Drachmatization Within 1 Year More Likely Than Not

Tyler Durden's picture

With GGB prices, down 53% from post-PSI, plunging to all-time lows (offering Greywolf more opportunities to add to its 'no-brainer' trade) it appears Europe's ever-hopeful self-perpetuating banks are turning tail and realizing that the truth will set them free. In a turnabout from a late May note detailing 'why Greece will not leave the Euro', Credit Suisse now expects a return to some form of local currency for Greece within one year (an event they now assign a probability greater than 50%). The reason for their change of view is the slowness of structural reforms/privatizations and the lack of available capital to bail out the increasing number of distressed euro zone countries. It seems almost impossible for Greece to pull itself out of the contractionary hole it's in without additional support that few are politically able or willing to provide. Expecting another round of PSI - extending to ECB losses - and ending the ridiculous state of affairs that exists currently whereby the euro area is providing funding to Greece to enable them to repay the ECB. Ominously, they note, against the backdrop of the situation in Spain, we believe that such a development in Greece will have a highly negative impact on sentiment, further putting into question the sustainability of the euro area as a whole.

Credit Suisse: Greece – the return of the drachma is becoming more likely

The probability that some form of local currency is reintroduced has increased in our view, and is now greater than 50% on a 1-year horizon. This doesn’t necessarily mean Greece imminently needs to leave the EU/euro area – the new currency and the euro could be run in parallel – although that too has become more likely in our view. In short the reason for our change in view is the slowness of structural reforms/privatizations and the lack of available capital to bail out the increasing number of distressed euro zone countries. It seems almost impossible for Greece to pull itself out of the contractionary hole it’s in without additional support that few are politically able or willing to provide.


One near-term solution that strikes us as particularly attractive would be for the ECB to restructure its Greek bond holdings – on a notional flat basis into debt of a similar maturity profile to that issued under PSI for private creditors. The issue of subordination would be immediately reduced, with the ECB viewed to have ultimately had to take similar losses (on a pv basis) as everyone else, and the (crazy) current situation whereby the euro area is providing funding to Greece to repay the ECB would go.


Rather than coming up with an additional €50bn bailout program (which is an estimate of ours should Greece get a two-year extension) the already agreed funding could be used to fund the slippage in the program, supporting Greece directly and giving the country a chance to get back on its feet following the lost months surrounding the debt exchange and dual elections.


While we believe that the reintroduction of a local Greek currency would be done in an orderly manner, against the backdrop of the situation in Spain, we continue to believe that such a development in Greece will have a highly negative impact on sentiment, further putting into question the sustainability of the euro area as a whole. We are of the view that the point can be reached whereby Greece is able to exit the euro area without prompting considerably wider stress, but we are not there yet – the necessary policy infrastructure is not in place, and the situation in the rest of the periphery is too fragile.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LULZBank's picture

Dramatization Bitchezz!!!

Deo vindice's picture

If they had listened to Nigel Farage a couple of years ago, everyone would be spared the ongoing drama over the drachma today.

The currency crisis throughout the world is a direct result of refusing to see and put into place the remedies that will work and continue to experiment with proven losing strategies.

The definition of idiocy: doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.

However I am not convinced that they are actually idiots. This has all the hallmarks of a planned destruction of national currencies.

walküre's picture

Drachmatization is so 2012.

Pissetamutation in 2013.

Martin W's picture

Armagedonization in 2014

Nussi34's picture

Can we please get rid of the Ikarus, eh Euro too!

RobotTrader's picture

Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Argentina, Iceland, Ireland, Greece


Doesn't matter, they are all the same.

1) Old worthless fiat will be replaced with new fiat

2) Pyramid Ponzi banking schemes will get bigger, not smaller

3) Same Alpha Thugs will remain in control, even expanding their power

4) No sign of a specie-backed currency anywhere despite the 100's of fiat currency flops the last 200 years

5) Defaulted, bankrupt countries will rise again, floating on the flotilla of newly created "Infinite Fiat"


Can you spell "Wash, Rinse, Repeat"?

