Why a Greece Deal Matters: A Visual Guide

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/12/business/international/100000003795310.mobile.html

by dpflan • 11 years ago

43 103 11 years ago

nytimes.com

jawns• 11 years ago

Am I the only one who found it odd for a `nytimes.com/interactive` feature to be ... non-interactive?

andruby• 11 years ago

I also expected more from the d3 visualisations.

kwelstr• 11 years ago

A nice visual guide of all Euro countries. Some still have too much debt compared to GDP. Scandinavia seems to be doing just fine.

Amezarak4• 11 years ago

Unfortunately it's hard to see how austerity measures (in the "bailout" deal) are going to improve debt compared to GDP. It certainly didn't in Greece, where a 6% rise in debt (post-haircut) went with a ~35% increase in debt/GDP, because austerity tanked the economy.

It's also unclear what exactly "too much debt compared to GDP" means. What number is too much, and under what circumstances?

Additionally, while Finland's debt/GDP may be "fine", for your definition of fine, Finland's economy is not doing fine, thanks to the constraints imposed by the Euro and the same austerity policies in place throughout Europe. [1] [2] Even now Finland has 8%+ unemployment and 0.8% growth. Indeed for these reasons, Finland is expected to become one of the most indebted countries in Europe. [3]

[1] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/the-finnish-dise...

[2] http://www.interfluidity.com/uploads/2015/07/Greekovery.png

[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-23/is-finland-a...

kuschku4• 11 years ago

Well, one could argue that it was just a bubble that burst – but that would be ignoring a lot of the situation.

Some of the issues are that the IMF wants Greece to implement the austerity stuff on a different time scale than SYRIZA plans to, and that the population is very much against those systems (which I can understand).

If the greek government would improve their tax agency so they’d have 0 tax evasion (let’s just assume that), then with the next election, a party would get elected that changes that. The reason: Currently, greece has to pay back debts, but that means people have to pay a lot more taxes, and only see the infrastructure to become worse – leading to uproar.

Greece can’t just stop spending completely, they have to improve the situation in many places, while simultaneously improving tax collection slowly.

wolfgke4• 11 years ago

It's also unclear what exactly "too much debt compared to GDP" means. What number is too much, and under what circumstances?

It is clearly meant according to the Maastricht criteria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria

"2. Government budget deficit: The ratio of the annual general government deficit relative to gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices, must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year (based on notified measured data) and neither for any of the two subsequent years (based on the European Commission's published forecast data)."

"3. Government debt-to-GDP ratio: The ratio of gross government debt (measured at its nominal value outstanding at the end of the year, and consolidated between and within the sectors of general government) relative to GDP at market prices, must not exceed 60% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. Or if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds the 60% limit, the ratio shall at least be found to have "sufficiently diminished and must be approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace"."

Or in easier words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty

"2. Government finance:

Annual government deficit:

The ratio of the annual government deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. If not, it is at least required to reach a level close to 3%. Only exceptional and temporary excesses would be granted for exceptional cases.

Government debt: The ratio of gross government debt to GDP must not exceed 60% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. Even if the target cannot be achieved due to the specific conditions, the ratio must have sufficiently diminished and must be approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace.".

wozniacki• 11 years ago

From what I've learned as this crisis began to unfold, Greece's problems are manifold and quite intractable.

Cynics and detractors have already pointed out the corruption, cronyism, the woeful state of pension reform and rampant tax evasion.

A highly favorited comment on a different NYT piece on the Greece deal sheds light on the indifference, there:

  I was at my local tax office this morning - I figured that since most people
  here have stopped paying taxes, the timing might be good. It took me half an 
  hour to do what normally would have taken a morning (most of which would have 
  involved waiting on line).

  In the office I was dealing with, both wickets were open, and I could see the 
  office beyond. Of the five people I could see, two were at the wickets, one was 
  entertaining a succession of visitors who were not conducting business, and two 
  were doing nothing. Just sitting there. Nothing.

