Hypocritical Germans refuse to aid the countries that aided them

[Velasco]

The problem with the anti-austerity camp is that so far I've never seen anyone of you present any options to the current policy. Do you want to keep pouring money into Greece indefinably with-out any sort of counter requirements?

Do you mean people on this forum? There are competent and more skilled people out there proposing other alternatives. Another question is that you can agree or not with one proposal or another. Personally, I don't believe that the solution is pouring money indefinitely in exchange for nothing. Varoufakis seems to be in the same opinion, since he says that Greece doesn't need more "doses of dope" (loans) to pronlong its agony. My impression is that he is saying that Greece needs some air to breathe, as well as he's willing to undertake reforms in his country. On the other hand, it's easy to check (even for non-experts) that austerity has been extremely costly (both socially and economically), aside an utter failure.

But the help should be in order to reconstruct them, so that they eventually can stand on their own feet, and in order for that to happen they must do what they themselves are able to do to achieve that goal. It's all really simple, and can be applied to individual citizens, as well as countries.

I couldn't agree more. The question is that austerity isn't helping Greece to reconstruct itself, but deepening the devastation. That's the reason why other policies are needed. Which policies would be better are, of course, a matter of debate.

(Well, this is more or less what Antonio already said).

[136or142]

This is utter nonsense on two counts
1.The debt relief that Germany received back in 1952 (53?) was debts piled up by a dictatorship.  Though the Nazis were initially kind of elected in democratic elections they, of course, never held any subsequent elections.  It is generally agreed, though I don't believe there is any specific rule, that the people of a country should not be held to the same degree of account of paying off debts piled up by a dictatorship as paying off debts incurred by democratically elected governments.  Though Greece had a military dictatorship up to, I believe, 1977, I highly doubt they were responsible for much of the debt.

2.More importantly, according to Wiki, Greece has already been given significant debt write downs:
"In October 2011, Eurozone leaders consequently agreed to offer a €130 billion second bailout loan for Greece, conditional not only on the implementation of another austerity package (combined with the continued demands for privatisation and structural reforms outlined in the first programme), but also that most private creditors holding Greek government bonds should sign a deal accepting extended maturities, lower interest rates, and a 53.5% face value loss."

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

This is all well and good, but you still have to explain how austerity has helped Greece "reconstruct itself, so that it can eventually stand on its own feet". In fact, it has achieved the exact opposite! Even Greek debt is bigger now than when the crisis began!

So I'm not an economist and I can't tell for sure which policies are going to work in solving Greece's economic problems (although cracking down on corruption and tax evasion, which is what Tsipras has vowed to do, certainly can help a lot), but anyone can easily tell which policies haven't worked.

You guys are hilarious, trying to defend failed policies through strawmen of other policies nobody has argued for.

Now who is using strawmen? I'm certainly not defending Samaras or his policies, or holding him up as an example to be followed, and I don't really see anyone else doing so either. It is clear that tax evasion and corruption are two big issues that need to be handled for Greece to get back up. Obviously you have to have an income. If you collect no money it doesn't really matter how much you cut your spending, we all now that. New Democracy's failure to tackle those problems is a failure indeed, and I don't mourn their passing one bit.

I do hope that Tsipras will follow through and try his best to accomplish something on both tax evasion and corruption. But what if he doesn't? What if his government just raises the spending limit and don't actually do something to collect more revenue? Do you still think they should be handed money unconditionally? That is the central question. The Greek state will never reform, if they know that they can just carry on as always and just get saved by Northern Europe. The money they get need to be conditioned.   

You see I don't like austerity because I believe the Greeks need to be punished, or because I think it is a useful lesson for them. But what I do believe, and what I feel very strongly in my gut, is that you don't get to spend money you don't have, and then expect someone else to come and pick up the tab for you. That is why there is a need both to curve spending and to raise income by collecting tax revenue. If that is your goal, people should help you get there, but not if you intend to sail by.

The problem with the anti-austerity camp is that so far I've never seen anyone of you present any options to the current policy. Do you want to keep pouring money into Greece indefinably with-out any sort of counter requirements?

