In the current situation, "structural reforms" is used to subsume two entirely different sets of measures.

The first is meant to remove what you previously mentioned: corruption in all the shapes and forms it takes in Greece, from a (intentionally) broken tax system formed over decades of nepotism to a bankrupt national media in the hands of oligarchs. The institutions of the Greek state are precisely what you expect when a country has been run by four families (Papandreou, Samaras, Mitsotakis, Karamanlis) for basically five decades.

This kind of structural reform is part of Syriza's program. Like you said, it'll be hard work and they might very well fail. They'll have only weeks, maybe a few months to undo significant parts of what has grown over half a century. It's not fair, but that's what it is.

The second kind of "structural reform" is meant to increase competitiveness, generally speaking, and a reduction of the public sector. In case of Greece, this included the slashing of wages, pensions, benefits, public employment. The economic and social results are part of just about every article these days, so I won't mention them again. A Great Depression, as predicted.

That's the sort of "structural reforms" Syriza wants to undo. And it's the sort that is expected of Spain, Italy and France as well, which, if done, would probably throw the entire continent into a Great Depression.

I'd go so far as to call any demand to increase competitiveness to German levels madness. Germany gained its competitiveness by 15 years of beggar-thy-neighbour economics, undercutting the agreed upon target of ~2% inflation (read: 2% growth of unit labour costs) the entire time. France played by the rules, was on target the entire time, and is now expected to suffer for it. Only Greece was significantly above target, and are now slightly below target. That's only halfway, yet already more than any democratic country can take.

They could have spread the adjustment out over 20 years, with Germany running above average ULC growth, but decided to throw Greece (and to a lesser degree Spain) off a cliff instead.


So where are we now? Debt rose, GDP crashed, debt as percentage of GDP skyrocketed. That's a fail. Social situation is miserable, health care system basically collapsed, reducing Greece to North African standards. That's a fail.

Those are not reforms to allow Greece to function independently. Those are reforms to throw the Greek population into misery, with ever increasing likeliness of radical solutions (eg Golden Dawn, who are eagerly hoping for a failure of Syriza).

So yes, almost every nation in Europe needs reforms of one sort or another. But using austerity as a rod to beat discipline into supposedly sovereign nations is just about the shortest way imaginable to blow up the Eurozone. Inflicting this amount of pain on people against their will does not work in democratic countries, and the rise of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Féin, the SNP and the Greens as well as the surge of popularity for Front National and Golden Dawn are clear indicators that the current form of politics cannot be sustained.

Force austerity on France and Le Pen wins the election.

Meaningful reforms that are to increase Europe's "prosperity" would have the support of the people. And reforms are definatly needed, given that the Eurozone is in its fifth year of stagnation, with many countries suffering from both a recession and deflation. A European Union without increasing prosperity for the masses will not last long, I'm sure of it. And a European Union that intentionally causes Great Depressions wouldn't be worth having anyway.

Yet after everything is said and done, I believe you are still absolutely correct in saying that the pro-austerity states won't blink.

Which is what makes it interesting, really. Greece might be able to take a default. They run a primary surplus and most (90%+) of the funds went to foreign banks, the ECB and the IMF anyway, or were used to stabilize the banking system. The people got bugger all. But the Greek banking system would collapse without access to the European system.

Which raises the question: would the pro-austerity states risk a collapse of the Greek banking system and everything it entails? Spanish banks would follow in a heartbeat.

As for the morality of it (they elected those governments, they deserved it): I don't believe in collective punishment, especially not the kind that cripples an entire generation, which is what years of 50+% youth unemployment and a failing educational system does.

My own country, Germany, in particular gets no sympathy from me in this case. Parts of our system were intentionally reformed to channel funds into the market, knowing full well that there was nowhere near enough demand for credit to soak up the surplus savings, nowhere near enough reliable debtors to generate a reasonable return of investment without generating bubbles, be it real estate or financial. They were looking for debtors, and if all it took was turning a blind eye to the painfully obvious longterm problems it would create in Southern Europe, they were more than eager to play along.

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.

Not the entire rest, actually. Just the pro-austerity forces currently running the show (Germany, Finland, Netherlands, Austria, etc). Syriza have strong support in Spain (Podemos), France and Italy, the three major countries on the receiving end of austerity.

If Varoufakis' analysis of the situation in Europe is correct, almost everything the troika (ECB, IMF, European Commission) has done since the beginning of the crisis was counterproductive and the underlying economic theories were wrong, plain and simple.

It would be an open challenge to conservative ideology in European governments and to a sort of market fundamentalism that has been the overwhelming drive behind most major policies enacted over the last two decades, particularly in the last seven years.

Can't have that. The Emperor is not naked. Greece is not bankrupt, austerity leads to growth and deflation poses no risk.

