Greece to receive yet another bailout

If you know the the details of the bailout, your brain is being filled with useless misinformation. The important facts are the thirty thousand foot view:

That this bailout is much smaller than the previous bailouts.

That the previous bailouts had extremely harsh conditions that Greece was unable and unwilling to fulfill, and this bailout has even harsher conditions that Greece is even less able and even less willing to fulfill.

That this is not the first time that Greece has been asked to hand over the family silver as surety for a loan, and on previous occasions, the alleged family silver proved to contain no silver. Greece has a lengthy track record of yielding non asset assets to creditors.

64 Responses to “Greece to receive yet another bailout”

  1. peppermint says:

    According to an XA Ameriki podcast from 3 months ago, when these socialists fall, they media’s plan is a party of journalists

  2. Mark Citadel says:

    All the while, the court case against Golden Dawn is looking very weak. Would be terrific if they were all released soon.

    • jim says:

      No matter what they are charged with, are guilty of crimethink.

    • I think Golden Dawn will eventually do a military coup as shit continues to hit the fan in Greece. Once the money runs out, the Left in Greece will be unable to maintain power and GD is going to kill their enemies and take over. Putin will be funding them secretly as well to destabilize the region gain geo-power against America.

      • jim says:

        While Golden Dawn opposes the massive race replacement that is currently under way in Greece, are they less socialist than the current mob?

        • Probably slightly. They would place tariffs and focus on building up local industry so that people would actually have jobs. I don’t know if they’d have huge pension scams like the current system but I have a feeling they wouldn’t have a choice but to scrap the ponzi schemes just to stay solvent and enforce their military will.

        • Mark Citadel says:

          The country is going to enter such deprivation thanks to Syriza’s machinations that the economic aspects may become at least temporarily trivial compared to combating civil unrest and a visible immigrant takeover. It’s amazing how immigrants have just flooded cities, ruining parks, taking ownership of entire blocks like mosquito squatters.

      • Erebus says:

        What makes you think they have control of the military? A coup not affiliated with Golden Dawn seems much more likely to me.

        • Rhett says:

          They don’t necessarily have control over it, but much of it is supected to be in sympathy with it, as are the police. GD members are all proud ex-soldiers, many ex-special forces (the leader, the spokesman, etc) and they generally look favorably upon the military. They absolutely praise the old Metals military regime. Basically, one can see the military launching a coup and putting them in place, much as the Portuguese army did and put Salazar in place (unless I’m wrong about how that went down).

          • Mark Citadel says:

            This is likely exaggerated, although it would not surprise me if support for Golden Dawn runs high at something like 30% in both groups, perhaps a little more. It’s a good base to grow.

          • Erebus says:

            It sounds unlikely as hell to me. The surest way to ensure pariah-state status for Greece would be a military coup followed by the installation of a Golden Dawn government. You can imagine how it would be portrayed in the media: “Military coup! Neo-Nazi Government rises to power, tears up international agreements.” (It would then go without saying that the Germans would be absolutely furious, and would certainly unite a coalition of Greece’s enemies against it. Perhaps not for war, but at least for punitive economic sanctions.)

            It’s much, much more likely that, in event of a coup, politically-unaffiliated (conservative) military officers take charge until things stabilize enough for another election. But even that’s rather unlikely, I think.

          • Rhett says:

            @Erebus

            That is what most voters in Greece are afraid of too; what will the neighbors think. But the people have reason to fear. The EU and US would throw out all the stops to prevent that. They have spent a lot of time and money on the Greek “elite” in order to let it get locked up.

            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-19976841

  3. alfanerd says:

    Is it reasonable to hope for everybody involved in this mess to suffer horribly?

    The way I see it is that the Greece government, and by proxy it’s voters, borrowed with no intention of ever paying back, and borrowers lent to Greece with no intention of ever being paid back by Greece but rather by German taxpayers, including very high interest for “assuming the risk”, which they never in fact assumed.

    They’re both crooks, and the victims are taxpayers of other countries.

