Talk:Greek government-debt crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bring out official EU Council decisions

Consider this, in the lead paragraph:

In October 2011, Eurozone leaders also agreed on a proposal to write off 50% of Greek debt owed to private creditors, increasing the EFSF to about €1 trillion and requiring European banks to achieve 9% capitalization to reduce the risk of contagion to other countries.

It blends Euro-level decisions (size of EFSF and European banks capitalization) with Greece's bailout. There have been two bailouts, or rather one finalized bailout (I believe 2010) and a second one that has been the subject of several negotiations, in July, and in October, which is the one referred to in the lead paragraph (50%). I tend to view these official EU plans as critical landmarks, as they trigger responses from various parties e.g. Greece implements an austerity package, and therefore they need to be more clearly delineated whether here or at this page : European sovereign debt crisis. At the every least, subsections, somewhere in European sovereign debt crisis should be created. The October plan is referred only as "EU summit" in section the 4th austerity package of Greece. With the proposed addition, that could be made more specific by replacing "EU summit" by, say, [[October summit| EU summit]]. BTW, I'm not sure the July plan is even mentioned in section the 4th austerity package of Greece

To summarize, perhaps some thought is called to better integrate European sovereign debt crisis and Greek government debt crisis together, with a view too reduce redundancies, and convey the above official landmarks. In other words, a more clear separation between EU-wide decisions (size of EFSF, bank capital targets across the EU) and country specific provisions. To a large extent, this is already the case, but not completely, as discussed above, while I admit that it's not an easy target (otherwise I would have simply proposed a new structure).

Note that I've started a section about the role of the IIF in the Greek debt crisis, but it is incomplete. The October response is not treated, and lately we hear that:

"European leaders agreed last October that private sector involvement (PSI) should amount to losses of 50%. However, "some [Eurozone government] collaborators are not following that decision," says Charles Dallara, managing director of the Institute of International Finance, which is negotiating with Greece on behalf of private sector bondholders."

Lip gloss for2 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and see what happens. I do agree that this article and European sovereign debt crisis should be better integrated, preferably using this section to summarize the entire Greek government debt crisis article. --spitzl (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would but, for now, I haven't thought it through well enough. I made a small edit of the relevant section at IIF, just enough to keep track, but there are gaps to be filled. Lip gloss for2 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiding of greek debt from EU?

"The purpose of these deals made by several successive Greek governments was to enable them to continue spending while hiding the actual deficit from the EU." 

I have an issue with this and I request comments. The EU was fully aware that a credit default swap had occurred because said practice was allowable at the time. How is that hiding when top bankers and financiers within the EU are fully aware of the existence of default swaps and the purpose they may serve. I sense a complicity here that the article fails to mention. Yet I am not ready to source this properly as I cannot find my initial research sources at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.121.252 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"and having to give up children for adoption."

A ten children family not being able to care for their children as a case study, or 250 more reported cases of children been given for adoption in the whole of greece is hardly evidence of greeks having to give up children for adoption due to the crisis. It's sensationalism, that I don't see fit in an encyclopedic article. Please allow me to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.121.252 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

This article uses tons of different citation styles. They should be changed to one style per WP:CITE#Variation_in_citation_methods. Liam987 17:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Added greek deposits over time graph that I've just created and uploaded

If you live on this planet I think you understand why I've done this... ;-)
This graph presents serious data that ,at least imo, had been missing from this article for a long, long time.The relevant text though has likewise not been seriously updated for a long time;there is nothing new apart from these two sentences "In mid-May 2012 the crisis and impossibility to form a new coalition government after elections led to strong speculation Greece would have to leave the Eurozone. The potential exit became known as "Grexit" and started to affect international market behaviour."
I haven't got personally available time for this at this point;so if someone out there has the time, please write about the serious news, for example about the fear of bank runs and so on....Thanatos|talk 23:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Proof-reading and grammar

Under "Downgrading of creditworthiness" the second paragraph repeats almost exactly the same thing as the previous one and could benefit from re-editing:

Standard & Poor's estimates that in the event of default investors would fail to get 30–50% of their money back.[48] Stock markets worldwide declined in response to this announcement.[52]

Under "Tax collection improvements" it says:

[...] to pay their outstanding taxes until 24 November

I suspect what was intended was they should pay their outstanding taxes by 24 November (the word "until" suggests they could stop paying after that date). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoouul (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add chart in Constant LCU (2000 €) or constant 2000 US$

I've updated the debt(s) and deficit chart to a newer version made using fresher data.But I think that we need to add one valued in constant currency units to compensate for example for inflation, to present real GDP -and its drastic change- as much as possible. Current prices GDP is surely a sine qua non but it fails when not having next to it other graphs for example to show clearly the free fall of the Greek economy since 2008;in constant currency units on the contrary this is much more evident(I wish World Bank had more recent data available, id est 2011 ;-)).
Back long before this article had being created being cut and span off the Economy of Greece article, I had created, uploaded and inserted such a graph there;but after some time for reasons unknown to me it had been removed from that article.I can easily and quicly create, upload and add here such a graph;it would be very similar to the one I've changed-added today, the only difference being that absolute prices would be in constant units(constant euros or constant US dollars).But I'm not going to do this if the image is to be removed and become unused-useless again just like the old one that I've mentioned was and is.
So what say you? Do you think I should add such a graph here?
Thanatos|talk 16:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

After having used a lot of time in the past weeks, to update and improve the layout of the wikitable with economic stats for Greece, I of course also have an opinion about the proposed chart. I agree that "GDP at constant prices" would be a lot better unit to map, rather than "GDP at market prices", to teach the reader about the real GDP changes in Greece. In that case, the best choise would in fact be to select the unit "GDP in constant 2011 euros", because this would be most relevant as the most up-to-date reference (and because its fast and easy to calculate backwords with that unit, as we already have the "real GDP growth rates" listed for each year in the wikitable, to do the job for us).

