Why should we take Argentina as an example and not Iceland[1]? Because it fits your view, or because you have a deep understanding of economics?

BTW Argentina followed the IMF as many other countries. None ever recovered. Iceland did not, proved to be better off.

Stiglitz and Krugman (both Nobel prizes) share the same view on this matter and Greece (should have opted out of the Euro and defaulted in 2008, in 2011 everything would be fine).

ps. Another fact that you're missing here is that you think this Crisis in Europe and US has to do with economics, while it's clearly a political crisis. The numbers never turned up right, Greece will never pay the debt, there were no financial reason to punish Cyprus other than sending a political message, etc. Even the IMF said that the Greek program was mis-calculated because doesn't wont to be part of the eminent epic failure...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Icelandic_finan...

For every imaginable problem there is at least one simple, clear and obvious solution that only makes the problem worse.

If Greece hadn't defaulted, they wouldn't have cut 25% of the public workforce. Oh no. They wouldn't have been able to pay nearly any salaries.

> For every imaginable problem there is at least one simple, clear and obvious solution that only makes the problem worse. If Greece hadn't defaulted, they wouldn't have cut 25% of the public workforce. Oh no. They wouldn't have been able to pay nearly any salaries.

That's your personal opinion, nothing more.