who didn't actually need any more debt relief 9 months ago but now need an additional €50-60bn bailout? Not the country that didn't pay their debt on time? Not the country seriously considering default?

This has not been a victory for anyone. This should never have happened. If anything it shows exactly what damage hard-line left-wing nationalist parties can do trying to promote their populist clap-trap. Thankfully they never got enough popular support in recent years here to do the same.

I think I said it wasn't a 'victory' for anyone.

Happyman42 wrote:

The 'victory' (there was never going to be one as such)

What damage was done to Greece/Ireland before the left came to power, and why did the left come to power in Greece?
I think if you ask those questions and answer them honestly you might be abe to apportion blame fairly here and have a better understanding.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think I said it wasn't a 'victory' for anyone.


What damage was done to Greece/Ireland before the left came to power, and why did the left come to power in Greece?
I think if you ask those questions and answer them honestly you might be abe to apportion blame fairly here and have a better understanding.

Ireland, damaged severely by a right leaning government, elected yet another right leaning government and we're well on the road to recovery.

Greece, damaged severely by a right leaning government, elected another, was limping back towards recovery, then elected a radical left government and has gone down the toilet.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What's 'pyrrhic' about illuminating the problems that nobody wants to sort out?

There are countless reports pointing out the problems of dispersed rural settlement in Ireland and the effects on the cost of health, education, utilities and doing business yet despite the greatest economic crisis in the history of the country, nothing was done about it.

So much for illuminating the problems that nobody wants to sort out.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'victory' (there was never going to be one as such) for the left is the fact that this has shown to anybody with an eye in there heads what the faults and deficiencies in the EU and it's institutions are.
Kicking the problem of debt down the road never was and never will be a soution and if this deal is done then that is all that has been achieved sadly. We will just wait until the next crisis, just as likely to be in Greece as anywhere else.

Is there any possible outcome, no matter how bad, that you wouldn't label as a 'victory'? An already ruined country has been flushed down the toilet by its government - there is no victory, no matter how desperately you try spin it.

Jawgap

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Is there any possible outcome, no matter how bad, that you wouldn't label as a 'victory'? An already ruined country has been flushed down the toilet by its government - there is no victory, no matter how desperately you try spin it.

Tsipras is like a modern day Captain Ahab.......

"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Very interesting article here which claims to be an interview with a Syriza insider.

Honestly, I think that's probably true enough, there's probably enough valid points raised on both sides of the coin to envisage it being from someone close enough to the coalface.

It's a bizarre enough interview, the lack of foresight regarding what would happen in the case of a bank run/ default, the lack of understanding of the legal obligations of the ECB to the currency itself (liquidity, ELA etc) are all pretty damning indictments of the Syriza 'strategy'.

Though I'm hoping that the quote/paraphrase from Dijsselbloem is a misquote and not an accurate portrayal of what he actually said, as that's a pretty scary thing for someone to say.

Worth a read in any case.

Varoufakis cleared up this point in a tweet just now.

@yanisvaroufakis wrote:

@SonyKapoor What he said was : The alternative to accepting the previous program was the program 'crashes' - meaning bank closures etc.

Which in mind was not a threat at all, but outlining the ramifications of not being able to organise a deal.

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, considering the rest of the article where the Syriza inside remarks that they were not aware of what would happen (capital controls etc) upon defaulting on the payment and the inability to agree a deal.

Does this suggest that Varoufakis was playing loose with information? That he didn't explain the steps that would have to be taken (by ECB etc)? He was patently aware of them, as he discusses it in his blog in 2012 so ignorance isn't a defence.