But to be honest, I dont like the idea to stack 6-7 graphs in the same figure, as this hamper the readability of the figure. It would be far better, to create more simple figures with a maximum of 2-3 graphs. The one in the article which only depict the Debt-to-GDP ratio is excellent, as it succeeds to serve the most important figure to the reader at the very beginning of the article. In the "causes" chapter, I think its OK to add some more detailed charts, as the reader starts to dick one step further into the issue. In regards of a new chart with "main economic stats", I will however prefer if we only use the data posted by the wikitable in the chapter. This will limit the data series to 1995-2013, but this is also sufficient for the analysis of the "2009-2020 Greek Government-debt crisis". And we will then also get the advantage, that all our stats are reliable and directly comparable, as they are all published by Eurostat (using the same ESA95 calculation method for all years).

Final question is what data to include in the graph, beside of 1) "GDP, in constant 2011 euros"??? I have not made up my mind entirely about that. But right now I think it would be great also to include: 2) "Government revenues, in constant 2011 euros", 3) "Government expenditures, in constant 2011 euros", 4) "Government debt, in constant 2011 euros". Because we can then limit the graph only to cary one Y-axis labeled "constant 2011 euros", and by the same time the graph will greatly illustrate "yearly budget deficits" (as the visible distance between expenditures and revenues), while also making it possible to compare the developments relative to GDP. Danish Expert (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

1.I can't do a constant 2011 € chart because

a.the base year available at World Bank ,the database that I use, is year 2000 (in fact the fact that it's 2000 is not directly, at first glance deductible and 100% certain;they only mention "constant LCU", not base year.I have found that it's 2000 from other World Bank texts-resources;at least I think I did).In fact I am not aware of any public database available out there that has such numbers available;no, I can't do the relevant econ-math and research by myself...

b.2011 is not yet available there,I think because it's constantly being updated.
2.As far as the chart that you prefer is concerned, ok sure it's a simple one that has its merits but imo opinion it's way too simplistic.One cannot really understand the greek conundrum (or any situation,any economy,in crisis or not, for that matter) without multiple charts.For example what part of the greek debt is external, is crucial to the analysis;before the Semites(Σημίτης)-EMU_Stage2(id est since 1996) period and then the €uro period, Greek debt had been much smaller, mostly domestic and of course in the greek currency,the drachma(mind the external dimension,don't rely solely on general government debt as %GDP.the latter is of course important but it's not the only dimension before us);not so large,not in foreign hands and not in a de facto foreign currency,the euro.The fall of the spreads during the aforementioned period created a capital flow bonanza,GDP growth was great, but it was of course a bubble that eventually burst.One cannot deduce any of the above from a simple Debt to GDP chart of the recent years.
I agree that the older years are perhaps too much for this article but mind you I had started creating and uploading these charts when this article had still been part of the greater Greek Economy article.Also the older years are very useful in other things;in example for many people to understand that Greek debt hadn't always been so large...;-)

3.I've checked at the World Bank Database:as far as expenditures are concerned ,this is what I've found (1960-2010):

"General government final consumption expenditure" (% of GDP), (annual % growth), (constant 2000 US$), (constant LCU), (current LCU), (current US$).

On revenues this is what I've found over there:

Revenue, excluding grants (current LCU), (% of GDP).

Not sure though what it is about exactly;it's description reads "Revenue is cash receipts from taxes, social contributions, and other revenues such as fines, fees, rent, and income from property or sales. Grants are also considered as revenue but are excluded here."
I don't think it's about goverment revenue or anyway I'm not sure what it's about.

At Eurostat I've found "Government revenue, expenditure and main aggregates" data but it's not what you asked for;it's a %GDP table,positive values meaning net lending,negative net borrowing.There is also "General government expenditure by function" again as a %GDP that despite it's name I can't see any data there being broken down by fuction(?!?).There is also the "Main national accounts tax aggregate" data.All tables since 2002 (it reads that somewhere at eurostat data since the 69,70s are available but I don't know how to access them.

P.S.Anyway even if all the above were available it's too much work.Creating and uploading the graph I've mentioned is a 5 minutes work for me as I've already created the spreadsheets and charts therein;doing what you asked for besides the fact that I can't find such data would be much time consuming for me.Perhaps you can give it a try yourself?!?!? ;-)

P.P.S.Imo the following are crucial in order to get a more accurate and useful image of the crisis: GDP(in constant prices and in current ones), Debt(external,domestic and total,public and private,in absolute values and as a GDP%),Goverment Deficit,Current Account(and capital account),Government Bond Spreads-Coupon_rate,inflation,unemployment rate,median and mean income;I stop here cause the list can go on for ever.
What I anyway mean is that words are fine but words and many-much data are way much better...

Thanatos|talk 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You have listed some good arguments above. And I agree with you that readers also need to get a nice presentation of data for:

• Unemployment.
• Current account deficits.
• Competitive indexes and Salery indexes.
• GDP growth split into contributions of Export sector + Domestic demand + Public demamd.
• Government bond spreads/yields.
• Private debt by households.
• Public debt and the share of the split between the amount of external and domestic debt.
• Drachma exchange rate changes in % p.a., towards D-mark in 1970-1995 and ECU/euro in 1995-2001.
• Capitalisation degree of Greek banks + Amount of bank deposits.

Those parameters above are also key to understand, when we speak about the "Greek government-debt crisis". Yet I currently hesitate a bit to create an overall graph with all the data and/or to expand the wikitable in the "cause chapter" with the data. Because I think we shall also be careful not to make the presented graph/wikitable too heavy, with so much info that we risk to burry the reader with an overload of data. To make it a bit easier to digest, I prefer to leave the wikitable with "just" the 8 main indicators it currently feature (debt + debt-to-GDP + HICP inflation + GDP inflation + Real GDP growth + Revenue + Expenditure + Budget deficit), and then instead to spice up the article with additional graphs showing how the other set of data is related to the debt crisis. My mind is however not completely set about it. So I will most likely reevaluate the wikitable again at a later point of time. In regards of getting access to more detailed data at Eurostat, this is possible by hitting the "Select Data" tab inside the various data bases. For a start, I have updated the Eurostat references currently used by the wikitable, so that they now also show the "Select data" tab. In regards of creating new extra plots with the extra data spoken about in this discussion, I am unfortunately also out of available time myself to create it. So I will leave that task for other editors. Danish Expert (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Greek government acknowledges" is original research and POV from primary sources

The phrase "Greek government acknowledges" does not exist in the citation provided. Furthermore the ministry report is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used to draw our own conclusions and create our own terminology. We have to wait from reliable secondary or tertiary sources to reach these conclusions and analyse the data from the ministry report. I find such use of primary sources wholly unacceptable and incompatible with the NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR policies. Also commentary of the type: being hampered during the last decade, due to excessive salary increases and counterproductive bureaucratic laws and procedures is unattributed to any reliable sources and sounds like the personal opinion of the editor who put it there. Injection of unattributed stuff like this in the article is also incompatible with a number of policies and must be fully attributed to a reliable source or be removed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC) :I am forced to agree completely with Dr.K. One must not impose one's own interpretation on primary sources. That is not permitted on Wikipedia. Hairgelmare (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)comment by sock

A ministry report is a primary source indeed. If it would be clear that the ministry report acknowledges something, than the government acknowledges something (so not need for the exact text). However, those need to be facts that can be checked easily from the source. So let us consider the challenged statements.