  I was there because I have a new (British) passport. I have a password-protected
  file on the Tax Office site, but I cannot change my number myself, because every
  such transaction in Greece begins with the assumption that the client is lying, 
  and therefore this sort of trivial business has to be done in person and the 
  number verified. Fill in a two-page form and present the passport.

  The woman I dealt with - very courteous - entered the information in my file. 
  Then she printed everything as well - several pages, nine stamps, seven 
  signatures. 

  Greece has been promising (to its creditors) to simplify, cut the red tape, 
  reduce the Civil Service, for years, but things only get worse. Syriza re-hired
  the few that the previous government laid off, knowing they didn't have money to
  pay for them.

  This is a tiny example of why no one trusts the promises of successive 
  governments. 'Give us the money now, and we'll reform later.'[1]

Let alone this mess, I wonder what had broken the spirit of the once mighty Hellenic people that they should let these national contagions fester for so long, to allow for their nation to be at receiving end of such humiliation.

I particularly want to know why certain southern European countries share this brand of indifference and fatalism about their affairs. I have observed this in Portugal too.

[1] Peter Bowen a British citizen in Crete, Greece shares his thoughts

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/world/europe/greece-debt-p...

Ygg2• 11 years ago

In before Finns are labelled lazy and corrupt.

fla2• 11 years ago

Exporting gas/oil helps alot :)

at-fates-hands• 11 years ago

If you actually look at the country's debt compared to its tax revenue, most of these countries situations become much more severe:

A better comparison is to examine each country’s debt to government tax revenue, since that is the government’s income. This also offers a better comparison because different countries have very different levels of taxation. A country with high taxes can afford more debt than a low tax country. Debt to GDP ignores this difference. Comparing debt to tax revenue reveals a much truer picture of the burden of each country’s debt on its government’s finances.

When I compute those figures, Japan is still #1, with a debt as a percentage of tax revenue of about 900 percent and Greece is still in second place at about 475 percent. The big change is the U.S. jumps up to third place, with a debt to income measure of 408 percent. If the U.S. were a family, it would be deep into the financial danger zone.

To add a bit more perspective, the countries in fourth, fifth, and sixth place are Iceland, Portugal, and Italy, all between 300 and 310 percent. In other words, these three are starting to see a flashing yellow warning light, but only three developed countries in the world are in the red zone for national debt to income. The U.S. is one of those three.

source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/07/12/forget...

Many Scandinavian countries economies have slowed somewhat recently. Norway has been nicked from gas prices coming down since its such a big oil exporter. Even with the slow down, most countries still have robust economies.

bjornsing• 11 years ago

An important difference between Greece those other countries is that Greece is borrowing in a currency it does not control...

Amezarak4• 11 years ago

If the U.S. were a family, it would be deep into the financial danger zone.

But the US government is not a family. Neither is the Japanese government. This analogy is disingenuous and one that should be eradicated from all economic thinking.

When in debt, the rational thing for a family to do is always cut expenses to the greatest extent practicable (or to declare bankruptcy, I suppose.) This is decidedly not the most rational thing for the government to do in every situation, because it can crash the economy and actually worsen the relative debt load of the country.

The US is not in danger. Interest rates are very low, sometimes still trending into negative territory. [1] The US is a sovereign nation that issues its own currency. The US can inflate its debt away, just as it did with an almost equally large debt in the late 40s and 50s. Granted, the economy needs to be growing more than it does now; in part because of anemic growth, the Fed is struggling to meet target inflation rates of 2%.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/in...

gioele• 11 years ago

Some still have too much debt compared to GDP

Some countries never defaulted except during wars (Italy, France), other did (Germany: 1931, 1953) and have now a decent debt/GDP ratio.

One can say much about Italian politics, but part of current Italian debt goes to repay debts contracted to pay war reparations back to the first world war.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/economic-histori... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_debt_crises

happyscrappy• 11 years ago

I don't understand how they plan on reducing tax evasion if it can be justified as only going to Germany anyway.

k-mcgrady2• 11 years ago

Much higher VAT? Tougher penalties for tax evasion + more thorough investigation?

leereeves5• 11 years ago

And the people of Greece would vote for a government that does that?

jandrese4• 11 years ago

I think before you talk about how to reduce tax evasion, you have to figure out why tax evasion is so high to begin with. Are local tax offices hopelessly corrupt? Does there need to be some sort of "untouchables" type operation for the Greek government to root out corruption?

