Europe's emergency aid to Greece, A dual disappointment

« Older   Newer »
  Share  
FionaK
view post Posted on 28/9/2011, 10:09




It was reported here yesterday that the Greek Government has passed a property tax which is part of the austerity measures. They have done this quite cleverly. There is a campaign in Greece not to pay the increased taxes, as Vninect mentioned upthread. So this tax is levied through fuel bills: if you do not pay they will cut off your power.

The passing led to further big protests in Athens, and the police dispersed the crowd with tear gas and pepper spray etc. Meantime the people speaking for the Greek government are grovelling before the "troika". They insists that Greece will meet its debt obligations, and points to the "heroic efforts" of the people, and their determination to reduce the primary deficit to nil by 2012.

One thing that is really interesting to me is the attitudes to contracts which this appears to display. In one part of the forest the contract seems to be sacred: loans and the terms of repayment of those loans must be upheld, and this is unchallenged. But pensions are also a contract, and also financial. A person agreed to forego some remuneration so that these deferred wages would be paid to them when they retired. That is also a loan, viewed from one perspective. Apparently defaulting on that loan is different somehow. Doesn't seem that way to me. Why are we supposed to accept one and not the other? The people in receipt of pensions did not do anything to cause this mess: yet they are expected to accept breach of contract and have no recourse. The people who did cause it are bleating at the suggestion they pick up the tab: yet they made fortunes by trading debt and credit default swaps when the problem was hidden. Whether they knew (as some of them did) or did not, they took the risks which are the justification for the high rewards they claim as of right. And when that gamble meant they lost their money the governments bought up the debt so they could be cushioned from their folly. The governments do not have any money, as the plutocrats are fond of pointing out: so they took these steps to protect their idols using money which will derive from breach of contract with the population.

There is probably some much more complicated way of characterising this: but I have not seen any proper explanation in the financial press or elsewhere. It is not that I have not been looking: but these fundamental (and naive) questions are not being asked or answered and so I do not understand any alternative way of seeing this. To me, if contract is unassailable, that shoud apply to all. For example, in this country the government bailed out some of the banks but did not natiionalise them: and then paid out bonuses to bankers who had destroyed both the bank and the economy on the basis that " they were contractually bound to do so": well they are contractually bound to pay pensions and benefits as well. So what, pray, is the difference?

Edited by FionaK - 28/9/2011, 12:16
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 1/11/2011, 10:57




Last week there was much jubilation when a deal to sort out the Greek deficit was agreed by the eurozone big wigs. Private banks were to be asked (not told, note) to write down the greek debt on their books by 50%: and more money was to be made available to allow Greece to meet its obligations. The press were happy with this deal and the markets rose in response: which means they were happy too.

Yesterday there was dismay because the Greek government announced that they will have a referendum on these proposals: the Greek people will be asked if they wish to accept them or not. I have been listening to the coverage of that this morning and it is really quite remarkable.

What appears to be at the root of the discussion is a really startling proposition: they are essentially arguing that democracy is getting in the way of governance.

It was comical to listen to some of the comment. One "expert" said that if the the austerity measures are rejected there will be a "catastrophe". Hmmm. A catastrophe for whom? Seems to me that the Greek people are in midst of catastrophe now: and the terms of the deal will make it worse. So "no catastrophe" does not seem to be an option for them, if it is true that rejecting these measures will have that result as well. I cannot see any logic to insisting that they should not get to vote on which particular type of catastrophe they would prefer.

Fact is that the Greek government is left without much choice. They are clearly very willing to accept the austerity measures which the IMF, banks and eurozone politicians wish to impose: but a government has to have consensus, or at the very least acquiesence: there is a point beyond which it cannot proceed without the consent of the people. At least if you wish to maintain a democracy that is true. It seems obvious to me that that is of very little interest to the troika, however.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 3/12/2011, 17:30




http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/12/03/th...-greek-tragedy/

An interesting article on the Greek (and world wide) crisis
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 19/12/2011, 15:47




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/1...de-rate-highest

In case anyone still believes that this is an esoteric problem with no real world consequences: Greece's suicide rate has doubled
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 7/1/2012, 19:52




http://www.luxetveritas.nl/blog/wp-content...Grieksgeld2.png

This is a graph of what is happening to money in Greece: it is leaving the country. I think we can be fairly sure it is not being burnt or buried: so if there is less of it it has to be leaving the country. I think we can also be fairly sure that it is not ordinary greek people who are removing it: because they don't have any.

