They use a lot of words to say so little. Lots of hand-weaving and very little actual solutions. The only real course of action I saw from them was "cut the debts". Yeah, easy to say when your own money is not at stake. E.g. Finland paying several billion of euros of Greek debts would mean (even more) austerity to Finland, unless we would declare ourselves insolvent as well (which apparently is the jail-free card to spend money irresponsibly like there is no tomorrow).

(I personally believe Greece debts must be cut at some point, BUT those discussions should not take place until Greece is not taking new debt over old debt. It makes no sense to suggest to cut debts, and at the same time take new debt over it.)

So what are these "bright minds" suggesting in practice? Stop negotiations of any new loans to Greece, as that would increase their debt, something that they are complaining about in that open letter? Are they suggesting Greece should exit eurozone? Ok, then they should try to convince Greece as well as they are unwilling to leave euro. Make an open letter to Tsipras that he should stop any negotiations with EU and IMF for further bailout packages, and start the process of exiting euro, at least temporarily, possibly for good. Don't blame the other EU countries for somehow preventing Greece from doing these.

The comments I see from other countries, especially US, seem to always suggest that the big bad EU/IMF is forcing Greece to take more debt over debt, forcing it to stay in eurozone, blaa blaa blaa. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Greece wants to stay in euro, and has eagerly wanted to start new negotiations of even more debt money from other EU countries.

Also, the more I see these comments from outside EU, the more I feel they should open up their wallets as well to save Greece. Obama and the head of Japan urge EU to solve the Greece crisis and keep Greece in EU (in order for it to not get closer with Russia, I presume)? Open your wallet then, chip in, help the poor Greeks. Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, shut up already.

If anyone actually had any idea what exactly they said no to. :)

There was a funny article a couple of days ago how many Greeks seemed to believe this referendum was about whether Greece needs to pay its debts or not. As in, "no" means the same as "all Greece's debts are instantly forgiven" while "yes" is "you have to pay all your debts, and fast". (This according to one local, her view on it based on discussions with common people).

If it really was that easy to get rid of debts... Ask Argentina.

About the debt relief. There was a debt cut in 2012 and several ones later with the reduced interest rates on the debt which effectively are the same as a cut, but it was never enough in total. I personally think it's illusory to even think that Greece could pay everything back. There must be a bailout. And I'm sure Russia would not pay for Greece (they need their money for themselves too), so the only one left to pay is the EU.

The only important question is how much Greece realistically can/should pay back by itself and what does it have to do in return?

In principle, since there are only proud, independent nations involved, the only clean way is an euro exit and a default on the debt. Everything else will always result in a haggle.

Now the official stance on the debt relief is quite ridiculous currently. German officials insist on that everything is payed back, otherwise it would be a bailout which is forbidden by EU law. Indeed by the contracts made in the 90s actually everyone is responsible for himself only. It's not a political union. But then in a political union everyone would loose some independence, so nobody really wants that either. So there will be more haggling.

The real reason for the reluctance to talk about debt relief is instead that this is the only leverage to actually haggle the amount of debt Greece pays by itself and to haggle about the actions that Greece must take. So while it's clear that a debt relief must come, they just don't want to talk about it because they do not trust Greece.

How can one get out of this unfortunate situation? Well, rules may help.

I try to write some down here:
- Greece must pay back as much as it can but only for a limited amount of time (say 15-30 years)
- Greece must have at least a balanced budget during this time
- Greece must cut all non-essential expenses to a certain minimum during this time, except for the poor
- Greece must implement reforms to increase competitivity
- Greece must fight corruption hard
but also
- Greece's economy shall not shrink, must on average grow
- Greece's unemployment must be limited
- To this end Greece may decrease taxes that affect labour costs
- Additionally, helper nations must invest money if economy and unemployment is still too high
- All non-governmental debtors must face big cuts too, similarly to the overall debt relief

If everyone would agree on this we had an agreement in an instant and there would be hope. However in this case it's clear that both sides fail to meet the rather balanced and fair rules. However, particularly bad is that the EU doesn't acknowledge the necessity of keeping the economy going and the unemployment limited. In this light I have to admit that the No of the Greeks is actually very reasonable and I'm glad they haven't voted Yes. I'm quite mad at how little economic reason the EU (among them Germany) has shown all these years.

I also hope that the EU will either offer or agree to better terms with tax cuts instead of tax decreases boosting the economy and therefore making the whole thing work. I also hope Greece will accept it and will prove worthy of it.

Otherwise I would strongly advice to leave the euro (even only temporarily) and default on the debt. This is a quite drastic but clean way to enforce a debt relief as well as regainment of competitivity.

Hmm, I disagree. I guess his legacy will probably be seen even higher in the future than now already.

He started with a big economic crisis.
He lead the country on the path back to growth by resisting all wishes to cut down governmental expenses a lot.
He could even haggle a small stimulus which certainly supported the economy and reduced unemployment.
He saved General Motors against political resistance and together with all the suppliers saved at least 100,000 of jobs in the industry.
He put legislation on the way to limit the financial risks coming from the banking sector.
He gave health care against political resistance (death panels) to at least 16 (sixteen) millions (millions) of US citizens which didn't have it before therefore really earning the name Obamacare as a name of honour.
Obamacare seems to be more efficient than private health care because costs have risen very moderately only since the introduction.
He kept the US out of wars which I think is important because the US cannot and should not play world police men. This costs too many US lives and costs too much money. If the other nations want peace they should work it too.
He put saving the environment on the agenda which no other US president did before (this will probably be even more important in the future).
He supported (illegal?) immigrants living and working and paying taxes in the US for a long time thereby giving some hope to them while congress cannot agree on anything regarding immigration.
He legalized gay soldiers (ending "Don't ask, don't tell") and certainly supported gay marriage, even if it was the supreme court who decided it in the end. Surely in the future many gays will thank him and the supreme court for this.

