Liberty and Linguistics wrote:Could Greece have afforded stimulus spending?
Greece could have if the establishment parties, the EU, and the IMF had realized that Greece needed debt relief. It didn't have to get to the point of default.
Advertisement

by Geilinor » Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:23 pm
Liberty and Linguistics wrote:Could Greece have afforded stimulus spending?

by Novus America » Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:24 pm
Martean wrote:Geadland wrote:It's a nasty dilemma, but there needs to be a serious debate in Greece on this. Unfortunately, Syriza seem completely convinced that Greece can have the best of both worlds. Alexis Tsipras' negotiating technique is to avoid compromise, assuming that the Troika will compromise on their (rather harsh) demands and go out of their way to prevent the much-feared 'Grexit', even if it means they have to write off debt or pay out cash. It doesn't seem to have occurred to Syriza that the Troika may not want to compromise any more than they do. If Greece is able to obtain free debt write-offs by having Tsipras as their prime minister, what message does that send to countries where Podemos and Marine Le Pen have been growing in popularity?
I think you've got it just right. The EU is not acting taking only into account economic factors, as it should, but it is rather trying to stop the unstoppable: the possibility that anti-EU (FN), or moderate euroskeptics (Podemos) parties reach power in more countries than the tiny, bankrupt Greece. Because one thing is to cope with one anti-establishment party that accounts only for 2% of the GDP and slightly more than 11 million inhabitants. But if big countries such as Spain, France and Italy dare to vote ''wrongly'' it could mean the end of the EU. And at least one of those three is holding it's general elections this November, just after the local and regional elections on May, which meant a huge political earthquake.
This is why the EU is acting like this with Greece, and not because it's the best thing to do economically. So don't try to find any economic logic for this: this is politics, not economics.

by Greed and Death » Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:40 pm
Novus America wrote:Martean wrote:
I think you've got it just right. The EU is not acting taking only into account economic factors, as it should, but it is rather trying to stop the unstoppable: the possibility that anti-EU (FN), or moderate euroskeptics (Podemos) parties reach power in more countries than the tiny, bankrupt Greece. Because one thing is to cope with one anti-establishment party that accounts only for 2% of the GDP and slightly more than 11 million inhabitants. But if big countries such as Spain, France and Italy dare to vote ''wrongly'' it could mean the end of the EU. And at least one of those three is holding it's general elections this November, just after the local and regional elections on May, which meant a huge political earthquake.
This is why the EU is acting like this with Greece, and not because it's the best thing to do economically. So don't try to find any economic logic for this: this is politics, not economics.
Of course. The EU is all about politics. It is not in the least bit logically constituted from an economic point of view.

by The Conez Imperium » Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:44 pm
Novus America wrote:Martean wrote:
I think you've got it just right. The EU is not acting taking only into account economic factors, as it should, but it is rather trying to stop the unstoppable: the possibility that anti-EU (FN), or moderate euroskeptics (Podemos) parties reach power in more countries than the tiny, bankrupt Greece. Because one thing is to cope with one anti-establishment party that accounts only for 2% of the GDP and slightly more than 11 million inhabitants. But if big countries such as Spain, France and Italy dare to vote ''wrongly'' it could mean the end of the EU. And at least one of those three is holding it's general elections this November, just after the local and regional elections on May, which meant a huge political earthquake.
This is why the EU is acting like this with Greece, and not because it's the best thing to do economically. So don't try to find any economic logic for this: this is politics, not economics.
Of course. The EU is all about politics. It is not in the least bit logically constituted from an economic point of view.

by Novus America » Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:26 pm
The Conez Imperium wrote:Novus America wrote:
Of course. The EU is all about politics. It is not in the least bit logically constituted from an economic point of view.
The European Union originally started as an economic union. Of course it's intentions has changed but it was founded as an customs union.