    • Rhett says:

      Part of entering the EU, for Greece, meant that they must never be able to have a coup again and so all measures were taken to prevent that. That meant weakening the military. That also meant the the entire ruling oligarchy would become students in Germany, France, England (London School of Economics in particular) & of course America (Harvard). These are the places where the received their indoctrination from, so in many ways Germany is getting back what they produced. Greece had a large agricultural output, fairly decent sized industrial sector, foreign investment, shipping and even produced a lot of cotton. All of that was to be shunted while the EU paid farmers to specifically not farm. And so it was left with only tourism and thus became the resort of the EU. The German taxpayers are suffering due to their own country’s policy, much as the Greeks’ decisions are manifesting themselves in a similar way.

      • alfanerd says:

        Thanks. I never heard of this side of the issue. Seems like I should never underestimate the stupidity of people.

        • Rhett says:

          You said it sir! At the end of the day, all of this and then some can be laid at the door of “democracy.” Not just these two countries, but all of them, and us.

    • peppermint says:

      Can you really blame the people for consenting to socialism, especially after grooming by Chomsky’s techniques?

      • alfanerd says:

        That’s a very difficult question. I dont know.

        I dont know who said it, but “think of someone of average intelligence, then consider that 1/2 of people are dumber” is always a good way to illustrate how stupid people are.

        But even though most people are not geniuses, they are smart enough to know that money is not created out of thin air. They may not understand the exact way in which they are stealing, but they are not trying to understand either.

        Consider an offer to drive a car from A to B for $100,000, even an 85 IQ ought to be curious as to what’s in the car’s trunk. So by the standard of “they knew or ought to have known”, they are guilty.

        Also, if voting is beyond their intellectual capacity, they ought to refuse the franchise.

      • B says:

        That’s your problem: you’re an idiot.

        Chomsky didn’t have any “techniques”.

        If you’re attempting to say “by the techniques described in Chomsky’s book Manufacturing Consent,” you should say “Lippmann and Bernays’ techniques.”

        In which case you should probably consider that those same people consented to the fratricidal Civil War and the criminal Revolutionary War before that, without any Lippmanns or Bernays’ around.

        • peppermint says:

          People are supposed to consent after the fact to regime changes and murderous wars formented by subversive politicos, but it takes quite a bit of grooming to get them to consent to the theft and destruction of everything their family has built and a genocidal replacement scheme

          • B says:

            >People are supposed to consent after the fact to regime changes and murderous wars formented by subversive politicos

            They consented before the fact, and were very excited about it.

            >it takes quite a bit of grooming to get them to consent to the theft and destruction of everything their family has built and a genocidal replacement scheme

            It’s not THEIR family being replaced, in the version being sold to them. Obviously, the idiots of the North did not see the war as naturally leading to their kids being replaced by cheap black labor moving from the South. Nor did the idiots of the Revolutionary War consider that a government leading from Washington, Boston, New York was apt to be a lot more of a pain in the ass to deal with than a government leading from London. By the time they woke up, it was too late, as we see by the Whiskey and Shays’ Rebellions.

            In general, “you’ll get something that doesn’t currently belong to you, for nothing, and be morally better for taking it” is not a novel proposition, or one difficult to sell to idiots.

          • Hidden Author says:

            What *should* the Patriots have done to make their society more free and more just? Are people who genuinely want their society to be more free and more just evil? Doesn’t evil usually have at least a small degree of malice/sadism involved?

            • jim says:

              What *should* the Patriots have done to make their society more free and more just?

              They should have accepted the King’s proposal that the colonies should be directly answerable to the King, rather than the British parliament, and that taxes should be set by local parliaments. It was the same deal as was eventually given to Australia and Canada. The trouble was that the “patriots” wanted a United States, while the King’s proposal would have made each state an independent state while still part of the British empire. The desire for a United States eventually led to the civil war, which killed a huge number of Americans and led to the world triumph of progressivism.

          • B says:

            >What *should* the Patriots have done to make their society more free and more just?

