Slashdot Mirror


Valve's Economist Yanis Varoufakis Appointed Greece's Finance Minister

eldavojohn writes A turnover in the Greek government resulted from recent snap elections placing SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left) in power — just shy of an outright majority by two seats. Atheist, and youngest Prime Minister in Greek history since 1865, Alexis Tsipras has been appointed the new prime minister and begun taking immediate drastic steps against the recent austerity laws put in place by prior administrations. One such step has been to appoint Valve's economist Yanis Varoufakis to position of Finance Minister of Greece. For the past three years Varoufakis has been working at Steam to analyze and improve the Steam Market but now has the opportunity to improve one of the most troubled economies in the world.

13 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how to feel about this one...

    1. Re: Honestly... by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This certainly explains the observed tendency of economies to collapse randomly no matter how they're run.

      However, unlike in game economies, decisions in real economies affect people in addition to economy. Even if austerity actually was a cure to euro's problems, it cannot continue without destroying EU itself. People aren't going to tolerate endless misery just to boost some number, no matter how necessary politicians (who don't share the misery) deem it.

      Either EU gets euro to work without austerity, or it has to abandon it. Demanding sacrifices from the common people who's reward is having less say in their own local affairs is quickly discrediting the entire union.

      --

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

  2. Brave Man by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Finance Minister of Greece ranks pretty high on my list of "you could pay me enough, but it would be A LOT" jobs.

  3. This doesn't sound... sound by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't really want to compare Yanis to a gambling murderer, but I am anyways. This sounds a bit too much like John Law getting appointed to fix the French Economy. That turned out great for everyone didn't it. Appointing someone to run your economy who's primary job in economics was to make a bunch of gambling addicts to improve steams revenue doesn't sound like the kind of person who should be fixing an economy. But who knows, maybe he'll do something good and be crowned a genius.

    1. Re:This doesn't sound... sound by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not going to judge based on what his last job was, if he's actually technically qualified to do this one.

      I just wonder what their plan is. Austerity is not a happy thing, but it is definitely possible to make things worse. With their economy in its current state, the usual leftist option of borrowing and spending their way out of it may be very limited. Not to mention that it sort of got them there to begin with. And the people likely elected these guys because they want their benefits back, somehow. Sadly democracy does not always make for good economic policy.

      It would be interesting if there was some clever model that could get them out of this mes.

    2. Re:This doesn't sound... sound by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know ... looking around what has happened in the last few decades ... I think being a trained economist makes you eminently unqualified to run an economy.

      Economics is as much ideology as it is "science" -- what you think will happen depends on what you believe happens. Economics is not some intrinsic natural law.

      It seems like trained economists are just as likely to fuck up an economy as would be trained monkeys -- because at the end of the day you have shockingly little control over things, and probably less of an understanding that you claim. Let's not start pretending that economists actually know anything about the economy. They know what their ideologically driven view of economics tells them to they know.

      I think calling economics a "science" is a complete joke -- because it's not.

      Of course, the biggest thing facing Greece is they can't wave away their debts and their problems -- never been certain the austerity program was going to work for them, but they basically drove themselves into the ground and won't get out by telling Germany et al "thanks for the money, now piss off".

      When you have no cash, and nobody is willing to give you credit ... this new government seems to be living in a fantasy if they think they can just make that all go away.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:This doesn't sound... sound by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's not start pretending that economists actually know anything about the economy.

      Let's not start pretending that you actually know anything about economists or economy. Sounds much more like ignorance and axe-grinding to me.

    4. Re:This doesn't sound... sound by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not claiming I have the answers ... but I'm flat out saying the economists who tell us WTF the economy is doing and why are so completely full of shit as to be laughable.

      Economics isn't a science, it's fucking ideology.

      The idiotic policies of Alan Greenspan almost directly led to the housing bubble ... and even he admits his notion of "free money" was idiotic and wrong.

      Economics is NOT a fucking science and never has been, it's intrinsically linked to politics and ideology.

      People who claim it is some kind of objective science are either lying to us, or to themselves. Science doesn't yield different outcomes based on your political leaning.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:This doesn't sound... sound by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Economics isn't an ideology.

      Bullshit, it sure isn't objective science, it's models, based on dubious assumptions which aren't reflective of anything other than the beliefs of the person who made them, and then using mathematics of dubious quality to "prove" what your ideology tells you.

      Are you retarded or just ignorant?

      Are you an asshole or a douchebag?

      I'm saying that when people say "if you cut taxes it will stimulate the economy", that is a purely ideological position, not grounded in objective fact. And economics serves no purpose if it isn't down to implementing policy, which is inherently idological.

      And again, it is like you are saying physics cannot be a science because there is many unproven theories that coexists.

      No, I'm saying physics still boils down to actual objective reality, and in no fucking way shape or form does economics do that, and never has.

      Frankly, you are an idiot.

      Frankly, you're an asshole who thinks too highly of his own opinion.

      So far you've failed to offer anything intelligent, just the cowardly ad hominem attacks of a worthless moron with nothing new to add.

