Greeks vote to reject incumbants, austerity

[caveman1917]

Yes I did. Can they? Do they have the right to vote?

Sorry I thought we were talking about democracy, nevermind then.

 

[Metullus]

If Obama wrote an agreement that from now on US legislation had to be approved by Russia first, and that this agreement would hold for any future government as well, then that would be a policy decision by a democratically elected government and hence democratic? Because the government can be replaced, even if any subsequent government would still not be able to present legislation without approval by Russia? It remains democratic even if a US referendum stated a clear no to that agreement and Obama having been elected specifically on rejecting such agreement?

Obama could not do so.

 

[caveman1917]

Obama could not do so.

Apparently to you that is an unnecessary safeguard then? After all, you believe that even if he did, it wouldn't change anything about democracy.

 

[Metullus]

Sorry I thought we were talking about democracy, nevermind then.

I was. You not so much.

Agreements can be abrogated, even the one under discussion. There will. however, be cost to do so...

 

[caveman1917]

I was. You not so much.

No you weren't, you were just talking about the technical act of voting.

Agreements can be abrogated, even the one under discussion.

I think you really are not paying attention. That's exactly what Syriza did (they stopped implementing the existing agreement), and what they got elected for, before they U-turned and signed the latest document.

 

[Metullus]

Apparently to you that is an unnecessary safeguard then? After all, you believe that even if he did, it wouldn't change anything about democracy.

No, I said no such thing. I simply said that neither Obama nor any other President could do as you suggested. The closest thing to your scenario would be a treaty, negotiated by the president. It would need to be ratified by congress and pass constitutional muster before having the force of law. What you don't seem to get is that even under those circumstances the US Government could abrogate such a treaty at will.

 

[CapelDodger]

If Obama wrote an agreement that from now on US legislation had to be approved by Russia first, and that this agreement would hold for any future government as well, then that would be a policy decision by a democratically elected government and hence democratic?

The case in question is in no way analogous. Constraints on Greece pertain only while Greece remains in hock to its eyebrows, and the agreement is as binding on future governments as any treaty is - that is, it can be abrogated by the Greek Parliament.

Enforcement of the constraints is only by the with-holding of further loans, which let's face it, Greece isn't actually entitled to. Cradle of Democracy it may be but it does have to get its act together. If that involves leaving the Euro so be it, I'm in no position to judge the merits. Personally I think Greece would be a good trial-run for what might be a more substantial Mediterranean issue in the not-too-distant future. Get over the nerves on this little exit and it'll be easier to cut straight to the chase on the next, avoiding months of tedium.

 

[caveman1917]

What you don't seem to get is that even under those circumstances the US Government could abrogate such a treaty at will.

I get it just fine, what you don't seem to get is that this has already been going on for years and the Greek people already tried electing a government that would abrogate such a treaty. They even tried having a referendum as well, just to be sure. You are confusing technical acts of marking a ballot with having influence over government policy (do you know where the word democracy comes from?).

 

[Metullus]

No you weren't, you were just talking about the technical act of voting.

No. I am talking about the technical act of electing governments.

I think you really are not paying attention. That's exactly what Syriza did (they stopped implementing the existing agreement), and what they got elected for, before they U-turned and signed the latest document.

I think that you are not paying attention. Yes, they did, and there was a price to be paid. And when they turn their backs on this agreement, as they will do, they will be in an even worse spot.

You seem to be of the opinion that once the Greeks make this deal they no longer have any choices. They always have choices, just no good ones.

 

[caveman1917]

You seem to be of the opinion that once the Greeks make this deal they no longer have any choices.

True, they "chose" to now have a deal with the "Institutions" rather than the "Trojka". And they may even, in the future, have the choice to rename the other side of the deal again. What would they complain about, they're just bathing in democracy. True, they may even choose not to take the deal, but let's be honest, choosing for Turkish military aggression is hardly appealing.

 

[Metullus]

I get it just fine, what you don't seem to get is that this has already been going on for years and the Greek people already tried electing a government that would abrogate such a treaty. They even tried having a referendum as well, just to be sure. You are confusing technical acts of marking a ballot with having influence over government policy (do you know where the word democracy comes from?).

