Does an indebted drunkard have the right to beat a creditor for no longer wanting to lend to him?
There was a bunch of drunks living. These drunks worked and got drunk. Earnings from work were not enough for them to get drunk (they had a lot of other expenses), so they borrowed for alcohol (but they themselves said that they borrow "for a car", "for an apartment" and so on)
It took quite a long time. However, one day the creditors began to run out of patience. They said to themselves: Jesus, they already owe such money! Some barely pay interest! Should we lend them further? What when won't it give us back?
And what did not happen - creditors stopped lending to the worst drunks who owed and drank the most. The debtors found themselves in a drought - but they were dependent on alcohol, so they begged and begged creditors to start lending to them again. When promises and supplications didn't help, a bunch of drunks made up tricks.
They agreed that everyone else, to whom the creditors still lend, would "guarantee" for the debts of the worst. However, they did not have the money themselves, but they believed that, if necessary, they would borrow from creditors to return their own money to them as the "guarantee" - and that they would then "settle it" with the worst.
How big a surprise caught the other drunks when they found out that this trick with a "guarantee" was inspected by their creditors. Yes, they lent to the worst drunks, but at the same time they made loans more expensive for all the other members of our drunken party.
The truth was that there was no penny in the "guarantee fund" and no one even had one on it.
When the drunks found that the situation was even more difficult for them, they began to ask each other that they might use violence against creditors. You have to be beaten. They began to beg in public for how bad and disgusting the creditors are, how the creditors attacked them (drunks). How to do something with creditors…
Who do you think is right? Does a bunch of drunks have the right to beat creditors? Does the lender behave rationally, expectably and correctly when making loans more expensive?
Of course, yes. It is quite clear and logical.
And now let's say that there are 27 drunks and that they are called France, Germany, Ireland, Greece… and so on, according to other EU members. Instead of a "creditor", substitute a "financial market" or more precisely a "government bond market" and you have a relatively precise description of the situation in the current EU (or euro area).
The only difference between the drunken story and the reality of the EU is that the EU has its central bank. But that's another story…