Is it cultural? Does Greece simply need to make tax evasion uncool? Along with coming down on evaders like the US IRS of course.

Is the process of paying taxes simply too onerous? Can the process be streamlined with online resources and stricter employer reporting standards?

It is best if you understand the problem before trying to solve it.

dpflan5• 11 years ago

Access via a Google query: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

dpflan5• 11 years ago

If you'd like to visualize the physical amount of euros relative to the size of a human and delivery trucks: http://demonocracy.info/infographics/eu/debt_greek/debt_gree...

dpflan5• 11 years ago

From the OECD. Here are a few articles that explore the EU's approach on sovereign debt crisis. One is form 2011, and the other is from 2012. The 2012 article discusses the "Greece Problem":

  The „Greece problem‟ needs to be resolved once and for all   
  with a 50% (or larger) haircut on its sovereign debt and
  necessary ancillary policies, so that its chances
  or remaining in the euro improve. (2012)

1. 2011 - http://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-markets/49191980.pdf

2. 2012 - http://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-markets/49481502.pdf

3. Greece @ OECD.org: https://data.oecd.org/greece.htm

dimitar• 11 years ago

I'm actually surprised that the OECD has said that. Similar research has been published by the IMF as well. So these organizations have experts and yet spokesmen and officials give the opposite advice of what they tell them. Good thing they have transparency at least.

rhodri2• 11 years ago

Indeed – illustrates very clearly how governments, institutions and corporations aren't the unified hierarchies they present themselves as, and instead can be many-headed organisms pursuing sometimes contradictory aims. Compare to Samsung and Google suing each other for patent infringement while operating a revenue-share scheme on ad profits.

venomsnake• 11 years ago

The deal is terrible ... I cannot see how it will pass parliament. It is dooming Greece for a century. And on top of that the privatization fund is deeply humiliating.

dpflan5• 11 years ago

Krugman agrees that the list of demands is "madness": http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/killing-the-euro...

rhodri2• 11 years ago

Most of this bailout money will go straight back to paying interest on the bad loans that caused the crisis. Much of these loans came from banks in the very same Eurozone countries that are imposing this deal onto Greece. So much for European solidarity...

The austerity imposed on the Greek people will shrink the economy and ensure that the next few generations will be labouring in servitude to pay off the debts of the previous generations. The supreme irony in all of this is that Germany was able to thrive after WW2 in part because of the writing-off of more than half of their government debt, something that Angela Merkel has claimed is 'off the table'.

Further reading: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/29/where-did-the-g... https://medium.com/@gavinschalliol/thomas-piketty-germany-ha...

tosseraccount4• 11 years ago

Bad loans did not cause the crisis.

Bad loans are a symptom of a poor fiscal situation.

No one forced Greece to take out loans.

Consider this write up :http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-...

This was before the "Greeks as Victims" narrative gained wide currency.

“The way they were keeping track of their finances—they knew how much they had agreed to spend, but no one was keeping track of what he had actually spent. It wasn’t even what you would call an emerging economy. It was a Third World country.”

As it turned out, what the Greeks wanted to do, once the lights went out and they were alone in the dark with a pile of borrowed money, was turn their government into a piñata stuffed with fantastic sums and give as many citizens as possible a whack at it.

yequalsx3• 11 years ago

No one forced Greece to take the loans. No one forced banks to loan to Greece. Both parties are at fault. Both parties ought to take losses. Only one is in this case.

lagadu2• 11 years ago

So? Loans carry an inherent risk with them. Banks and other institutions chose to take that risk and sometimes it doesn't pay out. Why should we protect private institutions from a risk they voluntarily assumed?

Banking is not risk free, nor should it be.

digi_owl• 11 years ago

Bad loans very much created the situation.

But not loans to governments, but loans to individuals, industry and finance.

