Can someone explain to me what's going on in Greece?

[tzor]

sure, but Bureaucracy isn't that hard to spell.

What do you mean it's not hard. It's got three god damned vowels in a row there. Even more the pronunciation is horrid...

(I was going to throw Webster's pronunciation here but it uses more letters than this font will allow.) So you got the first letters mapping into a dypthonic vowel sound even before you get to the 'r' and you want this "Spell it like it sounds" american to write that correctly most of the time? Fuggedaboutit!

[Username17]

Now, Greece's entry into the EU was all kinds of weird and doesn't make any sense from an economic point of view and never did. They are more of a basket case than Turkey. They were a fascist dictatorship run by a cadre of military officers until 1974. They lacked an economic plan and a tax base. They couldn't keep Greek Cypriots in line long enough to not get repeatedly shot in the face by the Turkish army when they tried to ethnically cleanse the island. The Greek "government" hasn't figured out how to get people to pay taxes. By any objective measurement, Greece is a basket case that is literally less desirable for your empire than Albania.

The reason for Greece's inclusions is that it is seen as a political necessity. Europe justifies itself as an existant entity based on Europa, which is Greek. Their claim to legitimacy is the ancient democracies of Athens, which is in Greece. The entire narrative of "Europe" being a historically real political entity requires Greece to be in it. Remember when Europe got all pissy at Hillary Clinton for mentioning how young and bullshit their system was? They got pissy because she violated their narrative. Like if you mention that China is a young country and probably has very little to do with the Han Dynasty. But in Europe's case, the narrative literally depends on Greece being in the Union.

-Username17

[tzor]

I mean, it's bad enough that we have to call champagne "sparkling wine" and shit, but Portugal demanded (and received) special ownership of the name "Port", Denmark got protection for Danish Blue and Esrom, Greece got protection for Feta, and so on and so forth. And until 2007, the EU had really quite remarkable growth coupled with price stability in the Eurozone.

But Champagne had a valid argument even before the Eurozone. Wine tradition was solidly in the custom of label by region and Champagne was (and still is) a region. (There was a problem many decades ago when a small town in china began to produce stuff with it's name as a region, because "Made in Usa" was too close to "Made in USA.") Being from a location that has recently struggled to create its own appellation (and for someone who I won't name I went and made sure I spelled it correctly) I can see how everyone in the wine industry realized that thier case had exceptional merrit.

Now the EU did lobby against the use of the "Method of Champagne" or "méthode champenoise" and, frankly, that term is just too confusing to the average person. (But this opnly applies within the EU.)

[tzor]

But in Europe's case, the narrative literally depends on Greece being in the Union.

Now the EU's odd behavior makes some sense.

Personally I would have gone with Rome, and the days of the Republic.

[sabs]

Rome is the Seat of the Holy See.
It's too Catholic by far for the 50% of Europe that's staunchly Protestant.

But Greece, noone takes Greek Orthodox Church seriously... so it's all good.

[Koumei]

Why can't they just give Brussels/ECB the finger and default? You said the EU won't let them, but presumably this is "If you do this, then _____", not "It is literally impossible".

So, what is _____, and is it worse than what they're currently facing?

[tzor]

Rome is the Seat of the Holy See.

Saing "Rome is the Seat of the Holy See" is a lot like saying "The New York Giants play in New York." They don't. Close doesn't cut it.

Vatican City was never a part of the Seven Hills of Rome. Vatican City is the Seat of the Holy See. Vatican City is its own nation. Rome is a part of Italy.

Oh almost forgot, the "Greek" Orthodox Church has its historical roots in "Rome East" or Constantinople, which is, actually in Turkey. Yes it was a Greek Colony, but that was long before Constantine tried to create a capital for Rome in the eastern portion of the fractured empire.

[hyzmarca]

The thing where the central bank refuses to act as a lender of last resort and insists that if they show themselves being harsh enough to member countries that the bond market will miraculously gain confidence probably needs a different metaphor. I don't even really follow it. Apparently their argument is that since lenders of last resort are not needed by countries that have central banks empowered to act as lenders of last resort, that telling everyone that they aren't going to act as a lender of last resort will have the same effect.

