Greece, EU and why we can't have nice things

[Elerond]

 

Nah, OECD. Same people who had the Greeks being the hardest working in Europe. The difference went up with austerity, too, perhaps unsurprising when you have massive VAT hikes and a slumping GDP, but was still better than nine other EU economies.

 

Do you have some valid links that suggest the Greeks are the hardest working in Europe ?

 

I find that extremely hard to believe....I would have to see the context as well

 

 

If the Greeks were that hard working they wouldn't be in the situation they in

 

 

In statistics they have most clocked workhours, but that don't necessary mean that they are most productive with their hours.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17155304

 

Also it should be noted that all the numbers in statistics in this subject comes from national statistics and surveys, and that there isn't some common methods or standards in how this are or should be done.

[Rostere]

 

But that is exactly what Varoufakis says that Germany has been doing all along - preventing a reasonable agreement. From an economical perspective, people have wanted Greece to get the **** out of the euro for a long time, it's just that nobody wants them to do so because of the political implications - especially not to be seen themselves advocating for Greece to **** off. Greece is a leaking sieve that must learn its lessons on it's own.

 

Well yeah, exactly. If Germany wants Greece out then they should do so instead of waffling and vacillating, same as Tsipras and the Greeks should leave instead of prolonging the agony. That would be best for all parties- except perhaps those with political obsessions that trump reality (France, main sponsor of the Euro project). Money would be lost, but I think everybody accepts that that money is gone anyway, no need to throw good after bad. A parting, preferably with a minimum of bad blood, is now (though five years ago would be better) necessary and someone has to bite the bullet. If it's Germany doing so then at this point, good on them even if I think they're a bunch of self righteous hypocritical economic puritans.

But they are already being accused of being Nazis because they are reluctant to borrow more money to Greece. You do realize that there is no way that Germany can be the party which effectively kicks Greece out of the euro, right?

 

Trouble is, when it happens there is not going to be a minimum of bad blood, it's going to be monumentally messy and there will be a vested interest in knifing Greece and ensuring it won't do well lest the other weak economies decide to follow a successful Grexit. And even outside of the Euro there's a ton of really nasty stuff that can be done to them pour décourager les autres. Because the Euro can survive an unsuccessful Greek exit, it certainly won't survive a successful one so the same vested interests that will contort economic logic and reason to try and keep them in will be put to keeping them down once they do go.

 

There is a pretty good understanding about the problems with the euro among some leaders of the EU. But they are lacking political capital for the reforms needed to counteract those problems, alternatively shrink the eurozone (as we have seen). The EU does not have the political power to control Greece's economy directly and set things right. Obviously it is not currently politically viable for the Greek leaders to give the EU that power, even if they should desire to do so. Then the only remaining option is to kick Greece out of the eurozone (but not the EU).

 

 

If you have ever been to Greece you would have known that it's on a league of its own as far as tax evasion and corruption goes. It is never going to get better unless they improve the situation on their own, which they would have been forced to do a long time ago if they had been under the threat of inflation.

I posted the figure previously, but Greece's black/ grey economy was actually only 5% worse than Germany's was at the same time. That isn't enough to make any significant difference and was better than many others.

 

Estimated shadow economy sizes for OECD countries from 2003 to 2015

http://www.econ.jku.at/members/Schneider/files/publications/2015/ShadEcEurope31.pdf

Apparently double the size of Germany's shadow economy.

 

Nah, OECD. Same people who had the Greeks being the hardest working in Europe. The difference went up with austerity, too, perhaps unsurprising when you have massive VAT hikes and a slumping GDP, but was still better than nine other EU economies.

But it is not how much you work which is relevant. It is how productive you are, and whether you pay taxes or not.

 

Greece has one of the largest public sectors as a share of the economy in Europe. Couple that with an abysmally awful productivity and you can begin to understand how bloated most of the Greek economy is, and how it is that they work so much for so little gain for the state. Start reading here.

 

These problems cannot be solved from outside Greece - that will only turn out like it has now. Blah blah "Merkel is a Nazi", "humiliation" et cetera. To be honest, if anyone has been humiliated it is the Slovakians, who are poorer than the Greeks but with a far more lean economy, and the other people who keep giving Greece more and more of their money, even though only a madman would think at this point that Greece would eventually be able to reform their state to the point that they can pay back in a faster pace than they borrow.

 

The entire discussion about "austerity" (running a balanced budget) has also been extremely idiotic as of late. Of course the state of the economy worsens when you decrease spending. But the point is that you cannot borrow other people's money indefinitely and never suffer for it. The alternative (outside the euro) would be inflation, which would literally also make everyone poorer.

 

When ordinary people borrow money you offer a collateral for your loan. For some reason states do not do that, otherwise the Greeks would not have been surprised at what is demanded from them now. They are in no way being "humiliated", if anything they were humiliated by their own leaders who sold the future of the country's young to be able to feed the grossly inefficient and criminally mismanaged Greek state apparatus during the 00s.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Nah, OECD. Same people who had the Greeks being the hardest working in Europe. The difference went up with austerity, too, perhaps unsurprising when you have massive VAT hikes and a slumping GDP, but was still better than nine other EU economies.

 

Do you have some valid links that suggest the Greeks are the hardest working in Europe ?

 

I find that extremely hard to believe....I would have to see the context as well

 

 

If the Greeks were that hard working they wouldn't be in the situation they in

 

 

In statistics they have most clocked workhours, but that don't necessary mean that they are most productive with their hours.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17155304

 

Also it should be noted that all the numbers in statistics in this subject comes from national statistics and surveys, and that there isn't some common methods or standards in how this are or should be done.

 

Thanks for the link, I read it in detail. Its interesting but not absolute in its view as you pointed out

 

There are many variables that come into the equation 

[Zoraptor]

But they are already being accused of being Nazis because they are reluctant to borrow more money to Greece. You do realize that there is no way that Germany can be the party which effectively kicks Greece out of the euro, right?

 

They can kick Greece out, easily, they just have to vote against the bail out and the 85% target cannot be met. It's politically problematic for them to do so, but the adherence to politics over reality is to a large extent what has caused this problem in the first place, and is something that has to be tackled every bit as much as the economic reality if things are going to be fixed and not be repeated. The Euro is an economic entity based on political rather than financial considerations first and foremost, hence near everyone ignoring the rules and having a currency union before having anything approaching a proper fiscal union.

 

Still, if they do it then good on them; ultimately Herr Schauble is correct and Greece would be better off outside the Euro, and it doesn't matter if I think his overall position is rich given that Germany killed 40 million people in a war of wanton aggression and genocide- then got their debts forgiven eight years later. That was the right thing to do and still is; now if he's convinced that kicking Greece is the right thing then ffs show some spine and do it. As below, it'll be a godsend for eurosceptics, but the situation already is that.

 

There is a pretty good understanding about the problems with the euro among some leaders of the EU. But they are lacking political capital for the reforms needed to counteract those problems, alternatively shrink the eurozone (as we have seen). The EU does not have the political power to control Greece's economy directly and set things right. Obviously it is not currently politically viable for the Greek leaders to give the EU that power, even if they should desire to do so. Then the only remaining option is to kick Greece out of the eurozone (but not the EU).

 

Heh, 'set things right'. I'm not sure an EU Kommissar/ Gauleiter could be the answer even with the best will in the world, the relatively mild agreement is already seen as a neo colonial putsch by a large number of Greeks, put a formal stamp on that and there's a fair chance you'll have Euro Paul Bremmer cowering behind concrete barriers and need EU troops on the streets. Or have to go back to the 70s and having a bunch of Colonels backing Euro Bremmer- which would hardly endear the EU to anyone, let alone the sceptics who this whole situation has already been a godsend for. Sheesh, they've already got pro EU brits changing sides, have the Kommissar approach it'll be a landslide UK exit.

 

Realistically there isn't any 'setting things right' anyway and we both know it, it's too far gone for that unless they go for proper debt relief instead of piling on more loans to pay back the old loans, and that is politically unfeasible. Pretty much everything related to this issue is a triumph of politics over reality. Which is, ultimately, one of the things I think we both agree on even if we differ on the reasons for that view.

 

Apparently double the size of Germany's shadow economy.

 

Now, sure, though the figures are somewhat different from the ones I've seen; I did say that the gap had widened rather than contracted with austerity. And it is pretty clear that Greece is not extraordinarily corrupt from those figures, there are plenty of countries in the EU worse than them on that front.

 

But it is not how much you work which is relevant. It is how productive you are, and whether you pay taxes or not.

 

I've already read the wikipedia article. I'm always sceptical of that sort of stuff because I know that we vote ourselves least corrupt in the world, every year, when we have a pretty horrible crony capitalist model where legislation is actively bought and sold, but people think we're not corrupt because a policeman won't ask you for a bung. Unless you're young and female or a prostitute or a drug dealer or whatever, been a spate of popos getting caught out pressuring sex, or stealing drugs to sell, or making sure their child doesn't get investigated properly for gang rape, or heh, [redacted] because the dude who may or may not have political relationships got name suppression though everyone knows what he's being investigated for.

 

I also know there's a huge amount of cash-in-hand grey economy here as well as the selective enforcement of laws, but most people here think that, heh, that just doesn't count as corruption.

 

Perception is key, whether it be outside or inside.

 

Greece has one of the largest public sectors as a share of the economy in Europe. Couple that with an abysmally awful productivity and you can begin to understand how bloated most of the Greek economy is, and how it is that they work so much for so little gain for the state.

 

That goes right back to the beginning of the whole argument- they cannot be productive because they cannot produce stuff cheaper than Germany because their currency is too high and they started from too low a base, so they lose their productive factories and the like, never to reopen because their currency and competitiveness is still tied inexorably to Germany. And what do you have left after the productive private sector has gone? Public sector and services like tourism, maybe some agriculture. That is what Greece has. You aren't going to replace the public sector with 'productivity' with the magic of austerity, you'll just, well, drive up unemployment and slaughter GDP further. So long as they're tied to the Euro they cannot be productive in the sense you'd like them to be.

 

Of course they cannot keep funding it with borrowing either, that isn't fair on anyone, but gutting the public sector ultimately won't help either at this point unless it happens along with a default/ nuDrachma.

 

The entire discussion about "austerity" (running a balanced budget) has also been extremely idiotic as of late. Of course the state of the economy worsens when you decrease spending. But the point is that you cannot borrow other people's money indefinitely and never suffer for it. The alternative (outside the euro) would be inflation, which would literally also make everyone poorer.

