Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gammadust

Greece navigating "uncharted territory"

Recommended Posts

Yup, this referendum has been a bit crazy, specially having in mind that could have been done weeks before, but Tsipras waited until the deadline expired.

I'm afraid that the "Yes" will win with a slightly majority, the Tsipras Gov will resign and there will be new elections in Greece, with all the consequences in the EU & foreign economies.

(Al Jazeera) Top Greek court clears referendum on austerity

yes is for staying in euZone and no is for get lost from eu zone i guess the most of the people will vote no but what could happened that i can't dream right now !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes is for staying in euZone and no is for get lost from eu zone i guess the most of the people will vote no but what could happened that i can't dream right now !

It's not that clear. Theoretically the "Yes" and "No" are in relation to the EU proposal of agreement.

Tho if the "Yes" wins Tsipras already said that will resign.

If the "No" wins, no one knows what will happen. According to Tsipras the "No" does not have to be about exiting the Eurozone... But there won't be much margin to negotiate, so... it will be a bit absurd. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MistyRonin

There you are projecting the flaws of your limited observations (compulsive focus on the Greek Government corruption, ignoring the rest). My vision is fine thank you... again!

- - -

Governing via ad hoc measures to solve structural problems, breaking contracts with current private defense public procurement holders and such is what seems to be the alternative. Not saying totaly negligible or impossible if it turns out that some measures had indeed been taken. (which again you choose to ignore)

- - -

Misrepresentation of my opinion is also one of your prefered strategies, when i never said the victim was the Syriza Gov. which apparently you became convinced i am so in love. I always refered to the victims as being the Greek population, but let's extend that to the defense businesses which lost public contracts due to "competition distortion", now that we know a bit more of the definition of the crime under discussion.

- - -

It is you who barely speak of the patient, or the infection and it is very arguable when symptoms become cause for worse predicaments. That is if i get your metaphor straight: patient = population / infection = Gov. corruption / symptom = defense contractors & junk derivatives holders

- - -

You know perfectly that the point of resorting to the European Treaty document was to help legally define the dimensions of corruption not excluding none, but i concede, indeed i should have been more precise. It transposes into the same thing though:

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee - On a comprehensive EU policy against corruption

2. TERMINOLOGY

There is no single uniform definition of all the constituent elements of corruption. [16] Whereas one of the rather traditional definitions, followed by the World Bank and the non-governmental organisation Transparency International, views corruption as "the use of one's public position for illegitimate private gains", it appears more appropriate to use a broader definition such as the one of the Global Programme against Corruption run by the United Nations, i.e. "abuse of power for private gain" and including thereby both the entire public and private sector. [17]

[16] Cf. P.C. van Duyne: "Will 'Caligula' go transparent ? Corruption in acts and attitudes" in Forum on Crime and Society, Vol. 1 N° 2, December 2001, p. 74-76.

[17] The Civil Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe[na: follows bellow] (Strasbourg 4/11/1999; European Treaty Series n°174) defines "corruption" as "requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behaviour required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof."

Given their very nature, the aforementioned EU instruments define corruption purely from a criminal law perspective criminalising a conduct, which is usually referred to as (active or passive) bribery. [18]

[18] Cf. Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European, articles 2 and 3 of the first protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and articles 2 and 3 of the Joint Action on corruption in the private sector.

In the following, a distinction should be made between corruption in this narrower criminal law sense and corruption in a broader socio-economic sense. This distinction is necessary because, in accordance with rule of law principles, criminal law provisions require unambiguous and precise language, whereas the concept of corruption can be more general while responding to the purposes of crime prevention. In this context, the definition of corruption could embrace concepts such as integrity, transparency, accountability and good governance. [19] Hence, the boundaries for an EU anti-corruption policy will differ depending on the subject: Whereas the initiatives mentioned in chapters 4 and 5 rather address corruption in a narrower criminal law sense, chapters 3, 6 and 7 and the list of general principles attached to this Communication are subject of a much broader concept of corruption.

The Civil Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe [na: cited above]

Article 2 – Definition of corruption

For the purpose of this Convention, "corruption" means requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behaviour required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.

Article 3 – Compensation for damage

1 Each Party shall provide in its internal law for persons who have suffered damage as a result of corruption to have the right to initiate an action in order to obtain full compensation for such damage.

2 Such compensation may cover material damage, loss of profits and non-pecuniary loss.

Note that both the passive and active dimensions of corruption are condensed in Article 2. Note also how distortion of competition and economic loss are also there. This was my sole point in bring the law about, do you have a further point on this?

