Slashdot Mirror


Greek Government Abruptly Shuts Down State Broadcaster

An anonymous reader writes "The Greek government shut down broadcasting of all TV and radio channels operated by the state-owned broadcaster ERT at midnight local time, with police ejecting journalists and other employees occupying the building. The above link is a prominent Greek economics professor's (and Valve's in-house economist) analysis of the political motivations for the move."

230 comments

  1. Full story at, err, 11? by atom1c · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if that means lower taxes...

    1. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Funny

      meanwhile, in USA, I have 4 channels that are showing the Kardashians at this very moment.

    2. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because when you shrink your economy, everybody pays less taxes.

    3. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, because when you shrink your economy, everybody pays less taxes.

      No, a lot of the people already paying little or no income tax (like roughly half of the people in the US) will continue to pay little or no income taxes, while the minority of the people who pay essentially all of the taxes are told to pay even more, and hated for being the people who do so.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe those evil tax evaders could afford to pay some taxes if those poor, abhorred multi-billionaires would pay a decent wage to the people who do all the work for their companies instead of siphoning it all off into offshore accounts.

    5. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When that minority controls the majority of the resources, mostly by hook and crook, the get to pay the majority of the taxes and their full share of resentment at the impact their greedy hoarding has on the majority that run the Red Queen's racetrack just trying to stay in place. The "tax payers" will just have to drown their sorrows in champagne and caviar.

    6. Re: Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tax evasion or redirection happens at the highest levels. Of course that is one reason the US taxes citizens on ALL their money, not just "American" money. In the EU they can play the international bank game and not even swipe their passports.

      You would have a similar problem on the USA if the Federal Government didn't step in with large subsidies for basic infrastructure. Just last week we were talking about an Oregon county that was so poor they couldn't hire police.

    7. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      the minority you appear to berate aren't the majority of tax payers

    8. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shut the fuck up idiot. Multi-billionaires don't pay taxes dumb ass. Middle class working folk pay almost all the tax. You are probably paying more percentage wise than just about everyone else.

      But you keep pushing that liberal agenda. Because it is the "right thing to do". "It is for the good of the country". Or whatever lies you tell yourself.

    9. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have those same 4 channels in Greece too. It's just that we lost the one that didn't show them.

    10. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that is why the Kardashians never get an invite to Bilderberg

    11. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Colonels are back?

    12. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know why you were modded "troll" but I'd have modded "overrated" because the comment is completely inaccurate. The poor pay few or no income taxes, but a very high percentage of their meager income on gasoline taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, and other federal excise taxes. The middle class is taxed at twice the rate of someone whose income is from gambling on the stock market. Plus, the more you earn the more loopholes you have.

      This is why they're despised. You think it was the poor and middle class who destroyed the economy?

    13. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Middle class working folk pay almost all the tax.

      This isn't even close to correct.

      The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the income taxes.

      The lower-earning entire HALF of the country pays just over 2%.

      The top 25% percent pay close to 90% of the taxes. Are you saying that the middle class is actually just a few percent of the country?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      The middle class is taxed at twice the rate of someone whose income is from gambling on the stock market.

      And they're gambling with money that has already been taxed at least once, and they have no tax recourse if they lose money on bad gambles. The idea is to get people to put money to work growing companies and the jobs and economic activity that comes with that .. which in turn generates way more tax revenue across the spectrum (locally, federally, etc).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the minority you appear to berate aren't the majority of tax payers

      What? I'm not berating the minority of people who pay most of the income taxes. I'm simply pointing out that it's a minority of people who do pay the vast majority of the income taxes.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how do you know they're not there disguised as lizards?

    17. Re: Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Top 5 to 10% aka middle class

    18. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would work if there was actually a link between stock prices and "jobs and economic activity", but the two have become completely unglued in the past few years, as you may have noticed.

    19. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      meanwhile, in USA, I have 4 channels that are showing the Kardashians at this very moment.

      Panem et circenses...

    20. Re: Full story at, err, 11? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      Just last week we were talking about an Oregon county that was so poor they couldn't hire police.

      What's the name of the county? Sounds like my kind of place. Fuck the police.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    21. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your link is such an inaccurate hatchet job!

    22. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. But your reply completely validated my point. Read it again. The middle class pay all the taxes. Not the 1%. Hell I make just enough to pay about 35%. After all is said and done that is really more like 40-43%. Think about that. I make just enough to have almost half my money taken away. Just enough to not make shit. It is hardly worth it anymore. I should just take a low paying job and let the rest of you pay my way. I doubt I will ever get to the point that I can actually shelter my income.

    23. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      What does that mean?

    24. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that you can't infer the meaning of foreign language words based upon their context.

    25. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bread and games (lit. bread and circus)

    26. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by myrikhan · · Score: 1

      "Bread and games" according to Google translate.

      http://breadandgames.net/

    27. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bread and circuses.

    28. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that mean?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

    29. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      What does that mean?

      Eruditionis legere Latine.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    30. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      And they're gambling with money that has already been taxed at least once

      They're not being taxed on what they gamble but what they win; IE, their profit. I'm taxed on what I earn and am taxed on what I spend (by state government). You should get a tax break for buying lottery tickets or losing at the poker table? That's absurd.

      And I'm sick of hearing about "risk." All they risk is a little money that they already have plenty of unless they're stupid enough to gamble their entire fortune on one stock. Meanwhile, the guy who actually creates wealth by making shit or selling shit literally risk their very LIVES. That guy putting a roof on a house is creating wealth. That house is wealth that would not exist without the roofer risking his life. Buying stock in Frito-Lay has no risk whatever but the convinience store clerk is likely to be killed in a robbery.

      It's just bullshit. Unless you're playing the stock or commodities market you've swallowed their bullshit. If you are a securities gambler you're trying to feed it to everyone else, and largely succeeding.

      The idea is to get people to put money to work growing companies and the jobs and economic activity that comes with that

      That's the idea, but that's not how it works in reality. Buying stock does indeed put money to work growing companies and the jobs and economic activity that comes with that, but selling it, which is what is taxed, takes it away. The taxes are to discourage selling and aren't doing nearly a good enough job.

    31. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      The "tax payers" will just have to drown their sorrows in champagne and caviar

      regardless of how much tax each person pays, by far the majority number of tax payers aren't the sort that could afford anything like caviar

      if you want to target the rich, target the rich. tax payers aren't rich, and rich people are very good at not paying much tax... "rich" and "tax" aren't entirely mutually exclusive, but it is enough so that taking a poke at tax payers is really taking a poke at the majority of the working middle class

    32. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      rich people are very good at not paying much tax

      Except, they pay almost all of the income taxes. You do understand that, right? Half the "taxpayers" pay no income taxes at all. Of the other half, a very small minority of them (the richest ones) pay almost all of it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    33. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eruditionis legere Google

    34. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Half the "taxpayers" pay no income taxes at all

      eh?

      if someone doesn't pay taxes, they aren't a taxpayer (by definition). maybe you're thinking of voters or citizens or some other generic term.

    35. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      a very small minority of them (the richest ones) pay almost all of it

      i call bs. can you back this up with anything?

      fair enough the rich pay a lot of tax, but they also make a lot of money. i'm not saying it's unfair (i'm actually on their side), but does a rich guy paying say 40% of $50 million make him any more a "taxpayer" than a guy who pays 30% of $50k? (the percentages are just for example) the guy on $300k deserves no less credit for his contribution to the american communist regime than the guy on $1 million.

      the guy on $1 million pays a lot of tax, but he also makes a lot, and he has more disposable income to spend on fancy accountants to make sure he takes advantage of every loophole and every tax break he can.

    36. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Except, they pay almost all of the income taxes. You do understand that, right? Half the "taxpayers" pay no income taxes at all. Of the other half, a very small minority of them (the richest ones) pay almost all of it.

      You have to seriously be deluded on this one. Sure the rich pay a lot, but not all of it. But that depends on your definition of rich. And if you think the middle class is "rich", then you must be a very poor person indeed. That, or seriously deluded.

    37. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about people who file every year with the IRS, but who owe no income tax (or, typically, end up getting a check from the IRS instead - paying negative income taxes). Half of the people in the US who make money pay no federal income taxes on it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    38. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And if you think the middle class is "rich", then you must be a very poor person indeed.

      I didn't say the middle class was rich. I said that rich people pay most of the income tax.

      Only about 53% percent of the public pays income taxes. Out of the rest, 17% are elderly or make almost no income, and the rest are let off the tax hook ... and 30% of those pay negative income taxes (which is so say, they get a check instead of paying taxes on their income, because of the EITC).

      So let's pay attention to those 53% who actually pay income taxes: The top 10% of all earners pay over 70% of the income taxes. Would you call the top 10% middle class? How about the top 25% percent ... would you call those, what, the rich and the upper-upper-middle class? That top 25% pays over 87% of the income taxes. Which means that 75% of people with income pay only 13% of the income taxes, and half of the country is exempt from that, or actually get a check instead of paying.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    39. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bread and Circuses

      It's an old primarily greek/roman term for 'meaningless entertainment to gain public political standing'

    40. Re:Full story at, err, 11? by edleslie · · Score: 1

      First one says "Bread and Circuses", second is "Learn to read latin". :-)

  2. What am I supposed to think!!!??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This particular article's summary just states the facts. There is no stated point-of-view in the summary! All Slashdot submissions must have a POV! Please, Help! tell me what to think! Heeeeelp!

    1. Re:What am I supposed to think!!!??? by crutchy · · Score: 3, Funny

      repeat after me... "apple is gay"

    2. Re:What am I supposed to think!!!??? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'd have modded that "funny" but funny comments are dangerous to your karma. Thin skinned Apple fans are surely not going to laugh at it, and they get mod points, too.

    3. Re:What am I supposed to think!!!??? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      There is a point of view there, expressed in terms of which facts they included and which ones they left out. It's just that it doesn't tell you whom to hate, which is what "point of view" has come to mean in America.

  3. How silly. by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 0, Troll

    Even with his last words on the subject Yanis Varoufakis' blog worships the statist centralism of ERT that was exploited, used as a propaganda machine, and silenced critics. What would it take to break his delusions and help him realize that the entire infrastructure was beyond saving? Way to hop on the Murdoch-hate bandwagon, Yanis.