(1) economic reforms: The report does not denie that everyone has agreed that economic reforms are needed. So the phrase "now acknowledges" seems over the top indeed (and may be synthesis beyond what can be done with a primary source). An interesting quote is that about institutional reform "calls for institutional reform which will restore credibility in data, the budgeting process and the operation of the public sector more generally." (P4), but that is not economic reform per se.

(2) excessive salary increases and counterproductive bureaucratic laws and procedures. The report mention reduction of salaries and bureacracies, but not that salary increases have been excessive, and the laws and procedure are counterproductive.

(3) the need to restore the fiscal balance of the public budget. While both are mentioned, reading the report it is clear that the Greek government has acknowledged this (at least) as early as 2009. The word "now" is indeed original research.

(4) Immediate action. The report from 2010 calls for immediate action. But that can be hardly written in the present tense (as 2010 is two years past).

In addition, the repeated word "acknowledges", makes to much of the fact that the only source is a Greek government report. While it frames the primary source into a "checkable" fact (ie you can look for the things acknowledged), the word acknowledge also implies that the Greeks accept the blame. That may indeed be overdoing it. I would suggest replacing this with "A Greek government report mentions..."

The use of the word "now" implies that this is a very recent development, while it is clear from the 2010 report, that this realisation has been present with Greek political leaders from at least 2009 onwards.

All in all, I think the claims need to be toned down and should be rewritten in a somewhat more neutral way; at least, if we want to base ourselves on the current source. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf, and can accept the corrections he suggest. Just like Arnoutf, I have been reading the entire report in question. It is a great informative report, and thus also a great primary source for what the Greek government already had realised and made a plan for in January 2010. The section written about it in the wikipedia article, is concise and accurately reflect what has been written by the report. Except for the few badly written words highlighted by Arnoutf as creating a problematic tone, which I agree needs to be replaced with more neutral words, the section is not POV and very informative. I invite Arnoutf to remove the "who says" tags, and rewrite the few bad words into more neutral words, as I am myself personally out of time to correct the issue. As a final comment, I am well aware that Hairgelmare and Dr.K is the one and same person. And just as a friendly advice want to inform you, that it is against the wikipedia policy to use a puppet account to back up your own posted oppinion, in any debate at the talk pages. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Danish 'Expert': I am not a sock for Dr.K. I simply happened to be editing and then check my watchlist at the time the good Doctor made his post. You can either check my edit history for confirmation or, if you are honestly concerned, take it to an admin and they can put your guilt-laden German mind at ease. Damned German wretches. Arnoutf is Dutch, and so passes my awesomeness test by default. I can accept his fijn words with much love. Men's 4x100m is on now, more later... Hairgelmare (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)comment by sock

I expect an immediate retraction and apology from Danish Expert about this obnoxious personal attack and attempt to smear my reputation here by accusing me cluelessly and obnoxiously of sockpuppetry. You should also learn not to attack long-standing reputable editors especially after they have demonstrated to you your editing excesses and violations of policy. Use logic and debate the merits of my arguments instead of using polemics and attacking my reputation as if in a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry either (there is always IP evidence if people want to check on that). I can understand Danish epxerts sentiment to some extent, as new editor Hairgelmare has been somewhat careless in posting on his (and my) talk page. Let's not go into personal preferences for other editors at all and let's go back to topic (PS the sensitivity and fierceness of this discussion sadly reflects a lot of the sentiments in Europe at the moment. While the signing of the Euro treaty may have been hampered with naivety, it was honest and optimistic naivety. Let's not follow the trend within Wikipedia towards suspicious cynisism that seems to dominate the current debate) Arnoutf (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

By (there is always IP evidence if people want to check on that), are you seriously saying that people must check my IP address? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, but if someone seriously thinks you and Hairgelmare are the same, there are procedures (in the sockpuppetry procedure) to check whether the two accounts are operated from the same computer, which is considered very strong indication of sockpuppetry. As I said, I don't see any reason for such action, as Hairgelmare's explanation is not unreasonable. I would suggest from all sides to let this rest and spent the effort on improving the article instead. Arnoutf (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I expect a full retraction and apology from Danish Expert over this clueless accusation. Let's wait and see. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hairgelmare posted his comment in this discussion 1 minute after Dr.K, from a brand new account created August 9; and one can not avoid to get a bit suspicious when you then also realise the fact, that the first post by Hairgelmare was an "anti-german" comment at the "German dimension" section of this very talkpage, where you also find critical comments by Dr.K. The fact that I also got a personal comment from Hairgelmare with accusation of being anti-greek one day before the fuss in this debate, did not make me less suspicious. If all this indeed was a pure coincidense, then sorry. I have attempted all along to be friendly here. Let's not waste each others precious time with personal attacks. Danish Expert (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not my fault if you have suspicions. Try to WP:AGF a bit more next time. I accept your clarification in good faith. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased the section (per Danish experts response to my input) to reflect the facts that can be checked in the document. As these can be checked by anyone, there is no problem with a primary source. As it is written now, it reflects that the Greek governments from 2010 onwards have realised that a lot of damage control is necessary; and commit to act to that. Let's be fair, the 1980-2010 Greek governments have made a mess, for which all of Europe is suffering right now. We all appreciate the huge sacrifice the Greeks are making, and the serious effort their government is making to muck out the Augean piles of mess created by previous Greek governments. This is no, neither will be an easy task. Arnoutf (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also reverted the latest attempt because it still makes claims about the Greek government which are not supported by the primary source. I think we should scrap the whole paragraph because it is irredeemably original research and synthesis from primary sources. As I said before let's wait for a secondary or tertiary source to make this analysis and then we can add it to the article. But we cannot put words into the Greek government's mouth and speak in Wikipedia's voice doing it. I also suggest we agree on any action here prior to editing the article so that we stop the edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

IF the ministry of finance of Greece is NOT the government, I don't know what is.

