That’s the problem

Re: Wish me luck

Ah, you may be right on that one, but I think they were contemporaries, the Minoans and the Mycenaeans, or very close. It is true that (at least to my knowledge) there were no interpreters between the Greeks (Αχαιοί meaning Achaeans) and the Trojans. Therefore they might be Greek (of what tribe I do not know). Interestingly, when, as I child I was reading the Iliad, I sympathized with the Trojans, because they were defending their city.
The Trojan war was the last "accomplishment" of the Mycenaean civilization. After that point, Greece mysteriously fell into a "Dark Age" from which it would emerge in the fifth century (the classical era).

The Spartans had two kings, however their power was, as far as I remember insignificant. The whole system of Sparta was said to be the work of one man, Λυκούργος (Λύκος=wolf έργο(ούργο)= work, wolf worker or something like that). Then there was the Senate (Γερουσία), which had 28 life-long members plus the 2 kings, who were also part of the Senate. Then there was the Απέλλα. This was the general assembly of the Spartans the "Όμοιοι=same, ie equals, that is equal before the law) Their duties were to approve or disapprove of the important decisions, such as declare war. However, and that was the difference between the Athenian (εκκλησία του Δήμου) the citizens were not allowed to speak if they had something to say. They would speak only of the 5 Έφοροι allowed them to. The 5 Έφοροι were the real power. They were elected by the Απέλλα, however, their power was such that, for example they led Sparta to the Peloponesian war (against Athens) and they ordered the execution of King Pausanias. Aristotle characterised them as ισοτύραννους=equal to tyrants, who destroyed the city of Sparta.

http://pilavakis.tripod.com/lino/sparti6.htm

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Έφοροι

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Απέλλα
(I know two are wikis, but they have relevant biblioraphies, and what they say coincides with what I remember from school). I chose greek links, since these are the ones you probably have difficulty understanding, due to the language, and therefore, these would be the ones that would be "inaccessible".

The Athenians had the Εκκλησία του Δήμου (Εκκλησία means church in modern Greek, but in ancient Greek it meant something like gathering so this means Gathering of the Public, the Citizens) the Βουλή των 500 (if you say Βουλή, today people understand the Parliament (the building), but actually it is "Βουλή των Ελλήνων" translated more or less as "The Will of the Greeks", as it was in the ancient language. And there were the courts (Δικαστήρια).
The greatest power lied in the Εκκλησία. It had at least 4 powers: vote for important decisions eg, vote for the start of a war, elect officials, pass laws, and judge political crimes. The difference with the Spartans, was that Athenians were allowed to speak (any citizen could speak his mind) and then all 6000 people would vote by raising their hands.
The Βουλή των 500 prepared law plans to be voted in the Εκκλησία του Δήμου. The members were set by means of lottery and they were in the Βουλη for 1 year.

The democratic aspect of Athens was that the people did not just elect their representatives but they were themselves called upon to vote for administrative and legislative matters, so it was a type of "direct democracy"

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Αθηναϊ...84.CE.BF.CF.85_.CE.94.CE.AE.CE.BC.CE.BF.CF.85

I think you are mistaken here. The fifth century was known as the Golden century of Pericles, all the great accomplishments of Athens occur then. Of course, this was before the Athenians were defeated by the Spartans.

OK, I admit that I was rather lazy. I have some books and monographs regarding history, (apart from my school textbooks) however, what I have is solely related to the Greek military history.

Alexander handn't appeared yet, nor had Philip.

The second Persian invasion ended in 479 BC, basically with the battle of Plataies, and the Persian defeat there, one year after the defeat of the Spartans in Thermopylae.

Τo this day Easterners and Turks call us Giounan (from the word Ίωνες, because they first came into contact with the Ionian colony cities of Minor Asia) the westerners call us Greeks (from the Roman word) and we call ourselves Έλληνες.

