Debt.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696

This is interesting. It shows who owes what to whom in the eurozone. The total foreign debt amalgamates private and sovereign debt: the indebtedness per person therefore seems to assume that private (mainly bank) debt is the responsibility of the people. I have drawn attention to this before and again I ask: what possible justification for this can there be? I do understand that deposits from pension funds etc must be protected: but I do not understand why that means that the whole debt should fall on people who had nothing whatsoever to do with this mess. Socialised losses indeed. I do not understand why we should accept that financiers and banks should set the interest rates appicable to countries they have bankrupted. I get that the private sector can do no wrong: I get that speculators must be free to get rich regardless of the consequences for the rest of us: I get that this is the mindset which is unchallengeable within the prevailing views of the economists who were running the show de facto before and are now doing so de jure, as well. What I don't get is why this makes any sense. Why lump bank debt in with sovereign debt an then say that countries have been profligate in spending when it is perfectly clear that for most of the countries by far the biggest part of the debt is not sovereign. Even where sovereign debt is a high proportion, as in Ireland, the reason for that is they have already transferred an enormous amount of bank debt to the public purse: it was not of their making. It is the banks and financial institutions which are irresponsible: and since the "technocrats" are those same people is there any reason they should be preferred to politicians. It is a really neat trick to bankrupt a country and retain a reputation for competence.