I am happy to discuss wording. However, blanket reverting is unacceptable as is defacing the article with numerous tags. Either we take Danish experts 18.26 version as a starting point for discussion, or my version from 23.23. If you disagree with either provide constructive suggestions. Tagging and blanket reverts are utterly destructive to any discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No they are not. The whole section is synthesis supported by a primary source. I added more tags to show the synthesis and original research. Either supply citations for these claims or the top paragraphs have to go. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The ministry is the voice of the government. If it is not, then the government has completely and utterly failed.

But that is not even the main issue. I tried to get rid of wording that may have been overinterpreting things (as highlighted by among other you). Clearly you prefer the previous version as you blanket revert my edits. So now I have a problem, YOU prefer the earlier wording, but YOU also insist on tagging that wording. That is inconsistent. Either you think my wording is not perfect, in which case you are invited to suggest improvements or tag them OR you think the previous wording is far better, in which case the revert is fine with me UNDER THE CONDITION THAT YOU REMOVE THE TAGS. Your choice, but blanket reverting is just respecless of any effort made on my side to find a solution. Arnoutf (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for shouting. Although your wording is better it is still OR, so taggable as such. But you keep removing my tags. If you want to discuss on talk. let's agree on a version here and then there would be no back and forth. The current version we all know is unacceptable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::::Thank you that you think my wording is better, howver you don't tag my words, you revert them to those of DanishExpert (of which we all agree, DanishExpert included, are open for improvment). The current version gives a summary of the report. While I agree that is not perfect, and has plenty of room for improvement it seems a fairly neutral summary of an official government/ministry of finance position of Greece (did you read the report?). If a fact can be checked a primary source is perfectly fine (read all policies on that); and by framing it like this I think it can be checked.

As I said, I am open for improvement, but tagging parts of an article you don't like is not at all helping. Why don't you suggest a revised version of the section here before you tag. (PS posting a mail on my talk page with edit war accusations after my first and your 3rd revert does not really help for me to assume good faith). Arnoutf (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the value of your contributions in resolving this conflict and I thank you for it. Sorry if things got slightly turbulent between us but I respect your efforts. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the edit by Arnoutf was unfounded. And arguing we should completely remove the section in order to avoid edit-warring, doesnt make it any better. Unless other consensus is reached about it at this discussion, based on the "value of arguments" posted here, you should accept the original version of the section with the recently posted updates added by Arnoutf. The section was written back in April, with no other editors complaining about it during the following months, before you suddenly for unknown reasons started to critisize it heavily. The content of the section is fully reflecting the content of the report, and even feature direct citations from the report. There is absolutely no reason to remove it. Danish Expert (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That I didn't see these problems until now is no reason for them to remain uncorrected. I am still expecting a retraction and an apology from you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we agree to remove the unsourced and pontificating intro?

In order to understand when, how and why the Greek government-debt crisis erupted and eventually how it can be solved,[according to whom?] it is important to note the crisis is not limited to a simple debt level problem.[according to whom?] Several other main causes exist along with the debt level problem.[according to whom?]

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this requires a source. However, while the debt is now the most problematic issue for Greece, reforms are needed. For example clientelism and nepotism (a case came to light this week) are serious problems that are likely to create new debts after the current crisis is dealt with. I think it is these causes the section refers to, but a source would be needed.Arnoutf (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR without prejudice to adding some sourced analysis when available. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The first line in the chapter was written as an "introduction line" ahead of presenting the 5 main causes of the detoriated 2009 fiscal results and the looming economic crisis in 2009, mentioned by the Greek Ministry of Finance in their report published in January 2010. To me it seems like the only problem is, that you disagree with the findings of the report, and thus now try as hard as you can to get the entire section deleted. The section is however neutral and of high quality, and should stay. I can accept we perhaps reformulate the introduction line, so that it is clear it refers to the opinion of the Greek Ministry of Finance and all the official institutions involved to solve the Greek debt crisis. The main reference for that is The Second Economic Adjustment Programme also known as the "bailout plan", where it is directly stipulated, that the Greek debt-crisis can not be solved only by reducing the amount of Greek debt, but that Greece also need to implement Economic reforms + Tax Reforms + Pension Reforms + Fiscal austerity + Labor market reforms + Privatisation of public assets, in order to bring back a positive and sustainable economy in Greece. Danish Expert (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside that your snide comment To me it seems like the only problem is, that you disagree with the findings of the report, and thus now try as hard as you can to get the entire section deleted. is just another of your personal attacks, it is also absolutely false. If you bothered to check my edits I am actually cleaning up your original research to conform to Wikipedia's policies more closely and I am not trying to erase the section. I only removed your pontificating commentary. So now the section is much better than it was before I and Arnoutf started the cleanup. So again: Please stop making this personal. I think you are too involved with this subject and suspect everyone's motives. Perhaps you should take a cool-down break instead of habitually attacking my motives. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Greek Debt Cause

The first new source I used was on how the government officials were not putting the right stats out. Greece was lying about their borrowing so they could get rid of political meddling (Emmott 2012). Unlike Wikipedia this source goes into detail on one specific part of the cause of the debt crisis. From reading the new source I learned that Eurostat had been noticing a strange thing going on with Greece's statistical number and would change for the worse when they figured it out. Once this had been going on for to long the government officials realized they needed help and needed to gain the trust of the investors back. The crisis showed us that credible statistics is very important to the government so they can figure out what and where the problems are so they can fix them before they get worse (Emmott 2012).