Ah, the Byzantine Empire. I will have to talk about this smoe other time. This is a very long story as you point out. . But if you want to understand modern Greeks, you should maybe I should tell you a few things about the era of the Turkish occupation, which was *only* 400 years long.
At the time, since we talked about taxes, there was a tax named χαράτσι. There were two taxes, you see. One was the tax that we payed in order to have the right to be alive, and follow our faith. It was a tax actually meant to humiliate the Greek slaves. Once you payed it, you received a piece of paper that read: "the person who bears this, has the right to have his head on his shoulders for one year". The receipt of the tax was subcontracted from the Sultan to powerful Turks. In turn, they would subcontract it to other porfessionals. For each one of these "subcontractors", of course, there had to be separate profit, so the amount the victim had to pay grew.
The other tax was more gruesome. It was called the blood tax. In this type of tax Greek families did not pay money, but they had to give some of their male children. In Greek, we refer to this as the παιδομάζωμα, in turkish the term is devşirme.
Of course, neither one of these taxes were, as we would say today, contributory. The Greek would of course see no benefits from the taxes he payed in coin, and he would, of course see no benefit from the blood tax. In fact, since the children that were taken by means of the blood tax were often used as Jannisaries (some of the elite fighting unit of the Ottoman army), the parents might even be killed by their own child at some point.
What was the way to avoid this? What was the patriotic duty? How could one remain a Greek and a Christian, and even remain alive? The answer was to take up weapons, go to the mountains and try to make a life as he possibly could as a part time outlaw, part time guerilla.
It is no accident that the Greeks have named the most recent ofproperty taxes "χαράτσι". The modern Greek state is not much different from the Ottoman Empire of old, in the eyes of many Greeks. Add to that the minimal (if not completely non-existent) "contributority" of the taxes, ie we seldom see any of these taxes coming back to the public, and maybe they are not cmpletely wrong.
I am not saying that this justifies anything. I am just attempting to put the whole situation into some context.
I wonder what would the people of Finland do if the government, in the space of 2 years, raised their taxes to such an extent that it would be very difficult to live AND pay the taxes? What would people who borrowed money from a bank to buy a house, say 3 years ago, do if they saw property taxes rising vertically, their income dropping equally vertically, and the bank loan payments pending?

having said that, I must say that I admire Norse nations for their lack of corruption, and not just that. I get angry at Greeks every day. I get angry when I see them double parking their cars, parking their cars in places that are reserved for disabled people, throwing an empty packet of cigarettes on the pavement without a second thought, even though there is a garbage can 3 meters away from them, and generally demonstrating their upbringing. I am sure that such things are unknown in Norse countries.

I had no idea about that, really. I don't know anything about the Protestants, and only a few things about the Catholics. In fact, because I've talked with Muslims, I know more about the Muslims than the Catholics or Protestants.

True.

The question I ask pro Troika-IMF Greeks is this: How are we going to repay? Where are we going to find the money from? You see, personally, I have never borrowed money from anyone, as I make do with what I have. The very thought of borrowing ties my stomach to a knot, because if I did I would have to worry about repaying. All they say is "we will see". I ask do you think them stupid, to give away money? They will want much more in return. My opinion would be not to borrow from the other European nations and the IMF, but issue petroleum bonds for the oil revenues they say we have. but first of all, get the politicians who abused funds, and put them to jail. As long as they remain outside, they set a bad example that it's OK to abuse funds, because you can get away with it. The same people who destroyed us are in power now. That is the first problem in my view.

About Germany.
It's not just the moral aspect of corruption. German equipment that Greece purchased, was overpriced, a result of our politicians working in cooperation with the "big sharks" of SIEMENS. And it's not just SIEMENS:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides...+DOC+XML+V0//EN&query=INTERV&detail=3-188-000

You see what Hochtief did there...
So, perhaps a part of the problem is not just caused by the Greek people. How much have the foreign companies contributed to the Greek debt? This is open for debate.


Anyway, this was a very informative, thank you for the insight on how the northerners see us. It's always interesting to see the other side of the argument.

 

Re: Wish me luck

According to the History of the European Nations by Carl Grimberg volume 2 pages 266-305 (ISBN for the volume 2: 951-0-09730-6, ISBN for volumes 1-25: 951-0-09728-4) dictates that the “Trojan” war took place roughly in the year 1200 BC. The Greek offence against the Trojans was lead be the king of Mycenae (Μυκήνες) called Agamemnon (Αγαμέμνων), but he was only one of the dozen or so famous tribal warlords of that event. Other heroes were like Achilles (Αχιλλεύς) and the king of Ithaca (Ιθάκη) Οδυσσέας, also known as Odysseys. (Greek Mythology by David Bellingham ISBN 951-20-3599-5 pages 91-94). Nevertheless, these are unverified events of the mythical past. The entire existence of the author Homeros (Όμηρος) has been under a debate for the last two centuries (Crimberg). Current paradigm dictates that there was a number of authors whose writings compile the Iliad and Odyssey.

