EVEN in a grouping as fractious as the euro zone, tonight's falling-out was remarkable. Jean-Claude Juncker, who presides over the zone's finance ministers, lashed out at the many figures who have more or less openly threatened Greece with expulsion from the euro if it does not abide by its programme of economic reforms and austerity measures.
With Greece in deep political turmoil (some are even talking apocalyptically of civil war) after voters backed an incoherent constellation of anti-austerity parties, European central bankers and finance ministers have been warning it that its departure from the euro is inevitable if it does not abide by the terms of its bail-out.
One of the bluntest warnings came from the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, who told Italy's SkyTG24: “If a member of a club does not respect the rules, it's better that it leaves the club—and this is true for any organisation or institution or any project.”
Mr Juncker, who is also Luxembourg's prime minister, was having none of this. Speaking at the official press conference at the end of a five-hour meeting of euro-zone finance ministers (the "euro group"), he let rip:
I made it perfectly clear that nobody was mentioning an exit of Greece from the euro area. I am strongly against. We are 17 member-states being co-owners of our common currency. I don't envisage, not even for one second, Greece leaving the euro area. This is nonsense, this is propaganda.
We have to respect Greek democracy. I'm against this way of dealing with Greece, [which consists] in provoking the Greek public opinion and giving advice and indications to the Greek sovereign. Greece has voted, we have to take into account the result. We do hope that a government will be formed in the next coming days or weeks and then we have to deal with that government. We don't have to lecture Greece.
But the Greek public, the Greek citizens, have to know that we agreed on a programme and this programme has to be implemented. But I don't like the way of dealing with Greece, those that are threatening Greece day after day. This is not the way of dealing with partners, colleagues and friends and citizens in the European Union.
Mr Juncker's comments are all the more striking given that, just next to him, Olli Rehn, the Finnish commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, delivered the now-standard warning to Greece about the danger of rejecting the bail-out conditions set by the EU and IMF:
The EU-IMF programme is a very substantial expression of solidarity and support for Greece by the other 16 euro-area member-states. It is in fact a solidarity pact between the other 16 euro-area member-states and Greece, between the 16 parliaments and the Greek parliament. This is what Europe is about. But solidarity is a two-way street. It is a fact that calls for respect of commitments both by the 16 euro-area member-states and also by Greece and its government and parliament. Without a Greek commitment this solidarity pact won't work, and this is the responsibility of Greek politicians in this very critical juncture. Hence the future of Greece and the welfare of its citizens lie more than ever on the shoulders of Greek politicians to keep their part of the solidarity pact.
One might conclude that Mr Juncker and Mr Rehn were playing good-cop, bad-cop with Greece. More likely, their comments reflect two factors. The first is that Mr Juncker feels free to speak out because he will soon step down as the group's president (he recently criticised the behaviour of France and Germany). The second is that the euro zone is deeply divided over how to deal with the insubordination of Greek voters—and whether it can withstand the shock of a Greek departure from the currency union. Mr Juncker left open the possibility of renegotiating the Greek package “in exceptional circumstances”, but only once a new Greek government had been formed and had accepted the reform programme.
Officials such as Mr Rehn argue that, two years into the debt crisis, the euro zone is more prepared than ever for what is now known as “Grexit”, having raised its firewalls and started recapitalising vulnerable banks. The manifest fear in the markets, though, suggests that investors are far from convinced about the robustness of the system.
The signs are that nobody really wants a bust-up. Greek opinion polls suggest three-quarters of Greeks want to remain in the euro. And the euro zone can hardly relish the prospect of a Greek default and exit so soon after it agreed to a second bail-out for the country in March. Klaus Regling, head of the euro zone's rescue fund, the European Financial Stability Facility, said the euro zone has lent Greece €108 billion ($139 billion) in the past two months alone.
At the very least, euro-zone countries will want to avoid a break-up before July 1st, when the more powerful permanent rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism, comes into force. German sources said this could be used to recapitalise fragile Spanish banks as a means of preventing the spread of contagion. Intriguingly, last night Mr Juncker said that €1 billion that had been withheld from the latest tranche of bail-out money to Greece in recent days would, after all, be paid out.
Greek politicians seem to have convinced themselves that the euro zone is bluffing about ejecting their country. But Germany and others are determined to disabuse them. The recent menaces seem designed to achieve two goals: to exert pressure on Greeks to support more mainstream parties in a likely second election, and to prepare markets for the likelihood of Greece's departure if radicals are returned.
For now, attention turns to tonight's much-awaited meeting in Berlin between the new French president, François Hollande, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. The discussion will focus on Mr Hollande's call for a greater emphasis on stimulating growth (see my columns, here and here). But against a sharpening tone, his precise demands remain unclear. German ministers are worried he will press for a big stimulus, as well as for the mutualisation of debt through Eurobonds—as endorsed by a committee of the European Parliament.
Despite much talk of growth, on substance Mr Hollande did not seem to get much support from the euro group; if anything, he may have to embark on austerity himself. Though Mr Juncker said Europe needs a thorough debate on growth, he read out a statement from ministers declaring that the current strategy for fiscal consolidation (ie, austerity) “remains appropriate”. Ministers praised two other rescued countries, Ireland and Portugal, for remaining “on track” with their adjustment programmes. And they were particularly effusive towards the Netherlands, whose parliament adopted a belt-tightening budget even after the government had fallen.
There was no sign of expected proposals from the European Commission to extend deadlines for some countries to reach their deficit targets. Nor did there seem to be much support for an Italian idea of excluding from the calculation of deficit targets some spending on “investment”.
One issue Mr Hollande and Mrs Merkel will have to discuss is who should replace Mr Juncker as head of the euro group. The frontrunner is Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister. But Mr Hollande may have misgivings about having a prominent German take over the job. After his performance tonight, Mr Juncker seems to have killed off the idea, favoured by some, that he would be asked to stay on.
(Picture credit: AFP)



Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
The perspective of Wolfgang Schäuble becoming Eurogroup president, and this being openly discussed, marks an evolution. While it is evident since the time of Helmuth Kohl that Germany would play a leading role in monetary union (notwithstanding its public opinion, which was definitely more suspicious of this policy choice, and has remained so for a considerable fraction), it invented, way before President Obama's approach to the Libyan crisis, the concept of "leading from behind". The ECB was based in Frankfurt, but never yet led by a German, nor is it likely to soon, as Mario Draghi's mandate is only just beginning. Nor did a German Finance Minister occupy the position of Eurogroup president (that's president of the group of Eurozone Finance Ministers, within the EU Council of Finance Ministers, Ecofin, that meets monthly). There has been one such only since the Euro's creation, Juncker (though some nasty tongues suggest that as a Luxemburger, Juncker is little more than an German-in-disguise). Nor has germany sought to appoint one of its own as Commissioner for Monetary affairs: for many years, this post was held by Spaniards, and now by Olli Rehn of Finland (whose previous Commission posting was Enlargement, interestingly enough). When the second Barroso Commission was appointed, the German government considered it more strategic to appoint the Commissioner for Energy, though it must be said that in the last few months energy policy hardly appears to have been worth much discussion or preoccupation.
