Will Greece exit the Euro? (Thread now a poll)

Nothing is wrong with writing off Greek debt, asap. That is already five years overdue.

The timing of it, and the selection of it. It's been postponed, and continues to be postponed, at enormous added cost, while financial corporations that profited from creating the problem arrange for others to take the loss. And the part of the debt owed the predators (IMF, in particular) is set to be the part repaid, at high cost to the Greek citizenry and Eurozone taxpayers.

I agreed with it. Was I confused? It is a bit dodgy, agreeing with you after watching you post such claims as Goldman had nothing to do with the disaster. But it seemed to make sense, as far as it went.

No, I don't. I think that's why the financial players who have set this deal up and put themselves in position to profit by it have carefully avoided becoming themselves significant net unsecured creditors of Greece - just as Goldman Sachs did back when they launched this double back flip into the sewer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, then why in your previous post did you write you looked at the IMF demands and didn’t see anything which benefited Greece. You are contradicting yourself again. Two, where did you get this notion Greece has been in default for 5 years and remains in default to those creditors? Let me guess, you made it up as is your custom. The IMF by law is prohibited from making loans to debtors in default.

LOL, well never let it be said you let facts get in the way your ideological beliefs. The IMF has postponed nothing. The IMF has very clearly called upon political leader to forgive some of the debt Greece owes them. The IMF has done all it can do. The IMF cannot forgive debt without the approval of political leaders. You very specifically accused the IMF, not other creditor nations or the corporations you are now blaming. Where is your evidence that corporations have profited from Greece’s current debt woes? As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Greece’s debt woes are largely between itself and its European neighboring states. More than 75% of Greece’s debt is owed to other European states (50%) and the IMF (25%) not some amorphous corporation. At high cost…seriously…it’s difficult to get less costly than 0% interest. It’s the Eurozone taxpayers who are funding the Greek state through these loans. Either you are cognitively impaired or you are being deceitful. It’s the Eurozone taxpayers who are funding the Greek taxpayers.

Also as has repeatedly been pointed out to you “financial corporations” didn’t cause Greece’s fiscal woes, Greece did. You can and do make these grandiose assertions but you can’t prove them because the proof simply doesn’t exist.

Oh, that is a reversal, so now you are agreeing with the conditions competitors imposed on poor little Greece. When you wrote about the conditions asserting, “They will instead abet predation by international corporate interests, reward yet more the corrupt and clout connected, and prevent the Greek economy from prospering under its huge burden of debt.” you really didn’t mean it. Ok. Who knew debt forgiveness or making the Greek economy more attractive to investors could be so devastating.

As for Goldman Sachs, there is nothing dodgy about the very clear facts in this case. As previously pointed out to you 15 years ago Goldman Sachs was hired by the Greek government to disguise Greece’s debt so that Greece could gain entry into the Euro system. Goldman Sachs did what the Greek government hired it to do, and they did it legally. Greece had its massive debt long before it hired Goldman Sachs to help it disguise its debt. If Greece had its fiscal act together, there would have been nothing to hide and no reason to hire Goldman Sachs. But hey, you have gone this long without being phased by evidence and reason, so why start now? The unfortunate bottom line for you is Goldman Sachs didn’t abuse poor little Greece or in any way cause Greece’s debt woes. Greece had its debt problems long before Goldman Sachs entered the picture.

I’ll try to keep it really simple for you. Greece desperately needs currency. It has 3 options.

1. It can borrow currency as it has done for decades now. But that is running thin. As previously explained to you, it is difficult for Eurozone leaders such as Merkel to explain to their people why they must support Greece and pay for benefits for Greek workers which are not available to them because it’s too expensive. This option is running thin and has an expiration date attached to it. Lenders (i.e. other Eurozone taxpayers) will not support Greek taxpayers into perpetuity (e.g. the most recent Greek debt discussions).
2. Greece can pint its own currency. But as previously explained to you, it will be essentially worthless. The Greek economy is not strong enough to support a new currency.
3. It can reform its government (i.e. the creditor imposed conditions) and make Greece more attractive to foreign investment and as previously explained, foreign investors will bring in the currency Greece so desperately needs in the form of investments (e.g. purchasing land, building buildings, opening stores and factories, etc.).

