By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Living in Greece has become incredibly tough right now... :-(

Slimebeast on 06 May 2010

Greece has a lot of deep rooted problems. I know a lot about Greece thanks to my Greek friends I've known since childhood.

There's a saying that you get the politicians you deserve (assuming it's a democracy). I agree with that.

Greeks are lovely people, I like Greece and it's culture a lot. But the society, culture and the Greek mentality has it's problems. The curruption is not only among politicians, it's rooted in the Greek mindset itself. Greeks are warm and friendly people, but not always honest and trustworthy, and Greeks have a mistrust towards other people in everyday matters, especially mistrust towards authorities. This goes way back in time of course, first with the Turkish occupation and later by their own right wing militia government in the 60's or whatever. There's been tension between the left and right for a long time.

Greeks have developed this custom of mass protests and labor workers strikes. It's not all for the bad, but overall the society has suffered from it.

The EU has helped the Greek economy tremendously. Greeks ackowledge that themselves, but at the very same time they always have the tendency to blame their problems on the Germans or Americans or whatever.

This is just a small part of what my greek friends have told me over the years.



Around the Network
Akvod on 06 May 2010
Slimebeast said:

Greece has a lot of deep rooted problems. I know a lot about Greece thanks to my Greek friends I've known since childhood.

There's a saying that you get the politicians you deserve (assuming it's a democracy). I agree with that.

Greeks are lovely people, I like Greece and it's culture a lot. But the society, culture and the Greek mentality has it's problems. The curruption is not only among politicians, it's rooted in the Greek mindset itself. Greeks are warm and friendly people, but not always honest and trustworthy, and Greeks have a mistrust towards other people in everyday matters, especially mistrust towards authorities. This goes way back in time of course, first with the Turkish occupation and later by their own right wing militia government in the 60's or whatever. There's been tension between the left and right for a long time.

Greeks have developed this custom of mass protests and labor workers strikes. It's not all for the bad, but overall the society has suffered from it.

The EU has helped the Greek economy tremendously. Greeks ackowledge that themselves, but at the very same time they always have the tendency to blame their problems on the Germans or Americans or whatever.

This is just a small part of what my greek friends have told me over the years.

Can't fucking trust the Greeks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseus



mirgro on 06 May 2010
mrstickball said:

You forget one thing though:

During the crash of 1987, no additional money was hedged as a protection against further recessions. According to Keynesian ideals , the government should have given out much more than they were in response to the crash. That didn't happen in 1987. In fact, your graph proves the opposite - expenditures as a percentage of GDP grew much slower in 1987-1991 than they did during the 8 years prior. Also, there have been many more recessions in the past 100 years than the 3 stock crashes I showed you. I used the stock crashes as an illustration that they in and of themselves didn't cause the Great Depression.

In fact, we've had 22 recessions since the start of the 1900s.

I am going to quantify this in the morning by building a spreadsheet to explain how it doesn't work that government spending has removed us from many recessions. There were major, yet short, recessions during many periods after the great depression that were met with no government spending, and we recovered easily from.

 

I too have heard that there have been over 15 recessions since the beginning of the century. However, as far as I know, there were only a few major drops, and after each one there was a massive government spending. The presidents back then just happened to have the "if we don't kill them, the nazis/commies/arabs will come in your house and rape your women" excuse. Instead of building pointless roads, and other such projects, they decided to spend money on improving the ability to kill humans.

Furthermore, the fact that you see a smaller growth in debt in 1987 than previous years might be because the ealy and mid 80s were even =scarier than the late 80s and early 90s. From what I hear, stagflation almost ruined the economy.

I have never said that the economy won't hit recessions, all regulatoin will do is prevent depressions that have human idiocy as the root cause, and if done right, get out of such depressions faster and at a prime location to recover.



mrstickball on 06 May 2010
Akvod said:
mrstickball said:

@Akvod -

That may be a reason, but don't forget that the recession of 1937 only lasted a year, and that the economy had begun expansion in 1938, while the government was spending LESS that same year.

So, even if spending less was the cause (which can be debated), spending more was not the solution, as government outlays dropped from $91.9b in 1937 to $86.1b in 1938, despite the recession being over in June 1938.

 

@routsounmanman

Actually, the short term/long term perspective is the exact opposite. Short term, Greece would be a horrible place to be. No one would loan to you in the short term, forcing the country to solve its problems now. Like a bankruptcy, its an abrupt way to end the burden of creditors. It would cause a massive shortage of money for the country, causing a very brutal recession.

However, it would, in the long term, solve your problems. Since the country would have to solve the problems in and of itself, without external help, it would ensure that when it had fixed the problems, it didn't have to do so under the auspices of any other country, and have to satisfy anyone else. Once you were revenue-neutral, you'd have to pay back no one.

Once that was done, and Greece proved that it was solvent, external sources would loan to Greece again, but hopefully it would be taken in moderation, and Greece would have a chance at joining the big boys at the table, if not being stronger than many, since it had worked out an agreeable public/private sector without the aid of other nations propping up corruption.

 

I've read this elsewhere on the meltdown - Greece is like a drug addict. There are a few ways of dealing with a drug addiction. Defaulting would be like quitting cold turkey, and removing all drugs from the person's reach.

Perhaps it recovered quicker than the Great Depression... because it wasn't as big as one? A year long recesion is still a LONG one... you make it sound like it's short.

The depression was 3 times longer than the recession of 1937. The average recession in America lasts 1 year. Although it was worse than other recessions in terms of the GDP that was shed during the period (3.6%), it was far and away from the Great Depression (25%). I'm not saying it was a good recession, but I'm just saying that the government did not have a significant knee-jerk reaction that helped plunge us into the Great Depression.

I too have heard that there have been over 15 recessions since the beginning of the century. However, as far as I know, there were only a few major drops, and after each one there was a massive government spending. The presidents back then just happened to have the "if we don't kill them, the nazis/commies/arabs will come in your house and rape your women" excuse. Instead of building pointless roads, and other such projects, they decided to spend money on improving the ability to kill humans.

Furthermore, the fact that you see a smaller growth in debt in 1987 than previous years might be because the ealy and mid 80s were even =scarier than the late 80s and early 90s. From what I hear, stagflation almost ruined the economy.

I have never said that the economy won't hit recessions, all regulatoin will do is prevent depressions that have human idiocy as the root cause, and if done right, get out of such depressions faster and at a prime location to recover.

There were indeed a few major drops. You are wrong, however, that there was massive government spending after each one. I took a look at US treasury data, and the data is quite different.

Here are the various cited recessions after 1929. Not because I wouldn't love to go back further, but that is as far as I can correlate American GDP with federal outlays.

  • Great Depression
  • Recession of 1937
  • Recession of 1945
  • Recession of 1949
  • Recession of 1953
  • Recession of 1958
  • Recession of 1960
  • Recession of 1969
  • Recession of 1973
  • Recession of 1980
  • Recession of 1982
  • Recession of 1990 (S&L scandal)
  • Recession of 2000 (.com bust)
  • Recession of 2007 (housing bust)

We find the following statistic - during these recessions, federal outlays increased during the year(s) of recession 7 times, and reduced 7 times. Virtually, there was no correlation with an increase of federal outlays, and the recession.

The only one that we can see a major correlation between government spending and a recession is in 1945, when government outlays were 41.6% of the GDP, and dropped to 24.9% in 1946, which caused the recession.

Yes, some regulations can help us during recessions, but looking at the historicity of recessions...The government has correlated to being the cause of a lot of the worse issues of the recession. My argument is that the government needs to be non-interventionist in that they should let the market shake out. However, I do understand the idea of the government helping out - I think that it may be OK in certain circumstances where the government actually has a surplus prior to the recession. Unfortunately, this has not happened within the past 40 years, so I don't trust the government to deficit-spend properly, because every arguement points towards them doing just the opposite.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball on 06 May 2010

FYI, you can watch the protests live:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/webbtv/nyheter/utrikes/article7086788.ab



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 06 May 2010
routsounmanman said:

Hello all,

I'm sure most of you must've already heard about matters in Greece right now, it's very bad... In just a couple of months, VAT has 4% up, gas 10% up, wages are being cut left and right, even the lowest wage dropped to 500 fuc**** Euros! To make things worse, many are taking advantage of the situation, further increasing prices, laying off stuff, the consumers are being very reluctant to spend on anything...

The people in Athens and Thessaloniki are rioting, and with a God damn good reason! Most people in Greece are kind and hard working. For the last 100 years, we've been governed by the same completely useless politicians. It's due to their incompetence that we have to keep up with all this! We've been recieving tremendous help from the EU to no avail at all! Corruption is everywhere! From the last mayor, to the prime minister himself!

Also, we've been leaking money left and right for many years, and noone lifted a damn finger! We are 10 million people, and we have 8x public service employees more than UK!!!

Where did you get that figure from?t's a bit hard to believe since UK like all European nations has a big public sector and work force.



routsounmanman on 06 May 2010
Slimebeast said:
routsounmanman said:

Hello all,

I'm sure most of you must've already heard about matters in Greece right now, it's very bad... In just a couple of months, VAT has 4% up, gas 10% up, wages are being cut left and right, even the lowest wage dropped to 500 fuc**** Euros! To make things worse, many are taking advantage of the situation, further increasing prices, laying off stuff, the consumers are being very reluctant to spend on anything...

The people in Athens and Thessaloniki are rioting, and with a God damn good reason! Most people in Greece are kind and hard working. For the last 100 years, we've been governed by the same completely useless politicians. It's due to their incompetence that we have to keep up with all this! We've been recieving tremendous help from the EU to no avail at all! Corruption is everywhere! From the last mayor, to the prime minister himself!

Also, we've been leaking money left and right for many years, and noone lifted a damn finger! We are 10 million people, and we have 8x public service employees more than UK!!!

Where did you get that figure from?t's a bit hard to believe since UK like all European nations has a big public sector and work force.

I've heard it on the local news, not sure how trustworthy they can be; they'd inflate the shit out of it for a good shock.

Something more solid, from Wikipedia :

"The public sector accounts for about 40% of GDP"



My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio

Slimebeast on 06 May 2010

Im watching stickball's link. It's cool at the moment. I love the riot police lol. They pushed the crowd back with just a couple of dozen officers.

 



Akvod on 06 May 2010
mrstickball said:
Akvod said:
mrstickball said:

@Akvod -

That may be a reason, but don't forget that the recession of 1937 only lasted a year, and that the economy had begun expansion in 1938, while the government was spending LESS that same year.

So, even if spending less was the cause (which can be debated), spending more was not the solution, as government outlays dropped from $91.9b in 1937 to $86.1b in 1938, despite the recession being over in June 1938.

 

@routsounmanman

Actually, the short term/long term perspective is the exact opposite. Short term, Greece would be a horrible place to be. No one would loan to you in the short term, forcing the country to solve its problems now. Like a bankruptcy, its an abrupt way to end the burden of creditors. It would cause a massive shortage of money for the country, causing a very brutal recession.

However, it would, in the long term, solve your problems. Since the country would have to solve the problems in and of itself, without external help, it would ensure that when it had fixed the problems, it didn't have to do so under the auspices of any other country, and have to satisfy anyone else. Once you were revenue-neutral, you'd have to pay back no one.

Once that was done, and Greece proved that it was solvent, external sources would loan to Greece again, but hopefully it would be taken in moderation, and Greece would have a chance at joining the big boys at the table, if not being stronger than many, since it had worked out an agreeable public/private sector without the aid of other nations propping up corruption.

 

I've read this elsewhere on the meltdown - Greece is like a drug addict. There are a few ways of dealing with a drug addiction. Defaulting would be like quitting cold turkey, and removing all drugs from the person's reach.

Perhaps it recovered quicker than the Great Depression... because it wasn't as big as one? A year long recesion is still a LONG one... you make it sound like it's short.

The depression was 3 times longer than the recession of 1937. The average recession in America lasts 1 year. Although it was worse than other recessions in terms of the GDP that was shed during the period (3.6%), it was far and away from the Great Depression (25%). I'm not saying it was a good recession, but I'm just saying that the government did not have a significant knee-jerk reaction that helped plunge us into the Great Depression.

I too have heard that there have been over 15 recessions since the beginning of the century. However, as far as I know, there were only a few major drops, and after each one there was a massive government spending. The presidents back then just happened to have the "if we don't kill them, the nazis/commies/arabs will come in your house and rape your women" excuse. Instead of building pointless roads, and other such projects, they decided to spend money on improving the ability to kill humans.

Furthermore, the fact that you see a smaller growth in debt in 1987 than previous years might be because the ealy and mid 80s were even =scarier than the late 80s and early 90s. From what I hear, stagflation almost ruined the economy.

I have never said that the economy won't hit recessions, all regulatoin will do is prevent depressions that have human idiocy as the root cause, and if done right, get out of such depressions faster and at a prime location to recover.

There were indeed a few major drops. You are wrong, however, that there was massive government spending after each one. I took a look at US treasury data, and the data is quite different.

Here are the various cited recessions after 1929. Not because I wouldn't love to go back further, but that is as far as I can correlate American GDP with federal outlays.

  • Great Depression
  • Recession of 1937
  • Recession of 1945
  • Recession of 1949
  • Recession of 1953
  • Recession of 1958
  • Recession of 1960
  • Recession of 1969
  • Recession of 1973
  • Recession of 1980
  • Recession of 1982
  • Recession of 1990 (S&L scandal)
  • Recession of 2000 (.com bust)
  • Recession of 2007 (housing bust)

We find the following statistic - during these recessions, federal outlays increased during the year(s) of recession 7 times, and reduced 7 times. Virtually, there was no correlation with an increase of federal outlays, and the recession.

The only one that we can see a major correlation between government spending and a recession is in 1945, when government outlays were 41.6% of the GDP, and dropped to 24.9% in 1946, which caused the recession.

Yes, some regulations can help us during recessions, but looking at the historicity of recessions...The government has correlated to being the cause of a lot of the worse issues of the recession. My argument is that the government needs to be non-interventionist in that they should let the market shake out. However, I do understand the idea of the government helping out - I think that it may be OK in certain circumstances where the government actually has a surplus prior to the recession. Unfortunately, this has not happened within the past 40 years, so I don't trust the government to deficit-spend properly, because every arguement points towards them doing just the opposite.

You do know that World War II was in essence, a huge increase in government spending. Look, let's go back to basics. You acknowledge that GDP=C+I+G+Nx

The counter arguments for increasing G is crowding out, reducing I, and that citizens are perfectly rationale and will automatically adjust to these policies.

I do not see why increasing G cannot increase GDP to its long run equilibrium, for the short term, preventing the harmful effects a recession can have, and hastening the regaining of consumer confidence, and allowing things like the stock market to calm down.

And yes, the recession of 1937 was caused by either contractionary fiscal and/or monetary policy. FDR wanted to balance the budget, and cut government spending.

Jesus fucking christ, I'm having trouble understanding your position. Are you a monetarist? Are you a Keynesian, but only if the government has a surplus beforehand?

 

Simplify your position like mine. Engage in expansionary monetary, then fiscal policy when in a recession. When in an expansion, engage in contractionary. Don't fuck around with them, fuck the debt, fuck ideology, we need to prevent recession from getting deeper, and from economies getting to big in the short run, not the long.



mrstickball on 06 May 2010

I'd say I'm a monetarist. I am not a Kenysian in the fact that the position supports deficit spending during recessions...I believe that unless the fed actually has the money on hand, then they should not spend what they don't have.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.