It seems to me that in this case, it's the citizens of the country standing up and saying that THEY should not have to pay for investors losses. The investors have managed to privatize gains, and socialize loses to that there is no more risk in investing. You invest, you know that your investment carries a risk; don't want to shoulder the possible loss... don't invest.
So, the citizens didn't vote in the Government that took the loans on their behalf? The citizens didn't vote to join the EU and play by a known set of rules? The citizens didn't understand those loans were actually loans, and not gifts?
Fair enough. So why should anyone - ANYONE - loan another Euro to Greece? Flush the current loans down the toilet, call it even - and survive on your own. No more loans. Sound fair?
Instead of asking for austerity, what the EU SHOULD be doing is saying to the Greeks "you wont get any more money from us unless you get rid of the corruption and collect the taxes your laws say you are supposed to be collecting". If Greece actually collected all the tax the laws say they are entitled to collect, they wouldn't be in the trouble they are in.
Wouldn't the financial pain of suddenly paying 3X the taxes be worse, to the average Greek, as the austerity plans the EU wanted to see? Getting blood either way requires about the same level of pain.
The population of Germany was about 10 times that of Greece. The typical German got about 40% of the typical Greek.
And we Americans financed the whole thing. You're welcome.
Before the Civil War they said freeing the slaves would ruin the economy. The US had to free them because it was a moral imperative. The war cost us 5% of the US population in casualties. The sum total of the monetary value of all slaves at the start of the civil war was roughly one trillion dollars in today's dollars. The slaves were freed and the US became the world's greatest economic power as a result.
Really? The US didn't become the number one economy until 1916 - about the time that most of the European powers (specifically, the UK - which was the biggest economy before the US stepped into that role) were deep into World War I. World War II pretty much cemented our position as the rest of the first world (and much of the 2nd) was bombed and broken. I don't think it was the slaves that made us the greatest economic power, but rather the fact we have two large bodies of water keeping us relatively safe from wars in Europe and Asia.
The difference is the shooting in Sydney was one, isolated incident. Compare that incident to the daily shootings in the U.S.
The vast majority of those shootings happen:
A. in cities/States where private ownership of firearms is highly restricted;
B. by people who are legally barred (for other reasons - age, criminal record, etc.) from possessing firearms
So how does adding further restrictions help this situation? We have people illegally possessing firearms, in jurisdictions which ban those same firearms, using them to commit crimes. Does another law eliminate this from happening?