 

Inflation <-> devaluation has a positive side though, unlike straitjacket austerity- which has lead to large scale deflation, an even greater sin than inflation. Printing money does pay back the debt and it makes you more competitive by lowering your currency, it makes you more competitive by lowering the price of your exports while increasing the cost of imports; you may see some of those factories reopening when they get competitive enough. OTOH austerity alone does nothing, it's pure donkey-chasing-carrot. I've been through why austerity is moronic, its doctrinaire ideological puritanism makes no concession to reality any more than the political considerations do. It says: drop corporate tax rates from 40 to 20%! You get growth and massive investment! Except, of course, nobody in Greece has any money to buy whatever is being made, you're bringing in anti consumption taxes like VAT (which disproportionately hits the poor as a side effect) it drives businesses out of business because you have fewer buyers, raised prices due to VAT etc, further exacerbating the problem rather than helping it, and that exacerbation ensures that you aren't going to get the investment the tax cut for businesses should theoretically mean because there are far better places to invest in whether you be a rich Greek whose wealth has barely been touched or Chinese or German. And, of course, ludicrously decoupled tax rates for business and private use encourages tax avoidance by tricks such as becoming a company then not paying yourself a wage, but a dividend from your wholly owned company- if you have the nous and money to do so, of course, won't work Ioseph Publikos if they even have a job; and if you do that you're probably investing the money in London property to get a 15% return. You then get a fire sale of assets for less than their true value to pay unsustainable loans that remain unsustainable, minimal actual investment, massive unemployment ensuring that 25% of the population makes no contribution to tax base or GDP and cannot buy Greek products driving Greek businesses under- whatever their tax rate is.

 

Austerity is not synonymous with running a balanced budget, because so long as it has that debt level Greece simply cannot run a balanced budget. They already have the largest primary surplus as % of GDP in the Eurozone, and they're still accumulating debt even with that.

 

When ordinary people borrow money you offer a collateral for your loan. For some reason states do not do that, otherwise the Greeks would not have been surprised at what is demanded from them now. They are in no way being "humiliated"

Of course they're being humiliated, that is perhaps the basic political consideration of the whole thing, to make it clear what anyone else will get if they transgress.

[BruceVC]

 

But they are already being accused of being Nazis because they are reluctant to borrow more money to Greece. You do realize that there is no way that Germany can be the party which effectively kicks Greece out of the euro, right?

 

They can kick Greece out, easily, they just have to vote against the bail out and the 85% target cannot be met. It's politically problematic for them to do so, but the adherence to politics over reality is to a large extent what has caused this problem in the first place, and is something that has to be tackled every bit as much as the economic reality if things are going to be fixed and not be repeated. The Euro is an economic entity based on political rather than financial considerations first and foremost, hence near everyone ignoring the rules and having a currency union before having anything approaching a proper fiscal union.

 

Still, if they do it then good on them; ultimately Herr Schauble is correct and Greece would be better off outside the Euro, and it doesn't matter if I think his overall position is rich given that Germany killed 40 million people in a war of wanton aggression and genocide- then got their debts forgiven eight years later. That was the right thing to do and still is; now if he's convinced that kicking Greece is the right thing then ffs show some spine and do it. As below, it'll be a godsend for eurosceptics, but the situation already is that.

 

There is a pretty good understanding about the problems with the euro among some leaders of the EU. But they are lacking political capital for the reforms needed to counteract those problems, alternatively shrink the eurozone (as we have seen). The EU does not have the political power to control Greece's economy directly and set things right. Obviously it is not currently politically viable for the Greek leaders to give the EU that power, even if they should desire to do so. Then the only remaining option is to kick Greece out of the eurozone (but not the EU).

 

Heh, 'set things right'. I'm not sure an EU Kommissar/ Gauleiter could be the answer even with the best will in the world, the relatively mild agreement is already seen as a neo colonial putsch by a large number of Greeks, put a formal stamp on that and there's a fair chance you'll have Euro Paul Bremmer cowering behind concrete barriers and need EU troops on the streets. Or have to go back to the 70s and having a bunch of Colonels backing Euro Bremmer- which would hardly endear the EU to anyone, let alone the sceptics who this whole situation has already been a godsend for. Sheesh, they've already got pro EU brits changing sides, have the Kommissar approach it'll be a landslide UK exit.

 

Realistically there isn't any 'setting things right' anyway and we both know it, it's too far gone for that unless they go for proper debt relief instead of piling on more loans to pay back the old loans, and that is politically unfeasible. Pretty much everything related to this issue is a triumph of politics over reality. Which is, ultimately, one of the things I think we both agree on even if we differ on the reasons for that view.

 

Apparently double the size of Germany's shadow economy.

 

Now, sure, though the figures are somewhat different from the ones I've seen; I did say that the gap had widened rather than contracted with austerity. And it is pretty clear that Greece is not extraordinarily corrupt from those figures, there are plenty of countries in the EU worse than them on that front.

 

But it is not how much you work which is relevant. It is how productive you are, and whether you pay taxes or not.

 

I've already read the wikipedia article. I'm always sceptical of that sort of stuff because I know that we vote ourselves least corrupt in the world, every year, when we have a pretty horrible crony capitalist model where legislation is actively bought and sold, but people think we're not corrupt because a policeman won't ask you for a bung. Unless you're young and female or a prostitute or a drug dealer or whatever, been a spate of popos getting caught out pressuring sex, or stealing drugs to sell, or making sure their child doesn't get investigated properly for gang rape, or heh, [redacted] because the dude who may or may not have political relationships got name suppression though everyone knows what he's being investigated for.