SheepDog-One's picture

Nice bottom call on the IBEX there douche nozzle.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

neg me too!  Bring out the red arrows! 

Today I agree with RobotTrader. :-(


Credit Suisse now expects a return to some form of local currency for Greece within one year (an event they now assign a probability greater than 50%).

Me, myself and I expect some form of increased fiscal union within one year for Euroland and [a lot] less sovereignty for Greece (an event me, myself and I now assign a probability of greater than 99.0815%).


Of course ... RobotTrader is [again!] using 20/20 hindsight for his "predictions" ... and ... I am [again] making unfounded predictions for the future.  Disclaimer: I ainT as smart as those fellas in Suisse.

Byte Me's picture

Sux to get an up arrow eh?

hugovanderbubble's picture

Pesetatización¡ => Spanish Megadevaluation from 35-50% -65% --------1 EURO = 266-300 pesetas?

youngman's picture

Why not adopt the Chinese Yuan...its going to be backed by gold soon...and will be a much stronger currency....

Peter Pan's picture

China has made great strides but it does not have enough gold to back the incredible imbalances and banking mess that she has herself.

Peter Pan's picture

One more knot on the Gordion Knot is all I can say about the proposals floated and not a single Alexander the Great in sight to make the bold decision to slash the debt.



TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

Please stop insulting Alex by associating him constantly with Greece:  Alex was a Makedon!

Peter Pan's picture

You have already insulted him by calling him Alex. Although this post is not about Alexander the Great, I do not propose to debate you on a point that has already been settled by linguists, historians and the archaeological record. The again, you can believe whatever you want if you have no truths to cling to.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

Sorry Alex, errr, Lord Alex.

Were the linguists, historians and archaeologists by any chance "greek"?

I am still searching for the Truth.  Congratulations that you have found it!

zuuuueri's picture

yes, he was.... and that means greek. just like solon was athenian, and that means greek. just like leonidas was spartan, and that means greek, and so on and so forth.

The idiotic propaganda story cooked up by politicians in the 20th century (primarily tito's communist regime) has nothing to do with historical reality. Sadly, though, a bunch of morons
in skopia have been taught that garbage in schools and have it repeated to them so often that they don't know any better. Also sadly, enough morons in the west who ought to know better have also decided that learning history is not as important as watching american idol, and this also no longer know any better. do yourself a favor and learn some history.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

So ... from whom should I learn this "History", which you speak so fondly of?

I assume you would not approve of this source (a Professor of Ancient history at the University of Oxford)?

... The Macedonians themselves were not Hellenes ... They were a distinct race, ...

(emphasis his, *not* mine)

Please, tell me your university.  Yours must certainly be better than Oxford?  Please provide me a link to the wisdom of your university!

Wtf is American Idol?  Do i have to google that now too? 

zuuuueri's picture

Took a quick look at that rubbish. The guy does not name a single source for any of his claims.

You want some sources? how about plutarch and arrian?

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html (english translation)


(sorry, quick google search found me greek text and german translation there)

The facts: Macedonians spoke a greek dialect in ancient times. They considered themselves greeks. Alexander himself, speaking greek, made his entire career around the policy of spreading greek civilization eastward.

More facts: the majority of the people living in skopia (FYROM) these days are the descendants of slavs and bulgarians who migrated into the balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD - a thousand years after alexander's time. In the 20th century, beginning with the political confusion of the collapsing ottoman empire, greatly gathering steam with the rise of the communist regimes, and culminating with the collapse of those regimes in the 90s, there were numerous organized efforts by the new political entities to lay claim to old history, it was the style of the day (and generally a common strategy) to try to establish links with old and well known history as a mechanism of propping up the legitimacy of young and wobbly governments.