If Schäuble is to assume more direct hand in European Monetary policy, obviously it will send tongues wagging about German economic and monetary authoritarianism, but some may also consider that this would mark a recognition of the true state of affairs. Schäuble published a lengthier than usual piece in the French paper "Les Échos" to explain that German policy was not averse to growth, but debated the policy modalities of how to foster it. He did this in advance of Hollande's lightning trip to Berlin so as to dispel any misunderstanding well in advance of the discussion. It's not entirely impossible that if Hollande seeks a cosmetic protocol addition to the EU budget treaty with some nice sounding phrases about growth that can avoid him losing face so early in his presidential term, he may have accepted in return to sanction Schäuble's elevation. perhaps that might be on of his first reasonable actions.
Just make a long story short: Germany is underrepresented in the European and international authorities. However, the efforts made were unsuccessful. Why? German governments are untrained/unable in placing Germans in leading positions. Germany, in many cases, gave France precedence in taking on the leading position.
The (great) fear of a German dominated Europe is still there.
Germany's interests were/are in minority and Germany has cleared mostly all of its convictions. The northern European countries have been overruled in the European and international bodies. Just take a look at the ECB and its policy.
German politicians are anxiuos and weak. But times will change as soon as Germany´s 68 generation will leave politics.
This case of a German underrepresentation is definitely something worth considering, but let's not forget how much of that was indeed by choice. There were meant to be some counterweights: as the largest country, Germany benefitted from the bliggest block of votes in the EU Councils of Ministers, and since Qualifed Majority Voting has been extended to so many domains this ought to have mattered more than whether a German actually held a front rank post, such as president of the Commission, President of the ECB Governor's Council, or even President of the Eurogroup. Let's not forget that Germany also has the largest delegation of any country in the European parliament, which matters when determining the EU budget packages.
A few years back there was a German Director-General of the IMF, Horst Kohler, but he gave that up when recalled to be Federal President (an office he has also had to give up!). As for the campaign to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, this has been unconclusive, in part because even participating in non-combat peacekeeping operations poses delicate political and constitutional questions in Germany, preventing it from having an active global role in preventive security... Unlike France there is no deliberate policy of seeking top appointments by Germany, under the belief that Germany's economic weight does more to ensure concrete influence over policy-making than having some German figure vested with the more visible authroty of some international office.
Could a change in political generations make a difference, as you infer? One supposes it depends how long the 68 generation takes to retire... in other countries it has shown itself capable of clinging on for a number of years, it is also a function of how much the political apparatus, and electoral politics, allow for new generations to reach responsible offices and prove themselves capable... In any case, from a German perspective, what comes after the 68 Generation? Generation X? Generation Y? (the latter of which would probably correspond, in chronological terms, with a 90 Generation, one that has only know post-reunification Germany?)
Naming Schäuble would be a way of ensuring the current German position of unflinching orthodoxy is perpetuated at the top in the event of the Chancellor being weakened or replaced after the oncoming elections.
To accept this, Hollande would need more than a "cosmetic" protocol... please credit him with a functioning brain.
Well the tone has changed over the last 10 years. Germany says more clearly what it wants and which its interests are. And in has started with Mr. Schröder.
What I am more interested in are the positions someone stands for. In answer your questions, what comes after Generation x, y...we should be more aware of what views come afterwards. When it comes to the ECB, we must come back to the views of the Bundesbank. What Germany contributes into the EU must be subject of considerings as regards leading positions. Germany accepts by far to fast compromises. Not only in war ranks must be held. And Germany should accepts is leading role and not try to deny it - as some of the left wing parties do.
It doesn't matter whether Hollande's brain functions or not, but rather what he can or cannot do. It may not be in Hollande's political interest because it exposes the weakness of France as well as that of the agenda on which Hollande is supposed to have been elected, but blocking Schäuble's accession to the presidency of the Eurogroup is quite possibly beyond what Hollande can achieve. Within a few weeks, the French Auditing Court (Cour des Comptes) report is going to re-affirm what has already been said in the past few years: the level of French debt is already so heavy that future borrowing and spending will be at prohibitive costs, the kind that has already driven several Southern European countries in the wall. In other words, seeking growth through additional public sector expense (without structural reform of the said sector so as not to annoy the unions, regarded as political allies rather than as labour representatives) while borrowing heavily on the markets is not among the possible options... and again that is not a function of Hollande's brain.
In order to go forward, France will absolutely need to rely on markets that continue to consider it as credible, and on partners, especially its first customer and first supplier, Germany, that continues to trust it. That won't be achieved with some Don Quichottesque nose-thumbing about monetary and budgetary policy. Provided he is not barred from the office outright, Schäuble could prove a far better friend to France than one expects. Again, the onus is on the new French government to show reasonable efforts at budget-trimming and structural reform to help improve its trade, unemployment, and ultimately, public finances. As Mr Röpke observes, and as most people will not have failed to notice, there is little incentive for Germany, whether governed by the CDU or by the SPD, not to defend its legitimate interests, that is, not to be constantly racketeered by profligate partners who won't try to improve their own lot but by endless borrowing.
Of course, there are people in France who actually want a direct clash with Germany, and think it will all be over if only the SPD wins a majority in the next Federal general elections. The reality is that any Franco-German clash occuring now will not only add to the market's nervousness over the Greek crisis, but also that Germans, whatever their political opinion, will not easily forget any kind of slight inflicted in the name of narrow demagogic considerations of French domestic politics. All this talk of "responsibility" and "unity" has to be put to use and that implies compromise, of the kind of working with Schäuble at the Eurogroup.
"Not only in war ranks must be held. And Germany should accepts is leading role and not try to deny it"
It certainly would be better for Germany to assume a leading role - which implies that common interest among the leaders and the led, rather than the former's sole interest, are the leading country's central objective. To use its newly-found weight and freedom of mind in support of a self-serving domination, as opposed to leadership, would be a long-term impasse.
I actually agree with the general thrust of your post. I do not think that the issues you recapitulate escaped Hollande's attention. I believe, however, that Germany's legitimate interests include keeping her closest partners in reasonable health, and her legitimate demands do include credible commitment from her partners about fiscal discipline.
My point was merely that Mr Schäuble's nomination, as well as the explicit or implicit content of his mandate, obviously would be part of the ongoing talks.
The key outcomes of these (first) talks will not be the immediate decisions, which by common necessity will be very limited in scope. It will be in commitments on longer-term evolution on both sides, accepted by both. This can be possible only if mutual trust can be achieved. I do not know if it is possible now; what I know for sure is that with the fickle, utterly unreliable former French president, it was unthinkable.