What then happened was that the crash of '07-08 came and spooked the private banks issuing those loans. Only then did the various governments step in and underwrite the bad loans to effectively bail out the private banking system.

This, along with the number of companies etc that shut down, has put a massive economic burden on said governments.

Thing is that before the euro, Greece could have depreciated its currency to make its exports cheaper. But with the euro the currency is set to the export situation of Germany.

jamespo• 11 years ago

As I understand it Greece has already had a lot of debt written off

themartorana• 11 years ago

It's pretty insane that after the referendum, Tsipras tipped his hat that he still wanted a deal (word is the government never actually did any planning for a new sovereign currency and Tsipras was secretly hoping to lose the referendum [0] ) and Germany came back with one of the most crushing term sheets possible, basically set up to remove Greek sovereignty completely. If you love history, read the term sheets [1].

I expected Greece to be pushed out of the Eurozone just on the term sheets alone. I can't possibly see how this ends without another referendum in another handful of years and a Grexit in the end, anyway.

[0] http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2015/07/12/disaster-...

[1] https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/620272062771429377/ph...

dpflan5• 11 years ago

Krugman on the "madness" of the demands and "Killing the European Project": http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/killing-the-euro...

neumann• 11 years ago

I'd like a more indepth analysis of [1] and related stories.

At a glance it seems that there is a big push for privatisation and more power for capital over labour to encourage business, which the cynic in me assumes will be for the rest of Europe to exploit.

yummyfajitas4• 11 years ago

Most of this bailout money will go straight back to paying interest on the bad loans that caused the crisis.

If that's the case, then Greece shouldn't have much of a problem. If X% of the money will go to paying interest, then the Greeks can default and their budgetary shortfall is only (100-X)%.

So why is Greece so keen on having other people send them money?

Also, no austerity can be imposed on the Greeks - Greece is a sovereign nation. Greece can choose to trade austerity for money, or they can choose to default and do whatever they like (although of course they will need to pay for it themselves).

i_don_t_know• 11 years ago

But what happens if you forgive 50%, 60% or even 100% of all Greek debt? Sure the Greeks have some breathing room and don't have to pay crippling interest for a while. But it won't fix the rampant corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, tax evasion, and downright fraud that seems to be quite systemic in Greece. At least that's the impression that I have, maybe incorrectly and unfairly. I don't know.

But the point is, if you forgive the Greek their debt, how do you know that they won't return to their old ways and ruin their country yet another time? How do you know that you won't have the same problems again 15-20 years down the road? And should you bail them out again then?

I'm not saying the proposed solution is great. It's not. But my impression is that the Greek are hemming and hawing, and doing their best to avoid any structural reforms that would prevent such a crisis from happening again. They don't seem to take responsibility for their mismanagement and they don't seem to see any reason why they should change their behavior. They put band aids on some parts and the people suffer, and the creditors are partly to blame. But no one seems to be interested in getting rid of the systemic issues like corruption, tax evasion and fraud.

I think that's the difference. The creditors don't trust the Greeks to fix their country because they don't seem to think any of it is their fault. But the creditors did trust Germany to fix its problems after WW2.

EDIT: replaced "debtor" with "creditor".

leereeves5• 11 years ago

Why would anyone lend to Greece again after debt forgiveness?

(Nitpick: the Greeks are the debtors.)

stupandaus• 11 years ago

The real reason the Greece deal matters, is the rest of the EU are looking at it as a proxy for what will happen to Spain and Italy next. These two make up a much larger proportion of the EU GDP, and are facing their own major debt crises.

tosseraccount4• 11 years ago

Spain and Italy have cut their deficits in half.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/government-budget

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/italy/government-budget

Robust growth predicted for Spain : http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/spain-economic-forecast-summ...

Robust growth is projected over the next two years, driven by very supportive financial conditions

http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/italy-economic-forecast-summ...

After a long recession, the Italian economy has started its gradual recovery. Output is projected to grow by 0.6% in 2015 and by 1.5% in 2016/

cplanas• 11 years ago

If reducing your budget matters, then Greece has a very prosperous economy. Reducing your budget does not matter if doing so sends you into a (bigger) depression that makes your debt grow.