    Call be cynical, but maybe a little capitalism would have been good in Greece. You know, for the ol' economy.

    --
    Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    1. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most European counties have state television next to commercial television. This nothing to do with capitalism and in most cases state television (or state funded independent television) is more objective and has more integrity. For educational and cultural productions, news and documentaries this is very noticeable.

      The problem in Greece is mainly due to lack of involvement of the government and too much uncontrolled capitalism.

    2. Re: How silly. by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      The problem in Greece is mainly due to lack of involvement of the government and too much uncontrolled capitalism.

      No, that is not the problem. Have you ever been to Greece?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re: How silly. by khallow · · Score: 2

      The problem in Greece is mainly due to lack of involvement of the government and too much uncontrolled capitalism.

      This is sarcasm right? It's kind of like looking at a car with a flat and claiming the problem is that the driver hasn't punctured the other three tires too. Greece didn't get into the mess it is in by unfettering capitalism, a thing incidentally that it has yet to do.

    4. Re: How silly. by mvar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you? There's lack of regulation in Greece. Multinationals and companies do whatever they like, for example you may find a piece of furniture in IKEA for 100e while the same piece in France costs 40e and the average salary is 30-40% more. Same goes for food, electronics and other stuff. Despite the crisis everything remains insanely expensive in greece and the government is too corrupt and disfunctional to do anything about it

    5. Re:How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because capitalism solves every problem, especially insolvency. Just like magic, right? As opposed to people, especially the rich, actually paying their taxes. That clearly won't accomplish anything because that would be socialism, right?

      Captcha: cuckoo.
      Indeed.

    6. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like the US attack on NPR and PBS. Most of the editorial power of the hundred TV channels sits in 5 board rooms. The one voice they CAN'T control is the imagined buggy boo on the night of socialism.

    7. Re: How silly. by sourcerror · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What kind of regulation would solve this? Companies are allowed to sell their products for whatever they want in every EU country.

    8. Re:How silly. by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 0, Troll

      Disagreeing with a mod is trolling. Ha.

      --
      Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    9. Re: How silly. by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And here we have a perfect example of (one of the reasons) why Greece has the problems it has.
      People so convinced that the are owed more of everything as to think that goods being sold by
      private companies can be price fixed by the government so they can afford them.

      Hint: if people are not buying them, the companies will lower the price if they want to sell them, its
      called supply and demand.. if people want the products, the price will rise.
      Surely you are not going to try and convince us IKEA somehow has a monopoly on furniture that it is
      somehow using to force people to pay high prices?

      The 'problem' with free markets is people reap what they (and their governments) sow, and greece
      has done a lot of sowing over the last few decades (as have many other countries).

      Hint: if you want a higher quality of living, you have to be either smarter, or harder working, or willing
      to sacrifice more natural resources than others - not always pleasant, just a FACT.

    10. Re:How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also forgot to point out that they're fucking retarded. I'm surprised you missed that.

    11. Re: How silly. by mjwx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem in Greece is mainly due to lack of involvement of the government and too much uncontrolled capitalism.

      This is sarcasm right? It's kind of like looking at a car with a flat and claiming the problem is that the driver hasn't punctured the other three tires too. Greece didn't get into the mess it is in by unfettering capitalism, a thing incidentally that it has yet to do.

      No, endemic levels of tax evasion (come on, you honestly expect me to believe you had no idea Greece was a tax haven) mixed with equally endemic levels of corruption means that Greece's tax revenues have consistently fallen below expectation. So even when the Greek minister balanced the books, the companies in Greece simply didn't pay tax.

      It was cheaper to pay off the tax collector than to pay tax. Essentially companies could do what they wanted as long as they kept the right palms greased (which is cheap for any multinational).

      Next thing you're going tell me is that your shocked that some Thai girl offered to have sex with you in Bangkok when prostitution is illegal in Thailand.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re: How silly. by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Didn't investing in Goldman Sachs toxic assets contribute to their problems?

      The problem in Greece seems to be an artificial scarcity of money imposed by the EU central bank and the IMF. The solution is to get out of the EU and stimulate individuals to innovate with a basic income, and challenges.

    13. Re: How silly. by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I didn't bring the argument of capitalism into this. The blog post linked in TFA did. Further, the public channels are described as nothing more than a mouth-piece for propaganda - blacklisting voices of dissent - how does this even come close to the picture you paint of "more objective"/"more integrity"? Lastly, no. The Greek crisis was not an issue of rampant capitalism.

      --
      Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    14. Re:How silly. by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty harsh strawman you've put together there. There's a minute a mile between "this isn't working" and "the opposite must be true." It's the realm of rational debate.

      On the off chance you're not trolling, but actually looking for a response, here it is: No, I don't think that a single public company turned private would solve the Greek crisis. Nor do I think that the public sector is entirely to blame. But there are two approaches to dealing with revenue shortages. One of them is spending less money. A public television network is hardly the greatest need in a country torn apart by riots - literally the poster child of a EU-style failure. Is that a bash against socialism? Not unless you're contending that public television is the essential form of socialist infrastructure.

      So no, not magic. Just common sense. When you're poor, stop spending money on non-essentials. A few people have pointed out that there was/is corruption of an insane degree, cutting into tax collection and undermining the budget. That's not really a counter to my OP. Saying that you've failed in enforcing the law isn't an argument against a free market. It's an argument against continuing to employ your inept police force.

      --
      Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    15. Re: How silly. by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The problem in Greece seems to be an artificial scarcity of money imposed by the EU central bank and the IMF. The solution is to get out of the EU and stimulate individuals to innovate with a basic income, and challenges.

      By EU, I think you mean the Eurozone, which is not the same thing as the EU. The UK, for instance, is in the EU but not in the Eurozone seeing as we still have our own currency.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    16. Re: How silly. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      You mean, covering shortages by printing money can possibly have a positive effect? That's news to me.

      The EU works hard to help Greece here, and to stop the politicos' attempts to give handouts right during a collapse (like your average CEO, all they think about is short-term gains). If you're facing an incoming bankruptcy, the solution is not to go on another spending spree.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    17. Re: How silly. by lxs · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the EU for not throwing even more money into that bottomless abyss, if you want to blame the EU and international finance, blame them for not shutting off the free money 20 years ago when the debt was still manageable.

    18. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: if people are not buying them, the companies will lower the price if they want to sell them, its
      called supply and demand.. if people want the products, the price will rise.
      Surely you are not going to try and convince us IKEA somehow has a monopoly on furniture that it is
      somehow using to force people to pay high prices?

      Now, with the same reasonning, please explain price of digital goods such as music, movies and e-books for which supply is close to illimited and people are "pirating" instead of buying because the prices don't go down ...

      I leave near a border where I can buy a Nexus 4 for 350EUR on one side and 499EUR on the other side. In the same wal-mart-like shop, it's not because of lack of supply or anything, it's just because some economist found out that in my country people are statistically willing to pay a bit more than our neighbours.

      Point is: supply and demand logic has been broken for a while (I'd add "by big corporations" but someone would add a [citation needed]), time to fix it.

    19. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in terms of flights, all flights have to be offered to all EU citizens at the same price regardless of the countries your flying between or the country you're booking from.

      This is quite obvious to the customer as they're moving borders generally when flying so they noticed the price difference and complained with the EU agreeing and inacting laws.

      I'm not surprised people don't really look at the prices of furniture in the same way, but doesn't mean the same shouldn't be true... ideally if not practically.

    20. Re: How silly. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1, Troll

      You mean, covering shortages by printing money can possibly have a positive effect? That's news to me.

      John Maynard Keynes? Heard of him?

      The EU works hard to help Greece here, and to stop the politicos' attempts to give handouts right during a collapse (like your average CEO, all they think about is short-term gains).

      In the long run we're all dead.

      If you're facing an incoming bankruptcy, the solution is not to go on another spending spree.

      This is why the reductions spending have produced such a massive improvement in the Greek economy.

      Even the fucking IMF have admitted they were wrong!

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/05/imf-underestimated-damage-austerity-would-do-to-greece

      We find that, in advanced economies, stronger planned fiscal consolidation has been associated with lower growth than expected, with the relation being particularly strong, both statistically and economically, early in the crisis. A natural interpretation is that fiscal multipliers were substantially higher than implicitly assumed by forecasters.

      It turns out that cutting 1 euro of government spending shrinks the economy by 1.7 euros, not the 0,5 euros they thought.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    21. Re:How silly. by andrepd · · Score: 0

      >When you're poor, stop spending money on non-essentials. Like food, housing, school for your kids, etc. Don't talk about what you clearly know nothing of. Your comfy middle class position does not give you the right to speak like that about a reality that you can't even grasp.

    22. Re: How silly. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's some problems here. Countries only have so much power to set pricing, without turning into authoritarian states. Australia, for instance, has long had problems with stuff costing much more there than in the US and other places. For a long time, they just accepted it because of the usual excuses of it being a smaller market (1/10 the population of the US), and the long distance away. However, now with so many digital goods and cheap shipping, it's become glaringly obvious that many sellers are just greedy and inflating prices because they can, such as with digital downloads costing more in Australia than in the US, even though it's the same product and there's no extra cost to provide a download to someone in another country as in the US. The Australian government called many software makers on the carpet to explain this ridiculous state of affairs. As I recall, the software makers didn't have much to say about it in their defense, didn't change the prices, and nothing was done. The government can bitch and complain, but the Australian government is still a western democratic country (probably a constitutional republic like most other such countries), not an authoritarian regime, so like most other places, unless there's some compelling public interest for the government to enact specific regulations or worse, a regulatory system (like they do with public utilities), sellers can charge whatever they want for goods and services. It's not up to the government to look at every business and every item their selling and determine if it's fairly priced or not.

      The EU could do it with airlines because airlines are already a heavily regulated industry (being so safety-critical, after all). Furniture sales is not a regulated industry.

      Finally, as I understand it, the whole point of the EU was to basically be a trade confederation, where there was free trade between member states, and a common currency, and a few key things done at the EU level, but where the member countries mostly kept their own sovereignty. If you have the EU government setting up regulation for pricing furniture and other such things, then basically you've given up on the idea of member countries having any sovereignty at all, and have decided to make the EU into a single country, just like the US, only worse (our US federal government does not regulate furniture pricing, and AFAIK there's nothing stopping companies from charging 3x as much in stores in Maine as they do in stores in California).