            Been better people. Raised better children. If the awful injustice of answering to a government an ocean away rather than next door weighed upon them so much, they should have picked their asses up and gone into the wilderness over the Appalachians and built their paradise there. They lived in colonies established under contract by the Crown. What they did was similar to me taking a job in a startup funded by investors, then killing the boss and taking all the assets, in the name of making the startup free and more just.

            >Are people who genuinely want their society to be more free and more just evil?

            Yes.

            >Doesn’t evil usually have at least a small degree of malice/sadism involved?

            The Gaon of Vilna points out that the Evil Inclination does not directly entice a man to evil. First, it shows him love. Then it says, “come, let us do a mitzvah.” And then it says to him, “once you’ve sinned, you can always repent and then your sins will be counted as achievements.”

            True evil always comes with love at first. The malice and sadism come afterwards.

          • Hidden Author says:

            If the colonists were ungrateful and treacherous for breaking the terms of royal charters, then what were the Zionists, especially the Revisionist Zionists, who fought an insurgency against the same nation and its security forces that had liberated its people from concentration camps and had saved them from the forces of Adolf Hitler?

            • jim says:

              They say Palestine is the thrice promised land. God promised it the Children of Israel, The British promised it to the Jews and promised it to the Arabs. Such overpromising is bound to get one shot at.

          • B says:

            >If the colonists were ungrateful and treacherous for breaking the terms of royal charters, then what were the Zionists, especially the Revisionist Zionists, who fought an insurgency against the same nation and its security forces that had liberated its people from concentration camps and had saved them from the forces of Adolf Hitler?

            1) They’d been fighting the British since before the war started. During the war, they fought on the side of the British (see: David Raziel.) After the war ended, they went right back to fighting the British.

            2) Unlike the colonists, who had come to American under the charter in the first place, the Zionists were in Palestine when the British showed up.

            3) The reason those people the Brits liberated from the concentration camps were in the concentration camps in the first place was that the British had refused to let more than a small number of Jews into Palestine before the war. And their track record before Hitler was not very impressive: see the 1929 Hevron massacre and the response of the British.

            4) After the war, the Brits made it obvious that their plan WRT their former colonies was to leave. The question was, whom were they going to leave Palestine to?

          • Hidden Author says:

            Be that as it may, the British had done far more for the Jews than it had done for the colonists!

          • B says:

            I disagree. The only reason those colonists were there is because they got a charter from the Brits. The Brits protected them from the Indians and the French. And they helped the colonies grow.

            In Mandatory Palestine, the Jews had been there before the Brits (Ben Gurion studied in Istanbul.) The Brits looked the other way half the time as the Arabs attacked the Jews. And they imposed stringent immigration quotas from 1940-1945.

          • Hidden Author says:

            You know, the colonists had autonomy not because the Crown believed in democracy but because once they crossed the ocean, they were largely alone in the wilderness. As their colonies grew bigger, a skeleton structure of imperial administration became possible but it was only after a century and a half of autonomy that the Crown decided to establish centralized administration on par with the Home Counties or Ireland…the revocation of autonomy being the colonist grievance.

            And even if Crown support for Zionism was half-hearted, I don’t think that the Jews in Mandate Palestine would be allowed to become big enough in numbers to take the land from the Arabs if the Mufti or even the Ottoman Sultan was in charge (how did it work out for the Armenians?).

          • Hidden Author says:

            Furthermore, do you think the colonists would have been put into concentration camps if the Crown’s enemies had won? in America? Or Palestine? Please compare and contrast!

          • B says:

            >You know, the colonists had autonomy not because the Crown believed in democracy but because once they crossed the ocean, they were largely alone in the wilderness. As their colonies grew bigger,

            Due to British subsidies, encouragement of further immigration by any means possible and defense of the colonies at British expense…

            >a skeleton structure of imperial administration became possible but it was only after a century and a half of autonomy that the Crown decided to establish centralized administration on par with the Home Counties or Ireland…the revocation of autonomy being the colonist grievance.

            You can’t have it both ways. The autonomous colonies made tons of money on contraband, did more or less whatever they wanted, received subsidized protection from the best naval and land forces in the hemisphere, and then proceeded to bitch about minor duties being imposed.