Do you mean people on this forum? There are competent and more skilled people out there proposing other alternatives. Another question is that you can agree or not with one proposal or another. Personally, I don't believe that the solution is pouring money indefinitely in exchange for nothing. Varoufakis seems to be in the same opinion, since he says that Greece doesn't need more "doses of dope" (loans) to pronlong its agony. My impression is that he is saying that Greece needs some air to breathe, as well as he's willing to undertake reforms in his country. On the other hand, it's easy to check (even for non-experts) that austerity has been extremely costly (both socially and economically), aside an utter failure.

I generally meant people on this forum yes.
As I said, I believe we should help Greece out, but only if they themselves help them out. Now I'm not saying that should happen with spending cuts only, major structural reform is needed much more. But that doesn't mean the Troika and Germany is wrong for giving the  Greece conditions for their loans, that just means their conditions are wrong, and that I'm willing to concede, but that doesn't mean that Greece should all of a sudden be given a Get Out of Debt Free Card, it just means that the conditions should be renegociated.       
   

       

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is all well and good, but you still have to explain how austerity has helped Greece "reconstruct itself, so that it can eventually stand on its own feet". In fact, it has achieved the exact opposite! Even Greek debt is bigger now than when the crisis began!

So I'm not an economist and I can't tell for sure which policies are going to work in solving Greece's economic problems (although cracking down on corruption and tax evasion, which is what Tsipras has vowed to do, certainly can help a lot), but anyone can easily tell which policies haven't worked.

You guys are hilarious, trying to defend failed policies through strawmen of other policies nobody has argued for.

Now who is using strawmen? I'm certainly not defending Samaras or his policies, or holding him up as an example to be followed, and I don't really see anyone else doing so either. It is clear that tax evasion and corruption are two big issues that need to be handled for Greece to get back up. Obviously you have to have an income. If you collect no money it doesn't really matter how much you cut your spending, we all now that. New Democracy's failure to tackle those problems is a failure indeed, and I don't mourn their passing one bit.

I do hope that Tsipras will follow through and try his best to accomplish something on both tax evasion and corruption. But what if he doesn't? What if his government just raises the spending limit and don't actually do something to collect more revenue? Do you still think they should be handed money unconditionally? That is the central question. The Greek state will never reform, if they know that they can just carry on as always and just get saved by Northern Europe. The money they get need to be conditioned.   

You see I don't like austerity because I believe the Greeks need to be punished, or because I think it is a useful lesson for them. But what I do believe, and what I feel very strongly in my gut, is that you don't get to spend money you don't have, and then expect someone else to come and pick up the tab for you. That is why there is a need both to curve spending and to raise income by collecting tax revenue. If that is your goal, people should help you get there, but not if you intend to sail by.

Gut feelings don't make for sound policy, though. And yes, if the alternative is between spending money you don't have and depriving your citizens of the most basic services, cutting their wages to 3rd world levels and letting them sink into absolute destitution, the first option is preferable. Besides the fact that austerity is inhumane, it doesn't even work for the narrow goal that has always been set for it, as it ends up causing a depression that makes the debt even worse. To cling to this idea just because your guts tell you it's right is not only immoral, it's stupid even by a strictly economic standpoint.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you, but there is obviously no way the EU can agree to make any major changes as that would just encourage the political parties in other debt racked European countries.

Maybe they can agree on additional humanitarian aide to Greece or slowing the debt payment process.

[swl]

The problem with the anti-austerity camp is that so far I've never seen anyone of you present any options to the current policy.

Piketty for example defends a progressive one-time tax on private capital, or failing that, inflation. Austerity is seen as the worse of the three possible options he considers.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Gut feelings don't make for sound policy, though. And yes, if the alternative is between spending money you don't have and depriving your citizens of the most basic services, cutting their wages to 3rd world levels and letting them sink into absolute destitution, the first option is preferable. Besides the fact that austerity is inhumane, it doesn't even work for the narrow goal that has always been set for it, as it ends up causing a depression that makes the debt even worse. To cling to this idea just because your guts tell you it's right is not only immoral, it's stupid even by a strictly economic standpoint.

What exactly is morality if not gut feelings, Antonio? Is there a scientific calculation for what counts as good moral? I fail to see how one gut feeling is more correct than another.

My point still stands true. The anti-austerity crowd on here can't present a single option except to keep giving money to them, and hope they do the right thing. Then what? Call that a strawman if you want, but then also present what your alternative line of action is.

If a government can be as populist as it pleases, promising everything to everyone without considering if they can actually afford it, and be allowed to run the country into the ground with-out any consequences, because someone will always be there to bail you out, eventually there will be no one left who can bail out, and we will all  eventually sink into absolute destitution. 

