The Greek parents too poor to care for their children (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16472310)
QuoteGreece's financial crisis has made some families so desperate they are giving up the most precious thing of all - their children.
One morning a few weeks before Christmas a kindergarten teacher in Athens found a note about one of her four-year-old pupils.
"I will not be coming to pick up Anna today because I cannot afford to look after her," it read. "Please take good care of her. Sorry. Her mother."
In the last two months Father Antonios, a young Orthodox priest who runs a youth centre for the city's poor, has found four children on his doorstep - including a baby just days old.
Another charity was approached by a couple whose twin babies were in hospital being treated for malnutrition, because the mother herself was malnourished and unable to breastfeed...
Horrified and speachless.
That is awful. Is Greece getting any aid at all from other countries?
Quote from: Budhorse4 on January 10, 2012, 04:03:26 PM
That is awful. Is Greece getting any aid at all from other countries?
Not as far as I am aware. In fact quite the opposite is true. The countries that use the Euro as currency have wildly different economies with Germany dominating. Germany lent Greece a lot of money so it could buy the consumer goods that Germany produces. But the Greeks borrowed too much and in the banking crisis Germany said pay back what you owe, which the Greeks could not. Thus the Germans could have forced Greece to go bankrupt. But that would have been unacceptable (but still could happen). But Greece was forced to apply massive debt control measures and this problem is undoubtedly one of the problems.
Europe is in a sorry state at the moment too many people and countries with too much debt and poor economic growth that stops the debt being paid off. I'm no economist, but when you watch economists on the TV they all look completely bewildered and frankly scared.
This literally gave me chills. I am so sorry to hear about this happening. Those poor people - how heartbreaking!
I don't know what the answer is; but the distribution of wealth in this world is fucked up.
Its awful. How can anyone in good conscience buy themselves a leer jet when children are starving and hardworking people can't afford medical care? I just heard from my ex boyfriend who is diabetic. He lost his job and couldn't afford his meds. He now has permanent nerve damage. :( I knew a woman a couple of years ago who couldn't afford her breast cancer treatments. The world has gone insane.
I'm almost crying reading this... It's too much.
It hurts so much to think of overpaid athletes and singers when real working parents can't afford to feed their children. And to see it happen in Greece.. Wow.. It really hurts. Something needs to be done about the economies and selfish gov.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 11, 2012, 04:16:42 AM
I'm almost crying reading this... It's too much.
It hurts so much to think of overpaid athletes and singers when real working parents can't afford to feed their children. And to see it happen in Greece.. Wow.. It really hurts. Something needs to be done about the economies and selfish gov.
Well part of the problem here is decades of un-selfish government. The Greek 'economy' was firmly based on a lot of public subsidies. That's all well and good but the rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes! So now the government has had to cut back these subsidies and people employed by the 'un-selfish' government now don't have a job.
Quote from: Tank on January 11, 2012, 09:06:08 AM
Well part of the problem here is decades of un-selfish government. The Greek 'economy' was firmly based on a lot of public subsidies. That's all well and good but the rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes! So now the government has had to cut back these subsidies and people employed by the 'un-selfish' government now don't have a job.
Personally, I don't consider consistently spending more than you take in taxes to be 'unselfish' government. It seems more like a selfish short term policy of pleasing people now in order to win votes and be re-elected at the expense of future governments and generations. That's what's been going on in western democracies for far too long, and countries like Greece and Italy did it with wreckless abandon to the point where they've now pretty much bankrupted the countries.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 11, 2012, 02:00:08 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 11, 2012, 09:06:08 AM
Well part of the problem here is decades of un-selfish government. The Greek 'economy' was firmly based on a lot of public subsidies. That's all well and good but the rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes! So now the government has had to cut back these subsidies and people employed by the 'un-selfish' government now don't have a job.
Personally, I don't consider consistently spending more than you take in taxes to be 'unselfish' government. It seems more like a selfish short term policy of pleasing people now in order to win votes and be re-elected at the expense of future governments and generations. That's what's been going on in western democracies for far too long, and countries like Greece and Italy did it with wreckless abandon to the point where they've now pretty much bankrupted the countries.
I agree. I should have added that unsustainable public spending is presented as 'un-selfish' it is the exact opposite. There needs to be a good balance between public funding and taxation that all people in the system have a civilised standard of living and that people with above average skills, capabilities etc can exploit them for their own benefit and indirectly for all those around them. A society should be judged not on how rich its rich are but how rich its poor are.