            >And even if Crown support for Zionism was half-hearted, I don’t think that the Jews in Mandate Palestine would be allowed to become big enough in numbers to take the land from the Arabs if the Mufti or even the Ottoman Sultan was in charge (how did it work out for the Armenians?).

            Crown support for Zionism was not half-hearted. The Crown was actively anti-Zionist.

            150 years ago there were very few Arabs in the Land of Israel. Look at the censuses. Most of the current population are the descendants of that miserable bunch of goat farmers who experienced massive population growth enabled by the wealth created by the Jews and the descendants of immigrants from all over the Muslim world who were attracted by that same wealth. And a lot of that wealth was created under the Ottomans.

            Jews are not Armenians.

            >Furthermore, do you think the colonists would have been put into concentration camps if the Crown’s enemies had won? in America? Or Palestine? Please compare and contrast!

            What is the relevance of the question?

            The colonists rebelled against the very nation which had been responsible for bringing them to America, nurturing their miserable colonies, sending them as many colonists as they could (including unwilling ones) and subsidizing them until they became vast semi-states, defending them at great expense from the French and Indians, etc. They rebelled for profit, as it’s a lot more profitable to run your own country than a colony.

            The Jews rebelled against a Britain which had taken over from the Ottomans (with Jewish support!) then violated all its promises, stood idly by while Jews were massacred in Hevron and other places, severely restricted Jewish immigration at the worst time for the Jewish people while encouraging Arab immigration actively, and then attempted to hand the whole place over to its pet Arabs. They rebelled for national survival. There is absolutely no doubt what would have happened to the Jews of Palestine had Pasha Glubb’s pet Arabs been successful.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Has it ever occurred to you guys that people fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars because they wanted men to be free? Looking back both wars built a crude Leviathan but at the time the most genuinely idealistic and virtuous people rallied to the colors…

          • jim says:

            Has it ever occurred to you guys that people fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars because they wanted men to be free?

            That, of course, is official truth – an like most official truths, fails to fit the facts.

            Consider the conduct of Lord Howe.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Excuse me? Are you homophobic or something?

            The Supreme Court declared that the Civil War was fought over gay marriage.

            You’re probably racist too.

          • Ion says:

            >Has it ever occurred to you guys that people fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars because they wanted men to be free?
            Both the Confederacy and the Union used “freedom” rhetoric. For the Confederates, freedom from an oppressive central government. (and it was definitely oppressive toward the south, look at tax policy or industrial policy). For the Union, freedom for slaves.

            Freedom is such an inherently subjective concept, that “fighting for freedom” is almost meaningless.

            In general, people pursue their own self-interest. They are not willing to dedicate very much of their own resources to causes. People donate about 2% of their income to charity. The adoption rate is about 2.5%. Plenty of people could volunteer for a present-day foreign military in a “war of freedom”. Almost nobody does. Why? Because people largely pursue their own self-interest.

            Commoners fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars because the government forced them to. Elites fought for a combination of economic interests and leftist social goals. In general, the people who bore the cost of the leftist social goals were not the elites that implemented them.

            For example, the people who died as a result of the abolition of slavery were mostly ex-slaves, and to a lesser extent, free (black and white) southerners. And guess who implemented the policy of abolition? Northern elites.

          • B says:

            >because they wanted men to be free?

            This is a completely meaningless statement.

            Did the 30% of Loyalists and 30% of neutral Americans during the Revolutionary War NOT want men to be “free”?

            Did the Southerners not, as Ion points out, perceive the war as their way of defending their states, which their ancestors had fought to liberate from British government, from Northern government?

            Did the Northerners (except for a handful of loons, frothing at the mouth) desire illiterate ex-slaves to be set loose to fend for themselves and compete with people who’d been free for generations? Lincoln famously visualized black freedom as the freedom to “root, hog or die.” A third of them, predictably, did the latter. It was plain as day that this would happen. Was this the freedom the Northerners were dying for? Or were they dying so that illiterate ex-slaves could move up to Massachusetts and vote in the local elections and marry their daughters? Or was the freedom they wished to give slaves the freedom to loot, rape and murder, which happened during the Reconstruction?