 

I also know there's a huge amount of cash-in-hand grey economy here as well as the selective enforcement of laws, but most people here think that, heh, that just doesn't count as corruption.

 

Perception is key, whether it be outside or inside.

 

Greece has one of the largest public sectors as a share of the economy in Europe. Couple that with an abysmally awful productivity and you can begin to understand how bloated most of the Greek economy is, and how it is that they work so much for so little gain for the state.

 

That goes right back to the beginning of the whole argument- they cannot be productive because they cannot produce stuff cheaper than Germany because their currency is too high and they started from too low a base, so they lose their productive factories and the like, never to reopen because their currency and competitiveness is still tied inexorably to Germany. And what do you have left after the productive private sector has gone? Public sector and services like tourism, maybe some agriculture. That is what Greece has. You aren't going to replace the public sector with 'productivity' with the magic of austerity, you'll just, well, drive up unemployment and slaughter GDP further. So long as they're tied to the Euro they cannot be productive in the sense you'd like them to be.

 

Of course they cannot keep funding it with borrowing either, that isn't fair on anyone, but gutting the public sector ultimately won't help either at this point unless it happens along with a default/ nuDrachma.

 

The entire discussion about "austerity" (running a balanced budget) has also been extremely idiotic as of late. Of course the state of the economy worsens when you decrease spending. But the point is that you cannot borrow other people's money indefinitely and never suffer for it. The alternative (outside the euro) would be inflation, which would literally also make everyone poorer.

 

Inflation <-> devaluation has a positive side though, unlike straitjacket austerity- which has lead to large scale deflation, an even greater sin than inflation. Printing money does pay back the debt and it makes you more competitive by lowering your currency, it makes you more competitive by lowering the price of your exports while increasing the cost of imports; you may see some of those factories reopening when they get competitive enough. OTOH austerity alone does nothing, it's pure donkey-chasing-carrot. I've been through why austerity is moronic, its doctrinaire ideological puritanism makes no concession to reality any more than the political considerations do. It says: drop corporate tax rates from 40 to 20%! You get growth and massive investment! Except, of course, nobody in Greece has any money to buy whatever is being made, you're bringing in anti consumption taxes like VAT (which disproportionately hits the poor as a side effect) it drives businesses out of business because you have fewer buyers, raised prices due to VAT etc, further exacerbating the problem rather than helping it, and that exacerbation ensures that you aren't going to get the investment the tax cut for businesses should theoretically mean because there are far better places to invest in whether you be a rich Greek whose wealth has barely been touched or Chinese or German. And, of course, ludicrously decoupled tax rates for business and private use encourages tax avoidance by tricks such as becoming a company then not paying yourself a wage, but a dividend from your wholly owned company- if you have the nous and money to do so, of course, won't work Ioseph Publikos if they even have a job; and if you do that you're probably investing the money in London property to get a 15% return. You then get a fire sale of assets for less than their true value to pay unsustainable loans that remain unsustainable, minimal actual investment, massive unemployment ensuring that 25% of the population makes no contribution to tax base or GDP and cannot buy Greek products driving Greek businesses under- whatever their tax rate is.

 

Austerity is not synonymous with running a balanced budget, because so long as it has that debt level Greece simply cannot run a balanced budget. They already have the largest primary surplus as % of GDP in the Eurozone, and they're still accumulating debt even with that.

 

When ordinary people borrow money you offer a collateral for your loan. For some reason states do not do that, otherwise the Greeks would not have been surprised at what is demanded from them now. They are in no way being "humiliated"

Of course they're being humiliated, that is perhaps the basic political consideration of the whole thing, to make it clear what anyone else will get if they transgress.

 

 

You generally interest me Zora, your posts are detailed  and its clear you are a bright guy who spends time understanding world events and history. 

 

I am always drawn to intelligence and I admire  this quality in you. Despite our constant disagreements about the West this doesn't change the fact I respect your views yet I know you think I'm a troll and I know you don't respect me...but that doesn't bother me at all. Imagine if I got offended every time someone called me a troll ..I would be offended all the time   

 

What I am about to say you will probably take as some veiled criticism but its not meant to be so please see it as my attempt to be constructive . At times all your insight and knowledge becomes undermined by your strange and unnecessary dislike of the West. I know you won't share the root causes of why you dislike the West and that's fine  but your post highlights my point 

 

In summary you appear blind to the reasons Greece ended up in this situation, you do raise some debatable  points like " why can't Germany extend Greece the same debt relief if should Germany in the 1960s " but that's a different debate

 

But lets look at the actual austerity measures Greece was suppose to implement and failed. Its from this link 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/10162176

 

" In the largest restructuring of government debt in history, lenders and banks wiped 105bn euros ($138bn, £88bn) off Greece's debt burden.

But in order to receive the new bailout, the Papademos government committed Greece to far-reaching spending cuts, equal to 1.5% of its output. Greece has now been in recession for five years.

The cuts proved deeply unpopular with the Greek people, leading to a wave of protests and crippling strikes.

To make the economy more competitive Greece pledged to cut the minimum wage and make labour markets more flexible, weakening job security.

