Greece 2012

[Speaker Dereich]

So what would be the process by which Greece was kicked out of the Eurozone? Which European bodies would make the decision? Would it even be legal to do so? At this point I kinda want to see SYRIZA win just to see the frantic activity that would result.

[Californian Tony]

It is technically impossible to force a country to leave the eurozone.

[ingemann]

Well, I know It's a feeble comparision, but people who doesn't pay taxes here would be extremely glad if They'd be able to do It. And I was only able to do It after I stopped doing things as a professional and started being juridically an enterprise. I would also like to remember that the stimulus for overdebt/overcomsumption on southern UE was the core of northern UE countries policies. Pretty hypocritical to blame them now.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The money transfered from the richer parts of Europe, wasn't loans, but mostly free support to development of infrastructure and agricultural support. The debt the Greek has build up here, is a result of them being member of the Euro, which meant that they could sell low interest bonds. It wouldn't have been such a big problem, if they hadn't hidden the size of their debt, by lying about the degree of tax evasion and money lost to corruption, until the point there they couldn't hide it anymore (when the crisis began and the American bank which had helped them conning the rest of EU, suddely couldn't/wouldn't help them with the con anymore). This is the primary reason, that few net contributor to EU are willing to let the Greeks off the hook.

[ag]

So what would be the process by which Greece was kicked out of the Eurozone? Which European bodies would make the decision? Would it even be legal to do so? At this point I kinda want to see SYRIZA win just to see the frantic activity that would result.

Greece defaults. There is a run on the Greek banks. ECB announces that it is up to the Greeks to resolve it. Target 2 is blocked: interbank settlements are to be conducted on the bank-to-bank basis, within the limits of funds in appropriate correspondence accounts. Greek CB is reminded about the limits on the ammount of cash euros it is allowed to issue and warned that exceeding those limits (as it has been doing recently) will result in those euros extra (identified by serial numbers) no longer being accepted as legal tender in other member states (as they are, obviously, fakes).

Greek government announces a banking holiday. International bank transfers are blocked. When, after a week or so, banks reopen, they "temporarily" issue their customers not with euro cash, but with Greek government or Central Bank bonds (possibly still denominated in euors). The same bonds are used to pay public sector sallaries, etc. These new Greek euros trade at a discount: say, three Greek euros per actual cash euro.

That's the transition - and the beauty is, nobody needs to make any political decisions whatsoever.

[ag]

It is technically impossible to force a country to leave the eurozone.

What is your definition of technical? It is not that difficult to make a country drop out "voluntarily" - for lack of realistic alternatives. The only thing that's "technically" impossible is to stop that country from calling euro its currency - but, in practice, the currency then would be a "national euro", with its own exchange rate into actual euros (black market rate, if legal transactions other than at 1-to-1 are banned).

[batmacumba]

Well, I know It's a feeble comparision, but people who doesn't pay taxes here would be extremely glad if They'd be able to do It. And I was only able to do It after I stopped doing things as a professional and started being juridically an enterprise. I would also like to remember that the stimulus for overdebt/overcomsumption on southern UE was the core of northern UE countries policies. Pretty hypocritical to blame them now.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The money transferred from the richer parts of Europe, wasn't loans, but mostly free support to development of infrastructure and agricultural support. The debt the Greek has build up here, is a result of them being member of the Euro, which meant that they could sell low interest bonds. It wouldn't have been such a big problem, if they hadn't hidden the size of their debt, by lying about the degree of tax evasion and money lost to corruption, until the point there they couldn't hide it anymore (when the crisis began and the American bank which had helped them conning the rest of EU, suddenly couldn't/wouldn't help them with the con anymore). This is the primary reason, that few net contributor to EU are willing to let the Greeks off the hook.