            In the context of these wars, “freedom” was a cynical slogan.

          • Hidden Author says:

            B, about the Revolutionary and Civil Wars:

            There is a difference in personality types among people. One type of people call them Type 1 feel insecure and threatened under a strong regulator regulates away every possible threat. Other people call them Type 2 are more responsible for themselves and in general are more independent-minded and feel insulted when a strong regulator restricts them and then tells them that the regulations are for their own good.

            It’s ironic that you guys demonize the Establishment as a sinister Cathedral. Because an America optimized for Type 1 guys is what the Type 2 Patriots overthrew–to your disapproval–and yet is fulfilled now far more than in King George’s time by the present condition of the United States of America.

            As for a third of slaves dying after the Civil War, that sounds like something white supremacists would assert regardless of whether it was true in order to confirm their belief in black subhumanity. I’m not saying it’s not true; I’m saying it’s too convenient an assertion to be accepted without considerable proof…

            • jim says:

              As for a third of slaves dying after the Civil War, that sounds like something white supremacists would assert regardless of whether it was true in order to confirm their belief in black subhumanity. I’m not saying it’s not true; I’m saying it’s too convenient an assertion to be accepted without considerable proof…

              The relevant book is “Sick from Freedom”, which is highly progressive, and blames evil racism for the failure to provide a welfare state to keep people alive who are incapable of holding down a job.

              The progressive theory before the war was that slaves would simply do the same work as before, only for fair pay instead of being made to do it by whips and chains. But this simply and very conspicuously did not happen. So “Sick from Freedom” retroactively revises the plan that to say if the former slaves were cruelly forced by hunger to actually work for a living, that would be extremely wicked, that whites have always been morally obligated to support nonworking and dysfunctional blacks.

              Similarly, in the early even numbered episodes of “The Island”, we see the women hanging out in the rain suffering severely from the cold, but nonetheless failing to get off their asses and build a shelter. Without men to make them work, they simply did not work, even though wet and cold, and getting wetter and colder.

              Also notice that on the odd numbered, (male) episodes of the Island, the one male who is strikingly disinclined to do any actual work is black.

          • Hidden Author says:

            When I said “under a regulator”, I meant “unless a regulator”.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So if a black person is too crippled to work not because he or she is lazy but because he or she is sick with smallpox, then that black person is morally corrupt?

          • B says:

            >So if a black person is too crippled to work not because he or she is lazy but because he or she is sick with smallpox, then that black person is morally corrupt?

            Why did the slaves get epidemics once freed that they hadn’t gotten while enslaved?

            If you let your two year old run his daily schedule, what are the odds that in a week he will be covered in impetigo and have chronic diarrhea?

            As for your Type 1-Type 2 thing (we can just call them men and women)-independent men always feel better the further they are away from authority. If you suggest that the Revolutionary War, which was explicitly fought to bring authority from across the Atlantic and plant it in the Colonies, was fought for independent men to have MORE independence, I have a Mr. Shays on the line for you.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes let’s ignore how Jewish refugees enjoyed the government-funded social services of DP camps in Germany and Austria from 1945-1951. (And even after 1951, the relevant governments made sure that the remaining DPs who were too old and crippled to care for themselves were plugged into the national systems for social services.) Let’s also ignore how Jewish refugees have been helped by federal refugee resettlement programs in the U.S. or how the State of Israel provided rations and refugee camps for Mizrahi refugees (until the development towns also built by the State were able to take the place of refugee camps). Or how soon after the 1948 removal of the Arab population the State resettled a third of its new population in houses and other properties seized from fleeing Arabs.

            But God forbid that emancipated black slaves need such social services…because social service funds are obviously wasted when spent on niggers!

          • B says:

            >Yes let’s ignore how Jewish refugees enjoyed the government-funded social services of DP camps in Germany and Austria from 1945-1951.