One of the reasons given for a bail out of banks in this country was that if the banks ran out of money and there was none in the ATM's we would not be able to buy anything and so we would all starve. If that is the case then the loss of money in Greece will have the same effect, surely? And according to various reports that is more or less what is happening. Not only has suicide risen from the lowest rate to the highest rate in Europe: people are giving up their children because they cannot feed them. 20% of the people of Greece are living in poverty: that is two million people. The BBC reported on the fact that families are putting their children into foster care in increasing numbers. As a last resort the numbers are not yet enormous: I don't care. Even one is far too high, and it proves that civilisation is dead, if we find that in any way acceptable.

This is a direct consequence of the austerity measures: and that means it is our fault. Anyone who supports the role of the world bank, the IMF, the EU etc is directly complicit in barbarism. I do not think that is too strong.

One of the mantras of the neoclassical economists is that one person's debt is another's credit. Within the eurozone that is partially true: some countries have budget deficits and some have surpluses. That is not because of irresponsible behaviour by those now in trouble, as I have shown on other threads, and as is easily demonstrated within the theories which underpin the mainstream economic prescriptions. But it is a consequence of the peculiar half way house which is the eurozone.

Europe must either consider itself one polity: or not. At present it does not. But without that perception there is no justification for a unified currency. The hardship and poverty in Greece (and Spain and Portugal) is well beyond what any civilised human being can consider acceptable, if they really think about the human cost and not about sums. Those countries with a suplus have that surplus at the expense of those with a deficit: and that means mainly Germany and the Netherlands, as I understand it.

If a country has a surplus it means it spends less than it receives, broadly. Part of that is the mercantile grail of selling more in exports than it buys. On the other end of the bargain are countries which buy more than they sell. That is inevitable. It is a zero sum game, despite the oft repeated assurance that it is not. At least that is the conclusion I have come to.

To me we are now in a position where the surplus countries are inflicting enormous damage on the poor, and they really do not care. That is at least in part because they do not see all europeans as "us": the mindset is national. Within some of those countries there is a strong committment to regional support and I believe that within Germany, for example, there were strong policies to support the east when the country reunited. Certainly wages converged. The East suffered a huge increase in unemployment at the outset, and that was not seen as acceptable. A lot of money was diverted to try to cope with that part of the effects of reunification. That was presumably bought at some cost to the West, and that is what was reported at the time. It was considered worthwhile to make some sacrifices to equalise the status of citizens, and also the economies of what was seen as regions of one country. Is there any doubt that the same would happen if the european union was really a union? East german unemployment remains high: but their welfare system is the same as that in the west and the people do not suffer the way the Greeks are being asked to endure.

As of now it seems to me that the surplus nations are the problem: not the deficit nations. Expelling them from the EU would presumably have the opposite effect than expelling Greece, all else being equal. We are told that it would be disastrous for Greece to leave: though how anything could be worse than the present situation is hard to imagine. But it seems to follow that it would be ideal for Germany to leave, since their situation is the opposite. Only that is not true, is it? Presumably their currency would rise significantly and thus their exports would fall, to the benefit of other nations. That looks like a self correction of the sort so admired by the neoclassical school and I wonder why it is not the answer?