More facts: greeks in the classical period, who were pretty much never politically united, used the term 'barbarian' against their opponents the way americans in the 50s used the word 'commie' against their opponents or the way catholics and protestants both called each other heretics and unchristian during the reformation (and probably since). It didn't matter if it was true, it was a term of vilification. For a clear explanation of that issue, I suggest Isocrates (a different fellow, not socrates ;)  They did use the word barbarian for obviously foriegn (barbarian) peoples too, but they often threw the term at each other whenever possible as well. The couple of uses of this term against phillip, made by politicians mostly in athens during the time when athens was leading a fight against phillip, constitute the entire foundation for modern propagandists' claims about macedonia not being greek. The fact that they spoke a greek dialect is so widely established that you really do have to dig deep into the crackpot realm to find any claim to the contrary, sorry your oxford prof falls in that category, and the fact that they themselves in their own words called themselves greek (and said so in greek) should be a vastly stronger signal than some vitriol from an opposing politician whipping up fiery speeches, much less some modern crackpot with an agenda.





TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

+1, thank you for your time.  I will read and reread your post.

btw, occured to me, that "emphasis" is probably not his.  The emphasis was likely added by that Makedon propaganda site.

edit:  like i said above, a Greek historian, your Plutarch.  A Greek historian will always claim Alex.

But Apelles, who drew him with thunderbolts in his hand, made his complexion browner and darker than it was naturally; for he was fair and of a light colour,

What did that southern greek artist have against him being different?


Zumindest is Arrian kein Grieche...

zuuuueri's picture

Individual artistic license and a critic disagreeing with it. There are blond greeks and dark haired greeks, just as there ad blond and dark haired germans, englishmen, etc. The 'fair' vs 'dark' obsession is a red herring. One of the things which leads to a lot of trouble is an attitude prevalent in NW europe in the first half of the 19th century: they, with their whole civilization built on top of greek and roman antiquity, had a fair lot of hero worship going on for the foundational cultures to which they saw themselves as the rightful heir. But in that very same era that steam-powered english and french empires were conquering the mediterranean and the near east, bringing back a flood of art etc, they also got a lot of exposure to the descendants of those very same people... and they were tremendously disappointed to find that they were normal humans like everyone else. There was a childish attitude that insisted, demanded, that their heroes be 10 feet tall and godlike and perfect - you see they worshipped their idealized version of greeks, but when they met real greeks they were shocked that their ideal was just that, and they instead declared that these people simply cannot be greek. that left some nuggets for the political propagandists of the 20th century to exploit as well, you can imagine!

Through the 19th century looting of artwork turned into proper archaeology, and by the late 19th century we had discovered for example the whole bronze age. It wasn't til the middle of the 29th century that michael ventris decisively proved that the bronze age characters of the iliad indeed wrote greek (linear b) but by then the picture had been conclusively put back together anyway.

Back to my original point. The first half of the 19th century (consider the darwin only published towards the middle of the 19th c!) and its hero-worship of idealized greeks, who must all be 10 ft tall abd blond, was full of attention to the blondness of people.

You will find that while people on the northern shores of the mediterranean (greeks for example) are on average darker than say germans, especially when you remove the 'dark'ness that is environmental (exposure to much stonger sunlight for one, both directly from the sunny climate and also from wearing less clothing because its much warmer) , you have fairer and less fair people both in greece and in e.g. germany, and generally european latitudes are not extreme enough (say 35-55 north) for there to be much validity to theories about fairness and any kind of racial identity.If you get more extreme (say, scandinavia versus africa) you might see enough difference in environment that you have a very strong selection for darker or lighter complexion. In europe, it's a moderate environment and other aspects are more important. fairer or less fair simply doesnt mean much in that zone.


Now, the broader question of genetic makeup is itself a complex issue and also has a dozen political agendas hanging off of it clouding the truth.

To _very briefly_ summarize the _genetic_ stock of greeks through the ages, i will give the following:

(paleolithic) neanderthal remains found in various places, from >200ky to ~30ky before present

(mesolithic) francthi cave and skiathos island for example have plenty of evidence of hunter0gatherer activity and occupation from 10ky bp to their displacement by neolithic cultures

(neolithic) seems like the fist neolithic cultures were brought by sea from SW anatolia around 8 ky bp. established in various places, no indication that there it must have been a single colonization from a single point. Later neolithic evidence is richer and shows regional diversity, but the neolithic cultures spread into europe from the landing point in the aegean- because of the populaiton explosion that coompanies farming it is likely that whoever those people were left a significant mark in the gene pool of the rest of european peoples ever since.

