Nothing is good about this situation and there is no reason to think this will end in anything but Greek default.

Greece's government, elected by its citizens ran up a large and unsustainable debt which was masked by easy credit before the GFC and fraudulent accounting.

There were many contributors. Corruption, hugely wasteful state owned enterprises, joining the euro zone before they were ready to lose the ability to devalue their currency and lower interest rates, and flagrant tax evasion.

But as a country they're collectively responsible for not demanding the necessary reforms of their politicians to ensure they were not vulnerable to a credit crisis when the GFC hit and lenders began to look more scrupulously at individual European countries rather than Europe as a whole. Equally, Italy is responsible for voting Berlusconi into power for every year their economy recorded negative growth under his government. Spain is responsible for not providing sufficient oversight to bad bank lending leading a huge indebting bailout package.

Some of Syriza's reforms are reasonable. Tackling corruption and trying to break up oligopolies are worthy ideas, but they are unlikely to be easy and yield any immediate benefit. Raising the minimum wage and planning to hire back state workers as they have already promised will almost guarantee they will cease to receive EU funding/ECB assistance and later IMF funding.

The simple truth from the point of view of Germany and other austerity backing Nordic countries is if they buy their loans (and in effect transfer money to Greece) without austerity stipulations, there will be no pressure or guarantee that structural reforms that allow Greece to function independently will ever be implemented. These lender government and by extension its people have no interest in transferring wealth to Greece if it stalls its reforms.

Yes fire sales of state owned enterprises suck but the likely alternative at this point if the Troika lending is stopped is that all other lending stops and Greece defaults. At that point there would be mass loss of state sector jobs and sky-rocketing unemployment relative to what is now being experienced. It would take years of reform for the Greek government to be lend-worthy again. There is simply no trust for any alternative to austerity on the part of north Europe.

Currently Greece has reported positive growth in the past quarter and excluding debt repayments is running a budget surplus. Realistically, yes they cannot pay back the 180% of GDP. The likely way forward is after several more years of real reform they (+ Spain & Portugal) would get better terms from the EU as politically, leaders in Germany and elsewhere will be able to make the case that their objective has been achieved.

The ECB's QE package is in some ways already part of this. What I guarantee won't happen is electing Syriza to oppose bailout terms helping to secure that. Germany et al will quite rightly see that if they acquiesce to Greece they will encourage other populist parties in Spain, Portugal, Italy and France and stall reforms.

Could Germany and others in theory provide a huge cash infusion to Greece, Spain and Portugal now? Sure. And those parties would be voted out in the next election and the terms reversed. Even with the relative stinginess of current loan terms, the likes of UKIP and the National Front with their anti-EU stance, have gained political standing in the EU parliament and will likely see huge boosts in upcoming domestic elections.

@Jerykk
thank you for clarifying.

i can agree with many of your points i.e:addictions are destructive,health issues etc.

but there is zero evidence that decriminalizing (not the same as legalizing) is somehow promoting addictive drug usage OR that the user population will increase in response to decriminalization.

in fact,it is quite the opposite.
see:portugal
see:netherlands

users are not criminals.
addicts are not criminals,they are addicted.addiction is an illness not a legal status.

when you create a black market due to policy,violence will ensue,because those involved in that black market have no legal recourse.they are exempt from the legal system to settle disputes since they are engaging in "criminal" enterprise.

take away the criminality and you take away the black market and conversely...the violence.
see:prohibition.

addicts are not criminals....they are addicts.
and as squid alluded to:education is the best prevention.

thank you for your thoughtful reply.

There already are reasonable restrictions.

(I can't really ask to be exempt from laws that don't even exist. But I can ask for those new laws to not be written.)

Consider this.
Maybe /you/ are not special.
Maybe /you/ are not in this world to do with other people's lives how /you/ see fit.
Maybe /you/ should take the very advice you would give to violent offenders, and just leave people in peace.


Yes, this country has clusterfuckish problems.
But guns are not the cause.

We have a very high percentage of uneducated people. For example, my high school, in one of the nicest areas of the entire country, with the super easy U.S. curriculum, with the super relaxed and curved U.S. grading policy, 30% of kids that entered never graduated. And that's one of the better examples in the country.