      Of course, if it's that much cheaper to buy furniture or other things in other countries than Greece, what's keeping people from setting up new businesses where they buy the stuff from stores in those other countries, then drive it over to Greece and resell it there at a markup smaller than the difference that the original seller has in place? After all, that's exactly what would happen here in the USA if IKEA tried selling stuff at such a severe markup in one state for some weird reason. Heck, you could make a business just advertising IKEA stuff on the internet (without even having any stock), along with appropriate shipping costs, and then when people buy it, you run out to your local IKEA and buy it, then ship it to them.

    23. Re: How silly. by willy_me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And here we have a perfect example of (one of the reasons) why Greece has the problems it has. People so convinced that the are owed more of everything as to think that goods being sold by private companies can be price fixed by the government so they can afford them.

      The point of regulation is to prevent companies from market manipulation. Companies will naturally move to maximize profits and will, if allowed, perform any action to do so. Competition gets eaten up while at the same time no room is left for new players. Eventually, the market dies.

      So regulation is required to facilitate a healthy market. Rules are put in place to ensure that established companies can not prevent competition from entering a market. Limits to what monopolies can do are instigated. Everybody is forced to play fair in an attempt to maximize competition and the benefits of capitalism.

      People go on and on about how capitalism and regulation are polar opposites. This is ludicrous. Without regulation the benefits of capitalism do not exist. The invisible hand is an idealized concept which, much like communism, ignores reality and is doomed to failure. A market without sufficient regulation will not optimizes overall efficiency. Of course too much regulation also reduces efficiency - but a certain amount is always required.

      So this isn't about the Greek people wanting the government to fix prices - this would obviously not work. It's about opening up the markets that have been sewn shut by the current players. This required effective regulation - far easier said then done.

    24. Re: How silly. by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Next thing you're going tell me is that your shocked that some Thai girl offered to have sex with you in Bangkok when prostitution is illegal in Thailand.

      When did that happen? When I spent a year there in the USAF 40 years ago, hookers were respected and honored for their service to society.

    25. Re: How silly. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, supply and demand logic isn't broken at all. If the company found that people on one side of the border are willing to pay more, then that means there's more demand on that side. Simple economics 101 dictates that prices rise with higher demand and a fixed supply. Sounds like everything's working just fine where you are.

      If people are that mad about it, what's keeping someone from going to the other side of the border, buying up lots of Nexus 4s, then driving to the other side and reselling them for less than 499EUR?

    26. Re:How silly. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      When you're poor, stop spending money on non-essentials.

      Which means that shops get less business, which means that more will go bankrupt, which means that more people fall into poverty, etc.

      The main problem with austerity is that it creates a death spiral. A government can't save its way out of debt, because every time it cuts spending the economy shrinks even more, cutting income and sending people into poverty. Either Greece stops austerity measures, or there's going to be an open rebellion at some point.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re: How silly. by khallow · · Score: 0

      No, endemic levels of tax evasion (come on, you honestly expect me to believe you had no idea Greece was a tax haven) mixed with equally endemic levels of corruption means that Greece's tax revenues have consistently fallen below expectation.

      That isn't due to uncontrolled capitalism or an uninvolved government, but rather due to widespread disobedience of a too involved government. When running a successful business or getting a job requires you to disregard or sidestep government regulation, then you're going to see a society chock full of law breakers.

      OTOH, if it truly was as you said, then we would see no such disobedience merely because there wouldn't be that sort of law passed in the first place. Personally, I think Greece would benefit from capitalism that was a little less controlled and a government that was a little less involved.

    28. Re: How silly. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The EU is involved not just the Eurozone. For example, the UK has apparently contributed over twelve billion pounds to Eurozone stabilization.

    29. Re: How silly. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Funny

      So this isn't about the Greek people wanting the government to fix prices - this would obviously not work.

      But the Greek people have - for a long time - been demanding all sorts of things that obviously don't (and can't) work, and that's why they're in such a mess. Endless entitlement-minded demands from the Nanny State are self destructive, and ... Greece has indeed self destructed.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    30. Re: How silly. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      It turns out that cutting 1 euro of government spending shrinks the economy by 1.7 euros, not the 0,5 euros they thought

      So by your logic, setting the tax rate at 100% and giving all that money to whoever pays a cut to the politicians in power, will make us all rich?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    31. Re: How silly. by khallow · · Score: 0

      John Maynard Keynes? Heard of him?

      Not a good start to your argument. You do realize that not everyone thinks his strategies are automatically correct. Frankly, I think he's popular only because his policies easily justify increased public spending.

      This is why the reductions spending have produced such a massive improvement in the Greek economy.

      Well, what bankruptcy magically gets better without a lot of other peoples' money? Getting out of bankruptcy has always been a long process. I don't see why Greece should suddenly get better just because it has embraced some degree of austerity.

      Second, you obviously conflate the consequences of spending beyond their budget for decades with the consequences of austerity, which is basically an emergency treatment for a government that has lost most financial credibility. I think an analogy would be blaming the consequences of a heart attack on the emergency treatment for that heart attack.

      We should ask, would it be better somehow, if Greece wasn't undergoing austerity, but had instead been removed from the Euro? Well, Greece's debt would either stay Euro-valued or not. If debt doesn't stay Euro-valued, then it's another Euro-imposed haircut on lenders acting in good faith. If debt stays Euro-valued, then Greece has a similar lack of ability and credibility to pay its bills that it has now. I don't see the situation being any better.

    32. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of regulation would solve this? Companies are allowed to sell their products for whatever they want in every EU country.

      False.

      For example, in France, sales are restricted to certain times: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/31/business/fi-euroshop31

    33. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget taxes. I don't know if there are any different taxes between nations, but between states, there are different tax rates, thus making the same item cost different prices. A MSRP $199 cell phone in my state costs $212.93 in my state, $217.41 where I used to live in Washington, and $199 in Oregon. Thing goes up for economies of scale and items like cars and other large items.

    34. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the company found that people on one side of the border are willing to pay more, then that means there's more demand on that side.

      non sequitur ... it just means that they're psychologically used to get screwed. There is no supply shortage. The price of the Nexus did not jump when it was out-of-stock at its launch. The price remained the same all along.

      Simple economics 101 dictates that prices rise with higher demand and a fixed supply.

      except there is no shortage, just like there is no shortage of bits to provide the mp3 in iTunes and the price don't go down. People are psychologically used to pay 1$ per song, why make them pay .25$ ?

      If people are that mad about it, what's keeping someone from going to the other side of the border, buying up lots of Nexus 4s, then driving to the other side and reselling them for less than 499EUR?

      Actually *some* people do just that ... I mention the nexus 4 just as an example because I saw it yesterday, but tons of other things that are not on short supply are also cheaper on the other side of the border. *Some* people go shopping for food on the other side, 10km away and get prices much lower (I'd say 10-20% lower up to 50% for things like bottled water or dairies). And don't tell me there is a shortage of food supply in supermarket in Western Europe ... it's just that *most* people don't bother and accept to pay a bit more for no valid reason (and yes, social laws, wages, taxes, etc. differ between the two countries, but not enough to justify economically the huge difference. This has actually been studied and pointed out several times over the past years by consumer associations here).

    35. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was cheaper to pay off the tax collector than to pay tax. Essentially companies could do what they wanted as long as they kept the right palms greased (which is cheap for any multinational).

      Not just companies, tax evasion by individuals in endemic in Greece.

      In addition, the large Greek shipping industry by law doesn't pay any tax.

    36. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: According to "thesupraman" people who happened to find lakes of oil buried under their feet were smarter, or maybe harder working, or maybe "willing to sacrifice" more than others. Isn't that great? I thought they were just lucky but that's a naturalistic fallacy on my part. No, thesupraman's God knew those people would be better than everybody else and rewarded them in advance. Cool, huh?

    37. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hint: if people are not buying them, the companies will lower the price if they want to sell them, its
      called supply and demand.. if people want the products, the price will rise."

      Corporations have no obligation to price even basic necessities of life to a point where everyone can afford it.

      Think about how that would work with food: corporations would ask the price that the market will bare.
      How many people would starve as a result?

      A democratic government otoh does have obligations wrt the people's well-being, with it being the people's government and all.

    38. Re:How silly. by slim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you're poor, stop spending money on non-essentials.

      That's common sense when you're talking about an individual, or a household. The problem is that that people extrapolate that to whole economies, or governments.

      Money goes around in loops. At the level of a household, the loops have little significance. If you spend $10 on a movie ticket, that money's spent, and the route that connects it to your next piece of income is so long that it has no bearing on your decisions. At that scale, you might as well think of spending as a sink, and earning as an unending source.

      But at the level of corporate and government spending, the loops are very significant. Pay 1000 roadworkers $20,000 dollars each, that money will go into a chain of transactions, most of which are taxed, keeping dozens of people in work.

      *Don't* employ those 1000 roadworkers, and they'll spend less, slowing down the entire economy.

    39. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't due to uncontrolled capitalism or an uninvolved government, but rather due to widespread disobedience of a too involved government.

      No, the problem is due to unproductive people. People, not government.

      When running a successful business or getting a job requires you to disregard or sidestep government regulation, then you're going to see a society chock full of law breakers.

      A society full of law breakers is not a problem if the law breakers are productive. The economy would thrive despite all the disobedience. Their disobedience in fact would help the economy, as they would be disobeying things which impair the economy.

      When people disobey government while remaining productive, the government would struggle and starve (as the Greek government is now), but the people would remain healthy, as they're productive and can fend for themselves. This is the idea of austerity - cut spending so the weakest and most unproductive die off

      Alas, Greece does not have that many productive businesses. How many things do you have or want to buy that's "Made In Greece" or at least owned by a Greek business?

      Personally, I think Greece would benefit from capitalism that was a little less controlled and a government that was a little less involved.

      I disagree, because as above: the Greek people are not competitive to survive under capitalism. Greece is like a jobless bum who has no marketable skills. What would benefit the bum (and Greece) is, unfortunately, to beg, to steal, to rob, to become a beast that forsakes any sense of humanity, willing to conduct any sort of atrocity in order to survive. You know, things that government is an expert at.

      Hey, I'm just saying that's what good *for Greece*. It may not necessarily be good for people outside of Greece (which is probably why EU and the world at large even care about Greece)

    40. Re: How silly. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      What "logic"? This is the observed behaviour of the system.