Quote from: Tank on January 11, 2012, 02:05:40 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 11, 2012, 02:00:08 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 11, 2012, 09:06:08 AM
Well part of the problem here is decades of un-selfish government. The Greek 'economy' was firmly based on a lot of public subsidies. That's all well and good but the rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes! So now the government has had to cut back these subsidies and people employed by the 'un-selfish' government now don't have a job.
Personally, I don't consider consistently spending more than you take in taxes to be 'unselfish' government. It seems more like a selfish short term policy of pleasing people now in order to win votes and be re-elected at the expense of future governments and generations. That's what's been going on in western democracies for far too long, and countries like Greece and Italy did it with wreckless abandon to the point where they've now pretty much bankrupted the countries.
I agree. I should have added that unsustainable public spending is presented as 'un-selfish' it is the exact opposite. There needs to be a good balance between public funding and taxation that all people in the system have a civilised standard of living and that people with above average skills, capabilities etc can exploit them for their own benefit and indirectly for all those around them. A society should be judged not on how rich its rich are but how rich its poor are.
It should never get this bad. That shows a system that doesn't working. I can't even imagine how those parents or children feel.
Quote from: Traveler on January 10, 2012, 06:54:05 PM
Its awful. How can anyone in good conscience buy themselves a leer jet when children are starving and hardworking people can't afford medical care?
Hm. Well, you might consider how you own a computer in good conscience in exactly those conditions. Do you only eat what you need to survive? Does your money go towards anything that isn't absolutely necessary for survival? If these conditions don't hold then I fail to see how you can take such a haughty tone towards the wealthy.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 11, 2012, 02:00:08 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 11, 2012, 09:06:08 AM
Well part of the problem here is decades of un-selfish government. The Greek 'economy' was firmly based on a lot of public subsidies. That's all well and good but the rich Greeks didn't pay their taxes! So now the government has had to cut back these subsidies and people employed by the 'un-selfish' government now don't have a job.
Personally, I don't consider consistently spending more than you take in taxes to be 'unselfish' government. It seems more like a selfish short term policy of pleasing people now in order to win votes and be re-elected at the expense of future governments and generations. That's what's been going on in western democracies for far too long, and countries like Greece and Italy did it with wreckless abandon to the point where they've now pretty much bankrupted the countries.
True. And to answer an above country, yes, Europe certainly has been infusing Greece with aid. That does not negate the predatory aspect of Germany's behavior. There really are no innocent parties here (speaking on the institutional and state levels).
Quote from: Will37 on January 12, 2012, 10:44:45 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 10, 2012, 06:54:05 PM
Its awful. How can anyone in good conscience buy themselves a leer jet when children are starving and hardworking people can't afford medical care?
Hm. Well, you might consider how you own a computer in good conscience in exactly those conditions. Do you only eat what you need to survive? Does your money go towards anything that isn't absolutely necessary for survival? If these conditions don't hold then I fail to see how you can take such a haughty tone towards the wealthy.
I don't agree with the sort of attitude that unless you can be perfect at something, you shouldn't comment on the subject. If that were the case, no one should ever have an opinion about anything. I believe there is such thing as a spectrum.
When it comes to the subject of the distribution of wealth, I don't believe that we should all make the exact same amount of money. Obviously then there is less incentive for people to work hard, get an education, et cetera. Let's reward hard work, absolutely. However, I don't believe that it has to be as unbalanced as it has become in my country (the US).
Per: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/research-desk-how-has-the-ceoemployee-pay-gap-changed/2011/07/22/gIQANgoaYI_blog.html
QuoteAccording to the EPI figures, the average CEO received $8,917,000 in compensation in 2009, while the average production worker got $48,130. If this 185.3 ratio were narrowed to 1965's 24.2 figure solely by increasing average production worker pay, then the average production worker would get around $368,471. If it were narrowed solely by reducing average CEO pay, then the average CEO would get $1,164,746 a year.
Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker (as opposed to 24.2% back in the time period that most people hail as "the good old days.")
I'm not saying that it has to be perfectly even. I just think that surely it could stand to be a little less uneven. Surely making even 50% more than the average production worker would be a good incentive to work hard? It sure would have been back in '65.
Quote from: Ali on January 12, 2012, 11:03:52 PM
Quote from: Will37 on January 12, 2012, 10:44:45 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 10, 2012, 06:54:05 PM
Its awful. How can anyone in good conscience buy themselves a leer jet when children are starving and hardworking people can't afford medical care?
