Monday, 29 June 2015

On Greece

She [Christine Legarde] was offering not a solution but a narrative: the Greeks were in this situation because they were bad people. They wanted a beneficent state, but they didn’t want to pool their resources to create one. The IMF was merely the instrument of a discipline they dearly needed. This line has broadly held – the debtors are presented as morally weaker than the creditors. To give them any concessions would be to reward their laziness and selfishness. The fact that debt is a two-way street – that the returns on debt exist because of the risk that the money might be lost, and creditors have their own moral duty to accept losses when they arise – is erased by this telling of the events. 
The Guardian: The moral crusade against Greece must be opposed, June 29, 2015

A “Yes” vote means that Greece will continue the grinding era of austerity that has caused so much pain to its citizens over the last five years, in exchange for keeping the euro currency and the monetary stability it provides.
A “No” vote almost certainly means that the country will walk away from the euro and create its own currency (which will surely devalue sharply), bringing financial chaos in the near term but creating the possibility of a rebound in the medium term as the country becomes more competitive with its devalued currency.
The New York Times: The Next Few Days Have the Potential to Transform Greece and Europe, June 28, 2015
Foreign Policy mentions the role that Russia may play in the future which might cover Greece's IMF debt in exchange for the country's support against Ukraine, and openDemocracy offers a geopolitical perspective on the crisis.

No comments: