Talk:Debtocracy

Film Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Greece Unassessed

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article in Greek ?

Does not exist ?Stanjourdan (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

odious debts?

Just out of curiosity.... If the documentary plays the odious debts card, this implies that this either applies only to dbts comitted to before 1974.... or that the documentary actually calls some of the democratic parties that have been in power since despotic, and therefore criminal organisations that should be banned, and whose leading figures should be personally responsible for the money..... Arnoutf (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary does not say that all the debt is odious. It simply states that odious debt is the debt which was aquired behind the backs of the people and did not benefit them in the long term, and this could also apply in Greece in the past 40 years. In any case, just watch the documentary, we are not here to discuss the rationality or validity of the said movie. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am of the opinion that the article erred or at least viewers may be mislead by thinking Greek debt may be odious. by definition, it could not be. the documentary clearly stated there are 3 criteria and the first one is a despotic regime. a functioning democracy would meet not that definition. if the gov't officials misused public funds, that would be fraud, but not odious. i added a clarification to definition of odious debt to the article but someone removed it, claiming there is no requirement for a despotic regime. i dispute this claim. anyone agree/disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.3.65 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is wrong in that it asserts that odious debt needs to be incurred by a despotic regime. By definition, odious debt has three requirements:

It was contracted without the consent of the people of the country that is said to owe debt.
It was not contracted for the benefit of the people of the country.
The creditors were aware of the odious nature of the debt.

I would agree with you that in 99% of the cases we are dealing with despotic regimes, but that does not mean that a despotic regime is a prerequisite for the acquisition of odious debt. In Greece's case some of the debt could be odious, since Siemens and other German companies had been bribing Greek politicians to buy German products instead of other cheaper and more beneficial deals. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Siemen bribery example, if true, that is fraud. not odious. Greek gov can sue Siemen for damage but the Greek debt incurred would still be legit. Because the illegitimacy in question occurred between Siemens and the officials responsible for the project. Not between Siemens and the Greek parliament. Also, vast majority of Greek creditors would have no knowledge of the bribery. Finally, the 3 criteria you listed came from Sabine Michalowski, which is not the original definition of odious debt.

critical reception & response

I think its time to introduce some critical reception and response sections. It seems to me that the documentary was praised for its non-profit character and for the novel view it offers to the Greek monetary crisis, but it has also received criticism regarding the (economic) validity of its claims. Examples can be found here (in Greek):

--Elmerfadd (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that is a good idea. I was not able to find any good information on the critical response towards to the documentary though. One indication I did find however is that the dean of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the largest university in Greece, held a public screening of the documentary. If I am not mistaken, its also being shown at the current protests in Athens (it was one of the proposals at yesterday's assembly at Syntagma Square). I shall have a look for any more critical responses. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian on deptocracy http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/09/debtocracy-film --193.92.251.74 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]