The Greek state, let me remind you, is quite close to a primary surplus. With judicious top-down reductions wages and pensions, plus the issue of tax-bonds, the Greek public sector could finance itself for the foreseeable future. All that is needed is that the ECB continues to provide liquidity to the Greek banks. Some say that it cannot do this because it won’t be able to accept Greek government bonds as collateral (since the Greek state will have defaulted). True but irrelevant: Greek banks have already posted whatever government bonds they owned with the ECB for collateral. That creek has dried. Nowadays they are posting domestic mortgages and other such paper titles (which are, by the way, no worse in quality to those posted by Italian and Spanish banks). All that it would take to allow Greece to stay in the eurozone, in a better state than it is today (and less austerity for that matter), is the continuation of the present ECB policy toward Greek banks. As for those who argue that the ECB will take an aggressive stance, think again: the ECB will not knowingly take steps which will destroy the eurozone.

Not a savoury thought.

Happyman42

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Is there any possible outcome, no matter how bad, that you wouldn't label as a 'victory'? An already ruined country has been flushed down the toilet by its government - there is no victory, no matter how desperately you try spin it.

I didn't say there was a victory for the Greeks, I said that the fact that the problems in the EU and Euro (at the heart of this) have been very clearly illuminated and there is potential capital to be made out of that on the left.
I think the lines have been very clearly drawn here.
I wouldn't be a sworn member of the left, but my attitude to the EU has now changed as a resut of this 'illumination' in that I think it needs radical reform to remain of use to all it's people.
I wouldn't be alone in that, if the left can capitalise on that change in attitude then it will be a 'victory' from the ashes.

It's a ^ bit of a long winded way of making a simple point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Varoufakis cleared up this point in a tweet just now.



Which in mind was not a threat at all, but outlining the ramifications of not being able to organise a deal.

This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, considering the rest of the article where the Syriza inside remarks that they were not aware of what would happen (capital controls etc) upon defaulting on the payment and the inability to agree a deal.

Does this suggest that Varoufakis was playing loose with information? That he didn't explain the steps that would have to be taken (by ECB etc)? He was patently aware of them, as he discusses it in his blog in 2012 so ignorance isn't a defence.


Not a savoury thought.

My reading of the original article was that the interviewee was incredibly naive at best - Displaying a total lack of understanding of International politics and the relatives strengths/weaknesses of both sides..

Some of the behaviour from the EU side wasn't great , no question - But it certainly shouldn't have been unexpected , they're not a charity and they are politicians that need to get re-elected in their own countries...

It's also clear that the Greek team were absolutely not sharing the full story with the Syriza rank & file back in Athens - I believe that if they had things would have blown up much much earlier with the hardliners had they been aware that the reality was that there was no progress being made and the only thing happening was Greek prevarication to prolong the inevitable.

The only sensible things that Tsipras has done in his 6 months in power was to offload Varoufakis and to get the opposition onside earlier this week.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Stepping away from the political rethoric/shape throwing of those with a stake in the game for a minute.

Do you think the EU/Euro has a major unconfronted problem at it's heart? Do you think that many more people are aware of that after this has played out?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, Germany and France get a by and others get penalised. One of the major problems.
I was talking more about how this particular crisis was handled. And I am reading the reactions from Germany this moning which don't augur well for future stability imo.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, Germany and France get a by and others get penalised. One of the major problems.
I was talking more about how this particular crisis was handled. And I am reading the reactions from Germany this moning which don't augur well for future stability imo.

You can't look at the reactions in Europe without seriously considering the context of the situation they faced. And it was a truly outrageous, irresponsible and completely avoidable situation. How the Greek government could possibly try to paint the organisation that had bailed them out to the tune of over €180bn the bad guys while they were undoing all the positive work done in the previous 5 years, bringing the country back to it's knees and leaving their people in dire straits is not just unacceptable, it's downright immoral. The EU faced a situation where things were getting back on track and then the new Greek government started painting them in the worst possible light while also creating a situation where they needed to go back with the cap in hand looking for more money.