As I wrote before, it really isn’t that complicated or difficult. It’s just basic macroeconomics 101. But somehow that has eluded you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because Goldman Sachs was just doing what all of Greece told it to do, when it stuck the Greek citizenry with ballooning unredeemable debt, collected hundreds of millions in fees, and then made hundreds of millions more shorting the whole package. Yeah, you've been pointing that out right along.

No, I'm not. I'm agreeing that the Greek government and economy needs reform and rehab.

There's some stuff in there that should benefit Greece. There's also stuff in there that will rob Greece to benefit international financiers and corporations. On balance, more of the latter, especially the further postponement of the inevitable write-down on the debt. What Greece couldn't pay in 2010 has ballooned even more since, and will continue to grow, while the austerity measures continue to prevent speedy recovery of the economy.

And the IMF for some reason forgot to recommend that Greece begin legal proceedings against Goldman Sachs et al, and claw back a few hundred million as is routine in these circumstances. There's at least one former Goldman exec who has offered his cooperation. Any idea why that was overlooked?

There's no way at all to predict what you're going to claim other people said. You've got a screw loose, and nothing anyone can do about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

low standards? Have you ever been to Russia or are you just oozing info from CNN-like media?

 

" The International Monetary Fund’s board has been told Athens’ high debt levels and poor record of implementing reforms disqualify Greece from a third IMF bailout of the country, raising new questions over whether the institution will join the EU’s latest financial rescue."
From: http://view.ed4.net/v/EB8122/32Y2GT...rm/email/2015730/nbe/ExclusiveComment/product (With date line: 30 July 2015)

Aw, shucks, IMF why not throw more good money after bad? The debt holders of trash paper will thank you.

 

Yes I've been to Russia and have worked for a company with business dealings there and with people who have lived there. I live in the UK, so I do not see CNN or American channels at all. In fact I do not have a TV, as I find the camera always lies. But I read various newspapers and magazines.

 

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Greece's debt problem existed long before Goldman Sachs ever entered the picture. If Greece didn't have a debt problem, Greece wouldn't have needed to hire Goldman Sachs to hide its debt.

What Goldman Sachs did was perfectly legal, and it didn't harm poor little Greece. Greece got from Goldman Sachs exactly what it wanted, nothing more and nothing less.

Actually, that is a reversal for you, you have been arguing against all conditions until now. And just what conditions will hurt poor little Greece and which will help it? Be precise and explicit now, nor grandiose ambiguous commentary. I am looking for specifics and specific reasons why they are bad for Greece. And identify which conditions "rob" Greeks as you have asserted. You are long on generalizations but real short on details and even shorter on logical reasons.

As also previously explained to you, Greece has repeatedly failed to implement prior conditions. So trust is running thin. Creditor nations don't trust Greece to do what it says it will do, because Greece has repeatedly failed to implement its agreements. That's why creditor nations are not willing to discuss write downs.

Greece's overly bureaucratic inefficient and corrupt government is more a problem than spending money. Dumping more money on the Greece economy does nothing unless and until Greece makes some fundamental changes to its government. That is why creditor nations, not those evil corporations you fantasize about, are insisting on conditions.

LOL, back to this....well in order to sue, a tortious act needs to have occurred. And in this case there is none, and this too has been repeatedly explained to you. The IMF or any creditor nation will not insist Greece waste money on frivolous law suits. Greece already has enough problems. Frankly, your notion is silly and flat out ignorant. Fortunately, not everyone is as silly as you or as ignorant as you my friend. The good new is there are some well educated, knowledgeable and responsible folks out there.

LOL, are you saying you didn't write the words I quoted? I suggest you go back and read your post #141. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wi...-thread-now-a-poll.113641/page-8#post-3317988

You are either crazy or dishonest or some combination or perhaps your memory is fading and you just don't remember what you post. I still want to know the basis for your claim.

 

Greece had a manageable debt and somewhat more significant deficit problem entering the Eurozone. Goldman Sachs turned their contemporary Eurozone technical deficit problem into a future bankrupting, unmanageable, unpayable debt hidden from public oversight .