The problem isn't even the education system. It's cultural. Kids show up to socialize, and smart kids get made fun of. Often they have no parental pressure to perform either. No amount of money can fix that kind of schooling, because it's not a schooling problem.

They don't just miss out on an education that helps them obtain gainful employment. The concepts of empathy and solidarity are essentially omitted.

There is a proverbial horde out there, many under strong financial pressures. Having the same consumer impulses that most people here have, they resort to augmenting their incomes with questionable activities.

The median *individual* income in the U.S. is around 26k / year. Half the population makes less than that... The cheapest unassisted rent in my area is ~800/month. Go to new york, and you could be paying 1600/month each with 3 other people for a rat hole. After water, electricity, food, fuel, you'd be wiped out. Any emergency (broken down car, medical expenses, whatever), and you are in the hole.

The nice areas you see on TV are a minority. Most of the country is a po-dunk shit hole, full of people that get desperate the moment things go bad. Which leads to restricted activities, and that tends to lead to violent encounters.

We have a very high percentage of arrested/jailed people.
When you're arrested, even if not convicted, you're not acceptable by a large proportion of jobs. The police even call your employer right away to let them know you've been arrested. You are essentially marked.

Like I said, 1 in 18 men are in the system. That's a LOT of people. Other than those on parole, they aren't working. Those that are working aren't making much money (on account of the undereducation and arrest record), and will likely be back in the system.

BTW, more than half of them are in jail for an activity that never even involved another person.
Most are there for harmless stuff.

Once these people do get out of jail, if they weren't already under financial pressure, they likely now are, and will stand a good chance at reinforcing the problem population.

(eg. Person with their life more or less in order goes to jail for having a bag of drugs, then they get out, can't get a job, and they need to resort to sketchy crap to make ends meet. Maybe get into violence, but often just return to jail.)

But, it's not by accident. Our jails are for-profit, with people in government making money from the jailing industry. Either by campaign contributions, lobbying, or by having financial stake in the companies.

The most self-serving thing the government can do, is keep the problem going, and tell people that they should rely on the government to fix it by getting tough. Then the govies make money on the jailing side, and they reinforce their public mandate.

The jailing companies themselves put inmates to work making cheap goods (ever bought a t-shirt that was made in the U.S.? It was probably inmate labor.), and then 'charge the inmates rent', effectively paying them a penny a day. Modern slavery.

All along the way, the taxpayers are paying the bills, and it's just a giant trough to feed from.

I hope you can imagine why I'm averse to making more ways to jail people that aren't being a problem.

It's also why I'm inclined to make drugs legal (pretty much try Portugal's approach). So as to bring that trade into the light, and end the gangster turf wars (which are a high proportion of the gun violence).

A lot of this could be fixed long-term by social engineering, using media to elevate the prestige of education and productivity. But we know that that is not going to happen when there is no money to be made on it.

-scheherazade

I don't know if I can support a Portugal win by 5. That would be bad for the US... depending on how the US does of course. A win or draw by the US and the US advances. I'm not sure how it works out for Germany if the US manages a win (we both advance in the event of a draw). A likely US loss means that the US wants a draw between Portugal and Ghana, but if somebody needs to win we'll want it to be Portugal, but certainly not by 5. We want our loss to Germany to be small and the Portugal win over Ghana to be small... Sucks to be at work that day at that time...So much is on the line and both games happen at the same time.

sigh.... Portugal... always failing ourselves.

I have a friend who speaks Brazilian Portuguese and says she can't understand Portugal Portuguese at all. Could it be that this girl is pseudo-speaking a Brazilian dialect? (Just a guess)

You might be ahead of the curve on that one.

I agree that a bit (or a lot) of fear might force our representatives all over the world to realize that even the richest donor cannot provide you with a replacement for your head after it was chopped off by the mob. Hell, we might find out soon enough if the troika keeps choking the life out of Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Similarly, the damage being done by secrecy of all kinds, particularly to core elements of democracy (see: deep state), might very well outweigh potential damages caused by putting an end to it entirely.

But I'm not there yet. Iceland and, to some degree, Switzerland are showcases that shit can be turned on its head much quicker than anyone thought. Nationalising banks, jailing bankers, referendums about maximum wages and basic incomes... if the Swiss can openly discuss the "1:12" initiative, a disbandment -- or at least a complete restructuring -- of intelligence services is not as impossible as one might think.