This second source has a lot of detail on Greece's GDP and it was published on the 2nd of Oct 2012 so it is as present as it gets. This source is saying that with each step Greece is taking forward it is making it even harder for Athens to make the numbers align (Baker 2012). This article just gives way more detail about how the whole country is struggling and that while Greece is making any improvements it is making it harder on Athens to make any progress. Wikipedia just said that Greece's GDP growth rates were lower while the new source talks about how low they are how these numbers effect all of Europe and what may happen to Greece if they keep on this path (Baker 2012)

Wikipedia had good facts but they were quite broad. I researched one sub note in the wikipedia page and came up with a very defiant source that talks about how the debt is sweeping across Europe and therefore depriving the euro. Protests have been popping up all through Europe: France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain (Callinicos 2012). Reading this I learned that Greece has a very strong workers movement which is why there is so much resistance in changing (Callinicos 2012). This talks about more of how many countries are becoming infected by the Greece disease and that it is going to be really hard to find a result to this problem (Callinicos 2012).

References:

• Callinicos, A. (2012, October 02). The debt crisis spreads from greece across europe. Socialist Worker U.K.*
• Baker, L. (2012, October 02). One step forward, two back for Greece on debt. Fox Business
• Emmott, R. (2012, April 17). Europe tries to come clean on economic statistics. Reuters

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camcsum (talk • contribs)

Thanks for providing additional input and references. The 3 points you mentioned indeed play a role in the Greek debt crisis, but I have two say the references AFAIK overestimate the role of each point they write about. I would trust the references more, if it was IMF or a group of well-educated economists making the analysis and conclusions, taking all factors into account in their analysis. Considering all the articles I so far have been reading about the Greek debt crisis, I have to say 90% of them were unbalanced. So we should be picky on what we select for Wikipedia. Almost every journalist has his own opinion about the Greek debt crisis, but most of them unfortunately only present a small slide of the truth in their angled story. Worker unions in Europe are not necessarily something preventing solutions in Europe. In example all Worker unions in Denmark voluntary negotiated a wage deal with our employer organisations in 2012, that the wages in Denmark for the next couple of years should grow slower than inflation in order to improve competitiveness for job creation (despite the fact we already have a pretty fiscal sound economy in Denmark). As the Worker Union states in Denmark: "We want a job party in Denmark, rather than high wages forcing our companies to move to China and killing the number of available jobs". And the fiscal consolidation in Europe (being gradually implemented in 2009-2013), was for all countries needed and called for, due to several countries having over-expended before the Global Financial Crisis arrived as a wake up call in September 2008. Yes it hurts the European growth prospects on the short term, but the majority of European economists agree it will prosper growth on the medium and long term, because when being fiscal sound this has a historical track record of always rewarding the country with some lower interest rates, that ultimately will boost the future growth potential. Just look at how well Denmark+Sweden+Germany have been rewarded with low interest rates in 2009-2012, due to their fiscal sound policies and reforms being implemented. The entire Europe (also Spain, Portugal and Greece) now follow this path, and starting from 2014 the entire Europe will be rewarded, if we all stay on that path. In fact the lower interest rates have already started to materialize in all countries, and this will soon cause the revival of economic growth across the entire Eurozone.

IMHO the two most important key problems having caused the Greek debt crisis were:

1) Greece have over-expended on the public accounts ever since 1980. In the 80s and 90s the problem was solved by hyper-inflation and devaluations. When Greece entered the euro in 2001 these two tools disappeared, meaning the continued public over-expending was sure to result in a debt-crisis. It is a fact Greece not for a single year in 1980-2015 ever complied with the fiscal rules outlined in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). If Greece had complied with SGP since 1999, then the Greek debt-crisis could have been entirely avoided.

2) Eurozone should never have allowed Greece and other States to violate the SGP, and never have accepted that countries like Greece established statistical supervision under 100% political control. This lax approach from the start, combined with the knowledge that Greece had a continued 20 years tradition of over-expending and a political leniency about it before joining the euro, should really have made the eurozone realise back in 1998 that political independent statistical authoraties should not only be recommended but actually required.

Yes, the Global Financial Crisis triggered the Greek government debt crisis. The main problem however was that neither the eurozone nor the Greek voters, stopped the Greek government to act in an economically irresponsible way in 2000-2009. Only when imbalances became so great in 2009, that everybody realised major reforms and fiscal consolidation was accutely needed to save the Greek ship from sinking, people woke up to realise the extent of the true problems in Greece. It was not only beacuse statistics had been flawed. This just made it worse. The main problem was the major structural deficits Greece continued to excercise, even in the years where it had the highest and best growth in Europe from 1999-2007. If Greece in those good growth-strong years instead of increasing the deficits to 6%, had acted responsible and lowered the budget deficits to below 3% as required by the SGP (so that debt-to-GDP had been reduced to below 60%), then both the Greek debt crisis and the subsequent deep recession, could really have been avoided.

Danish Expert (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP deflator data

Oh boy. My search for reliable data again stumbled into a new problem. This time the problem is to pick the most accurate data for the historic "GDP deflator" before 2008. Fortunately I found the data listed for 2008-2015 to be 100% reliable no matter how or by who it was calculated. Once again I heavily suspect the problem with accurate figures for 1995-2007, is due to the fact, that Greece recently presented some new revised figures for the fiscal years in 2007-2011, and unfortunately that the official databases did not have time/resources to correct the data series backwards for the earlier years. I have faced that problem before, and realised that Eurostat unfortunately way to often prefer just to add a small note to their statistics, whenever a "broken dataseries" occure, instead of performing a recalculation of the old numbers.

Basicly here are the 2 methods I used to extract the GDP deflator data for each year:

Method 1: GDP deflator calculated as yoy %-change of the GDP deflator index in National Currency.

Method 2: GDP deflator calculated as the difference between yoy rates of "marketprice GDP" and "real GDP" in National Currency.

As mentioned above, both methods produce the same GDP deflator data for 2008-2015, as also confirmed and listed by the Economic Spring Forecast -May 2012. For the years in 1995-2007 I found variations of +/- 0.5%, and then a heavily disagreement about the GDP deflator in 2000 and 2007, which method 1 claimed to be 3.4% and 3.5%, while method 2 claimed it to be 4.5% and 2.4%. The awake reader will note this discrepancy of 1.1% compared to method 2, basicly just was added for year 2007 by method 1 (the GDP deflator index) with a corresponding opposite correction of a lowerly grounded index=100 for the basis year in 2000 (and thus a deflator value being 1.1% less compared to the previously calculated deflator value). The big question now is, which of the two data series (1) GDP deflator index OR (2) "marketprice GDP" and "Real GDP", do you think are based upon the corrected values for the years in 1995-2007?

