If the supply of money has essentially been exhausted, then both borrowers and lenders have been doing something wrong, and it should be BOTH that suffer, so that both are incentivized not to resch this point again. What happened in Greece instead was that only the borrowers suffered, the lenders got all their money back.

Even worse, it'll be the borrower's children who will suffer the consequences.

But what is the solution here? Be really angry to the lenders and make them keep writing checks to the fraudulent borrowers?

I mean, do I get this correct? Would you say that when people need to pay their debts, the bank gets to enforce measures despite it causing the debtor's children dying (i.e. increased child mortality)?

I might have gotten you wrong here. It is not easy to parse a 100+ word sentence.

You can argue that if that money was not given in first place is just as bad as asking it back.

I am sure the poorer EU countries would also lower their mortality rates if they were given the free check. What's special about Greece, why Romanians can't lower their mortality rates by living a good life on credit? Why the UK can't do that?

They both have higher child mortality rates than Greece: https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/data/euro...

Are they not clever enough? Not important enough? What's going on here?

What is going on here is that debt in the current financial system is at conflict with current moral standards. Debt is being transferred from parents to children (mostly in the form of state debt), while defaults are being pushed almost exclusively on the the debtor from the debtee. The consequence is that there are a lot of people being punished for events outside of their control.

Yeah, when a debt cannot be filled, debtor and debtee need to share the consequences proportionally. And in the case of Greece, the 30% haircut is not remotely proportional.

also “Think of the children” argument should stop being abused.