            The comparison isn’t valid. Those Jews had just spent several years in camps and ghettoes, being starved and murdered. Had the Allies not won, they’d all have been dead. The slaves had, before the war, places to live, work to do, clothes to wear and food to eat. Their population had steadily been growing. The Union destroyed all that. The slaves then proceeded to run around aimlessly and starve. Yes, the Union should have had some sort of plan to deal with them, since they were not (and are not) capable of managing themselves. But as R.L. Dabney points out, it wouldn’t have done to nationalise the slaves, so the Union freed them to, as Lincoln put it, root, hog or die.

            >Let’s also ignore how Jewish refugees have been helped by federal refugee resettlement programs in the U.S. or how the State of Israel provided rations and refugee camps for Mizrahi refugees (until the development towns also built by the State were able to take the place of refugee camps).

            What’s your point? That the slaves, instead of being freed, should have been made wards of the state? I agree.

            >Or how soon after the 1948 removal of the Arab population the State resettled a third of its new population in houses and other properties seized from fleeing Arabs.

            Cry me a river. The poor refugee Arabs had plenty of housing vacated by the Jews of the Middle East to live in.

            >But God forbid that emancipated black slaves need such social services…because social service funds are obviously wasted when spent on niggers!

            If they need such social services, they obviously aren’t emancipated. And I doubt that the government could provide those social services better than their former owners.

          • Hidden Author says:

            When Jews are clients of government social services, it’s not noteworthy. When blacks are clients of government social services, they are nationalized slaves. Of course, this only makes sense when you start from the premise that Jews are Nature’s aristocracy which I guess is what you mean when you refer to Jews as the chosen people…

            • jim says:

              Certain categories of Jew rely excessively on social services, though overall Jews probably rely less on social services than most.

              But the problem with social services is not just that they are giving away my money, but that they are giving away my money to thieves and whores,-thus making the streets unsafe and marriage impossible. Those Jews that are receiving disproportionate social services are not doing disproportionate thieving and whoring.

              The difference between Jews receiving state support and blacks receiving state support is that giving it to Jews does little harm because they do not really need it, while the big problem with blacks is that they do really need it, and therefore should not get it.

          • B says:

            >When Jews are clients of government social services, it’s not noteworthy. When blacks are clients of government social services, they are nationalized slaves.

            Those Jews that were the clients of social services that you mentioned were in a temporary position of dependency because their thriving society had been destroyed thoroughly by the Germans, whom the providers of those social services had beaten. Within a few years, they were no longer clients of social services, except for a small minority, which uses those social service to have more Jewish children and learn Torah. I am against the latter, by the way, because you are not allowed to take money to learn Torah. But many of their children go on to find productive employment, serve in the military, etc., and the percentage is naturally growing. Street crime is completely nonexistent. I know of one case where someone visiting Bnei Brak had their phone stolen. The community guys were upset that their neighborhood’s reputation was besmirched; there was also the aspect of desecration of G-d’s name, since Bnei Brak is first and foremost known as a Haredi place, and the phone owner was not religious. They went through surveillance footage, identified the likely thief, a teenage boy, found him and returned the phone to its owner. Violence is nonexistent in their schools.

            Compare to your blacks. They had been, prior to the war started by the North ostensibly for their own good, a dependent part of a larger society, which delegated their management, employment, clothing, feeding, medical care and education (such as it was) to private individuals. Those blacks capable of producing value beyond manual labor were able to save up and buy themselves out if they so wished (generally.) The North destroyed that society and “liberated” the blacks, at which point a third of them died from easily preventable diseases while wandering around aimlessly. Unlike the Jews, who had been transported hundreds or thousands of kilometers from their homes into places where there was no food to be had and who had had their means of production confiscated or destroyed, the blacks, who had largely been agricultural laborers, still had their land, homes, means of production. Yet they couldn’t survive.

            To the degree that thriving black communities were established after the Civil War, they were largely a product of the culture they’d absorbed from the whites during slavery. If you go to the rare functional black town in the South today, you can see that everyone is a Baptist, everyone wears conservative European clothes, etc. Family mores are firmly European.