A non sequitur, sort of:
The Socialists' opposition to the so-called 'golden rule' does not mean opposition to stricter fiscal discipline. Most French, including the thinking left, see this as unavoidable and would agree to commit to it. What was found objectionable by many, including myself, is the insistence on engraving such a commitment in the very text of the Constitution. To us, a Constitution is not a corporate code of conduct. It is the basis of the Republic. It does include, by the founders' wisdom, rules about fiscal discipline, such as the rule that no state income will be abolished without immediate compensation from another source. But we do not want it littered with accounting or fiscal regulations which are normally the province of laws and treaties. Imagine the UK wanted to join the Eurozone (yes I know, it would be after lawyers learn to fly). Would it have to give itself a written Constitution to accommodate the bling-bling yearning for a golden rule?
Last thing... it has been said here and there that Hollande kept a chip on his shoulder about Germany because his hometown, Tulle, suffered much in WWII. That is hostile propaganda, and never came from himself or his circle. When he mentions it, which is very seldom, it is to impress the imperious need of a strong European Union. I trust you see no harm in this.
The decision on Schäuble is likely to come soon enough. Juncker steps down as Eurogroup president this summer, and the next European Council (the first that Hollande will attend) has been delayed to late June, after the French and now second Greek legislative elections. It wouldn't be surprising if the question of the future president of the Eurogroup had been settled by then. In any case, it appears that Hollande has already started to act with the necessity of keeping the Germans on board: the exclusion of Martine Aubry from his future government is testimony enough to this. Naturally, the detestable relations between the two would have been a factor for government paralysis had she been included, but as yet, this is still only a very small sign that the limited margins of France have begun to take hold on the new team.
A general commitment to manage public finances so as to avoid deficits as best as possible is not some mere regulation that has no place in a Constitution. Such a disposition has found place within the fundamental laws of many other states whose democratic and republican credentials are no less than the French ones. It does impose an obligation on transient politicians to remember that the money they handle is not their own, but the collective property of the citizenry, and that it is not good government to squander public funds deliberately. The absence of such a requirement has bred the overspending culture that is at the root cause of many French problems today. Perhaps such a rule is less likely now with the new government, but well, many people, including myself deplore this with good reason, and with the general interest at heart.
The question of Tulle's past never surfaced in this thread so I trust it's really a comment you're directing to someone else. Hollande wasn't alive during the Second World War, and he isn't even from Tulle in the first place, so it's rather useless to open an argument on this chapter. Hollande's image makers should worry about much more than the wobbly support for European integration which is to be found among his own supporters, as for me, it's not something that keeps me from sleeping at night.
Schaeuble is a 68 tard
Matin Schulz too
"The absence of such a requirement has bred the overspending culture that is at the root cause of many French problems today. "
this wasn't a major problem if the banks had remained wise and not extended their deleverages to the abysses border, most of the debt that came after the 2008 money crash (which was only 60%/64%) are due to the banks expositions, that we had to bail out, and to the contibution of the EZ funds and Bazooka
Today our debt overpassed the german debt, though pre-greek money crisis, it was 81% while Germany was 83%, the difference came from the investments and debt bond purchases that were more encline to buy German
" Germany has profited to the tune of €9 billion from the eurozone crisis over the past two years, an ING economist has calculated for EUobserver, as investors flock to "safe" but near zero interest rate bunds while southern euro-countries struggle with unsustainable rates.
"For a long while, the German economy has been one of the few beneficiaries of the sovereign debt crisis. In fact, the German government can get market funding almost for free," Carsten Brzeski, a senior economist with the ING bank in Belgium told this website."
http://euobserver.com/19/114231
Marie, it will be even better/worse, with around 160 billion per year that have to be refinanced by the Bundesbank, Germany can expect to substitute Bunds which have run at 3.5 - 4.5% with new ones at 1.5% (usually with 10 years maturity), the same is true for Switzerland, did not check Norway. This means Germany saves 4 billion this year, 8 billion next year...
Therefore, Germany could IMHO invest around 10 billion p.a. in useful programs in southern Europe.
"When the second Barroso Commission was appointed, the German government considered it more strategic to appoint the Commissioner for Energy, though it must be said that in the last few months energy policy hardly appears to have been worth much discussion or preoccupation."
Energy policy is fondamental for Germany, it's the nerve of the german industry.
Gazprom contracts needed to be doubbed by Brussels, idem the carbon credits that the alternative energy official orientation brought, cuz the german manufactures will product more carbon than anywhere in Europe in the next years, through coal and gas sitesof energy production, hence the oblgation to be in a key position in brussels for not getting fined
"The carbon emissions are certainly growing. For Japan and Germany, an incredible rise is expected. There was an estimate that over the next few years, the increase in CO2 for Germany alone will be between 170–400 million tons (Mt) of additional CO2, which completely contradicts the country’s previous goals. The populations and governments of these two countries are currently putting carbon emission concerns behind their fears of nuclear power. Germany is aggressively following its anti-nuclear power path while moving toward renewables and using other sources of power, such as natural gas, which unfortunately does generate a lot of CO2. Whether the country decides to go back to its original commitment of reducing CO2 emissions or to stay the path of avoiding nuclear at all costs will certainly be an issue, considering that alternative energy sources can’t yet meet their energy demands."
http://etfdailynews.com/2012/05/13/with-or-without-germany-japan-life-go...
" As for the campaign to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, this has been unconclusive, in part because even participating in non-combat peacekeeping operations poses delicate political and constitutional questions in Germany, preventing it from having an active global role in preventive security..."
this clause has been remove a couple of years ago, now german troops can be deployed on any conflict, which isn't only peacekeeping, hence the german voice at the UN
"Of course, there are people in France who actually want a direct clash with Germany, and think it will all be over if only the SPD wins a majority in the next Federal general elections. The reality is that any Franco-German clash occuring now will not only add to the market's nervousness over the Greek crisis, but also that Germans, whatever their political opinion, will not easily forget any kind of slight inflicted in the name of narrow demagogic considerations of French domestic politics"
yeah, but them, in Germany weren't worried, nor ashamed to hold contempting discouses and insults against any population, and or to infantilise leaders that weren't bowing to their diktats
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0515/1224316128720.html...
"The reality is that any Franco-German clash occuring now will not only add to the market's nervousness over the Greek crisis, but also that Germans, whatever their political opinion, will not easily forget any kind of slight inflicted in the name of narrow demagogic considerations of French domestic politics."
Many Germans still haven't forgotten the behavior of the French concerning our re-unification. They are not our friends nor allies.
