So you basically say the Greeks cannot change themselves fast enough. Yeah, maybe, but who pays in the mean time for them? Because I really don't want to be it. If Greece would not get help they would be bankrupt and reality would force changes upon them. I mean, just not having any money is a very strong incentive to change, isn't it.

My concern is rather that we make the mistake of slowing them down in their change by creating the illusion they could go on like they did in the past which they can't. It's foremost their own responsibility to help themselves.

Oh, and for example GB won't help them anyway. This week I heard that the explanation is that Cameron got a deal which says that non Euro countries do not need to help Euro countries in need. I really wonder if this also works the other way around, so if GB is ever in danger no Euro country has to help them? Then it would make kind of sense.

Blah

No I'm not taking sides. I just said that culture isn't something you can define and if EU wants to change that in one member country it won't be easy.
That's a interesting view point. I haven't thought of it in that way so I can't give you a answer.

That actually made sense to me.

Culture is not the main thing. Modern culture is a factor.

How is the willingness of people to go to war in any way related to World War 1, when that is not even the most recent major conflict Europe has been into? You pulled a strawman in this discussion.

That's right, but what is missing is that Greece, the debtor, could indeed exit the euro and default on the debt. They simply chose not to do it, for whatever reasons, but they surely had a choice. And given the demands that the EU is asking of them, they really should seriously consider it. They chose to not use it, but they always could threaten to just default on the whole money in any negotiation. According to what you say that would made them free, they only chose not to use this freedom. I don't know why they didn't. The referendum should have been about either accepting the offer or leaving the euro and default on the debt. The decision would have been more difficult but the outcome would have had more consequences too.

Usually one assumes the creditor wants to maximize the money he gets back. Since this is only possible if the debtor survives one usually gets an agreement which both sides can live with. The situation is then only formally the one between master and slave, more like partners. Also there are rules for individuals who go bankrupt. They have to pay all they can and have to sell their property above a certain minimal level, but after some years everything is forgotten. Maybe these rules could be invented and applied here too.

Finally following your statementsm, in principle, every possible contract in the world would mean that someone is master and someone slave. Because after all you can never negotiate contracts once they are done. Legally you have to fullfill every contract that you agreed to.

Here in this case it really depends all on our subjective feeling of justice and everyone has a different one. My guess is that still both parties are at fault. Greece is not fully complying with the reasonable demands and doesn't make the rescue of Greece their own project, instead blaming the helpers for everything, which looks quite ungrateful, while the EU demands are justified but the EU fails completely by counteracting the expectable slump with stimulus - which actually is especially embarrassing because it's so unnecessary.

My guess is that the situation in Greece will not get better and that the real, justified blame of the EU will increase in the future. At some point you would indeed see a failed rescue mostly as a failure of the rescuer. I didn't vote for this policy, but the majority of people here did. So yes, they screwed it. And I'm not sure if it makes the situation better or worse but it is indeed nothing personal, it's just that people here don't want to pay too much for others. That's it. It's all about money. Very simple.

Just look at England who don't want to pay anything for the rescue of Greece and you see how much solidarity there is in the world in total.

Another example: Industrialized nations want to transfer 0.7% (not very much) of their yearly GDP to developing nations. They want this since the 70s. And they constantly fail.

Unfortunately not all Russians know that. Maybe a "the grass is always greener on the other side" effect.

Hmm, I know that politics is awkward and futile and meaningless, but to such an extent? Wouldn't it be totally crazy if now everyone agreed to something that nobody wants? I mean if they don't like it why do they agree to it more 2/3 majority in all parliaments?

For Greece, who doesn't want to leave the euro, this is kind of the best available deal. And for Germany, they could have anticipated that Greece doesn't want to exit the euro, so why not just not making any other offer.

Also the story is that the EU (Tusk) decided that an euro exit is not taking place.

In the end, if the euro exit would be the much better solution, would it really matter who decided it? In principle, it should not matter.

Also if you can leave the euro at will this indeed creates a dangerous precedence. Financial markets might speculate who might be next. I guess that his is not critical and you could argue that Greece is a very special case (with the cheating when going into the euro) but still, humans are so fixed on precedences. This is an additional risk.

My result would be that indeed Germany wants exactly this bailout package because Greece was in no position to negotiate much, so if it fails you'll mostly want to blame ... the whole EU because all of them agreed to it (I mean really, if you agree to it, then you take over responsibility).

