Like what?

You don't think its fair to tell someone that owes you a lot of money that they have to sell some of their stuff? That they have to designate a certain percentage of their revenue to pay you back?

See that's not really a fair question, not in this context. Greece is being asked to sell off its national assets at rock bottom prices for the benefit of international capital, ie friends of the IMF.

You could look at it another way:

How about we give you a bail out to get you on your feet again so that you can increase your tax take and then pay us back?

But no, the IMF are saying 'we'll take all your money making enterprises and profit from them (forevermore) in order to clear your debt.'

Yes, its being asked to sell of its assets for the benefit of a loan forgiveness in the neighbourhood of a hundred billion euros, a significantly below market interest rate, and various other benefits.

How valuable are these assets that they're giving up that you think they're getting screwed?

To the Greek people they are priceless.

That's not an answer. But fine, if that's the case default. But we're back to the fact that having to sell off assets to pay off your debts is hardly inherently unfair.

But you're omitting very pertinent points in the argument, namely that the assets are to be sold off cheaply.

Plus, what's wrong with the money borrowed being used to get them into a position to be able to pay back without selling off their assets, ie increasing their tax take?

The assets are to be sold off at the market rate for whatever that asset is, right? I don't know of a clause saying that they have to sell them cheaply.

What's wrong with it? The people lending the money don't want to lend more money to a proven fiscally irresponsible country. The people lending the money have better uses for that money than giving it to Greece to use however they want.

It's back to it being a ridiculous position that you think its ok for Greece to demand more time and more concessions from the people that are giving them money.

Edit: And at the end of the day if you really don't want to privatize assets, you can try to reach a compromise in other areas. Instead they're now refusing to privatize assets and also demanding other concessions on top of that.

That's their choice but the borrowing country always has the option to default (baring force which isn't going to happen here) and that's the risk the lender assumes.

There's two sides, Greece needs a better deal than defaulting and the lenders need a better deal than being defaulted on. Negotiations follow and can re-open at any time.

'Ok or not' may be childish, this is hard reality. However I don't think it as morally wrong as you suggest, Greece may have borrowed irresponsibly but the lenders weren't exactly prudent and those outside the EU were really lending based on the finances of the EU rather than the finances of Greece. The whole Euro project was driven by EU politics more than anything else - what went wrong is a shared responsibility to a significant extent.

Chez, I've stated many times that Greece has the option to default. I completely agree that's their choice and that's the risk the lenders took on.

I probably worded my previous post poorly. My complaint isn't so much that Greece takes this position - it's a negotiation position and I guess they can take whatever they want to improve their situation. I think their position is ridiculous, but sure, it's their right to try and take it.

My problem is with people like DiegoArmando who think that Greece is currently getting screwed and its some sort of outrage or evil plan that has the lenders asking Greece to sell assets and control spending.

Fair enough. I don't go nearly as far as Diego but I don't think Greece are being that ridiculous. I mean it is ridiculous but all the current choices are ridiculous.

Assets do often get sold very cheaply when the sale is forced, especially in a depressed market and income is then lost or services then have to paid for. I don't know if anyone has made the case that when facing such a huge debt the forced assets sales are a good idea for borrower or lender.

It isn't ridiculous. The strategy is exactly the same as the Sheriff in Blazing Saddles used.

(Chezlaw just came)

I mean ridiculous at face value. As some sort of meta-negotiating-position or get-elected-position, sure, it might make sense.

Can't really argue with that. Maybe, I'd give more credit to the ridiculousness of the situation than you. There's no face value sensible position for Greece to take because the only way forward is to receive more help or default and the EU want to do the former but can't easily say so or do it openly.

It was always the case that at some point Greece would default or be helped further (or both). That was implicit in the agreement that was made last time whether anyone admitted it or not. Most likely it will be this time as well - the only real solutions lay in the future.

I tend to think Greece might be offered better terms if they were the only country with economic problems. However, because there are other countries potentially lined up behind them asking for softer terms, Greece is being made an example of and dealt with more harshly.

If that were the case, do you think Greece would be justified in feeling that they are being disproportionately punished because they are the weakest link in the Eurozone?

I'd say Greece is getting more screwed than a captive audience paying inflated prices for beer at a sporting event (which I don't see as an evil to feel outraged about). I'm not sure if they are getting as screwed as victims facing price gouging for basic necessities immediately after a hurricane.

I agree Greece would probably get better terms if they were the only economic problem.

But I don't think that means they're being disproportionately punished. It just means that the people that are helping them can't help them as much because it needs to be spread around and the big picture needs to be looked at. Whether the people helping them are doing it for mostly selfish reasons doesn't really change the fact that they're still helping, imo.

I don't really understand the "Greece getting screwed" position. If the people giving Greece money walked away, Greece will probably be in worse shape. Right? If so, then Greece is getting helped and not screwed - again, even if the people helping are just doing it for their own interests.