For reference: Alexander the Great (the great Macedonian) begun his great works in 334 BC, by crossing the Hellespont (Ελλησπόντος) never to return. (Grimberg vol 4 p. 99 – 124. isbn 951-0-09732-2). The golden age of ancient Greece took place in the 3rd and 2nd pre-Christian century, from when names like Aristotle (Αριστοτέλης) etc. influenced the history. (Grimberg vol. 4 p. 189-197). In the fifth century most notable moment was in 476 AD when the Germanic tribes conquered last remnants of Rome and thus brought to end almost a millennium of Greco-Roman cultural influence in Europe. (Grimberg vol. 6 p. 414-417.) Although the author of this compilation was Swedish and thus he forgot to mention that Greco-Roman culture managed to flourish under the flag what is nowadays known as Byzantine till the 16th century. But the western history and historians are unfortunately still quite unaccustomed with Eastern-Roman history. The muslim occupiers destroyed or left to crumble so much… In western history the term “Dark Age” refers to the time between the collapse of Rome and the rise of the age of Renascence. I am unaware what the concept means in the East?

And yes, the Mycenaean and Minoan cultures were somewhat contemporary (Grimberg vol. 2 p. 192 – 258). I must return for the rest of the topics later. This is as much research as I am willing to do on my spare time. But I think I still managed to show a foundation of a timeline? You are, of course, welcome to correct me if I made any mistakes.

My mother’s sister was married with a Greek for two decades, I know some Greek but not enough to read that. There must be some international studies you can refer like I did?

Correct. But if you want to recommend books or bibliographies, the academic tradition is that you yourself are accustomed with said literature. It is easy and lazy just google some books or copy paste Wikis. I, at least took the pain to search my small and limited personal library. I guess that emphasizes the difference between North and South.

I must return to this later, as I said earlier, I have only scratch the surface yet. Although, I will take your word for it, if you can present reliable source.

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Αθηναϊ...84.CE.BF.CF.85_.CE.94.CE.AE.CE.BC.CE.BF.CF.85

I was? Take a second look, please.

Yes you were, but that only emphasizes what I have been saying.

I am starting to believe that there is something fundamental cultural aspect that is hindering us. I know that we have different alphabets and such, but I am starting to believe that there is something way more lost in translation. Especially with the dates.

Sounds correct, haven’t verified yet. (too much to read in a week).

That, unfortunately, tells me nothing. Like my mother’s sister’s mother in law called themselves something which sounded to me “romaijo” but that is it. I know only so much and the indo-European languages are ultimately alien to me.

We suffered 700 years under the Viking/Varjag (or Swedes and Danes or whatever they call themselves today) kings and after that 110 years under the Russian tsars. The only European country that has suffered from a foreign occupation longer than us (and sadly still suffers) is Ireland. I am accustomed with history of long oppression. The muslim Turks were as alien lords to you as were the orthodox Russians to us. But as I said, and as a professional historian I should know, the western historians are blightfully ignorant of the history during muslim occupation. Balkan, Sicily, Iberia, no matter, we have not been thought about those eras. The byzantine history also is a blind spot. We know more about “Atlantis” than Byzantine. Sad.

In Finnish the first tax was called “henkivero” (henki=life, vero=tax), those who could not pay it to the king lost their “henki” (life). But those who could afford to suffer it survived. The wealthiest houses bore the grievest tax, they gave a horse and a son to ride in the ranks of the king and in return were “for now and for all times to come, as long as the rider rides under the king’s banner exempt for all other taxes, present and future.” Those houses were given the name “free” and nowadays they call them “noble” and the riders “knights” even as their nobility and freedom was bought by the blood of slaves. And yet, I am a proud descendant of one such “free” house. Irony?

That is utterly beyond my understanding. Here in the north it was seen only logical and beneficial to the rest of the house to give a horse and a son to the kings needs. Even as the king lived beyond a sea and spoke incomprehensible tongue

They could have chosen the “highland” way which didn’t serve the Scots or they could have chosen the Finnish “metsämiehentie”, could either helped the Greek cause. It is a discussion open only for the fools who succumb to the easy answers of hindsight.