(late neolithic) external colonizations of the 'greek' world seems to have ended by about 7ky bp as the regions population was by then already swollen from farming wherever that was feasible.

colonization of the smaller islands in the aegean (aside from crete which shows evidence of colonization going back to the first big wave of neolithic peoples in the region) begins around 6500y bp and continues in two streams over a period of some centuries - from both SW anatolia and from attica, peloponese and thessaly. By about 5500y bp the aegean islands (incl crete) are fully colonised by farming people and have already developed their own seafaring/trading/manufacturing culture which is the nugget of later greek culture.

(bronze age)

5000 ybp cycladic cultures at the forefront.

4500 ybp crete dominates the aegean with the emergence of sailing ships.

4400-4200 ypb migrations of cow-ranching, wagon riding peoples akin to the cow-ranching wagon riding peoples who later also migrated into iran and india (3800-3500 bp) migrate into the southern balkans, through thrace and across through macedonia and clear across to epirus (and the regions further north). These people speak a language which is the ancestor of greek. This proto-archaic-greek or whatever youd like to call it is also related to now extinct thracian and illyrian languages (modern albanian has basically nothing to do with illyrian, but thats a different political mythology of the 20th century we'll keep for a different discussion!!).

Some of these people migrate further south into the sphere of the aegean civilizations. Unlike other places their culture has migrated, greek geography (rugged mountains and more exposure to the sea than to other land) is totally inappropriate for their cow ranching wagon riding culture. Thhroughout the region each localized area has its own version of how the collision of peoples worked out but the archaeological record shows that the material culture of the aegean peoples survived and they absorbed the newcomers. The language of the newcomers predominated but many words from the previous language were adopted into greek (the -nthos -ssos ending words for example).

By 3500 bp these peoples have pretty much completely mixed and there is no meaningful distinction between one or the other. Some fragments of the old language are suspected to have survived into the iron age (e.g. the lemnos inscriptions, and suspected relationships with etruscan) but we only have conjecture at the present. By the late bronze age a common identity is forming among these people who speek greek (there were several dialects but they were mutually intelligible, think of australian vs american vs british english) and live more or less a common culture, closely tied to the sea.

Also by the late bronze age (3500-3200 ypb or so) as this common identity is emerging, anomalies beocme apparent: people who speak languages in the same family who however don't live the same material culture. The northerly and more mountainous regions were inhabited by basically the same people, but because of their geography, they were isolated from the seafaring, wealthy, urban culture and lived mostly by herding animals. The fact that they were the same people and spoke the same language set up a huge divide - they were hillbillies, poor, uncultured slobs, a disgrace to the family, so to speak. As the common greek identity emerged the snobbish attitude of the urban folks (more 'southern' if you will) against the others becomes very pronounced. However, as soon as any of those hillhilly greek-speakers builds a city, they get welcomed into the family.

the last real change in the stock of the 'greek' region and people is in the bronze age. From that time on, the matter becomes increasingly cultural instead. For example, in the late bronze age (3500-3100 ybp) greek colonization of SW asia minor (ironically the source of neolithic colonizatoin of greece some millenia before) was intense, and involved both many greek colonists establishing themselves and building cities up and down the region , but also the hellenization of people like carians and lycians. That process continued until by the late classical period those people identified as greeks (and were recognized as greeks).

(iron age)

internal migrationof dorian hillbillies further south gives a good example of this phenomenon.

And here we have the key to the whole greek/not greek business for people like macedonians. In the 8th century bc, macedonia was still considered hillbilly land. They still spoke the same language and still considered the same major cult sites (delos, olympus, delphi, dodona, for example)  but the city folks in the south considered them to be uncultured boors. By the 5th century bc they developed economically to the point where the old (preserved in literature, however) attitude no longer applied. they were accepted as 'proper' greeks though there was still a bit of attitude. there was attitude between brits and yankees for a century and then some after american independence, and that in an age of the telegraph and the steam ship and the printing press!

ancient sources understand this. Of course most of your ancient historians will be greek! your main choices there would be greeks or romans! and even that is blurred because a lot of the greek historians (plutarch for example) lived under the roman empire and were subjects, sometimes even citizens, of rome.