Be that as it may what is happening in europe is not acceptable in any civilised terms. Unemployment and poverty of the sort we are seeing should not be allowed and need not be allowed. Europe is rich. If we cannot distribute that wealth more equitably there is no point in it at all. Any solution which requires us to accept this is not a solution: it is not even addressing the real problem. To me all policy across europe now needs to focus on creating employment. Keynes said that if you fix unemployment the budget will look after itself. Given the vicious circle austerity entails that seems unarguable.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 11/1/2012, 14:40




I don't know enough about academia in Greece, but I happened upon this article

www.nature.com/news/greek-science-on-the-brink-1.9781

It is no surprise that universities will suffer when the whole country is in deep economic depression, and it might be that many would see this as special pleading by some institutions if they seek to avoid their share of the pain. Nor is it clear that the current structure is sensible: some academics appear to think it is not. But what caught my eye was not the financial part of the programme (though that is important); it was this:

QUOTE
The rectors of Greece's 24 public universities, for their part, seem appalled by the law, which radically changes university governance, depoliticizing it and bringing it into line with European norms. Students will lose their right to vote for department chairs, deans and rectors. Each university will be responsible for its own budget and must appoint a powerful governing council with 15 members: six from outside the university, and just one student representative.

Are "european norms" wrt these matters demonstrably better in any terms than greater student participation? If they are I would like to see the evidence for that. As on another matter in the Hungary thread, all I seem to see at present is a direct attack on any kind of democracy which dares to raise its head.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 13/1/2012, 18:41




It seems that the banks owed money by Greece have been asked nicely to accept a 50% write down of those debts: and today they said no. Don't have the details as yet: and it is described as a "pause for reflection" so it is probably not final. But it does not surprise me

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16553532
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 29/1/2012, 16:57




Further to the post above, talks were resumed and it is reported that an agreement is likely to be reached this weekend. If agreement is not reached Greece will not get the next bail out and it will default

However the important news is other than this. It appears that Greece has rejected a demand from Germany (and others, perhaps), that it cede it sovereignty totally. The terms of that demand are interesting: as reported it meant that Greece would have to agree to service its debt before it spent money on anything else. This at a time when people are abandoning their children because they cannot afford to feed them; when wages and pensions have been slashed; and these austerity measures are quite obviously making the situation worse.

It is by now obvious that our politicians have no idea what they are for. They are serving the financial system and they do not care about the consequences for the people either at home or abroad. And this is very dangerous. The history of the last century has left a legacy of distrust of Germany, and there are many who would exploit nationalism. A direct move to take over another country, no matter how it is presented in terms of necessary financial discipline, will feed this.

It is long past time politicians recognised that they are there to prevent predatory banks and financial institutions from impoverishing the people in their own interest: but I do not see any incumbent government with the guts to stand up for what is right nor for what is pragmatic. Attitudes of this sort have led us into war in the past: They can do so again.

Where are the voices which can effectively make a change?
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 2/2/2012, 13:04




www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/fe...-harming-greeve

Better late than never: this is positive: but not positive enough. They have not changed their view. They just want to prevent people actually taking the decisions out of their hands through revolution, I think. To be honest I hope this mealy mouthed concession fails. They are still putting the market before the people and they always will, so far as I can see.

The IMF has not reached this conclusion in the past, despite having imposed the same measures outside europe with the same result. They don't care about people; they don't even see them, unless the people riot. Folk who have suffered under this set of stupid, false theories outside europe must be angry to find that when the measures produce poverty and social unrest inside the continent, suddenly things have to change. If those people despise our institutions who can blame them?

The fear here is not care for the people: it is a worry that if the people wholeheartedly reject the prescriptions it might give the population elsewhere ideas. So they wish to find the right balance between stealing from a blamelss people and giving just enough to keep them quiet.

Contemptible!
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 4/2/2012, 03:36




Just to reinforce how contemptible this is a, piece about the reality of homelessness in Greece: remember, it could be you!!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16878756#TWEET72348

This is in europe: we are a rich continent. How is this acceptable in any way??
 
Top
view post Posted on 4/2/2012, 13:49
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


I've heard that there are now Greeks hanging around in stations in cities like Munich: They are fleeing the bad conditions in hopes of some better prospects. They travel all over Europe with the last of their savings - no way back.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 4/2/2012, 14:00




As are Latvians. Irish folk are emigrating again, after a few short years in which the diaspora was reversed. Will Europe help? I think not. Fortress Europe will only get worse, because there are not going to be any exceptions to this disaster.