In any normal circumstance the Greeks would have been the target for all of the ire, but in a time when people want wave their fists at the big, bad EU (rabble, rabble) it's fashionable to take umbrage with "the man" and try and stick it to him. Absolutely none of this would have happened had the Greeks been responsible and managed themselves correctly. And absolutely none of the current issues would exist had they done the same over the last 6 months. Complaining about the impacts of screwing yourself over is the absolute height of irresponsibility. Complaining about the person bailing you out forcing you to get your act together just compounds that.

How else could the EU have reacted?

Jaggo

Jaggo wrote: »

I have a couple of questions for anyone is knowledgeable about these things:

From previous links earlier in the thread I read that after the 2 bailouts the Net Present Value of the Greek debt in Feb 2015 was c. 18% of GDP. Why has the debt become so unsustainable now, has this changed or is it just that Greece can't support this low level of borrowing?

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Bruegel calculation, whereby the NPV of Greek sovereign debt can be reduced by about 18% of GDP, without inflicting any haircut on the principal?

GDP in Greece pre crisis was €250 billion, but that included c 10% deficit spending which would have inflated the economy - then add in that fact that the deficit money would had a Multiplier effect (presumably greater than 1 as Greece is a closer economy) adding c. another 25 billion. Does this mean the 'Natural' level of the economy was €200 billion. About the same as it is now.

Indeed, what I find even more startling is that the last programme for Greece (the one which has now expired) was attempting to leave Greece with a debt:GDP ratio of 120% by 2020.

That's about the same ratio Greece had when it entered the programme.

If that's not a failure of the programme, what is? It should have been realized immediately that the programme was doomed to fail. In fact, the Greek IMF representative is on the record as having said this was realised at the Fund.

K-9 wrote: »

We seem to be talking debt restructuring, not write downs.

Many in Syriza called their proposals a 'write-down' whereas if you look at the technical detail of what Syriza had proposed, it is better-described as a rescheduling.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_819.pdf

A briefer synopsis of the Syriza proposal is here

https://euobserver.com/news/127115

I doubt if this is the exact mechanism that will be pursued in order to grant debt relief to Syriza, but I've little doubt that a substantively similar mechanism will be employed in order to grant relief: the net effect being a substantial reduction in the real value of the principal.

Thomas_.

molloyjh wrote: »

You can't look at the reactions in Europe without seriously considering the context of the situation they faced. And it was a truly outrageous, irresponsible and completely avoidable situation. How the Greek government could possibly try to paint the organisation that had bailed them out to the tune of over €180bn the bad guys while they were undoing all the positive work done in the previous 5 years, bringing the country back to it's knees and leaving their people in dire straits is not just unacceptable, it's downright immoral. The EU faced a situation where things were getting back on track and then the new Greek government started painting them in the worst possible light while also creating a situation where they needed to go back with the cap in hand looking for more money.

In any normal circumstance the Greeks would have been the target for all of the ire, but in a time when people want wave their fists at the big, bad EU (rabble, rabble) it's fashionable to take umbrage with "the man" and try and stick it to him. Absolutely none of this would have happened had the Greeks been responsible and managed themselves correctly. And absolutely none of the current issues would exist had they done the same over the last 6 months. Complaining about the impacts of screwing yourself over is the absolute height of irresponsibility. Complaining about the person bailing you out forcing you to get your act together just compounds that.

How else could the EU have reacted?

Hear, hear!

There´s nothing else to expect from a government that sees herself in "need" to use populistic rethoric in order to deflect from their own misdoings or more apparently amamteurish ill-handling of the whole situation.

What is some very rare aspect in particular to the present Greek government is, that it is a coalition of left-radicals with a right-faction party which are at their core, both rather anti-EU and if it wasn´t for the EU to help their country out of their mess, their tone could be even worse. Much worse then them would be Golden Dawn being in power in stead.

Happyman42

Thomas_. wrote: »

Hear, hear!

There´s nothing else to expect from a government that sees herself in "need" to use populistic rethoric in order to deflect from their own misdoings or more apparently amamteurish ill-handling of the whole situation.