- - -

Yes confusion is nothing surprising given the complexity and stakes in play, yet i don't run from it, actually i learned quite a lot in this discussion, and confirmed some suspicions too.

- - -

I won't venture crystal balls in regards to Syriza maintenance, or the referendum outcome for that matter. But given how dire the situation is for Greeks with or without Syrisa, and given the competence in evaluating the reality* which i identify in the latter, what i dare say is that Europe is better with them in play than without.

*i know this is opinion but recently IMF changed its stance and now shares what Syriza has been saying all along: The Greek debt is unsustainable and must be restructured against amounts and schedule

[Zerohedge] 2 July 2015 IMF Bolsters Greek "No" Vote, Says Country Needs Much Bigger Debt Haircut

Even with concessional financing through 2018, debt would remain very high for decades and highly vulnerable to shocks. Assuming official (concessional) financing through end–2018, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected at about 150 percent in 2020, and close to 140 percent in 2022 (see Figure 4ii). Using the thresholds agreed in November 2012, a haircut that yields a reduction in debt of over 30 percent of GDP would be required to meet the November 2012 debt targets. With debt remaining very high, any further deterioration in growth rates or in the mediumterm primary surplus relative to the revised baseline scenario discussed here would result in significant increases in debt and gross financing needs (see robustness tests in the next section below). This points to the high vulnerability of the debt dynamics

I confess i tend to have a crush for girls who face reality, and all things equal between Syrisa and Lagarde i'll pick one night stand with Syrisa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tho I have Varoufakis as a really intelligent person, today his remark was really out of tune; and probably desperate to have to use such populist remark.

Specially having in mind that it's the Greek Syriza Gov that is asking a favor to the creditors, and that it was them that asked for a referendum one week after the deadline.

(Al Jazeera) Greek finance minister accuses creditors of 'terrorism'

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis accused Athens' creditors of "terrorism" in an interview, a day before Greeks vote in a high-stakes referendum on the conditions of the country's bailout.

"What they're doing with Greece has a name - terrorism," Varoufakis told the Spanish El Mundo daily on Saturday.

"What Brussels and the troika want today is for the "Yes" (vote) to win so they could humiliate the Greeks."

"Why did they force us to close the banks? To instill fear in people. And spreading fear is called terrorism," he said, referring to the IMF, European Central Bank and the EU.

Referring to Syriza's Spanish ally Podemos, he said: "I think that in Europe there is a need for parties like Syriza and Podemos, which are both critical of the system and pro-European and democratic.

Maybe he missed in this point that Podemos tho having ruled in just a few Spanish autonomies and towns, already has a lot of cases of corruption and it's highly criticized for their anti-democratic measures.

Just to say that Pablo Iglesias was an assistant for authoritarian Govs like the Venezuela one, which even funded one of his foundations...

(El País, in English) Foundation linked to new party Podemos received €3.7m from Hugo Chávez

A foundation with ties to the leaders of Podemos, Spain’s new leftist party, received at least €3.7 million from the government of deceased Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez over the course of a decade.

- - -

(The Guardian) Greek economy close to collapse as food and medicine run short

Alexis Tsipras urges people to vote no in Sunday’s referendum as capital controls bite and vital tourism industry sees tens of thousands cancel holidays in Greece
Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps oversimplified and stupid. Nicely made nevertheless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xAXJx9WJ8

It's a pretty good and intelligent video to get the general idea, obviously it misses some little variables and past history, but for its length and as a summary, it's really good. :icon_eek:

I found a few months ago what could be considered the Spanish version of it (with English subtitles, so we can all understand it).

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have watched previous site video - it is scary , really scary, but i agree with video posted by Batto ,

vision of future is very scary because of EU-currency, some businesman have better trade, but it can lead to war (minority wants USofE and many people can start fight like rebels on Eastern Ukraine who said to fight against vision of Ukraine in EU)

€ has one feature - it kills weaker economies, it is good for strong economies (strong countries from economical point of view), countries who have no industry suffer from EU-currency (Slovaks now have lower level of life cause inflation is big due to €)