Spanish debt is growing fast, having almost doubled since 2010 (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/government-debt-to-gdp).

nickik12• 11 years ago

This is really about a institutional setup. If Greece is allowed to make debt common to the hole EU, it will set a president.

The marekt thought that debt was held in common and bond yields were the same for everybody, now they have to make it clear to markets that this is not the case. Because if it was the case, then ALL the debt is held by everybody.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lDRRJhgiFTE/T9tShSNsaII/AAAAAAAAA...

It does not need a PhD in Game Theory to see what the likly outcome of such a system is.

Greece is in the unfortinate situation of beeing the case were this choice has to be made. Its not all their fault, but its also not their fault.

This is just on of the problems of the EU and the Eurozone.

Its my beliefe that if debt should be assumed commonly, it will break up the EU because no voters in any country would agree to this.

It is really sad, and if you want to blame somebody, its the eurocrats who have steamrolled over many economists and many others who have point out the idiocy of their plans.

kanamekun• 11 years ago

<< Its my beliefe that if debt should be assumed commonly, it will break up the EU because no voters in any country would agree to this. >>

But that's exactly what happened in the early days of the founding of the US, when Alexander Hamilton negotiated the Funding Act of 1790: "The Funding Act authorized the federal government to receive certificates of state war-incurred debts and to issue federal securities in exchange." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Act_of_1790

Without the Funding Act, the state governments would've defaulted on their Revolutionary War debt. By assuming the debt of the states, the US greatly strengthened their collective borrowing ability and also brought the states closer together into the union.

nickik12• 11 years ago

If you WANT a "United State of Europe" then yes, common debt makes sence. But in that case all nations lose their sovereignty and absolutly no nation in the EU has voted on this, and not a single one would agree to this.

I, for one, am against a United States of Europe and theirfore Im against common debt.

If we want to attempted such a project we should start by democratically asking people if they want it, not just imposing it. That EU doing this now would essentially be taking away sovereignty in a undemocratic way, and theirfore it would be tyranny.

hackuser2• 11 years ago

There is a far more serious issue at stake: The threat by the hardline creditors, most importantly Germany, as well as by 'euro-skeptics' in the UK and elsewhere, that European integration and union are not goals and ideals, but transactional economic arrangements that are good only for the money. When is the last time you heard someone argue the political and security benefits of the EU and the costs of losing it?

nickik12• 11 years ago

What are these politcal benefits? Security benefits, seams like the EU is more likly to cause war then to make it go away.

Contrary to popular belive you can make agreements without the EU. If you want to have a security agreement, create a security agreement.

JamesBarney• 11 years ago

The people creating the EU were not mistaken that the only way to create security benefits was by creating the EU. They instead were well acquainted with a popular theory that said trade and economic interdependence reduces the risk of war. The architects of the EU wanted to increase this interdependence not for economic gain but to tie together the economies of Europe so closely that war would be next to impossible.

hackuser2• 11 years ago

What are these politcal benefits? Security benefits, seams like the EU is more likly to cause war then to make it go away.

From what I understand, the primary purpose of the EU is politics and security. It was created by the survivors of WWI and WWII. They needed a way to prevent another European war, and the solution was to bind together into "ever closer union". It worked amazingly well -- one of the most successful acts of international relations I can think of -- war between EU states, who had been fighting each other for hundreds of years and had devastated the continent twice in the first half of the century, is now unthinkable. We were born with it and assume it, but from the perspective of 1945 and centuries before that, it's a miracle.

Another way to think of it: Why not have a democratic mechanism to decide common issues? Democracy is what we believe in, and the alternative is the anarchy of the strong abusing the weak.

jcranmer2• 11 years ago

Sometime in the last year. Russia's recent I-can't-believe-it's-not-an-invasion of Ukraine (combined with its unabashed invasion of Georgia several years ago) has made it clear that it deeply desires political hegemony over the former Soviet Union states. The three Baltic states have cultural memories of Soviet aggression and are deeply terrified, and membership in the EU gives them both some measure of protection (outright aggression would likely trigger military response) and a political avenue to respond that means something (pushing for tough sanctions).