I am really now of the opinion that nothing less than full blown rejection of these theories and the people who support them will do. I hope blood will not be required but I am filled with fear. Revolution or war seem like our only options, for you cannot reason with faith or with greed or with the love of power. They are killing us. For our own good, so they say.
 
Top
Vorgoeth
view post Posted on 4/2/2012, 20:30




I had a brief euro-economic conversation recently with a friend of mine, wherein I wondered what might have caused Greece's current condition. The answer I received was something along the lines of like so:

[...]

The age of retirement is much lower than in most European countries, resulting in a smaller workforce, a workforce which is limited mostly to tourism, as Greece has very little industry. This workforce also has more breaks, holidays and less average hours of work per day than most European countries, meaning a much lessened efficiency. This state of affairs seems to have persisted over several decades, gradually growing worse as their highly corrupt government refuses to do anything about, well, anything. And now, to escape the hole they've dug themselves, they're asking for money from better-off nations.

Now, the reason this grinds my gears (as well as why the Finnish government was/is hesitant to send Greece its aid), is that Finland ran into a similar economic situation in the 90's, and much suffering was had, but we worked through it. Economic crises tend to make people want to abandon their jobs, which aren't giving them the money they need, take to the streets and throw their anger around. Finland of the 90's buckled down, devoted themselves more than before, and persevered. Now, we've been climbing upward slowly but surely since.

[...]

I don't know enough of how this stuff works to give a truly informed opinion, but the aforementioned friend seems to me to have spoken a lot of sense, assuming some of his facts check out (I assume they do, I trust his word). Finland never received any aid from Europe. Never asked for it either, as far as I'm aware.

Now, I'm certain that Greece's situation can be resolved to everyone's favour. I wonder, however, if bailouts are a reasonable option. What will happen in the future? Will the Greeks have learned to manage their economy? Or will they end up in the same place? Will they even try, thinking, as one might, that the mighty EU will help them out? If they are bailed out, could they be blamed if they found themselves here once more? If so, what is to blame now? If not, clearly the methods of aid are at fault.

I try not to join in discussions pertaining to economy, as I rather lack interest, not to mention knowledge allowing me worthy opinions, but the notion of bailouts; of free help stemmed of an a priori responsibility which, while understandable, seems, at least to me, highly short-sighted; throwing money at a problem until it goes away while giving no regard to why it occurred in the first place.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 4/2/2012, 21:18




No. That analysis is not true.

Greeks work more hours than almost every other european country
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

The retirement age in Greece is not lower than in other european countries either. The average age of retirement before the austerity measures was 61. The age at retirement was 65 for men and 60 for women, just as it was in the UK before our austerity measures. It is true that many public sector workers took early retirement, just as they did elsewhere: and with the same consequences for pensions as in other countries. A greek worker got a full pension after 37 years of work: that has now risen to 40: but again it is not out of line with what is true at least in the UK where the years of work for a full state pension was actually 30.

There is information about how the greek crisis arose in the debt thread.

Finland did not work its way out of the crisis in the 1990's so far as I can discover. It devalued its way out, as you would expect. Greece cannot do that because it is in the eurozone. If you cannot devalue then on current economic orthodoxy the only way is austerity. Finland was in nothing like the same position, unless you have information to show otherwise. However it did join the euro in 1999, as I understand it. We will see how it fares in the future.

The recovery from 1992 was export led, because of the devaluation of the currency. Welfare provision was virtually unchanged though unemployment went high and remains high, compared to the preceding years. If welfare support is untouched that is not nearly so serious as the situation in Greece. What you are saying is mere propaganda underpinned by national stereotyping and by the neoliberal analysis. It has no basis in reality that I can see.