The aim is to cut the Greek government's debt from 160% of GDP to a little over 120% of GDP by 2020.

The more unpopular austerity measures include a new property tax and the suspension of 30,000 civil servants on partial pay.

Many Greeks feel the credit terms are intolerable, condemning the country to years of painful cuts and job losses. The unemployment rate has risen to 22%.

Greece remains frozen out of international credit markets because its sovereign debt has junk status "

 

 

None of these austerity steps are unreasonable considering the reality Greece found itself in. I live in a continent where we expect this from many African countries as there economies are dysfunctional and there leaders lack good governance. So if people expect Africa to transform and follow certain policies I can expect the Greeks to do the same. And sadly in Africa many countries don't do anything to change there economic reality so we still have people who live and die in abject poverty, and have lived like that for decades,  due to  a lack of good leadership 

 

So I know exactly how bad it can get and I know exactly what Greece should have done. Greece can leave the EU and spend the next 10 years in a severe economic depression. They won't be the first to do this ..the EU will survive. Yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge how the root cause of this Greece crisis is there own doing

 

And no ...why do you think the intention of Germany is to humiliate Greece?. Germany has gone to great lengths to try to keep Greece in the EU and be reasonable

 

Just the fact you think this is about humiliation reinforced your bias that I mentioned  

[Zoraptor]

http://www.bbc.com/news/10162176

 

From 2012? Really, Bruce? As a consequence it's riddled with post facto/ hindsight inaccuracies and wishful thinking.

 

eg, the article says that Greek debt burden is reduced by 100bn Euros from a debt: gdp ratio then of 160%, it was already up to ~180% with about a quarter of government income going towards paying interest even prior to Syriza and the present super crisis. 'Debt burden' is, of course, weasel wording, meaning that actual debt was not reduced by anywhere near that much- obviously, if it had then their 120% debt to GDP target would have been attained, instantly-  just that interest charged on the loans was reduced.

 

In contrast, the proper, needed* debt reduction package has to primarily reduce absolute debt, not 'obligations', because the absolute reduction automatically and intrinsically lowers interest payments as well, you owe less money to pay interest on. Interest reduction is fine in a marginal case, this is not one of those and wasn't in 2012. Not cutting the debt enough just results in what we've got, a slightly, nominally, reduced inability to pay off absolute debt, but an actual, still existing, inability to pay while the 'debt burden' cancelling interest reduction is more than entirely counterbalanced by the GDP dropping further, lowering ability to actually repay below the 2012 level. That's why despite their absolute debt being lower now than in 2012 their relative debt is considerably higher at ~180%.

 

*which won't happen, hence why they need to go

[cirdanx]

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/10162176

 

From 2012? Really, Bruce? As a consequence it's riddled with post facto/ hindsight inaccuracies and wishful thinking.

 

eg, the article says that Greek debt burden is reduced by 100bn Euros from a debt: gdp ratio then of 160%, it was already up to ~180% with about a quarter of government income going towards paying interest even prior to Syriza and the present super crisis. 'Debt burden' is, of course, weasel wording, meaning that actual debt was not reduced by anywhere near that much- obviously, if it had then their 120% debt to GDP target would have been attained, instantly-  just that interest charged on the loans was reduced.

 

In contrast, the proper, needed* debt reduction package has to primarily reduce absolute debt, not 'obligations', because the absolute reduction automatically and intrinsically lowers interest payments as well, you owe less money to pay interest on. Interest reduction is fine in a marginal case, this is not one of those and wasn't in 2012. Not cutting the debt enough just results in what we've got, a slightly, nominally, reduced inability to pay off absolute debt, but an actual, still existing, inability to pay while the 'debt burden' cancelling interest reduction is more than entirely counterbalanced by the GDP dropping further, lowering ability to actually repay below the 2012 level. That's why despite their absolute debt being lower now than in 2012 their relative debt is considerably higher at ~180%.

 

*which won't happen, hence why they need to go

 

 

Yes it was created in 2012 but that doesn't change the various austerity steps each country needed to follow. I posted it so you can see the criteria 

 

You can also see how countries like Ireland and Spain have met certain austerity points which highlights that they can be achieved...in other words it takes political will 

 

The thing about Greece that really exasperated the Troika is that they didn't implement what were key deliverables effectively  ...pension age reform and better tax collection. You must understand for the majority of European countries this is like a basic " economics 101 " ....how can you expect the various financial ministers to take the Greek efforts seriously when they couldn't do this 

 

So for me I am not supporting the Troika and Germany just because they represent some idea of Western culture. No its because what was expected of Greece was not unreasonable. As I mentioned we take this seriously in South Africa and I can  see what happens in the Africa continent when these types of policies are not followed 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

Yeah, given the result of the referendum his actions have been odd to say the least. I'm also a bit cynical that the solution being pressed by the Troika will just result in a Greece unable to pay it's debt(can't draw water from a dry well after all) with state owned property being privatized and Greeks wallowing in real wage stagnation and 20%+ unemployment.

[cirdanx]

 

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

Yeah, given the result of the referendum his actions have been odd to say the least. I'm also a bit cynical that the solution being pressed by the Troika will just result in a Greece unable to pay it's debt(can't draw water from a dry well after all) with state owned property being privatized and Greeks wallowing in real wage stagnation and 20%+ unemployment.

