Should I remind you that the German economic wonder was also achieved by not paying debts? So maybe a bit more understanding would help...
Another problem for Greece is that their debt is becoming unsustainable. The interest for the huge loans (which mainly were used to "save banks") is so high, that they struggle with the interest. So imho there is a snowball's chance in hell that Greece will re-pay their debts.

Anyway it's funny that states go into debt to save banks from which they take loans to repay the debt which they incurred for saving the banks and so on. Isn't it?

first we need to acknowledge that the economy needs investment to develop. Which means to acknowledge that concentrating purely on austerity is not enough. But that would mean the eurozone had to admit that their strategy in the last 5 years isn't working. which i don't see happening

I think you've misunderstood. It is not really whether citizens are lazy or not, it is about how productive the country is, and what kind of living standards they can achieve with that productivity. Or alternatively, their natural resources (take Norway and its oil as an example, they can be as lazy bums as they want, just sell some more oil, baby).

I wouldn't call e.g. Cambodians lazy. They work like maniacs from early sunrise to sunset on rice fields etc. in inhuman conditions... yet the productivity of the country isn't necessarily that great, and they can't afford many things westerners take for granted like iPads or GOG.com. How come, if working hard is the only thing that matters?

What on earth is that supposed to mean? First, understand that "EU" consists of its member states. How does e.g. Finland "tolerate" the ill feelings between Turkey and Greece? Hell, they had those long before we even joined EU, probably long before the country named Finland even existed. How could we prevent it?

How would you suggest this "EU" would end the cold war between the two countries? Round-up the imaginary EU army, and occupy both Greece and Turkey? Yeah, that's the ticket, and I'm sure the said countries wouldn't resist.

True and I would have preferred too the losses wouldn't have been privatized, at least outside of those countries which host the said banks (including UK). Then again:

- we are not sure what exactly would have happened in the alternative timeline, did we evade some even bigger crisis with this

- now is now, so we can't keep harping on the past forever. We have to base our further decisions on now.

Ahem, wrong analogy. Iceland wasn't in problem due to their overspending to their public sector, pensions and military, but because their banks took too many risks and collapsed. I don't think Iceland even had any realistic means to save the banks.

Iceland said FU to investors from UK and Netherlands who had money on those banks, ie. that they wouldn't reimburse their losses. The foreign investors got angry, but later EFTA court decided that Iceland doesn't have to pay up for them. Yet, to my understanding Iceland has later kept reimbursing those losses from the estate, even if EFTA decided they don't have to.

So what exactly do you wish Greece to do now? Leave euro, and refuse to pay any of their debts back to IMF and other euro countries? Yep, they could do that, but they seem to be unwilling at least to leave euro, and saying FU to your creditors will have consequences as well (like, Greece considered to be too risky for all creditors for quite some time). I personally would also prefer that, compared to preparing another bailout package that Greece will refuse to pay back later as well.

As for the referendum, I'm glad Greece voted no, as that makes the new bailout package at least a bit less probable, and other EU countries less trusting on Greece governments future promises. Tsipras, talk all you want, no one is listening anymore.

The military budget is considered as a particularly important cause of financial issues in Greece. But yeah, for several historical reasons, Greeks do precisely not trust Europe to protect them in case of Turkish invasion (be it disputed Greek inland territory, or, importantly too, the disputed little rock-wide islands that define maritime territories and potential access to oil reserves). Also, I think there is some anxiety about military support, given the 20th century military coups. And I suspect it was the main reason for (the hairy pacifist leftists of) Syriza to ally with the Anel freaks, which are worshipped by the greek military (Kammenos is the most popular politician in the greek army, so having him as a minister does placate them). I suspect that it's what prevents Syriza to make the military budget cuts that should be done.

The greek political context is a bit different from most european countries, so simple transpositions ("hey, if it was us we would have just done this/that") can be misleading.

If this is not happening then the only chance is an euro exit as quick as possible followed by a default on the debt. Only with a devaluation you'll get investments ever again.

So this is probably the only solution left.

The bailout programs didn't concentrate only on austerity. For purely ideological reasons, Syriza wanted to e.g. increase taxes on big corporations and not cut from pensions and public sector, and IMF objected that approach. Now, try to convince me that Syriza's way is not actually making the Greek economy worse. Yeah, higher pensions and more jobs in the public sector really opens the money floodgates from other countries to Greece, as if.

I'll remind again that higher pensions and increasing the public sector are not the kind of "investments" Greece needs to get on its own. They are like treating a hangover with more alcohol, making matters only worse in the long run.

Did they even ? From what I gathered (well, not necessarily very reliable source here because it was part of the EU discourses), Syriza didn't even want to touch the sacrosanct shipping industry.

I'd be reassured if I was wrong there.

Actually the only thing that Iceland did differently (and in this it was more clever than Ireland or Greece or Spain) was not publicly taking over all private debt from it's banking sector. Still they gathered quite a huge debt (by restructuring their banks) and will have to pay for it for decades to come.

But they also had their own currency, could devaluate and compensate a drop in internal demand by additional external demand. Therefore they had one/two years of crisis and then growth again (and debt but manageable debt).

Greece could have done the same if only they would have exited the euro. So if Greece wants to do as Iceland did, they must first exit the euro.

i honestly don't see any other way this could go. Merkel probably would be ready to restart negotiations and make concessions, but her party won't go with it. Especially with deb cuts or tax decreases.

i am talking about the (mostly realized) austerity plans in the last 5 years, not about the current, future proposals. I don't know of any measures that would stimulate grows in those plans. But feel free to prove me wrong. I might have overlooked something

Nobody really knows because the negotiations were not public until the end.

Maybe the EU just said: you need to cut some billions, preferably in non-productive sectors like military, pensions, ... and then Syriza said, no let's go after bad corporations and be easy on pensioners or it was the other way around and EU demanded tax increases everywhere no matter the consequences.

In the published document by the EU (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5270_en.htm) there is an increase of corporate tax from 26% to 28% and an increase in the solidarity surcharge (whatever this means). Unnecessary and counter-productive if you ask me but then this is also the result of six months of negotiations. Who knows who had this idea and who forced it.

Actually the ECB would not allow Ireland to do anything other than save the banks because they were afraid if they failed it would spread to the other countries. We had no choice in the matter, they threatened to remove all funding if we didn't.

I guess that in the end it will surely make a dent in the legacy of Merkel. She was the one in charge of the Greece rescue and (with consent of all the other countries) was just not brave (asking for more in return) as well as generous (offering much more) enough. I mean, it's not sure Greece would have played along, but as it is we also have to blame ourselves.

Obama brought stimulus, health care, gay marriage and no more wars to the US, Merkel brought the second best policy to Europe. Even second best is sometimes not good enough.

Anyway now the best solution is the euro exit. And actually I do not fear it. And I also think it is better for Greece. So why not doing it. I'm absolutely serious and think this is the best advice possible for Greece in this moment.

And Merkel's party - well, once Greece defaults on the debt, they'll see that a debt cut was unavoidable anyway. It's only a matter of timing.

Well an economy relies on investments to develop whether them being private or public. That's why i brought up Keynesian economics and they should be of course applied in its entirety. But that means investing money now in greece in both the domestic and export oriented sectors. Reducing the bloated administration and military spending is nonetheless necessary same with fighting tax evasion and corruption.

But it might be impossible now to implement something like that - would've much easier five years ago...

Yes, that was very stupid of ECB. In Cyprus they did it much better. Sorry.