>Are you claiming it is 100% the debtor's responsibility that a loan was granted too?
Yes, of course.
>If the lenders had acted responsibly, they would not have faced the risk of non-payment, because a lot of these loans would not have been granted. Are you suggesting the debtors forced the lenders hands?
Yes, lenders always face the risk of nonpayment. That doesn't remove any of the debtor's responsibility to pay, though. It's not that Greece couldn't have paid back the money. It's that it refused to make the changes necessary to pay the money back.
>...every jurisdiction I know of have a vast range of situations where debts can be wiped out based on the actions of the lender in recognition of situations where the debtor is consider to not be responsible for repayment.
Which don't include, as a rule, that the lender should have known the debtor is of such low character he wouldn't be paid back.
>E.g. here in the UK, if banks allows consumers to take out loans that are blatantly irresponsible without lying to the bank about their income and outgoings, it's the bank that is responsible...
That's insane.
>Even in the face of a loan that was not irresponsible when granted, there's multitude of options for reducing or wiping clean the repayment, in recognition
I'm not absolute sure where you were going with that, but I assume you mean "in recognition you can get to a point where there's no other option". And that is true. Without some form of bankruptcy nobody is going to be willing to start a business, and business formation is good for more than just the founders.
But countries aren't people in that respect. The Greeks borrowed money because they could, not because they needed it for some investment. In the price they could get for their bonds was lower because investors factored in the likelihood the government would print money when it ran out. But essentially the Greeks traded on the good reputation of the Germans to bury themselves in debt as soon as they switched to the euro.
>Yet somehow you believe Greek citizens should be held 100% responsible for actions they didn't take and likely did not understand, and that they had only indirect influence on, and even more so a risk you claim the banks did understand and still took?
In a democracy you're responsible for the actions of your state. I don't understand why you think the Greeks didn't understand what was going on. Of course they did. And many times over the years they were told "Hey, we need to spend less or we won't be able to repay our debts." And every time they punished (electorally) whoever said it.
>Personally I consider it deeply immoral and downright criminal to expect the Greek to repay these loans...
Because you think the Greek voters are too stupid to have realized what was going on? How patronizing. Let me propose an alternate scenario: They understood exactly what was going on and then thought "We just won't pay them back. What are they going to do about it?"
>...and I'd strongly hope Greece refuses to pay, as creditors needs to be shown that there is a real risk in lending money without proper due diligence. They gambled with their shareholders money.
Of course they'll refuse to pay. The whole point of voting for socialists is you expect the government to make your life easier with someone else's money. As a result is the country should be unceremoniously ejected from the EMU. That won't happen, of course, as a result of cynical political concerns.
But let me ask you this: What kind of signal do you think this sends to Italian and Portuguese voters? Why should they make any attempt to get their fiscal house in order, when obviously the smart thing to do is borrow as much as possible from your northern neighbors and then stiff them?
Yes, of course.
>If the lenders had acted responsibly, they would not have faced the risk of non-payment, because a lot of these loans would not have been granted. Are you suggesting the debtors forced the lenders hands?
Yes, lenders always face the risk of nonpayment. That doesn't remove any of the debtor's responsibility to pay, though. It's not that Greece couldn't have paid back the money. It's that it refused to make the changes necessary to pay the money back.
>...every jurisdiction I know of have a vast range of situations where debts can be wiped out based on the actions of the lender in recognition of situations where the debtor is consider to not be responsible for repayment.
Which don't include, as a rule, that the lender should have known the debtor is of such low character he wouldn't be paid back.
>E.g. here in the UK, if banks allows consumers to take out loans that are blatantly irresponsible without lying to the bank about their income and outgoings, it's the bank that is responsible...
That's insane.
>Even in the face of a loan that was not irresponsible when granted, there's multitude of options for reducing or wiping clean the repayment, in recognition
I'm not absolute sure where you were going with that, but I assume you mean "in recognition you can get to a point where there's no other option". And that is true. Without some form of bankruptcy nobody is going to be willing to start a business, and business formation is good for more than just the founders.
But countries aren't people in that respect. The Greeks borrowed money because they could, not because they needed it for some investment. In the price they could get for their bonds was lower because investors factored in the likelihood the government would print money when it ran out. But essentially the Greeks traded on the good reputation of the Germans to bury themselves in debt as soon as they switched to the euro.
>Yet somehow you believe Greek citizens should be held 100% responsible for actions they didn't take and likely did not understand, and that they had only indirect influence on, and even more so a risk you claim the banks did understand and still took?
In a democracy you're responsible for the actions of your state. I don't understand why you think the Greeks didn't understand what was going on. Of course they did. And many times over the years they were told "Hey, we need to spend less or we won't be able to repay our debts." And every time they punished (electorally) whoever said it.
>Personally I consider it deeply immoral and downright criminal to expect the Greek to repay these loans...
Because you think the Greek voters are too stupid to have realized what was going on? How patronizing. Let me propose an alternate scenario: They understood exactly what was going on and then thought "We just won't pay them back. What are they going to do about it?"
>...and I'd strongly hope Greece refuses to pay, as creditors needs to be shown that there is a real risk in lending money without proper due diligence. They gambled with their shareholders money.
Of course they'll refuse to pay. The whole point of voting for socialists is you expect the government to make your life easier with someone else's money. As a result is the country should be unceremoniously ejected from the EMU. That won't happen, of course, as a result of cynical political concerns.
But let me ask you this: What kind of signal do you think this sends to Italian and Portuguese voters? Why should they make any attempt to get their fiscal house in order, when obviously the smart thing to do is borrow as much as possible from your northern neighbors and then stiff them?