United States of Europe - as consequence - can lead to what we see on Ukraine because it is naive to think that historical, traditional or ethnic or fiscal issues can be united,

best example shown by Batto in video:

common fiscal policy:

when there will be common fiscal policy and from common budget someone will build hospital in Germany, but Poles would not have hospital built , than ... arguments of ethnic cleansing from WW2 returns that "they are killing us but with other method"

mixing nations, USSR policy led to wars after collapse of USSR and USSR kept together only because of terror , the same ex Yugoslavia was,

it has to wait 200 years since WW2 to wait for people to loose WW2 historical issues (because 3 generations are not enough, my grandfathers still remember SS, NKVD and my parents friends were in 1980s also in Solidarity for one reason - independence of our country from foreign (Moscow back then) leading) ,

common europe is impossible and only can lead to war, because common politics is impossible (things called bigotry in the west, for me and my family and my friends and my neigbors are normal and tradition and usual )

but as video says - without common fiscal policy € doesnt work

question is how to avoid war in future, because indeed as video shows - Greeks have other lifestyle, do not pay taxes, maniana beach dancing,

but anyone who works hard gets pissed of when his taxes are wasted by other people who are told to be lazy (other culture, other values)

and with common policy of fiscal or spending budget - how can anyone avoid tensions when for example buget will fund hospital in Germany but not in your country, moreover

how to avoid tension if in common policy in one country benefits and social care and pensions are different

how to avoid tensions when in one country 2000 € is usual salary per month from which people spend half and in other country it is 3 months salary and you save zero

than "rich" person comes, pick up your girl and ... you going mad

or rich pensioner from one country comes to your country on holidays while you have no money for drugs/spending/life

common Europe can be possible ONLY when life costs, life standard, health care, social care are equal,

because if one country has better, other has worse - it won't work and it will just cause civil war , ethnic tensions, more racism

Greece shown that € is not good idea, it is good, but only for corporations, businemen, but not for usual people or weaker economically states / states without serious industry/states with not balanced ncome/spendings

i am scared of future

video is perfect - it show that common curency have big failure - different fiscal issues - one cannot work for another dancing, all must work hard

in normal free market - if you want just dance, not work hard - you die from hunger and it is your problem because you pay for your lack of hard work,

in EU zone it is problem of others and others gets pissed of when they work hard, for other who party hard, since i started work hard, i look at every penny of my taxes and get mad if they are wasted cause i know what is hard work,

old free market rule says - you dont work, you dont eat,

debts, living on credits, taking loans credits to pay credits only let people deeper in problems

no credits - people must learn how to live

credit for credit - learn nothing, just irresponsibility for one's life

what differs adult from kid ?

that you work for your life and you pay your bills from your pocket

Greece was acting like kid + of course it was also cheated by some guys from so called NWO /Bilderberg Club etc.

if no €, they would not get any credits and they would have to learn spend money they can earn, not "bonus for being at all in job"

social system works good - when it is not abused, but budget has bottom, so needs also have to have limit, cannot be bottomless

Edited by vilas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the "No" will have a clear victory (60% of the votes).

Which are bad news for the EU Govs, good news for us EU citizens (won't probably have to pay much more money to Greece) and really bad news for the Greek population (will probably be outside the Eurozone and suffer deep economic troubles for months).

(BBC) Greece referendum: Early results show 'No' vote

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right wing media and Russian tv and post-commies far left media in my country said that banks percentage in case of Greece given by banks was 192%, can someone confirm it or deny it?

good news for us EU citizens (won't probably have to pay much more money to Greece)

tbh i am not sure whom we pay - Greeks, or German banks owners

because in this mess all "help" seems to be eaten by few banks and it repeats "2008/9 crisis"

have you seen movie "The Inside Job" ?

Edited by vilas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tbh i am not sure whom we pay - Greeks, or German banks owners

The money Greece received from the EU citizens was to pay the interests, so the money went to the banks. That allowed the Greek Gov to use all the money of the Greek taxpayers to pay social benefits, help the poor, etc.

Now the Greek Gov will have to use the taxpayers money mostly to pay the interests, hence they will have way less money to pay social benefits, hence the poverty in Greece will skyrocket.

As one good Greek friend of mine said: If the Yes wins, Greece will lose part of the independence but will survive, if the No wins Greece will become Albania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question:

when woman walks alone in dark street and she is raped - than we hunt rapist, we make law that punish rapes, we put security cameras on darks streets, we do not say she is guilty (at least in European civilisation),

but when it comes to banks - we give credit to pay another credit to pay another credit and some say that only guilty is debtor and large part of "credits" in fact go to banks to pay for themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
question:

when woman walks alone in dark street and she is raped - than we hunt rapist, we make law that punish rapes, we put security cameras on darks streets, we do not say she is guilty (at least in European civilisation),

but when it comes to banks - we give credit to pay another credit to pay another credit and some say that only guilty is debtor and large part of "credits" in fact go to banks to pay for themselves

The main problem in Greece is that the Greek Govs got in debt for more than 20 years, and lately even more than usual. Of course that some banks allowed it, hoping that Greece would change...