I am old enough to remember such a time, the crossing between 1990 - 1995 were hellish. The Finnish state were almost ready to bankrupt. In February 1991 Finnish welfare state ceased to exist and I remember that. No more fee education, no more free medical care, no more anything free (well point of view: an university tuition is 100€ and a doctors appointment is 5-15€, but it is no longer free!). We had no EU not to mention Euro to help us, we had to suck it up and survive. And we did it, good enough that we were accepted to the EU and EURO without cheating. So shut up, I’ve seen the recession, none of the banks I was using exist any longer.

Dear Ioannis, you keep surprising me. Thank you. It is not just sometimes but bloody everyday so damn easy to forget the little good things about one’s society. In 2009 we drove from Helsinki to Κωνσταντινούπολη and resided in a small town called λεξανδρούπολη or something, near the Ottoman border. And in the morning, during the worst rush hour, we lost our way. We had to do U turn in the middle of the morning traffic in the narrow streets of centre of the city and we were given way. They backed to the sidewalks just to give us a way and even rose from their cars to tell and point us the way we should take. Never before and never since have I encountered such readiness to help, not even in the USA. Greeks may be many things, but I know they are helpful and friendly, and there are little more to ask.

Paree jättää se sit vaan siihen, προστασία του Θεού του Κυρίου

Agreed, as they say in English: put your money where your mouth is… ?

About Germany.
It's not just the moral aspect of corruption. German equipment that Greece purchased, was overpriced, a result of our politicians working in cooperation with the "big sharks" of SIEMENS. And it's not just SIEMENS:



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides...+DOC+XML+V0//EN&query=INTERV&detail=3-188-000

Actually, no argument there. Foolishness requires always more than one.



Anyway, this was a very informative, thank you for the insight on how the northerners see us. It's always interesting to see the other side of the argument.[/QUOTE]

Likewise, always happy to discuss.

 

Re: Wish me luck

Interesting. But you seem to have confused AD with BC. In the above extract, you are referring to 476 AD In the following piece i am referring to the fifth century BC:

I believe it is clear now. You were talking about the fifth century AD, I was talking about the fifth century BC.

A man will often see what he wants to see, and read into the actions of other men what he wants to read. As you said, you are a professional historian. I, on the other hand, am not. Nor am I writing a dissertation here. This is just a forum, so I would suggest that you chill out a bit. I know a few things from school textbooks, and some from some (little, admittedly) personal research. You see the difference between North and South, and another way to "make your point" (although I doubt how many besides yourself you can concince with these arguments) that the Southerners are corrupt and lazy, and the Northerners are not corrupt and hard working. I see the difference between someone who is professionally involved with history and someone who is not professionally involved with it. You are the professional with regard to history, I only have a layperson's knowledge on that. Although, I think you did make a mistake, confusing BC with AD back there, I can't hold it against you, and therefore I will not judge you on that. After all, to err is human.

Like I said, if you want to fit someone into a stereotype, you will stretch and pull things to do so. Unfortunately for your point, I believe that there are many people here who will tell you that your point about laziness is rather wrong.

Oh, I agree with you 100%. For one thing, it seems to me that you appear to be happy to point out and severely punish mistakes, as well as fit people in the stereotypes, rather than question these stereotypes. I also notice an eagerness to demonstrate superiority on matters that should not come into question at all, eg a professional historian possessing a better personal library on historical issues than a person who is not a professional historian. I cannot reach a conclusion for all Finns, of course, but seeing some of your reactions, points me to that direction. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Hmmm, that was the understatement of the century.

"Ρωμιοί" perhaps? If it was "Roma" then they were not Greek, they might have lived in Greece, but that is quite another thing.

Very interesting, and I was not aware of that. However, fromn what you say I understand that in your case, the son that was given was still allowed to speak the language of his parents, would not be converted to another religion, and would still be allowed to remember his heritage and nationality. Not to mention that this vassalage (I understand that this is what it was) was considered to be an honour for the family. From what I understand, the knight would be allowed to, from time to time, spend time with his parents.
In our case, the son was violently taken from his mother, to be converted to Islam, to forget everything that he used to be, his national identity, his religion, even his own parents. Thousands of children were lost forever in that way, as if they had died. Furthermore, this was not done only once. The Sultan's men could come again, and again, to the same family.
I think we are comparing two different things.