The problem with the anti-austerity camp is that so far I've never seen anyone of you present any options to the current policy.

Piketty for example defends a progressive one-time tax on private capital, or failing that, inflation.

I'm not sure how a one-time tax on capital would be implemented, but if someone tries and succeed, bless their soul. Inflation, or rather devaluation, has always been the best option, but it requires that Greece leaves the Euro. Which it of course might very well do in near future.   



 

 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Who's we?  You and the turd in your pocket?

I'm sure the Greeks are happy to know that random Danes are doing their moral duty and ensuring they don't get a single penny until they've completely and utterly dis/daned them and let them know that they think Greeks are dhildren that must be dealt with like children.

Is this a unique attitude to you Ingemann or is it a common viewpoint in that least of Scandinavian nations?

Why do you have to get snarky about his nationality? ("dis/daned" ). It is not a matter of nationality.

And Denmark is not the least of the Scandinavian nations. It is the largest by territory and the second largest by population and GDP.

I was being snarky and nothing more.  I found his post belittling and patronizing and wanted to respond in kind.  Perhaps as a kind of Jantesque reminder not to think too highly of yourself.

Also I think counting Greenland is a little much here.  

Anyway.. Ingemann broke many of the laws

You're not to think you are anything special.
You're not to think you are as good as we are.
You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
You're not to think you know more than we do.
You're not to think you are more important than we are.

And

You're not to think you can teach us anything.

Why wouldn't you include Greenland in the territory? It is part of the state and is not like all the territory of the other Scandinavian countries is garden soil.

What could possibly be gained by answering his post by being equally belittling and patronizing or dragging the Law of Jante into the discussion?

The irritation of inefficient Southern European economies and political systems is widespread in both Northern and Eastern European EU member states. The Baltic countries are fx some of the hardliners on the debt issue as are other parts of the old Eastern Europe. Northern disdain for Southern inefficiency has some factual basis. Generally Northern European countries are better organized and less corrupt than Southern Europe. If the EU is going to work Southern Europe will probably have to establish procedures and organizational practices closer to Northern Europe and some social norms have to change. A certain "northernization" of Southern Europe is probably necessary if the EU is going to work as an economic union.

(as a Eurosceptic I do not really have a dog in that fight, but if you want the EU to work as an actual political and economic union I think it is obvious that the South will need to adjust a lot more than the North)

Because I think it is easy to pontificate about the right way to do things from a position of relative comfort.  I think Greece should be aided or allowed to exit the Euro and aid themselves.  Ingemann's attitude precludes those for a non workable tsk tsk session of 'we are better than you, and everything would be better if you were just a little more like us.'  That attitude is precisely why this thread is made. There was a time, believe it or not, when countries like Denmark were in need of help in a bad way. Hell, Germany needed a lot of help.  And the allies helped Germany even though they didn't want to, because they knew it would lead to a much better outcome. Playing tough love will only strengthen the extremists, discord, and political unrest in the euro zone

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think that's the pragmatic outlook. The Greeks need to get their house in order, but they can't do it if somebody is stepping on their backs. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Gut feelings don't make for sound policy, though. And yes, if the alternative is between spending money you don't have and depriving your citizens of the most basic services, cutting their wages to 3rd world levels and letting them sink into absolute destitution, the first option is preferable. Besides the fact that austerity is inhumane, it doesn't even work for the narrow goal that has always been set for it, as it ends up causing a depression that makes the debt even worse. To cling to this idea just because your guts tell you it's right is not only immoral, it's stupid even by a strictly economic standpoint.

What exactly is morality if not gut feelings, Antonio? Is there a scientific calculation for what counts as good moral? I fail to see how one gut feeling is more correct than another.

My point still stands true. The anti-austerity crowd on here can't present a single option except to keep giving money to them, and hope they do the right thing. Then what? Call that a strawman if you want, but then also present what your alternative line of action is.

If a government can be as populist as it pleases, promising everything to everyone without considering if they can actually afford it, and be allowed to run the country into the ground with-out any consequences, because someone will always be there to bail you out, eventually there will be no one left who can bail out, and we will all  eventually sink into absolute destitution.

