The End Of All Inclusives In Greece ?

The new finance minister for Greece...Yanis Varoufakis (hope I spelt that right)
Sure is an interesting guy.
You can google him and probably get his interviews ,interesting times.
I enjoyed watching the new PM get sworn in without a bible,a secular state keeping religion separate from politics .
Big challenge for them, but maybe a game no & one no one else has had the "Goolys" to play with the Germans on till now.
The Portuguese, Spanish & Italians will all be watching closely.
They might not get a write off but they might get it spread out over the next 100 years and maybe get themselves back on their feet.?
personally I think its a brilliant thing if this will put some the restaurants and bars back in business ..when the A.I started it just killed their business,s...
It's not guaranteed. Smart hotel owners can offer all the things in their all inclusive packages as extra but with much lower prices. In free market economy governments can hardly shape private businesses as business owners can usually find a way to bypass new rules. Competition in the market will usually work for big boys. lf governments want to change this in favor of small ones, governments should enter to the market with financial power of public funds.. If the new Greek PM wants to support small businesses he can support them directly with either low interest loans or lower taxes than big businesses. This support requires direct transfer of public funds to small businesses or other low-income classes. Or, he can do the opposite way by imposing higher taxes for big businesses. In general the new Greek PM has good ideas for his citizens. I hope Turkey has a similar socialist PM in the future.
It's an interesting article. Thanks.
Yes if the debt is not your debt then you don't need to pay it back. If Greece has good arguments lenders should accept a write off. In fact a lending-borrowing activity binds both parties with a mutual responsibility when a debtor defaults. If debtor defaults, lender is equally responsible as lender had an option to refuse lending. Additionally, lender doesn't take risks for free. Lender does it to earn interest. In my opinion, lender and borrower are equally responsible for all consequences. It's not fair to blame only borrower when the things go wrong. I don't know what are written in laws about these.
I may be wrong but Councils in England for sure had a lot of tax payers money invested in Iceland banks ,and the money was paid back to the councils.
Didn't the people in Iceland jail the bankers? Can't quite remember,but they decided to go for democracy and law and not bail out the crooked banks.
It has not been easy for the people with their houses and mortgages ,jobs etc either but they have done it.
Does anyone know who "owns" the debt now?
Obviously they will say it is the tax payers again but what a sham it has all become,just use the QE "printed " money to pay it off,hahahah
I don't know who owns the debt as I am not the lender or the borrower. But I think lenders and borrowers know each other. They can answer the question of who got the money.
If governments get into debt, tax payers have to repay the money. This is fair and normal. Because tax payers elect governments and are responsible for consequences of their votes. But sometimes corporates, private banks get into debt then governments bail out them. This is not fair as neither tax payers nor governments don't elect boards of private corporates. You can't be responsible for debts of private bank or corporate if you don't have a control over it. Bailing out exists worldwide because there is a theory or rule in economics called "too big to fail". This theory says if you let a bank go into bankruptcy your whole economy will get into bankruptcy. This theory looks rational but at the same time dictates a fear about terrible things will happen. Actions taken under a fear usually end up with a worse result.
QE was a good idea and has worked in the US.