the government spends a lot of money

 

Excuse me for asking,  but what are these huge expenses? I mean,where,as far as you know,does the government spend money on?

 

If only war was an option...

 

OK,now your exaggerating...  You can't declare war for economic issues! Then,Greece should have declared war on Germany for the compensations for all the Nazi attrocities and for the money that Nazi Germany forced Greece to borrow to,with conditions that were sooo in favor of the German side...

 

One key difference is USA can always print more money and create its own debt and keep doing that until dollar remains a global reserve currency, which it will for the foreseeable future. Greece cannot do that.

IMF's own report says austerity has failed. Also 80% of the vaik out fund never went to Greek economy, it went to private creditors, tldr the debt was shifted from big corporate banks to different EU govts and they charged a lot higher interest on those loans from Greeks as a price of that transaction, that money bailed out no one.

Off course Greece has itself to blame for most of the mess, but no one here has done them any favors, private lenders gave the money for profit without due delligence, then they told the politicians to get in line and fix only their mistakes and in return they can squeeze higher interests from Greeks via austerity aka bond slavery.

Not really Shah, fir printing to work you need to have a large export sector, i.e. be an export drifen economy, which Greece is not. Exports contribute only about 13% to the GDP. Printing wont do much for its competitive advantage. If youmcan not achieve that, then you can not service the debt via the currency depreciarion re currency of loans.

IMF doesnt say that, it points out three scenarios, bottom line being that Greece didnt follow true on what it commited tomunder them2nd MoU. In addition, the loans given by the member states weremgiven at substantially better (read lower) interest rates than Greece would have to pay had it gotten said loans on the financial markets.

Finally, Greece borrowed the money and spent it ... Thus it must return it. EU member states already proved,t heir solidarity by preventing a Greek default in 2012. Saying that that is somehow tantamount to 'bond slavery' is false and can nit be supported by facts.

The Greece having the biggest pensions? You joking right? Perhaps 5 years ago before they cut them in half. And some more recently >_>

 

I did enjoy the "yes" camp shooting itself in the foot by going around and getting public endorsements from the guys who actually made the pile in the frst place (the former government parties).

Relatively apeaking Betsy, having taken in to account the size of the employees contribution, the retirement age, the size of the pension re received pay etc etc

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/06/exposure%20to%20greek%20banks_0.jpg

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/29/where-did-the-greek-bailout-money-go

 

"Only a small fraction of the €240bn (£170bn) total bailout money Greece received in 2010 and 2012 found its way into the government’s coffers to soften the blow of the 2008 financial crash and fund reform programmes.

 

Most of the money went to the banks that lent Greece funds before the crash."

 

Above was the summary of what I mentioned. Private banks gave bad loans to bad customer on high interest rates. However, private banks had their error wiped clean, all the debt was transferred to tax payers, Greeks got peanuts in so called bailout, it was a bailout for the private banks, not Greece. It's unfortunate that Greek government at the time did not have the testicular fortitude to stand up to this blatant robbery.

 

So my point is, if you're a business (bank), you throw away someone else's savings to a bad customer for.l short term gains, but your poor decisions ends up being fucked, which you as a bank knew was obvious. You ought to be party to the downside, that's why in finance there is a term called 'risk'. But here what has happened is that the big private banks got the upside on risk, and transferred the downside to tax payers of Europe, most of it being on Greeks. What is amazing is all this has happened under so called transparent and liberal democracies, astonishing.

Edited July 7, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

 

 

Excuse me for asking, but what are these huge expenses? I mean,where,as far as you know,does the government spend money on?

 

The entire reason Greece is about to default on its loans are because the government spends too much money - money it doesn't have. A few years ago Greece had an account deficit of 12.9%, now in bigger countries this might be acceptable because bigger countries are able to pay off the installments, Greece isn't able to. The government has too much debt and cannot repay the installments, but a few years ago government spending was at an all time high. Most countries have an account deficit of around 2-6%. Greece, a small Mediterranean nation has almost double the account deficit that some of your biggest nations have. 

 

To answer your question, the Greek government until very recently has spent 25% of its GDP on social insurance. One quarter of its GDP was spent on pensions, unemployment benefits, insurance etc. That is what the government is spending money on. If you compare this percentage to other nations, even other smaller nations, then it is way out of proportion.

 

The entire deadlock over the Greece issue is because Germany is demanding austerity measures (as in, government needs to stop spending money), so I honestly don't really know why you act like the Greek government isn't spending money. Unless I interpreted your question incorrectly.