      You can't trump observation with argument

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    41. Re: How silly. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      please explain price of digital goods such as music, movies and e-books for which supply is close to illimited and people are "pirating" instead of buying because the prices don't go down ...

      That is the result of government regulation. Copyright is really just a government-granted monopoly. By definition, you are minimizing competition.

      it's just because some economist found out that in my country people are statistically willing to pay a bit more than our neighbours.

      Taking your facts at face value, there is still supply and demand. "Tablets" are the market, not "Nexus 4s". Are all the tablets more expensive right across the border? If so, then either you are correct about supply and demand being completely broken or there is another force at work.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    42. Re: How silly. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed this observation counts money passing through the layer upon layer of shell companies as the volume of transactions? It takes quite a few layers of indirection to skirt the law safely, all without any actual commerce.

      No actual productive work comes from most government spending: it's either broken window fallacy, or outright pocketing. The money that changed hands can be just as well spent by its rightful owner as by the crony whom it ended up with. All the extra "economy" was generated only on paper.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    43. Re: How silly. by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Again, it's simple supply and demand. Sellers will always try to price things as high as they can, to maximize profit. Why wouldn't you? It'd be stupid not to. Sellers are under no obligation to lower prices just to be nice (unless you're dealing with an essential good or service with little or no competition, like a utility, in which case the government jumps in and regulates the market, for the good of society as a whole). But they lower prices in response to lower demand. Excessively-high prices cause low demand, so you reduce prices to increase demand, and increase sales volumes. If you lower prices too much, you get excessively low profits (or at an extreme, no profit, and instead a loss). In the middle of that curve there's a local maximum where profit is maximized.

      If a seller finds that buyers in one country are apparently gullible fools and are willing to pay excessively-high prices for a product (more so than in another country), why shouldn't they raise prices there? If you don't like it, you're free to not buy the product. You do not need a Nexus 4 to live. You can buy a competing device, or an older device, or just do without. Or you can just go to another place where it's cheaper and get it there (or just order it on the internet from someplace cheaper). As long as the government doesn't put up artificial trade restrictions preventing you from exercising these options, there's no problem. If people continue to be stupid and willingly pay higher prices, that's their problem.

      In fact, why aren't more people just buying on the internet? We've had the same problem in the USA: local brick-n-mortar shops charge high prices on consumer electronics, especially in more rural areas. So, people just go to amazon.com or newegg.com and buy it at a much lower prices. The brick-n-mortar shops bitch and complain, but too bad. If I can buy something from Amazon for so much less than locally, that I end up saving a lot of money, even after paying sales tax (Amazon charges it now) and shipping fees, then obviously the local shop is charging too much. In the end, the local shop goes out of business, and I really don't care. Of course, a bunch of people bitch about how this is driving the "wonderful" local mom-and-pop shops out of business, that people should be happy to pay 50-100% more for the same product just to get the "service" that local shops offer (yeah right), it's "unfair", etc. Do people say the same things in your country when people drive over the border (or order on the internet) to avoid paying local prices?

    44. Re: How silly. by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      This nothing to do with capitalism and in most cases state television (or state funded independent television) is more objective and has more integrity.

      Like the BBC and Jimmy Savile, right?

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    45. Re: How silly. by slim · · Score: 1

      As it happens (as it 'appens) although I strongly support the BBC, I think Top of the Pops, an echo chamber for music that was already popular, is exactly the kind of thing that should be on a commercial station.

      But do you imagine for one moment that if, in the 1970s, a commercial broadcaster had handled Top of the Pops, and the country's main pop music radio station, that Savile and the others would have had less access to young girls, or taken any less advantage of them? No. That unfortunate culture was nothing to do with the BBC's funding model.

    46. Re: How silly. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The closest thing to this in the US was PBS, which a few years ago went like this:

      Republicans: We dislike this is serving as a government-funded think tank for the Left. We wish to cut government funding, which amounts to a whopping 18%.

      Democrats: Why do you want children to die crossing the street because Big Bird won't be able to teach them to look both ways?

      And that was that.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    47. Re: How silly. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Interestingly both sides claimed both that the 18% was vital and simultaneously irrelevant, depending on various points they were trying to make.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    48. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right, it's always been dark girls (in a society obsessed with skin tone) from the poor places like Isan who do it. They do it because women are valued for shit in Thai society, and they're expected to send back most of the money to their parents. If they were being honored and respected they wouldn't be asked to sleep with fat old Australians.

    49. Re: How silly. by operagost · · Score: 1

      You assume this is due to a lack of regulation, when there are other possible factors that are directly due to government interference in the market:
      - Taxes and tariffs (the latter probably doesn't apply in the EU in this case)
      - Subsidies
      - Price fixing to support local merchants

      I mean, didn't you just say the government was corrupt? And you wonder why libertarians oppose big government.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    50. Re: How silly. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Again... is there no competition to IKEA?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    51. Re: How silly. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Tax evasion !== tax avoidance. If Greece is a tax haven, it's probably because they have favorable tax laws. If they aren't enforcing their own tax laws, that doesn't make them a tax haven, but a corrupt state and it's no wonder they are broke.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re: How silly. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The point of regulation is to prevent companies from market manipulation....So regulation is required to facilitate a healthy market. Rules are put in place to ensure that established companies can not prevent competition from entering a market.

      A couple of points, first, the effect of regulation is to make it harder for new companies to compete with established companies in a particular market. So, in reality rules are put in place to ensure that new companies cannot enter a market to compete with established companies (unless the new companies are larger than the existing companies in the market).
      Second. how exactly do established companies prevent new companies from entering the market to compete with them? Please list only those which are not illegal without market regulation (for example, breaking someone's legs is already illegal).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    53. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and that disproves the poster's supposition how, exactly? He didn't say anything about them being able to sell whenever they want.

    54. Re: How silly. by TheSync · · Score: 2

      So regulation is required to facilitate a healthy market.

      But in Greece, too much regulation has destroyed the economy. The World Bank Doing Business Index had Greece's "distance to frontier" (a measure of 0-100 where 100 is scored by the countries easiest to do business in) was 62.0 (compare with the US at 85, or Azerbaijan at 62.8). This measure is not just about tax rates, but more about the bureaucracy required to run a business. Even high-tax countries like Norway and Sweden scored in the 80's.

      The Heritage Index of Economic Freedom scores Greece at 55.4, behind Senegal at 55.5. Again, Norway, Sweden, and the US score in the 70's.

      Here is some text from the Economic Freedom index regarding Greece:

      The process for launching a company is fairly streamlined, but licensing requirements remain burdensome and time-consuming. With rigid restrictions on work hours and high non-salary costs to employ a worker, the labor market remains stagnant...The judicial framework is weak, and the rule of law has deteriorated. Protection of property rights is not strongly enforced. The law provides severe penalties for bribery, but enforcement remains lax. A high level of perceived corruption in the public sector and rampant tax evasion in the private sector contribute significantly to Greece's current economic and financial predicament.

      A great anecdote about doing business in Athens can be found here:

      A friend and I met up at a new bookstore and cafe in the centre of town, which has only been open for a month. The establishment is in the center of an area filled with bars, and the owner decided the neighborhood could use a place for people to convene and talk without having to drink alcohol and listen to loud music. After we sat down, we asked the waitress for a coffee. She thanked us for our order and immediately turned and walked out the front door. My friend explained that the owner of the bookstore/cafe couldn't get a license to provide coffee. She had tried to just buy a coffee machine and give the coffee away for free, thinking that lingering patrons would boost book sales. However, giving away coffee was illegal as well. Instead, the owner had to strike a deal with a bar across the street, whereby they make the coffee and the waitress spends all day shuttling between the bar and the bookstore/cafe. My friend also explained to me that books could not be purchased at the bookstore, as it was after 18h and it is illegal to sell books in Greece beyond that hour. I was in a bookstore/cafe that could neither sell books nor make coffee.

    55. Re:How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. The broken window fallacy is apparently alive and well.

    56. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds just like the Philippines.

      * wtf slashdot. Confirmation word: chinked

    57. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law. Import/export licensing. Taxes. Implicit purchase agreements. Leases.

      There's plenty that can be done to artificially limit supply, even across a porous membrane.

    58. Re: How silly. by mikey1134 · · Score: 1

      This actually doesn't have to be answered in the theoretical, it was common a century or so ago. Companies used to control their markets in a variety of was. One common one was vertical integration, a large company would buy up all producers for its source material, and all distributors for its product. Any new comer to the market then either had to either produce an entire supply and distribution chain before marketing a product, or had to purchase from and sell to their biggest competitor. Another common ploy was price fixing. The prices were kept high when there was no competition, but as soon as another company came into the market they'd sell below cost just long enough to drive the competition into bankruptcy. In other cases the company would offer kick backs to retailers to not sell a competing product, or would increase their wholesale cost if they did offered a competitor.

      --
      <gir voice> I love this sig... </gir voice>
    59. Re: How silly. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, yes, those things can affect the equation greatly, but (I don't know if you're the same AC as the one above) the person above was complaining about sellers charging "too much" for items on one side of the border. Well, the first three things you listed are all things that are solely under the control of the government, so if you don't like the prices you're being charged, and you think government policies are the cause, then you need to take it up with your government, not the sellers. With the last two things, I don't see how they'd have anything to do with a big difference in prices between tablet computers in two neighboring countries. They definitely artificially limit supply in certain situations, but not this one, or any one where we're comparing the prices of consumer goods in different countries.

    60. Re: How silly. by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is due to unproductive people.

      What makes unproductive people? People aren't inherently extremely productive. Nor are they required to be in order for a society to thrive. There's a pretty low threshold for someone to be "unproductive" in a society. So if your society happens to have a lot of so-called "unproductive" people, it makes sense to ask why they're unproductive.

      I disagree, because as above: the Greek people are not competitive to survive under capitalism. [...] You know, things that government is an expert at.

      You seem to be proposing that we "fix" what you see as the problem not by forcing them to grow up and becoming "competitive", but by adding factors that would make the perceived problem worse.