Some discussion of the complexities here:

www.cepr.org/press/EP29%20finland.htm

Edited by FionaK - 4/2/2012, 20:48
 
Top
view post Posted on 7/2/2012, 07:14
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


Fiona already replied, but I want to expand the criticism... Because this analysis is exactly what is dangerous about the situation in Europe.
QUOTE (Vorgoeth @ 4/2/2012, 20:30) 
The age of retirement is much lower than in most European countries,

As Fiona already pointed out: this is false.
QUOTE
resulting in a smaller workforce,

They are firing people en mass to "solve" the crisis now. Skyrocketing unemployment (near 20%) is a sure way to get at a smaller workforce.
QUOTE
a workforce which is limited mostly to tourism, as Greece has very little industry.

Well, much of Greece's income is from trade ports and tourism, that is true. Large parts of its limited production industries are in the hands of foreign companies - Greece has been under the sway of the free market ideology for a long time, just like the rest of us: the nation emerged from the WW2 turmoil very late due to a civil war, so it picked up its economy somewhat later than others. These other nations' companies wanted access to Greek labour and resources, and they got it. Profits from those ventures flow back to Germany and the UK and wherever else these companies are based, and if the workforce starts demanding too much, the companies freely move their industry to some other poorer state. Then came the 80's, with a drive towards financialisation. Again, Greece was urged (and its regime more than willing) to get in on this fad, just like the rest of Europe. They took on huge loans, just like everyone else, to make lots of "free" money, which indeed worked for a while, just like everywhere else. But without the reserves and real economic means of the stronger nations, and an economy heavily dependent on trade, it should have been no surprise that they took the first hits as soon as the recession set in. But mind you: they have done nothing wrong in economic terms. The post-war Colonels who ran Greece listened and pleased their corporate backers. After that, the economic technocrats filled their pockets, just like they should in a "healthy economy". Well, that turned out to be unsustainable, and now they are in a mess. Who's to pay for that? Well, the answer is oddly enough not the people who actually have the money to pay for it. That would be too easy, probably. When we are asked what the Greeks spent all their money on, we shouldn't look at the rich folk, or the companies that made fortunes. We're supposed to look for all that cash in the wallets of ordinary people. Well, they don't have much money, but they have other things we can take from them:
QUOTE
This workforce also has more breaks, holidays and less average hours of work per day than most European countries, meaning a much lessened efficiency.

Yes, we can slave these people! That will recover the money the rich banksters and international corporate swine stole from them.
QUOTE
This state of affairs seems to have persisted over several decades, gradually growing worse as their highly corrupt government refuses to do anything about, well, anything.

Oh, but they did stuff, all right. They made sure their corporate backers and cronies were helped to a fair serving of public money. For example, gambling taxes went directly to Goldman Sachs. That was one of the schemes they employed to make sure the loans they got in return did not show up in the official accounts of debt: for it was a trade, not an actual loan. What did they need all that Goldman Sachs money for? Well, to buy guns and submarines and ammunition from Northern Europe. Lots of it. They can't use these things for anything, but it pleases the arms manufacturers. These are short sighted politics that do nobody any good, but don't think the people are informed about this. The media in Greece just happens to be strongly privatised. And they are fervently fuelling the idea that it's the Greek workers to be blamed for electing corrupt politicians for decades.
QUOTE
And now, to escape the hole they've dug themselves, they're asking for money from better-off nations.

The banks seem to be getting most of that money. It's certainly not ending up in the wallets of those people who are being asked to slave extra hard. Even though billions and billions of euros flow to Greece, they see their pensions fall and work loads rise; their public services slashed along with their jobs. We shouldn't be talking about a hole that has been dug. This hole is a trap! Their politicians grasping at straws to stay afloat, but they are at the mercy of private financial institutions and their predatory public helpers in the form of the ECB and IMF. And everybody on the streets know it. But where can they go? Their politicians are abandoning them (which is not unusual), and now they also get raped by the IMF and their damning demands, as if they are some 3rd world country. And instead of a bit of mercy, they get painted as beggars and thieves by the international community.

QUOTE
Now, the reason this grinds my gears (as well as why the Finnish government was/is hesitant to send Greece its aid), is that Finland ran into a similar economic situation in the 90's, and much suffering was had, but we worked through it.