Thankfully over thousands of years humanity has been able to conceive moral principles slightly more articulate and sound than those based on gut feelings. It's a shame you appear to be stuck in this primary state. OK, that was needlessly harsh and uncalled for, I apologize for the tone. I still dispute the notion that morality=gut feeling, but there were nicer ways to put it. Sorry.

I don't need to present a fully fleshed alternative (though many brilliant economists have, SWL is right that you should check out Piketty), because austerity is objectively worse than any of the conceivable alternatives from any perspective. Since you seem so concerned about Greece reforming itself, you should be the one coming up with a reasonable solution to achieve this goal. Because austerity hasn't achieved that outcome.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Gut feelings don't make for sound policy, though. And yes, if the alternative is between spending money you don't have and depriving your citizens of the most basic services, cutting their wages to 3rd world levels and letting them sink into absolute destitution, the first option is preferable. Besides the fact that austerity is inhumane, it doesn't even work for the narrow goal that has always been set for it, as it ends up causing a depression that makes the debt even worse. To cling to this idea just because your guts tell you it's right is not only immoral, it's stupid even by a strictly economic standpoint.

What exactly is morality if not gut feelings, Antonio? Is there a scientific calculation for what counts as good moral? I fail to see how one gut feeling is more correct than another.

My point still stands true. The anti-austerity crowd on here can't present a single option except to keep giving money to them, and hope they do the right thing. Then what? Call that a strawman if you want, but then also present what your alternative line of action is.

If a government can be as populist as it pleases, promising everything to everyone without considering if they can actually afford it, and be allowed to run the country into the ground with-out any consequences, because someone will always be there to bail you out, eventually there will be no one left who can bail out, and we will all  eventually sink into absolute destitution.

Thankfully over thousands of years humanity has been able to conceive moral principles slightly more articulate and sound than those based on gut feelings. It's a shame you appear to be stuck in this primary state.

I don't need to present a fully fleshed alternative (though many brilliant economists have, SWL is right that you should check out Piketty), because austerity is objectively worse than any of the conceivable alternatives from any perspective. Since you seem so concerned about Greece reforming itself, you should be the one coming up with a reasonable solution to achieve this goal. Because austerity hasn't achieved that outcome.

Oh baloney! There is no such thing as a universal set of moral principles conceived through-out human history. If you want me to believe that you consciously deliberate on philosophical principles and different theories through-out history when you're deciding if you think something is right or wrong, you must take me for a simpleton. You go by the gut, you just think your own gut is more correct than everybody else.

As to what I think should be done, firstly I believe Greece should try to arrange a manageable walk away from the Euro. Greece needs to be able to control their own monetary policies so that they can change it to suit the situation in the country.  Then they should devalue their currency so that Greek export become cheap and thereby increase the appeal for Greek products, and make tourism cheap, hopefully giving a kick-start to the economy. After that they should do a tax-review where they come up with an effective tax system, and a plan on how they manage to collect that tax-revenue from tax evaders. Then they should adjust their expenditures to that, prioritizing healthcare, education, police and justice, and infrastructure, cutting everything else that cannot be properly financed.   

[Ban my account ffs!]

Swedish Cheese...they need the money now.  Reform will happen...but slowly.

How do you think many states in the US even make it?  Thanks to vast sums of extra spending from the federal government, year after year.

Sure...it costs money and seems like handouts...but ultimately a good economy in Alabama is good for all Americans...same as in Greece and Europe.  Alabama benefits more from it than MN or other pay-out states lose.

If you can't stomach that thought...give up the Euro and let each nation play sovereign over their currency.  But I feel that the Germans want their cake and they'd like to eat it too...as well as Greece's small cake.  And they don't understand why the Greeks aren't content with no cake and the task of cleaning up the party room. After all, they were the ones who were partying, right?  Well, at least until Germany decided it would eat the entire Eurocake to the point that its creep,show territory now 'I WANT MY CAKE'

[Antonio the Sixth]

I hope you're aware that you just threw in the trash millennia of philosophical reflection on morality. Of course that doesn't mean everybody thinks about Kant or Rawls when deciding if something is right of wrong, but forging solid moral principles requires more than "trusting your guts" and I, for one, like to think that I'm trying harder than that.

I'm glad that you have a legitimate option to offer to Greece (unlike austerity which, again, has been tried and epically failed). It wouldn't be my favorite outcome, but it's certainly preferable to continuing the current set of policies. My solution, as you might imagine, involves mutualizing the interest rates across countries (while keeping the debts separate... so don't worry, you won't have to pay for those damn lazy southerners) and having an ECB that actually does its job and pursues expansive monetary policies. Also, delaying the reimbursement of Greek debts might also be necessary.

