As I read the details, I had a sense of déjà vu. As chief economist of the World Bank in the late 1990s, I saw firsthand in East Asia the devastating effects of the programs imposed on the countries that had turned to the I.M.F. for help. This resulted not just from austerity but also from so-called structural reforms, where too often the I.M.F. was duped into imposing demands that favored one special interest relative to others. There were hundreds of conditions, some little, some big, many irrelevant, some good, some outright wrong, and most missing the big changes that were really required.

http://nyti.ms/1IxmnG2

Very interesting read.

When you borrow more than what you can pay back, is the lender at fault?

Maybe the first time, or the second time as the lender might give you hope of eventually meeting your debt obligations. But for Greece and Argentina, it is the multiple times that those nations knwoingly trapped themselves into unsustainable debt through their own inept and/or arrogant fiscal irresponsibility.

These nations must hold their own constituency accountable for debt. Not to do so would be a repudiation of their own sovereignty.

"But these policy debates are really about ideology and power. We all know that. And we understand that this is not just an academic debate between the left and the right. Some on the right focus on the political battle: the harsh conditions imposed on the left-wing Syriza government should be a warning to any in Europe about what might happen to them should they push back."

Good read. Today I posted the same thoughts in another thread here. It's about control, not what's best for people.