"Revenge is a dish best when served cold." or how they say! ;)
and we had good reasons to worry, it's the new Kaiser Bismarckian policies in Potzdam again
Glad that NATO is still occupying Germany, and that we , with the Brits, have nuclear weapons
Those who pretend that Greece "must abide to the terms.."are playing with fire,and clearly are not understanding what happens.Greece was gifted with a credit card that is now unusable,say empty,and used to live far above their possibilities.Now they must pay the bill and have no money to survive,imagine if they can pay their debts.This is a country that wouldn't never been allowed to join the euro,and the reason is simple:they produce and export nothing.To shift to Dracma would devalue the Greek currency by 50%,trigger an enormous inflation,make oil an gas too expensive for the biggest part of the population,i say more:make any import of goods too expensive.From cars to antibiothics.To tame the inflation would skyrocket the interest rates and kill the real estate.A population without houses,cars,heating would pay billions of debt?Greece is quickly heading towards a revolution(the main towns would mainly hit by the crisis, and this is the right ground for turmoils),the solution a military golpe.Thanks to the wizards of Bruxelles,we shall have back again fascism in Europe,while frightened markets will damage all the eurozone,Germany included.This seems the beginning of the sinking,while on the upper bridge the happy people of the Titanic are sipping expensive drinks and foods.I think that the way out is simple.Forget their debt,and give more money in decreasing amounts,to help them to accept a continuous but not sudden fall of their life level.My opinion is that this recipe is too complicated for the bright minds of Bruxelles and Berlin,and that they will wreck the european ship,with all of us aboard
No one "gifted" Greece with anything. And once more: Greece was not allowed - it was its own decision to join the Euro. It was known that Greece "modified" its figures. However, the spirit of that time was - no country should be expelled if it would like to join.
What was not foreseeable was how the Greek people will behave because everybody in Europe believed in the good of people. But the trust the European people have had in the Greek people turned out to be wrong. It was a misinterpretation.
Greece has massively benefited from the Euro and it still does. This should not be forgotten in Greece. Without the help from outside - and especially from Germany - Greece would already be a third world country.
The structural reforms must be made - within or outside the Euro. Against all promises Greece cannot forego hard reforms.
The perspective of civil unrest and perhaps an overthrow of the Greek constitutional regimes (in other words, a coup d'État, or golpe, as you say) is one of the more frightening scenarios that could come out of the current situation. However, some other comments would put this into some perspective. For Greece to reach this stage, forty-five years after the 1967 military putsch, thrity-eight years after the restoration of "democratic" civilian rule is not easily assigned to the recent monetary troubles and to policy choices in Brussels and Berlin.
The sovereign debt and monetary crisis in Greece may cause revolution (as that of the French monarchy caused 1789) but it serves as a revelator of deeper-rooted problems. Has there not been something more deeply problematic with the Hellenic republic since 1974 that even integration into the EEC in 1981, followed by a later inclusion into phases two and three of the monetary union, never really resolved? The way Greek society and political life function have not been determined by axioms elaborated in Brussels. The Papandreou family's hold on the PASOK, like that of the Mitsotakis/Caramanlis families over New Democracy have not introduced much rejuvenation or regeneration into Greek governments since 1974.
Have the ambiguities of governance in Greece not been public knowledge all along? The size of the underground economy, the width of fiscal evasion, the plethoric size of the public sector along with a culture of backhanders, this is something that has long been freely discussed by Greeks and non-Greeks alike. If there is now a threat to the Greek constitutional order, because extremist parties are winning sizeable quantities in parliament (with the fear that indeed an extreme-left majority would lead to a reaction by the armed forces, probably more numerous and authrotiative than the gangs of violent New Dawn militants) is it not first and foremost due to this crisis of governance that Greece has not resolved since 1974? Why blame Brussels or Berlin for this? Obviously, Brussels and Berlin and goodness knows how many other capital cities and countries have a vested interest in avoiding a putsch in Greece, but at the root of the problem, Greeks themselves will have to completely rethink how they go about in politics.
The difficulty about this crisis is that events are unfolding at such speed that it is hard to implement solutions which are in any case long-term in nature. that's whats panicking the markets, the Greek population, foreign capitals and the European institutions.
Then, some say, people are at their best when they are backs against the wall... but does anyone want to try that?
If you look on the conditions in 1967 you will find similarities in some of the politicians then with the politicians of present time. However the populist views of that time were gaining momentum and could be presented to the people with a cover of reason. And people might have accept them even if these views were undermining democracy itself.
Today the radicals do not even consider presenting such views, even if they have them, because they will be immediately ridiculed. Democracy has strong and solid foundations. People have strong democratic culture. There is not even a remote chance for such actions. There are no people to support them and no people to perform them.
This type of discussions are only theoretical.
A vote of anger of rage and of fatigue to radical parties does not represent a vote against democracy.
The real problem will be that in the case of an exit, in which case the condition of the economy will be disastrous and the standard of living of the vast majority of the people will be reduced to poverty, the same politicians that are currently dealing with the problem, are going to be called to solve the new problems.
They will face a situation to which the current situation in comparison will be a paradise. And they will be free of all the rules and regulations of the EU.
Out of this as I said a junta cannot be produced. What it will be produced, and that as a Greek it worries me, is a dysfunctional democracy, which instead of reviving the economy and the nation it will reproduce poverty. Elections after elections, etc..
Correct in many senses.
Statistics were modified by o.7% on the deficit. Eurostat concluded on this. Less than France or other countries. Germany was allowed to run on deficits larger than 3% as well.
The deal was done in 97 and since then France Italy Germany Greece has broken it.. all were running higher.
Bottom line... everybody knew what was happening. The result might have been a surprise to the people but not to politicians.
Germany during the happy time after 99 became an export power and was running huge export surpluses. Much of the goods were bought by the south. The south with low interest rates borrowed and economies enlarged and not growed as the German one. And who was lending? Well the one with money.. Germany whih had lots of surplus cash.
So we will blame Germany? Well we will blame all for knowing what was happening and did nothing. After all they were supposed to be a Union with rules.
But coming to now, responsibility goes to the countries in trouble. There is no other way but to sort out their economies. And this will be painful. No easy way out of it.
Germany's responsibility at the moment is to accept the failure of the happy time model. To accept that austerity has limits which if passed it brings the opposite results.
And promote growth actions.
The Union has helped Germany and well done for her that made good use of it. The Union is the internal market of Germany. And the German's economy Achilles heel is its economy complete reliance on exports to Asia and the US.
Will this have any negative effect to German citizens? There are ways that this will be minimal if any.
Germany is not a bank that lends money.. It is the largest country that in combination with others can pull Europw towards the right direction.
If Greece decides to follow now that times seem to be changing towards this direction then it is perfect. If not then although the consequences are unknown it is still ok. It is in the hand of politicians. If the plan is viable then markets will succumb and not even a nose will bleed even if Greece gets out.
Merkel proved that when for a change decided to act as a leader and promoted the PSI plan when everybody was cultivating doomsday scenarios. The haircut went along, no citizen lost money, and private funds did nothing. A proof that politics can be above the markets.
I hope you know each "solutions" is a tragedy for the Greek people.
But in the end a departure from the Euro would be best for the people.
However, this would be no easy going. Despite Greece's exit, money from the EU will flow into Greece in order to uphold law and order.
When it comes to the crises - we must talk about regulations of the finance industry. No progress has been made until now. The financial industry blocks all reforms through lobbying. There banks that are much too big. Their insolvency would have such deep impact - no country or company in the world would be unaffected. However, nobody in the politics talk openly about it. It is the combination of unregulated speculations and not being reliable for action taken by bosses of the banks, hedge fonds...