Hm. Well, you might consider how you own a computer in good conscience in exactly those conditions. Do you only eat what you need to survive? Does your money go towards anything that isn't absolutely necessary for survival? If these conditions don't hold then I fail to see how you can take such a haughty tone towards the wealthy.
I don't agree with the sort of attitude that unless you can be perfect at something, you shouldn't comment on the subject. If that were the case, no one should ever have an opinion about anything. I believe there is such thing as a spectrum.
When it comes to the subject of the distribution of wealth, I don't believe that we should all make the exact same amount of money. Obviously then there is less incentive for people to work hard, get an education, et cetera. Let's reward hard work, absolutely. However, I don't believe that it has to be as unbalanced as it has become in my country (the US).
Per: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/research-desk-how-has-the-ceoemployee-pay-gap-changed/2011/07/22/gIQANgoaYI_blog.html
QuoteAccording to the EPI figures, the average CEO received $8,917,000 in compensation in 2009, while the average production worker got $48,130. If this 185.3 ratio were narrowed to 1965's 24.2 figure solely by increasing average production worker pay, then the average production worker would get around $368,471. If it were narrowed solely by reducing average CEO pay, then the average CEO would get $1,164,746 a year.
Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker (as opposed to 24.2% back in the time period that most people hail as "the good old days.")
I'm not saying that it has to be perfectly even. I just think that surely it could stand to be a little less uneven. Surely making even 50% more than the average production worker would be a good incentive to work hard? It sure would have been back in '65.
Maybe it's the gin and tonic but I don't see what income inequality has to do with my retort to the poster. I was criticizing the seeming discrepancy between the standard to which she held the rich versus the standard to which she seems to hold herself. There's nothing wrong with her proposing that individuals should try to help others. But she didn't say: "I don't see how somebody can buy a leer jet while giving nothing to help the poor." She was simply aghast that the rich indulge in luxury. Yet, seeing as she is using a computer to express her outrage, she seems willing to indulge in luxury relative to her means. And this seems blatantly hypocritical.
How is it hypocritcal to say the wealthy and working class are GROSSLY unbalanced?
Let's see... A cell phone to keep.in touch vs a solid gold rocking horse (which was a celeb baby gift, costing $600,000 USD) ) Disgusting.
Quote from: Ali on January 12, 2012, 11:03:52 PMDo you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker. . .
Just a point of information. The CEO is being paid 185.269
times more than the worker, which means that the CEO is being paid approximately 18,527% more than the worker, not 185.3% more. This sort of income inequality is absurd, and in my opinion indefensible.
Quote from: Recusant on January 12, 2012, 11:35:46 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 12, 2012, 11:03:52 PMDo you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker. . .
Just a point of information. The CEO is being paid 185.269 times more than the worker, which means that the CEO is being paid approximately 18,527% more than the worker, not 185.3% more. This sort of income inequality is absurd, and in my opinion indefensible.
Fuck, that's inexcusable.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 12, 2012, 11:31:49 PM
How is it hypocritcal to say the wealthy and working class are GROSSLY unbalanced?
Did I say that it is hypocritical to make the correct and obvious observation that there is a great inequality of wealth in most of the world? Before you expend too much energy on that effort here is a hint: I said no such thing. What I did say, however, is that it is hypocritical to criticize the wealthy for purchasing luxury relative to their means while the poster, by virtue of her being able to post on an internet forum with her computer, seems to be willing to indulge in luxury relative to her means.
I'm not defending gross income inequality. I'm not defending the social stratification that has occurred in many countries, particularly the United States. But what I do find tedious is when individuals who have yet to sell everything they absolutely do not need and give the proceeds to the poor seem to disdain the rich for failing to meet that very high standard. There's nothing inherently wrong with an individual owning a private jet. Who the hell do you think gets paid to build that jet if not the working class? That's a cheep, shallow form of emotional outrage. The problem with wealth occurs when the wealthy use their surplus capital to help ossify social mobility and curtail regulations that prevent them from engaging in predatory capitalism et cetera and not for simply buying luxury items.
Let me see if I understand your position, Will37. Are you saying that unless somebody lives like a hermit and gives all of their discretionary income to charity, they are in no position to criticize the extravagance of the super-rich?