[ingemann]

Yaddayadda moral blabla ethics....

How is this relevant for the dsiscussion, I can ignore Snowstalkers misunderstood pop version of the Jantelov (I will get back to that later).

But the whole Austerity discussion have nothing to do with moral or lack of it. If Ebil northern Europe would statuate a example with Greece, they could have been much worse.

I don't envies the Greek, it's not fun to be them right now. But there's several facts. Greece have gotten a much better deal than most debtor nations. The other is even if Greeks debts was not written off, the Greek economy would still be in trouble, because they have a negative balance of payments, their low productivity can't compete with the rest of the Eurozone or EU.

A Keynesian economic policy are often a good idea, but in the Greek case I fail to see how it will help. It will not raise productivity, in fack it will lower it by pushing wages up, it will not give any incentive to reforms. In fact if we look at the Greek economy before the crisis, what we saw was how such economic policies would work in Greece. Keynesian economics are a tool, a very useful tool... so to stay in that terminology let's say it's a hammer, the problem is that the Greek economy need screwdriver.

Still I could defend that Greece got another deal, if they came with a suggestion to how they would improve their economy. Antonio, you're right that it's not your responsability to come with a solution, but at the very least we should expect you to point some kind of solutions suggested by the Greek government, rather than just keep repeating anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity ad nauseam.

As for the whole Jantelov, Snowstalker stop using it, when you don't get it. The Jantelov doesn't say I'm better than you, it's others telling you/me/us that you, I and everybody shouldn't believe we're special snowflakes, don't stick you/mine/ours head up. It's simply a way to tell people that they shouldn't believe they're special in any positive way, and it have zero relevance on this discussion. Nobody is after Greece because they're full of themselves or think they're something special, Greece's problem is that they owe money.

[Gustaf]

Austerity or not does not matter in the sense that Greece was and is never getting out of its debt without defaulting in some sense of the word. This is just basic math.

Thus it should have been allowed to default and leave the euro from the get-go to avoid this nonsense. The debate gets confused because it tends to be between two equally dumb options - either force Greece through pointless austerity that completely unravels their entire society and can't get them out of debt anyway. Or reward their extreme mismanagement of their economy with a constant flow of subsidies that is a) never going to address the fundamental problems (and in fact will add to them through poor incentives) and b) is completely politically unsustainable anyway.

To put this in perspective, in the US, which has a functioning internal labour market, little welfare, much more homogeneity economically AND a common language and culture, the richer states still pay roughly the equivalent of the largest Greek bailout from Germany. Every year. As a constant state of affairs, more or less. That's what monetary union is. Once people realize this they might also realize how ridiculous it is to try and sustain this nonsense.

[Antonio the Sixth]

To put this in perspective, in the US, which has a functioning internal labour market, little welfare, much more homogeneity economically AND a common language and culture, the richer states still pay roughly the equivalent of the largest Greek bailout from Germany. Every year. As a constant state of affairs, more or less. That's what monetary union is. Once people realize this they might also realize how ridiculous it is to try and sustain this nonsense.

So you also support disbanding the US?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

To put this in perspective, in the US, which has a functioning internal labour market, little welfare, much more homogeneity economically AND a common language and culture, the richer states still pay roughly the equivalent of the largest Greek bailout from Germany. Every year. As a constant state of affairs, more or less. That's what monetary union is. Once people realize this they might also realize how ridiculous it is to try and sustain this nonsense.

So you also support disbanding the US?

Why not? We could use its disbanding to solve the Greek crisis. I see the Transatlantic Kingdom of Greecissippi in fron of me right now.  

[Citizen Hats]

To put this in perspective, in the US, which has a functioning internal labour market, little welfare, much more homogeneity economically AND a common language and culture, the richer states still pay roughly the equivalent of the largest Greek bailout from Germany. Every year. As a constant state of affairs, more or less. That's what monetary union is. Once people realize this they might also realize how ridiculous it is to try and sustain this nonsense.

So you also support disbanding the US?

Would a smaller, humbler set of United States be really such a bad thing?