I think the governments that ran up the debt and the creditors who gave them the loans and where involved in bailout programmes which where never going to solve the problems would equally be seen as amatuerish.

Pinning the blame for this mess entirely on the left doesn't wash.

Jawgap

Blaming Syriza is not 'blaming the left' - it's blaming Syriza

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

Blaming Syriza is not 'blaming the left' - it's blaming Syriza

Blaming it all on Syriza doesn't wash either.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

Blaming it all on Syriza doesn't wash either.

Where should the responsibility for the actions and developments of the past 6 months lie?

nice_guy80

You can't blame Syriza for racking up all those debts

Jawgap

Why?

The data would suggest the Greeks had - at least - stabilised their position and were beginning to make modest minimal progress, but still progress.

Syriza come to power, put the brakes on the agreed reform programme and here we are......

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

The data would suggest the Greeks had - at least - stabilised their position and were beginning to make modest minimal progress, but still progress.

Syriza come to power, put the brakes on the agreed reform programme and here we are......

I'd agree with the other posters that we can't blame Syriza for the National Debt that they inherited.

I think we're arguing two different points! I hold Syriza massively accountable for a lot of damage over the last 6 months, but arriving at the headline National Debt that we know these days has almost nothing to do (directly) with Syriza.

molloyjh

nice_guy80 wrote: »

You can't blame Syriza for racking up all those debts

Absolutely not. That was previous governments fault and the people of Greece as a whole for electing, permitting and participating in the various levels of crazy.

The last 6 months on the other hand is Syrizas fault (spurred on by the Greek people as a whole again which is ultimately where the problem lies). The Greek economy was recovering fairly well. Yes they were going through hard times as a people, but then what do you expect when you bankrupt your country. That kind of thing doesn't just go away overnight. Overall though the signs were good that they were going in the right direction. Since Syriza took over they have gone backwards economically at an alarming rate and we've seen things in Greece in these past weeks that we never saw there over the course of the bail out timeline. Even now with a deal looking pretty much done there are entire banking institutions that can no longer survive and have been forced to merge with others.

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

The data would suggest the Greeks had - at least - stabilised their position and were beginning to make modest minimal progress, but still progress.

Syriza come to power, put the brakes on the agreed reform programme and here we are......

We have made progress too apparently.
Would you say it was fair progress though? A good number of the electorate would say an absolute no to that.

Whatever the outcome in Greece and their ability to fight punitive austerity I don't believe that any of the core problems have been addressed.
I don't think you will see a deal this weekend, the problem will be kicked down the road into 'negotiations about a deal' and as I suggested on another thread, Greece will be kept going.

I think that Greece should be kept going and a major review/conference, whatever convened and the problems EU wide addressed though.

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the governments that ran up the debt and the creditors who gave them the loans and where involved in bailout programmes which where never going to solve the problems would equally be seen as amatuerish.

And exactly what should have been done do you think that financial experts from all over the world got so drastically wrong.

In fact is there in fact any evidence at all that the route taken was, in fact, wrong at all?

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

Absolutely not. That was previous governments fault and the people of Greece as a whole for electing, permitting and participating in the various levels of crazy.

That is kneejerk in many ways, did we know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into?

I don't think we did, the message from government was the good times would never end and you should commit suicide if you thought otherwise.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is kneejerk in many ways, did we know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into?

I don't think we did, the message from government was the good times would never end and you should commit suicide if you thought otherwise.

Yes

Quin_Dub

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is kneejerk in many ways, did we know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into?

I don't think we did, the message from government was the good times would never end and you should commit suicide if you thought otherwise.

Here's the thing though....

The Irish Government wasn't in debt it ran a solid surplus all through the boom, it grew Public expenditure hugely on foot of tax receipts from an unsustainable bubble..

When that bubble burst , then we had the problems..But up to that point broadly speaking they were spending their own money.