I understand well. I do not think that democracy is the problem, it is the inability of the Greek electorate to choose intelligently. This is not a failure of democracy, it is a failure of the electorate. Look at their most recent election. They want what they cannot have. They elected a government that promised to give them what they cannot have. If you vote for someone whose promises are so far from reality as to be absurd, then do not be surprised when you are ultimately disappointed.

 

[Metullus]

True, they "chose" to now have a deal with the "Institutions" rather than the "Trojka". And they may even, in the future, have the choice to rename the other side of the deal again. What would they complain about, they're just bathing in democracy. True, they may even choose not to take the deal, but let's be honest, choosing for Turkish military aggression is hardly appealing.

Democracy form of government, but it, like every other form of government, does not warrant that all outcomes will be happy. Sometimes there are no good options.

 

[caveman1917]

I do not think that democracy is the problem, it is the inability of the Greek electorate to choose intelligently.

You are making increasingly less sense. You yourself have put forward the choice of electing a government abrogating the agreement as evidence of democracy, but now say that making that choice means they are not choosing "intelligently" and such choice could hence be legitimately ignored?

 

[caveman1917]

Democracy form of government, but it, like every other form of government, does not warrant that all outcomes will be happy.

Funny how you pretend that they were wanting the outcome to be "happy" rather than just "democratic".

 

[Metullus]

You are making increasingly less sense. You yourself have put forward the choice of electing a government abrogating the agreement as evidence of democracy, but now say that making that choice means they are not choosing "intelligently" and such choice could hence be legitimately ignored?

Electing a government with a mandate to implement a particular policy does not, even if 100% of the electorate votes in favor of it, mean that that policy is necessarily a wise one. The mere fact that a choice is made democratically does not mean that it is an intelligent choice.
It means only that it is popular.

I made no comment about what could, or should be ignored. What I have said is that if I elect as my government people who promise me the impossible, I should not be surprised when they do not deliver. That is my fault and no other's.

 

[Metullus]

Funny how you pretend that they were wanting the outcome to be "happy" rather than just "democratic".

I would hope that more often than not a democratic process results in a happy outcome. You know, good choices rather than bad ones. Economic growth rather than stagnation. Peace instead of war.

I recognize, however, that sometimes the only choices one has are problematic, for example Grexit (fraught with peril and severe near term economic consequences) vs Euro (with perhaps more security in the near term but at the cost of humiliation and acceding to creditors' demands.) Neither choice is particularly palatable.

 

[psionl0]

I'd say a case of the-day-after fever. It's not easy to have banks closed, empty ATMs, no answers, people setting themselves in fire or blowing their brains out in public places, pensioners having massive strokes in front of financial institutions because they can't get money to buy their medicines, bands of protesters setting banks and luxury stores to fire and dozens of dead by the hands of the police and army. The people tried to stay clean and said oxi, but they couldn't take it anymore, desperately needing their fix of euros they finally sent Tsipras to pay whatever the dealer asked for.

"The people" did no such thing. They voted for an anti-austerity party and they voted NO in the full realization that the likely consequence would be a Grexit. Tsipras betrayed them.

Either Tsipras had a revelation (or inducement) that caused him to change his heart or Tsipras was expecting that a referendum would result in a YES vote thereby clearing the way for him to break pre-election commitments that he had no intention of keeping. The NO vote stripped him of his clothes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If Obama wrote an agreement that from now on US legislation had to be approved by Russia first, and that this agreement would hold for any future government as well, then that would be a policy decision by a democratically elected government and hence democratic? Because the government can be replaced, even if any subsequent government would still not be able to present legislation without approval by Russia? It remains democratic even if a US referendum stated a clear no to that agreement and Obama having been elected specifically on rejecting such agreement?

Im ignoring Constitution questions. It would be Democratic. It would be a vote of surrender and capitulation. That is certainly something a Democratic government may have to do.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Wouldn't the Greek government - and everyone else in Greece - be better off with their money in pounds or dollars, then crashing the euro and paying back their debts at a cut price?