    61. Re: How silly. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      All of the issues you are discussing are not stopped by regulations of a particular market, but by anti-trust laws that apply to every market. We could discuss whether or not anti-trust laws are good for the economy and/or the consumer, but that is another discussion. The poster I was replying to said that markets must be regulated and I suppose he might have meant things like anti-trust laws, but usually when we discuss market regulations today we are talking about things like the Louisiana State Board of Funeral Directors regulating the sale of caskets or the federal Raisin Marketing Order,

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    62. Re: How silly. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not only taxes on the sale, but differences in income taxes between states or nations can explain a lot on it too. Suppose area A has an income tax of 10% and area B is 12%. Suppose area B also has a digital tax of 5% on media storage like Canada does and the US partially does.

      Now, if I want to make $10 profit per unit sold, I would price my widget differently in area A then I would in area B. Companies don't reach in their pockets to pay taxes, they pass the costs onto consumers for the most part. In the US, this can be seen by multi state fast food chains. I have noticed differences in prices of Mcdonalds and Wendy's in different states when I visit them and it all has to do with the local economies and taxing structures. If you travel, seriously look at that. You will be surprised at how much different the prices can be.

    63. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically what you're saying is that supply and demand makes the price go down when there is to much supply, except when it doesn't (music, ebooks, tablet, smartphones, food ...) and makes the price go up when there is shortage or when there is no shortage but the seller wants to increase profit ?

      That does sound broken to me. The law that applies right now is "maximize profit and use credit to artificially sustain demand" which is somehow related to but not exactly like supply and demand. Note that I agree with you that it is normal for a company to try to maximize profit. They would be stupid no to. It's just that all this does not obey supply and demand anymore.

    64. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes unproductive people? People aren't inherently extremely productive.

      Whether they are inherently productive or not doesn't change whether or not they actually are productive or not today.

      Nor are they required to be in order for a society to thrive.

      No, it is required. You think food just falls from the sky and then magically appear in your supermarket? Productivity is required to create everything society needs to survive, let alone thrive.

      There's a pretty low threshold for someone to be "unproductive" in a society.

      Sure, if you're willing to accept a lower standard of living. Of course Greece can turn itself into a third world, but that's something most people would want to avoid

      So if your society happens to have a lot of so-called "unproductive" people, it makes sense to ask why they're unproductive.

      Now follow through with that. You ask why people are unproductive. Then what? You would want to do something to society based on the answer got. So you try to do something to society as a whole, and... congratulations, you've just become a meddling government that will "help" those poor Greeks become more productive. You arrive at my suggestion.

      Yes, even "cut back government" is meddling. You're forcing things to close down instead of letting them naturally die as they would anyway (if they are indeed so horrible and bad and should be gone). The Greeks have already been doing that by all the disobeying government and avoiding taxes. The government was, and is, on the way of dying out.

      If the Greeks were productive people then, as I said, the government would eventually starve to death while the productive people of Greece remain. Alas, that's not what's happening. The government is starving, but so are the people, and the people may very well starve to death before the government (it's the people who are losing jobs, while politicians are still bumbling about inside government, probably with savings and assets, preferably stored outside the country). This is why I said it's better for Greeks to forget about trying to become more productive, and just beg/steal/pillage: you're gonna starve to death before you become productive.

    65. Re: How silly. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I really don't see how basic economics isn't working here. For music, ebooks, and other digital goods, there's really an infinite supply, since these things can be reproduced at zero cost on demand, so pricing is really set solely by the demand side: if there's high demand (i.e. people are willing to pay more), then prices will go up. If people weren't willing to pay high prices, sales would drop and sellers would lower their prices in response.

      It's not too much different for tangible consumer electronics, since those can be manufactured in huge quantities at fairly low cost.

      It all comes down to: sellers will charge what buyers are willing to pay. I don't see how this isn't obeying supply-and-demand.

      And still, no one's answered my question of why people aren't just buying this stuff over the internet. We're talking about two EU countries, right? Where there's no trade restrictions between countries any more? What's the problem?

    66. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basic economics is working alright there: seller wants to maximize profit and it does. It just does not match the usual supply and demand scheme since, as you say it there is almost infinite and cheap supply. You don't have the two curves (one going down with price and one going up with it) crossing at an optimal point anymore, instead you have one flat line at infinite (supply as a function of price, ignoring limit for small production) and a normal curve (demand as a function of price). There is no intersection between the 2 curves. What fixes the price is the max of the curve "(price-cost) x number-of-people-as-a-function-of-price" ("-ish"). The supply has no role to play into that equation, so it's not supply-and-demand anymore.

      As for the people buying stuff over the internet, I guess there are practical reasons (I want to test clothes/shoes before I buy them), but mostly there are still trade restrictions. I'm back with the Nexus example: have you ever tried to buy one through google play in a country where it's not officially available ? The message goes like this:

      Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet.
      We're working to bring devices to more countries as quickly as possible.
      Please check back again soon.

      And this also happens when you want to buy, say, a netflix subscription here, or, until a few months, spotify was not available here. And so on for so many other things ... the "not available in your country" on the internet *is* a recurrent problem if you don't live in the US (or UK maybe, and France ?). Heck, there are videos on youtube saying something like "the owner of this content has restricted its use in your country". So much for net neutrality ...

      Besides, you also have things like amazon.fr, where delivery is free for all of France, but not for neighboring countries (this changed not long ago and now many goods can be delivered for free here too, but not as many as in France, and it took years to happen. A few months ago it was *not* possible to get a kindle paperwhite delivered here. you had to get it delivered at a shopping point in France and go fetch it. I don't know whether that changed since then). See, restrictions everywhere ...

      There are also the delivery delays and the return process in case of failure that are much more lengthy and less supple than when you go in a shop.

    67. Re: How silly. by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, it is required. You think food just falls from the sky and then magically appear in your supermarket? Productivity is required to create everything society needs to survive, let alone thrive.

      I wonder what you think "productivity" is. Productivity isn't required. It's just a measure of how efficient work or a worker is. One doesn't require very efficient work in order to move food and other things around.

      OTOH, infrastructure is required. But modern infrastructure doesn't require a high fraction of productive people in a population in order to work.

    68. Re: How silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right but you are talking about a 10 million country. One electrical company, one water company, and "one almost all" company and even the telcos for internet and cellular starting to merge. Around here we have monopolies my friend and the ones that are not public can charge whatever they want.

  4. Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's kind of weird. We hear about governments shutting down all broadcast media other than state-owned media so often that the opposite is just...bizarre...

    What's the rest of Greece's commercial broadcast media like? What was this organization like? The only analogues I have are NPR and PBS for "state owned" and that's not necessarily entirely accurate, and that private broadcast media here in the US is often very, very heavily biased, even moreso when they make claims to the contrary.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by c0lo · · Score: 2

      What's the rest of Greece's commercial broadcast media like?.

      There you have it

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The rest of Greece's commercial broadcast media belong to 3 publishing corporations which also have magazines, constructor companies etc etc. They usually use their media as a pressure for politicians in order to get large public sector construction sites and their idea of news is to terrorize people in order to accept austerity measures.

    3. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      greece has become too poor to put out statist propaganda.

    4. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only analogues I have are NPR and PBS for "state owned"

      BBC in the UK, ABC/SBS in Oz. Note that there is an important distinction between "state owned" and "state controlled".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would you say they use their media to Greece the wheels?

    6. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by mvar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's the rest of Greece's commercial broadcast media like?

      same as the rest of the worlds: Owned by the rich and serving their interests by promoting political views and pressuring the government "in the right direction"

    7. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm envious. I wish the UK government would shut down the BBC.

    8. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Note that there is an important distinction between "state owned" and "state controlled"

      And "state supported". NPR and PBS are neither owned nor controlled by the government; they simply get some (not all) of their funding from it.

    9. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Jiro · · Score: 1

      As opposed to state-owned media, which are owned by poor governments, don't serve the interests of their owners, and don't promote political views.

      At least if the station is privately owned, there are several of them with somewhat different owners. And you can turn them off without being forced to pay for them.

    10. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      At least if the station is privately owned, there are several of them with somewhat different owners.

      And they're all called Rubert Murdoch.

      And you can turn them off without being forced to pay for them.

      No, you can't. Apart from direct subsidies there's the whole licensing system that allocates spectrum to those stations, and requires enforcement - can't have unlicensed pirate stations, after all. And as a completely unintended side effect means that stations only operate as long as they get the government's blessing.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by digitig · · Score: 1

      You are Rupert Murdoch, and I claim my £5.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    12. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why?!

      I can't stand luddites like you who hate on things and don't explain why.

      Perhaps if you spoke up you might realise that alot of what they do is give people what they want to see, if they don't know what you want, who's falut is that?

      For me the BBC is worth it purely for it's Nature programs (which other freely broadcast channel does this?) alone, not to mention it's efforts in regards to protecting and informing the consumer as to their rights... or hosting neutral political debate... DR WHO! (get off /. now if you don't get that)... childrens programing that isn't based around selling the latest toys... the proms... wimbledon... international footbal... news, weather... ALL FOR SMEGGING FREE AND AVAILABLE ONLINE AT NO EXTRA COST*! (which reminds me, Red Dwarf)

      Is there a lot of dross too, yep, but you can look away you know.

      *yes it is free. the licence fee is applicable for purely owning a TV, that money goes to government and then they assign it to the BBC, that is the limit of the state involvement and you would need a license if you watch the BBC or not. Is that a hack, maybe, but that's the way it is.

    13. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by daniel.garcia.romero · · Score: 1

      The rest of Greece's commercial broadcast media belong to 3 publishing corporations which also have magazines, constructor companies etc etc. They usually use their media as a pressure for politicians in order to get large public sector construction sites and their idea of news is to terrorize people in order to accept austerity measures.

      So, it's the same shit as Brazil's media. Small world!

    14. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      No, you can't.

      Don't be stupid, yes you can. No one is forcing you to watch TV. I can't even remember the last time I watched broadcast TV; my TV does nothing these days except to serve as a Netflix viewing device.

      Apart from direct subsidies there's the whole licensing system that allocates spectrum to those stations, and requires enforcement - can't have unlicensed pirate stations, after all. And as a completely unintended side effect means that stations only operate as long as they get the government's blessing.

      Who cares? Yes, 20+ years ago this was a problem. The internet has fixed it: if you want to make your own TV station without the government's blessing, it's easy: just set up your own web site with streaming video. Or upload your videos to YouTube.