Basically are Greek govs that raped (taken advantage) of both the bank and the Greek Population. The Greek Govs even falsified documents to be able to go to more "populated" areas and rape more banks putting the whole EU population as collateral.

So according to your metaphor we shouldn't victimize the banks. Tho in this case the banks were like girls that provoked the Greek Gov.

- - -

If the EU and Eurozone hadn't exist, Greece Govs would have only got in debt in local banks and a few international banks. Nothing too bad. But as they are part of the EU and Eurozone, they received a lot of money of EU citizens and could get even more in debt using the EU as a whole (meaning Germany) as collateral.

What the Greek Govs said to the banks, was basically: Don't worry, if we can't pay, the other EU countries will pay for us.

Now the EU countries have said, ok, we'll keep paying if you do what we told you to do.

- - -

To make it really simple.

Greece was a man that used to spend more money that he had, but as the credit card was limited, was not "too bad".

Greece then married the EU in order to be able to use its credit card. For years Greece has been spending money using the EU credit card.

Now someone has to pay the bill. And instead of paying, Greece is asking the EU to get even more money.

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT'S OVER

live referendum i guess Greece is sold them self to China and East with this decisions but it's just start !

Live Edited by SRBKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IT'S OVER

OXI (NO) Wins the referendum i guess Greece is sold them self to China and East with this decisions but it's just start !

If the East or someone else wants to pay for its bailout.

If not, then... Greece will become a zombie (with the population suffering more than ever).

But it's what the Greek people wanted democratically, so we must respect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the East or someone else wants to pay for its bailout.

If not, then... Greece will become a zombie (with the population suffering more than ever).

But it's what the Greek people wanted democratically, so we must respect it.

it's so hot these days about this and it has to finish i guess let people to know what they have to expect !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i can't see how they could stay in the Eurozone and we, lenders (as main lenders are European states, which equals to European people, not private banks), will have to take our loss. Sad days are coming for Greeks, but that was probably unavoidable. I read an article of 1850 about the Greek banking system, which was already very corrupted and wonky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So i can't see how they could stay in the Eurozone and we, lenders (as main lenders are European states, which equals to European people, not private banks), will have to take our loss. Sad days are coming for Greeks, but that was probably unavoidable. I read an article of 1850 about the Greek banking system, which was already very corrupted and wonky.

In fact they shouldn't have even been in the Eurozone. And here its were we, EU citizens and Govs, should really figure out how to avoid another compulsive debtor to join the EU. The EU was naive.

Selfishly thinking, the result is the best for the EU citizens. But I can't help but pity the Greek Population. Tho it was their decision. So I wish them good luck.

Although there's still time for a U.S. Deus Ex Machina.

The Turks could also have a paper in that...

(Al-Monitor) Turkish, Greek warplanes tangle in mock dogfights over Aegean

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quiete an interesting documentary from ARTE TV Channel about critics on the Troika (2015 TV documentary)

Its in german and french available, at least I have not seen it with english subtitles.

Macht ohne Kontrolle - Die Troika (Puissante et incontrôlée: La Troïka/ Power without control - The Troika)

Text is just google translated:

To get their emergency loans, the crisis countries in the euro zone had to bow to the specifications officials who are not subject to parliamentary control: the Troika. Recruited from the institutions IMF, ECB and European Commission, they called for savings in a devastating scale. But the positive effects of austerity remained absent for most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxVHN_hUUQ

same documentary in french: Puissante et incontrôlée la troïka

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYGOWUrHcI0

After his award-winning film "state secret bank rescue" the business journalist and bestselling author Harald Schumann a controversial question comes again to the bottom of what happens to Europe on behalf of the Troika?

Officials from the three institutions IMF, ECB and European Commission - the troika - act without parliamentary scrutiny. They force countries to austerity measures that threaten the social fabric and to intrude into the lives of millions of people. Harald Schumann travels to Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, and Brussels in the United States, and asked ministers, economists, lawyers, bankers, concerned.

"Who has money, lives, who has no money dies," says the doctor Georgios Vichas. He leads a volunteer clinic in Athens, while public hospitals must be empty. A limitation of healthcare spending meant that around one quarter of the population has no health insurance and more than 200 hospitals nationwide were closed. As absurd as the health policy is the minimum wage policy, which demands the indebted countries the Troika. Saving doesnt work like that, explains the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman.

The poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. Is this European policy? Harald Schumann demands passionate to increased transparency and responsibility for a social Europe. But he takes his audience on a thrilling research trip, when he goes to the origin and the impact of specific decisions of the Troika on the ground.

http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/051622-000/macht-ohne-kontrolle-die-troika

(will be aired again on 17th July, 2015 on ARTE)

Edited by oxmox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To get their emergency loans, the crisis countries in the euro zone had to bow to the specifications officials who are not subject to parliamentary control: the Troika. Recruited from the institutions IMF, ECB and European Commission, they called for savings in a devastating scale. But the positive effects of austerity remained absent for most.

Uhm... Let's see.

The Troika, as it's name well says it's composed by three elements:

- IMF leaded by the board of Governors, were there are two members for each country. Each country gov decides who are they gonna be. Also the decisions are voted according to the amount of money each country gives. Seems fair to me.

- ECB which leadership is decided by the Council of Europe. The Council is formed by ministers or heads of state / government of the states members (that were elected democratically by the population of each of the states).

- European Commission: The president is elected by the European Parliament. Then there is one member for each of the states. Once all are designated there must be a vote of approval for the whole body by the European Parliament.

So technically there is indirect parliamentary control in most of the three parties, with the exception of the IMF were few members are from authoritarian regimes. Tho even the participation in the IMF is voluntary and a country can't just opt to not participate in it.

In order to get a debt usually you have to accept the conditions or find another creditor. Debtors aren't usually allowed to modify the conditions of their debts once they have already set.

Saving doesnt work like that, explains the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman.
Against the opinion of most of the other Nobel laureates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me congratulate the Greeks for their courage by voting OXI - a resounding NO to the Troikas' Austerity Diktats. (BTW, Quite surprising how a 50%-50% at all polls turns out to be 61%-39%).

They are facing hard times, much as the rest of the european peoples. They have for five years followed the european measures, resulting in nothing close to the objectives put forth, and to their great sacrifice. It is now their turn to give themselves hope and opt for different solutions out of the crisis, their success is still far from garanteed.


So i can't see how they could stay in the Eurozone and we, lenders (as main lenders are European states, which equals to European people, not private banks), will have to take our loss. Sad days are coming for Greeks, but that was probably unavoidable. I read an article of 1850 about the Greek banking system, which was already very corrupted and wonky.

Greece staying in eurozone:

Syriza has reiterated their commitment to keeping Greece in the eurozone. This is also their January election mandate, so we can say with confidence, that is also the Greeks' wish. But the question beyond economic/financial is also necessarily political at the european level. First if it is an economically viable course, secondly if the required political stretch will be possible to accommodate by Germany (which is the ultimate deciding party here).

The question from the first pov is basically how convincing Syriza proposals will be in stabilizing the financial side of the economics, and how rational the institutions will be in accepting them. From the second pov, it will be how palatable to the German political class and the interests they represent will accept the humiliation of the failure contained within not following their choosen solution. There being a political face-saving exit or not when following a small left party course of action.

Taking "our" loss:

We should keep in mind that the Greek State Debt was hold by private banks (mainly French and German) up to the first bail out terms implemented from 2010 and 2012. These operations transfered the debt onto the European tax payer's Institutions, namely the ECB, EFSF, ESM, etc. Syriza, as a matter of fact, was out in the streets protesting against this solution, but they were faced with the fait acompli. This will be the european tax payer loss only because the Troika "risked" being so. How legal that transfer of liability ocurred might still be investigated and the original private banks that were able to offload to the public domain might still be called upon to take the losses.

We must realise this is a systemic and deeply structural issue. I am not counting on naivety making the private banks take the losses willingly, it is just that the stability of the system depends on the sharing of the losses.

Hard times for the Greeks:

The Greeks are not exacly alone, they are just at the frontline and receiving end of the economic damage brought by such criminal banking practices. They are also leading the european peoples resistance against it. They've just been made to realize sooner what the rest of us inevitably will in the short-medium term.

Banking system corruption:

It is not just the Greek's, the whole banking system globally engaged in very risky practices bordering criminality, the scandals mount upon each other, and the economic damage to the societies they operate on increased exponentialy. It was precisely the dilution of responsability provided by the financial engineering of the derivatives market that enabled the global paralysis at the level of regulation. The high levels of corruption, both active (private banking level) and the passive (government level), was just the means to an end: remove the existing barriers that societies had raised against such finance lead takeover.