Another point of cultural difference, it seems. In my culture this would have been considered very rude, and would have earned you a rather equivalent answer, regardless of circumstances. Considering that you are a foreigner, however, that you have some misconceptions and stereotypes to which you seem to adhere, and that all this in your culture this may be acceptable, it doesn't.

I hope you did not lose your money.

You keep missing the point.
1. The Greeks were not asked if they wanted the euro. There was no referendum. If there had been, we would almost certainly have said no.
2. The ones who are lifting the heavy weight of the taxes, are the WEAKEST. Pensioners working-class people, and so on. You mentioned the "blind" of the island of Kefallonia. It is very interesting, that you brought an article from a newspaper owned by Alafouzos. This guy owns oil tankers, he owns that newspaper (kathimerini) and he also owns a TV channel (ΣΚΑΪ). Do you know how much yearly income he declared? Twenty six thousand, one hundred and sixty euros, and fourty cents. Twenty FUCKING six FUCKING thousand, one FUCKING hundred and sixty FUCKING euros and fourty FUCKING cents. And this guy has the nerve to speak about the Greeks who don't pay their taxes and do various tricks, such as the tricks with the blind pensions. Not to mention that he has been accused of fuel smuggling.
I am all in favour of stopping the "blind pensions" to people who could see, all in favour even of putting these scumbags to jail for cheating, all in favour of small folk paying ALL their taxes. Personally it would never concern me anyway, since I never left a bill or tax unpaid, and I never took money I did not work for. But to own millions, to have cheated, to even have smuggled costing billions of euros to the state, and accusing others is just fucking hypocrisy and injustice. Plain and simple.
Pardon the language.

The city was Αλεξανδρούπολη, I believe.
This is as you describe, because you are foreigners. It is acceptable, and it is as it should be, that we must do what we can to assist foreigners when they are in our country. Furthermore, you were among Thracians, who, much like us Macedonians are even more so than southern Greeks (as you see I have my stereotypes as well, but they are directed toward other Greeks).
They demonstrated what we call φιλότιμο, which is basically assisting other people to the extend of your ability out of goodness, the ability to help and without expecting anything in return, as I understand it (and as I feel it personally) only for the simple good feeling of having done something for another person. Personally, if I do something similar, I rejoice in it. If I fail to do it, for any reason, I feel hollowness blackness and guilt for having failed to do so. I believe it was similar for them.
However, this does not diminish the fact that if you tell them "why did you throw that garbage on the pavement and not in the garbage bin?" you will get the response "what do you care? Is the place yours?".
If you want to understand the Greeks, thing "teenagers" in some aspects. Rebellious, questioning authority, and all that.

Regarding your second post, sirchet is much more fit to offer advice on such issues, since he has been there and back, and I have not. When people who know more than me speak, I am silent.

 

Re: Wish me luck

It is interesting to explore this line of thought.
As I understand it, it goes like this:
Person A belongs to nation X, that is considered to perform in a superior manner on some issues (but perhaps have some other problems, as a society in some other issues). Eg, members of nation X are considered to be hard-working, to be free from corruption, but perhaps suffer from other problems as a society, eg, alcoholism.
Person B belongs to nation Y, that is considered to perform in an inferior manner on the issues in which nation (and the equivalent state) excel in. As such, the state that "represents" nation Y has an extremely poor record on corruption, members of nation Y have a similarly bad record, and they are considered by members of nations who belong to the X-nation family to be lazy. Of course, the same family of nations vie to have members of nation Y as employees, particularly with regard to high specialization jobs, but that is another matter.

Within that context, person A asks for some information, that is beyond the field of expertise of person B to give. Person B declares as much, but he makes an attempt to comply anyway. The attempt is unsuccessful for person A (although person A cannot find any mistakes in person B's report). However, this is enough for person A to consider person B "lazy", a characteristic which person B now shares with the rest of his group (although this group numbers millions). It is possible, that person B will now receive the rest of the "package", ie corrupt, immoral, etc.

Of course, person B may have done some things to help the community in which person A and person B meet, but that small point is unkown to/irrelevant for person B, since it does not fit the stereotypical argument of person B's/nation Y's "laziness".