    15. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Why exactly do you want to shut down the BBC? My understanding is that the existence of the BBC is widely supported by people living in Britain, despite serious incidents (e.g. Jimmy Savile) and grumbling about licensing fees, because it has a world-wide reputation for accurate, relatively unbiased, and high quality reporting.

      The alternative to the BBC is Rupert Murdoch's News International, who's most recent claim to fame was hacking the phones of murder victims and politicians in order to break stories about the murder victims and to blackmail the politicians. I take it you're a fan?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll cos I'm venting /. you fail (hint: now i'm trolling)

    17. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What was this organization like?"

      See the article behind the first link in the summary.
      This govt run broadcaster had the audacity to be critical of the hand that feeds it - critical of the austerity that is enriching the rich and powerful.

    18. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      Luddite doesn't mean what you think it does. Anyway to cover your points I have ideological objections to a state owned broadcaster. I don't mind a government budget (from general taxation) for news or factual programming being distributed to various broadcasters but the current model is absurd. Would you agree with taxing every computer sold and paying Microsoft the money even if the user only ever used Linux? If you would then you'll support the BBC funding's method but for the rest of us ... If it's really great value (it isn't, it's terrible value - but that's what apologists always claim) then it will have no problem at all funding itself on a commercial basis. Strange how the BBC themselves are vehemently opposed to such a strategy despite what fantastic value they supposedly provide. You yourself are doing it now. Simultaneously claiming something is worth it (in an economic sense) and yet refusing to allow it to function in a normal economic way. Don't you find that suspicious? Can't you sense your own cognitive dissonance? Probably not.

    19. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      See my answer to AC for more details but the BBC news has repeatedly been shown to be biased. They themselves have acknowledged that to some extent. The quality of other programmes is generally very poor. It would be more accurate to say I want to abolish the license fee rather than shut down the BBC. The alternative is for anyone who wants to try and run a commercial channel. With digital technology it's probably never been more achievable.

    20. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by slim · · Score: 1

      I love the BBC; I love its funding model. But I love it least when it's doing programming for minorities, and least when it's trying to compete with commercial broadcasters.

      A commercial broadcaster could bankroll Strictly Come Dancing, or even Doctor Who so the BBC should step aside and let that happen.

      A commercial broadcaster is unlikely to produce something like Precision: the Measure of all Things. I would rather have a state mandated licence fee, and have that kind of thing made, than not.

      Without the BBC there would be no source of quality British content. You could argue that in the absence of the BBC, someone else would fill that demand -- but I'd be pretty pessimistic about that happening.

    21. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      because it has a world-wide reputation for accurate, relatively unbiased, and high quality reporting.

      A reputation that is has long-since lost the justification for. Maybe it's unbiased compared to Fox News, but that only shows how utterly pathetic mainstream US media is.

    22. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by slim · · Score: 2

      BBC news has repeatedly been shown to be biased.
      [...]
      The quality of other programmes is generally very poor.

      In both cases, compared to what other broadcaster?

      I don't see a commercial broadcaster in the UK, waiting in the wings, that's more balanced than the BBC. All newspapers have a bias (which their readership likes), and so would any commercial news broadcaster that popped up to fill the void left by the BBC.

      The BBC is usually accused of bias by right-wingers who would like it to be more sympathetic to right-wing views. As a left-winger, I find it often too sympathetic towards right-wing views. That's a sign of balance.

      As for quality of other programmes, well, some of them are pretty poor. But not as poor as what's on the other channel!

    23. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by slim · · Score: 1

      because it has a world-wide reputation for accurate, relatively unbiased, and high quality reporting.

      A reputation that is has long-since lost the justification for. Maybe it's unbiased compared to Fox News, but that only shows how utterly pathetic mainstream US media is.

      What TV news broadcaster do you feel is less biased than the BBC? I can't think of one.

    24. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      Hehe you meant 'most' for minorities. Never mind. Should it be the government's job to extract £145/year from everyone with a TV so that it can be given to an extremely unrepresentative group to make programmes of interest to minorities? You obviously think it is, but most people would disagree.

    25. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The thing with a state sponsored broadcaster is that they can fund programs that otherwise will never air.

      We all like to complain about the crap on TV, but guess what? That crap makes money, and TV stations and networks are in it to make money. Anything they can use to sell eyeballs they will do it. If it means doing a Fox News, so be it.

      But that neglects the positive aspects of TV - it can be a source of useful information. A lot of state-sponsored media is considered higher quality - BBC, CBC, PBS, NPR because they're not having to chase after advertising dollars. They're not beholden to the advertisers. They want to run some program against corporate interests? They can. (My current favorite is CBC Marketplace which exposes all sorts of scams and mis-dealings companies pull - from the big names everyone shops at to no name Ponzi schemes. No commercial broadcaster would touch that content because some advertiser would get offended and pull their money).

      Hell, if you're wondering why channels like History, Discovery, TLC and such have gone away from "educational" or "edutainment" programming to reality style shows - again, it's money. Educational documentaries just don't make money and pull in ad money.

      Heck, even Doctor Who might not have lasted as long if it was faced with having to compete with American Idol or Big Brother or other show. A cult following only gets you so far (see Star Trek), and moment it stops bringing in adequate bacon, it'll be axed. (I say adequate, because if some show the network carries brings in a lot more money, stable standbys will be expected to do better).

    26. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you agree with taxing every computer sold and paying Microsoft the money even if the user only ever used Linux?

      And this is where people like you go off the rails, let me rephrase that for you so you can see how dumb it sounds:

      "Would you agree with taxing every citizen to pay for a bridge that you don't drive over and a road you don't drive on?"

      The correct answer is: "Yes", I do support that, because that's how we make big and complex things happen. Additionally, you have a very shortsighted view of benefitting from something. If you have an active economy in your downtown area and the price of the home you bought was within your reach, don't you think it might just have a little to do with the roads and bridges that exist, even if you don't personally drive on them?

    27. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Having never lived in the UK (or spent more than 7 consecutive days there) I have seen quite often people referring to something as being reported by the BBC as being an indisputed fact. This is the kind of reputation the BBC has earned for those of us on the outside. It's the reputation that CNN used to have and some people still maintain, but not as much from what I've seen.

      I have lived in the US and other american countries, and now in Europe, and my feeling is that the public's view of "state owned" television networks is polar opposites between the two sides of the Atlantic. Though I've never been to Greece (but I do want to), I can sense that this is an important loss to the Greek People, it's their Government wildly mad attempt to cut costs and failing miserably at it, I'm willing to bet good money that there are plenty of other places to cut costs, some less visible ones, and many much more reasonable that shutting down a TV network.

      Even some changed to the TV network structure and internal organisation might have made more sense. But some idiot in power decided that dealing with unions and labour laws and whatnot was a big inconvenience so he pulled out the fly-killing-cannon and shut the whole damn thing down.

    28. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      See my answer to AC for more details but the BBC news has repeatedly been shown to be biased.

      The BBC are consistently biased, but that bias swings in every direction.

      Overall there's inevitably going to be an element of bias, but on the whole I think they cover most issues from most angles and give a lot of airtime to very conflicting viewpoints.

      I hate paying the licence fee but I'd rather keep the BBC completely independent of commercial necessity - sadly they're not completely independent, but by not having to compete with the other commercial channels they've kept the average quality of UK TV very high.

    29. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by mvar · · Score: 1

      nobody said state-owned media are any better

    30. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by UBfusion · · Score: 1

      Please mod this man +1 informative. I have not posted in months but I cannot but admire the accuracy and simplicity of this post. Please note that these channels also are the ones broadcasting a lot of turkish soap operas, which seem to be the official state ideology vehicle in recent years. If the state channel was the one broadcasting the Suleiman series, I'd expect more than three million people protesting in Athens today and several more millions across the country.

      PS. Please forgive all the greeks posting as ACs in this thread, due to the past week's revelations we all are in super paranoid mode.

    31. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? by slim · · Score: 1

      Thanks for reading past my typo.

      It sounds less if you call it £11/month, from every *household* with a TV.

      Should it be the government's job to extract £145/year from everyone with a TV so that it can be given to an extremely unrepresentative group to make programmes of interest to minorities?

      Yes, for the same reason that it's the government's job to fund libraries. Libraries lead to better educated citizens (on average) who tend to drag society up with them. Ditto "good" television.

  5. As a Greek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    i should tell you that i feel very happy about that decision
    * They said that the "ERT tax" on power bills will be over (it was about 10-30% of the bill, depending on the size of the bill, believe it or not!)
    * In the same time that they ask for minimum wage to be lower than 500euros/month, they were hiring journalists with ten times this wage in order to control them. You can read about that in Varoufakis blog.

    1. Re:As a Greek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Could you expand on the funding? For instance, without knowing what your power bill is there's no way to know what 10-30% of that is. Is the fee actually based on a percentage of your power bill? What is their total operating budget? What percentage of government expenditure is that total equal to? It seems strange to fund a television station by guessing at how much power bills are going to be and then taxing those bills a certain/variable percentage to get that funding. It is no wonder the country is messed up and everyone participated in the national sport of tax evasion.

    2. Re:As a Greek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They didn't say that the "ERT tax" will be over. They *claimed* that it will be lowered.

    3. Re:As a Greek by another+random+user · · Score: 2

      Apparently it's not calculated as a % of whatever the monthly bill is, it's a fixed amount of 4.30 euros (approx US$ 5.75).

      --
      -1 troll is not supposed to be used simply because you don't agree
    4. Re:As a Greek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a Greek myself I have to tell the world that you are lying!
      10-30%??? it is more like 4 -5 euros per bill which comes 6 times a year.

    5. Re:As a Greek by rioki · · Score: 1

      WOW that is cheap. In Germany you pay 18 EUR per month for public television and radio.

    6. Re:As a Greek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MODS !!! Mark him down, this anonymous mouthpiece.
      This is a coup, nothing short of the first signal in an outright attack.
      They're trying to silence the debt-restructuring that is inevitable, even the IMF have admitted their mistakes.
      But continue headlong.
      It's the class war, and the European League are moving in to kill public media, cause they can't control it like thex can with private media.
      Good-bye democractic Greece, we hardly knew ye... :(

    7. Re:As a Greek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Greek my self, let me inform you my dear friend
      You are lying OR you have no idea what you are talking about.

