Talk:Debtocracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article in Greek ?[edit]

Does not exist ?Stanjourdan (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

odious debts?[edit]

Just out of curiosity.... If the documentary plays the odious debts card, this implies that this either applies only to dbts comitted to before 1974.... or that the documentary actually calls some of the democratic parties that have been in power since despotic, and therefore criminal organisations that should be banned, and whose leading figures should be personally responsible for the money..... Arnoutf (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary does not say that all the debt is odious. It simply states that odious debt is the debt which was aquired behind the backs of the people and did not benefit them in the long term, and this could also apply in Greece in the past 40 years. In any case, just watch the documentary, we are not here to discuss the rationality or validity of the said movie. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i am of the opinion that the article erred or at least viewers may be mislead by thinking Greek debt may be odious. by definition, it could not be. the documentary clearly stated there are 3 criteria and the first one is a despotic regime. a functioning democracy would meet not that definition. if the gov't officials misused public funds, that would be fraud, but not odious. i added a clarification to definition of odious debt to the article but someone removed it, claiming there is no requirement for a despotic regime. i dispute this claim. anyone agree/disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.3.65 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is wrong in that it asserts that odious debt needs to be incurred by a despotic regime. By definition, odious debt has three requirements:
  • It was contracted without the consent of the people of the country that is said to owe debt.
  • It was not contracted for the benefit of the people of the country.
  • The creditors were aware of the odious nature of the debt.
I would agree with you that in 99% of the cases we are dealing with despotic regimes, but that does not mean that a despotic regime is a prerequisite for the acquisition of odious debt. In Greece's case some of the debt could be odious, since Siemens and other German companies had been bribing Greek politicians to buy German products instead of other cheaper and more beneficial deals. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the Siemen bribery example, if true, that is fraud. not odious. Greek gov can sue Siemen for damage but the Greek debt incurred would still be legit. Because the illegitimacy in question occurred between Siemens and the officials responsible for the project. Not between Siemens and the Greek parliament. Also, vast majority of Greek creditors would have no knowledge of the bribery. Finally, the 3 criteria you listed came from Sabine Michalowski, which is not the original definition of odious debt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.121.39 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is turning into a discussion on whether Greece's debts are odious, and this is not what the talk page is about. The documentary asserts that part or all of the Greek debt is odious, and whether you or I agree is irrelevant. Michael Kremer of Harvard University gives the same requirements, he does not mention that the regime needs to be despotic. Although the initial definition of Odious Debt by Alexander Nahun Sack in 1927 stated "if a despotic power incurs a debt...", the definition of odious debt appears to have somewhat changed to include odious debts incurred by non-despotic regimes. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

critical reception & response[edit]

I think its time to introduce some critical reception and response sections. It seems to me that the documentary was praised for its non-profit character and for the novel view it offers to the Greek monetary crisis, but it has also received criticism regarding the (economic) validity of its claims. Examples can be found here (in Greek):