 

Me saying "If only war was an option" is an exaggeration, I agree. But when you look at accountability, Greece doesn't know what that word means. Reckless financial management on their part is jeopardizing the whole bond market. Investment will run dry in the EU and countries like Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Italy will feel the impact. It will affect their economies and their future loans tremendously. When you consider the grave economical impact this will have on already fragile European economies, not to mention economies all around the world - then I would say a much cheaper option would be to take control of the Greek government and manage its finances correctly. The EU should have thought about such measures when the Eurozone was first created.

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

Dumb what down? The Greek financial crisis? Long story short, Greece has been living on borrowed money ever since adopting the Euro. They thought it was acceptable because their GDP kept growing, but in reality that is meaningless when your government is being funded by other countries.

 

the government spends a lot of money

 

Excuse me for asking,  but what are these huge expenses? I mean,where,as far as you know,does the government spend money on?

 

Well for one, the Greece defense budget is one of the highest in the world in comparison to GDP. Not to mention public sector jobs and government programs. As pointed out above, government spending is the primary cause of the whole mess. Of course, the EU itself pretty much incentivised the whole European financial issue by not properly thinking ahead.

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xAXJx9WJ8

 

That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

Dumb what down? The Greek financial crisis? Long story short, Greece has been living on borrowed money ever since adopting the Euro. They thought it was acceptable because their GDP kept growing, but in reality that is meaningless when your government is being funded by other countries.

 

Being funded by other countries isn't a complete problem. It depends on what those funds are being used for. Like you said, pensions, military, and many of the other programs did not help Greece. They could have built ports, highways, and rail systems. Or universities and hospitals. The first would have made them a trade hub. The second would have made them a student/expat pensioner hub. Both would have made them money.

 

 

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xAXJx9WJ8

 

That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

 

This is actually a perfect explanation. It also explains why the current global capitalism, debt based system can only ultimately fail. 

 

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

Dumb what down? The Greek financial crisis? Long story short, Greece has been living on borrowed money ever since adopting the Euro. They thought it was acceptable because their GDP kept growing, but in reality that is meaningless when your government is being funded by other countries.

 

Being funded by other countries isn't a complete problem. It depends on what those funds are being used for. Like you said, pensions, military, and many of the other programs did not help Greece. They could have built ports, highways, and rail systems. Or universities and hospitals. The first would have made them a trade hub. The second would have made them a student/expat pensioner hub. Both would have made them money.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, you're completely spot on about that. Had Greece used it's ability to borrow more money, and spent it on infrastructure and the growth of the economy then there would be no problem at all. But they decides, because.. socialism, to spend it on pensions, unemployment insurance etc.

There are many small countries with really big economies such as Luxembourg, Switzerland etc. Greece just didn't spend its money correctly, which is why not a lot of people like them right now.

 

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

 

 

That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

 

This is actually a perfect explanation. It also explains why the current global capitalism, debt based system can only ultimately fail. 

 

Not all debt is bad. Debt incurred to create greater returns is actually good. For a person, a loan for a modest car, a professional degree, or even a modest house is not bad. The car & degree can get you a better job; the house allows you to save some of the money you're already spending on rent. Luxury creates bad debt. Unfortunately, some people have a hard time distinguishing luxuries (like a Lexus or liberal arts degree) from opportunities (like a Civic or Engineering degree), which isn't helped by industries that are determined to make their products look like opportunities. I took out a loan for my vehicle (which got me to good jobs in Louisiana and Houston and I paid off early) as well as my house (which has a much lower payment than my last apartment and has a rate so low, I'm better off investing in the stock market than paying it off).

 

For a country, anything that promotes trade and efficiency can be worth the debt to pay for it. Things like renewable electricity, transportation, and useful education are worthwhile. Indefinite subsidies to workers and industries are not.

Jacob... thank you so much for posting that video. Frightening to find out I should be living in Germany. I would fit right in.

 

 

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

 

 

That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

 

This is actually a perfect explanation. It also explains why the current global capitalism, debt based system can only ultimately fail. 

 

Not all debt is bad. Debt incurred to create greater returns is actually good. For a person, a loan for a modest car, a professional degree, or even a modest house is not bad. The car & degree can get you a better job; the house allows you to save some of the money you're already spending on rent. Luxury creates bad debt. Unfortunately, some people have a hard time distinguishing luxuries (like a Lexus or liberal arts degree) from necessities, which isn't helped by industries that are determined to make their products look like necessities. I took out a loan for my vehicle (which got me to good jobs in Louisiana and Houston and I paid off early) as well as my house (which has a much lower payment than my last apartment and has a rate so low, I'm better off investing in the stock market).