(hellenistic era) alexander spread greek culture far and wide. He established dozens of cities as far asway as the fergana valley (alexandria eschate) all on a greek model and he tried to settle seed populations of colonists from greece to ensure a greek character to these regions.

He partially succeeded. Consider the bactrian and kushan kingdoms where they preserved the greek language and some of the culture, eventually mixing into greco-buddhist cultures before being wiped out by invaders several centuries later - in such a rmeote place as modern afghanistan!

After alexander, greek language and education were rather like english today - the international standard. Actual cities full of greeks (and locals married into greek colonist families as well) all across alexander's empire persisted for centuries later throughout the region.This is called the hellenistic age because indeed the hellenized peoples were probably more numerous than 'actual' greeks , for many centuries.

(roman era)

Rome has its hero worship relationship with greece as well. They military dominate greek cities but culturally they import and copy as much of greek civilizatoin as they can possibly manage. Roman authors by the end of the republic are complaining that there are more greek words in their daily vocabulary than latin words, etc. They send their children to greek tutors.

The only real change in settlement in the greek speaking world during the roman era was the establishments of , essentially, estates given as compensation to retired roman soldiers, especially in the conquered lands in the balkans, in dacia (modern romania), and in parts of asia minor. In the greek regions, population desntiy was already way higher than the local food production could support and land was already owned down to the last inch - no room for settlement there, so the roman colonies are found north of a line roughly from mesembria (modern burgas in bulgaria) and dyrrachion (modern durazzo). The descendants of thse roman colonists are the vlachs.

(byzantine era)

roman empire essentially performes a controlled collapse and morphs into the byzantine empire over some centuries. latin remains the official language even though by the 6th century it is actually one of those arcane fields that a young man will study because there's a government career in knowing it- nobody else really uses the language anymore- and as the western roman empire disintegrates the hellenistic part of it is what sticks together.

Christianity takes over and with it comes a whole new layer of identity. calling oneself 'greek' starts to be discouraged by the christians, who associate the word with pagan religion.

Many aspects of pagan greek culture survive (for example the xelidonaia , a spring festival, continued to be celebrated throughout the empire until it was banned by the church in the 9th century ad) but over time identity of the greek and hellenistic population is morphed into people identifying themselves as christian romans. Islam expands in the 7th and 8th centuries and swallows much of the near east, leaving pockets of hellenic and hellenistic culture in various forms of isolation, often with christian-roman identity. Alexandria still had a large greek population until the 1960s for example (when they were evicted by the rising tide of arab nationalism).

In the 600s, slavs migrate into the balkans. Over the next 2 centuries they are christianized and partly hellenized by the byzantine empire, which still considered greek language to be a necessary ingredient, but alongside christian religion. The slavic settlement is patchwork- they settled into regions left largely depopulated by centuries of wars and invasions in the balkans from the 4th to 7th centuries. The cities remained intact but often the surrounding countryside was abandoned as people fled the barbarian invaders. In the 7th century you have the image of the balkans largely as a disconnected collection of cities and fortresses still participating in the byzantine empire, and the further 'south' you go into whats modern greece the more densely populated and dnsely urban the landscape was - not much room for slavic settlement there, though in some patches it occurred. By the 9th century byzantine administration is restored over the whole region and it becomes clear where the slavs have settled and where they have not. Aside from scattered hamlets some of which even were in the peloponese, there is broadly a line you can draw across the balkans not very different from the modern borders of greece (plus the part of thrace held by modern turkey) and south of that line preserved its greek population and laguage, north of it, greek was ever after only a language of administration or scholarship, the population spoke slavic dialects predominately.