Whether it was legal or not depends on how it was agreed upon. If the Greek negotiators were deceived by Goldman, it was probably legal criminally (although clawbacks would still be on the table, under US law - Goldman is a US company). If Greek negotiators, officials, or key bureaucrats were bribed or coerced by Goldman, then criminal laws were violated.

Whether you regard what Goldman did as harmful to Greece depends on whether you think the consequent bankruptcy and crash of Greece's economy was harmful. Goldman's opinion of the deal they had arranged is seen in their subsequent behavior: they shorted all Greek debt, and cleared themselves of any exposure to future Greek financial woes, and made a ton of money off the misery they had arranged for the Greek citizenry.

No, I haven't. Which is why it's not a reversal.

I handed you two specific examples of harm, and elaborated on one of them - the removal of the Greek requirement (shared with good results by many other States, such as North Dakota in the United States) that pharmacies be individually owned by a licensed pharmacist. Did you forget that, or are you carefully avoiding looking back on your responses to it? They are pretty naive.

Nope. I could predict the contents of a quote pretty easily. What I can't predict is what you're going to claim I said. It's a surprise in every thread.

 

so I am guessing you were pretentiously expecting to have the royal King of England entrance in the company. Where are you basing your russophobic ideas from? Women didnt do their part?

 

Reality.

 

Oh, then why did they hire Goldman Sachs to disguise its "manageable" debt so that it could gain entry into the Eurozone? Where is your evidence Greece's debt was "manageable" prior to its hiring of Goldman Sachs and afterwards it was not? You know you have a habit of acting like you know things or have some subject matter evidence and are a credible source when in fact you are pretty damn ignorant. That isn't honest Iceaura.

And you know this how? Do you have any evidence Goldman Sachs in anyway deceived Greece? No, you don't. You are just making stuff up again. The bottom line is you have absolutely ZERO evidence to support your assertion which is normally the case with you. Two, just so you know, even if there were evidence of fraud, which there isn't, it wouldn't apply because of this thing called "statue of limitations". It has long expired. Apparently, you don't know what a claw back provision is, its a clause in an employment agreement. It's a contractual thing between employer and employee. If Greece felt Goldman Sachs wronged it or failed to perform in any way, it has had 15+ years to file a civil claim, and it hasn't.

So your assertion that Greece's creditors should have required Greece to sue Goldman Sachs is ignorance at its finest.

LOL...that assumes Goldman Sachs was in anyway responsible for Greece's debt woes. You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support your belief. You know there is a significant difference between your declarations and reality. As has been endlessly pointed out to you, if Greece didn't have a debt problem, there would have been no need to even hire Goldman Sachs to disguise that Greece's debt. You seem to have big problems understanding or acknowledging reality.

Hmm...let me explain this to you, I want you to point to the conditions which you find onerous and explain why you think they are onerous. You haven't done that, period. What you did do was to assert one of the conditions, which you didn't named, would subject Greek pharmacies to competition and I explained to you in some detail why that was a good thing. So no you haven't pointed to the provisions you find onerous, not even one. You made one assertion apparently based on something you believe. You claimed your were looking at the conditions and asserted they wouldn't help Greece, so where are those conditions you were looking at and why are they bad for Greece? Further, what is the link to North Dakota and other states? The pharmacy market in the US is competitive. As previously pointed out to you larger pharmacies have largely driven out smaller pharmacies in the US because of economies of scale. The big guys can do it cheaper and better.

Well here is the problem, you were quoted verbatim. As previously referenced, you wrote, "Nothing is wrong with writing off Greek debt, asap. That is already five years overdue.". So, I repeat, where did you get this notion Greece has been in default for 5 years? Where is this Greek debt that is 5 years overdue which you want written off ASAP? Did you forget your were arguing for an immediate write down of Greek debt or are you back to weasel wording again? You are being dishonest Iceaura, which unfortunately is all to common with you.

 

Greece is not a person, and you mislead yourself by continuing to describe events as the actions of "Greece" as a unitary and conscious being. We know that Goldman made hundreds of millions in profit from first designing and then shorting the financial arrangements that inflated Greece's debt to the levels that caused the crisis of 2010. Whether the Greek officials involved were deceived, bribed, coerced, or in collusion, we do not know. Why Greece or other harmed parties have not sought some relief under US law - by "clawback" or other means - we do not know.