 

For a country, anything that promotes trade and efficiency can be worth the debt to pay for it. Things like renewable electricity, transportation, and useful education is worthwhile. Indefinite subsidies to workers and industries are not.

 

Yes. And that is the whole idea of capitalism. Unfortunately, the entire system relies on someone, somewhere being in debt. Or exploitation. But to add to that, many of the worlds currencies are still pegged to the US dollar, which in turn is quite literally backed by absolutely nothing but faith in the US Federal Reserve. It's this faith the Fed that has propped up economic expansion across the globe since WW2 and made the US dollar the global reserve currency. Only the Euro really competes these days, and given the disaster in Europe, makes that point kinda meaningless if it is indeed the fate of the EU to collapse.

Now the problem with this is the fact that the Fed has been historically terrible at their job, specifically predicting the future, and the US as a whole still can't get it's debt under control and likely won't in the foreseeable future. If things continue the way they are, faith in the Fed will disappear. And what happens then? 

It almost makes me wonder how we've managed make the world go round on nothing but faith for so long. 

You make it a point that debt is not bad, so long as the debt is used to create growth. Which is the problem. It's blind faith in this idea that everything will just keep growing. But in a finite world, that's physically impossible.

 

To answer your question, the Greek government until very recently has spent 25% of its GDP on social insurance. One quarter of its GDP was spent on pensions, unemployment benefits, insurance etc. That is what the government is spending money on. If you compare this percentage to other nations, even other smaller nations, then it is way out of proportion.

 

 

Had to reply to this as this sounded odd. Greece is at 24% of GDP expences going to "social part", as seen here. It is 12th in that ranking (even Germany is ahead of it with 25.8%). Obvious winner is France, at 31.9% >_>

 

Belgium is 3rd (30.7%), huzzahi

 

 

 

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

 

 

That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

 

This is actually a perfect explanation. It also explains why the current global capitalism, debt based system can only ultimately fail. 

 

*snip*

 

Yes. And that is the whole idea of capitalism. Unfortunately, the entire system relies on someone, somewhere being in debt. Or exploitation. But to add to that, many of the worlds currencies are still pegged to the US dollar, which in turn is quite literally backed by absolutely nothing but faith in the US Federal Reserve. It's this faith the Fed that has propped up economic expansion across the globe since WW2 and made the US dollar the global reserve currency. Only the Euro really competes these days, and given the disaster in Europe, makes that point kinda meaningless if it is indeed the fate of the EU to collapse.

Now the problem with this is the fact that the Fed has been historically terrible at their job, specifically predicting the future, and the US as a whole still can't get it's debt under control and likely won't in the foreseeable future. If things continue the way they are, faith in the Fed will disappear. And what happens then? 

It almost makes me wonder how we've managed make the world go round on nothing but faith for so long. 

You make it a point that debt is not bad, so long as the debt is used to create growth. Which is the problem. It's blind faith in this idea that everything will just keep growing. But in a finite world, that's physically impossible.

 

Ah, yes, the zero sum game. That can be a rational belief, but I don't hold to it. There's still a lot of efficiency to be wrung out of the ol' world yet. First will be a revolution in automated transportation. Then renewables. Then lab-grown food. Finally, upload to the interwebz and log out of the real world. After that, growth will be intellectual resources, rather than physical. And all will consume far less energy than we consume now.

 

We've already seen a revolution in entertainment. Experiences that you had to get at inefficient paintball ranges and laser tag venues are now a download away. The electricity used by games is far less than the energy required to maintain old forms of entertainment. You could never imagine a free bowling alley or golf course, but I can have an unlimited simulation of both at home for some electricity and an internet connection. $1 for a mobile game can give more engagement than $12 at a movie theatre. I don't even bother going to theatres anymore unless it's with someone else.

 

When parcels no longer require a meatbag to escort them from Point A to Point B, you'll see a lot of grocery and retail stores shut their doors. At the same time, the middleman and transport costs of products (which can make for half of the retail price) will drop drastically. Restaurants, cafes, and bars will do better, since people will still need places to congregate and their grocery costs will drop.

 

 

 

 

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

 

 

That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

 

This is actually a perfect explanation. It also explains why the current global capitalism, debt based system can only ultimately fail. 