Quote from: Recusant on January 12, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Let me see if I understand your position, Will37. Are you saying that unless somebody lives like a hermit and gives all of their discretionary income to charity, they are in no position to criticize the extravagance of the super-rich?
The individual in question is, I believe living in a Western country and has enough disposable income to purchase a computer. They are, therefore, living in fairly obscene luxury relative to large swaths of, for example, Somalia. So yes, I find it hypocritical to criticize one individual for living in obscene luxury relative to your position while simultaneously living in obscene luxury relative to another person.
If you want to work to help lift people out of poverty that's a very noble and worthy goal. But I do find the unreflective, holier-than-thou attitude that so often surrounds so many discussions like this somewhat tiring.
This sounds remarkably like a tu quoque fallacy to me, but if it pleases you to criticize others' criticism of society's injustices/inequities in such a manner, I'm not going to say you nay. :D
Quote from: Ali on January 12, 2012, 11:03:52 PM
Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker (as opposed to 24.2% back in the time period that most people hail as "the good old days.")
I'm not saying that it has to be perfectly even. I just think that surely it could stand to be a little less uneven. Surely making even 50% more than the average production worker would be a good incentive to work hard? It sure would have been back in '65.
You could argue that a worker adds $100,000 value to the company, the CEO adds a billion. The CEO is moving levers, their actions may determine whether a loss or a profit is made. There could be a level of hype associated with CEOs, are they really the super beings they promote themselves as? Some people/companies think by spending more they will get more. "You get what you pay for." I think you get what you get, you may have to pay more for the best but sellers will still be happy to charge top dollar for crap.
Quote from: Will37 on January 13, 2012, 12:03:32 AM
Quote from: Recusant on January 12, 2012, 11:57:55 PM
Let me see if I understand your position, Will37. Are you saying that unless somebody lives like a hermit and gives all of their discretionary income to charity, they are in no position to criticize the extravagance of the super-rich?
The individual in question is, I believe living in a Western country and has enough disposable income to purchase a computer. They are, therefore, living in fairly obscene luxury relative to large swaths of, for example, Somalia. So yes, I find it hypocritical to criticize one individual for living in obscene luxury relative to your position while simultaneously living in obscene luxury relative to another person.
If you want to work to help lift people out of poverty that's a very noble and worthy goal. But I do find the unreflective, holier-than-thou attitude that so often surrounds so many discussions like this somewhat tiring.
Soooo no one should give a shit about what anyone does?
It's also fair to point out that you don't know Sweetdeath: maybe she does give proportionally more of her income to charity than most CEOs, maybe she has volunteered overseas or betters the world in her own way. I don't think the argument necessarily lies in the amount of money that someone makes, but it's in the philosophy behind money and power dynamics. Mega-rich multi-national CEOS hold a fuck-ton of power over a lot of the world, your average Joe "westerner" doesn't (at least, individually), no matter how relatively "well off" they may be.
I honestly think that high ranking corporate employees have to be at least a little socio-pathic to get where they are and I don't think they're reasonably comparable to an undergrad student living on student loans or a single-parent making minimum wage. Could you really look someone in the eye and say "well, they're all the same thing to someone in Africa"?
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 13, 2012, 12:20:21 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 12, 2012, 11:03:52 PM
Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker (as opposed to 24.2% back in the time period that most people hail as "the good old days.")
I'm not saying that it has to be perfectly even. I just think that surely it could stand to be a little less uneven. Surely making even 50% more than the average production worker would be a good incentive to work hard? It sure would have been back in '65.
You could argue that a worker adds $100,000 value to the company, the CEO adds a billion. The CEO is moving levers, their actions may determine whether a loss or a profit is made. There could be a level of hype associated with CEOs, are they really the super beings they promote themselves as? Some people/companies think by spending more they will get more. "You get what you pay for." I think you get what you get, you may have to pay more for the best but sellers will still be happy to charge top dollar for crap.
Yes, but would a CEO be able to add that "billion" without support staff? I work as a Veterinary Receptionist right now - technically speaking the vets "make" most of the money through surgeries and procedures and whatnot. But I can tell you right now that the whole practice would fall apart and they wouldn't be able to make a dime if they didn't have a support staff. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single one of them who actually knows how to take a payment themselves.
I live in an apt, with just enough food to live off. My grandma and eat lots of sandwhiches and cereal cuz rent is a lot. I pay my own p honebill, and collect change and cans for recycling.
