>>problems that need to be addressed anyway
Who decides what the problems are and how they need to be addressed?
The same "respected economists" you mentioned decided during the 1970's that New York City was about to go bankrupt- another "crisis".
Miraculously, when the banks were able to raise the rates that NYC had to pay for its debt, the problem disappeared because then the banks underwrote the debt and NYC had more than enough cash to pay its bills and was therefore solvent.
So the banks made buckets of money at the expense of the NYC taxpayer.
(I must disclose that I made a few bucks too by buying those bonds. Any moron could see that a city with the economic engine of NYC would not go bankrupt)

The fundamental fallacy is that the "respected economists" work for the people who stand to gain from the comparative advantage created by defining the institution as "having problems."

In sports, the equivalent would be to let the referee be an employee of one of the contestants.



>>>What is under discussion is Germany's reluctance to launch a growth stimulating package that would relieve some of the pressure.
>>
>>Reluctance? Or the guy from Goldman Sachs didn't bring them the latest version of their opinion for this month?
>
>About this case I will invoke my right to remain silent in the absence of evidence. :). That being said, for "the guy at Goldman Sachs", it would be much better that Germany leaves the EU and takes away her guaranties. All those countries facing bankruptcy offer much better perspectives for speculation and quick profits (and losses).
>
>And can you blame the Germans not to stimulate their economy if they do not think they need it at this point in time? I don't think that blaming them for problems that need to be addressed anyway serves any purpose other than buying more time or other electoral purposes.