I don't think you're grumpy, radx. Granted, my posts tend to have that same ominous tone, in general so I guess I'm a grump too. If you really think about the scale of inequality today, the absolute plundering the ultra-rich enjoyed during the recent recession and the efforts to keep money in politics to perpetuate this cycle with brilliant tools like Citizens United, it's hard not to be bleak.

Unfortunately, what we like to call democracy simply does not have the teeth to affect meaningful change. I am encouraged by the relative economic performance from the list of countries that have scrapped first past the post (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ) except for maybe Portugal, but even with more effective elections there is still an extra seat for the rich in every government.

Even more unfortunate will be the painful revolution the world will endure to either change from capitalism to some other form of economics (maybe resourced-based, a-la Peter Joseph.) If we don't simply slide obediently into greater and greater concentrations of wealth for the ultra-rich, we get closer and closer to revolution. But all it will take will be one upheaval to spur the revolution into action, be it:
- another, even more severe recession (maybe the EU will implode, taking the world economy down with it)
- severe global warming positive feedback loop from the arctic methane stores
- nuclear war

And who the hell knows what else might set people off. Maybe a solar flare will fry all the satellites in orbit and the lack of new tweets will create a world-wide frenzy of irate twats. And who knows when it will happen. Maybe 5 years, maybe 50 years. Since money pulls the strings, I think we're doomed to guess as to the source of VoodooV's "tipping point."

we have something similar in Portugal. In a really bad case, a fast car, is sent ahead with a doctor and a nurse to the scene of the accident, with the ambulance going soon after as soon as possible. This way the patient can be stabilized before being transported to the hospital.

Okay then, lets arbitrarily exclude everything that's not part of the so-called "first world" -- which leaves the U.S. "empire" and its satellites/provinces.

"Regulated" how? What specific "regulations" did you have in mind? (You have an "out" by saying that it has to be the "right regulation," so, pray tell, what is the "right" regulation?)

And ultimately, so what? Is Greece better off because it is more "regulated" (whatever that means)? Or because it has less "inequality?" Or is Greece now no-longer part of the "first world?"

And by "Europe," do you mean the EU (have you seen Europe's economy lately)? How about Switzerland? Are they more "regulated" (whatever that means)?

In case you have noticed, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the UK (most of the EU, really) isn't doing that great right now, is it?

Edit: Let me know of the specific regulations you have in mind that will make everyone equal (like the Greeks, apparently). Hint: Just "regulations" does not mean anything without context. Do you mean to say that the EU has more laws than the U.S.? I wouldn't think of the U.S. as being a "deregulated" or an "unregulated" place. Would you? I live in California where the legislature is just now reviewing no fewer than 400 new laws to implement. I doubt that many (if any) Swiss cantons have more laws and regulations than California. Or Luxembourg. Or Estonia (which, by the way, is Europe's most recent economic miracle: a country with one of the freest -- albeit not perfectly free -- markets, relative to other countries).

Or perhaps you mean the Scandinavian countries (which I contest are not as "regulated" as you might think)?

Here in Portugal, we also love those barnacles. It is truly one of the most delicious foods the sea can give you.
And no wonder it's expensive. They risk a lot!

Oh Australia, if only this had been a localized problem.

Portugal, 1996:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7f9OzYq9wM

its portuguese from portugal... Still weird....

+1 million for Portugal link. Thanks pyloricvalve! And, it isn't counter to my intuition.

Although it's counter-intuitive the case of Portugal suggests that you are less likely to see people overdosing in front of you under legalization than prohibition. Does this alter your views?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
>> ^jmd:

Looks like cops and a dose of Mr Obvious.
The war on drugs is because a significant part of the population does not want drugs in their country. Now is it having a huge impact on us because of our poverty rates? yea.. if anything it is a holocaust on the dollar bill. The more we spend on drug wars, the more people that get poorer. There isn't a GOOD ending to this scenario.. either we stop fighting it or it will eventually makes us broke.. how ever...
Still doesn't stop the fact that we don't want these types of drugs around, or the people that use them. Find a different country if you want to shoot up. A country I can't go around without seeing people overdosing in front of me is not a country I wan't to live in.