There are other benefits. The shared currency and borders reduce costs of intra-EU trade (particularly beneficial for tiny landlocked countries like, say, Luxembourg). It's also another large public purse to raid for spending (e.g., CAP).

jandrese4• 11 years ago

Why is it that nobody in the Eurozone is willing to discuss the fundamental and disastrous consequences of a unified monetary policy with independent fiscal policy?

Are we going to wait until Greece has to be bailed out a fourth time? Or a fifth time? What about when Spain defaults? This is going to keep on happening until the underlying problems are addressed. Ultimately, the EU is going to need the ability to tax and spend to redistribute wealth and keep the economies working. It's the same way the US taxes New York, Massachusetts, California, etc... to give to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and so on.

I know it will be unpopular politically, but the EU really needs to make itself look more like the United States of Europe if it wants this whole unified currency thing to work. They have been trying to ignore the elephant in the room for so long that smaller countries are drowning in its shit.

cristianpascu• 11 years ago

The elephant in the room can not be that big since it could enter through the door. The EU project is nothing like US. This is the XIX, with all the economical and political complications. And we're talking about a bunch of very different countries and cultures. You don't just throw them together in a bowl and stir. USofE is a solution to a problem created by a solution that was not needed in the first place. It was an ideal. It still is. The ideal of a few that got to be shared by more and more people. But not by everyone, not with any cost.

nickik12• 11 years ago

You are right, exept when you say that the EU needs to make itself more like the US.

If people actually want that, then we might want to do so. However not a single country will vote for this. So if you don't want to force it one people, then this will not work.

kuschku4• 11 years ago

Well, especially in border regions such stuff is popular – the people living at the border between Denmark and Sweden, or the Netherlands and Belgium would prefer more unification, as for them every bit of independence of these countries means a less convenient life.

vinceguidry• 11 years ago

The EU is not a collection of states, it's an association of countries. Such a fundamental change to the nature of the political arrangement would be not just unpopular, but completely unprecedented. You'd be essentially turning all of Europe into one country. Taxation is one of those things people have very very strong feelings about, enough to go to war over.

Maybe in a few hundred years the EU might be cohesive enough for such a drastic political alteration. For now rectifying the problems caused by the currency union through the abysmally-slow process of international diplomacy is going to have to suffice. What's nice about Schengen is that at least those who are too-adversely affected can (relatively) easily move to another country with more opportunities.

jandrese4• 11 years ago

This is the problem though. They're pretending that they're all unified, and have built a monetary system on that fantasy, while in fact they are all still independent. It is an inherently unstable situation, and we can expect a steady string of financial crises until something is changed.

The latest Greek bailout is just another example of them kicking the can down the road. No problems were solved, none of the underlying issues were addressed, it's going to be a problem again in a few months. On the other hand, it looks like everybody at the table knows that the current agreement is a joke. Did you see the timetable on the massive reforms Greece is supposed to implement? They've given themselves like 3 days to completely turn their economy around. And on the European side the agreement basically says "We'll maybe consider maybe extending the payback period if you succeed in completely reforming yourself by the end of the week." It's not even a funny joke.

fla2• 11 years ago

It will never be like the US because Europe countries don't share a single language / culture, nor a common history.

The engineer in me really feels safer having many small independant systems than a single mega unified thing that is too big to fail - but it's another story.

jandrese4• 11 years ago

Having a bunch of small systems is no good if the failure of any one system brings the whole thing down.

I'm not personally convinced that a Greek exit from the Euro would be the disaster that the news outlets like to think it will be. I think it will suck for the Greeks and basically brand them as a third world country, but it is probably a better solution than a few years of crippling austerity followed by another default/bailout/more austerity.

On the other hand, a Greek exit would also mean that the Eurozone countries wouldn't be forced to examine the aggregate fiscal policy and figure out a way to prevent this sort of problem from happening elsewhere.

Why a Greece Deal Matters: A Visual Guide

Related Stories