How about a pimp cutting his pock-marked syphilitic whore's nose off because the customers were complaining that she was ugly and then wondering why he's suddenly losing business?


The solution to the EU situation is really simple. They need to either shit or get off the pot. Either convert the half-assed economic confederacy they have now into a real country with all the powers and responsibilities that a real country has or just give up central control of the Euro and let every member country set their own fiscal policy independently.

The pants-on-headedness of the ECB is just a symptom of the bigger problem. You can't be half a unified nation and half a collection of independent states. The USA dealt with this issue twice (though in different ways), and both times it was discovered that a strong central government with the power to kick ass and take names works best.

[Koumei]

I see at least two problems with that idea. The two I can see are called "The UK" and "France". Neither has a sufficiently small ego to let their GREAT NATION be merged into some other thing, becoming the same country as (the other one - or for that matter, anyone else).

There are enough Euro-skeptics in Britain based on the fact that they have to play nice with France, Germany (who they will take great pains to explain that they personally helped beat in WWII, even if they weren't born until 1990. Or for that matter, even if they were 10 during the War, and thus consumed resources without aiding the war and thus were actually helping Germany), Italy and the rest.

Hell, enough English are annoyed at being part of the UK, having to share their political power with Wales and Scotland, and the only reason they're not walking to Downing Street and giving the PM a piece of their mind, if they are to be believed, is that they "are really in charge, it's really just that we own them and absorbed them into us, you know."

Note that some EU member nations still use their own currency almost exclusively, and one of them couldn't even be converted to the Metric system.

I imagine most of the countries would oppose to losing their special title (and peculiarities and local laws and so on, and the shred of respect they get for holding a UN seat) and just becoming a state or province in "The Nation of Europe".

[sabs]

Tzor, while factually true, that entire response was completely pedantic.

The Church has always associated itself with Rome, and not so much with Vatican City. It was the Holy Roman Empire, not the Holy Vatican Empire.
And, being a Republican, you should know that what people perceive to be true, is much more important than what is factually true.

To most people the Vatican is in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome. And the Roman Republic brings back too many bad memories. But Greece, is all special and sparkly snowflake. Athenian Democracy is /awesome/ Roman overrule is to be shamed. That's pretty basic in the European Psyche, even if it's a bit weird.

[Username17]

Why can't they just give Brussels/ECB the finger and default? You said the EU won't let them, but presumably this is "If you do this, then _____", not "It is literally impossible".

So, what is _____, and is it worse than what they're currently facing?

All of the countries with a primary deficit have the problem that if they declare default without clearing it with the ECB first (which will never approve of such an action because historical reality like it having stabilized Iceland's freefall and saved the economy of Argentina means nothing in the face of their pants-on-head crazy), then they don't get any Euros anymore. This is initially equivalent to a large withdrawal of capital from the country. But it also means that they basically can't borrow any money at all for a bit, meaning that they can't cover their deficit for that year and simply go bankrupt.

For countries without a primary deficit like Italy, it's more complicated. First of all, they can pay their bills for this year, so if they just told their past debt to go fuck a horse they could survive the initial hit of having no lines of credit for a bit. But then they'd have to go to a new currency because they couldn't use Euros any more. And since everyone would think the new currency was going to experience some inflation in the first few years (and they'd probably be right), everyone who could would pull their money out of the country and put it somewhere that was still on the Euro. So: huge capital outflights from the country and a simultaneous bank run on every financial institution.

That is what happens if a country leaves the Euro unilaterally. All credit dries up simultaneously and all bank deposits leave the country over night.

-Username17

[hyzmarca]

There is always the expediency of withdrawing from the EU and then immediately declaring war and attempting to gobble up as many valuable resources as possible in order to stabilize your economy and then try to withstand the utter curb-stomp you'll receive for long enough that the USA gets involved and surrender to them in the hopes of benefiting from a Marshall Plan- style recovery program.

It's a solid strategy that got Germany, Italy, and Japan out of the Great Depression.

[Ancient History]

Now now, be fair. It's not like we have an actual process countries can formally go through to declare bankruptcy and get out from under unpayable debt, like people and corporations do.

[Daiba]

So: huge capital outflights from the country and a simultaneous bank run on every financial institution.