Currently I tend to believe Eurostat so far only updated and recalculated the "GDP deflator index" values, while they did not update/recalculate any of the corresponding GDP data series affected by the GDP deflator in real economy. And that is why the figures no longer adds up, when looking at the past years prior to 2008. I have no additional time to investigate the problem further. So for now I will just setle the case, by picking the GDP deflator data directly from the GDP deflator index, and regard that method as the most updated and reliable one. If you have any further info about the issue, then please let me know. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did an additional quick investigation of the GDP at current market prices listed by the AMECO database, and found them indeed to be updated values for all years prior to 2007. So they are indeed the root cause behind the discrepancy. The AMECO database and Eurostat database are identical in regards of GDP at current market prices for 2007-2013. In regards of data prior to 2007 the Eurostat database however only reflect the old uncorrected data, while the AMECO database (under guidance of the European Comission) reflect the new corrected data. This mean, that the GDP deflator index published by the AMECO database is the accurate one (as I also speculated above), and thus should be preferred rather than the old inaccurate data extracted from the Eurostat database. Due to the many missing updates/recalculations of data published in the Eurostat database, I will go as far to say, that we should start only using the AMECO database as primary source for the historical financial data in the wikitable (while using the reports published by the European Comission as primary source for the forecasted data). Danish Expert (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For a short notice, Eurostat finally updated all their GDP statistics and related data series on 22 October 2012. My suspicion noted above was confirmed. Meaning that AMECO since May 2012 displayed the most accurate and updated figures. After the Eurostat update, and when minor updates will also be uploaded to the AMECO database on 7 November 2012, the figures in the two databases are expected to be 100% identical. The rather big revision of the Greek figures (ie the debt-to-GDP ratio was increased from 165% to 170.6% in 2011) is an extraordinary event, and caused by the fact the ELSTAT only in 2012 revised the historical GDP statistics for Greece. In 2011 ELSTAT performed a big revision of the historical debt and deficit figures measured in million euro, and those data were not further revised in 2012. It is only the historical GDP data that was revised in 2012, but this obviously also affects the debt-to-GDP ratios and deficit-to-GDP ratios. I have updated the wikitable with the new stats, and the data should now be considered as 100% reliable, with no more major backword revisions expected to happen in the upcomming years. Danish Expert (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Argggghhh - this is a never ending saga!!! Today on 7 November the AMECO database was updated, but NOT with the newest figures, as the true cut-off date for calculation of all the new figures was 19 October 2012. This mean that the newest figures reported by Eurostat on 22 October 2012 have not yet been uploaded to the AMECO database and neither been printed by todays published Autumn 2012 Economic Forecast. So you should now regard the historical figures (1995-2007) reported by the Eurostat database as the newest and most accurate ones. Figures for 2008-2014 are identically reported by the two databases, but we most likely have to wait for the next AMECO winter economic forecast to be published on 7 February 2013, before they update the historical figures (1995-2007) to the correct ones. Danish Expert (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Structural deficits in the past 39 years - now replaced by a Structural surplus in 2013 and beyond

This is just to bump a note, that I have now also added a line with data for structural deficits in the article's wikitable with main data. Unfortunately the majority of journalists are not yet currently aware of the meaning of this figure, and DID NOT yet discover/report the significant result Greece made in regards of restoring this significant figure to an acceptable level, already in 2012. As you can see, the structural deficit will only be 1.5% in 2012, and after the recent agreement of the additional austerity package in Greece, it will be transformed into a structural surplus in 2013 and for the years ahead. This is a MAJOR achievement. Because it reflects, that the moment GDP growth will return to Greece (as we all know it will), then the debt-to-GDP ratio will start to decline at a satisfactory pace, and the debt-pile will consequently be 100% sustainable.

The figure for "structural deficit" is really key to understand and report. By the way, that is also why it is the most important key-element to comply with, in the recently agreed European Fiscal Compact. Greece is so well ahead on that path, that it deserves applaud and recognition for this achievement. And to be honest, I did not find a single article in the past month realising that point, to the true extent it deserves. I of course agree with all critical articles highlighting the problem, that Greece in the past 2.5 years have been way too slow to implement the needed economic reforms and privatisation programme. But despite being slow, the country is now also moving in the right direction on those issues, and thus have already succeeded to get the economic recovery programme back on track. It is all good and positive, and turn on the entire row of green lamps, as this combined positive effort will secure the return of the needed GDP growth already in early 2014.

All in all, there is only good reason now to be fully optimistic on behalf of Greece. My hope is that all readers of Wikipedia, soon will start making small friendly hints to journalists all around the Globe, that they should not limit themself only to report negative news, but also start to report (or at least shortly mention), the significant result Greece already now achieved in regards of restoring their Structural budget balance to a normal acceptable level in 2012, and even for the first time in 39 years (since 1973) is headed for a structural surplus in 2013. As a well-educated Dane, I really applaud this progress has now been achieved by the Greek government. But unfortunately I currently feel, that it is only us well-educated economic geeks who are truely aware, and I would like the message to get reported also by ordinary news-outlets around the Globe. The restoration of the Structural budget balance in Greece, is such a significant and important step, that it really calls for applaud and recognition to be reported by journalists all around the Globe! Danish Expert (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Economic data for 1960-1987