I could think of lots of things that could go wrong, or have indeed gone wrong in the past, with this line of thought.

 

Re: Wish me luck

Man o man, guys there is a lot of interesting stuff in these essays.
But I think the arguments are getting circular.
I suggest you visit each others countries and see for yourself.

Remember what you see reported in the news media is often
information collected by people with no specialist knowledge
of a subject, then filtered through an editor to fit into a certain
number of inches or seconds, and the agenda of the media owners.

Media articles provide you with some of the facts but believe half
of what you read ect.

 

Re: Wish me luck

My point exactly.
Btw, I have nothing against Finland or the Finns, in fact I believe it must be a great country, with enviable performace against corruption (a much needed trait in my country). i stated as much, if I recall correctly.

I don't believe, however, that any such state/national performance gives people the right to be self-righteous and collectively judge a nation of millions, collectively condemning them as "corrupt".

Personally (and many more Greeks think like me, from what I see), i've had just about enough of the E.U. and the eurozone.
The E.U. binds my country with the Dublin treaty 2 (which for some reason is still valid). According to this treaty, refugees from non E.U. countries must remain in the country from which they originally entered the E.U. Due to geography, this has made southern countries the "shield" of the north against the huge influx of refugees from countries of the mid East. At this point, there are about 1-1.5 million refugees from these countries in Greece (a country of 10 million people). These refugees are "trapped" here, as Greece cannot allow them to go where they were originally planing to go (northern Europe) and Turkey (the country from which they entered Greece) won't have them back. Similar problems, although to a lesser extend, existi in Italy and Spain.

Furthermore, the euro has only managed to make us even more vulnerable to international vultures. Even the European Central Bank, which is supposed to be "saving us", bought Greek bonds from the secondary market (ie second hand, at a fraction of their normal price). These bonds were sold by their original owners at such low price, for fear of a Greek default, the rumours of which were spread (by whom, I wonder). Obviously since the ECT knew there was not going to be a default, since it was determined not to allow it (but allowed rumours to spread that it might), these bonds were bought "safely". Now, the ECT receives the full amount of returns on those bonds, making profit of up to 30% of the capital it invested to buy them at their reduced price. Smart, eh?

Of course, when this became known, the ECT stated that it's going to "distribute the profits to the central banks of the EU member countries". Will it? We will see. But even so, our current situation seems to be very profitable for those who claim to be saving us, and to be taking money from their own pockets "to give to the lazy Greeks".

Anyway, it is as you said. What will be said in teh Mass Media, and maybe equally important, what will NOT be said, is all about the agenda of the media owners.

 

Re: Wish me luck

What seems to happen is big institutes profit from any situation.

When there is a boom they make big pofits, and bonuses, and get tax breaks.
The lower orders are told we ave got to keep wages down to compete with Asia.
When the bubble bursts.
The tax payer bails them out at the cost of higher taxes, still lower wages and fewer services.
But no increase in tax for the well off.

In the Uk Star***ks has started to voluntarily pay taxes for the first time.
Through a scheme where they licensed their franchises to themselves they managed to show a loss on £400,000,000 of sales.

When it became public knowledge their UK customers voted with their feet.

Also apparently there is more than the UK deficit sitting untaxed in the Caymen Islands alone.

If everybody paid their fair share there wouldn't be an economic crisis.

 

Re: Wish me luck

Very good points. I also fail to understand the concept of bank bailouts. It's funny that neoliberals, who are supposed to have great faith in "free markets" and the ability of the markets to regulate themselves, have no problem giving taxpayers money to support the banks.
It seems that it's very easy to keep a hard line when someone else's (small) business is at risk, but when their own profits and businesses are in peril, they abandon their neoliberal views like rats fleeing from a sinking ship, and seek the safety of state money.;

Precisely, and I would like to add that if we let the market "regulate itself" as far as the banks were concerned, there would be no possibility of ever having a crisis.

400 million pounds?!?!?!?! How big is this business anyway?

btw, if you are British, there is talk here regarding Margaret Thatcher's governments, back in the day. What do british people think of Thatcher, in retrospect? Did she save Britain or did she do more harm than good?