Various people with political agendas will magnify or diminish the degree or boundary of slavic settlement during this period. If you strip away all the BS, you find that north of that zone i describe, the population was ever after predominantly slavic, and south of that line predominantly greek. Thrace and much of modern day bulgaria south of roughly a line between mesembria and philipopolis (modern plovdiv) was also 'core' byzantine territory and in the greek zone, until the end of the 19th century and modern 'nationalist' states emerge with organized efforts at claiming territory by forcibly altering demographics.

Towards the end of the byzantine era as the empire was beginning to collapse, the 'greek' identity came free again from stigma placed on it by the church. since everyone was christian for so long, the old importance of eradicating pagan sentiment was so obsolete that it was completely forgotten. Throughout the entire byzantine empire's history, classical greek literature was the center of all formal education, though they slapped christian theology onto the side of a lot of it to prevent pagan ideas from spreading. By the 13th and 14th centuries,as the empire started to shrink, and especially after the 4th crusade showed how deep the cultural divide was between byzantium and the catholic west, people no longer were afraid to call themselves greek. They still considered themselves christians and romans, and indeed clung to the roman title to the very end - indeed officially when constantinople fell in 1453, it was still formally the capital of the roman empire. However, especially in the 14th and 15th centuries, the term greek became acceptable and was no longer a threat to the church.

(ottoman era)

in the 15th century the collapse of byzantium allowed the ottoman turks to conquer much of the old empire, ultimately taking the capital in 1453. The turks called all greek-speaking people 'rum', i.e. romans, and generally drew lines of distinction between christains and moslems, and among the christians, drew lines between the ones who spoke greek, versus the ones who spoke slavic languages or armenian. The turks themselves were almost entirely converts in any case- the only real 'turkish' blood that had come into asia minor was some horsemen in a couple of invading armies in the late 11th century. Anarchy and corruption in byzantium in that era led to the central part of anatolia hosting a moslem state and over the next ocuple of centuries most of the population converting. By the 16th century 'turk' means 'moslem' and the two terms are used interchangably, both in the ottoman world and in western europe.

The modern turkish national identity in the state of turkey is largely an invention of Kemal's regime in the 1920s and 1930s.

In the ottoman empire, religion was the major source of identity. Pressure to convert to islam become stronger after the 1600's and from the 1700s moslems ('turks') and non-moslems tended to segregate their communities, idfferent parts of town or different villages. Many greeks (and armenians, and slavs) converted to islam to advance their careers, on top of those in the countryside who were often converted more forcefully.

By the 19th century when the ottoman empire really fell apart, the concept of identity was tangled, geographically mixed, and ripe for exploitation by everybody with an agenda all over the place. By the 20th century, dozens of 'scientific' theries had been thrown out there confuing the hell out of the matter. Anyone who doesn't build a literally couple of thousand year deep familiarity with the region is in danger of being misled by such propaganda.

The bronze age greeks spread colonists far and wide and their descendants in the iron age not only established direct colonies almost everywhere in the mediterranean and black sea (from marseille to odessa to georgia to aledxandria etc) but then spread their culture so intensely on to other peoples that the distinction eventually had to become more a matter of language and culture and not one of descent.. but the people making up wild theories in modern times try to distort or erase the truth to claim it for their own in order to further some political agenda.

Since that age of greek culture spreading so far and wide and greek identity with it, indeed it kind of has fallen back on the old 'core' of the actual ethnically greek homeland as it was in the era right before the hellenistic- roughly what's modern greece, western asia minor, the part of thrace held by modern turkey, cyprus, and until the past few centuries, sicily, magna grecia in s. italy, and a few scattered old colony cities like odessa and aledanxria. the greek identity eventually came back to only really hanging on in the core region which also happened to more closely correspond to the populations descended mostly from those bronze age populations, but that's partly just a coincidence of historical events. You still find greek speaking settlements in scattered places throughout the near east, and even in modern turkey you find about half a million people who , while moselem and identifying as turks, speak a greek dialect. The greeks of asia minor were wiped out in the 1920s (combination of genocide and ethnic cleansing, many were killed and many were forced to leave).