      So, I'll tell you what, here's a piece by someone who has a fucking Nobel prize in "economic science".
      One problem with economics is that it is necessarily focused on policy, rather than discovery of fundamentals. Nobody really cares much about economic data except as a guide to policy: economic phenomena do not have the same intrinsic fascination for us as the internal resonances of the atom or the functioning of the vesicles and other organelles of a living cell. We judge economics by what it can produce. As such, economics is rather more like engineering than physics, more practical than spiritual.

      There is no Nobel prize for engineering, though there should be. True, the chemistry prize this year looks a bit like an engineering prize, because it was given to three researchers - Martin Karplus, Michael Levitt, and Arieh Warshel - "for the development of multiscale models of complex chemical systems" that underlie the computer programs that make nuclear magnetic resonance hardware work. But the Nobel Foundation is forced to look at much more such practical, applied material when it considers the economics prize.

      The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes into play. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by public attention. The Nobel prize is designed to reward those who do not play tricks for attention, and who, in their sincere pursuit of the truth, might otherwise be slighted.

      Why is it called a prize in "economic sciences", rather than just "economics"? The other prizes are not awarded in the "chemical sciences" or the "physical sciences."

      Fields of endeavour that use "science" in their titles tend to be those that get masses of people emotionally involved and in which crackpots seem to have some purchase on public opinion. These fields have "science" in their names to distinguish them from their disreputable cousins.

      So, seriously, fuck off and grow up.

      Economics is descriptive how what complex systems involving humans do. But is is NOT measuring some innate natural properties of how that actually works.

      As soon as economics goes from measuring and describing, and steps into applying policy .... it utterly ceases to be a science.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Re:Not sure it's a good job choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're already past the "make things worse" stage. That's what austerity brought.

    Shit's hitting the fan and that's why the radicals are showing up

  5. Re:Greeks Act Like Children by Ash-Fox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What they really don't like isn't austerity, it's living within their means.

    Wrong, the austerity measures implemented a dependency on living outside the means of the country, without the ability to devalue their currency in a controlled fashion like Iceland did, this makes recovery not possible. You don't get a man out of debt by lending more money to him and forcing him to accept it while following specific terms on how to make use of it.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  6. Re:Radical Left allowed to run a country... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a better link to an article from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs...

    AS one country after another on the periphery of the euro zone had to swallow painful reforms and fiscal austerity as the price for their bail-outs between 2010 and 2013, the surprise was that by and large they accepted the medicine without a large-scale populist revolt. But Sunday’s result in the Greek election marks a turning-point because Syriza, the radical-left party that has prevailed at the polls, campaigned on casting aside austerity, backtracking on the reforms and renegotiating the vast debt that Greece owes its European creditors. These policies are unacceptable to the euro-zone countries, especially Germany, that have lent Greece so much money. The outcome of the election could also have wider implications. Why does the Greek result matter?

    A clash is impending because the Greeks see their recent history in a very different light from that of the Germans and other Europeans who have bailed them out. From the perspective of Northern creditor nations, Greece was the architect of its own misfortune by mismanaging its public finances on a staggering scale. It has been lent an astonishing amount of money in not just one but two bail-outs, amounting to €246 billion ($275 billion), worth more than the country’s entire economic output. From a Greek perspective, however, the country has suffered a calamitous decline in GDP, which at its low in late 2013 was 27% down on its pre-crisis peak. Harsh spending cuts and tax rises have been imposed again and again as conditions for further economic support. Greeks feel that they have lost control of their country, which is now instead being directed by the hated troika: the European Commission, the IMF and the European Central Bank.

    Syriza won on Sunday because Alexis Tsipras, the party's leader, offered a message of hope to a country still in despair, even though the economy is now recovering. But the difficulty with his plan for Greece is that it requires other Europeans to finance it—or to countenance a reversal of reforms they regard as vital for Greece to cope with euro-zone membership. If Mr Tsipras makes good on promises of higher spending and lower taxes then Greece will fail to meet its objective of running a big primary budget surplus (ie, before interest payments), which would make it far harder to get its debt down from 175% of GDP. And if he reverses reforms such as the ones that have brought down wages, then Greece will head back towards the uncompetitive economic mess that, along with budgetary mismanagement, got it into trouble in the first place.

    In the negotiations that will now occur between Mr Tsipras and Greece’s creditors, Germany will give little ground. Angela Merkel, too, must pay attention to domestic opinion, which would be hostile to any concessions. The German chancellor also has to reckon with the wider impact of any deal that appeared to reward Syriza in emboldening populist revolts in other countries in the euro area, notably in Spain. For any country to leave the euro will be destabilising because it would break the supposed irrevocability of membership. But if Mr Tsipras were to get his way then the euro area would become a club where borrowers rather than lenders called the shots, which would be unsustainable. That is why Mr Tsipras will, before long, face a difficult choice between backing down on his demands—or presiding over a ruinous Greek exit.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. Re:Greece's problem is lack of ecumenic freedom by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, 58.5% is really high, but most of it is for servicing its huge mountain of debt (175% of its GDP).

    Japan has more public debt than Greece. But its government only spends about 35% of its GDP.