With interest. In dollars.

If only they had hired a single accountant to actually show up and calculate what they needed, right?

Their defense seems to be that they're a backwards country bumpkin with no economics degrees in government, who have been taken advantage of by these clever Germans who were plotting to... lose billions on unpaid loans. Those clever, clever Germans!

When it comes to credit, because it happened before and the creditor didn't get their money, that doesn't make it the status quo that can be expected. The expected result is actually lowering of credit outside the bottom of the range where loans would even be made at all, and the resulting status quo is that Greece is broke and can't borrow money. And to borrow money now, they have to make short-term payments of past debts, which is hard for them.

The amount of austerity they'd have to agree to in order to get more loans now, well, that is a lot more austerity than they would have had to accept before threatening default.

Trashing your credit is not useful when your financial plan is to run your whole country on borrowed money. If that is your plan, you have to put your credit rating ahead of everything else, because the plan is more expensive than just balancing your budget in the first place.

If Greece is the "weakest" member, and dirt-poor Bulgaria and Romania are doing just find muddling through, and in fact doing much much better than when they joined, then this myth is busted.

There are lots of countries with less who are keeping their heads above water.

This nonsense about the "precedent" that would be set by an exit is absurd. The premise of Eurozone was never that it is inevitable and that countries don't have a choice. That is absurd! If that is your position, then refusing to kick Greece out would set an even worse precedent; that your invented premise had become true!

The premise was actually that if a bunch of countries use a common currency and manage it collectively then the fiscally responsible parties will tend to maintain control, and countries that want responsible management will benefit. Individual countries will be less able to manipulate their currency to screw over their neighbors. Like the whole gimmick of wanting to devalue currency to avoid debt repayment. That is just fraud! If the currency devalues naturally, okay, debtors pay less in real money and can celebrate. But intentionally devaluing currency to avoid debt repayment, that is not something you have some natural right to. That is straight-up screwing your creditors "because you can." So in the Eurozone system, you can't. It is just one less way to screw your neighbors. If Greece ends up getting kicked out, the very positive precedent will be, "these treaties are real, these rules are real, don't borrow what you don't indent to pay if you want to be part of the modern Europe.

This presumes that Greece could not be financially responsible. You consider it so impossible, it isn't even included in your equation.

What makes Greek collapse inevitable is simply their own selves, these irresponsible behaviors you claim are guaranteed when dealing with Greece.

The intent of the Eurozone treaties is to make those behaviors undesirable, so that countries won't do those things. If it is impossible for Greece to comply, it just means it was impossible for Greece to be a long-term Eurozone member. That actually implies those parts of the treaties are functioning as desired. This behavior is not being accepted, and so the system is working.

Devaluation only benefits if business people in other countries consider you to be stable enough in the 5-10 year range for them to enter into contracts on the time scale of a generation of new factory equipment.

Greece's threatening to commit financial suicide to try to manipulate their creditors is ill-considered, because it will scare off the people they would need to turn to in order to make lemonade. Plus, Germany doesn't need to negotiate for Greece's life; Grexit isn't the end-of-the-world the Greeks would like the world to believe. Just ask the UK if Europe can survive with more than one currency. ;)

Countries that go to the IMF expecting to have to make the sort of changes to their economy that Western nations would expect in order to consider them for a "payday loan" level credit offering will do just fine. Just like a "payday loan" if you can survive without it, you should, and clearly almost everybody that applies doesn't need it and will harm themselves by taking on credit. But what if a person really did have an unexpected lump expense, and they'll actually get back "on their feet" if they can just make it through the next round of payments? Rare, but possible.

The whole point of an IMF loan is to loan money to countries who have trashed their economy and credit so bad they can't get a normal loan. These aren't supposed to be charity, or bailouts; anybody applying would squander any charity provided. They already squandered their good money, so you know they wouldn't be responsible with free money.

If an IMF loan isn't going to force a country to do what it doesn't want, and be fiscally responsible, then there is no reason for these other countries to provide the money. Just look at Greece and how much the "bailout" money helped them; it basically did not help them. And it was a huge sack of change; I'll bet if Germany had kept that money, they would have spent some of it on investments that have a real return. They gave up real treasure, for Greece to squander it; and then blame Germany, demand more sugar-candy, stop their feet, and threaten to go home. Which is where they will have ended up in a few months as the "Grexit" starts to take shape. And then they'll realize, they didn't have a ball to take home, or even their own socks. They got all their swag on loan, and didn't pay.

You whooshed pretty hard on that one. Try again sober.

I reaffirm what I said. You missed the point. And no, I didn't use a term wrong.

You regurgitated some stuff, but didn't fill in the details I alluded to.

The older ones that are as I described are not NiMH, they were replaced by NiMH. Feel free to regurgitate another batch if you want to play again.

(NiMH just suck as to this discussion, they didn't need to be mentioned)

Protip: the UK doesn't have a 4th Amendment.

They have an "unwritten constitution." They believe this makes rights more resilient, because even if somebody tries to take them away, and uses a legal process, the courts might just give them back at any time without needing specific justification.

Americans generally discount that idea, but lots of legal experts do disagree on the results, both theoretical and actual.

You don't show any understanding of rights with that statement.

Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?

All rights are given. That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges." It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.

3rd Party Vendors. It is a scary world out there. If you don't like working with it, double your prices to drive them away. Oops, now you're the highest paid person, you're the expert in what you hate. It happens all the time.

If you're willing to use proprietary COTS crapware inside a business, you'll probably get stuck with crap like SQL Server. This is a huge service to poor souls stuck working on these things and doing statistics. You can throw away a whole layer of crapware and move it into the database where you can control the functionality.

One advantage of an unwritten Constitution; the Courts might give you back your rights at some later point.

They're complaining about people using their brand in ways different than what they want the brand to be. That is their call. No, it is not whinging or whining to want to exercise your own prerogatives. If you want to use a non-licensed component, you'll have to follow some install instructions; or use a fork that supports your device and doesn't use their trademark. Pretty simple choices.

If you're complaining that you might have to do a manual installation if you use a cheap-o board, then yes I would call that whining.

You're failing to differentiate between copyright and trademark.

Lets say I take a Free Software Foundation software product. Totally Libre, right? Now I want to fork it. Guess what? I can't use any of their trademarks. I can't claim it is made by the Free Software Foundation. I can't use their name in any way that makes it sound like I'm affiliated with them, or an official licensed source of their software. I can say I forked it from their thing, sure.

Source code is not a trade name. And even when the source is Free (as in libre) there is still huge value in knowing who you got it from. In fact, that sort of knowledge helps protect Freedom, and helps me make use of that Freedom.

I use some arduino tools in making my own products. But I don't need to lie and plaster their name all over it, I can put my own name on it. And when people look at the project history, they can see any open parts I forked or included, and who I got them from. For example, all my AVR based boards, I copy from arduino design when needed, and I always use their arduino.cc-branded programmer board. There is no limit to what I can copy, just a limit on when I can claim my device "is an adruino."

That said, on the hardware side arduino mostly just copies what the AVR data sheet tells you do with the chips. ;) But notice how AVR used their own trademarks to describe the boards, instead of AVR's?