 

Re: Wish me luck

She was a bitch.
Those who follow her religion believe her to be a saint.
It was her incompetence which caused the Faulklands Crisis, at least the Navy bailed her out.

The Tory economic policies destroyed small and mid sized manufacturing, and replaced it with the service industry, which is one of the reasons China will soon own the world.

She destroyed the stock of public houseing which lead to thousands of people sleeping rough on the street.

She created a brief boom followed by a horrendous recession.
Her seemingly economic miracle was funded by the discovery of North Sea Gas and Oil.

Interestingly Thatcher, Major(who replaced her), and Blair all went to work for American multinationals after they left office. One wonders what deals were made.
When Blair was PM some domestic firms stopped bidding for government contracts.
The bidding process was very expensive and the plum contracts always went to American firms.

I live in the UK but I actually Canadian.

 

Re: Wish me luck

What you say here certainly sounds familiar:

The same thing takes place here, small and mid sized businesses in general are being wiped out very fast. We have (or rather had) some small and mid sized clothes industries here. Even healthy ones are being forced to close down, because banks won't give any loans, and therefore the owners are unable to take some loans to buy their primary materials and manufacture their goods. So healthy businesses close down, because the banksters, whom the Greek people are forced to borrow money for, won't use this money to make the economy work. And just what are banks good for then, may I ask?

Public housing? Interesting concept. I think we have some workers' houses here (they were built in the seventies, under a Right Wing administration, imagine that). The state built them, and they were given at a small price to workers.
A big problem, though is repayment of loans taken during the pre-crisis era, for the purchase of houses. People who took these loans lost their jobs, found themselves unable to pay the (vastly increased) property taxes (people who bought a house by means of a loan are considered the owners of the house, and are required to pay the same amount of tax that people who did not take a loan for their house, therefore they have to make both mortgage payments AND increased taxes, and all that with a reduced salary, if they are not alltogether unemployed now). On top of all that, the "Greek" government is pushing for a law that will enable the seizure of the residence (in Greece it is so far illegal to seize one's residence if the person has no other home). Therefore, I think the situation here is (becoming) similar to that which you are describing.

Another similarity. Our own Giorgos Papandreou, former Prime Minister (the guy who led us the the IMF and the Troika, by falsifiyng (this time enlarging) the figures of our public debt in order to cause the credit spread to skyrocket, is now teaching at Harvard. What he is teaching is beyond me, though "A crash course on crashing the economy 101" and "Artificial increase of Public Debt" appear to be likely titles. I would love to see the course outlines, though.

Again, the same. The current government is talking about Greek oil revenues (in fact, there is already a Norwegian company searching in the Ionian sea), which, only a few years ago the same political parties were vehemently refusing we have.
It is like a pattern.

Hm, we don't have a war... yet. However, this is the Balkans. You don't need too much time to have a war here, and our good neighbors, the Turks seem to be interested in the oil revenues of the Aegean sea (the Aegean is on the east side of Greece, current searches are taking place in the Ionian, which is on the west).
I read (Naomi Klein "the Shock Doctrine") that the Faulklands Crisis was not due to incompetence but was rather an attempt to divert attention away from the economy and save her plunging popularity.

Thank you for this information, neoliberal Greeks here speak volumes of Thatcher, the "saviour of Britain" as they say.

 

In fairness to M Thatcher the last thing she wanted was a military conflict at a time when she was planning to make deep cuts in the armed forces.
She was shocked when it happened.
She did milk the war leader rep once it was over.
But Britain lost several warships and success was never guarenteed.

The invasion was launched by a military dictatorship in Argentina possibly to divert attention from internal domestic problems.

It has just recently come out that Reagan and the American administration tried to discourage a military response.
Thatcher said how would you react if it was Alaska.
The Pentagon on the other hand had made plans to lend an aircraft carrier to the British Navy if one of theirs was sunk.

In Britain there is a large stock of public housing rented at affordable rents.
Thatcher gave the tenants the right to buy, but the money raised wasn't reinvested in more affordable houseing.

 

I read somewhere that the Falklands conflict was "two bald guys, arguing over the ownership of a comb". Of course, as an outsider it is very difficult for me to know the value of these islands.

 

Oil, minerals, and fish, from the surrounding ocean.

 

Ah, thank you. That goes a long way in explaining some things.
It seems that the whole issue with those islands is re emerging.