This is only to bump a short notice about what I managed to find when searching for additional historical data. For some couple of months ago, I found and added some historic data from the AMECO database (administered by the European Commission) to the wikitable with main statistics. The great point about the AMECO database, is that it uses the exact same calculation principles as the Eurostat database, and thus it is a perfect supplement to the Eurostat database (which in comparison does not always go as far back in history as the AMECO database does). In regards of the yearly budget deficits for Greece, the AMECO database however for some reason (somewhat dissapointingly) only starts to report those figures from 1988 and forward. As I was also interested to look up the more ancient budget deficits, I today continued my quest for that. Due to the fact that multiple ongoing revisions happen also to historic data, it was important of course only to search for data in databases that were updated recently. The best supplemental database for the historic budget deficit figures, that I managed to find and can recommend you to look into when searching for historical data (also for other countries), is the OECD Economic Outlook database, which in its latest version include the Greek budget deficit data for all years in 1960-2013. And some of the previous versions of the database figures even go as far back as 1950. Only problem is, that you need to be an OECD iLibrary subsciber to get online access to the database, and this will cost you an expensive fee of €350. Another detail to keep in mind, is that OECD is not always using the same calculation methods as AMECO+Eurostat does (for some indicators as i.e. budget deficits it is the same, but for others i.e. cyclically-adjusted/structural budget deficits it is slightly different). Danish Expert (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately I also managed to find this free Google Docs version of the extracted historical OECD budget deficit data (1960-2011) from the OECD Economic Outlook no.86 (December 2009) report. Due to subsequent multiple revisions of the data during the last 3 years you can not trust/use the data it has listed for 2000-11. But for the more ancient/historic figures prior of 1988, it is actually still good/accurate enough to use as a reference. In the context of our article, I will now add both this free old version source and the more costly but recently updated source, to highlight the info that: Greece actually had budget surplusses in 1960-1973, followed by moderate budget deficits (below 3% of GDP) in 1974-80, and a long period of very high budget deficits in 1981-2014. In regards of the even more important structural budget balance, the picture is the same. I have now noted in the article, that Greece posted structural surplusses in 1960-73, followed by structural deficits in 1974-2012, and then after restoring the economy now will start on a new era with structural surplusses in 2013. Danish Expert (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Lagarde list is at BLPN

Everyone is invited to comment at: BLP allegations in the Lagarde list. Please no edit-warring until these very damaging BLP allegations are sorted out at WP:BLPN. Let's centralise the discussion at BLPN, so please present your arguments there and not here. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for a solution was reached on 10 November. Discussion is no longer open. Danish Expert (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Danish Expert. I have marked the discussion there as resolved. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Debt-to-GDP ratio

Yesterday I updated the wikitable with a couple of rows, to show how much "stock-flow adjustment" and "nominal GDP growth" each year impacted the debt-to-GDP ratio. My source for the numbers was the Economic Spring Forecast appendix (Part 1: tables) published by the European Comission. While the historic debt-to-GDP ratio for 2007-2011 was equal with the figures listed by Eurostat, I was surprised to find that there was a historic difference of rougly 1% in the ratio for the years in 1995-2006. My question now is, if some of you know which numbers are most correct? I tend to trust Eurostat more than the European Comission, and that is why I kept Eurostat as the main source for the historic numbers. Please let me know if you disagree. If you also can explain why Eurostat and the European Comission list different figures for 1995-2006, this info would also be quiet interesting. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

After having searched additional documents published by respectively Eurostat and the European Comission (EC), it appear the root cause of the problem is, that the statistical revision Greece recently did on all its fiscal figures, only covered the years after 2006. And then apparently the EC in May 2012 corrected the debt-to-GDP ratios retrospectively for the years in 1995-2006, as part of the published Spring forecast. Because I found out that the previs report (Economic Sping Forecast from May 2011) had listed the same old debt-to-GDP ratios for 1995-2006, as we currently find listed in the Eurostat database. To me it is however very strange, why the Eurostat database so far has not been updated with the revised debt-to-GDP figures for 1995-2006? But until other info gets published, I now tend to rely more on the new numbers published by the Economic Spring Forecast from May 2012, rather than the old numbers published by the official Eurostat database. And after I now also checked and found the same new debt numbers for 1995-2006 published by the official AMECO database, this removed my last doubt about whether they were correct. So the wikitable will now be updated with the new numbers for 1995-2006, despite the fact that the Eurostat database has not been updated yet. Danish Expert (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For a short notice, Eurostat finally updated all their GDP statistics and related data series on 22 October 2012. My suspicion noted above was confirmed. Meaning that AMECO since May 2012 displayed the most accurate and updated figures. After the Eurostat update, and when minor updates will also be uploaded to the AMECO database on 7 November 2012, the figures in the two databases are expected to be 100% identical. The rather big revision of the Greek figures (ie the debt-to-GDP ratio was increased from 165% to 170.6% in 2011) is an extraordinary event, and caused by the fact the ELSTAT only in 2012 revised the historical GDP statistics for Greece. In 2011 ELSTAT performed a big revision of the historical debt and deficit figures measured in million euro, and those data were not further revised in 2012. It is only the historical GDP data that was revised in 2012, but this obviously also affects the debt-to-GDP ratios and deficit-to-GDP ratios. I have updated the wikitable with the new stats, and the data should now be considered as 100% reliable, with no more major backword revisions expected to happen in the upcomming years. Danish Expert (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Argggghhh - this is a never ending saga!!! Today on 7 November the AMECO database was updated, but NOT with the newest figures, as the true cut-off date for calculation of all the new figures was 19 October 2012. This mean that the newest figures reported by Eurostat on 22 October 2012 have not yet been uploaded to the AMECO database and neither been printed by todays published Autumn 2012 Economic Forecast. So you should now regard the historical figures (1995-2007) reported by the Eurostat database as the newest and most accurate ones. Figures for 2008-2014 are identically reported by the two databases, but we most likely have to wait for the next AMECO winter economic forecast to be published on 7 February 2013, before they update the historical figures (1995-2007) to the correct ones. Danish Expert (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Χαρά στο κουράγιο σου as we say in Greece!!!I had for long been anxiously waiting for Reinhart and Rogoff to update their Debt-to-GDP ratio data to update the -imo crucial- relevant historical chart;long ago I also intended to add therein a real GDP line;I had also considered updating the latest debt (and thereby debt to gdp ratio) data-graph (2011 and part of 2012) using other sources.I've now stopped being anxious and surrended to reality accepting the fact that I'm gonna get the data when I'm gonna get the data...I just check from time to time for updates, see that there is no update, no change or that there is again a change that revises again the data, enjoy a good laugh laugh and move on...What you're aiming at is admirable but imo futile;the revisions are simply going to end when they'll end, and we will get the final data when we'll get the final data.Interesting news and data about the Greek Economy are not going to stop coming any time soon... ;-) Thanatos|talk 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for calming down my boiling frustration. 50% of me is also satisfied, that both databases are now finally listing the correct figures for 2008-2014. That's at least some fine progress. :-) In regards of the revision of historical figures (1995-2007), my disappointment was big, as I had really expected AMECO would be able in their 7th November update to include the newest Oct.22-figures from Eurostat (and I was not aware in advance that they had decided to impose the Oct.19 cut-off date for new data). In regards of the articles Wikitable, I decided only to update it with the AMECO database figures (and not those from Eurostat), because of the need for us to display all figures with 100% correlation. And with AMECO we have the nice interrelated supplemental figures reported depicting the yearly impact from "nominal GDP changes" and "stock flow adjustments" on the debt-to-GDP ratio; plus the very interesting "GDP deflator index" and figures for "structural deficits". If those figures currently were also reported by Eurostat, I would have switched over to Eurostat as the main source for all figures. It is also (after all) a comfort for my frustrations, that I know the AMECO database will be updated with the Oct.22 Eurostat-revision of historical figures, next time it is updated on 7 Februrary 2013. We only have to wait 3 months. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"50% of me is also satisfied, that both databases are now finally listing the correct figures for 2008-2014."How exactly do you know that they're indeed correct?!?!? :D Thanatos|talk 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Improvement of the Article structure