All together this surely gives a place in the top 20% of all presidents.

Given they are 5 economists from 5 different countries, all highly regarded, I'm not sure why you would use "hate quotes." What exactly are your economic credentials? If you need a Nobel Prize winning economist who agrees with their criticisms here you go.

As for pleading ignorance to their suggestions - it was pretty clear (assuming you made it through "all those words") - cut the debt and string it out over a very long period of time. If you need a more detailed explanation of what that means (which again was referred to by precedent in the piece) you can read PIketty here. It's also worth noting this piece as well, given the detailing of debt repayment mechanisms.

Also your characterization of Greek debt as simply irresponsible spending, is exactly as the establishment would want you to do, since it ignores all of the maleficence on the part of the banks. This is gangster capitalism, a war of economics in which the public is hostage and the prize if not are the public goods that can be privatized (i.e. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgnt1pdZAXs]class warfare).

As for your other characterization of "people from the US...bla, bla, blah...shut up." Your comment, aside from being inflammatory and wrong, ignorantly assumes those people writing don't have family or connections to Greece. So I'll "shut up" when I'm good and ready - not due to some lazy hack that can't bother himself to fully read a one page letter before posting a swath of uninformed nonsense.

I see you're also a racist.

Even Bailout would not help Greece in the long run. Fact is that even if EU, IMF, EZB and other creditors cut all Greek debt Greece would still need to ask for help. Reason for that is that Greek country is not an export country and as such makes most of income on its own market which is not enough at the moment to support the state and the population at the current debt financed standard of living.

On the other side debt cuts fall under the by EU treaty forbidden bailout solutions (Article 125 - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) but that Article was already breached several times already in the Greek case. Eitherway we shall see what happens on Sunday.

That's not racist. He's describing what happened with the people of Greek citizenship on Greek territory, I.e. Greeks.
Similar things like 'people of US citizenship on US territory, americans, couldn't describe what exactly protest against in 'Jay and Silent Bob'.
I really liked Kevin action back then.

Implying greeks are too dumb to understand what they voted for. It's racist. Period.

He's implying that consequences weren't laid off well.
Tbh, I have seen similar case, tv asked citizens of Ukraine 'What eurointegration would give to Ukraine' and people only mumbled. But they voted for it nonetheless.

There is a Greek race?

Oh? So you understand the full severity of the question? Then you are smarter than most people I know and certainly smarter than me when I first read it, it took me well over 3 days of reading (And a lot of outside commentary) to even understand what the first program specifically implied in the long run, because it is full of finance lingo normal people don't know). (Also remember that this proposal didn't actually exist anymore by the time of the vote since it ceased to exist 30th June) which made the question a farce.

Here the question (to remind ourselves ,p)

"Should the proposal that was submitted by the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund at the Eurogroup of 25 June 2015], which consists of two parts that together constitute their comprehensive proposal, be accepted? The first document is titled (1) Reforms for the completion of the Current Programme and beyond and the second (2) Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis"

(1) -> https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/reforms.pdf
(2) -> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/eurogroupdebtanalysis.pdf

(Those links were not part of the question) leaving everyone who didn't have Internet and search skills already out of the loop.)

So basically Greek people were asked to agree or not agree to a proposal that wasn't base of negotiations post 30th June (and 14 pages long)... on 5th July.... where that proposal was no longer valid because the 2nd bailout program it was based on ceased.

Maybe you are right after all, it is unfair to call the Greek people "stupid" because that question was rigged in a way that makes no choice one where the consequences could be easily known and deduced before vote even if you understood the question (And read *and understood* all 14 pages).

Either way, an ultimatum was given until Sunday to the Greece gov to come up with an EVEN WORSE program than the one proposed in that question. So a true victory for Greek people and democracy eh? ;) There is only to hope that Greece will not fall apart should Tsipras really mess up that very last proposal negotiation. This no vote put him in the worst position imaginable. The EU has nothing to lose by delaying as sad as that is. Because EU technocrats don't care about suffering of normal people.

It's a shame the EU is reigned by these people by the way.... Greece collapse could have been prevented 5 years ago if Merkel hadn't done what she always does. Ignore the problem, delay a decision and hope it goes away before next election. As a German I am ashamed of my governments role in this...

The word "racist" does not mean what you think it means.

Four unexpected angles :

1° Turkey supportive of Greece. If the crisis could bring back these two countries a few notch back together, deflating this insane antagonism, then something immernsely precious will have come from it. More Greece/Turkey fraternity is worth the cost of more Greece/Europe hostility.

2° German comedians, ironizing on the Greece/Troika absurdities in March.

3° An overly optimistic CNN article. Quotes Die Zeit about Tsipras playing a "very clever game of chicken", but (as I stressed in my first post here) there is no such thing. It's a game where, by definition, the dumbest, most irresponsible and most inhumane (the one who cares less about sacrificing common stakes) wins. Also, the very "win" notion is stinky here. This is not a context where Greece "wins" anything, apart from survival.

4° Syriza compared to the Tea Party. In a flattering way. By american ultraliberal conservatives. Ooookay, what now ? :-/

But anyway, all angles reflecting on the situation's complexity, instead of reducing it back to the criminally lowbrow populists' "greeks are awful people, the solution is to have them bleed more for great justice", are profitable. Misleadingly simplistic narratives are the most primordial (and difficult) thing to shake off.

Keep playing dumb.

It means more, in different contexts, than what you'd want it to.