Given current trends, at some point this is going to happen anyway. I wonder if it would be better to go through this process earlier than later, before permanent damage to economic capacity sets in.

[Zinegata]

I see at least two problems with that idea. The two I can see are called "The UK" and "France". Neither has a sufficiently small ego to let their GREAT NATION be merged into some other thing, becoming the same country as (the other one - or for that matter, anyone else).

Britain spent like 200 years trying to prevent a European hegemony. They're not about to break tradition.

That being said, it should also be noted that Germany does have the biggest economy in Europe, and it's to be expected that they would eventually lead a union driven primarily by economic matters.

I'm pretty sure neither the British or the French would mind an EU if they ruled over it, but due to the size and power of the German economy it's all but certain that Germany would eventually hold the driver's seat.

[Username17]

I'm pretty sure neither the British or the French would mind an EU if they ruled over it, but due to the size and power of the German economy it's all but certain that Germany would eventually hold the driver's seat.

There have been seven really credible attempts to unite Europe under one banner: The Roman Empire, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Revolutionary France, the Axis, and the Soviet Union. None of the big four countries will accept a union that is explicitly based on being under one of the others. So right away they aren't going to use the Roman Empire (Italy), Revolutionary France (France), or the Axis (Germany) as their narrative base (there are other reasons not to use the Axis of course). Further, the EU got its start in 1950 and the entire point was to fight the Soviets without sucking American cock to do it. So any empire in the Soviet sphere (including the Soviet Union itself) was out as a potential fictional ancestral form of the EU. And the Ottomans... well, those guys are Muslims, and if you think people throw a shit fit when Europeans suggest putting Catholics in charge, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Greece was chosen as a compromise position. The oldest Democracy in Europe and also a present day bullshit tiny backwater that was never going to be a threat to anyone. I mean: they couldn't even conquer Cyprus.

So: huge capital outflights from the country and a simultaneous bank run on every financial institution.

Given current trends, at some point this is going to happen anyway. I wonder if it would be better to go through this process earlier than later, before permanent damage to economic capacity sets in.

Oh definitely. Sarkozy is ranting about how the package they came up with on Friday is the only possible way to save Greece, but the plan arithmetically does not save Greece. The people of Greece would have to be completely ignorant of how bad their situation is and how much shit is in the sandwich they are being asked to eat in order to accept those terms.

Here's how it goes: Greece would have to accept even more grinding austerity measures that would drive their already depressed economy even farther into the red. In exchange for that: the banks owning Greek Debt would agree to write off half of it. Literally fifty percent of the Greek debt burden would disappear in the negotiated settlement. But... that's not enough. That's nowhere near to being enough, because the banks factored that shit in when they set the rates. A Greek two-year treasury bond has an interest rate of ninety percent. Do the math on it yourself if you want: with a 50% reduction and rollover at 90% interest that is still going to take their foreign debt from ~$500billion to over $900billion in two years time. Want to take odds on them miraculously doubling the size of their economy in two years with increasingly large austerity measures being imposed on them? Not fucking likely.

So Greece pretty much has no choice but to default. It will hurt like hell, but it physically cannot be anywhere near as bad as what Merkel and Sarkozy want them to go through. Spain and Italy though are another matter: those countries are basically solvent. There is no reason for those countries to have to have a financial meltdown. The only reason that is only on the table is that the ECB is Pants-On-Head Crazy (you should watch that: check out how the head of the ECB comes right out and says that keeping inflation way below historical norms is more important than preventing bank runs or maintaining low unemployment - and how he froths and rants while doing it).

-Username17

[Fuchs]

A lot of (usually german) people are still scared of hyperinflation, Weimar Republic style.

[Lago PARANOIA]

(you should watch that: check out how the head of the ECB comes right out and says that keeping inflation way below historical norms is more important than preventing bank runs or maintaining low unemployment - and how he froths and rants while doing it).

Boy, this narrative sure seems familiar. Hey, Paul Krugman, how's it going? How about taking a trip to Europe?

[Username17]

A lot of (usually german) people are still scared of hyperinflation, Weimar Republic style.