 

*snip*

 

Yes. And that is the whole idea of capitalism. Unfortunately, the entire system relies on someone, somewhere being in debt. Or exploitation. But to add to that, many of the worlds currencies are still pegged to the US dollar, which in turn is quite literally backed by absolutely nothing but faith in the US Federal Reserve. It's this faith the Fed that has propped up economic expansion across the globe since WW2 and made the US dollar the global reserve currency. Only the Euro really competes these days, and given the disaster in Europe, makes that point kinda meaningless if it is indeed the fate of the EU to collapse.

Now the problem with this is the fact that the Fed has been historically terrible at their job, specifically predicting the future, and the US as a whole still can't get it's debt under control and likely won't in the foreseeable future. If things continue the way they are, faith in the Fed will disappear. And what happens then? 

It almost makes me wonder how we've managed make the world go round on nothing but faith for so long. 

You make it a point that debt is not bad, so long as the debt is used to create growth. Which is the problem. It's blind faith in this idea that everything will just keep growing. But in a finite world, that's physically impossible.

 

Ah, yes, the zero sum game. That can be a rational belief, but I don't hold to it. There's still a lot of efficiency to be wrung out of the ol' world yet. First will be a revolution in automated transportation. Then renewables. Then lab-grown food. Finally, upload to the interwebz and log out of the real world. After that, growth will be intellectual resources, rather than physical. And all will consume far less energy than we consume now.

 

We've already seen a revolution in entertainment. Experiences that you had to get at inefficient paintball ranges and laser tag venues are now a download away. The electricity used by games is far less than the energy required to maintain old forms of entertainment. You could never imagine a free bowling alley or golf course, but I can have an unlimited simulation of both at home for some electricity and an internet connection. $1 for a mobile game can give more engagement than $12 at a movie theatre. I don't even bother going to theatres anymore unless it's with someone else.

 

When parcels no longer require a meatbag to escort them from Point A to Point B, you'll see a lot of grocery and retail stores shut their doors. At the same time, the middleman and transport costs of products (which can make for half of the retail price) will drop drastically. Restaurants, cafes, and bars will do better, since people will still need places to congregate and their grocery costs will drop.

 

This or something similar is definitely within reason for the future. But I question whether we can make it to that point without fucking ourselves first. 

 

 

To answer your question, the Greek government until very recently has spent 25% of its GDP on social insurance. One quarter of its GDP was spent on pensions, unemployment benefits, insurance etc. That is what the government is spending money on. If you compare this percentage to other nations, even other smaller nations, then it is way out of proportion.

 

 

Had to reply to this as this sounded odd. Greece is at 24% of GDP expences going to "social part", as seen here. It is 12th in that ranking (even Germany is ahead of it with 25.8%). Obvious winner is France, at 31.9% >_>

 

Belgium is 3rd (30.7%), huzzahi

 

 

Yet Greece owes Germany money, not the other way around. And you will see from those stats it dramatically increased after Greece joined the Eurozone and it hasn't gone down since 2012 - even though they're on the brink of defaulting on their loans. That is very irresponsible, they're refusing to put austerity measures in places because they are arrogant and have a sense of false self-importance.

 

The differences between Germany, France and Greece is that the first two countries have huge economies that can support social grants. Greece doesn't have a big economy and cannot sustain 1/4 of their GDP going to social grants and they also don't want to cut back on that, for reasonable reasons - if they cut back on pensions, unemployment grants etc. then their citizens would literally starve to death because more than 50% of their population will have no income, but it's still their own fault for leading to this path.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can someone dumb this down for a clueless American please?

 

 

That is a nice video visualizing a simplistic explanation.

 

This is actually a perfect explanation. It also explains why the current global capitalism, debt based system can only ultimately fail. 

 

*snip*

 

Yes. And that is the whole idea of capitalism. Unfortunately, the entire system relies on someone, somewhere being in debt. Or exploitation. But to add to that, many of the worlds currencies are still pegged to the US dollar, which in turn is quite literally backed by absolutely nothing but faith in the US Federal Reserve. It's this faith the Fed that has propped up economic expansion across the globe since WW2 and made the US dollar the global reserve currency. Only the Euro really competes these days, and given the disaster in Europe, makes that point kinda meaningless if it is indeed the fate of the EU to collapse.