It could be the case that they are being screwed. Maybe it's easier to consider the reverse:

Suppose Greece uses the threat of contagion to bigger countries to successfully negotiate an unfairly good deal for itself. This is paid for by Germans and others who could say they are are being screwed.

Then if we accept that could hypothetically be the case then we should also accept that hypothetically the Greeks could be unable to negotiate a fair deal because of fears that would lead to the above contagion threat from other countries. That could be described as Greece being screwed.

Are both of us under the opinion that Greece is pretty much screwed regardless of how negotiations go? I know that at least one of us holds that opinion.

I know at least one of us holds that opinion as well. Not the same use of 'screwed' though.

We're talking screwed and screwed, or screwed and treated fairly/generously, or screwed and defaulted.

What's a 'fair deal'?

I think it's fair for either side to walk away or for them to meet in the middle. Same as I think it's fair for me to not give money or to give money to a family in poor financial shape.

Edit: I guess in some ways it's not really 'fair' for Greece to walk away in the sense that it involves them going back on things that they've agreed to. But I think the risk of them not paying of playing along was clear.

I agree with the point that Greece is screwed in a 'all their options are bad' I don't agree that external countries like Germany are responsible for 'screwing them'.

The new gvnmt doesn't want to continue reforming the country. In fact it promised a socialist paradise. Why should anybody give them money for that?
They would be funded if they continued with the reforms.

It's a multi-faceted question.

It's possible their are fairer deals in financial terms: Suppose the experts on the lenders side believe they would get a better return for the lenders by offering a deal that is preferable to the the Greeks to the one offered now but the deal is not on the table for political reasons that are not to do with Greece. That would be 'unfair' on Greece.

Morally it might be unfair. You can see the Greeks might be being unfair to walk away from their obligations but the Euro project had implicit agreements as well and it's not clear to me they are being honoured. The EU is supposed to be an ever closer political union and the faults in the Eurozone were structural from the beginning (and known about and papered over) - the whole Eurozone and to a lessor extent the rest of the EU have an obligation for the resulting mess.

Germany are not simply an external country, they are one of the key players in the closer political union and bear a lot of joint responsibility for the eurozone mess. Casting Germans as the villians is deeply misguided imo, they have been a huge force for good in modern Europe and still are but that doesn't negate the joint political responsibility for this mess which Germany recognises as well- that doesn't make finding solutions easy, it's a very big mess but I'd still bet on Europe looking back on this as birth pangs.

I don't consider any of this fair/unfair. There are always lots of considerations/motivations in a deal.

Fair point about the implicit agreements of the Euro. I hadn't really thought of it in that context and I don't really know enough about the agreements to make an informed decision there. For example, if there were budget 'requirements' for being part of the Euro that Greece didn't follow I would tend to argue that its back to the root 'blame' being on Greece and so any help they get is above and beyond what is morally/ethically/fairness-ly required. But its definitely more complex than that.

It's semantics and it's also not a great approach imo.

but if both Greece and those who lent to Greece are getting a bad deal because of the greater political consideration then calling that unfair is hardly unreasonable. That remains true even if one side is benefiting from the politics (and even if both sides are)

There was a thing called the 'convergence criteria', it explicitly recognised exactly the problem that we now have of countries being far too out of line economically to allow a common currency, and 'imposed' conditions that had to be met for countries to join the Euro.

The lie for political expediency that allowed the pretense that the criteria had been met was not just from Greece. I feel some sympathy for Germany because they were dragged along for the greater good but they knew and they know that they knew (when I say the 'knew' they didn't know exactly that it was a lie but they knew they didn't believe it was true and waved the due diligence).

Then there's the political union issue, 50%+ youth unemployment is unacceptable in any part of the EU and there is some joint responsibility for dealing with it just as the UK takes some political responsibility for high unemployment in any part of the UK. We don't just wash our hands.

To me, coercing someone into accepting something that is not necessarily good for them in order to benefit from that deal is nothing short of an evil plan.

It's so obvious that that's the line here, that I'd say it's up to you to prove why I'm wrong.

That's where we disagree. My problem is the selfish reasons for 'helping' Greece. It's a false economy and it's exploitation.

What about when their public services start costing them more because they become run for the benefit shareholders? That is bad news for the people who pay for them.

Look at the UK, for example, case in point is the Royal Mail privatisation. It was one of the most profitable public sector organisations yet they held their own fire sale in order to sell to themselves and their cronies.

The result is that the German pension funds now benefit from that business which was build by the UK tax payer over hundreds of years, plus it's become costlier to use the service.

Privatisation is nothing to do with cutting costs or making things more efficient: it's about profiteering, which I vehemently oppose on this scale and with these implications.