25% unemployment, 50+% youth unemployment, GDP down by 25%, poverty through the roof, dumpster diving on the richest continent on the planet -- whatever led to this (hint: austerity) needs a special place on the wall of things never to be done again.

Yet they want to implement it in France and Italy as well, which is why the conflict with Greece is actually a high stakes game about the future of the entire Eurozone.

Like I said, my own views are heavily biased against austerity for a multitude of reasons. And to see my own government forcing it upon significant parts of the continent makes me sick.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lurgee.

"Rich Man's World (1%)"

[Arthur Jensen:]
"You get up and howl about america and democracy.
There is no america there is no democracy,
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies.
The world is a college of corporations... inexorably
Determined by the... immutable bylaws of business.
The world is a business.
And I have chosen you to preach this evangel"

[Immortal Technqiue:]
For all my free market, healthcare robbing, stock stealing, retirement fund
Fucking with niggas. Fuck your little credit card scammin, jewlery stealing,
Crack selling, liquor store robbing mother fuckers (Its a rich mans world)
Hahahaha. Shout to the homies, Carnegie, OG, Willie Randolf Hearst,
Rockefeller, the real Rockefeller, my main bitch Leona, pour out a little Louie the
Thirteenth, Jack Abramoff, hold ya head, my Rothschild niggas, LET'S
GET THIS MONEY

[Verse 1: Immortal Technique]
I spend my day repping america overseas
Pensions for the workers? nigga please
Embezzlement etiquette private settlement
I'm better with confederate rhetoric from my mansion in connecticut
Foreclose and evict homes at the tenement
I twist words like a speech inpedIment
I hope you got good credit bitch
If not better get a new job with benefits
When I play golf with niggasii get cheddar with
New money buys brand new karats
My old money bought your great grand parents
You got grills in ya mouth I ain't mad at ya
I own every gold mine in South Africa
Thanks baby you made me a billion
Plus I own a building for each one of my children's children
That's the shit, snort coke in the whip miss USA sucking my dick
Yea what fuck the law 'cus real jail is for suckas
I go to country club prison you dumb mother fuckers
(I am the 1% fucking bitch)

[Hook]
You know my CEO corporate steeez please
Overthrow governments overseas in a breeze
Politicians in my pocket for a few hundred Gs
So if I'm never in court my assets a never freeze

[Verse 2: Immortal Technique]
I got a job and house and a bank account
When I'm out I doubt that's something you could say
And if not then I fake death like Kenneth Lay
Make money every day the world burns
Wanna tax us while y'all struggle to pay taxes
I'm getting my money the fastest
Memos and faxes shredded up documents
Slush funds through the corrupt continents
But they don't want me indicted
'Cause they don't want my dirty laundry aired when I fight it
Don't get my lawyers excited
'Cause what good is a law if you can't rewrite it
I got CIA traders, dictators so fuck y'all whistleblowers and haters
(Its a rich mans world) Shiiieeeaaat
I'll invest money from Al Qaeda
In the bank 911 widows go to later
Capitalism so I pray to fuck the state of the world
Money talks so what the fuck I need to say to ya girl
(I don't pay em to fuck, I pay em to leave)

[Hook]
You know my CEO corporate steeez greed
I'll treat countries like the IMF down on your knees
Real gangsters run the world fuck what you believe
I'll cut down the forest while y'all niggas burning some trees
I'll get your family murdered for a couple of Gs
'Cause your working class money ain't fucking with me
You think rappers are rich 'cause of songs you heard?
My labels make the money and haven't rapped a fucking word

[Verse 3: Immortal Technique]
Y'all in the ocean coastin' with the sails out
Hey America thanks for the bailouts
I made off at the banco ambrosiano
Got away scott free like el Vaticano
Acitvists activist get mad at me
'Cause I'm a tax free charity
80% to the staff and company
And 20% to the homeless and hungry
The country gotta pay the fed reserve
Kick back to the banksters haven't you learned
You protest cops or patrols on the street
But I bought city hall so I own the police
Email facebook and the shit you tweet
On the phone companies so I heard you speaking
My suggestion is no correction no elections, sex with no affection
No invention would benefit the world of man
Will exist till I got the money in my hand
World bank, interest rate damn rape on the spot
But I'm a gangster you gon' take my money like it or not, nigga
(I got your country in my pocket, motherfucker!)

[Hook]
You know my CEO masonic steeez cheese
Only little people pay all these taxes and fees
Since you were born we controlled what you watch and you read
And pretty soon were gonna own the fucking air that you breathe
I take what I want fucker I don't have to say please
I'll convince you that it's good for you, take it and leave
You think presidents are the face of a nation
I put em all where they are, end of the conversation

Hahaha

1) "The Democratic Party in Europe would be a far-right party".

I don't think it would be. A decade ago, yes. But not today.