            To the degree that the “liberated” blacks did not absorb white culture or abandoned it, they remained dependents, becoming more and more dependent and more feral with every generation. I will not bother relating statistics or anecdotes.

            Bottom line: when a government subsidizes disaster recovery, that’s fine. When a government CREATES a disaster and the subsidizes disaster MAINTENANCE, that’s not fine. I do not care what color the subsidized are, or what their religion is.

  4. Thales says:

    Kicking the 10-foot-long dumpster down the road…

    • jim says:

      The obvious solution for Germany is for Greece to leave the Euro and repudiate its debts. Greece, however, will continue to irresponsibly borrow, as long as there are people willing to irresponsibly lend. And there are people willing to irresponsibly lend as long as the bill can be landed on German taxpayers.

      And so, unfortunately, socialism has not yet run out of other people’s money.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        That’s right, “Jim”. It could end the responsibility of the taxpayers of the lender, not the debtor countries to enforce the collection. It’s strange to think that it would have made more sense for the referendum to have been put to the voters in the lender countries. However, that’s the way it is…

        A.J.P.

      • B says:

        I suspect the German taxpayer is not footing the bill, much as the American taxpayer is not footing the bill for American projects.

        It seems to me that the EU is funding its projects the same way that the US is, namely, by issuing financial instruments (debt) and pumping up its stock and real estate markets (equity.)

        The effect all this has on the taxpayer is very different from if the EU was funding these projects through taxation. He doesn’t have to subsist on oatmeal and huddle under blankets because there is no money for meat and fuel. But in the long run, it might be worse.

        Personally, I expect a collapse in the Euro instruments and a corresponding rise in the value of the American ones and the dollar in the near future.

      • Thales says:

        There’s a lot of ruin in a nation, even more in an entire continent…

  5. glenfilthie says:

    Fuck em.

    The lenders have a long history of taking non-asset type assets too. Greece can burn to the ground for all I care – but I would like to see the priceless antiques and artifacts looted first, rather than see them fall into the hands of some filthy Greek.

    We can re establish relations once they’ve done that cull they so desperately need!

    • Hidden Author says:

      Wow! You sure seem to hate them. Why is it so personal for you?

      • jim says:

        commies, parasites, and welfare spongers. They are destroying western civilization.

        • Rhett says:

          I would say our civilization is being destroyed by other than those mentioned. Namely globalism cheerleaders and our “conservative” leaders and their liberal ways. Commies and spongers are a result of post-war ideological silliness. The “conservatives” ran Greece (and other countries) for years.

          • jim says:

            The actual conservatives ran Greece under the military regime, during which the economy grew rapidly, and mass race replacement did not happen.

            The kind of conservatives you get under democracy, at best conserve the latest movement left.

          • Rhett says:

            Very succinctly put. They are a carbon copy of the U.S. Republican party. And consequently good, close personal buddies with them. The Bush family visit with Mitsotakes whenever they are in Greece. They are tight with Karamanles too.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Yes commies, parasites and welfare spongers are dangerous in America but in Greece they don’t have the power to control your destiny one way or another. For someone who talks about liberty, you sure have a strong obsession with dictating exactly how other people should be forced to live their lives…

          • glenfilthie says:

            That tends to happen to cookies, liberals and other types of stupid people that refuse to take responsibilty for their own lives, fellas.

            If you borrow money you pay it back. The Greeks are free to choose the consequences for their irresponsibility: they can have a long, deep and very painful economic depression, or they can have anarchy, depression and maybe oblivion.

            I am just peachy with whatever they decide; actions have consequences and they knew the score even as they started kicking the can down the road. You made that bed Greece… And now you will lie in it.

            Looks good on ya too…

        • Ion says:

          Why is everyone always against parasites? Bugs need to eat too!

  6. […] was quite busy this week. You knew that because you read him before me, right? He makes note of Greece to receive yet another bailout, but this one is more of the payday lending variety. Here Jim watches Reality TV so you don’t […]

Leave a Reply