Is this luxury? I aporeciate having food and shelter, but all my clothes are 2nd hand, etc. I hardly call MY living luxurious just cuz,i have a phone and playstation2.
Quote from: Recusant on January 12, 2012, 11:35:46 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 12, 2012, 11:03:52 PMDo you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker. . .
Just a point of information. The CEO is being paid 185.269 times more than the worker, which means that the CEO is being paid approximately 18,527% more than the worker, not 185.3% more. This sort of income inequality is absurd, and in my opinion indefensible.
Haha, math. Not my strong point. But holy CRAP that is crazy and inexcusable.
Quote from: Will37 on January 12, 2012, 11:39:35 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 12, 2012, 11:31:49 PM
How is it hypocritcal to say the wealthy and working class are GROSSLY unbalanced?
Did I say that it is hypocritical to make the correct and obvious observation that there is a great inequality of wealth in most of the world? Before you expend too much energy on that effort here is a hint: I said no such thing. What I did say, however, is that it is hypocritical to criticize the wealthy for purchasing luxury relative to their means while the poster, by virtue of her being able to post on an internet forum with her computer, seems to be willing to indulge in luxury relative to her means.
I don't see how you can separate the issue of the super-rich making that much more money, and the issue of them spending said money on bullshit like jets. When what they are doing with that money is spending it on ridiculous luxury items, I think it's fair for someone to raise an eyebrow and question why the hell they are making 185,527% more than the average person in the first place.
On topic: didn't occupy wallstreet start in Greece?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 13, 2012, 12:28:51 AM
Yes, but would a CEO be able to add that "billion" without support staff?
No, I've known more than one PA who claims they've done most of the work their boss gets the big dollars for.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 13, 2012, 12:28:51 AM
I work as a Veterinary Receptionist right now - technically speaking the vets "make" most of the money through surgeries and procedures and whatnot. But I can tell you right now that the whole practice would fall apart and they wouldn't be able to make a dime if they didn't have a support staff. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single one of them who actually knows how to take a payment themselves.
Vets and customer service people are paid pretty much in line with normal supply and demand principles by their employers.
A person concerned for their horse may pay $1,000 to a vet to have its spark plugs (OK sorry, spark plug equivalents) changed in their horse. They could have paid a stable girl $100 for the same thing but they want to feel they've done their best for the horses welfare. Vets do magic stable girls don't know. Directors of companies are concerned for their company, hot shot CEOs do magic the in-house manager can't, even if he does know the business better. The decision to pay a vet or a hot shot CEO may not be rational but I'm not sure from what angle to attack it. Shareholders have a right to complain because its their money being wasted, claims of employees and the public of how another entity should spend their money seems hard to maintain. I think adjusting the tax rates would make more sense.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 13, 2012, 01:14:24 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 13, 2012, 12:28:51 AM
Yes, but would a CEO be able to add that "billion" without support staff?
No, I've known more than one PA who claims they've done most of the work their boss gets the big dollars for.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 13, 2012, 12:28:51 AM
I work as a Veterinary Receptionist right now - technically speaking the vets "make" most of the money through surgeries and procedures and whatnot. But I can tell you right now that the whole practice would fall apart and they wouldn't be able to make a dime if they didn't have a support staff. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single one of them who actually knows how to take a payment themselves.
Vets and customer service people are paid pretty much in line with normal supply and demand principles by their employers.
A person concerned for their horse may pay $1,000 to a vet to have its spark plugs (OK sorry, spark plug equivalents) changed in their horse. They could have paid a stable girl $100 for the same thing but they want to feel they've done their best for the horses welfare. Vets do magic stable girls don't know. Directors of companies are concerned for their company, hot shot CEOs do magic the in-house manager can't, even if he does know the business better. The decision to pay a vet or a hot shot CEO may not be rational but I'm not sure from what angle to attack it. Shareholders have a right to complain because its their money being wasted, claims of employees and the public of how another entity should spend their money seems hard to maintain. I think adjusting the tax rates would make more sense.
Puddin'. Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think the trouble is that some "hot shots" think that their brand of magic happens in a vacuum. It doesn't.
Why not do as that motel drape wearing dude and sell the kids on FB for 20 million a piece? That would almost get Greece out of crisis, yes? ;D
Quote from: Will37 on January 12, 2012, 10:44:45 PM
Quote from: Traveler on January 10, 2012, 06:54:05 PM
Its awful. How can anyone in good conscience buy themselves a leer jet when children are starving and hardworking people can't afford medical care?
Hm. Well, you might consider how you own a computer in good conscience in exactly those conditions. Do you only eat what you need to survive? Does your money go towards anything that isn't absolutely necessary for survival? If these conditions don't hold then I fail to see how you can take such a haughty tone towards the wealthy.
I don't think that's the whole story. Many people take their behavioural cues from the culture/society they live in. If the culture supports selfish consumption it will be the norm which will reinforce the perceived
cultural values. Now the individual can contribute time/money to charities and be politically aligned to a socialist agenda or not. There are some things one needs to have to function in out society. Cars and computers are things like that.
So which is fairer. A society where the tax sytem allows the rich to buy a better model of BMW while others are so poor they can't own a car, and thus get into the job market, or one where the rich are taxed so they have a slightly lower model of brand new BMW and the poorer person can affored a functional second hand car that allows them to get and keep a job?
When times are hard its NEVER the rich that suffer.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 13, 2012, 08:32:39 AM
Why not do as that motel drape wearing dude and sell the kids on FB for 20 million a piece? That would almost get Greece out of crisis, yes? ;D
No I don't think so, $432 billion debt.
432,000 / 20 = 21,600
That means they'll have to sell 21,600 babies at $20 mil each.
Putting 21,600 on the market all at once would I think put pressure on the baby price, they'd end up having to discount the price of the Greek Baby. Perhaps if they did it gradually it would work. There's always the chance other countries with a comparative advantage will enter the market and undercut them. If China suffers a slow down and switches to a 24 child policy the baby price could fall lower than pork bellies.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 13, 2012, 08:57:24 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 13, 2012, 08:32:39 AM
Why not do as that motel drape wearing dude and sell the kids on FB for 20 million a piece? That would almost get Greece out of crisis, yes? ;D
No I don't think so, $432 billion debt.
432,000 / 20 = 21,600
That means they'll have to sell 21,600 babies at $20 mil each.
Putting 21,600 on the market all at once would I think put pressure on the baby price, they'd end up having to discount the price of the Greek Baby. Perhaps if they did it gradually it would work. There's always the chance other countries with a comparative advantage will enter the market and undercut them. If China suffers a slow down and switches to a 24 child policy the baby price could fall lower than pork bellies.
Dump the prices. Sell ten times as many kids. ;D
Greece debt write-off talks with banks stall (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16553532)
Whole story.
QuoteTalks between Greece and its private sector lenders over a possible 50% write-off of its debts have stalled.
Reaching a deal is a pre-condition for Athens receiving the next chunk of bailout cash from the International Monetary Fund and European Union.
Without that money, the Greek government could run out of cash and be forced to leave the euro.
Meanwhile markets fell on rumours that France and other governments were about to have their credit ratings cut.
European stock markets dropped by 1%-2% as the news spread in mid-afternoon trading, while the euro hit a 16-month low against the dollar of $1.263.
'Paused for reflection'
The committee representing Greece's lenders said that some parties had not responded constructively to the proposed 50% debt write-off.
It said discussions were "paused for reflection on the benefits of a voluntary approach" without stating when they would resume.
The alternative to a voluntary debt write-off is likely to be an outright default by Greece - a failure to continue repaying its debts.
In its statement, the steering committee of the Institute of International Finance (IIF) - an industry body for global banks - praised the Greek government's leadership.
Some of Greece's debts are reported to have been bought up on the cheap by so-called vulture funds - speculators who specialise in pursuing troubled borrowers for payment in full.
A popular tactic of vulture funds is to veto agreements between distressed borrowers and their main lenders, in the hope of winning special treatment for their own loans.
Last week, a Greek government spokesman said that if Athens fails to secure its latest bailout money from the EU and IMF - for which the deal with private sector lenders is a condition - it would be forced to exit the euro.
The government is struggling with public opposition to new austerity measures, demanded by lenders.
Meanwhile, the prime minister warned that Greece may run out of cash to meet its debt payments as soon as March if unions to not agree to further spending cuts.
EU, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank inspectors are due in Athens later in January to review progress.
My emphasis. In my experience only one country has ever defaulted and that was Argentina a few decades ago. If Greece fails 2008 will look like a cocktail party! And don't think the USA would be immune to this. If Greece goes then the Euro will go and that will screw US exports to Europe. This is economic dominoes on a worldwide scale.