      * They said that the "ERT tax" on power bills will be over (it was about 10-30% of the bill, depending on the size of the bill, believe it or not!)

      The "ERT tax" is not 10-30% per bill. It is 4,20Euro (or something like that) per bill. The bills are 6 per year. Thus a total of ~25Euro per year.

      * In the same time that they ask for minimum wage to be lower than 500euros/month, they were hiring journalists with ten times this wage in order to control them. You can read about that in Varoufakis blog.

      These journalists you state are government's wingmen. They are contractors to be exact. Their contracts have a duration of 1-4 years and they are government controlled.
      You should blame (as a Greek you say you are) the government and their golden boys. The rest 2.500 employees have nothing to do with them. The rest of the employees have the same wages as the rest public servants.

    8. Re:As a Greek by Kvan · · Score: 1

      Count your blessings - Denmark: 26.8 EUR/month.

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

    9. Re:As a Greek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The long hand of the Greek junta reaches to Slashdot. Its a fixed ammount of 4.7 eurow per month.

      One of the founding guests in here.

  6. House Of Corruption by master_p · · Score: 5, Informative

    ERT was a House Of Corruption. It should have been shut down years ago.

    Not only was it a propaganda station, but it was also full of employees that did not have a job description, but they were employed by politicians in order to vote for them.

    2500 employees for 3 channels and 1 radio station.

    1. Re:House Of Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at the Obama horse sex footage!
      Think of the children people!

    2. Re:House Of Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ERT was a House Of Corruption. It should have been shut down years ago.

      Not only was it a propaganda station, but it was also full of employees that did not have a job description, but they were employed by politicians in order to vote for them.

      2500 employees for 3 channels and 1 radio station.

      more Like 4 channels and 26 radio stations (18 of them local in areas with little coverage from other media)

    3. Re:House Of Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ERT station employment was used for political reasons.
      They could easily sack those.
      Why didn't they sack those first before closing the only country wide broadcaster?

    4. Re:House Of Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not only was it a propaganda station,"

      A propaganda station critical of the government's austerity policies... must have been anti- free market propaganda then.

    5. Re:House Of Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's exactly what the commercial broadcasters in Greece are promoting.
      We have to believe them. Right?

    6. Re:House Of Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4Euros/month for 2700 employees for: 5 TV channels, 5 Radio stations (+more smaller regional radio stations), 1 Symphony orchestra + choir and a band, studios, historic archive (organizing, restoring etc), web sites + more. This decision can be compared to decisions from a fascist

  7. Re:who cares? by shentino · · Score: 2

    Considering how often we the people in the US have our own votes stolen, I'm a bit miffed you would say they deserve what they get.

  8. Why pay for cow when you can have the milk free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    State-owned television is too transparent.

    Better to have state-licensed, state-influenced, and state-monitored television... It's clearly much more effective.

  9. Night night liberty by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 2

    Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
    ... John Adams

    1. Re:Night night liberty by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that John Adams was not talking about television or radio.

    2. Re:Night night liberty by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      He would have been if he had known what they are.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    3. Re:Night night liberty by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      You are probably not aware that ERT (Elleneki Radiophonia Teleorassi) was the only allowed TV/Radio station in Greece for many years. In fact when CNN announced its plan to broadcast in Greece by satellite in the 80s, a minister of the Socialist government threatened to "shoot" it down.

      ERT is the most iconic symbol of an old, despotic, union-owned state that is finally breaking down.

    4. Re:Night night liberty by operagost · · Score: 1

      Or at least not state-run media.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Night night liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had newspapers. And they had a serious issue with sock-puppet newspapers, propaganda, and the British randomly setting presses on fire.

      If the TV and radio had existed back then, he would have supported them as well.

      lots of accounts out that are trying to insinuate that we should ignore the founding fathers and throw out the bill of rights because they are not relevant. I say go home NSA, and take your reputation management sockpuppets with you.

  10. Is Greece even a proper country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Some nations are not what they seem. Europe has many of these- pseudo nations that exist to serve the geopolitical purposes of their neighbours. Greece hasn't been relevant since the time Ancient Rome took control.

    Greece only hits the news today because the chumps that 'rule' that laughable region do something like ban all hand-held computer games, and promise to imprison tourists that travel with their 'gameboys' (yes, this actually happened for real, when the corrupt Greek politicians banned ALL computer gaming devices to hit out at the businesspeople who were running gambling machines without giving the said politicians their cut of the action).

    Today, Greece is an extreme-right-wing satellite of Israel (Greece funnelled Israeli weapons of mass destruction to the Serbian butchers when Serbs were exterminating the Muslims of Bosnia- the famous bread-queue bombings were carried out with Israeli fragmentation weapons, honed to slaughter civilians in Gaza and Lebanon).

    1. Re:Is Greece even a proper country? by mlk · · Score: 0

      It is the lizard people who run Israel!

      And the lizard people are just people old Doctor Who costumes working for the BBC.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    2. Re:Is Greece even a proper country? by Jiro · · Score: 1

      ... which of course is a government-owned broadcaster, so we're back where we started.

    3. Re:Is Greece even a proper country? by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      No, it's not the lizard people, it's the crab people. Crab people, crab people, crab people...

    4. Re:Is Greece even a proper country? by matfud · · Score: 1

      The BBC is not owned by the government. It has a Royal Charter and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary. Parliament set the license fee.

  11. 2poor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOLZ

  12. Re:who cares? by Cenan · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is a communist nazi?

    --
    ... whatever ...
  13. Sad, but can Greece afford it? by Camael · · Score: 2

    In TFA, Varoufakis talks about the value of the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation, or ERT to Greece.

    In light of the well publicised financial problems faced by the government in Greece today, can Greece affored to keep it open?

    The government's excuse is thus :-

    Government spokesman Simos Kedikoglou – a former state TV journalist – described ERT as a "haven of waste". He said its employees would be compensated.

    Kedikoglou said in a televised statement aired on the state broadcaster: "At a time when the Greek people are enduring sacrifices, there is no room for delay, hesitation or tolerance for sacred cows.

    "ERT is a typical example of unique lack of transparency and incredible waste. And that ends today," Kedikoglou said. "It costs three to seven times as much as other TV stations and four to six times the personnel – for a very small viewership, about half that of an average private station."

    ERT has long been seen as a bastion of quality programming in a media landscape dominated by commercial stations. But it was also used by successive governments to provide safe jobs for political favourites, and, while nominally independent, devoted considerable time and effort to showcasing administration policies.

    Source here

    Granted the government's self-interest is to spin this story in their favour, but unless they are lying, given the fact that there are more urgent public sector needs that need to be met (eg. hospitals, food kitchens etc) the reasons they gave seem fairly reasonable in the circumstances.

    1. Re:Sad, but can Greece afford it? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      ERT is a typical example of unique lack of transparency

      This fucker - he uses words that he doesn't know the meaning of.

      Typicaly unique, uniquely typical. How does that work?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:Sad, but can Greece afford it? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Granted the government's self-interest is to spin this story in their favour, but unless they are lying, given the fact that there are more urgent public sector needs that need to be met (eg. hospitals, food kitchens etc) the reasons they gave seem fairly reasonable in the circumstances.

      There's nothing reasonable about pulling the plug on a national broadcaster, without notice, in the middle of the night, and turfing every employee out unilaterally onto the street. This is industrial relations amateur hour.

      The guys in charge of Greece have no idea what they are doing. None whatsoever. The same could be said for most western government. The only things these guys know how to do right is overpay themselves.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  14. The bigger picture by cynop · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok so here's a bigger picture of what led to the shut down.
    1) The ERT (National Radio) was a way for decades for the goverment to reward supporters with well-payed tenured jobs.
    2) As a result, there are hundreds of people working there who get payed for menial tasks.
    3) The Troika has demanded that about 2500 people working for the public sector will be fired before the end of June. 150.000 before the end of 2014.
    4) A large privatisation programme that was a requirement from the Troika to continue the Greek bail out failed on Monday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/10/greek-gas-supplier-selloff-gazprom )

    As a result shutting down ERT hits two birds with one stone: It allows them to fire more than the minimum 2500 that was required, and also distracts the public opinion from mondays failure that is sure to bring more austerity measures. The goverment claims that the shutdown was justified because of the corruption and thriftlessness of the organization, while the governing party was the one that helped create them.

    1. Re:The bigger picture by slim · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile this doesn't just affect the thousands of people directly employed by ERT, and their families. It affects every drugstore, cafe, grocery those people shop at; their landlords and mortgage lenders. Sizeable local economies build up around a big employer like that, and that one has been wrecked in one fell swoop.

    2. Re:The bigger picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, those some shop owners and businesses were paying the taxes that were funding those jobs. So perhaps now they have to work a bit less, or lower prices and increase their clientele since there will be tax savings? Or the government will now have money to fix the roads, adverstise for tourism, provide business loans, etc?

      Personally it's way over-due for them to get rid of a lot of the leeches "working" at ERT. They could have gone over a "re-structuring" effort, but the culture of entitlement was there.

  15. Re:who cares? by Cenan · · Score: 0

    Around here, where I vote, a conservative and a liberal is pretty much the same thing. I think you're missing a part of the political spectrum if those are the only two words you have to fling around. And I'm no more closer to an explanation of the elusive communist nazi after reading your reply.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  16. Greek needs new public TV/Radio/Internet-Station by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I do not speak Greek or are able to evaluate the quality of the public TV-station there, but I know that in Germany the public TV plays an important role in fighting dumb TV for the masses with some of their information programs (even though they also provide shows which can only be watched if you had a lobotomy, just like the US TV ;-)). So from that point of view, I think this is a bad move for Greece. The Greek should start a new public TV station funded by the public and controlled by a council where every group of the Greek population has a seat in (no payments) and they have to agree on consensus on elections for directors. that will realize an independent media house, which is in high demand in Greece (and the rest of Europe).

    BTW: I personally do not like the way Greece have been treated by the rest of the EU, especially Merkel, but I also think, they should get rid of their present politicians and demand more public influence in all processes. A little like Switzerland.

  17. Re:Greek needs new public TV/Radio/Internet-Statio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is announced that until August there will be a new public TV replacing the old one. But everyone's fear is if the new company will hire people from the "back door" as the old one did.

