What does the common fiscal policy has to do with this disaster? The deficits Greece has are not that different from that of the US or UK (or other EU countries...).

It's like a bunch of people running towards a precipice, and all of them making fun of the ones that have already fallen...

By doing what? Abstain? All our politicians are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY USELESS. We're at a dead end in that area.

Right now, for the first time ever, the people are really mad at all sides. They're just fed up with paying for their incompetence.

Really? Why's that? I hear things are a bit better than here.

The UK is now 68% of GDP.

:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html?countryName=United%20Kingdom&countryCode=uk&regionCode=eu&rank=22#uk

I know you are going to say it is an estimate on that site but it is already confirmed by the UK:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277

Kind of shocked to read that btw...the year before it was 51%

Anyway doesn't mean much if countries like Japan, Singapore, Belgium are in the top ten and everything their is financialy kind of okay.

Greece can go back to drachma if they wanted to but they choose the EURO....

Both Greek and UK deficits are above 10% I believe. Total debt is different, which is why Greece got to the breaking point earlier. But other countries are still running towards the same wall.

As for not being able to print its way out of the problem... that could well be a long term advantage, because it increases the probability that they actually fix their deficit in a real way. Printing money is not a real solution, it's just taking one problem and turning it into another one (look at Zimbawe... you can't print forever).

I have never lived in Greece and I don't currently live in Portugal, but from all I've read it seems corruption is a much bigger problem in Greece than in Portugal.

Portugal has its fair share of problems, many of which are usually blamed on the fact that we were under a dictatorship before 1974 (and that was a regime that stopped the country from developing, as opposed to many dictatorships which actually advance the country in some way). But I still don't see why Bamboleo has that opinion.

Yeah Greece belong to the top of most corrupt European countries...To give an example:

Papandreou, who is poised to announce social security reforms and tax increases (homing in on doctors, lawyers, bar and nightclub owners who are among the biggest tax evaders in an underground economy estimated to be about 30% of GDP) has found help from an unlikely quarter.

Basically the hardworking honest greek now has to suffer because of those tax evadars..... Maybe EU should help with sending Agents to find those tax evaders.

Banks don't just loan money from their reserves, and they don't need a printing machine. When you take out a loan, you don't get a wad of bills, the money is just accredited to your account. From the sounds of things, you're just considering actual physical currency in the money supply, which is wrong. The reasons why a run on a bank is so dangerous is because people have more money in their accounts than what the bank actually possesses.

An actual example:

Person A deposits £10,000 into a bank. Person B wishes to take out a loan of £2,000, this means that the bank now has £8,000. However, Person C comes along and wants to take out a £9,000 loan - the bank only has £8,000 in its reserves, but it has reasonable confidence in the fact that Person B will pay their £2,000 back - meaning that, in the future, the bank will be able to finance the £1,000 difference. So, the bank loans out £9,000 to Person C. £8,000 of it comes from the bank's reserves, the other £1,000 has been created in the hope that it will be financed back by Person B paying off their loan.

Now, when Person B and Person C finally pays off their loans, the bank will receive a total of £11,000 - £2,000 from Person B + £9,000 from Person C (plus whatever interest rates, but, that's not required for this example). The money supply has increased from £10,000 by £1,000 to £11,000. Does this mean the bank is 10% richer? No. Because, unless the demand for money has increased, the value of the money would have decreased, hence inflation.

Now, with this example, we're dealing with relatively infinitesimal amounts of money, and it won't have any major implications for inflation. But, when the banks are borrowing billions and trillions of pounds/dollars, the effect on inflation is profound.

---

Now, I'm not denying that inflation doesn't come as a result of shifts in AD/AS - that's one of the basics of macroeconomics. What I am denying, however, is the longevity of this inflation. Look at the video I posted earlier in the thread, there was essentially zero inflation in the United States between when the British first settled there, and the early 1900s - are you telling me that there were no recessions during this time? Of course there were, but there was also very little debt, very little credit. The recessions did cause a small fall in the price level, which returned after the recession was over. Keynesian policies mean that not only does the price level get forced back up to pre-recession levels, but the price level continues to rise as inflation once the recession is over.

The link between inflation, Keynesian style economics, and the removal of the gold standard (which allows for Keynesian-style huge deficit spending) is so ridiculously strong, that you'd be a fool to deny it.

You pretty much hit the nail in the head. Corruption is EVERYWHERE here in Greece. You go to a doctor and he outright tells you: with receipt - 80 Euros, without - 50 Euros.

The other very large problem with us is that the clergy is considered public sector workers, thus cannot be fired, get great pensions and contribute nothing to the economy; we also spend too much on our army.