Now the problem with this is the fact that the Fed has been historically terrible at their job, specifically predicting the future, and the US as a whole still can't get it's debt under control and likely won't in the foreseeable future. If things continue the way they are, faith in the Fed will disappear. And what happens then? 

It almost makes me wonder how we've managed make the world go round on nothing but faith for so long. 

You make it a point that debt is not bad, so long as the debt is used to create growth. Which is the problem. It's blind faith in this idea that everything will just keep growing. But in a finite world, that's physically impossible.

 

*snip*

 

This or something similar is definitely within reason for the future. But I question whether we can make it to that point without fucking ourselves first. 

 

Armageddon has been predicted every year for thousands of years. The world is far more resilient than we'd like to believe. And, for that matter, so is Greece. Anybody have a prediction on how long it'll take Greece to right itself?

 

 

 

To answer your question, the Greek government until very recently has spent 25% of its GDP on social insurance. One quarter of its GDP was spent on pensions, unemployment benefits, insurance etc. That is what the government is spending money on. If you compare this percentage to other nations, even other smaller nations, then it is way out of proportion.

 

 

Had to reply to this as this sounded odd. Greece is at 24% of GDP expences going to "social part", as seen here. It is 12th in that ranking (even Germany is ahead of it with 25.8%). Obvious winner is France, at 31.9% >_>

 

Belgium is 3rd (30.7%), huzzahi

 

 

Yet Greece owes Germany money, not the other way around. And you will see from those stats it dramatically increased after Greece joined the Eurozone and it hasn't gone down since 2012 - even though they're on the brink of defaulting on their loans. That is very irresponsible, they're refusing to put austerity measures in places because they are arrogant and have a sense of false self-importance.

 

The differences between Germany, France and Greece is that the first two countries have huge economies that can support social grants. Greece doesn't have a big economy and cannot sustain 1/4 of their GDP going to social grants and they also don't want to cut back on that, for reasonable reasons - if they cut back on pensions, unemployment grants etc. then their citizens would literally starve to death because more than 50% of their population will have no income, but it's still their own fault for leading to this path.

 

percentage is percentage, its relative and as such claiming greece 24% is worse then germany's 26% is odd. You will also notice ALL the people jumped up the last decades (hello baby boom) and stagnated the last decade (hello recession).

 

austerity isn't the proveberial "tightening the beltbuckle", it is "buying a new pair of pants 10 sizes to small".

 

anyway, the mess is present, the solution will be forthcomming eventually, there will be no winners in this solution, only lesser-losers.

 

 

 

 

To answer your question, the Greek government until very recently has spent 25% of its GDP on social insurance. One quarter of its GDP was spent on pensions, unemployment benefits, insurance etc. That is what the government is spending money on. If you compare this percentage to other nations, even other smaller nations, then it is way out of proportion.

 

 

Had to reply to this as this sounded odd. Greece is at 24% of GDP expences going to "social part", as seen here. It is 12th in that ranking (even Germany is ahead of it with 25.8%). Obvious winner is France, at 31.9% >_>

 

Belgium is 3rd (30.7%), huzzahi

 

 

Yet Greece owes Germany money, not the other way around. And you will see from those stats it dramatically increased after Greece joined the Eurozone and it hasn't gone down since 2012 - even though they're on the brink of defaulting on their loans. That is very irresponsible, they're refusing to put austerity measures in places because they are arrogant and have a sense of false self-importance.

 

The differences between Germany, France and Greece is that the first two countries have huge economies that can support social grants. Greece doesn't have a big economy and cannot sustain 1/4 of their GDP going to social grants and they also don't want to cut back on that, for reasonable reasons - if they cut back on pensions, unemployment grants etc. then their citizens would literally starve to death because more than 50% of their population will have no income, but it's still their own fault for leading to this path.

 

percentage is percentage, its relative and as such claiming greece 24% is worse then germany's 26% is odd

 

 

It isn't odd. The difference is Germany is using its own revenue to fund that 25% social grants. Greece, essentially, is not using its own revenue but is borrowing money to fund their 24%, that's the difference, and even though Greece owes other European countries and the IMF 300 BILLION Euros (and the ECB already defaulted on 50% of the loan amount) the Greek government isn't cutting back on spending - meaning they will have to borrow MORE money because they don't have enough revenue for all of their expenses.

 

I really cannot see how you can even compare Greece to France or Germany. You could have compared Greece to Spain or Ireland, but those 2 countries are cutting back on spending, unlike Greece, trying to resolve the situation.