  18. Re:who cares? by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Troll

    You must live in the USA, like me. 10 years ago, conservatives and liberals were definitely two different things. But now with Obama duplicating all of Bush's policies and all the liberals supporting him, "liberal" and "conservative" are basically the same thing.

    Now watch a bunch of liberals come out of the woodwork to call me names or act as Obama apologists.

  19. Re:Greek needs new public TV/Radio/Internet-Statio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A major issue is how this thing went on
    Essentially the PM decided and enforced the decision in an afternoon without going through parliament or even securing the agreement of the other two parties of the coalition goverment (the PM's party does not have a majority)
    Then sent the riot police to secure the studios and the infrastructure and make sure the signal goes down

    It is surprisingly authoritarian for a nominally democratic goverment

  20. Three things about ERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. It was one of the worst channels on greek TV and I doubt anyone will miss it
    2. Since always everyone was complaining about the fee they had to pay for it every month. Saying I dont want to pay for state television is the same as saying it should close down. Now all the people who side with the ones fired from ERT are just a pretentious mass. They didn't support ERT when it was working, now they can't act all high and mighty and on their side because it closed
    3. ERT was another corrupted part of the public sector. It was a channel with horrible censorship and with people in higher positions paid more than they should've been. There were more than a few incidents when ERT refused to show things in the news that ALL the other channels were showing. As someone put it "ERT, you weren't there for us when all of that was already happening to us for years now, why should be there for you?"
    4. Comparing ERT to the BBC/CNN is a horrible insult for both of these channels. ERT was worse than FOX news and people complaining about how greece is left only with private channels don't seem to understand that all those private channels are and have always been much better than the mess that ERT was.

  21. Re:who cares? by Cenan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You must live in the USA

    No I don't. Around here (Denmark), a liberal is just a slightly less extreme version of a conservative, and both would be placed securely on the right side of the scale. I don't follow US politics very closely, but to me it seems the democrats and the republicans are pretty much the same thing - corporate apologists.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  22. New Media Boom? by k2r · · Score: 2

    So they shut down the quality-news-broadcast network and set free a pile of professionals, some of them well known I guess.
    Will that mean that Greece will now emerge getting a professional quality-news-podcast-network and will that mean that there has to be a reason to shut down the internets, too?

    1. Re:New Media Boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It means the skilled, professional journalists who just got laid off will have learned their lesson and the subset of them that find jobs elsewhere will now know to report on Kardashian-level drivel instead of real news.

    2. Re:New Media Boom? by operagost · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since when do "state run" and "quality" belong together?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:New Media Boom? by slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when do "state run" and "quality" belong together?

      BBC.

      In the UK, switching from BBC1 (main state-funded TV channel) to ITV1 (main commercial broadcaster) is like going from a Michelin-starred restaurant to McDonald's.

      State-funded is different from state-run. Allegedly this Greek broadcaster is the former, but I don't know how far it swung in which direction.

    4. Re:New Media Boom? by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I'd say unless you have a government bent on controlling the news, state media usually provides the most neutral less "hyped" information. I know in the US it's all about "nothing should be state owned" but beyond the rethoric in many instances state media have provided the best quality TV, certainly in terms of information. Too much of private TV news is entertainment. The CNNisation of news is a terrible tragedy.

      I cannot say what the situation was in Greece, but if it is similar to what I have experienced when I have been in Western Europe, greeks have probably lost their best source of news.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    5. Re:New Media Boom? by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, many surveys have shown that NPR/PBS consumers tend to be more well informed when compared against extremely politicized sources like FOX and MSNBC and also when compared against consumers of mainstream mass market news sources. Right wing extremists have been complaining about liberal bias at NPR/PBS for years but it seems to be the same kind of liberal bias as reality has =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:New Media Boom? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      If the BBC is state-funded, then can I get my money back from the yearly TV license fee?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    7. Re: New Media Boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are the the state, jackass.

      As a New Yorker I wish I could pay the license fee to get bbc broadcast access.

    8. Re:New Media Boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell the BBC that you don't use the TV to recieve TV signals and you can stop paying.

    9. Re:New Media Boom? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      When it means the difference between primary coverage of parris hilton, the kardashians, britany spears, and who ever else or covering news.

    10. Re:New Media Boom? by operagost · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where you have to let the brownshirt into your house to confirm that your TV is incapable of receiving broadcasts.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:New Media Boom? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd say unless you have a government bent on controlling the news

      That's like finding a hog not bent on rolling in mud.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:New Media Boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live in the UK and can prove that you do not watch terrestrial TV (including if it is broadcasted by means like cable and Sky) then yes, you can call TV licensing, they will inspect your house and put you under the antenna radar.

      If that all checks out, they will stop charging you full stop.

    13. Re:New Media Boom? by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Since when do "state run" and "quality" belong together?

      BBC.

      And the ABC here in Australia follows the same model. Quality broadcasting from the state owned broadcaster.

  23. SUVs by buback · · Score: 1

    *cough* USgasolinesubsidies*cough*

  24. Re:who cares? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Yep, you got it exactly right.

    Wow, that's pretty depressing. I thought Denmark was supposed to be a lot better than that. At least you guys have the most bike-friendly city in the world, and a decent healthcare system.

  25. Re:who cares? by slim · · Score: 1

    From what little I know about Danish politics (gleaned from Borgen, and from a nice lady who gave us a walking tour of Copenhagen, including Folketing) - the many parties have drifted so far from their original positions over time, that the names of parties are essentially meaningless.

  26. Re:who cares? by Cenan · · Score: 1

    Well the naming part is very much true, but that is because the people naming parties are idiots. The parties don't drift, the scale changes beneath them.

    We have a party named "left" that is very much on the right. Originally they were the left party, and their opposition was named "right" - but then came those pesky communists and their labor unions and all of a sudden, left was on the right and the commies were on the left :) At least the original "right" party had the good sense to change name to "conservative". Left was just left with left, on the right.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  27. Re:who cares? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

    You mean "Dansk Folkeparti"? The Republican Party would condemn it as wildly racist.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  28. Re:who cares? by Cenan · · Score: 1

    You mean "Dansk Folkeparti"? The Republican Party would condemn it as wildly racist.

    No, I don't mean DF. What I mean is, that if you project the entire political spectrum in Denmark (or any country inside the EU, I suspect) over onto a line, and plot in all the parties you get a line with pretty evenly spaced dots on it. If you then take the republican party and the democratic party and plot them on the same line, they would both land somewhere to the right of the middle.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  29. Re:Greek needs new public TV/Radio/Internet-Statio by Cederic · · Score: 2

    I'm curious about the ability he had to do this. The Prime Minister in the UK could push a bill through parliament cancelling the BBC's charter and/or its funding, but couldn't actually shut it down. If he sent police in to clear the building then the police would be acting illegally and I'd expect them to refuse.

    So it's interesting that the Greek PM didn't face such barriers.

  30. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quidquid_latine_dictum_sit,_altum_videtur

      CAPTCHA: "damned"

      Nobody gives a fuck about your goddammned captcha.

  31. Doctor Who (Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot?) by mwooldri · · Score: 1

    Doctor Who has a number of things going for it. One, it's about fifty years old, so it didn't have an awful lot of television competition. Two, it did build up a cult following over the 1970's and early 1980's. Doctor Who *did* get axed. It got axed because the Controller didn't much care for the show, it got scheduled against Coronation Street (the #1 TV show then in that particular time-slot) and using the excuse of low audience numbers, the axe fell. Though officially the show was "resting".

    That cult following actually led to Doctor Who coming back again. Funny when the children who grew up on Doctor who become Television Producers. .

  32. Re:who cares? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I think what he means that the term "liberal" itself means "conservative" over there, and also that American abuse of that term to refer to Democrats actually has meaning with that interpretation of the word. Not that Denmark only has less right-wing and more right-wing parties (but their left-wing party probably calls itself "labor" or "socialist").

  33. Liberty Restarting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Greek government will be restarting the broadcaster, just under new management and with a lot fewer staff... It's a reboot, not a shutdown.

  34. Political dictionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the United States, the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, it has been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views. Modern American "liberal" is associated with social liberalism with support for social justice and a mixed economy.

    - "Venstre", the Liberal Party of Denmark, is a conservative-liberal political party in Denmark. (near Libertarian)

    - The Danish Liberal Alliance is a classical liberal political party in Denmark. (Libertarian)

  35. Libertarianism by andersh · · Score: 1

    Your Danish friend is a little confused by your use of "liberal". In the United States, the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, it has been renamed libertarianism.

    When a Danish person talks about liberals it's safer to assume he means his "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political parties.

    - The biggest party in Denmark is the pro-free market Liberal Party.
    - The Liberal Alliance Party of Denmark is even more Libertarian.

  36. Social-Democrats by andersh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's the American use of "liberal" which has shifted away from classic liberalism (libertarianism).

    Our "socialist" parties are usually called Social-Democrats, at least in Northern Europe.

  37. Re:Greek needs new public TV/Radio/Internet-Statio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not illegal strictly speaking, but it stretches the law to its limits.
    He used something like an executive order that allows the prime minister to pass legisltative acts overnight. They are considered laws directly but have to be approved by the parliament within 40 days. Legaly it exists to be used only in immediate emergencies etc. but has been routinely used lately for all kinds of things. Essentially he does what he likes, raises hell, creates a precedent and has about a month to get the paliament to agree.
    Regarding the police, they went in following a judge's order too so technically the whole thing was not illegal.
    Im not aware of the details on how the BBC works but my impression is that its less dependent on the state than its greek counterpart.

    In a few months maybe both the legistlative and the judicial decisions could be overturned but the damage has already been done

  38. Insider's view by manveruppd · · Score: 1

    For anyone interested, a balanced view by a journalist working at ERT who'll likely be losing his job now: http://www.eyedoll.gr/ngine/article/1779/%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BD-%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%B5%CE%B9-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%AC%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%B7-%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%84 I'm sure the non-Greek speakers among you can google translate or babelfish it. the tl;dr is he realizes that the broadcaster is a morass of mediocrity and corruption (dozes of "special advisors to the CEO" being paid extravagant salaries for doing nothing), he says that much simpler solutions to the broadcaster's problems that did not involve shuttering it had been proposed and ignored, and that therefore its closing must be motivated by the government's cosiness with private broadcasting interests.