Reportedly the Greek parliament debate on “the new austerity bill” ended with a majority in favour (your report, 16 July).
Noticeable is the prominent (and dominant) role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the crisis.
It is a role seemingly far removed from that envisaged by Keynes, who contributed much to its creation.
He wouldn’t have accepted easily the IMF’s severe insistence on “austerity policies” to tackle Greece’s problems.
Any measures which reduce global demand and fail to pursue full employment were anathema to Keynes.
Hence, for example, IMF demands for increasing taxes and cutting government spending will only create unemployment.
Isn’t this approach to economic policy greatly influenced by what has become known as “market fundamentalism”?
Arguably, as a global institution, the IMF should be encouraging governments to expand, not contract, their economies.
Old Chapel Walk
When the IMF says the Greek austerity plan numbers do not add up, you have to ask what was the point of making the deal?
Has this been a face-saving exercise on the part of a number of high-flying French and German politicians?
Let’s face it, Angela Merkel’s reputation was on the line if there was no deal and we all know it.
In order to help the Greek economy I hope everyone considers seriously taking a holiday in Greece now.
One of the terms was reported to be no more tax breaks for the Greek islands.
What is sauce for the goose in sauce for the gander.
Perhaps we should be reviewing our own tax haven policy in the Channel Islands and on the Isle of Man.
Why do just five of our many offshore islands enjoy this special status in a modern 21st-century democracy?
Nigel F Boddy