--Elmerfadd (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that is a good idea. I was not able to find any good information on the critical response towards to the documentary though. One indication I did find however is that the dean of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the largest university in Greece, held a public screening of the documentary. If I am not mistaken, its also being shown at the current protests in Athens (it was one of the proposals at yesterday's assembly at Syntagma Square). I shall have a look for any more critical responses. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian on deptocracy http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/09/debtocracy-film --193.92.251.74 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we start on the critical reception section? I really don't know how to formulate that or what to include. I can't find any other sources apart from the ones above... Apparently the movie was shown at the Institute of Oriental & African Studies in London ([1]), and it was also shown by the dean of Aristotle University, which is the largest and one of the most prestigeous in Greece ([2]). --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could go into the criticism section: Paschos Mandravelis, writing in the Greek newspaper Kathimerini ([3]) sees Debtocracy as a work of political propaganda, with no respect for objectivity. Mandravelis points out that Greece's debt was the doing of democratically elected governments and that its beneficiaries were those employed, directly or indirectly, by the public sector. He also notes that the film's mentioning of Ecuador's default in 2008 as a guide for Greece is rather unfortunate, because Ecuador's debt was the doing of a military government, because Ecuador is an oil-rich country with enough exports to fund itself whereas Greece has huge budget and trade deficits, and, finally, because recent policies of Correa (the president of Equador responsible for the default) towards privatizing land and developing coal mines with the involvement of Canadian multinationals are in direct conflict with the film's line of argument.Sardath (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up your edit, it was too lengthy for no reason. I also added the Guardian source which praised the documentary, as the section was obviously biased. Also added mixed/negative review from Skai. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it was not "too lengthy for no reason," it had a length quite proportionate with the length of the Wikipedia article and it commented on matters of substance raised by the film. And it was not biased at all, it simply reported, quite carefully, on what the two major Greek newspapers said, like it or not. The Guardian article is not a review of any sort, it simply reports on the film's appeal. I think your rewrite is pointless. And you failed to say exactly what Skai said. Plus your quoting of the filmmakers as saying that questions of objectivity should not be raised because they used clips from the BBC is an insult to everybody's intelligence, including that of the film-makers': One can easily use carefully selected BBC clips to support any position imaginable, but this does not mean a thing.Sardath (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC) And what is that about a lady sending a letter to a paper supporting the film? Is this something the Wikipedia should report?Sardath (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was lengthy, the article itself is quite small and went into too much detail and repetition. My point about being biased was about your edit which included only sources that criticized the documentary and not others which were either neutral or in favor. Not the sources themselves, although Kathimerini is known for its conservative take on things. The "lady" is not just any lady, she was a professor of economics in Greece's largest university and is currently a professor at the London School of Economics; her opinion matters on the issue since you quote another professor who essentially says the documentary is pure fiction. Regarding your statement on the BBC, please follow your advice and report the news, not cut and tailor them because you think it insults your intelligence. Thats what the producers said, and we are not here to discuss whether their position is valid or not. Your point about the Guardian is also quite pointless, since this is a review; it is an evaluation of the film by an impartial observer of a foreign media who says his personal opinion. --Philly boy92 (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, now. The article is small and what I added was lengthy? The professor I quote (who by the way was asked to contribute in the film but declined) is not worth mentioning but the professor you quite selectively quote (and by the way it is wrong she is a professor at LSE, she just got her PhD there) is worth including? And you think it's OK not to mention that she considers the film "politically and scientifically baseless?" ("Τόσο η λύση των προτεινόμενων στο ντοκιμαντέρ μονομερών αποφάσεων όσο και η συσχέτιση της Ελλάδας με χώρες όπως η Αργεντινή είναι επιστημονικά και πολιτικά άτοπες") Who is selective? Are you kidding me? This is the criticism section, the point of view of the film-makers is made absolutely clear in the very extensive summary of the contents of the film. I did not pick To Vima and Kathimerini for any reason other that they are the two major Greek newspapers. The Wikipedia has articles on them but does not have an article on Aggelioforos. But let's include Aggelioforos, why not, but then let's also say the truth about what Aggelioforos says. Aggelioforos says that the film is "politically and scientifically baseless" in the article written by the former professor of the University of Thessaloniki that you selectively quote. This is what she thinks of the movie, like it or not. That she also thinks it's "food for thought" is not that important, I can hardly think of any film that does not qualify. Even if you are strongly in favor of the film, as I think you are, you should understand that acknowledging what serious papers say makes the article better. You may think that To Vima and Kathimerini are biased or capitalist stooges or whatever, but that's irrelevant, they are well-known papers and others who think like you can discount what they say accordingly. By Wikipedia's standards they are credible sources.Sardath (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting way out of topic. Not that it is any of your business, but I am not "strongly in favor of the film" and I don't consider To Vima and Kathimerini to be "capitalist stooges". The only question I raised was the fact that Kathimerini is a conservative newspaper so their view on this is quite predictable. I don't understand your objection to Agelioforos, it is a widely-circulated newspaper in northern Greece; not one I usually read, but still widespread. By stating that your sources are credible you imply that Agelioforos isn't a credible source; exactly what criteria does Agelioforos not meet in regards to quality sources?! Both your sources and mine are in the opinions section of their respective newspapers. If you think I have left something out intentionally, which I assure you I have not done on purpose as you blatantly accuse me of, you are more than free to edit the section and add it yourself. To save you from the trouble I have modified the section to include your quotation (Τόσο η λύση [...] πολιτικά άτοπες). --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I am not off-topic. I have nothing against Aggelioforos, you have someting against Kathimerini and to Vima. You think they are predictable? And that the Guardian is not? What would you consider an unpredictable newspaper? One that expresses opinions on the flip of a coin? Would you read such a newspaper? And I was not at all off-topic in making the point that you misquoted a source and you misidentified its author. In purpose or out of carelessness it doesn't matter. Either you did it on purpose or you were careless. Your choice. This is not a blame game, and I am sure that when you wrote that I "cut and tailor" stuff you did not mean to "blatantly accuse" me of anything. You think this is off topic? Then why save me the trouble? Ah, and thanks by the way for saving me the trouble.Sardath (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your attitude. --Philly boy92 (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, thank you. Sardath (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.151.159 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Debtocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Debtocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Left-wing" documentary?[edit]

Greetings, all. How is the apellation "left-wing" in the definition of the subject justified? In other words, where are the sources supporting that assessment? -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britain a piglet?[edit]

Greetings, all. The map showing in red the so-called "PIIGS" countries of the European Community also has the United Kingdom in pink. Isn't this a confusing and potentially misleading error? -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debtocracy&oldid=1201413567"