ECB and Inflation

[Zanza]

That said, it would have worked better, if the EU had invested into the Greek economy at the same time to make up for the shortfall.

I don't know what this means.

Which part?

[Admiral Yi]

Which part?

"Invested into the Greek economy."  Do you mean something like EU financed public works projects?  Or the EU paying for public employees so they don't have to be laid off?

[Zanza]

Which part?

"Invested into the Greek economy."  Do you mean something like EU financed public works projects?  Or the EU paying for public employees so they don't have to be laid off?

No. Investing into the private Greek economy. Give loans to start ups, export insurance for new exporters, help new businesses to access EU funds, invest into Greek education programs, etc.
Stuff that governments can do to support the economy but obviously can't be done by a government undergoing austerity.

[MadImmortalMan]

No. Investing into the private Greek economy. Give loans to start ups, export insurance for new exporters, help new businesses to access EU funds, invest into Greek education programs, etc.
Stuff that governments can do to support the economy but obviously can't be done by a government undergoing austerity.

If they could find a way to make that happen, they'd be golden. But seriously, all the foreign money ran away as soon as Syriza was elected.

[Zanza]

If they could find a way to make that happen, they'd be golden. But seriously, all the foreign money ran away as soon as Syriza was elected.

They should have done that during the Samaras years. And the EU can invest without caring whether foreign money runs away or not. I bet it wouldn't have run away nearly as fast if there had been such a program to accompany the austerity and reformation of Greek state.

[Syt]

So, the referendum.

Syriza sympathizers have attacked people lobbying for Greeks to vote "yes" on the austerity measures. Meanwhile, Syriza members advertising a "no" have likewise been attacked.

People have voiced concerns that the short timelines don't allow for the voters to come to a fully informed opinion. Also, the phrasing of the question seems to be somewhat ambiguous. Additionally, there's grumblings that the "No" options will be listed above "Yes," allegedly to bias voters to vote "No."

Finally, the constitutional court will rule probably on Friday whether the referendum can go ahead, because while the Greek constitution allows for plebiscites, budgetary questions are explicitly ruled out.

[Martinus]

The "yes" / "no" order is a bit of a bullshit point, as, whilst "yes" usually comes before "no", there is nothing preventing the government from structuring the question in a way where the "yes" answer means actually "no" (e.g. "do you want the government to reject the Troika proposal?").

Not surprised about the constitutional point - a similar provision exists in Polish constitution. Though I guess the government will argue that this is not a purely budgetary question but is more structural/fundamental.

Incidentally, I would be interested in seeing political party support polls - if Syriza loses the referendum and new elections are called, I wonder who stands the chance to win. Hopefully it is not Golden Dawn (I hope also someone sues Golden Dawn or at least curses them for stealing the name from one of the most prominent occult organisations of the last two centuries).

[Syt]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33311422

The Greek referendum question makes (almost) no sense

The wording of the Greek debt referendum has been released, and it's a bit of a puzzler.



For those who can't read Greek, here's a translation.



For those who can't read Greekdebtspeak, well, you're on your own.

The two appendix documents - "Reforms for the completion of the current programme and beyond" and "Preliminary debt sustainability analysis" - don't sound much more easily digestible than the ballot.

There is still a question over when and how voters will be presented with those documents, and whether world-class economists will be on hand at polling stations to explain them.



Canada actually introduced an act of parliament to avoid exactly these kinds of questions being put to the public. After two long and convoluted referendum ballots on Quebec independence in 1980 and 1995, the "Clarity Act" stipulated that an independence referendum must be essentially: "Do you want independence, yes or no?"

No or yes?

As well as being a little bit dense, the Greek ballot also controversially puts the "No" option - favoured by the Greek government - above the yes option, leading some to accuse it of bias.

It is an "unusual" format, said Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of the UK Electoral Reform Society.

In the case of the Greek ballot, the no-before-yes format may be offset by the question reading: "Should the [agreement] be accepted" instead of "accepted or rejected", Ms Ghose said.

