Shocking that one of the leading mouthpieces and corporate apologists for the diseased form of capitalism that is capsizing the former republic of the United States of America would be predicting that 'market forces' will maintain an environment where CEOs such as Dan Price, who are confused as to which side of the class war they are on, will be strongly discouraged from closing the historical chasm of income disparity with their workers via a complex and myriad assortment of carefully implemented internal structures, that have been embedded over several decades starting with Reagan, and will serve to doom any business to failure for not prizing profit, and the unequal distribution of profit, over all other considerations such as income parity.

The most interesting aspect of this experiment isn't whether it succeeds or fails in the long run but rather that it will someday be used as a prime example by people like Chris Hedges who argue that the form of crony capitalism plaguing the West cannot and should not be reformed but rather destroyed and replaced with a system that doesn't have as its main aim the impoverishment of workers for the sole benefit of an oligarchical aristocratic elite.

EU health and safety regulations require that flags be fire resistant. Those Oligarchs in Brussels have taken away our right to protest! (with fire!)

Yeah, sounds like implementing the Croatian system would take more organisation than the Greeks have. Even the promised loan of tax department officials from Germany probably wouldn't be quite enough (and I'm not sure why Tsipras hasn't quietly taken up the offer, except that it does suit him to keep his cards close to his chest for now).

My confusion stems from every single article reading as if there is some compromise actually underway or imminent, but they never provide enough hints to work out what it might be... and anything I can think of is immediately proven false in the next update.

For instance, if Syriza had announced the €2B as an end to the suffering from austerity, and now the measures will only affect Government and the Oligarchs, then it would have made perfect sense... but instead both sides just keep giving out the same messages they have since the start.

I think it's possible they'll muddle through in the end, but at this point it's not at all clear how.

Wall of text incoming. Again.

Sorry. Again.

tl;dr:

Debt relief right away was proposed, was neccessary, and was skipped to protect the European financial system.



You are 100% correct, we both are as convinced as one can be that a disorderly collapse would have been much worse for Greece. Might have turned it into a failed state, if things went really bad.

But the situation in Greece at the time the Troika got involved suggested a textbook approach would work just fine. Greece was insolvent, no two ways about it. A debt restructuring, including a haircut, was required to stabilise the system. Yet it was decided against it, thereby creating an enormous debt bubble that keeps growing to this day, destabilising everything.

Why?

People in Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin knew in May of 2010 that Greece cannot service its current debt, nevermind pay it back. I remember rather vividly how it was presented to us, as it stirred up a lot of dust in Germany. They pretended as if the problem was a shortage of liquidity, even though they knew it was in fact an insolvency. And to provide an insolvent nation with the largest credit in history (€110-130b) is... well, we can all pick our favorite in accordance to our own bias: madness, idiocy, incompetence, a mistake, intent. They threw Greece into permanent indebtedness(?), and also played one people against another. People in Germany were pissed, still are. Not at the decision makers, but the Greek people.

Again, why?

Every European government, pre-crisis, drank the Cool Aid of deregulation, particularly with regards to the financial sector. When the crisis hit, they had to bail out the banks, a very unpopular decision in Germany, given the scandalous way it was done (different story). Like I pointed out before, when Greece was done for, German banks were on the hook for €17b+, and the French for €20b+. So no haircut for Greek debt.

It gets even better. The entity most experienced in these matters is, of course, the IMF. But IMF couldn't get involved. Its own regulations demand debt to be sustainable for it to become involved in any debt restructuring. Strauss-Kahn had the rules changed in a very hush-hush manner (hidden in a 146 page document) to allow the IMF to lend vast sums to Greece, even though they knew it would not be payed back. Former EC members are on record saying the Strauss-Kahn decided to protect French banks this way as a part of his race for President in France. So they changed IMF rules and ignored European law to bail out German and French banks, using the insolvent Greek government as a proxy.

Several members of the IMF's board were in open opposition. The representatives of India, Russia, Brazil and Switzerland are on record, saying this would merely replace private with public financing, that it would be a rescue package for the private creditors rather than the Greek state. They spoke out in favor of negotiations of a debt relief.