Which is really weird, because the EU's policies are actually way more like the hard money and austerity in the face of grinding debts and depressed economies that Germany tried in 1932. How did that work out?

-Username17

[Fuchs]

The whole EU won't work out unless they finally create a democratic nation out of it. As long as they are afraid of letting people vote though it won't ever work.

[Ancient History]

Theoretically (ha) Greece could refinance through the International Monetary Fund or World Bank, but that would mean essentially admitting they're a third world nation, and they'd probably get turned down anyway.

[tzor]

Tzor, while factually true, that entire response was completely pedantic.

The Church has always associated itself with Rome, and not so much with Vatican City. It was the Holy Roman Empire, not the Holy Vatican Empire.
And, being a Republican, you should know that what people perceive to be true, is much more important than what is factually true.

To most people the Vatican is in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome. And the Roman Republic brings back too many bad memories. But Greece, is all special and sparkly snowflake. Athenian Democracy is /awesome/ Roman overrule is to be shamed. That's pretty basic in the European Psyche, even if it's a bit weird.

And your response is totally lacking in history or geography. The so called "Holy Roman Empire" was centered in Germany.



Not even close to Rome.

When the Popes weren't on Vatican Hill, they were hiding out in Avignon France (1309-1376). That doesn't count the number of times they had to run away because some feudal lord decided to sack the place.

And what "bad memories" does the Roman Republic 509BC - 27BC bring to people? Indeed what memories at all? People are only familiar with the Roman Republic during the fall of the republic with the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44BC, but there is a centuries old tradition of the Roman Republic going well before that.

The notion that Greece is special is absolutely absurd. Athenian democracy, it should be noted murdered Socrates (those bstards).

Slavery was more widespread at Athens than in other Greek cities. Indeed the extensive use of imported non-Greeks ("barbarians") as chattel slaves seems to have been an Athenian development. This triggers the parodoxical question: Was democracy "based on" slavery? It does seem clear that possession of slaves allowed even poorer Athenians — owning a few slaves was by no means equated with wealth — to devote more of their time to political life. But whether democracy depended on this extra time is impossible to say. The breadth of slave ownership also meant that the leisure of the rich (the small minority who were actually free of the need to work) rested less than it would have on the exploitation of their less well-off fellow citizens. Working for wages was clearly regarded as subjection to the will of another, but at least debt servitude had been abolished at Athens (under the reforms of Solon at the start of the 6th century BC). By allowing a new kind of equality among citizens this opened the way to democracy, which in turn called for a new means, chattel slavery, to at least partially equalise the availability of leisure between rich and poor.

Likewise the status of women seems lower in Athens than in many Greek cities. At Sparta women competed in public exercise — so in Aristophanes' Lysistrata the Athenian women admire the tanned, muscular bodies of their Spartan counterparts — and women could own property in their own right, as they could not at Athens.

[Surgo]

Tzor, I don't think anyone's saying that the narrative makes any particular sense. Just that it is, for a few different reasons, the narrative they are using.

[sabs]

Tzor, you have an American Education, and an American View point. I don't actually expect you to even remotely understand.

First off, Europeans for the most part, know way the fuck more about Roman History than American do. (At least non Scandinavian Europeans) World History isn't a freaking 1 year class for them. And, it's not something that's just in some history books. You can still find Roman ruins everywhere in France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland.

If you're trying to establish yourself as a Historically backed Democracy, basing it off of Rome just isn't viable. There's too much baggage, not the least of which is that the Republic decended into an Empire. And then there's the Roman Catholic Church issues. And you start making the North African countries nervous when you start talking about a Union based on Roman ideals. And you make Europeans nervous, cause fuck they don't want North Africa anymore than North Africa wants them.


Vatican City is less than 5 kilometers from the Center of Rome. It's also well inside the Rome Beltway. Saying that Vatican City isn't effectively in Rome is asinine and idiotic. That's like saying you're not from Washington DC, you're from Georgetown.

[hyzmarca]

Simple question:

Greece can't legally print new money without the ECB's authorization, but they're physically capable of doing so. The Bank of Greece controls printing presses that they use to print Euros when they do have authorization. What if they just printed up 80 billion Euros without authorization, essentially counterfeiting their debt away?