Look at what Blair (Labour) and Schröder (SPD) did to the left-of-center parties in their respective countries: they moved to the right, significantly. And by doing so, the entire political sphere was pushed to the right. Tory and CDU, the former right-of-center parties are not that different from the Democratic Party, nowadays at least.

The French are still holding on to the alignment of their political system. However, the austerity enforced by conservative moralists, mainly the troika of IMF/ECB/EU Commision as well as the German establishment, is putting immense pressure on Hollande to "encourage" a political shift to the right.

2) Resistance from within the political system.

We have two of these parties in this country, parties that, to some degree, oppose the establishment in areas of significance. They manage to mitigate some of the damage the establishment tries to inflict upon society, but if we're honest about it, most of it is only postponed by a comparatively short period of time. One might even argue that it's just for show so that the illusion of choice is kept up...

In any case, they cannot create the level of fear neccessary to keep the other parties in check. For that to change, the ownership structure in traditional media would have to be changed, radically. As of now, the marginalisation of anti-establishment forces is working effectively and any attempts at meaningful change are demonised.

3) A recently published document by JP Morgan illustrates just how openly their efforts against democratic societies are being waged these days:

Political systems around the [European] periphery typically display several of the following features: weak executives; weak central states relative to regions; constitutional protection of labour rights; consensus building systems which foster political clientalism; and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo.

The shortcomings of this political legacy have been revealed by the crisis.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone speak with their satire the words sympathetic fans know to be true. The self-deceived embrace with emotional fervor causes with ulterior substance and authentic sell-outs invest in the causes and become spokesmen for their keepers.
Sean Penn
Bono

Anyone who aligns themselves with any cause sponsored by UNESCO, UNICEF, RED CROSS,WWF, United Nations....Beware of cunts. Check the list of all UN organizations- IMF is one of them. Might as well join a private club, elitist assholes all.

He says there is no country out there that isn't now saturated in debt (5:40). That's not quite true.
Argentina told the IMF and the World Bank to fuck off.
They aren't completely out of the woods yet, but that is the model to follow.
I have high hopes for South America (we'll see).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Absolutely, as soon as my application with the IMF to float "The Powerpoint" as a currency on the open exchange gets approved, we'll have lots of money for those kinds of things. Assuming $1 = 1PP. I can make millions of PP. That's how currency works, right? >> ^spoco2:

Thanks @dag for the additions and fixes to the post. It was a great night, and it would be awesome to do it again. I'm sure with Videosift's vast profits you could fly in all top sifters for a yearly sift up... I mean you're rolling in it aren't you? Isn't that what you said?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Well, this just confuses me.

It mostly made me chuckle. The Catholic church goes ultra-Keynesian in defense of social justice. Somewhere, there's a fleet of Ron Paul supporters whose heads just exploded.

As for the merits of the idea itself, I don't think we're at the point where a global monetary union would be useful. While the IMF doesn't have the same sort of dedication to social justice one would imagine a Papal Global Bank would have, it's not actually doing too bad a job given its limited resources and authority, and given the kind of ideological mindsets that tend to infest monetary institutions.

I'm also somewhat fascinated at the idea of the Catholic church putting out a statement about a need for expansionary monetary policy to ease poverty in the world. I wouldn't have expected such a scientific idea to come from them.

Well, this just confuses me.

A big central bank (i.e. a new IMF) seems like a really bad idea--but the CATO Institute (Pieces of Shit) is against it. A tax on global transactions is a good idea--for each country individually--not Globally (who would receive and enforce?).

And--the Catholic Church being against idolatry is hypocrisy at its finest.

I don't know what to think.

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.

You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.

Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?
And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.


From you that's a compliment.

The evidence of Gaddafi's pending genocide is undeniable, from his own public declarations of it, to his deputy minister to the UN, do Gaddafi's forces deliberate actions to attempt and implement it. What evidence do you have of the rebels genocide? So far, the only source claiming that was Gaddafi's own media, which got really silent on the matter now...

Oh, and before you show any dead bodies remember there is a distinct difference between war crimes like massacres that likely did occur on both sides in the fighting in Libya, and a genocide. A genocide is a concerted effort to track down and exterminate a specific group of people. There is zero evidence the rebels have or ever did have any such plans, while Gaddafi announced his publicly from his own mouth. The fact you can't accept this says something very sinister about what ever glasses taint your vision.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.


But we aren't talking about a dictator who was a true socialist, so your comment is about some other imaginary situation. The REAL situation was Gaddafi, a convicted war criminal who had publicly declared his plans and intent to commit a genocide against those protesters that dared to suggest they should get the right to vote on who should lead Libya.

You insist on refusing to talk about the actual situation in Libya because it seems to create some kind of trouble for your hatred of anything Western. Accept that sometimes even the brutally selfish and imperialistic motivated actions of the west CAN be a lesser evil. Is that really so devastatingly incompatible with your world view?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.


You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?

And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.