Yesterday Koavf (talk) added the {{toolong}} template at the top of the article. I agree with him, that the article has developed into a bulky size. As a first step, before we start to split the content into subarticles, I will however propose that we shall first implement a new and better overall structure. Reading through the article, you will find several cases of the same info written 3 times in the chapters:

1. Evolution
2. Rescue packages provided by the EU and IMF
3. Countermeasures taken by the Greek government

To solve the problem with repeated content, my proposal is that we now (step-by-step) carefully merge the second chapter into the first, as all "Rescue packages" are basicly an essential part of the "Evolution" of the crisis. And then we can finally also move the process/evolution descriptions mentioned in the third chapter into the first. Leaving the chapter "countermeasures taken by the Greek government" only to feature info about exact content of the "Greek countermeasures" and not any info about the negotiation processes leading to the countermeasures (as this part of the story then already will be covered by the "Evolution" chapter). The overall reason why it is not justified to keep having the chapter named "Rescue packages provided by the EU and IMF", is that the exact content of those rescue packages in fact feature and describe all the requirements for "Greek countermeasures" and that the evolution process for the activation/revision of the packages is better described by the "Evolution" chapter. I am ready during this week, to start implementing the above improvements to the article (if nobody objects). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea. However I think this is a bit to straightforward, as you lose a lot of relevant angles.

I would suggest the following (with much reduced sections at the secondary level than the current counterparts):

1) Background

1.1. Historical causes [Causes section - 1980-2008] (current section 1)

1.2. Evolution 2008-NOW (current section 2)

2) Actions taken to solve the crisis

2.1. Rescue packages by EU and IMF (current section 3)

2.2. Action by the Greek government, and analysis of their efficacy (analysis of restructuring) (current sections 4, 8)

3) Consequences

3.1. Greek public opinion / Critisism of Germany role / Hedge funds (current sections 9,7,6)

3.2. International ramifications - possible Grexit (current sections 5, 10)

Rest of the material i.e. see also / references / further reading (current sections 11,12,13)Arnoutf (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel you might have misunderstood my proposal. I did not intend to cut away any of the chapters that you restructured above (or limit the structure to the 3 chapters I mentioned). In example, my intention was still to keep the "Causes" (background) chapter entirely unchanged, as the first chapter in the article. So we agree on that. My proposal was in first place limited only to merge the "Rescue packages" chapter into the "Evolution" chapter (as the "Rescue packages" is pretty much already a repetition/elaboration of the subchapters with the same titles in the "Evolution" chapter), and then also move the repeated "process/event descriptions" from the "Greek countermeasures" chapter (which concerns around 25% of the paragraphs in the "Austerity package" subchapters) into the "Evolution" chapter. This way we can get a structure, where we avoid to add the same "evolution info" 3 times in 3 chapters. The idea is to limit the chapter "Greek countermeasures" only to display final facts and actions, and not to let it deal with the "Evolution story". By the end of the week, I will attempt to give it a shot. Because I feel it will perhaps be easier to discuss my proposal if you see it implemented first. We can always undo it again, if you dont like it. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think the main problem the article accidently got hit by, is the fact that the 3 "bailout/rescue programmes" in principle are identical with the related "Austerity packages", as these 3 Bailout programmes (MoU-agreements) outline all the countermeasures (actions, reforms and austerity packages) that Greek needs to implement in order to receive the bailout funds. And this is why I still think it is best we start to split it up, so that the "Evolution" chapter only deal with the process, payment and actions taken by EU+ECB+IMF, while the "Greek countermeasures" only deal with the factual actions, reforms and austerity measures implemented by the Greek authoraties. At least this is how I intend to do it in the first step, and then we can always undo/restructure/"rename chapter titles" at the second step, if you dont like it. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Split - Split article due to size starting with "Countermeasures". Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead Danish Expert and give it a try. It can only get better. --spitzl (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Alot of texts

Could we add some more images and edit the text for easier reading? I know its hard to explain in laymans term, but is there any economists here who might explain it easier that would be greatWesteastis here (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Forget the Greeks, FANTASTIC news about the Germans!!

I am so glad for the Greek crisis, for it helps to hold the euro down, meaning German imports have hit a 60-year record!!! Nothing brings me more joy than seeing the Germans profiting from the disaster that they refuse to lift a finger to solve. Never mind the disaster zone of Greece, all the human tragedy, the suicides, the hunger, the poverty, the CRUCIAL thing is that powerful Germany is sailing along just fine.

Germany's free-riding consists in using the euro as a mechanism for maintaining a weak exchange rate while shifting the costs of doing so to its neighbors. To see how that form of free-riding works, compare Germany and China. . . .

The Greeks should feel proud that they suffer so that Germany can prosper. God bless Germany!!

86.181.12.223 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Germany is known for loving a weak currency: France: Euro needs to be lower in value Germany: No, its fine *sarcasm*

>> "meaning German imports have hit a 60-year record"

The article you quote says that the trade surplus in 2012 has hit its second highest level in 60 years. No record and not imports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.186.230 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)