Fan of Biz-Fi?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm telling this to everyone:

Knock the "referendum" and "democracy" bits off. The referendum was just pure political play, a way to defuse the popular anger that was building up, kinda a social breakwater. Tsipras had to "tragarse el sapo" (to swallow the frog, that is, "the bitter pill", "take the hit and move on") and he didn't want to do it alone, so a referendum that would likely have parliamentary approval was the drain valve they designed.

The referendum had two possible outcomes:

NAI - Then Tsipras would sign what was in offer (plan A) because the people demanded it. The ugly consequences would be the people's liability.

OXI - Then Tsipras would sign what was in offer (plan A) because the EZ demanded it. The political consequences of "opposing the people's will" would be "only" theirs. Tsipras: "Look, Greeks! They didn't say no to me, the did say no to YOU!" As always, the pseudo-left building "the telling of the story" and not the reality. This has been Greek-flavoured, but it is the same all around the world. The eternal battle between the pseudo-leftists and die-hard-toryism just in the word field. "Jarabe de pico" (beak syrup: idle cackle; words but no substance), nothing more.

There was no plan B, or better worded, the referendum itself was plan B. Plan C was packing fast and leave.

"The people" did no such thing...

I'm telling this to everyone, not just you:

The people needed their fix of euros. They are voters every now and then, and they are economic agents 24/365. They want their euros and all that is attached to them, like taking your money from the bank and placing it wherever the **** you want, a right that surely conservatives will consider basic and immutable. No matter "there are only few rich" everybody voted against austerity and to keep the euro. Almost nobody was and is campaigning "Grexit now!".

But this is a textbook case of "tragedy of the commons" that game theory would explain well. And the forces that made up the present circumstances continue to work exactly the same. Let's recapitulate:

The ECB expanded ELA by just 900 millions, just to keep the dropper unclogged. The Central Bank of Greece asked, and this is the decision they arrived to: it was approved because less than 2/3 opposed to it. Those are the rules.

The bridge loan don't cover all of Greece's payments both outstanding and owed during the next 90 days. They are some 1,500 millions short.

People will continue to withdraw cash from banks as much as they are allowed, and they will tackle every bank note or coin they can put a finger on: «What are you doing, Kostas? -I am going to the bank to deposit these 500 hundred euros in my account -Are you crazy? Take this, my personal cheque, endorse it and deposit it instead, and gimme those euros right now before you make a mistake, goofy you!». The banking system will wither away, and when September comes and most tourists leave it'll do even quicker than before the capital control was imposed, no matter those controls stay in place.

We are in the domain of Prospect Theory, so we need a "trust boosting event". We have two possible ways:

1. Give the public all the money they want until they calm down

   Get ELA extended 5 or 10 thousand millions at once and wide open the banks. The scene has to be this: dozens of clients shouting "gimme my money" and bank tellers shouting "do you want it? take this -throwing a 10,000 euro wrapped wad at his head-, and this -another one-, and this; you didn't have such a large deposit? sign here, we're giving you a low rate loan on top of it! -throwing the papers and the pen-

   I doubt the ECB is going to pay these bills and get overexposed 120 to 140 thousand million when Grexit finally comes, but they might try.
2. Have officials the people can trust. If you are going to bet the future of your savings to some silver tongue, which type would you expect?

   This powerhouse of cosmopolitanism, intellectual savoir-faire and cultivated image?

   

   or, do you rather prefer to have this image in front of you ...

   

   ... someone who is well groomed and has the physique du rôle, no matter he is just a crossed morph of Donald Trump and Fido Dido

Either way, that ain't gonna happen. The spiral will continue and from September on public incomes and GDP will fall and unemployment will rocket. The wild fires are a very symbolic image.


If everyone, own ones and foreign, do what they have to do, Grexit will be pushed back a couple of year. If anyone fails the whole thing will crumble down, showing it was just another balloon filled with hot intestinal gas. The whole situation reminds me of a person who denies the symptoms of what may be a cancer and waits until it's spread so much that only heroic treatments with uncertain outcomes are left