Consider the greek phenomenon like a supernova - it expands, spreading through wide regions, and then explodes, spreading itself far and wide - but some amount at the center falls back onto the core, small and solid, whereas the wider dispersal spreads furhter and further and while it continues to dissipate and mix with other matter as it spreads, it spreads damn near everywhere around and becomes part of the formative material of new stars and planets all about. Come back later and those planets are in a sense the descendants of that supernova as well, though you have the dwarf star still there that's the 'proper' heir.. since the history is brilliant you have people trying to claim it, and since it once upon a time spanned a much bigger territory you have people trying to claim territory by claiming it..


TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

wow, and i thought i was gonna die in a few years roughly as stupid as i was yesterday... You have certainly enlightened me.

BTW- that meme i posted up top about Alex = Makedon.  I had that from a Macedonian on the Internet.  He was just bursting with national pride.  I had wondered, "how will i ever find out: 'what really happened'."  Now i know ... thanx!

zuuuueri's picture

:) glad to be of service.

ah, it's sometimes funny and sometimes sad to see that kind of sentiment based purely on hot air and fairy tales invented within living memory!

the balkans (north of the greek border, greece is not the balkans, not culturally, historically, and not really even geographically) are kind of europe's cultural secondhand store... lotta people wearing things that didnt originally belong to them, which clash, dont fit well, or aren't even being worn as originally intended... lotta people pretending to be something else, for all kinds of reasons.. and actually surprisingly _short_ and selective memories and hot tempers. we can largely thank greedy politicians (of half a dozen different flags and allegiances) for that mess.

greece, though, is kinda like the dwarf star, still dreaming back to the good ol days saying 'you shoulda seen me back then, kiddo'.. the greek _state_, of course, is a modern perversion.

yrad's picture

"We are of the view that the point can be reached whereby Greece is able to exit the euro area without prompting considerably wider stress, but we are not there yet"

In other words, we dont quite have enough toner yet..

Debtonation's picture

Greece is still in the Eurozone? I thought the Troika had fattened them up and slaughtered them so they could be fed to Merkel and Sarkozy.

asteroids's picture

It's mathematically impossible to climb out of the hole. There will be no more bailouts. What will come will benefit the 1%. There will probably be "blood in the streets." Sad to say, that will be the time to buy.

Saro's picture

"Smokey, this isn't Global Finance.  This is bowling.  There are rules."

youngman's picture

Its kind of funny in a dark humor way...but the ECB gives Greece bailout money to pay the ECB for a previous bailout...and they think they have it solved....lol...someone in the meeting has to say...."hey...this is stupid"...maybe not...its pretty good food in those meetings

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

The US Citizens are no different.  The Fed buys new bonds to roll over old bonds.  It's the same system on both sides of the Pond.  Both are US Citizen countries.

(where is AnAnon today?!)

Peter Pan's picture

There is a slight difference in that the USA will continue to be the United States of America even if the dollar collapses. If the Euro collapses they will all pack their bags and go back to being who they were before the advent of the Euro.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

Really?  And you are absolutely certain of your assertion?


US Citizens always assume that Universal Laws do not apply to themselves.

Peter Pan's picture

Read what I wrote. The dollar may be gone but the US will still be the US.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

And ... just what would George Washington have to say?


US Citizens believe that on a long enough timeline the survival rate of the US donT drop.


sudzee's picture

I know of more than a few families who purchased the "universal money" for just this kind of problem. I guess they will be just fine whatever the local currency is.

zuuuueri's picture

everyone in greece who has any savings left (and yes, while many people did lose it in consumerism and debt, greece still has one of the lowest levels of debt among private citizens and still some slice of society who, gosh, live within their means and try to save!) has been sending it abroad or sinking it into property, because everyone is expecting an argentina style bank holiday sooner or later- close the banks, convert deposits to drachmas, instant revaluation, capital controls and withdrawl limits on top of the rest..

ak_khanna's picture

A single currency for an economy as strong as Germany on one hand and relatively weaker economies like Greece or Ireland on the other is not sustainable in the long run. The idea of the stronger countries in the Euro zone to keep on bailing out the weaker ones repeatedly will be a difficult one to sell to the citizens of the economically stronger countries.