We all should remember that first the banks were in trouble and it were the banks which were bailed out. Afterwards the countries came in trouble. This is not ONE crisis these are several crises which have occurred simultaneously and/or succesively and furthermore linked to each other.
Remember, we bailed out assets from the banks and the rich - also in Greece.
I am sorry but I do not make any remarks on the history which country broke the contract first. Everybody knows that the treaties which led into the Euro were a puppet theater and would be broken.
Well the sea is stormy and the boat (EU) is anything but stable. It is wobbling dangerously. If the path remains the same then yes I agree with you Greece should jump of it. There is no point in staying in. Spain Portugal and Italy will immediately follow. A tragedy then yes but not just Greek.
However, if as I believe, the boat changes direction towards common and national interests which in my opinion coincide then it would be suicidal for Greece to jump out early.
precisely, what will make Germany change her mind over the eurobonds and or considering ECB as the lending bank to the EZ contries, are these unrests, in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy... France, no market wants to bet on countries with unrests, if these counties go short of liquidities, big problem, for the surviving of the euro.
Syriza is selling impossible dreams to the emotional Greeks - catastrophe for this country
In times of crisis, it is quite common to find political parties taking advantages of people's fear and confusion, it leads to double-speak and illusory promises. Unfortunately Greece is not the only country in which anguished people have been led to believe that one thing and its contrary can be had. Nevertheless, a Syriza increased majority appears to be a likelihood at this juncture. It is worth asking, however, what happens to Syriza's platform, and its support, if Greece is forced out of the monetary union BEFORE the election can take place next month? At the speed at which events are unfolding, this development is possible as well.
Greece will not be forced out !
America will interven to force the Potzdam elite to be more accomodative
Americas influence isn't as strong as it used to be in Germany...so don't count on it!
Doch, read the papers, if it isn't made in the name of America, it will be done by its financial elites !
A new Greek election has been called, which may at least yield a clear winner and help form a government. Doing this may be more important for Greece than staying in the euro. If or rather when the country is forced to leave the monetary union because of its unsustainable position, it will definitely need a government to handle all the fallout. Currently, the left-wing Syriza party is expected to improve on its victories at last election. If it arrives first in number of votes, it gets fifty additional seats, to add to the fifty-two it currently holds. With over a hundred seats it could then form the coalition government that it could not reach in this round, and it will be interesting to see if they manage to bring in the disintegrated PASOK along: there don't seem to be many other options.
Since Syriza supports staying in the euro but rejects the bailout plans in favour of hypothetic renegotiations, this might definitely signal the so-called "Grexit". Jean-Claude Juncker's indignation of yesterday may have some impact on the moment, but he is hardly himself in a position to propose any alternatives to what has already been offered to Greece and which is now turned down by the electorate. Perhaps more interesting in the statement by Christine Lagarde, IMF Director-General, about preparing an "orderly exit". The Greek withdrawal, in any case, will cause fallout, an especially hard time for Greeks whose remaining savings will be stripped of value, and for all the countries exposed to Greek debt. The task will be onerous and difficult, to prevent more of a market panic on this occasion than there will be anyway...
Or Syriza change their positions. They are currently doing so. Party members are talking about "hard" renegotiations and not rejection.
Suppose the win suppose the form a government suppose the renegotiate and changes are done. Even the best changes possible. even in European level and not just Greek. Imagine the solution that we all expect so that Europe will be on track again and with clear light at the end of the tunnel.
Even then, voters will realise that there are hard years ahead of us. And that what Syriza and others were supporting during the past 3 years were populist crap!
What will they do? And what will happen to Syriza being a loose coalition of leftists most of which are living in an imaginary universe? What then.. elections again?
All these are scenarios.. nobody knows what might happen. The only sure thing is that Greek politicians are playing with fire and are proven beyond doubt to be .. well you can choose the adjective here.
If the Greek people exit the Euro no doubt they will choose to use Dollars or Pounds as a medium of exchange as it is quicker and cheaper than creating a new currency. Bad luck US and UK and the Titans of Finance with Silly Names.
the dollar !
tey already used the dollar in the seventies
What odd logic! The British pound and the American dollar are not really convenient or useful in most of Europe. More logically, the Greeks would go on using the Euro as a commonly-accepted currency. Recently in Vietnam, I found most traders were quite happy to accept euros (rather than their national, official currency).
"The recent menaces seem designed to achieve two goals: to exert pressure on Greeks to support more mainstream parties in a likely second election, and to prepare markets for the likelihood of Greece's departure if radicals are returned."
How well did V1 bombings soften British nerve?
"How well did V1 bombings soften British nerve?"
The Greeks have some nerve alright, but not the kind exhibited by the British during the blitz.
The Brits got an arsenal of nukes of all sort, ... thus V1 is toothless now.
By the way, Greece is collectively raped to near-death by 16 guys, but not the Brits.
Greek word for exit is Exodus
In 2002 it was Sadam that was the threat to World peace and stability.
Three months ago it was Iran and N Korea that was the threat to civilisation, then
Two months ago it was Putin.
But who'd have thought it would be the Greeks.
This crisis is overblown media churn. Its all about protection of creditors. The real threat was the masters of the universe and the GFC they brought about.
This is still the fallout from allowing them to print money in the form of securitised debt.
Maybe market forces have chosen their path and that is to the end of the road for finance capitalism that has been marked for evolutionary departure, except people keep interfering with the natural course with bailouts and interventions both political and violent.
Perhaps the vote on the left is what the markets in their imperceptable wisdom are trying to achieve but it keeps being thwarted by privelege, guns and money.
Either forgive the debt or default.
The State should look after its own and let the banks and financiers look out for themselves.
If that means the ruination of them, then have no fear as the Markets will provide.
How many billions of euros were the German people robbed of, while everyone knew this was coming? They should never have let Greece in the EU in the first place, and should have booted them out at least a year ago to prevent a much bigger collapse this month.
did you mean the german people robbed?
GERMANY - MORE FEARFUL THAN GREECE
In the U.S., there's a psychological game called "chicken."
The idea of the game is is to see which of two opponents blinks first or backs off first.
For example, one person would get in a car at the end of the road and the other person would get in a car on the opposite end of the road. Then, they jettison their engines and race towards each other full throttle.
The one who diverts from the head on collision first loses the game and is said to have "chickened out."
Right now, the eurozone and Germany need Greece on its feet more than Greece needs the eurozone.
Smart move for Greece is to call it quits, get out and start all over again.
This terrifies Germany because if Greece goes, than Spain goes, then Portugal goes, then, then, then, etc.
So right now, Germany and Greece are playing the game of Chicken.
Greece has nothing to lose. And so, Greece will win the game.
And everybody knows this will take place. So, get it on.
The World is tired of watching this game.
Warmest,
Richard Michael Abraham
Founder
The REDI Foundation
www.redii.org
This is why we need Americans. To explain what is already universally understood. Thank you so much.
COME ON
the REDI foundation??? Couldn't have come up with a better name.
