Hacker News Reader

> it doesn't matter whose fault it is. If Greece stops paying its creditors and stops taking loans, Germans will lose out. It's actually in Germany's best interest to forgive some of the debt, and have Greece pay the rest.

Absolutely. It's bizarre that in a country with bankruptcy laws (which Germany must have), they argue that it's 'immoral' for Greece to have some debt relief.

> When the European and world economy went down, it dragged Greece with them.

Remember who started the Great Recession (the U.S.). The Greeks probably had less to do with it than most nations.

This is a super important point. One that needs to come into the debate in Germany more.

Greece may have been run by a ridiculously irresponsible government (and electorate), but it was the troika (Germany, mostly) put the fallout on the German (and EU) public's tab. That was and is a debt guaranteed to go bad.

How can a group of the ECB, the IMF and the EU be "mostly German"? Seems pretty international to me. In fact Germany is under-represented in the ECB and the commission, because it has only one seat, as do countries that have a tenth of the German population.

Well… I don't really know the ins and outs but Angela Merkel seems to be the primary spokesperson and negotiator for the Troika. I'm not sure how/who provides the funds for the ECB & IMF. I think it's ultimately Germany too. At least the German public seem to believe they are on the hook for and troika loans that aren not repaid.

The reason Germany have a particular interest/power here (apart from being a large eurozone member) is that it is/was their banks that are owed money by the Greek government.

This is vagueness kind of part of the problem, these oblique and vague institutions representing oblique and vague interests. What is the ECB exactly? How is it funded? What does it want?

In any case, it doesn't really matter if this is germany or if Angela and the electorate are just playing the role. The Troika made a (unrealistic) loan to Greece so that Greece could pay back "creditors" (who I'm assuming are largely German banks, but am possibly mistaken).

Germany does pay the most in absolute terms. This does nothing to the fact that the Troika is not mostly German. I do not think that HN is a place for these kinds of polemic arguments. Lets leave them to the right wing eu-critics that try to built up enemy stereotypes.

Angela Merkel is not part of the Troika. Angela Merkel plays a prominent role in the debate because she is the unofficial leader of the northern states, while François Hollande unofficially represents the southern states. Both can only influence one vote of the EU commission and have very limited influence on the ECB or the IMF.

I wasn't trying to be polemic, it's just easier to understand "Germany" than "Troika", since there's an obvious public purse and a visible public figurehead to attach to in your mind's eye.

Also, there is more to it than polemics. I think Germany's political traditions and biases largely driving these policies and also their interests (as direct lenders and as the country housing the interested banks). Angela Merkel is not officially part of the Troika, but her role in it is still real. Germany underwrote loans.

You are right that it's not strictly true. But using the terms Troika or listing the institutions isn't more true, it's obfuscating. It's not clear what those acronyms mean.

I'm also not right wing (or left). I'm critical of the EU, but I care because I want it to succeed. I disagree with a lot of technical aspects but I am wholeheartedly in favor of the true goals of the EU: solidarity and peace. I believe the EU will give us our first 100 years of peace and our second.

It is simply not true, that this whole debate is about Germany vs. Greece. Greek media and Greek demonstrators created it and the German yellow press and right-wing parties gladly answered. If you have the same narrative than these guys, you are by definition being polemic.

In reality though there are Eastern European with lower standards of living than Greece that had a hard time getting these measures through parliament but ultimately took part in the rounds, too.

Germany is because of its size the biggest actor in most European things, that does not make them German.

I do not think the concept of a Troika of a central bank, the European government and the International Monetary Fund is that hard to understand, either.

Of course it is. Where did they get the money for the loans? Who loses if they don't get paid?

We don't have a European taxation system, an empowered European parliament, figurehead or any such thing.

The way things work in this case is that "The Troika" is a mechanism. As I said it's all foggy. But insisting that this Troika is ultimately the decision make, is independent and so forth is disingenuous, I think. Behind this troika is EU member state government that funded the laons, decided on the rules and will be on the hook if loans are defaulted on. Chief among them is Germany. It is their public interest at stake (sharing with other members, etc.). Also it is their banks (not only their) that these loans will go to repay, so it is also their economic interest. It is also their political traditions, biases and ideologies that are being largely represented by the "Troika"

The media depiction of Germans and Greeks is not just a made up populist Greek media invention. It's in the German media as well. Angela Merkel herself (with finance ministers of other member states taking a sort of deputy role) is speaking and acting a way that assumes this role.

To me, saying "germany" in this case is no different tan saying "The US" in the Afganistan War. You could be legalistic and say "International Security Assistance Force" or "Coalition." You could say NATO, of which the US are the biggest member. You might even say the "Afghan Transitional Administration and their allies" if you are willing to push it. But, we say the "US invasion/mission/force" as shorthand and that is more honest than all the rest. All those terms are mechanisms or sometimes euphemisms given form.

In any case, in my original comment it was a shorthand given that I don't know the ins and outs of this (purposely?) obtuse collection of acronyms and it wasn't particularly important to the comment.

I said "it was the troika (Germany, mostly) put the fallout on the German (and EU) public's tab."

What exactly are you claiming anyway? That germany isn't the key decision maker? They aren't they key lender in these troika bailout loans? That it isn't mostly the German public that will be liable for these loans when they are defaulted on?

I agree that this "Germany vs Greece" media dynamic is unhelpful. The media has been playing to nationalism in both countries. That stil doesn't mean pretending that these acronyms are real independent bodies is more honest.

The stats I can find suggest Greece ran a primary deficit pretty consistently starting in 2002 --- long before the crisis --- in fact, they appear to have run a primary deficit during the boom years that preceded the crisis.

A deficit isn't necessarily unsustainable over a period of economic growth. If growth and inflation outpace the cost of borrowing, it's worthwhile to borrow. Kind of like the US is doing right now.

That's a good point, but the obvious next Google search suggests that Greece's economic growth was unspectacular during the early 00s, and began lagging in '06.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp

Greece's GDP nearly tripled from 2000 to 2008. Their debt to GDP was comparable to other European nations until 2008 (105% of GDP).

And we're treating those figures as trustworthy are we? Eurostar consistently failed to validate numbers provided by the Greek government in that period.

I haven't followed Greece that closely but this story about Greece hiding its debt to gain entry into the Euro has been mentioned more than once:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.htm...

Yes. I should have added, it's not that I don't have sympathy for Greece and how their debt has been structured. I also don't think Europe should let them fall. It's also not that I don't think Piketty is correct in some of his solutions (though I have differences of opinion with some of them), I just found his reasoning to be wrongheaded and somehow "dumb." At least for someone who is supposed to be a great world economist. (My own take away should be "Don't believe the hype.")