If that was the problem, It would struck only on them, not on the whole UE periphery. I must agree It made things worse, but It seems ingenuity to believe the central UE members and institutions weren't just seen It and were caught by surprise. In the other side of the ocean, a nobody whose main work is with built cultural heritage was aware they did tricks, I suppose, even the exact tricks weren't publicly known, the responsible staff at Brussels, Berlin or whateverwhere should had tracked and be prepared for It, if they were really responsible.
The money directly transferred wasn't the main issue here, but how things were done. I'm not aware of Danemark's specific case, but the rule was to export to the peripheral countries and be very glad they were avid consumers, relying the core of their economy on monetarist policies, father than building up more relyable economic bases.
Than, the structural problem of European consensus came down, hit one by one and was specially mean on economies floating in the air, as monetarist recipes prescribe. Than everyone comes (including those who were very fine with the previous situation, thanks) and points their fingers: "the problem was that you were a mean kid! It's all your fault!".
To me, this is obvious scapegoating.

[ingemann]

Well, I know It's a feeble comparision, but people who doesn't pay taxes here would be extremely glad if They'd be able to do It. And I was only able to do It after I stopped doing things as a professional and started being juridically an enterprise. I would also like to remember that the stimulus for overdebt/overcomsumption on southern UE was the core of northern UE countries policies. Pretty hypocritical to blame them now.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The money transferred from the richer parts of Europe, wasn't loans, but mostly free support to development of infrastructure and agricultural support. The debt the Greek has build up here, is a result of them being member of the Euro, which meant that they could sell low interest bonds. It wouldn't have been such a big problem, if they hadn't hidden the size of their debt, by lying about the degree of tax evasion and money lost to corruption, until the point there they couldn't hide it anymore (when the crisis began and the American bank which had helped them conning the rest of EU, suddenly couldn't/wouldn't help them with the con anymore). This is the primary reason, that few net contributor to EU are willing to let the Greeks off the hook.

If that was the problem, It would struck only on them, not on the whole UE periphery. I must agree It made things worse, but It seems ingenuity to believe the central UE members and institutions weren't just seen It and were caught by surprise. In the other side of the ocean, a nobody whose main work is with built cultural heritage was aware they did tricks, I suppose, even the exact tricks weren't publicly known, the responsible staff at Brussels, Berlin or whateverwhere should had tracked and be prepared for It, if they were really responsible.
The money directly transferred wasn't the main issue here, but how things were done. I'm not aware of Danemark's specific case, but the rule was to export to the peripheral countries and be very glad they were avid consumers, relying the core of their economy on monetarist policies, father than building up more relyable economic bases.
Than, the structural problem of European consensus came down, hit one by one and was specially mean on economies floating in the air, as monetarist recipes prescribe. Than everyone comes (including those who were very fine with the previous situation, thanks) and points their fingers: "the problem was that you were a mean kid! It's all your fault!".
To me, this is obvious scapegoating.

I don't follow the logic. What precisely do you want people to do, keep sending money to Greece? We can talk as much as we want about scapegoating and it being everybody else but the Greeks fault that they evaded tax, stole and in general behaved deeply irresponsable, it doesn't change the fact that there are two possible scenarios. Greece keep on going as they have done in decades or they change. The other Euro countries with Germany in charge has told them that the former is unacceptable. That's not scapegoating that's a intervention.

[batmacumba]

Well, I know It's a feeble comparision, but people who doesn't pay taxes here would be extremely glad if They'd be able to do It. And I was only able to do It after I stopped doing things as a professional and started being juridically an enterprise. I would also like to remember that the stimulus for overdebt/overcomsumption on southern UE was the core of northern UE countries policies. Pretty hypocritical to blame them now.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The money transferred from the richer parts of Europe, wasn't loans, but mostly free support to development of infrastructure and agricultural support. The debt the Greek has build up here, is a result of them being member of the Euro, which meant that they could sell low interest bonds. It wouldn't have been such a big problem, if they hadn't hidden the size of their debt, by lying about the degree of tax evasion and money lost to corruption, until the point there they couldn't hide it anymore (when the crisis began and the American bank which had helped them conning the rest of EU, suddenly couldn't/wouldn't help them with the con anymore). This is the primary reason, that few net contributor to EU are willing to let the Greeks off the hook.