 

The other big difference is the fact that Germany has a lot more working adults supporting their pensioners and unemployed. There is a specific term used to define this, something along the lines of Population Support Ratio, where Greece doesn't. Greece sits with 27% unemployment and a big percentage that are pensioners, essentially meaning that the few who does work have to support the many that do not, in Germany that's the direct opposite.

 

Claiming that Greece isn't in the wrong for spending 24% on social expenses because Germany is spending 25% is exactly the Greek way of thinking. By your rationale, your country, Belgium, could spend just as much money as Germany does, because why not? Greece is spending more money than it is capable of - hence the situation they're in now. My country, South Africa, cannot spend the same amount of money that the US spends on our military, because we don't have that kind of money. We can't spend $700 bn a year on our armed forces, our entire budget is $200 bn, which means if we wanted to do that we will have to go and borrow the rest - which is what Greece did, and still does. Obviously there is a difference between % of GDP and actual value, but the principle is exactly the same.

the loans they get are to pay for the loans of old. Strip all, and I mean ALL, loan payments of Greece bankroll and they will just breeze along at like 2% profit. Its the vicious circle of "loan payed by new loan" thats killing them. And the "personal" way to end that is a default, something they are somewhat doing now.

 

It seems you don't yet grasp the idea of percentage and relative. Heck Greece's 24% on social is there because they just cut pensions in half basically. That is the drop from 26% in 2012 to 24% in 24. It might not seem like alot but also know that there GDP itself dropped 25%! Another thing that austerity did, it hastened the "reality check" Greece needed. You don't stop a car on a brick wall, you softly apply the pedal to keep your dog on the backseat from smashing into the windshield.

 

btw, Belgium is spending over 30% of GDP intake on the social branch

Guys,I read your replies,and I realized that almost everyone said pretty much the same things.So,I thought it would be better to reply/give information to all of you with just one post.I didn't want to reply to every single one of you,because it would take 5 more pages!    So,I'd first like to do a flashback in Greece's ''economic'' history: Greece,a small Mediterranean country,had Drachma as its own currency.It was not a rich country like Germany,France,Belgium,Italy etc. (and I don't think it will ever be,at least not in the near future!    ) but its people lived with dignity and they didn't have many problems.Later,Greece joined the EU,and later the Eurozone.Did it join the Eurozone fairly,however?No,because the Greek politicians actually ''falsified'' deficit numbers.It is also said that they ''hid'' one billion of debt,but this is not related to the coutry's Eurozone entry.In a few words,Greece didn't actually meet the five Eurozone-accession criteria.Anyways,after adopting this new,strong currency,it saw its GDP and its economy,in general,''booming''.For a lot of people,it was quite strange for such a small nation.However (all the trouble starts from this point),just because the Euro was a ''powerful'' currency,the former Greek governments realized,or at least thought that they had countless possibilities.So,they started this ''infrastructure'' frenzy,in order to ''boost'' the economy.They built motorways (Egnatia Odos is the most striking example) and built new railway systems,like the Athens Subway,the (STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION,FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!) Thessaloniki Subway,the Athens Tram,the Athens Suburban Railway,the new airport in Athens (Eleftherios Venizelos International Airport),the expansion of one of the runways of the Macedonia International Airport of Thessaloniki (again,STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION,FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!) ,the Thessaloniki Suburban Railway (THANK GOD THIS ONE'S COMPLETE!!!)etc.They did things that benefited the country,indeed,you can't say the opposite.But,HOW THE HECK DID THEY DO/ARE THEY STILL DOING ALL THAT GREAT STUFF??? AND THESE ARE SOOO DAMN EXPENSIVE!!! (they also bought military equipment,but many of it wasn't even RECEIVED,but I think we shouldn't talk about military expenditures,because it's a subject that you don't know a lot about,believe me,I'm saying this as a Greek.The government didn't buy weapons,just because they woke up one day and said ''OK,today and from now on,we'll be buying military equipment!!!) By getting LOANS,of course!!! Everything was being done with borrowed money! And they thought that Greece could pay them off.But,hell NO!!! I think that you all agree that the governments of that era shouldn't have been borrowed sooo much money,but they should have tried to realize at least a few of the above-mentioned projects with their own-country's money.And I tottaly agree with you.Although Greece had gotten enough loans,it kept getting more and more,when it suddenly reached a point where it couldn't pay them off,even with the country's income.So,it started getting new loans in order to pay older ones,until this very spot,where Greece's debt is huge because of these mistakes,and people are suffering because of them!!! I know that the Greek politicians practically didn't know what they were doing,and not just about the above-mentioned,but for everything,including the extremely high pensions,public insurance services etc.!!! I agree with you,guys,and no one says the opposite!!! The Greek governments spent too much money in fields where it wasn't necessary!!! Then,Greece implemented austerity measures (under Papandreou and later Samaras-Venizelos),which completely destroyed the already fragile Greek economy,and its people! And,the high pensions were cut in half (so,no more hign pensions,as many of you argue),expenditures in the fields of education and the health system were reduced DRAMATICALLY (you could say that they don't even spend money any more on these),a lot of employees in the private sector were fired,as well as in the public sector (that was OK,there were too many civil servants!  ).And all these came to add to the fact that Greece as an economy relies only on tourism,merchant shipping and agriculture (which is slowly dying!).As a result,the economy COLLAPSED,and the ''fate'' of Greece was only paying and paying and paying,until it has no more debts.But,this means,that in the meantime the country won't even have a slight chance to improve economically and get out of the crisis (which is both financial and humanitarian).That's what (and now Tsipras time!    ) the Greek PM wants to negotiate.He wants his country to pay its debts,of course,but with different conditions,that will allow Greece to ''take a deep breath''.So,no one's getting angry here about the debts we have to pay,as I saw before.No one said ''we WON'T pay them back''.  And,definitely war IS NOT an option!