This is in no way directed at you, ProfTournesol, but I still feel the need to emphasize the following point: the argument of (undeniable) corruption must be properly directed, the reason why i engaged in heated discussion previously. It is far too frequent being raised as a "Greek problem", supposedly embedded within "greek culture". Mere logic will not let a whole people as a collective take responsability for a crime which is very precisely defined, agents of this crime are not difuse collectives, they are individuals in key positions both on the public and private sector. I have to qualify as ignorance of a dishonest type pushing this argument the simplistic way the mainstream media has been doing.


I will leave for those interested in getting a deeper sense about the immediate scenarios the most detailed proposal addressing how to deal with the Greek Debt, advanced by Varoufakis/Holland/Galbraith in 2013, which are likely to be presented back to the Troika, energized with the referendum result. Its conclusion serving as good summary of the pratical issues. It is ultimately this proposal and how conving it will be that will decide the Eurozone fate of Greece.

Edited by gammadust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Quartz) Greece votes “noâ€â€”absolutely no one knows what comes next

So what comes next? Grexit? (A Greek exit from the euro zone.) The Greek government’s chief negotiator with lenders said that there are no plans to switch currencies, and he is ready to restart talks with creditors as soon as possible. Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis suggested earlier today that a new bailout deal was possible within 24 hours of a “no†vote.

But we are more likely to see something along the lines of the state of affairs that’s recently been described as Grimbo. (Greece in a state of limbo.) The leaders of France and Germany are set to meet tomorrow to discuss the results of the vote. After so much acrimony, they are unlikely to be in a charitable mood.

Greece’s central bank is expected to request that the European Central Bank expand the emergency liquidity that’s kept the Greek banking system from collapsing amid widespread deposit withdrawals in recent months. A refusal to raise this limit last week is what forced the authorities to close banks, ban foreign transfers, and drastically limit the amount of cash that customers can take from their accounts each day. The country’s banks reportedly have enough money to last a few more days, at most.

(Reuters) Greeks defy Europe with overwhelming referendum 'No'

The astonishingly strong victory by the 'No' camp overturned opinion polls that had predicted an outcome too close to call. It leaves Greece in uncharted waters: risking financial and political isolation within the euro zone and a banking collapse if creditors refuse further aid.
But euro zone officials shot down any prospect of a quick resumption of talks. One official said there were no plans for an emergency meeting of euro zone finance ministers on Monday, adding the vote outcome meant the ministers "would not know what to discuss".
Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhm... Let's see.

- IMF leaded by the board of Governors, were there are two members for each country. Each country gov decides who are they gonna be. Also the decisions are voted according to the amount of money each country gives. Seems fair to me.

The IMF doesnt work that liberal like you think and wasnt not really that fair about the voting power and with its harsh conditions and sometimes brutal social aftermath for the average people in debtor countries (i.e. Third World Countries). The USA has the most power in this institution and due to their blocking minority right, nobody can vote against their will. I will later provide some infos. In 2010 they changed some regulations i.e. quotas which improved the voting of nations with low financial power.

Edited by oxmox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The IMF doesnt work that liberal like you think, the USA has the most power in this institution and due to their blocking minority right, nobody can vote against their will. I will later provide some infos. In 2010 they changed some regulations i.e. quotas which improved the voting of nations with low financial power.

US has a lot of power, because it's the country that with difference contributes with more money. I understand that. And as I said it's voluntary to be member of the IMF or to ask money from it.

The US contributes with 17.68% of the money and has 16.74% of the votes.

The 2010 changes were not in effect as July 05, 2015.

(IMF Website, Last Updated: July 05, 2015) IMF Members' Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors

Participation, and of subsequent reforms of quotas and governance which were agreed in 2010 but are not yet in effect.
Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US has a lot of power, because it's the country that with difference contributes with more money. I understand that. And as I said it's voluntary to be member of the IMF or to ask money from it.

This comes in addition and is still maybe a problem, improved allegedly with the changes in 2010. But I was talking as an example about the blocking minority right, which has not other country in this "club". The US has exclusive rights and it was first based on the Bretton Wood System and later in the 70s it changed and wasnt based on the Gold Standard anymore. Dont forget the whole international financial system and also the ressource trading on the worldmarket i.e. Oil is mainly based on the US$, its a system in which we live in.

Edited by oxmox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×