Wikipedia is quite good on sovereign default. I think the limits of the analogy with households start to break down quite rapidly, because public debt is more subtle and complex.
Yes, the point of being a sovereign is you get to say "here's the deal, and I'm going to stick with it" -- in the case of Argentina, a 70% haircut for creditors. And then that gets priced into the cost of new loans you try to get. The vultures are trying to socialize their losses, though they pretend they're free marketeers.
That's the great thing about being a sovereign. People can sue you, and even in extremis freeze your assets on foreign soil. But you still don't have to pay, and you have a military to back you up, and you can seize assets right back if they're based on your turf. The Supreme Court's decision is, imho, idiotic.
Well, if that's what you meant, why didn't you write it that in the first place? Because you said that the Syriza government was responsible for the destruction of the Greek economy, which is very different from what you're now saying, and factually incorrect.
(And the notion that the Greek populace aren't *already* experience "an extreme amount of pain" is ludicrous. Youth unemployment above 50%. 11,000 suicides attributed to the economic contraction. Pensions down by half. Wages by a third. Running out of food and medicines. Etc)
You have heard of sovereign defaults, right? You know where Iceland is on a map? And you are of course aware of the London debt agreement of 1953?
For practical purposes, sovereigns can of course go bankrupt.
You *must* be taking the piss, right? You can't honestly be saying with a straight face that the Syriza government, which has been in power for all of six months, was responsible for the wholesale destruction of the Greek economy, can you? Are you even aware that it was the Troika and the previous government who colluded on a ludicrous austerity regime that resulted in the economy contracting by a *quarter*?
Plus, Greece was among the countries that agreed to cancel German debts in 1953! The bloody *chuztpah* of Germany now refusing to countenance doing the same. I mean, Greece may have had corrupt governments in the last few decades and allowed too many people to retire at age 55, but that's not exactly in the same league of disgusting behaviour as starting a fucking world war and murdering tens of millions. If Greece can forgive the latter and the debts caused by the latter, you'd think Germany could forgive the former.
Nearly, but not quite. Somehow, the idiots who run the Eurozone thought it would be a good idea to socialize the ibankers' losses. If Greece defaults, the banks won't lose out, as they have had their money from the ECB etc. Instead, it will be the troika, and Eurozone populations, who will take the bath. Utter, utter madness.
You do understand that the purpose of monetary union was supposed to be to integrate the countries and economies of the Eurozone, right? A bailout of Greece should be considered internal to the Eurozone. It's not a foreign bailout. One of the most invidious aspects of this whole debacle has been that a project designed to reduce nationalism is now being abused by creditors so as to stir up nationalism in both the rich north and poor south of the Eurozone.
Perhaps the moon is made of bacon.
Perhaps you actually have a functioning brain.
Perhaps homeopathy has some medicinal value.
All these statements are equally unlikely.
Or perhaps -- just perhaps -- your last-but-one post was so idiotically unrelated to the post to which it was nominally responding, that moderators with points ignored it, as I did. I can't speak for the moderators, but I can speak for myself, and that's what I did.
How fucking dim is it possible for one person to be? Mainstream medics know quite a lot, contrary to your ridiculous conspiratorial stance, and one of the things they are very aware of are the limits of what they know and what medicine can and cannot do. By contrast, it's perfectly clear from your citing of your personal anecdote you know very little indeed about what evidence in medicine actually looks like.
Once again, you're spectacularly wrong. I'm not doing this for the sake of argument. I'm doing this because you're advocating for homeopathy -- quackery that could cause people significant harm, if they act on your advice. I'm doing this because you're urging people to put RCTs to one side and trust your anecdotes, when carefully tested evidence is the only way we have to improve medicine reliably. This isn't a game. It's not a joke. It's not about arguments. It's about your potentially hurting other people with your advocacy for fraudulent medicine and not having the decency or integrity to stop.
The garbled nature of your syntax and rich array of non sequiturs are wonderfully apposite for the garbled nature of your thoughts. I'm sure there's some kind of point you had in mind when you wrote all that down, and I'm sure it leaves you thinking you've won the argument, and I wouldn't want to take that lovely feeling away from you because God knows, it's not likely you have that many other consolations in life if this post is anything to go by, so let's just leave it here, shall we?
A reply that:
- has nothing to do with homeopathy
- has an oncologist saying "you'll be dead within a year" rather than talking about probabilities, survival rates, etc
- assumes that Western medicine hasn't recognized (and indeed vigorously sought to exploit) the potential of herbal remedies
Handy hint: this kind of post does not help your cause, cos it makes you look really really dumb
- no list of lots of areas where Western medicine isn't better than non-Western
- instead, a thrilling explication of phage treatments as a treatment for bacterial infection
- plus, as a bonus, a fabulous misunderstanding of what makes an RCT an RCT and why this drives regulation and is in fact a Western idea not an Eastern idea
And you're not the OP