And if that wasn't bad enough, there's an IMF email, dated March 25th, 2010, that was published by Roumeliotis, formerly IMF. They put it very bluntly:

"Greece is a relatively closed economy, and the fiscal contraction implied by this adjustment path, will cause a sharp contraction in domestic demand and an attendant deep recession, severely stretching the social fabric."

Even the IMF, who chose parameters according to their own ideology, thought the European program to be too severe. That's saying something.

All that is just about the initial decision. The implementation is another story entirely, with unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats telling a democratically elected government what to do. There are former Greek ministers on record, telling how Troika officials basically wrote legislation for them. Blackmail was common, bailout money held as leverage. The Memorandum of Understanding was to be followed to the letter, and the Troika program was as detailed as a government program, so they really had their hand in just about everything.

The specifics of the program are a discussion of their own, with all the corruption going on. The Lagarde list (2000+ Greek tax dodgers) was held in secret by order of an IMF official – that alone should trigger major investigations. The nationalisation and sell-off of the four largest Greek banks, or the no-bid sale of the Hellenikon area to a Greek oligarch – all enforced by Troika officials.

The haircut of 2012, ~€110b wiped out, came two years late. As a result, it didn't hit any German or French institutions in a serious way. Most of the debt was in the hands of these four largest Greek banks -- NBG, Piraeus, Euro, Alpha – who subsequently had to be recapitalised by Greece to the tune of €50b. Cut by 110, up by 50 right away. Banks were nationalised and shares later sold again, at 2/3 the price. Lost another €15b, because the Troika demanded the sale to appease the markets.

The legal aspects of all this are nightmare-inducing as well. They violated numerous European laws, side-tracked parliaments, used governmental decrees, etc.

Let me just say this: when they forced Cyprus to give away two banks' branches in Greece for a fraction of their worth, Cyprus lost €3.5b, at a GDP of €17b, and those two banks went belly-up. It was pure blackmail, do it or you're out. Piraeus Bank received those €3.5b, and its head honcho had €150m of personal bad credit wiped clean right then and there, all at the command of the Troika. Those €3.5b had to be taken from ordinary folks by "suspending" the deposit insurance, perhaps the most stupid decision they had made so far.

Why did they do it? Because Greece was more important than Cyprus, and Cypriot banks were involved in shady deals with Russian oligarchs. Still illegal, and massively so.

Edit: I cut my post in half and it's still too long.

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.

@bobknight33
it is good to see you actually make an argument based on your perspective and not just throwing out tired partisan memes.

i find it interesting that the only real difference is who you feel are the "greater" of two evils.this is the exact same things democrats say about republicans...interesting yes?

the only point where you and i are in disagreement (political affiliations aside) is that you posit that we are "sliding towards oligarchy",where i would state "we have become an oligarchy",or more accurately "we have become a plutocracy"-with the oligarchs holding the reigns.

shows over folks....we already lost.

I hate this device with every fiber of my being.

It's an ostentatious, gaudy and useless bauble built for privileged, elite parasites. It holds no value in any society. The unbelievable waste of technology and resources that has been diverted to the creation and acquisition of such an embarrassing canker brings shame on us all.

Anyone who purchases one of these monstrosities should have it strapped around their neck as they're paraded in front of the community that they embezzled their wealth from.

In a just society, these would be worn on the wrists of the underserved homeless people who dragged these oligarchs off the top of their pyramids and bludgeoned them in the gutter.

Me neither artician-The point of promoting this programmed tripe here on the videosift was for yet another robotic putty to poke fun at imbecilic news rants from goons whose only program is to build their microcosmic personal empires and make self-deluded sophistic dreamers a bit more satisfied that their particular take on how the world works is far superior to the next imbecile's damaged world-view.

There's only one real cure for the terminal U.S. government and its hijacking by oligarchs, financial criminals, and cocksuckers...Tear it the fuck down. The first step, stop watching these pricks, all of them.