The Greeks however never ran a surplus , always borrowed to fund it's current account expenditures - And the Greeks voted for it - indeed they punished any government that tried anything different at the ballot...

That's what the claims about "90% of the Greek bailouts went to the Banks , the Greeks got nothing" are utter rubbish..

Every penny the Greek government borrowed was spent on the Greek people.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes

Not really.

Indebtedness is usually expressed in a ratio where the denominator is constantly changing.

For example, Greece's current debt is about 100% of its 2010 GDP, but 175% of GDP today.

Ireland's government debt for end-2014 is about 85% of 2010 GDP; now it's something like 110%

Since this ratio is more important than the nominal value of the debt, it's fair to say that we didn't appreciate what we were getting into, nor in fairness to the European authorities, did they.

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

We have made progress too apparently.
Would you say it was fair progress though? A good number of the electorate would say an absolute no to that.

Whatever the outcome in Greece and their ability to fight punitive austerity I don't believe that any of the core problems have been addressed.
I don't think you will see a deal this weekend, the problem will be kicked down the road into 'negotiations about a deal' and as I suggested on another thread, Greece will be kept going.

I think that Greece should be kept going and a major review/conference, whatever convened and the problems EU wide addressed though.

Why are you talking about our situation? It's utterly incomparable.

The core problems are the ones that the EU are trying to get Greece to address. Greece are just, at best, dragging their heels and at worst simply not bothering to address them at all.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes

You'll have to show me how we knew the government we elected was going to do what ended up with us in massive debt.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not really.

Indebtedness is usually expressed in a ratio where the denominator is constantly changing.

For example, Greece's current debt is about 100% of its 2010 GDP, but 175% of GDP today.

Ireland's government debt for end-2014 is about 85% of 2010 GDP; now it's something like 110%

Since this ratio is more important than the nominal value of the debt, it's fair to say that we didn't appreciate what we were getting into, nor in fairness to the European authorities, did they.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=teina225&language=en

It takes all of 20 seconds to find out the numbers.

So Yes, really we did "know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into"

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll have to show me how we knew the government we elected was going to do what ended up with us in massive debt.

You keep shifting the goalposts.

You said that we did not know the levels of debt! We did! It's public record.

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

Why are you talking about our situation? It's utterly incomparable.

The way in which they where dealt with and the problems in the EU are relevant I think.

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is kneejerk in many ways, did we know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into?

I don't think we did, the message from government was the good times would never end and you should commit suicide if you thought otherwise.

It is absolutely not knee jerk. How could the Greek people ever believe the system they had was sustainable? They weren't paying their taxes properly, they had incredibly liberal pension policies, had crazy VAT discount schemes all over the country etc etc. I'm at a loss as to how they could live in that set-up and not know.

Ireland's problems were totally different and it's off topic to go on about them here. They aren't relevant to the discussion.

Jawgap

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd agree with the other posters that we can't blame Syriza for the National Debt that they inherited.

I think we're arguing two different points! I hold Syriza massively accountable for a lot of damage over the last 6 months, but arriving at the headline National Debt that we know these days has almost nothing to do (directly) with Syriza.

Apologies. My question was directed at another poster.

I'd agree Syriza can't and shouldn't be blamed for the debt they inherited.

Where I think they failed was to manage that debt. Fine, they didn't agree with the programme of reforms and as an elected government they had a mandate to vary the programme but not completely undermine the objective, would be my view.

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

The way in which they where dealt with and the problems in the EU are relevant I think.

If you want to draw high level comparisons while ignoring the all important context then maybe. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=teina225&language=en

It takes all of 20 seconds to find out the numbers.

So Yes, really.

It would have taken you even less time to read my post correctly.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep shifting the goalposts.

You said that we did not know the levels of debt! We did! It's public record.