It makes it sound like you're all walking around with light sabres and telling your customers to 'use the force'
Richard Michael Abraham: "This terrifies Germany because if Greece goes, than Spain goes, then Portugal goes, then, then, then, etc. So right now, Germany and Greece are playing the game of Chicken. Greece has nothing to lose. And so, Greece will win the game”.
I am not so sure about that. Merkel is pretty certain that the Greece case can't/shouldn’t become a 'blackmail' precedent for others to follow.
It might be true that a 'Grexit' will have impact on Spain and Portugal's situation, but if this means a turn for the worse needs to be seen. It might just be the right wake-up call they needed.
Plus, Germany seems well prepared.
The Epoch Times wrote yesterday:
(Quote): "Germany’s top political team is fully aware that German voters will not agree to bailouts of any other country than Greece, such as Spain or Portugal, given that Germany already pays the largest portion of the bailout funds.
This is why Germany has decided to play hardball with Greece. It’s also why Germany has put into place a contingency plan that would permit it to leave the euro if it had to,” said an article on the Zero Hedge website.
According to Zero Hedge and Snyder, Germany already has in place a plan that would facilitate the dumping of the euro.
In October 2011, starting with Dr. Philippa Malmgren, a former economics adviser to George W. Bush, the rumors that Germany’s Central Bank had ordered the printing presses to print the German Deutsche mark, the former currency, spread like wildfire. No denial or concurrence to that issue can be found inside or outside of Germany.
Also, during the past six months, Germany has put legislation into place that would allow it to opt out of the euro without losing its membership in the European Union. Then, German legislation allows German banks to get rid of any government bond based on the euro.
What has great importance is that Germany restructured the Special Financial Market Stabilization Fund (SOFFIN), which would be used if large banks, considered too big to fail, were on the verge of going bankrupt. SOFFIN will receive 400 billion euros ($521 billion), of which 80 billion euros ($104.2 billion) are to be used to recapitalize German banks if needed, something that might be necessary if Germany should dump the euro.
Lastly, “Germany has put a 480 billion euro ($625.2) firewall around its banks. It can literally pull out of the euro any time it wants to. … Germany could very easily leave the euro. …
This is the black swan no one is talking about. If Germany bails on the euro, the EU will collapse. It will be Lehman Brothers times 10 if not worse,” according to the Zero Hedge article. (end quote).
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/euro-at-risk-of-survival-237670.
La Vyrity is Correct - It May Be a GermExit
Germany is a profoundly economically powerful country and for months, I have argued nobody could blame Germany for leaving the Eurozone.
My position hinged on the timing and frequently I have suggested the Eurozone would stop bailing out Greece at the right time.
But, La Vyrity has astutely provided additional facts suggesting that it's Germany that has already taken the necessary steps to leave the Eurozone.
And, I believe La Vyrity is correct and this is the shocker since the Eurozone cannot survive without Germany.
Such an announcement would throw havoc in the Global market.
Keep your eye on Germany. If Germany remains austerity driven (which seems to be the case), then, Germany is saying, "Austerity no matter the pain or else." And as I've said frequently, who could blame Germany. No one!
Warmest,
Richard Michael Abraham
Founder
The REDI Foundation
www.redii.org
In my opinion the US may have played tricks in the Euro zone crisis.
A united currency is always a threat to US dollar.Of course united economies like EU and China,are threats to America as well.
Uncle Sam is becoming weaker,but not too weak to resist.
The continent of malice never fails to show its malice.
I don't know. The brics call tithe dollar-euro zone. The euro can be a threat to the dollar but combined the euro-dollar are a very powerful force.
Maybe the there are shenanigans but trust me the biggest winner to a euro breakup would be the Russians who sell oil and gas to the continent.
Ben Bernanke isn't immune from the whole affair
How on earth would the US benefit from the collapse of the EU? Economic strife in Europe is no doubt making it hard for the domestic economy in the US to recover.
This makes absolutely no sense. A united currency is always a threat to US dollar?? what the hell does that mean?
The Euro-zone crisis was in fact originated in the US financial crisis as a massive worldwide credit crunch hit Greece's highly indebted government, compounded by the absurdities of European Confederation and its lack of democratic legitimacy.
This whole situation is not a conspiracy led by Uncle Sam, if you can't understand it don't make up nonsense to explain it.
Well, at least you did not blame the Jews... not outright, at least...
There is a place where many people think like this - they see their currency in terms of nationalism, and their economic partners as enemies.
This place isn't America. It isn't Britain. Can you guess where it is yet?
It is so patetic to observe how European leaders try to deny reality. It have no sense that poor, improductive and undeveloped southern European countries, as Greece, Spain or Portugal share currency with rich, productive and developed northern European countries, as Gremany or France.
In addition each country try to preserve his national interest making almost impossible a rational economic governance. It would be better to acknowledge reality and split Euro in two currencies than to keep up with actual instability. Current policy only will lead to make the crisis even more serious.
Germany and France want to slow down inflation whereas Greece, Spain and Portugal need an expansive monetary policy from European Central Bank. This contradiction has no solution, it is an obvious mis design of the euro and become the crisis systemic.
Hence, could European leaders have common sense for once? Could they stop bothering us saying daily that the elephants can fly? Could they assume reality and figure out how to solve permanently the euro crisis reporting a credible plan?
I don't think so, I suppose that, equal than in the Titanic, the musicians will keep on playing until the water is over our heads.
I fully agree with you.
This is not about Greece, not even about southern Europe, and in fact not even about Europe only.
This illusion of constant growth, constant expansion and profit has always been unsustainable, and now in the form of the global crisis that collapse has started. But the leaders, and the powerful interest groups behind them still push on with the mantra because they cannot even imagine that their money making scheme is not going to work any more.
We cannot continue tricking people to keep consuming absolutely unnecessary, excessive, harmful products for money they do not have while exploiting everything and everybody in the process. We act like children in a toy-store thinking everything is free and we can keep taking whatever we want endlessly.
Our evolution today demand us to grow up, examine the vast natural system we exist in, that is thriving for overall balance and homeostasis, and start adapting to it for a predictable and sustainable future.
Instead of blaming and harassing the smaller nations who are the real initial losers of the collapse, we should create a mutual, cooperating platform above our differences and self interest and build a new human system from ground up.
Homeostasis? Sod that for a future.
Constant growth isn't an illusion. It is a product of billions of people's hard work. People, us, who create more than it takes to sustain us. People who's ancestors shivered in caves, and whose children will go out among the stars.
Settle for our current level? Call a halt on development and growth? Never. Whatever challenges it brings, never!
110% agree with you Mike2R,
We can inhabit the welfare office or the stars but not both
The Idea of the welfare state needs to die,
Right now people are reliant on the public sector for work, for social security, healthcare, pensions, education, I mean what incentive is there to work when you are been spoon fed by the state
the governments need to cut bureaucracy , they need to cut regulation, they need to let the people be the drivers of growth, allow them to make a living for themselves, open a business, employ others, and get the economy moving,
only the entrepreneurial spirit can save Europe, nothing else
I understand what you are saying, this is the defiant, proud human pioneer spirit, how we looked at the world and ourselves for centuries, preparing to conquer the stars.