That's not an assumption. It's on record. Goldman designed the financial arrangements that brought Greece into crisis.

I picked a couple examples, and described one. That's good enough for my argument.

It's just one of the hundreds of conditions, it doesn't have its own "name". It's an example, illustrating my point: the IMF and other predator's "conditions" are not what people expect from the public description of "discipline" and "help" for the Greek citizenry or economy, but instead include dozens of demands that are in the interest of the predators and scavengers currently profiting by Greece's situation. You then explained to me that you lack a basic understanding of corporate capitalist predation, and have no idea why such a condition would work to Greece's overall debit and harm.

I handed you a side by side comparison of two similar US State economies, one of which has the Greek pharmacy condition which is so common in well run economies world wide, while the other does not. The citizens of the State with the condition enjoy better and cheaper pharmaceutical services, illustrating the probable future of the Greek citizenry in this matter.

Your claim that "the big guys can do it cheaper and better" has a flaw, and it is in the word "can". In practice, they often don't.

Where did you get the habit of putting words or concepts like "default" into other people's claims?

 

Yes, Greece is not a person and neither is Halliburton. So what? How is that relevant and how is that misleading? I think most people know that when you refer to Greece, they understand it is a country. And if you think being a country affords Greece some magical privileges in American tort law you would be wrong.

Who is “we” and how does “we” know Greece made hundreds of millions in profits? Goldman Sachs has not divulged how much it profited from the Greek debt restructuring deal. So how do you know? Do you have some sort of ESP or are you just making it up. It has been reported Goldman Sachs grossed 600 million but that number doesn’t account or its expenses. As for the rest, you are not making sense. Goldman Sachs disguised Greek debt with derivatives which were not required to be reported as debt thereby allowing Greece to understate its debt.
As you have been repeatedly told, if Greece didn’t have a debt problem, there would have been no need to hire Goldman Sachs to disguise it. You have a great deal of trouble getting that through your head. It really isn’t that complicated or difficult.

And yes we do know why Greece hasn’t sued Goldman Sachs. Greece doesn’t have a case. And that is why Greece’s creditors didn’t demand Greece sue Goldman Sachs as you wanted. You gotta have a case, and there is none.

Then why can you not prove it? You have been repeatedly challenged to prove your assertion. Where is the evidence to back up your assertion? What is on the record is Goldman Sachs helped Greece disguise its debt with debt swaps and a few other tactics. But Greece already had a debt problem long before Goldman Sachs. Iceaura, you are oblivious to fact and reasoned discourse.

You were asked to show the conditions you claimed you “looked” at and concluded they would not help Greece and explain why they wouldn’t help Greece. You have not done that. You don’t even know what the IMF’s conditions were. The IMF’s can only act within the confines of its bylaws. It cannot go beyond them without member states changing the bylaws. And as previously explained to you, the IMF demanded Greek some debt be written off, s you think that is financial predation? Iceaura, you are beyond fact and reason.

You are lying again.

Oh, you, “handed by side by side comparisons”. I must have missed that. Where are they? Give me your post number. You are bullshitting again. You did no such thing.

And what is the basis for that claim? How do you know that? Did you not read the profit margins I previously cited? Do you know what a profit margin is? I don’t think you do.

Is that right? You described a default but you don’t want to use the word default, is that it? Not paying your bills is a default. You were asked to identify the Greek debt that hadn’t been paid for 5 years and should be written off ASAP. You have yet to do that, because you cannot. There is no such debt; you were just making shit up again, pulling shit out of the ether as needed to make your case. In short Iceaura, you are a liar and no one should take you seriously.

 

What I said was that in 2010 (which I described as "five years" ago, because it's 2015 now and 2015 - 2010 = 5 ) when the option of writing off major Greek debt was on the table during the bailout negotiations, it should have been exercised. We'd all be better off, especially Greece, if the unpayable debt burden already in place then had not been doubled or tripled via postponement and refinancing. All except those to whom that debt was owed, anyway.

You posted it yourself. You said they were just doing what "Greece" wanted them to do, remember? You forgot to mention specifically the 2005 and 2009 dealings, and focused on the 2000 ones that eased Greece past the EU regulators, but they were the big problem anyway so no matter.