by Greed and Death » Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:42 pm
Martean wrote:Geadland wrote:It's a nasty dilemma, but there needs to be a serious debate in Greece on this. Unfortunately, Syriza seem completely convinced that Greece can have the best of both worlds. Alexis Tsipras' negotiating technique is to avoid compromise, assuming that the Troika will compromise on their (rather harsh) demands and go out of their way to prevent the much-feared 'Grexit', even if it means they have to write off debt or pay out cash. It doesn't seem to have occurred to Syriza that the Troika may not want to compromise any more than they do. If Greece is able to obtain free debt write-offs by having Tsipras as their prime minister, what message does that send to countries where Podemos and Marine Le Pen have been growing in popularity?
I think you've got it just right. The EU is not acting taking only into account economic factors, as it should, but it is rather trying to stop the unstoppable: the possibility that anti-EU (FN), or moderate euroskeptics (Podemos) parties reach power in more countries than the tiny, bankrupt Greece. Because one thing is to cope with one anti-establishment party that accounts only for 2% of the GDP and slightly more than 11 million inhabitants. But if big countries such as Spain, France and Italy dare to vote ''wrongly'' it could mean the end of the EU. And at least one of those three is holding it's general elections this November, just after the local and regional elections on May, which meant a huge political earthquake.
This is why the EU is acting like this with Greece, and not because it's the best thing to do economically. So don't try to find any economic logic for this: this is politics, not economics.

by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:17 am
by Bombadil » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:28 am
greed and death wrote:Greece has apologized and delivered a huge horse to the ECB.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 2051527146

by Aelex » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:37 am
The Conez Imperium wrote:The European Union originally started as an economic union. Of course it's intentions has changed but it was founded as an customs union.

by CTALNH » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:43 am

by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:44 am

by Sophisticated horrors » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:51 am
greed and death wrote:America could buy an island or two, we need an island in the Mediterranean after all.
by Minoa » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:00 am
greed and death wrote:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/greek-banks-running-cash-key-eu-meeting-150707071756470.html
Greek banks will be out of Cash Wednesday. Wow.

by Aelex » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:05 am
Laerod wrote:It was always intended as a political union.

by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:08 am

by Arkolon » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:13 am
greed and death wrote:Sophisticated horrors wrote:
You (the US of A) should pay off your own debts first - which you´re unable to do, before bragging about "buying some island".
Our debts are sustainable and at an interest rate that is practically zero. I am sure we could borrow a few billion at our 30 year rate and have us one Island as a military base and another island as a place for American tourist.


by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:23 am
Arkolon wrote:greed and death wrote:Our debts are sustainable and at an interest rate that is practically zero. I am sure we could borrow a few billion at our 30 year rate and have us one Island as a military base and another island as a place for American tourist.
The US spends more every year repaying its debt than Greece has debt. To be honest, the US could probably buy Greece itself, if it was on offer, without too many economic consequences

by Baltenstein » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:33 am
greed and death wrote:Greece has apologized and delivered a huge horse to the ECB.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 2051527146


by Baltenstein » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:35 am
Arkolon wrote:greed and death wrote:Our debts are sustainable and at an interest rate that is practically zero. I am sure we could borrow a few billion at our 30 year rate and have us one Island as a military base and another island as a place for American tourist.
The US spends more every year repaying its debt than Greece has debt. To be honest, the US could probably buy Greece itself, if it was on offer, without too many economic consequences

by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:08 am
Baltenstein wrote:Arkolon wrote:The US spends more every year repaying its debt than Greece has debt. To be honest, the US could probably buy Greece itself, if it was on offer, without too many economic consequences
The US owned Greece between 1967 and 1974, didn't turn out so well.

by CTALNH » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:12 am
greed and death wrote:
That is why we just want the a few Islands, of course and Greeks on said Islands will be shipped back to the mainland.

by Laerod » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:26 am
Aelex wrote:Laerod wrote:It was always intended as a political union.
By the Americans who wanted a way to propagate their Atlantism and some, rares, European Federalists/Utopists. For the two people who basically created it (aka De Gaulle and Adenauer) and most of the people who followed them, it was only a common market.

by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:27 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Dakran, Pizza Friday Forever91, Port Caverton, Reloviskistan, Stellar Colonies, The Pirateariat, The Two Jerseys, Thermodolia, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement