Dire Prediction Greek Unemployment Could Hit 29%

Thursday, May 23, 2013 Last Update: 4:09 AM ET

Community
Greece
Sports
International
USA
Cyprus
Opinions
Culture
Obituaries
Social
Classifieds

Dire Prediction Greek Unemployment Could Hit 29%

Andy Dabilis

ATHENS – The top labor analyst at Greece's largest private sector union said he fears more austerity measures will push Greece’s already record-high unemployment rate of 23.1 percent to 29 percent.

Already a subscriber?
Sign in to read full article.
Not a subscriber?
Subscribe now and get full access!

Or... enter your email and start reading this article now:

August 12, 2012

Save article

17 readers comments


1. Niko Seretis wrote on August 12, 2012 11:16 PM	This is the result of 30 years of socialism and meaningless government created jobs given out to people who had the right connections . Did anyone think this wasn't inevitable? They should focus now on cutting out red tape and beurocracy for any company or private individual willing to take a risk on Greece .

2. Philip Vorgias wrote on August 12, 2012 11:38 PM	Samaras has been proclaiming for years how he wanted to be PM so he could promote policies which encouraged growth in the private sector. That's where Greece's future economy will come from, not the shrinking public sector. Well Samaras, get to work on promoting growth in the private economy! No more talk, we want to see actions!

3. Nicholas Kostopoulos wrote on August 13, 2012 12:39 PM	Samaras, his party and PASOK do not know how to revise this mess they created in Greece. The country needs a new type of government free of the past corruption, graft, and a deceit tax structure that works. Action must come on the heels of this disaster they have more or else!

4. ARMODIOS PAPAGIANAKIS wrote on August 14, 2012 10:37 AM	Nicholas, you’re one the few that “gets it”. Asking politicians (ND or PASOK) and bureaucrats (Troika) to promote (economic) growth is like asking the still inebriated alcoholic to run the AA meeting. Politicians and bureaucrats do not create wealth; they redistribute and ultimately destroy wealth, and incentive. Therefore, they should do NOTHING, SOONER! If Greece can’t pay their debts and or/creditors, they should go bankrupt. Since many of Greece’s creditors were reckless and irresponsible as lenders, then they should fail as well. BTW, the so-called “bail-outs” are a cruel joke. Nearly 80% of the “bail-out” monies go directly to Greece’s creditors, and nothing for Greece’s economy. Meanwhile, no prudent, well-heeled entrepreneur or investor is going to invest in Greece with Greece’s still un-payable debt burden; fearing the Greek government may first come after them, via taxation, as soon as the inevitable liquidity issues arise.

5. Philip Vorgias wrote on August 14, 2012 11:53 AM	You're right about one thing, Armodios-no investor is going to put money in Greece until the reforms are implemented. And they never would have been implemented without the TROIKA. That's where your approach becomes falacy-staying with the Drachma would have hidden Greek politician antics while the wealth of Greek citizens disipated. At least the EURO keeps them honest.

6. ARMODIOS PAPAGIANAKIS wrote on August 14, 2012 1:08 PM	Actually the exact opposite; the obvious truth is that despite its 12 year EU/Euro disastrous membership, including two bail-outs, and your vaunted memo, Greece is insolvent and sitting on an impossible debt burden. Ironically, politicians, bureaucrats, and many NH readers refuse to admit it, making them, dishonest. The Polydoras incident, which I believe you are referring to is completely inconsequential in the big economic picture. Finally, fundamental change cannot be effectively imposed by outsiders (unless of course one has Fascist inclinations) since it tends to breed resentment. Much like a penitent sinner in the confessional, true change for Greece can come when they’re forced to look within themselves as a people and a sovereign nation. Bankruptcy will hasten the process

7. Philip Vorgias wrote on August 14, 2012 6:49 PM	'Fundamental change can not be effectively imposed by outsiders'. That's a non-sensical statement, fundamental change has OFTEN been imposed by outsiders, if you look at history. One need only look at democracy imposed on former fascist regimes in Japan, Germany, Italy after WW2-and more recently in Iraq. Hey, I'm all for Greece leading the charge to reform it's own economy, but recent history has shown us that when power-structures get as fundamentally screwed up as in current Greece it's near impossible to introduce any change-UNLESS mandated from the outside by somebody with no skin in the game. Better the TROIKA memorandum than no change at all, and you know in your heart those ARE the options!

8. ARMODIOS PAPAGIANAKIS wrote on August 15, 2012 2:06 AM	Apples and oranges my friend; Greece already is a democracy.

9. Philip Vorgias wrote on August 15, 2012 10:50 AM	You missed my point, once again.

10. ARMODIOS PAPAGIANAKIS wrote on August 15, 2012 1:36 PM	What point? Your analogy is absurd. Conquerors, obliterating and nuking an enemy(s), while at the same time killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians in the process and then imposing “change” may be “effective”, but hardly applies to Greece…though I do sense some “fascist inclinations” in this process. Your vaunted memo (which I hope you’ve read) designed by the near same incompetents, is not much different than the equally impotent drivel (aka memorandum) after the first “bail-out" (LOL) in May of 2010. Greece was insolvent then and they’re insolvent now. No one even has the courage to admit it – expect the capital markets, as evidenced by 25% borrowing rates. True change can come to Greece, not imposed by outsider bureaucrats, who may or may not have ulterior motives, but guided by impartial free market principles and that includes bankruptcy.

11. Philip Vorgias wrote on August 15, 2012 10:25 PM	We've had this discussion before, Armodios. You're under the mistaken belief that Greece, like a business, could file for bankruptcy and walk away from the lions share of it's debts. It doesn't work that way for sovereign nations, but you keep on coming back to it like it's some panacea. Even if Greece had rejected the bailout package and gone that route, they would have ended up with some sort of deal like the current one-because if they didn't come to an agreement of this sort Greek debt would be PERMANENTLY toxic in capital markets.

12. Basil Zafiriou wrote on August 16, 2012 9:50 AM	Philip, you’re wasting your time with Armodios. Opposition to the mnimonio is religion with him and no evidence can dissuade him. He is against it though there is not a single provision in it that he can find to disagree with. He denounces it as a “fascist” imposition on Greece, though in fact it is simply an agreement freely entered into between Greece and her creditors. He insists that no fundamental change can result from outside pressure, despite so much evidence to the contrary, some of which you brought to his attention. He rejected your examples as inapplicable: “apples and oranges,” he says. Let me offer up one that is certainly apples-to-apples (or oranges-to-oranges). In the aftermath of the Greek government default of 1893, Greece’s finances were placed under the close supervision of an International Committee comprised of representatives from Greece’s creditor countries. Here is the outcome of that experience as reported by George Romaios in his recent book Η Ελλάδα των Δανείων και των Χρεοκοπίων (my translation): “In the years following the imposition of International Supervision, Greece succeeded in bringing order to her public finances, implementing significant productive investments and organizing her powers so that with the break-out of the Balkan Wars, in 1912, the country was ready to respond to the historical challenge.” Those who want Greece to succeed can take heart from the experience with Greece’s previous mnimonio at the turn of the last century.

13. Basil Zafiriou wrote on August 16, 2012 10:07 AM	Corrigendum: In the penultimate sentence above, the word "break-out" should of course instead be "outbreak" -an easy error for folks with English as a second language.

14. ARMODIOS PAPAGIANAKIS wrote on August 16, 2012 11:50 AM	LOL Basil…Let us know if that mnimonio of 1893, like the mnimonio of 2012, was also contingent on partial taxpayer, funded/subsidized bailouts, that violated free market principles, since many, if not most, Euro taxpayers (that even existed) left to their own free will, would not have lent or approved of loans to Greece, but were forced to by their respective governments at that time. I’m going go out on a limb guess that it wasn’t.

15. Basil Zafiriou wrote on August 16, 2012 2:56 PM	Armodios, since governments are funded by taxes, all government loans of necessity are tax-payer funded. Also, they normally have conditions attached, since governments are accountable for the use of taxpayer monies. So there is nothing unusual with the mnimonio about that. Just because government loans may not be market-mediated does not mean they violate market principles -- unless you hold to the position that all government spending violates free market principles, i.e. that we should have no government. If that’s not your position, then you need to show which mnimonio provisions undermine markets. You have yet to do that.

16. ARMODIOS PAPAGIANAKIS wrote on August 17, 2012 1:53 PM	Basil, by your non-answer, we’ll assume that the mnimonio of 1898 was NOT contingent on Euro taxpayer subsidized bailouts. Also, since the mnimonio “was implemented in the aftermath of the Greek government default of 1893” (your words); and the Greece of today hasn’t officially defaulted compels us to quietly place your aforementioned example in “apple to oranges” category after all. Discussing or debating the particulars of the mnimonio is moot since it is contingent on partial taxpayer, funded/subsidized bailouts, and violates free market principles, since many, if not most, of the Euro citizens/taxpayers do not consider the bailouts as a “necessity”, and left to their own free will, would not have lent or approved of loans to Greece,” but are forced to by their respective governments – arguably theft. Also, your “agreement, freely agreed upon” while technically correct, is typically disingenuous. The Euro taxpayer subsidized bailouts, allows the Troika and Greece’s creditors a distinct advantage over Greece since they can “negotiate” from a position of artificially superior (subsidized) strength, allowing them to impose nearly anything by threatening to “withhold disbursement” - as it states on nearly every other page of the memo; arguably coercion/fascism. However, without the unpopular Euro taxpayer subsidies of both recent bailouts, and by allowing unfettered markets to take their due course, Greece may have defaulted two years ago or two months ago, and possibly some her creditors, and certainly further weakened others, potentially, and even dramatically, altering the now distorted dynamics of your “freely agreed upon” negotiations/agreements between debtor and creditor.

17. Philip Vorgias wrote on August 17, 2012 2:36 PM	I guess we're not going to get the specificity we've asked for regarding what in the mnimonio you find so objectionable, Armodios. As for "freely agreed upon", we've just has an election in Greece where the people voted for parties which supported this program. That's as close as you're going to get to democracy in action with the current government structures in Greece-as well as in Germany. No doubt it won't satisfy you, that's the problem with maximalist positions.
You must sign in in order to post a comment.