Yes or no?

The Greek ballot wouldn't be the first accused of being not quite up to scratch on the no-bias front, and there are arguably worse examples in history.

In 1978, after being accused of human rights violations by the UN, Chile's General Pinochet held a referendum to ask the people whether they supported his policies. The "Yes" box was a Chilean flag, the "No" box - ever so slightly lower - was a solid black rectangle.



Pinochet won by a cool 78.6%.

And back in 1938, Adolf Hitler balloted the German people to ask: "Do you approve of the reunification of Austria with the German Reich accomplished on 13 March 1938 and do you vote for the list of our Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler?"

The ballot paper had a subtly leading format.



Hitler won with an even cooler 99.7%.

No waffling, please

When the UK government prepares a referendum question, the Electoral Commission takes 12 weeks to test the question on focus groups to eliminate any bias or confusion.

A draft of the referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU was rewritten because it confused a significant minority of people who didn't know the UK was already a member.

As well as bias, the question is tested for clarity, said the Electoral Commission's Rosie Davenport.

"We look at length of the question. There is a guideline for the number of words," she said.

"The aim is to make the question as as clear and concise as possible, so you're not presenting people with a lot of waffly information before they vote."

'The real choice will be known'

Which brings us back to Greece. Athens did not have the luxury of a 12-week testing period - it has to organise a national referendum at breathtaking speed - but it might be accused of waffle.

"This referendum's emergency nature gives little time to prepare the arguments for either side, and the question is enormously detailed, essentially asking Greeks if they will accept the specific document-based proposals from the IMF, ECB and European Commission," said Ms Ghose.



With such a short time for the people of Greece to make up their minds, what they are being told by politicians will have more of an effect than usual, Ms Ghose said.

"Given the short time span with this referendum, party cues may matter even more than usual; millions will be listening to what party leaders have to say and informing their decisions based on that.

"At the core of this, however, the Greek people will understand the implications for voting yes or no - even with little time to campaign. The UK's 1998 Good Friday Agreement referendum question was notoriously complex, but people knew the underlying choice," she added.

So while the question is long and detailed - that may be out of necessity, and the real choice will be known by Greeks."

[Valmy]

Well so long as it is better than Pinochet and Hitler...

[Martinus]

A draft of the referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU was rewritten because it confused a significant minority of people who didn't know the UK was already a member.

Perhaps Greeks are less of idiots than Brits? 

[Martinus]

I read the translation of the referendum question prepared by our firm's information department (it was an update for clients, as the possibility of a Grexit is, unsurprisingly, quite of interest to them) and it made more sense than the attempt by BBC above. Perhaps BBC has shitty Greek translators.

So, essentially BBC's "analysis" consists of a couple of dumb tweets, a mistranslation and comparisons to Hitler and Pinochet. This must be that sterling British journalism I have heard so much about. 

[The Brain]

Greeks are doing fine. In the Swedish 1980 nuclear power referendum there were 3 No options and no Yes option.

[crazy canuck]

Character assassination is odd thing to say when I point out Belgium doesn't pay it's share of defense spending.  And morality is an odd way of looking at things when Greece's chief crime was being in to small a boat to survive the wave.

Greece's chief crime was borrowing more money than they could repay.  Or were willing to pay.

If that is a crime then every nation that has debt is guilty of it. 

[Valmy]

If that is a crime then every nation that has debt is guilty of it. 

Thanks Ron Paul. I look forward to the melt down of the entire world economy. We should have rejected fiat money

[Martinus]

Anyway, going back to bashing Crazy Ivan - I was viewing the debt to GDP ratio for different countries, and it appears in Europe Belgium has one of the highest.

It's:

Greece: 177%
Italy: 132%
Portugal: 130%
Ireland: 110%
Cyprus 107%

and then Belgium: 106%

And it has actually increased from the previous year.

So it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp