So why should any lender with half a brain want to throw more money into the fire unless there are strings attached?
I don't understand the dichotomy. In the mortgage crisis in the US, we ask, "Why did the banks keep lending to these people who couldn't afford to pay it back?!?" Yet, in the case of Greece, we're angry at the lenders for not lending more and more.
Tell me, are you lending to Greece? Have you loaded up on Greek bonds? They're paying something like 25%! Great return! Unless, of course, you don't think you'll ever see your money...
Alas, HN isn't the place to debate international politics. That's just my take on it.
> Alas, HN isn't the place to debate international politics.
Maybe not.
Sure. But the proposed measures still must make sense. For those willing to risk their money first and foremost. Otherwise those (with the money) will just shrug
You're assuming that Greece's spending helps to maintain a functioning economy. That's arguable.
"Get your deficits under control" requires increasing revenues and/or decreasing spending. Maintaining Greece's spending choices does not address the latter and if it addressed the former, they wouldn't have deficits.