I think you have misread what I’ve written. I keep mentioning that lending is a two party relationship and that both parties are responsible and should both suffer. I’ve agreed that the Greek government was corrupt and had shady accounting practices. But the lenders knew this and still lent money. The so called bailouts of Greece were nothing more than a means of propping up the German and French banking sector [1]. The only people that genuinely suffered were the Greek people. The bankers didn’t suffer. The taxpayers in Germany and France suffered a small amount since some of their taxes went to pay to prop up their banking sectors. However, given the nature of the single currency market and how it greatly benefits Germany this should be considered a minor cost of business and doing this occasionally is worthwhile for Germany.

Why do you ignore the fact that lenders knew the sorry state of standards in Greece and still lent massive amounts of money to Greece? Why did they continue to lend money? Isn’t the most likely reason being that the people involved in making the loans do so for short term gain knowing they won’t go to jail and they personally won’t go bankrupt? You keep neglecting to hold the lender accountable. I’ve repeatedly mentioned that borrower should suffer and is responsible. All I’ve done is mention that the lender should be held responsible too. Isn’t it obvious that the lender should be held responsible? And by lender I mean the people making the decisions not just the corporate entity.

I think clearly we won’t agree. As I mentioned before in these discussions too often people neglect to realize that lending is a two party relationship and both parties have responsibilities. My sole aim has been to point out that the lender ought to have suffered too.

[1] https://shadowproof.com/2012/05/30/greek-bailout-is-a-bank-b...