If that was the problem, It would struck only on them, not on the whole UE periphery. I must agree It made things worse, but It seems ingenuity to believe the central UE members and institutions weren't just seen It and were caught by surprise. In the other side of the ocean, a nobody whose main work is with built cultural heritage was aware they did tricks, I suppose, even the exact tricks weren't publicly known, the responsible staff at Brussels, Berlin or whateverwhere should had tracked and be prepared for It, if they were really responsible.
The money directly transferred wasn't the main issue here, but how things were done. I'm not aware of Danemark's specific case, but the rule was to export to the peripheral countries and be very glad they were avid consumers, relying the core of their economy on monetarist policies, father than building up more relyable economic bases.
Than, the structural problem of European consensus came down, hit one by one and was specially mean on economies floating in the air, as monetarist recipes prescribe. Than everyone comes (including those who were very fine with the previous situation, thanks) and points their fingers: "the problem was that you were a mean kid! It's all your fault!".
To me, this is obvious scapegoating.

I don't follow the logic. What precisely do you want people to do, keep sending money to Greece? We can talk as much as we want about scapegoating and it being everybody else but the Greeks fault that they evaded tax, stole and in general behaved deeply irresponsable, it doesn't change the fact that there are two possible scenarios. Greece keep on going as they have done in decades or they change. The other Euro countries with Germany in charge has told them that the former is unacceptable. That's not scapegoating that's a intervention.

Ingemann, the logic is that, apart from creative financial management, they did what they were expected to do. Everybody is closing the eyes to this and keeps only remembering their ways as smart-asses. Their tricks May be associated with, but were clearly not the central cause, and using that as the main rhetorical point for intervention is mean. It would have happend anyway, with or without evasion. And if the main issues don't come to the center of the debate, you folks will be faded to not getting out of this mess.

[Landslide Lyndon]

New poll from GPO, the 6th in a row that shows SYRIZA falling behind ND. The trend is undeniable now.

[Judäischen Volksfront]

Why does PASOK even exist now, let alone still obtain a respectable share? Surely those who want EU-backed austerity can just vote ND, and the old days of party patronage must be over for good.

[Speaker Dereich]

Why does PASOK even exist now, let alone still obtain a respectable share? Surely those who want EU-backed austerity can just vote ND, and the old days of party patronage must be over for good.

If KKE can get 6% even when a viable leftist party exists, then PASOK can certainly survive.

[Tender Branson]

px, what does the other stuff on that page below mean ?

http://www.epikaira.gr/epikairo.php?id=43642&categories_id=69

[Landslide Lyndon]

px, what does the other stuff on that page below mean ?

http://www.epikaira.gr/epikairo.php?id=43642&categories_id=69

Ignore that poll. It was commissioned by Epikaira, a conspiracy-peddling publication with no credibility whatsoever. Even if the topiline numbers were correct, it would still be a bad result for SYRIZA since two weeks ago they showed it more than 6 points ahead of ND.

[Tender Branson]

px, what does the other stuff on that page below mean ?

http://www.epikaira.gr/epikairo.php?id=43642&categories_id=69

Ignore that poll. It was commissioned by Epikaira, a conspiracy-peddling publication with no credibility whatsoever. Even if the topiline numbers were correct, it would still be a bad result for SYRIZA since two weeks ago they showed it more than 6 points ahead of ND.

But VPRC looked like the best pollster to me in the 1st election.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Why does PASOK even exist now, let alone still obtain a respectable share? Surely those who want EU-backed austerity can just vote ND, and the old days of party patronage must be over for good.

PASOK still has some strongholds where patronage no doubt works (like Crete), and honestly will probably surge back into government if either ND or SYRIZA messes up after taking over.

[Landslide Lyndon]

px, what does the other stuff on that page below mean ?

http://www.epikaira.gr/epikairo.php?id=43642&categories_id=69

Ignore that poll. It was commissioned by Epikaira, a conspiracy-peddling publication with no credibility whatsoever. Even if the topiline numbers were correct, it would still be a bad result for SYRIZA since two weeks ago they showed it more than 6 points ahead of ND.

But VPRC looked like the best pollster to me in the 1st election.

Maybe they were, I haven't checked it out. But after six straight polls showing virtually the same results I'm skeptical about today's numbers. And their client makes me even more so.