And who knows maybe one day we will conquer them.
But as the facts around us show at the moment we are not moving towards that direction since all human made institutions from education to sciences, from politics to economics, including the space program is in deep and unsolvable crisis.
Nobody calls for stopping development or growth, but first we have to figure out what development and growth means (not quantitative but qualitative) and how we can do it without going against the laws of the natural system we exist in.
This is not a game, we are not above the system but we are part of it as you can read about it from multiple sources, and if we do not follow the conditions placed before us the next challenge we face might be our survival.
"Nobody calls for stopping development or growth" Well some people do actually - I thought you were one of them.
There are people who, apparently seriously, want to freeze our societies and economies where they are.
@Heyer - I wasn't even talking about the left. The mainstream left are big fans of economic growth (read any of their budget assumptions!), although I agree with you that their methods are counter-productive to delivering it. The hard core Greens regard economic growth itself as being undesirable.
It's a complete hypothetical, since even if they could convince the developed world of their position (and they can't), no force on Earth will make the developing world accept that they have to stay where they are on the basis that the world can support only so many developed nations. But just because it is impossible it doesn't make people stop advocating it.
And that's really my answer to ZGHerm. The process is not within our power to stop while we figure things out. The best thing we can do, the only thing we can do, is to deal with it. Technology has saved us before, we better hope it can again.
Denial? You want to talk about denial? As in when Britain was blaming THE WEATHER for its own financial woes?
now THAT'S denial! DENIAL! COMPLETE DENIAL!
You need help!
I get your point ZGHerm, but it looks like others don't. If I might take the liberty of spelling it out. To a child, success is to grab everything you can now. The child has a fantasy about unlimited resources at their grasp -- too many sci-fi/fantasy movie and TV shows.
To an adult, it is planning based upon realistic assessment of resources -- and resources are finite. But our problem is that as kids, we were raised on too many sci-fi/fantasy mvoies and TV shows. So impressed with the realizations of undersea and space-travel by the likes of futurist novelists as Jules Vernes, we had our Star Trek. Subconsciously we all know the plan. Just like the Europeans colonized the New World, we shall "seek out new life (to exploit), new worlds to explore (for resource to suck out), to boldy go where no man has gone before.
Only such world's are very far away, and we don't have an economy to match the required technological requirements were they even possible (though we can make evermore cool video games).
And unlike Phineas and Ferb, we're still haven't figured out how to violate the immutable laws of physics like with that nasty light-speed limit that Einstein imposed upon us like some space traffic cop from the old Jetsons cartoon. So until we do that, I would hear out ZGHerm's qualitative vs. quantitative growth point quite seriously.
I completely agree with you, I also believe in human potential.
And I also agree that development cannot be stopped since we are in a never ending evolutionary process.
But we have the possibility to choose direction we are going and it is our special human quality that we can actually consciously choose and change our direction, even against our inherent inclination.
And this can only happen if we fully understand the system we live in, we are part of, and we understand what is our role in the system in order to keep the balance, in order to survive.
Only humans can direct their evolution consciously.
If we examine human history so far all of our inventions, breakthroughs, whole of our development has been turned into weapons, or other means of exploitation against others. This is what our whole "competition" is all about, but today we have reached a very volatile, dangerous point with it.
I agree that our technological capacity, or potential can save us, even today we possess enough capability to turn this globe into a paradise for all 7 billion humans or even double that amount.
But we also have the capability, and there are very real possibilities to it today, that with a push of a button we can exterminate everything.
Today, first time in our history we have a choice about which way we want to evolve further, or to evolve at all, thus we have to choose wisely.
If Greece leaves the EURO zone, it will default; if it defaults, God knows how many CDS contracts will be executed; if those contracts are executed, financial companies and speculators will have BIG losses. This seems to be the real issue, here. It has nothing to do with Greece, the Euro or common sense. But, even to me, decades (not years) of suffering for an entire population just to keep speculators at easy seem to be a price too dear to pay, wouldn't you agree?
Those speculators and financial companies that you're having a lil bitch about are the ones with all YOUR money in THEIR pockets,
If they go bust, then you lose all your lifesavings, you and everybody else who seemingly thought they put their money in a safe place.
soon after that, you start finding that ATMs stop working, that those pieces of plastic and paper in your wallet are just that, plastic and paper. Eventually all this leads to a collapse of the financial system, and where pushed back to a gold standard or something
It was thanks to the governments with their bailouts, and central banks with their push for increased liquidity that we managed to dodge this bullet back in 08, But the underlying problem of excessive debt and global imbalances still exists,
Only solution is to slowly reduce government spending, quickly cut regulation and bureaucracy, and allow your currency to devalue until your competitive
Greece already defaulted, the CDS are being paid out. Please keep up.
You've got a point, Heyer, but I'm not at all having a lil bitch about the financial system as a whole. I'm having it towards the so called "naked CDS" and similar purely speculative instruments making a lot of money being based on steam and dreams. And I believe that, if something is broken, let it break and go down the drain: don't use taxpayers money to bail out incompetence.Capitalism is risk. The rule is simple: make right decision and profit; make wrong ones and pay for them. Either way, it should be your money that changes hands. Will there be suffering? Yes! Will there be hunger? Yes! Will there be turmoil? Possibly! But something healthier will emerge and prevail. The market can adjust itself. If you cut regulations (and I'm a lot in favour of this), you cannot bail out bad players, no matter how big they are. Also, I see no point in reducing government spendings (and, again, I'm a lot in favour of this) if you're willing to spend trillions of dollars bailing out incompetent executives who don't know what they're doing.
Commonsense dictates that Greece must leave the Eurozone, preferably the EU altogether. The sooner the better. Good riddance.
Junker is an abject failure and in no position to lecture anyone. Thank God this person will leave office soon, although there is no doubt that his successor will be the same kind of incompetent as him.
Poor Europe. Led by fools.
The Greek's joined the Euro, then helped themselves and expect everybody else to pay for it.
The Greeks have cynically taken the piss, and no amount of posturing by EU builders will alter this fact.
Other member states must not shoulder someone else's burden, they have their own population to look after.
Get the Greeks out of the Euro, and quick about.
CALL THEIR BLUFF
HISTORY IS NOT ON ANYBODY'S SIDE. BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN.
Everyone who took advantage of cheap loans, whether they could pay back or not, fuelled the whole bubble, which encouraged and emboldened the bankers further. As ZGHerm above correctly points out, it is the economic system that is broken. No one has any interest in fixing it and as James18316 predicts 'Bad things will happen.'
Its unbelievable, newly elected Greek politicians are failing there people. Bickering and not compromising, while Greece slides down in a political swamp. Why the answer is OK lets have another election; do people really think the outcome will be much different, just more political in fighting, mean while the eurozone is considering pulling the plug of Greece loans, and Greece with be forced to leave the eurozone.