Lots of financial and legal experts, including some Goldman Sachs executives directly involved in the deals, seem to think Greece has large and legitimate legal claims against Goldman Sachs.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-12/greece-may-sue-goldman-over-banks-role-greek-collapse
http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/...did-wall-street-enable-greek-debt-crisis.html

Of course the nature of what Goldman did does not change depending on its legality, and everyone who has had major financial dealings with Goldman Sachs in the past decade or so should check their wallet and review their bank accounts, so to speak. And divest themselves of any substantial relationship with that company.

 

Actually, until now, you had never said that. This is what you said, “Nothing is wrong with writing off Greek debt, asap. That is already five years overdue.” I can cut and paste that forever if need be. You do understand what the word “overdue” means? If you mean the creditor nations should have written off some part of Greek debt back in 2010, then say so.

Two, Japan has a much higher debt to GDP ratio than Greece. The Greek bailout of 2010 was predicated on Greece implementing reforms, which if either failed to do or didn’t implement until years later. People would have better off if Greece did what it agreed to do in 2010. Greece would certainly have more credibility if it had lived up to its commitments.

LOL…that is a bit of deception on your part, you wrote, “That's not an assumption. It's on record. Goldman designed the financial arrangements that brought Greece into crisis.” You were asked to prove your assertion that what Goldman Sachs did “brought Greece into crisis”. You were not challenged to prove Goldman Sachs worked for Greece to help it disguise its debt in order to gain entry into the Eurozone. You were asked to prove your assertion that Goldman Sachs was the genesis and primal cause for Greece’s debt troubles. As has endlessly been pointed out to you, if Greece didn’t have a debt problem, there would have been no need for the services of Goldman Sachs.

Well for starters, that isn’t “lots” or even one financial or legal expert. One is a journalist on a right wing conspiracy web site and the other is a credible journalist. You can argue the ethics have helping Greece disguise its debt. But that doesn’t mean Greece’s debt woes are directly attributable to Goldman Sachs. As has endlessly been pointed out to you, if Greece didn’t have debt troubles, it would not have needed Goldman Sachs to help it disguise its debt. That appears to be really difficult for you to understand.

 

We need something here for intellectual self-interest akin to Sinclair's Law for economic self-interest (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-get-a-man-to-understand-something ) .

The key point, of course, is that back in 2010 there were significant creditors and other interested parties besides "nations".

Before Goldman got involved, Greece's debt problems were so small that hiding 2% of them was enough to see Greece welcomed into the Eurozone.

I posted links to articles for the content of the articles, not the names of the journalists. The information you claim to lack is in the articles, not the bylines.

 

LOL, what would be nice here is some intellectual honesty on your part.

Oh, so prior to Goldman Sachs, Greece's debt problems were small? Then why did Greece hire Goldman Sachs to disguise their debt so they could gain entry into the Eurozone? Do you even know what their debt was at the time? No you don't. Do you have any background in business or economics that would render you an authority? No you don't. Contrary to your repeated assertions, Greece had a debt problem prior to engaging Goldman Sachs. It's Debt to GDP ratio had exceeded 100%. Greece failed to meet the Eurozone fiscal requirements because it had too much debt. Contrary to your assertion, Greece's debts were not small. It's a matter of historical record. So it hired Goldman Sachs to help it hide its debt with derivatives. And Goldman Sachs didn't disguise all Greek debt, but just enough to get it into the Eurozone. And Greece has greatly profited from its Eurozone membership. That's why even with its current financial hardships, Greece still wants to maintain its Eurozone membership. Without Goldman Sachs, Greece would not now be a Eurozone member. Greece wouldn't have all the economic benefits its Eurozone membership provides.

You posted links, but the links, as is the norm with you, didn't support your assertions.

 

Much smaller than they became afterwards, yes. They could have been paid down substantially simply by international cooperation in collecting national taxes.

Because the requirements for Eurozone were more stringent than merely "not bankrupt".

Goldman Sachs obtained Greek admission by hiding about 2% of Greece's debt, in 2000, in deals that blew up after 9/11. They refinanced that mess in 2002. They "helped" further in 2004, 2005, and 2009. Along the way they sold all their exposure to Greek debt, and shorted their own arrangements - shorted the deals and derivatives and so forth they had designed.