Anyways,guys,I said too much.But,we really don't have to quibble over such stuff! Sure everyone has his/her opinions,but if anything,we're all friends and allies! We don't have to destroy our mood!!! 

Guys,I read your replies,and I realized that almost everyone said pretty much the same things.So,I thought it would be better to reply/give information to all of you with just one post.I didn't want to reply to every single one of you,because it would take 5 more pages! So,I'd first like to do a flashback in Greece's ''economic'' history: Greece,a small Mediterranean country,had Drachma as its own currency.It was not a rich country like Germany,France,Belgium,Italy etc. (and I don't think it will ever be,at least not in the near future! ) but its people lived with dignity and they didn't have many problems.Later,Greece joined the EU,and later the Eurozone.Did it join the Eurozone fairly,however?No,because the Greek politicians actually ''falsified'' deficit numbers.It is also said that they ''hid'' one billion of debt,but this is not related to the coutry's Eurozone entry.In a few words,Greece didn't actually meet the five Eurozone-accession criteria.Anyways,after adopting this new,strong currency,it saw its GDP and its economy,in general,''booming''.For a lot of people,it was quite strange for such a small nation.However (all the trouble starts from this point),just because the Euro was a ''powerful'' currency,the former Greek governments realized,or at least thought that they had countless possibilities.So,they started this ''infrastructure'' frenzy,in order to ''boost'' the economy.They built motorways (Egnatia Odos is the most striking example) and built new railway systems,like the Athens Subway,the (STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION,FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!) Thessaloniki Subway,the Athens Tram,the Athens Suburban Railway,the new airport in Athens (Eleftherios Venizelos International Airport),the expansion of one of the runways of the Macedonia International Airport of Thessaloniki (again,STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION,FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!) ,the Thessaloniki Suburban Railway (THANK GOD THIS ONE'S COMPLETE!!!)etc.They did things that benefited the country,indeed,you can't say the opposite.But,HOW THE HECK DID THEY DO/ARE THEY STILL DOING ALL THAT GREAT STUFF??? AND THESE ARE SOOO DAMN EXPENSIVE!!! (they also bought military equipment,but many of it wasn't even RECEIVED,but I think we shouldn't talk about military expenditures,because it's a subject that you don't know a lot about,believe me,I'm saying this as a Greek.The government didn't buy weapons,just because they woke up one day and said ''OK,today and from now on,we'll be buying military equipment!!!) By getting LOANS,of course!!! Everything was being done with borrowed money! And they thought that Greece could pay them off.But,hell NO!!! I think that you all agree that the governments of that era shouldn't have been borrowed sooo much money,but they should have tried to realize at least a few of the above-mentioned projects with their own-country's money.And I tottaly agree with you.Although Greece had gotten enough loans,it kept getting more and more,when it suddenly reached a point where it couldn't pay them off,even with the country's income.So,it started getting new loans in order to pay older ones,until this very spot,where Greece's debt is huge because of these mistakes,and people are suffering because of them!!! I know that the Greek politicians practically didn't know what they were doing,and not just about the above-mentioned,but for everything,including the extremely high pensions,public insurance services etc.!!! I agree with you,guys,and no one says the opposite!!! The Greek governments spent too much money in fields where it wasn't necessary!!! Then,Greece implemented austerity measures (under Papandreou and later Samaras-Venizelos),which completely destroyed the already fragile Greek economy,and its people! And,the high pensions were cut in half (so,no more hign pensions,as many of you argue),expenditures in the fields of education and the health system were reduced DRAMATICALLY (you could say that they don't even spend money any more on these),a lot of employees in the private sector were fired,as well as in the public sector (that was OK,there were too many civil servants! ).And all these came to add to the fact that Greece as an economy relies only on tourism,merchant shipping and agriculture (which is slowly dying!).As a result,the economy COLLAPSED,and the ''fate'' of Greece was only paying and paying and paying,until it has no more debts.But,this means,that in the meantime the country won't even have a slight chance to improve economically and get out of the crisis (which is both financial and humanitarian).That's what (and now Tsipras time! ) the Greek PM wants to negotiate.He wants his country to pay its debts,of course,but with different conditions,that will allow Greece to ''take a deep breath''.So,no one's getting angry here about the debts we have to pay,as I saw before.No one said ''we WON'T pay them back''.  And,definitely war IS NOT an option! 