 

 

The new "contract" is even more of a punishment to people who allready have taken cuts and cuts in the last 10 years.

 

Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery.

 

This just begs for a civili uprising in the long run..maybe to get rid of Syriza and then come along with a nice EU goverment and lift some of this? Possible. I would do it that way if i want to get rid of them. I don´t know, he allready has failed anyway.

Edited July 15, 2015 by cirdanx

[BruceVC]

 

 

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

Yeah, given the result of the referendum his actions have been odd to say the least. I'm also a bit cynical that the solution being pressed by the Troika will just result in a Greece unable to pay it's debt(can't draw water from a dry well after all) with state owned property being privatized and Greeks wallowing in real wage stagnation and 20%+ unemployment.

 

 

The new "contract" is even more of a punishment to people who allready have taken cuts and cuts in the last 10 years.

 

Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery.

 

This just begs for a civili uprising in the long run..maybe to get rid of Syriza and then come along with a nice EU goverment and lift some of this? Possible. I would do it that way if i want to get rid of them. I don´t know, he allready has failed anyway.

 

 

The privatization makes sense, these institutions will still function but they will be run profitably

 

Its always better to let the private sector manage anything that needs to be profitable. Yes it may be seen as something the Greeks are " losing " but it will benefit them in the long term

 

We have a major problem in South Africa where almost all our parastatals run at a loss every year and the government has to pay billions of rand's to keep the afloat

 

So I wish they would get privatized 

[Ineth]

Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery.

Or maybe privatization will allow the industry to thrive, and Greece will make more from those taxes than it does now.

[cirdanx]

 

 

 

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

Yeah, given the result of the referendum his actions have been odd to say the least. I'm also a bit cynical that the solution being pressed by the Troika will just result in a Greece unable to pay it's debt(can't draw water from a dry well after all) with state owned property being privatized and Greeks wallowing in real wage stagnation and 20%+ unemployment.

 

 

The new "contract" is even more of a punishment to people who allready have taken cuts and cuts in the last 10 years.

 

Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery.

 

This just begs for a civili uprising in the long run..maybe to get rid of Syriza and then come along with a nice EU goverment and lift some of this? Possible. I would do it that way if i want to get rid of them. I don´t know, he allready has failed anyway.

 

 

The privatization makes sense, these institutions will still function but they will be run profitably

 

Its always better to let the private sector manage anything that needs to be profitable. Yes it may be seen as something the Greeks are " losing " but it will benefit them in the long term

 

We have a major problem in South Africa where almost all our parastatals run at a loss every year and the government has to pay billions of rand's to keep the afloat

 

So I wish they would get privatized 

 

 

*sigh*

 

the privatization of their assets will not lead to a better economy. Mark my words Bruce, this will be only be interesting for the persons who own them.

 

Which then won´t be the greece goverment, they are selling Greece Islands, property, which i would argue, is historicaly property of the greece people. This is a sell out. And i makes me honestly sad.

 

The idea to let the private sector manage everything is idiotic and easily debunked. Conserding the last 20 years and what that "open" market has dones to us, i will always favour a state controled one, only in the sense that it is more controled (if you are a sovereing country which we arent, thanks EU).

 

You really seem to have a problem with goverment corruption, but i wont´t judge, i can´t, but if you think it will be better when companies take over..than you are ****ing naive and should read some books about your nothern brothers History repeats itself, always.

 

And even if you don´t want to hear it, you have an advantage now, beacuse thanks to be being part of the BRICS, you also have a access to their bank and thus funding. Something that would be not even there in the first place. The chance is here, but of course, it always depends on your politicans/and the voter. But i guess you have a different view

[cirdanx]

 

Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery.

Or maybe privatization will allow the industry to thrive, and Greece will make more from those taxes than it does now.

 

Nope, thats not how it works.

 

Greece has a different tax system, if a bank buys a port, they will take the most money, the state will lose money.

 

Greece´s economy is depended on the ports, it´s the port to europe. If the EU takes them Greece is done. There is no reform package in any form that could compansate for that.

 

Besides, what you suggest would mean a good will from a privat investor....yeah..right..i have seen this so often now in my country that i can clearly say no. They will **** even more over. Bloody hell history proofs that lol

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

Yeah, given the result of the referendum his actions have been odd to say the least. I'm also a bit cynical that the solution being pressed by the Troika will just result in a Greece unable to pay it's debt(can't draw water from a dry well after all) with state owned property being privatized and Greeks wallowing in real wage stagnation and 20%+ unemployment.

 

 

The new "contract" is even more of a punishment to people who allready have taken cuts and cuts in the last 10 years.

 

Besides that, this is 50 billions in privatization that is a huge problem. Greece is a port hub, most of their income comes from their ports and tourism. Take that away and there will never be a chance for a recovery.

 

This just begs for a civili uprising in the long run..maybe to get rid of Syriza and then come along with a nice EU goverment and lift some of this? Possible. I would do it that way if i want to get rid of them. I don´t know, he allready has failed anyway.

 

 

The privatization makes sense, these institutions will still function but they will be run profitably

 

Its always better to let the private sector manage anything that needs to be profitable. Yes it may be seen as something the Greeks are " losing " but it will benefit them in the long term

 

We have a major problem in South Africa where almost all our parastatals run at a loss every year and the government has to pay billions of rand's to keep the afloat

 

So I wish they would get privatized 

 

 

*sigh*

 

the privatization of their assets will not lead to a better economy. Mark my words Bruce, this will be only be interesting for the persons who own them.

