[gadders]

>>For example, when the money was obviously not going to be repaid, but the Troika continued to lend them more -- at what point does the lender become at least partially responsible? Obviously I don't advocate irresponsible borrowing, but certainly irresponsible lending is also bad.

But that isn't the cause of their issues, that is just the latest symptom. The cause is electing a series of governments that promised benefits that they couldn't afford. EG [1] letting trombonists retire at 50 because their work is "hazardous".

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-to-cal...

[pm90]

Yes yes the Government was corrupt. What the parent is saying is: the lender should have checked to make sure that the debtor (Greek Govt.) was actually capable of paying back what it borrowed. But the lenders didn't, because Governments are excellent debtors: they represent the nation! Governments are excellent credit risks: because they will most likely want access to more capital in the future, they cannot tarnish their image in the international community. One of the first thing the Soviets did when they came to power was to repudiate all foreign loans owed by the Tsarist government (which incidentally led to a crisis in France, which had been the biggest lender).

[oldmanjay]

I have to admit to a certain confusion about your point. I guess what you're saying is that anyone who thought to help Greece should have expected to be jerked around and told to pound sand?

I feel like this is some form of victim blaming.

[pm90]

Yes, they should have known exactly what they were getting into. You automatically assume a certain kind of risk when you lend to sovereign nations, which by definition, are not compelled to return your money (although they often are, due to many factors).