"Groping towards Grexit"
Oops! I saw the word 'groping' in the headline and mistakenly thought it was going to be about Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
My bad, please carry on..
The problem with Greek people isn't that they don't want to take their medicine. The problem is that this medicine doesn't work, it is killing them.
If the medicine (brutal austerity) was right, Greece would be on the markets early 2012. Instead, the GDP has fallen 20%, the unemployement hit record high 23%, without counting the hundreds thousand shop owners that has closed down their businesses. How can the ratio of the debt/GDP fell, when the denominator falls even more rapidly than the nominator?
The truth is that the programs (version 1 and 2) have proven ineffective to solve the problem. Instead, it grew bigger because the side-effects or austerity (recession/unemployment) dwarfed the benefits of fiscal balance.
As far as the bail out money, a fraction is entering Greece's cofers. Most of the bail money go directly to debt and a portion next to 0% is headed in the greek economy.
Greek people don't want to bail out on their commitment. They just need a fair chance to set their economy back on.
Totally true. This is why Greece needs to leave the Euro NOW, and stand on its own feet - if it knows what this means.
The reason people think austerity "doesn't work" is because it is a painful process that takes time to unwind decades of living off the future. For decades Greece has pushed off paying for its government until now, all the while distorting its economy and creating lots of GDP that doesn't represent real value. Now people complain when austerity exposes the fraud, and they demand a return to illusory wealth and living off the future. If you think the medicine is "killing" them now, wait until you see the cost of waiting longer.
Greece desperately needs to allow for economic competitiveness. Close the government agencies that strangle businesses in red tape and allow workers to get jobs at lower wages. Greece squandered its chance to borrow and invest. It is a poor country and the sooner it accepts that, the sooner it can start to grow. The Asian Tigers didn't rise out of poverty through high minimum wages and generous government retirement programs.
110% agree with you Heart of Flint,
its always darkest before the dawn
european labour markets are prehaps the most uncompetitive in the world, and you can easily see why, low retirement ages, short hours, high wages, and insane benefits,
not the mention the european mindset, which has reduced the people to dependency on social security
the governments need to cut bureaucracy , they need to cut regulation, they need to let the people be the drivers of growth, allow them to make a living for themselves, open a business, employ others, and get the economy moving,
Only the entrepreneurial spirit can save Europe,
That's only partly true.The 'medicine' is killing Greece because the programme was never really in effect.The troika in the 1st programme didn't ask for excessive taxation or cutting back on salaries.It asked for more competitiveness through a simpler taxation law,reformation of the economy and the public sector and not-so-brutal austerity.Instead,the government,not wanting to lose its voters (being totally corrupt) didn't reduce the public sector,didn't reform the economy and put taxes everywhere.Fuel,houses etc.,everything became too expensive for us because excessive taxation was combined by dramatic reduction of wages.This caused a lack of liquidity in the economy and as a result,the economic calculations fell out completely.This led to the 2nd programme which still was more about reforms but it had some catastrophic aspects,e.g. cut back on minimum wages and pensions which caused even more lack of liquidity while it did not help competitiveness to grow,as the very high tax rates and social security payments continue to turn investors away.It's simple.Greece needs a Marshall plan and the Eurozone a devaluation of the euro immediately if it is for the common currency to be saved.Inflation will help the the recovery of the weaker economies until they are stabilized.The problem is Germany's fear that the euro will not be competitive against the US dollar.But if the Eurozone is stabilized,as time passes,it will become even stronger.Otherwise,bye bye Eurozone and possibly bye bye EU.
Do you envy the Asian Tigers where people work 16 hours per day and commit suicide in the foxconn factories? Is this the Europe you envisage?
Minimum wage in Bulgaria is 138 euro. Do you really believe that Bulgaria is about to take the place of Germany as the locomotive of Euro? Competitiveness is a relative measure. It is like saying the Bruno Senna (Formula 1) is not competitive, because Sebastian Vettel is faster.
There is a full consensus in the greek people that most of these reforms should and will be followed, sooner rather than later. The issue here is time: growth needs investment and time to flourish.
Greece is not poor country, it has the most beautiful places for tourism. Agriculture could thrive (although you may know that EU imposes certain percentages). Mistakes, criminal mistakes have been made in the past and a lot of politicians should be behind bars. But it really needs time and air to breathe.
For the past two years, Greece has been under financial attack, admitedly by its own mistakes, an attack nevertheless. Germany decided to make a moral example out of it, leading to more and more entrenched positions of all sides, with help that came too little, too late.
We have to decide what kind of Europe we want.
The main problem with Greece is that all austerity reforms have been
approved by the parliament but never really implemented.
For years, the Greeks have falsified their statistics and now they continue cheating on reforms which in theory are approved but not put in practice.
Whatever the outcome of the next elections in June, there is no political party in Greece serious abour honouring their obligations
toward Brussels in exchange for the bail-out funds.
Christine Lagarde is absolutely right; the only solution is the departure of Greece from the eurozone in orderly way.
Of the many things I´ve read during the last days , there was one which called my atention . It seems there´s no legal mechanism to oust Greece from the EU, nor is there any to opt out, Misguided optimism ?. Anyway everething during the last year- just to be on the safe side - points claearly at Brussels and "the markets" hypocresy , since they both know Greece is nowhere near of being able to cut more budget in the near future as it is of repaying it´s debts in the coming ten. Is the EU set at torturing them a little while before giving in ?
Greece is just one country. Roubini is saying that Spain will leave euro in three years. I think Portugal and possibly Ireland too!
I´m of the same opinion and not very sure that Italy may not opt out as well.
But the really worrying thing is that China is in trouble as well not to mention Japan,the UK is in DS, the US economy is in tatters but no one will admit it, at some levels insisting in warmongering. I´m an argentine, we were just getting our heads out of the mud, but our present goverment is keen in pressing us back into it. I believe the world is ripe for real change. Que se vayan todos !, but this time with a blade at their throats
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/economic-historian-germany-w...
Argentina is still alive because of Brazilian tourism and companies. Don´t cry for me Argentina!!!
There is also no legal mechanism for bailing out failed states such as Greece, or rather there is a legal mechanism explicitly banning it. In other words, the EU stands above any law and does what a few of its "leaders" like. If the want Greece to leave, they will make it leave. Laws have no meaning in the EU.
Sad to hear you are living in a lawless comunity, we´ve been under such a goverment ?
Don´t tell me you are a Brit ?
Thank you very much for the excellent article. I had a general idea on the subject , but not so to the point
I don't think the EU will kick Greece out.
That said, the EU will simply withhold any more 'bailout' cash from Greece. And when Greece's coffers are empty and their government pensions, salaries, health care, and services end... the Greeks will have to make a choice.
Either spend only the money they take in... or, of their own accord, issue another medium of exchange as legal tender to fulfill their debts.
And once the Greeks do that, they've voluntarily left the monetary union. Which no one will really shed a tear over.