On the article that Seraph linked to. I've read it more carefully now.
It has an agenda: It's anti globalisation. Whereas IMF and all the other institutions whose advice Latvia's been following are pro-globalization.

It happens to tie in with my political views, so I'd say it's pretty much right on the spot.
But is it painting a too gloomy picture of Latvia? I have no idea because I don't know how normal people live or whether they really have as much debt as the article suggests.

Nevertheless, I'd say that the way that Belarus has gone makes more sense TO ME. Instead of throwing out everything that the the USSR had built up, as useless, they choose to continue using it and make gradual reforms. As a result, their country is just a tiny bit 'old fashioned'... but everyone's got a job and they haven't sold out the country and all its assets to foreigners. Plus, the country looks very good - clean, no graffiti and renovation completed or in progress pretty much everywhere. You can live very cheaply there so the fact that the income levels are low is not massively relevant unless the person plans a holiday abroad, or buying something like an ipad.
Quote Originally Posted by Report
Latvia has too little industry, too little agricultural modernization, but over 9 billion lati in private debt – now at risk of being shifted onto the government’s balance sheet, just as has occurred with the U.S. bank bailouts.
If this credit had been extended productively to build Latvia’s economy, it would have been acceptable. But it was mostly unproductive, extended to fuel land-price inflation and luxury consumption, reducing Latvia to a state of near debt serfdom.
It was Western neoliberals who financialized these economies with the “business friendly reforms” so loudly applauded by the World Bank, Washington and Brussels.

Far lower levels of corruption obviously are to be desired (but whom else would the West trust?), but dramatically reducing it would perhaps only improve matters up to the level of Estonia’s road into euro-debt peonage. These neighboring Baltic counties likewise have suffered dramatic unemployment, reduced growth, declining health standards and emigration, in sharp contrast to Scandinavia and Finland.
And as matters turned out, every design was the same. The names of individuals were different, but most were linked to and financed by Washington, the World Bank and European Union. And sponsored by the West’s financial institutions, one hardly should be surprised that they came up with a design in their own financial interest.
It was a plan that no democratic government in the West could have passed. Public enterprises were doled out to individuals trusted to sell out quickly to Western investors and local oligarchs who would move their money safely offshore into the Western havens.
I am beginning to wonder.... were these Eastern countries let into the EU so that they could be ripped off by businesses in Western Europe...? and so that their citizens can go to Germany, the UK etc and do crappy jobs that can't be filled by local people. So in the USSR built factories, schools and military bases..... The EU and USA are screwing the Balts for money.
If I was Baltic I'd be pretty confused and fed up with the situation. They've been taken for a ride...