 

Which then won´t be the greece goverment, they are selling Greece Islands, property, which i would argue, is historicaly property of the greece people. This is a sell out. And i makes me honestly sad.

 

The idea to let the private sector manage everything is idiotic and easily debunked. Conserding the last 20 years and what that "open" market has dones to us, i will always favour a state controled one, only in the sense that it is more controled (if you are a sovereing country which we arent, thanks EU).

 

You really seem to have a problem with goverment corruption, but i wont´t judge, i can´t, but if you think it will be better when companies take over..than you are ****ing naive and should read some books about your nothern brothers History repeats itself, always.

 

And even if you don´t want to hear it, you have an advantage now, beacuse thanks to be being part of the BRICS, you also have a access to their bank and thus funding. Something that would be not even there in the first place. The chance is here, but of course, it always depends on your politicans/and the voter. But i guess you have a different view

 

 

Islands ? Are you sure....so they wont function as part of the economy because who would own them ? What is there purpose now I would ask

 

But its not so bad....there is point having islands if your economy has collapsed ?

[Elerond]

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

[BruceVC]

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

 

Yes I  believe in a hybrid system of government like the Scandinavian countries but the large corporations must be run by the private sector 

[cirdanx]

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

 

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people.  Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No?

 

The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :>

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia

[Elerond]

 

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

 

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people.  Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No?

 

The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :>

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia

 

 

It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund.

 

Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties).

[cirdanx]

 

 

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

 

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people.  Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No?

 

The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :>

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia

 

 

It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund.

 

Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties).

 

It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners.

 

You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work  for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

 

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people.  Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No?

 

The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :>

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia

 

 

It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund.

 

Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties).

 

It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners.

 

You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work  for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU

 

 

Funds aren't banks. They are corporations that handle financial matters for somebody else, like for example buy and sell stocks for people. Many banks have funds that they use to offer such services for their customers, but in this case we speak about new independent (not owned by anybody) fund that will handle selling of those assets. 

 

Devaluating currency is very over valued method to solve economical problems of state. Of course it is nice for state that has lot of income in other currencies to say that their own currency is now only tenth of its previous value in those other currencies and then pay loans that they have taken in their own currency off, nice and easy. But it isn't nice and easy for citizen of state, because such measure means that they lose quite lot money which can often be destatating amount. For example it was November when Finnish goverment decided to devalue Finnish mark, which meant that thousads of businesses had just ordered stuff that they planed to sell in Christmas markets and most of those companies had all their monetary assets in Finnish marks, which meant that overnight value of their orders had rised to tenfold in Finnish marks, meaning that most of them didn't have money to pay their orders, which lead flood of bankruptcies. Also banks that had loaned money to goverment and who had bussiness in abroad found themselves in situation where they didn't have money to give people which lead their bankruptcies, which mean that hundreds of thousands Finns lose their savings. This cause massive rise of suicades in Finland. So in my opinion stability of euro even with all it problems is much better for general population of Finland than give back ability to control our currency to our government. 

 

And if you think that devaluting currency isn't very extremely form of austerity then I think you don't know what you speak.

[cirdanx]

 

 

 

 

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

 

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people.  Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No?

 

The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :>

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia

 

 

It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund.

 

Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties).

 

It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners.

 

You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work  for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU

 

 

Funds aren't banks. They are corporations that handle financial matters for somebody else, like for example buy and sell stocks for people. Many banks have funds that they use to offer such services for their customers, but in this case we speak about new independent (not owned by anybody) fund that will handle selling of those assets. 

 

Devaluating currency is very over valued method to solve economical problems of state. Of course it is nice for state that has lot of income in other currencies to say that their own currency is now only tenth of its previous value in those other currencies and then pay loans that they have taken in their own currency off, nice and easy. But it isn't nice and easy for citizen of state, because such measure means that they lose quite lot money which can often be destatating amount. For example it was November when Finnish goverment decided to devalue Finnish mark, which meant that thousads of businesses had just ordered stuff that they planed to sell in Christmas markets and most of those companies had all their monetary assets in Finnish marks, which meant that overnight value of their orders had rised to tenfold in Finnish marks, meaning that most of them didn't have money to pay their orders, which lead flood of bankruptcies. Also banks that had loaned money to goverment and who had bussiness in abroad found themselves in situation where they didn't have money to give people which lead their bankruptcies, which mean that hundreds of thousands Finns lose their savings. This cause massive rise of suicades in Finland. So in my opinion stability of euro even with all it problems is much better for general population of Finland than give back ability to control our currency to our government. 

 

And if you think that devaluting currency isn't very extremely form of austerity then I think you don't know what you speak.

 

Funds are created directly by banks or with bank support in the background as a creditor, which again makes them the owner of the funds. There is  no such things as "not owned by anyone" that should be clear, someone somewhere owns that. Even if its the bonds or the dept directly. I mean seriously if that would be true i could get a credit that is owmed by noone..give me a million...no ones own it..nope..someone owns my ass then

 

I understand what you say, yes a devaluation has always negative sides. No question there. But in the end it helps not only to hinder or mild a crisis but it also gives the power to your national bank and with that to your country. Your country has done that very often and it helped.

