Now we have a thing called debt brake in our constitution forbidding us to increase debt alot after 2016 (new debt per year must be less than 0.35% of gdp). I wonder if politicians actually can work with it or if they will ignore it somehow (creative bookkeeping probably the preferred method). And if it works, if they will cut expenses or increase taxes.

I see it mainly as an unfair generation problem. The people who retire now will have it much better than the people who retire in 20 years, because these people will earn much less during their work live and therefore will get much less pension too. One generation pays of for the sins of the previous generation which is just unfair. I prefer a democracy which does not allow such things, that is a democracy with an inbuilt constitutional debt brake (not an expense limit - the right size of public expenses is a completely different field, and also not during crisises, where you need to absorb part of the shock by public spending, but only in average over periods of say 5-10 years).

For me it seems like many people don't care about the next generation. They want to profit now and to hell with what comes afterwards.

Is having baby at 32 a 'special case' in Greece? My son was born when my wife was 34 and my daughter came 2 years later… I know – people delay having babies nowadays but I don’t think even for our parents generation it was so uncommon and rare case to have at least 1 kid at 32+.

Fortunately, many people have children and grandchildren too. I've heard many elders say "I don't care that much about myself anymore, I just wish everything will be ok with the generation of my children and grand-children...".

So maybe there is still some hope, but in general I understand where you are coming from. Older people might simply say "Why should we save for something we won't see in our lifetime? After all we made your current welfare that you are enjoying now!". And maybe there is some truth in that too.

You got it wrong, but I am partly to blame as I wasn't clear: It was a law that was voted back in the 80's during a series of social reforms that aimed to satisfy low classes and women. Apparently the law mentioned that if all of the recognized full-time working years of a woman were added up and came more than 35, and she had a child below 18 years old, she had the right to go to retirement. My mother was retired a few years ago, when she was 51 years old (my brother was 17 at the time), but she had been working full-time since she was 15.

I think this law was cancelled a few months/years ago though, due to the new crisis law reforms - in fact I'm quite sure my mother belonged to one of the last waves of women who managed to retire at that age, because I have not heard about a pertinent case again.

I also have a child and I am saving for her and would give almost anything because I want that she will have it better than how we had it. My parents did the same for me. But what works on a personal level, seems to not work on a society level.

It's not stupidity at all (other cases, not related to your examples). That would imply that people in general don't get much education, but in fact it's just the opposite. It's simple fragmentation and fictionalisation of the system. It's great when you don't want someone in power for too long (eg. a kingdom), but mostly bad for actually doing things. One side can assemble a plan, then the other must nitpick and criticize the plan in order to satisfy their ideology or because they are the opposition, and therefore must be against. Only when both parties are kicked in the balls, then some form of mutual consideration can occur. By then it's usually too late. Sometimes even a bad plan is a better plan than nothing at all.

In relation - countries that have deficit problems today didn't get them over night, and clearly they didn't just happen to come by as the economic crisis exploded. They were in fact produced over decades of misspending and the product of multiple parties in a parliament system, by witch most western countries adere. As such, the current party in office at any one time was clearly not interested in fixing the country's finances, as doing such could meant cutting and tightening of government programs, all very unpopular with the populace. Thereof, they postponed the problems to other parties which would eventually take office, and in strategic terms make them unpopular in the long run, since they would eventually have to start fixing the soaring debt.

In short: procrastination in financial distribution is a big minus here.

What the hell are you talking about. Anyone should be able to go on retirement WHENEVER THE HELL HE WANTS!

Of course, after liquidation of state pensions.

You socialists, telling people when to retire... Just move retirement age to 90, and all your problems are solved.

And don't forget about setting the minimum wage at 100,000$ , and we will be happy.

Because I see it like you're telling retirement age in Greece is the problem, and not the whole freaking system

Go back to the XIXth century, where you belong ;P.

Not only is the euro not going to disappear, but when Poland joins the euro-zone in a few years, prices on GOG will probably be in euros too...

Your point?

Zlots be bad?

We will be soon in 1939 again, because socialism in Europe will cause great economical crysis and inflation.

Because you, socialists, are giving poor man's a fish, not a fishing rod. And soon, we will all be out of fishes.

Well, from my point of view I'm waiting to see what will come first, the USA economic collapse or the bankrupt of Italy.....

Of course in a system without a democracy, where you do not have to take care of your population even worse things tend to happen. It seems schizophrenic. People want a balanced budget but they also don't want to pay taxes or face spending cuts. Everybody kind of knows that you can't eat the cake and have it.

But maybe it's rational. If policy makers speak about cuts you never know if they are really neccessary or if it's just a redistribution from you to another privileged group of society. So you opposse these cuts just because of mistrust and because the system is not transparent enough. We all know that every politic system produces corruption and misjustice so we have to chose the best out of some mediocre options at every election. Direct partizipation via popular votes might help there.

I guess that in a clear, transparent system people will benefit more and also are more willing to agree to cuts, because they know that in the long run it will really help them.

This and solving the generation problem by a "balanced budget law" on constitutional level and you have something like: democracy+

they CAN retire anytime they want to. some people retire when they turn eighteen.

either you were sarcastic or don't grasp the point.