You mean Crimea? It was captured by Ukrainians, now Russians from/with Crimea returned home.
Current Ukrainian government, which is partially being searched by Interpol http://www.interpol.int/notice/search/wanted/2014-16549
planned to give Crimea to US https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2bb691b61c59be3a68180bd8c614a0cb
It would've improved life of Russians in Crimea, right? It would've created another resort zone like Haiti. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30356539

If we talk about Donbass... I don't believe in invasion, because:
1. Realistic scenario of capturing of Ukraine by Russia - we have defensive pact with Belarus, its border is in 70km straight from Kiev or 180km by highway. Evening they are going sleep, at midnight tanks in Kiev, any unrest at 8am of big groups suppressed by missile and airstrikes, And that's all.
2. There are no fighting on the border with Crimea. There are no fortifications on the border with Crimea.
[url=https://www.google.ru/maps/place/46%C2%B008%2738.8%22N+33%C2%B037%2759.2%22E/@46.144109,33.633104,881m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0]https://www.google.ru/maps/place/46%C2%B008%2738.8%22N+33%C2%B037%2759.2%22E/@46.144109,33.633104,881m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0[/url]
Here, highway to heart of Ukraine. Crimea DOES have Russian army and junta AREN'T scared of strike from this direction.
3. Overall description of conflict sounds unbelievably stupid. Putin sends hundreds of thousands of highly trained specialists without weapon, and even with trophy weapon they can't win over freshly recruited alcoholics Ukrainian army consists of.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144833/Ukrainian-troops-locked-metal-cages-punishment-drunk.html
Why Nato pleas for increase of spending if Russia can't capture Ukraine?
-----------------------
More realistic explanation of Donbass:
Poroshenko pleaded his allegiance to US, and as president controls army. US backs his ass, and he uses his post to seize property of other ukrainian oligarchs. Oligarch Kolomoyski controls Right Sector.
Government structures in Ukraine in ruins, right sector is better armed than ukrainian army.
http://i.imgur.com/sUKhOKc.jpg <-Man on the left, "first person in Ukraine" fires man on the right. You don't need to be an expert in body language to see who is in control of situation.

Together they control majority of official kiev forces. I don't know about background of radical islamist chechen battalion, which fights on Kiev side, but, probably, Yarosh friends. https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%96_%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%94%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%94%D0%B2%D0%B0

Anyway, their interest on Donbass - to get control over property of ukrooligarchs Firtash and Akhmetov.
As self-respecting ukrooligarchs they also have own battalions, which became core forces of militants. It explains distinction between Luhansk and Donetsk groups, which have different allegiance. They don't cooperate as parts of the same machine (hypothetical Russian invasion force).

Right sector doesn't want to die, ukroarmy doesn't want to die. So majority of fights consists of both sides shelling each other with artillery from afar. Many people died of collateral damage, and the more bombs Kiev shoots into Donbass, the more militants it creates.

What is Russian stance - we clearly see current Ukrainian government as an enemy. Yarosh is enough proof, man, which killed Russians isn't given to us and get rewarded for it. Then there are ukronazis like Azov and US citizen Saakashvili, which started the war of 08.08.08 works in Ukrainian government...
20 years old ukrainians tolerate these people and don't revolt, 40 years old raised them as such...
Russians don't want to see such people in our country, more so die for possibility to see such people in our country.
23 years of their independence clearly show that calling them asshanded octopuses would be ridicule for octopuses.

I have a really nice thought experiment. It's much more simple than reality but still I think it illuminates some aspects nicely.

To avoid getting sidetracked by discussions about WW2 or nationalism or half-finished political unions or Russia, assume that everything plays out within a single country only, let's say Switzerland.

So assume there is this one organizational unit containing 5% of population, named canton, and it is really overindebted. They spent way more than they earned for a long time, people at the top profited a lot from it but to some extent just everybody there. Swiss banks were willing to give them credit until one day they had some doubt and all hell broke loose.

One month later there is this big conference. You are the representative of the remaining organizational units. You have the stronged cards and it's your privilege (although you hate that this happens during your watch, why not later) to propose a solution.