 

What do you do know? nothing, you are bound to the euro and the eurozone. You can´t decide, you as your country. You are ****ed. You are a good canditate to be the next greece, has austeriy helped you? Has the EU law helped you? Has the Euro helped you?

 

No. It hasnt. Just like here, for everything you gained (your expansion out of your crisis) you had to pay...now comes the end. Example, the Fin export went up, but as soon as the euro went up dozens of companies had to close and thousands lost their job. Well, it was the same here.

 

Devaluting your currency is NOT austerity, this doesnt even come close, and i that means i don´t know a thing, than so be it.

 

I think i have a very clear view.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions.

 

So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

 

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people.  Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No?

 

The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :>

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia

 

 

It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund.

 

Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties).

 

It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners.

 

You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work  for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU

 

 

Funds aren't banks. They are corporations that handle financial matters for somebody else, like for example buy and sell stocks for people. Many banks have funds that they use to offer such services for their customers, but in this case we speak about new independent (not owned by anybody) fund that will handle selling of those assets. 

 

Devaluating currency is very over valued method to solve economical problems of state. Of course it is nice for state that has lot of income in other currencies to say that their own currency is now only tenth of its previous value in those other currencies and then pay loans that they have taken in their own currency off, nice and easy. But it isn't nice and easy for citizen of state, because such measure means that they lose quite lot money which can often be destatating amount. For example it was November when Finnish goverment decided to devalue Finnish mark, which meant that thousads of businesses had just ordered stuff that they planed to sell in Christmas markets and most of those companies had all their monetary assets in Finnish marks, which meant that overnight value of their orders had rised to tenfold in Finnish marks, meaning that most of them didn't have money to pay their orders, which lead flood of bankruptcies. Also banks that had loaned money to goverment and who had bussiness in abroad found themselves in situation where they didn't have money to give people which lead their bankruptcies, which mean that hundreds of thousands Finns lose their savings. This cause massive rise of suicades in Finland. So in my opinion stability of euro even with all it problems is much better for general population of Finland than give back ability to control our currency to our government. 

 

And if you think that devaluting currency isn't very extremely form of austerity then I think you don't know what you speak.

 

Funds are created directly by banks or with bank support in the background as a creditor, which again makes them the owner of the funds. There is  no such things as "not owned by anyone" that should be clear, someone somewhere owns that. Even if its the bonds or the dept directly. I mean seriously if that would be true i could get a credit that is owmed by noone..give me a million...no ones own it..nope..someone owns my ass then

 

I understand what you say, yes a devaluation has always negative sides. No question there. But in the end it helps not only to hinder or mild a crisis but it also gives the power to your national bank and with that to your country. Your country has done that very often and it helped.

 

What do you do know? nothing, you are bound to the euro and the eurozone. You can´t decide, you as your country. You are ****ed. You are a good canditate to be the next greece, has austeriy helped you? Has the EU law helped you? Has the Euro helped you?

 

No. It hasnt. Just like here, for everything you gained (your expansion out of your crisis) you had to pay...now comes the end. Example, the Fin export went up, but as soon as the euro went up dozens of companies had to close and thousands lost their job. Well, it was the same here.

 

Devaluting your currency is NOT austerity, this doesnt even come close, and i that means i don´t know a thing, than so be it.

 

I think i have a very clear view.

 

 

Funds aren't created to work as creditor, but instance that handles somebody elses money. Creditors are instances that give people, corporations and goverments loans. Banks have usually both and if they aren't pure finnancical banks they also offer possiblity to deposit money which their creditor side usually then loans forward partially (because these days bank usually aren't allowed to loan full amount). In case of Greece's privatization fund there is created new institution (which funded by EU and itself) that should not have ties to banks and governments, which only purpose is to find buyers for the assets that Greece government decides to sell and then they control money that is get from those trades so that 25 billion goes to fund Greece's banks, 12.5 billion is put to pay their debts and 12.5 billion will be invested in Greece. Of course it is possibility that some bank will bought those assets that are put on sale, but most probably buyers will be international mega corporations (which some own banks) and richer citizens and corporations of Greece. And until point where assets are sold they are owned by Greece's state and Greece goverment is able to take them off from sale and put something else to be sold instead. So Greece don't relinquish any their assets before they get paid, but they can't change where money goes as it is already decided, except in case of surplus (they get more than 50 billion). 

 

It is much more important (for general public) to have stable currency than be able to control it fully. There is always other means to balance your economy and it also works as incentive for goverments actually do financically solid decisions as they can't just but everything to shoulders of others when they mess up.

 

Devaluating a currency is austerity method, it is extreme method for government to cut their spendings by cutting value of their debt and this cut is heavilly paid by people of state because value of their money drops. In my opinon goverment should always use much more controlled methods of austerity where it is much easier to predict consequences of choosen actions. In devaluating it is always blind strike in darkness and then hope for the best, because there is always so much unforseen consequences.

[Barothmuk]

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

From what I can see it is "coup" that is the hashtag trending right now.

[BruceVC]

 

Tisparis biggest shame will be that he didn´t leave the EU. This deal is death and nothing more for Greece...ah and of course privatization for the banks. It´s robbery and nothing else.

From what I can see it is "coup" that is the hashtag trending right now.

 

You see my friend, this is what happens when you don't follow Capitalism and go this hybrid socialist route Greece tried to implement