The message from government was the good times where going to roll. And bpeople believed that and elected them.
It is kneejerk and unfair therefore to blame the people, they simply were not being given the true picture, that it was essentially a bubble.
Of course you can say, they SHOULD have known but unfortunately that is not the way it works in reality.

Governments would have us believe now that all is well in the EU and the Euro...is it though? I think an awful ot more people have had their eyes opened by this current crisis and that (my original point) is an oppurtunity for the left. One that some may regret giving them.

Aemtler

Deleted User wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=teina225&language=en

It takes all of 20 seconds to find out the numbers.

So Yes, really we did "know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into"

Thanks for the table - interesting reading.

Belgium is a bit of a dark horse. You never hear about them in the press but have spent the last 5 years with debt greater than 100% of GBP.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It would have taken you even less time to read my post correctly.

Can you explain to me how your post in any way negates the post you quoted?

Lets step through it for the sake of pedantic logic.

Happyman asks did we know the level of debt

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is kneejerk in many ways, did we know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into?
I don't think we did, the message from government was the good times would never end and you should commit suicide if you thought otherwise.

I say we did

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes

You say we didn't really and discussed the usual presentation of debt statistics

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not really. ...

I spend 20seconds on Google and am able to get both nominal and % of GDP versions, hence a pretty good citation that yes, in fact, we did know the level of debt. It's publicly available.

Deleted User wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=teina225&language=en
It takes all of 20 seconds to find out the numbers.
So Yes, really we did "know the levels of debt our governments where geting us into"

If you think I answered a different question other than the one that Happyman asked, can you tell us what it was?

Chips Lovell

The public aren't children, prone to being brainwashed by political parties.

As an adult, it's your responsibility to apply some amount of critical thinking to what's being pitched at you during elections and then take responsibility for the choices you make if they prove to be bad ones.

swampgas

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll have to show me how we knew the government we elected was going to do what ended up with us in massive debt.

I'd agree to an extent. I took no interest in politics or economics before the crash and bailout. I reckon I would have been typical of many voters who don't know a whole lot about economics at a national level.

Back then, I was probably going along with gut feel - things seemed to be going well, the opposition parties were for the most part saying much the same thing as the government, and the media were cheering us along.

There is a real problem with explaining a lot of this stuff to (and I hate the phrase) "average voters", but as long as everyone has an equal vote there is a real problem when a huge number of people really don't get the basic principles.

Compounding this lack of knowledge is having lots of very misleading claims and outright lying going on by political parties looking to gain voter share.

It's a mess and I don't see any easy fix.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

The message from government was the good times where going to roll. And bpeople believed that and elected them.
It is kneejerk and unfair therefore to blame the people, they simply were not being given the true picture, that it was essentially a bubble.
Of course you can say, they SHOULD have known but unfortunately that is not the way it works in reality.

Governments would have us believe now that all is well in the EU and the Euro...is it though? I think an awful ot more people have had their eyes opened by this current crisis and that (my original point) is an oppurtunity for the left. One that some may regret giving them.

Ignorance of the law is no defence in court.

Ignorance of publicly available information is not really a solid defence here either.

alias no.9

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here's the thing though....

The Irish Government wasn't in debt it ran a solid surplus all through the boom, it grew Public expenditure hugely on foot of tax receipts from an unsustainable bubble..

When that bubble burst , then we had the problems..But up to that point broadly speaking they were spending their own money.

The Greeks however never ran a surplus , always borrowed to fund it's current account expenditures - And the Greeks voted for it - indeed they punished any government that tried anything different at the ballot...

That's what the claims about "90% of the Greek bailouts went to the Banks , the Greeks got nothing" are utter rubbish..

Every penny the Greek government borrowed was spent on the Greek people.

If you consider that the unsustainable taxes were for the most part
-taxes on credit transactions
-taxes on employment in industries whose products and services were purchased using credit

They were in fact running the country through off balance sheet borrowing. The credit crunch brought the structural deficit that had been funded by this off balance sheet borrowings onto the balance sheet.