Here's the very best face you can put on Goldman Sachs's role in this mess: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/b...es-woes-but-maybe-not-goldman-sachs.html?_r=0

How naive are we supposed to assume Goldman was?

 

Oh, so now it's "smaller" is it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The unfortunate fact for you is that when the Greek government hired Goldman Sachs to disguise its debt, Greek debt wasn't in any way "small" as you previously alleged, else there would not have been a need to hire Goldman Sachs to disguise its debt. Greece's debt can be paid down now, just as it could be paid down decades ago if Greece did what creditor nations have mandated as a condition for the current bailout. But Greece has failed to do what is needed to reduce its debt. Greece has steadfastly refused to be fiscally prudent. That isn't Goldman Sachs fault. That is the fault of the Greek state. As much as you dislike it, that is a fact.

Eurozone entry requirements are designed to ensure Euro states are fiscally healthy. But that certainly doesn't mean Greece's debt was small as you had previously alleged. It just means Goldman Sachs was better versed in derivate trading and much more sophisticated than Eurozone regulators. That fact became very evident during the Great Recession. Additionally, you have no proof what Goldman Sachs did harmed Greece or in some way committed a tortious act needed in order to sustain a law suit.

Oh, and where is the evidence to back those accusations? Two, how is it relevant? How did any of that harm Greece? Do you have any evidence Greece was in any way wronged by Goldman Sachs? No you don't. The unfortunate fact for you is the only way Greek debt grew is because the Greek government authorized it. That debt didn't magically appear. The unfortunate fact for you is Goldman Sachs was hired to do a job for Greece, and it did it. At some point Greece needs to become accountable for its finances, especially Greece wants to become a modern stable prosperous European country. Even Krugman has been surprised and burned by Greek incompetence.

Well, here is the thing, unlike you, I don't need to put a face on the matter. It is what it is. The facts speak for themselves.

How naive are we supposed to assume Goldman was?[/QUOTE]

You don't have to assume anything at all. One of your problems is you assume too much. Goldman Sachs wasn't in the least bit naïve, nor was Greece. If anyone should have a beef with Goldman Sachs it would be member Eurozone countries, certainly not Greece. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you what Goldman Sachs did was legal. It might be morally challenged, because Goldman Sachs helped Greece deceive its creditors. But that certainly didn't damage Greece. Greece has had a lot of opportunity to fix its finances, and it has repeatedly failed to do so. That's why creditor nations are saying enough is enough and they no longer don't trust Greece to keep its agreements. Greece has become a serial fiscal failure.

You are trying to paint a picture of poor little Greece being victimized by the big bad investment bank, well that picture just isn't reality. Both parties were fully cognizant of what they were doing. Had Greece stopped borrowing money at the turn of the century or any time their after and imposed the fiscal measures which are now being forced on them, yeah, things would be a lot better for Greece. But that isn't what the Greek government did. Instead, the Greek government continued to borrow and spend. They spent to the point where private lenders were no longer willing to extend them debt (5 years ago). And since then, the only entities willing to lend Greece money are fellow sovereigns (i.e. lenders of last resort) and international intergovernmental entities like the IMF. That's not Goldman Sachs fault. You can fault Goldman Sachs for many things, but this isn't one of them.

 

Much smaller, not even bankrupting - as in every post I've made here. Goldman only had to hide 2% of it to get Greece into the Eurozone - that's how small it was.

Not a chance. The economy has to grow - a lot - to pay down the bailout. All the original debt needed was stricter tax collection and some minor featherbed and bribery culling.

That's what I would assume, as well. That makes them liable for clawbacks.

The people sitting in the room may or may not have been fully cognizant of what they were doing to the Greek citizenry - I'm pretty sure the Goldman reps were, because they shorted the whole mess immediately afterwards - but the idea that "Greece was fully cognizant" is odd and muddled. The question remaining is whether the Greek negotiators were coerced or bribed somehow.

It was arranged by Goldman and shorted by Goldman, and Goldman has been instrumental in getting these "lenders of last resort" to bail out the private lenders who were about to get shafted, in the process ballooning the original debt.