Guys, you have to understand how the industrial security system works. Companies get paid to find and investigate threats. If they don't find and investigate threats, they don't get paid. So, if enough time passes without any threats, care to guess what they might do?

The system has been entirely co-opted by the oligarchs. You want answers? Go ask the Carlyle Group, or whatever security company was in charge of the incident. The government isn't in control.

Friend of mine on the presidential election in Ukraine yesterday:

"The oligarch is dead, long live the oligarch!"

M Malevolent
O Oligarchic
N Nazified
S Succubal
A Anti-Neutraceutical
N Nonvegetarian
T Treachetourial
O Organo-assassins

The following address should be on every death to eco-terroristists' organization's, "Raze This Motherfucker", hit list:

World Headquarters Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167. Phone: 314/694-1000

Everyone who works for this corporation should be considered complicit in the undoing of species-

Monsanto is the reason bees are disappearing worldwide-
Monsanto is the reason heath care is unaffordable-
Monsanto is the reason gasoline no longer lubricates rubber and composites in combustion engines-
Monsanto is responsible for the disappearance of heirloom variety seed banks the world over-(hybrids notwithstanding, their originating variants tucked-away in bunkers)
Monsanto is a poisonous cabal of eugenicists, working to help other cunts reduce the world population through systematic, experimental means, with the world's sentients as her guinea pigs.

Someone needs to mail them some anthrax powder mixed with ricin, to get that full effect.

Maher is quickly falling into the trap of many 'New Atheists' and turning towards a strong denouncement of Islam (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/).

The end of that article is particularly telling after having read the whole thread of comments here:

"Proving that a religion — any religion — is evil, though, is just as pointless and impossible an endeavor as trying to prove that God does or doesn’t exist. Neither has been accomplished yet. And neither will."

One thing that has been hinted at here but not overtly said is that there is a dominant, violent ideology which certainly rivals if not trumps the posited "evil" Islam in terms of casualties and suffering. Who builds the drones and the bombs and the fighter jets that rain fire from the skies? Who manufactures the small arms and ammunition that fuel countless civil wars across the globe? For me the answer is clear: oligarchical, capitalist states. Let's put them (and by them, I mean complicitly us) under the microscope for their acts instead of undertaking the Sisyphean task of proving that one religion is more evil than another.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^Stormsinger:
I've got to say, that unless someone has some evidence that the prosecutor's statement is a lie, or they have a confession, I'd more or less agree with dropping the charges. Why would the driver keep silent about the weapon in his possession? Sounds a lot like a setup...rich drunk guy makes a pretty good target.

OK if this was a junkie skinhead attacker and the victim was a virgin princess would you say the same?
I'm assuming you are from some oligarch/monarchist society where one person is better than the other or you wouldn't dare speak such hateful hypocrisy in the open.. would you also let him fuck your wife on your wedding night? This is what trials are for brother, some of us are glad the middle ages are over..

As a matter of fact, I would. I'm something of a believer in the idea that you need fucking evidence to convict someone. Not "he said", not "the victim said", not even eye witnesses (who are almost totally unreliable). But when evidence is hidden away by the victim for months, then suddenly becomes available at the last minute, there's something fishy going on. And when there is fishy goings on, the accused gets the benefit of the doubt...what was it, better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted?

And if you think I support someone just because he's rich and white...well, either you've read none of my posts here, or you're a moron. You pick which one fits.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I've got to say, that unless someone has some evidence that the prosecutor's statement is a lie, or they have a confession, I'd more or less agree with dropping the charges. Why would the driver keep silent about the weapon in his possession? Sounds a lot like a setup...rich drunk guy makes a pretty good target.


OK if this was a junkie skinhead attacker and the victim was a virgin princess would you say the same?
I'm assuming you are from some oligarch/monarchist society where one person is better than the other or you wouldn't dare speak such hateful hypocrisy in the open.. would you also let him fuck your wife on your wedding night? This is what trials are for brother, some of us are glad the middle ages are over..

I think pretty much everyone does realize this...the issue is how? How do you teach how to learn, when it's not in the interest of the oligarchs, and isn't going to get any funding?