[palandio]

On the long run I don't see many options:
1. Germany accepts a transfer union.
2. Germany leaves the common currency, at least temporarily (Dexit).
3. Germany gives up its policy of internal devaluation.
4. Endless crisis with the hidden inclusion of option 1.
4b. Uncontrolled breakdown of the currency union.

The chosen option will be 4., Tsipras will fail. The question is not about morale, it is about which kind of national policies are reasonable within a currency union and which are not. The results will be bad for everyone.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yaddayadda moral blabla ethics....

How is this relevant for the dsiscussion, I can ignore Snowstalkers misunderstood pop version of the Jantelov (I will get back to that later).

But the whole Austerity discussion have nothing to do with moral or lack of it. If Ebil northern Europe would statuate a example with Greece, they could have been much worse.

I don't envies the Greek, it's not fun to be them right now. But there's several facts. Greece have gotten a much better deal than most debtor nations. The other is even if Greeks debts was not written off, the Greek economy would still be in trouble, because they have a negative balance of payments, their low productivity can't compete with the rest of the Eurozone or EU.

A Keynesian economic policy are often a good idea, but in the Greek case I fail to see how it will help. It will not raise productivity, in fack it will lower it by pushing wages up, it will not give any incentive to reforms. In fact if we look at the Greek economy before the crisis, what we saw was how such economic policies would work in Greece. Keynesian economics are a tool, a very useful tool... so to stay in that terminology let's say it's a hammer, the problem is that the Greek economy need screwdriver.

Still I could defend that Greece got another deal, if they came with a suggestion to how they would improve their economy. Antonio, you're right that it's not your responsability to come with a solution, but at the very least we should expect you to point some kind of solutions suggested by the Greek government, rather than just keep repeating anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity ad nauseam.

As for the whole Jantelov, Snowstalker stop using it, when you don't get it. The Jantelov doesn't say I'm better than you, it's others telling you/me/us that you, I and everybody shouldn't believe we're special snowflakes, don't stick you/mine/ours head up. It's simply a way to tell people that they shouldn't believe they're special in any positive way, and it have zero relevance on this discussion. Nobody is after Greece because they're full of themselves or think they're something special, Greece's problem is that they owe money.

It is you who isn't getting it.  You act full of yourself in a way reminiscent of Gustaf (very grumpy and coarse, but also completely non self aware about it). 

People here always attribute the warmth and friendliness to Scandinavian roots...but unless all the friendly ones came to America, Im beginning to sense it came from somewhere else.  Who knows...maybe only Norwegians are friendly.

It's also clear youcan't take a joke. I expect you'll be offended by this post.

[ingemann]

First I will apoligise that I do not fit into some disneyfied American stereotype of Scandinavians. I know it's evil of me not to be a walking liberal stereotype. Second I'm sorry Gustaf and I have destroyed your vision of how Scandinavians should be. Of course I also expect that your view of Norwegians will be destroyed the moment you have interact with some of those.

Second... your stereotype of Scandinavian are warmth and friendliness? Wow I'm impressed with how we ended up with that stereotype, the standard description of us are cold and reserved (unless we drink) among foreigners, and it's centuries old.

[Beezer]

Eurozone meeting ends in tears...is this the end?

[Хahar 🤔]

And Denmark is not the least of the Scandinavian nations. It is the largest by territory and the second largest by population and GDP.

[Vosem]

And Denmark is not the least of the Scandinavian nations. It is the largest by territory and the second largest by population and GDP.

Indeed, Portugal was not, at that time, a small nation. The more pertinent questions are whether being a small nation is necessarily a bad thing (probably not), and whether Greenland can be said to be in the same state that Angola and Mozambique were under Salazar's Portugal (certainly not).

[politicus]

And Denmark is not the least of the Scandinavian nations. It is the largest by territory and the second largest by population and GDP.

Indeed, Portugal was not, at that time, a small nation. The more pertinent questions are whether being a small nation is necessarily a bad thing (probably not), and whether Greenland can be said to be in the same state that Angola and Mozambique were under Salazar's Portugal (certainly not).

The comparison is also false. I never said Denmark wasn't a small country (that would be absurd), I said it was not the least among the five (small) Scandinavian countries. Which is a fact (Iceland is obviously the least in that group by any reasonale measure). Denmark is the second largest of them by population and economy. That it is the largest by territory is not that relevant, but nevertheless true. Population is generally the best way to compare the size of countries IMO.