Again, Greece is slashing its workforce because of redundancy cuts and efficiency cuts and what not. That is not a policy aimed at making people work: it's one where people starve with no alternative. I actually respect the decision not to send aid: it ends up in banks anyway - there are better ways to waste your money. I would prefer they send all that money into Greece's Red Cross for example or bottom-up organizations that actually help the economy of Greece directly. But I understand also that Finland is currently under control of a strongly Nationalist government. That usually means it's not going to help any other nation, because all others are inferior, and there is no such thing as helping yourself by helping others. I don't believe for a second that is true, and I think it would be a shame to let Greece's economy tank fatally, but I seem to be an exception in that.

QUOTE
Economic crises tend to make people want to abandon their jobs, which aren't giving them the money they need, take to the streets and throw their anger around.

Almost, except economic crisis make people lose their job irrespective of their desire to work. If, subsequently, they can't pay their (medical) bills, food, and shelter, they have much reason to be angry, irrespective of their desire to work - but especially in those that want to contribute and aren't allowed.

QUOTE
Finland of the 90's buckled down, devoted themselves more than before, and persevered. Now, we've been climbing upward slowly but surely since.

[...]

I don't know enough of how this stuff works to give a truly informed opinion, but the aforementioned friend seems to me to have spoken a lot of sense, assuming some of his facts check out (I assume they do, I trust his word). Finland never received any aid from Europe. Never asked for it either, as far as I'm aware.

Nobody prefers to be dependent on others. This "Finnish pride" also exists in the genetically identical folk in Greece. The only ones you hear begging for that sweet, free money, are the banks and corporations. They have no pride - they are abstract concepts.

QUOTE
Now, I'm certain that Greece's situation can be resolved to everyone's favour. I wonder, however, if bailouts are a reasonable option.

They aren't. They are nowhere near enough. What they should be doing now is build an economy, get people into jobs, "buckle down". Instead, they are playing financial games with immeasurable amounts of cash.
QUOTE
What will happen in the future? Will the Greeks have learned to manage their economy?

Well, that depends on whether or not they will have a political system at the end of this that is responsive to their actual population, and that connects to the actual economy of those people. The same goes for all other European nations. Because many of them are walking the same path of austerity, bailouts, and servitude to corporations. Will we learn from Greece? If so, we might be able to rebuild a European economy stronger than ever. I'll leave the "if not" open.
QUOTE
Or will they end up in the same place? Will they even try, thinking, as one might, that the mighty EU will help them out? If they are bailed out, could they be blamed if they found themselves here once more? If so, what is to blame now? If not, clearly the methods of aid are at fault.

If they are saved by the bailouts, there seems to be nobody to blame, and the methods of aid were right. But it won't work. You can see it doesn't in the statistics as they develop, and you can predict it on the basis of all the other similar experiments the IMF has done with "saving" countries (for purposes of comparing, it is convenient that they do the very same trick in every country they ravage). Also, just a bit of common sense will get you quite far into looking in the future in this case: you just can't build an economy on repaying banks for bets they lost, while firing your workforce and selling off all your assets. It's a suicide mission, and they will need bail-out after bail-out, until all our corporations are out of there, and we stop caring and pretend Greece isn't Europe.

QUOTE
I try not to join in discussions pertaining to economy, as I rather lack interest, not to mention knowledge allowing me worthy opinions, but the notion of bailouts; of free help stemmed of an a priori responsibility which, while understandable, seems, at least to me, highly short-sighted; throwing money at a problem until it goes away while giving no regard to why it occurred in the first place.

We agree. But the rest of your analysis has strong traces of justifying attacks on the ordinary people in Greece, while keeping well clear of any real solutions: It results in a hands-off reaction, in the process demonizing an entire population, and allowing their country to go to rot at the hands of forces that are sometimes in our control. But when you accept that they deserve their suffering, you don't need to look further. Which is just what the big guys want. And also, it detaches their cause from your own: for surely, you did not deserve anything they are going through. While actually, you can see a lot of parallels between the Greek situation, and ours (maybe not Finland, I don't know much about there).
 
Top
132 replies since 19/5/2011, 00:16   1612 views
  Share