The indebted canton can, even if reforms, cuts, harsh measures, are whipped through, at most realistically pay back 50% of the debt. Of course (and unlike in reality) you are wise enough to not ask for more than is physically possible. But still, even with 50%, this will be highly unpopular in the affected canton.

However the people in the remaining cantons are just mad and with every [insert currency unit here] you spent, you'll also lose popularity rather quickly. Especially since there is this constitutional debt lock (there really is and it also kind of works well for Switzerland) which means that any rescue missions have to be financed by tax increases. Calling them unpopular is an understatement.

Finally the banks. They threaten you that any big loss on their side will result in severe losses, maybe a collapse of the banking system, maybe a worsen of the credit situation, maybe the loss of jobs everywhere in the country. Your experts tell you that you should not distribute more than 20% of the total loss onto the banks.

So now here comes the question:

The question is not, what would you do or how would you distribute the money.

The question is, if you were neither particularly left or right (but rather an average of the two) politician - what would you do? How would you distribute the costs? How strongly would you interfere in the canton? On which conditions would it depend?

Flaw in your logic:
How this canton got into situation of overindebtness? At some point this canton was profitable, because it managed to become so big Did all plants were closed by the Switzerland?
Why Switzerland refused to open new ones or make a program to resettle people into territories with population deficit?
It was easier to give credits than solve snowballing for generations problems fundamentally.
Realistically, resettling or new plants are still needed. Giving them more money to repay old debt doesn't change anything. It shifts problem into the future, where they would fall back from post-industrial countries even more.

Ongoing thread (for the next years).....

As I see it, nobody real cares about what happening with Greece.
With nobody I mean those in political power positions.
Yes, there is the media hype and politicans love the deception hidding their own problems.
In the end Greece is economically irrelevant.

There is only one big FEAR....Banks.
First it was all about Banks losing their money.
Now, after they sold most of those bad debts the new FEAR is....Banks.
Funny, the same investors crying about losing money if the EU doesn't interfere wouldn't miss a second
to bet on the next possible victim (you can choose...Portugal, Italy, Spain and possible France).

And thats the reason why *we* must rescue Greece.
As long as no one limits the power of the Banks (worldwide) those scenarios will continue.
But wait, those bankers get money if they make more profit....for their investors....namely us.

Flawed logic, especially in Germany:

Link is in German sorry guys ;)

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/283.html paragraph 2

meaning anyone helping by giving money in a lost situation is too be punished.

So in my point of view (and the criminal law) ALL German banks which participated in this scheme shall be punished!

But just look at what happened after the big bubble in the US, the toxic loans...surprise... In Germany not a single f*cking bastard...sorry meant to say banker... has been convicted, unlike the US.

Yes the Euro-zone is for THIS far more corrupted than the US!

Hmm, flawed logic? For the cited law to apply you would need to present evidence that this really happened and usually this is really hard. Also even if the cited laws would only apply within a single country to persons or corporations, not to countries themselves. Also the banks were already punished in 2012, weren't they? So what exactly do you want to say? If you just want to say that it's your opinion that the banks should take a higher share, just say so.

My guess is that we could make it so that the banks are liable for all defaults instead of the creditor who took the money but then interest rates would go up quite a bit for many countries.

Just have a look at Italy or France or Great Britain. They are running permanent deficits and have relatively hight debt ratios. If I were a bank I would say this is deeply worrisome and would ask for much higher interest rates (say 4-8%) and in turn this would even worsen their problems (might even generate Minsky moments for them). These countries wouldn't like at all now if someone realistically told them about their problems. They would be very, very upset. I guess that they very much want now that the banks are lying about their true condition.

I'm sorry, I know you're having a serious discussion, but I feel like we need to explore a few Minscy moments

It has already been posted in here:

DURING the bailout money was being lend too buy Submarines from Germany. (8 Billion Euros)

This IS by its definition Bankruptcy (why otherwise asking for a bail-out) and a crime according to this paragraph. If somebody is filing for Bankruptcy (what was being discussed for ages already) and a bank gives them money, it is a crime.

So what the involved banks would be punishable for would be Beihilfe zum Bankrott:(Assistance into Bankruptcy)

i.e : http://www.ihr-anwalt-hamburg.de/aktuelle-rechtsprechungen-urteile/stgb/stgb-283-bankrott-interessentheorie-aufgegeben-2.html

And higher interest rates would only be applicable PRIOR to a bail-out.