There's an old joke about a guy who gets on a plane 1st class & finds himself next to a parrot that proceeds to get really drunk, cursing out the stewardess "bitch, get me another gin & tonic and make it fucking fast this time", and so on. Seeing the parrot get away with it, the guy starts to get smashed and insult the stewardess too. She finally has enough, and throws them both out of the plane mid-flight. As they're falling, the parrot turns to the guy and says, "you know, for someone without wings, you're pretty ballsy".

Greece acts like Chavez* but without any oil behind them and while asking for favors. Tito managed to play the Soviet Union off the US successfully, but those days are long gone. Do these Greeks really think they can just stomp their feet and threaten to hold their breath till blue and get a deal? Yes, austerity sucks, but what are they offering as incentive for the Troika or whoever to cut a deal, or bring other Europeans to enough sympathy to demand their governments loosen up?

*actually Chavez took care of his people pretty well - nationalized oil went to much better priorities than Greek-style mismanagement.

Thanks Oxy,

It does look that way.  Obama and the IMF have been sitting on the side lines.  Here are a couple of reasons why.

Merkel asked Obama to stay out of it.  Obama is a big fan of negotiation and arbitration so he was in favor of letting them try to come to an agreement. The USA President has the largest vote in the IMF. 

Christine Lagarde, Director of the IMF,  in several speeches and interviews talked about the short falls of austerity and how investment was needed to help countries this spring.  This is from an interview in The Atlantic this spring. She finally released the report that the IMF had on the failure of austerity a couple of days before Greece voted. 

I asked Lagarde whether the world has entered into a prolonged period of slow economic growth—what economists call “secular stagnation.” She said that she prefers to describe the situation as the “new mediocre,” and explained that global economic growth over the past two years, and again this year, has averaged about 3.5 percent—the same average rate at which the world economy has grown over the last two decades. What has changed, Lagarde noted with concern, is the nature of that growth: “It is not creating the jobs that are needed and job creation is spread out in a way that does not respond to the needs. It is also not sufficiently boosting productivity and, surprisingly, emerging markets, which have the potential to grow at a much faster pace, are not doing so.”

When I asked if inadequate growth is related to the austerity programs adopted in many countries after the 2008 financial crisis, Lagarde argued that the debate between economic austerity and growth is a false one. “They are not mutually exclusive. You can have fiscal discipline and strong growth,” she said. The pragmatic reconciling of what others see as irreconcilable is another element of the Lagarde Consensus.

Lagarde takes a similar stance on economic inequality, a subject that has rarely topped the IMF’s agenda in the past. She has fixed the organization’s attention on the issue, and is especially interested in how the policies that the IMF recommends affect women. I asked if she agreed with the French economist Thomas Piketty, who posits that growing economic inequality is driven by forces deeply embedded in the capitalist system. “I am one of those who believes that the capitalist system leaves enough room for innovation and who values the forces of markets, but within a regulatory environment that provides governments the tools to respond to inequality,” she responded. What’s the primary cause of this inequality: freer trade, technological advancements, the financial system, government policies that favor the rich? “Technology,” she said, “but also finance, which concentrates vast resources on a small group. And I would also add culture as a factor. Especially when culture limits opportunities for women. And corruption, of course.”  

 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-christine-lagarde-consensus-imf/390309/

This was something she repeated often, as I was researching her.  She had also said that they were studying this and would release a report later.  The report was held because Obama asked her not to release it.  ( My personal feeling is she is the best thing that has happened to the IMF after a string of inept right wing and sometimes currupt directors.)

The IMF was the third leg of the Troika after the ECB and Eurogroup.  Once Greece could not make payment last week on the loan from the IMF, the IMF could not loan any more financial help to Greece until the loan is paid. So all the negotiations has been between Junker, Eurogroup and Greece.  

The vote on the referendum was important so Greece could move forward in a Democratic way. How much of this has been carefully thought out with the help of the Whitehouse indirectly through Lagarde and our best economist?  I also need to put Janet Yellen in that group because she also has been at Lagarde's side on this in group panels that I have seen and read. 

I think Oxy you are beginning to think the same way I have been thinking that we are going to find out what part the US is going to play when Greece has to leave the Euro. Lagarde is not going to leave Greece twisting in the wind. 

P. S. Talk about liver.  It has been reported in more then one article that Jean-Claude Junker has the same drinking habits as John Boehner.  

I read this last night.  It was a great interview and showed how political the banking had become. Piketty didn't back down from the misinformation that the interviewer was trying to point out as fact. 

Germans was also given a debt reduction and restructuring  in 1990 to help them unify their country after the wall came down. This was before the Euro. I personally don't think the Euro would have happened had it not been for the collapse of the USSR.  

I wouldn't be surprised if they're playing bad cop/good cop. Scaring the shit out of Greece is essential to a drunk hitting rock bottom. Tsipras crawling on his knees is one of the best things that's happened - now that he's stopped egging on the anti-establishment crowds and instead realizing the brick wall is real, he can be worked with, will take his tasks seriously rather than lipgloss. Debt relief can now be appreciated, rather than just be expected from petulant demands.

I think you are taking it from your personal perspective. Which is fine.

Varoufakis likely the same, and he would also love your apparent satisfactions at the disruptions to European unity it all created.

However, the uncertainties, mental and financial costs, and hopelessness this whole thing thrust onto the people of Greece, from business persons to pensioners, has been enormous, and for what?

To stoke a conflict on who is going to 'run the Euro Zone'?

They had half a dozen wars to decide that and no one still knows who runs Europe. It's one reason the US started NATO to create some unity.

You think the average Greek gives a crap about the politics of it all?  They want jobs, better lives for their kids and true national stability.

I give credit to Tsipras as I believe he acted in the end to help Greece in the only way he believed still open to him, backing down and taking a lot of shots from his own Party. He bit off more than he could chew, and unfortunately had no better plan as back up.

The question, is, how is this latest European brouhaha going to work out not only for Greece, but for Europe. Conflict? More unity or more divisiveness?

And will it make for a better future for the Greeks? As they try to lead their lives, work and raise families? At this point no one knows.