[Leftbehind]

You can't really judge a pollster by its client.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You can't really judge a pollster by its client.

Here in Greece you can. The client almost always gets what he pays for.

[Peter the Lefty]

Why does PASOK even exist now, let alone still obtain a respectable share? Surely those who want EU-backed austerity can just vote ND, and the old days of party patronage must be over for good.

PASOK still has some strongholds where patronage no doubt works (like Crete), and honestly will probably surge back into government if either ND or SYRIZA messes up after taking over.

How could they possibly win back votes in other places? 

[mileslunn]

So what would be the process by which Greece was kicked out of the Eurozone? Which European bodies would make the decision? Would it even be legal to do so? At this point I kinda want to see SYRIZA win just to see the frantic activity that would result.

It could be done although I think they would need to amend the treaties first as my understanding is other than Denmark and the UK (who sought opt-outs in the Maastrict Treaty), every other country and any future member must join the Euro and cannot leave or be kicked out.  Most of the rules governing the Euro were made in the 90s when many dreamed of the idea of a European superstate without actually having a clue as to how it would work.

[politicus]

So what would be the process by which Greece was kicked out of the Eurozone? Which European bodies would make the decision? Would it even be legal to do so? At this point I kinda want to see SYRIZA win just to see the frantic activity that would result.

It could be done although I think they would need to amend the treaties first as my understanding is other than Denmark and the UK (who sought opt-outs in the Maastrict Treaty), every other country and any future member must join the Euro and cannot leave or be kicked out.  Most of the rules governing the Euro were made in the 90s when many dreamed of the idea of a European superstate without actually having a clue as to how it would work.

Thats correct, and Sweden stays out by not complying to one of the requirements for joining the Euro.
But if Greece where to leave, I am sure the EU would find a solution. Greece getting a similar exception as the UK and Denmark will in itself be one of the smaller problems in this crisis.

[ingemann]

Ingemann, the logic is that, apart from creative financial management, they did what they were expected to do. Everybody is closing the eyes to this and keeps only remembering their ways as smart-asses. Their tricks May be associated with, but were clearly not the central cause, and using that as the main rhetorical point for intervention is mean. It would have happend anyway, with or without evasion. And if the main issues don't come to the center of the debate, you folks will be faded to not getting out of this mess.

I fail to see how its anybody but the Greeks fault that they cheated, yes most expected some fraud in Greece, but no one had a idea of the scale, and the major problem was as long as it wasn't or couldn't be proved, no one was going to make accusations. When we now have the knowledge of the scale and but also hard proffs, no one is going to send more money, before they are sure that they aren't wasted.

[Amorphous]

New poll from GPO, the 6th in a row that shows SYRIZA falling behind ND. The trend is undeniable now.

These polls all seem to be within the margin of error which is around 3%, so the reality is that this will be a tight race, and that's all we can say definitively.  A poll where the two top choices are withing the margin of error is a statistical tie for all intents and purposes.

[Landslide Lyndon]

New poll from GPO, the 6th in a row that shows SYRIZA falling behind ND. The trend is undeniable now.

These polls all seem to be within the margin of error which is around 3%, so the reality is that this will be a tight race, and that's all we can say definitively.  A poll where the two top choices are withing the margin of error is a statistical tie for all intents and purposes.

You said the same thing the other day. If six polls show the same result, even within the margin of error, then what is the chance that they are ALL wrong?

And anyway, today we had three more. Two of them showed yet again ND ahead by a couple of points and one showed a tie. Compare these numbers to the unmistakable high single digit SYRIZA lead that everybody found the first 10 days after the May 6th election.

[Amorphous]

I'm particular loathe to accept at face value polls that exclude those who are undecided and that are within the margin of error.  The question is, how many were excluded due to being undecided?  Who are undecided voters likely to break for?  Unless you can answer that question, the "trend" you cite is meaningless especially in light of the margin of error.

A classic example is the Lisbon treaty vote in Ireland.  Everyone assumed it was a slam dunk due to polls showing the Yes votes with an advantage, but what the mainstream media ignored was the large percentage of undecided voters before the actual vote.  These undecided voters broke for 'No' and the Lisbon Treaty lost.