Anyways,guys,I said too much.But,we really don't have to quibble over such stuff! Sure everyone has his/her opinions,but if anything,we're all friends and allies! We don't have to destroy our mood!!!  

1. Paragraphs! Please use paragraphs. Reading that hurt my eyes. 

2. The government of Greece effectively ran out of money in 1974*, long before the Euro. So what did they do? They decided to expand the public sector without the money to back it, falling even deeper and deeper into debt and using borrowed money to do it.

3. Greece is, as a percentage of GDP, the second-biggest defense spender in all of NATO. Surpassed only by the US. (Like WTF?)

4. Regardless of their blatant and out of control spending/borrowing, Greece is not the only one to blame here. All of Europe shares blame in this situation for not addressing the issue sooner. Nobody even cared until the global recession in 08, when everyone realized that wealth actually doesn't just fall from trees.

5. I have no ill will towards Greece or any EU nation for this. In fact, I want this situation to evolve into an even more united Europe. A United States of Europe. Even though that's highly unlikely, I've always loved that idea. Europe could easily be the world power and surpass the US in such an event. But so far, Europe just seems to be slipping more into division.

 

*Edit

So sounds like the rest of Europe is saying accept by Sunday or get tossed from the Eurozone.

 

What's the likelihood that'll actually happen?

So sounds like the rest of Europe is saying accept by Sunday or get tossed from the Eurozone.

 

What's the likelihood that'll actually happen?

According to Greek opinion...... Absolutely zero. The Greeks apparently would rather reject austerity in favor of default austerity. Either way, you get the same exact outcome, only with the latter, Greece looses the Eurozone and probably even more jobs than the former.

Like TheRebel said, democracy at work. For better or worse, the Greeks are making their own choices. Sadly, I really think they made the wrong choice on this one.

Ah, yes, the zero sum game. That can be a rational belief, but I don't hold to it. There's still a lot of efficiency to be wrung out of the ol' world yet. First will be a revolution in automated transportation. Then renewables. Then lab-grown food. Finally, upload to the interwebz and log out of the real world. After that, growth will be intellectual resources, rather than physical. And all will consume far less energy than we consume now.

 

We've already seen a revolution in entertainment. Experiences that you had to get at inefficient paintball ranges and laser tag venues are now a download away. The electricity used by games is far less than the energy required to maintain old forms of entertainment. You could never imagine a free bowling alley or golf course, but I can have an unlimited simulation of both at home for some electricity and an internet connection. $1 for a mobile game can give more engagement than $12 at a movie theatre. I don't even bother going to theatres anymore unless it's with someone else.

 

When parcels no longer require a meatbag to escort them from Point A to Point B, you'll see a lot of grocery and retail stores shut their doors. At the same time, the middleman and transport costs of products (which can make for half of the retail price) will drop drastically. Restaurants, cafes, and bars will do better, since people will still need places to congregate and their grocery costs will drop.

I completely agree. What we will have to figure out, is what to do with all the unemployed people that lose their jobs to efficiency and automation. Yes, the new technologies create new jobs, but not as many as you lose, and not everyone will have the flexibility to adapt.