Shakespeare's Globe, London

Henry IV: Part I; Compañia Nacional de Teatro, Mexico 4/5
Henry IV: Part II; Elkafka Espacio Teatral, Argentina 3/5

A burst of Latin percussion from the musicians' gallery kicked off Henry IV: Part I, performed by Mexico's Compañia Nacional de Teatro. The eight actors clambered down from the stage and stood among the groundlings, arms linked and held aloft, as if in communal prayer: a dramatic moment that set the tone for an engagingly energetic and inclusive performance.

The temptation for the director, Hugo Arrevillaga Serrano, might have been to emphasise the play's particular resonances with Mexican history and culture: a king crowned through a coup d'état; two young men vying for macho supremacy; warring factions competing over border lines. These resonances were not lost here – the old King (Marco Antonio García) spoke with the testy authority of a dictator addressing a crowd, and the younger male characters were forever grabbing their crotches, as if sending up the cliche of the Latin macho male. But the action was set in some indeterminate past, the actors' rough wool cloaks and dip-dyed breeches lending them the hippyish look of medieval strolling players (though the king's costume, a long cloak covered in gold leaves, was one of the production's only bum notes: he looked disconcertingly like a tree).

The Mexican Spanish rendering of Shakespeare's verse, though lacking the poetry of the original, was deliciously muscular. And, as with so many foreign-language translations, it neatly sidestepped the problem of comprehensibility that dogs Shakespeare's comic scenes. Falstaff (an excellent Roberto Soto, great belly straining his studded jerkin) and Prince Hal (a camply sinuous Constatino Morán) spoke in a loose Mexican street slang, their frequent swearing bringing belly-laughs from the rapt audience.

Several of the more serious speeches could have done with a touch more subtlety. But with a well-judged smattering of audience participation (Hal gestured to the groundlings, berating the paucity of Falstaff's army), the action lightning-swift, and a fantastic four-piece band, this was as good a Shakespeare production as I've ever seen on the Globe's stage.

Taking up the baton for Part II were the Buenos Aires-based Elkafka Espacio Teatral. They started with several disadvantages, most obviously bone-chilling showers and a half-empty theatre. The 15 actors worked hard, but the production wasn't quite strong enough to overcome them.

Despite the setting, it looked like a fragmented, postmodern vision of contemporary Britain – the sheriff's officers wore hi-vis jackets and peaked police caps; the noblemen were in mackintoshes, bowler hats and sunglasses, like Pink Panther spies; and the denizens of Eastcheap were dressed like punks from an 80s London postcard. The diminutive Mistress Quickly (a yapping Graciela Martinelli), in a purple fake-fur jacket and hot-pink wig, was like Barbara Windsor's punkier sister; and Falstaff (Horacio Peña), in tartan jacket and mustard Doc Martens, wouldn't have looked out of place selling knock-off cassettes at Camden market in 1986.

The Argentine Spanish, at least for this non-native Spanish speaker, was much more difficult to follow than the Mexican – mainly because several of the actors struggled with their diction, often gabbling the words. Volume was also a problem: Rumour's opening speech was barely audible over the thrumming of rain on wood.

After the interval, however, things picked up considerably. The deathbed scene between Prince Hal (Lautaro Vil, blazer-clad like a renegade member of the Bullingdon Club) and the King (well played by Horacio Acosta) carried a touching realism, and Hal's rejection of Falstaff was as it should be: heartbreaking. As Falstaff, Peña was the undoubted star of the show: full of portly, saturnine charm, and capable of conveying all the crumpled dejection that Hal's rejection brings.

As Argentina's experience after 2002 shows, when an economic crisis hits it is often best to go it alone

Unemployment in Greece stands at a record 21.7%. More than one in two young people aged between 18 and 24 is out of work. The economy will be 20% smaller at the end of 2012 than it was five years ago and shows little sign of pulling out of its tailspin.

So when the cry goes up that departure from the eurozone would be a calamity for Greece, the obvious riposte is: how much worse can it get? Greeks fully understand that life outside the single currency would be tough. They know that defaulting on debts and currency devaluation will have costs, including a likely plunge in output, a fresh squeeze on living standards and the risk of much higher inflation. But the alternative – year after year of economic depression as Greece tries to make itself more competitive – does not sound like a bed of roses either.

Ideally, Greece would like to stay in the euro without the current level of austerity, but if these objectives prove incompatible it will eventually have to choose between the two. The argument for exit rests on four pillars: it makes economic sense, the pain would be over more quickly, the costs are exaggerated, and it would be better for Europe.

Greece is currently labouring under a bastardised form of the sort of structural adjustment programme the International Monetary Fund imposes on developing countries. The difference is that the classic IMF remedy is devaluation plus domestic austerity, to ensure gains from a cheaper currency are not frittered away through higher inflation. Greece (and the other bailed-out eurozone countries) are expected to do it all through an internal devaluation – cuts in wages and public spending designed to reduce costs and boost competitiveness. This, though, takes a lot longer and can be self-defeating if the domestic economy contracts more rapidly than exports expand. If this happens, as it has in Greece, the debt problem gets worse.

That's why critics of the current bailout argue that while Greece would suffer severe transitional costs from a go-it-alone strategy, the choice is between a deep V-shaped recession and a decade or more of permanent depression.

Argentina provides the template for a country that defied the doomsters and made a go of life after devaluation and default. In the 1990s, Argentina's position was broadly comparable to that of Greece after monetary union. It had pegged the peso to the dollar, a policy that in the first half of the decade led to much lower inflation, but in the second half of the 1990s resulted in much lower growth. By the end of the 1990s, the currency peg came under strain, and like Greece, Argentina tried and failed to muddle its way through with a mixture of austerity, IMF bailouts and debt rescheduling. When the country went its own way in early 2002, there were predictions of economic Armageddon, but from 2003-2007 growth averaged 9% a year.

Comparisons between Greece and Argentina are not precise, because Argentina is a big commodity producer and devalued when the global economy was booming. Greece, by contrast, is part of a recession-mired eurozone, and the turbulence caused by its exit from the single currency might make matters worse.

That, though, is debatable, given that Europe has staggered from crisis to crisis since the full extent of Greece's debt problem became apparent two and a half years ago. Provided departure was planned and smooth rather than disruptive and contagious (a very big proviso, admittedly), the rest of the eurozone might be able at last to move on.

• Hockey player dropped from Argentina Olympic warm-up event
• Fernando Zylberberg was filmed exercising on war memorial

The Argentinian hockey player filmed training on the Falkland Islands in a controversial advert has been dropped from Argentina's final Olympic Games warm-up event.

Fernando Zylberberg, a 34-year-old midfielder who has captained his country, was not included in the 18-man squad for the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup in Malaysia posted on the Argentine Hockey Confederation website.

The other teams participating in the six-nation tournament from 24 May to 4 June are the hosts, India, Pakistan, South Korea, New Zealand and Great Britain.

A veteran of the 2000 and 2004 Olympic Games, Zylberberg was in the Argentina side that qualified for London as Pan-American champions last year and his absence in Malaysia does not mean he is definitely discarded for this summer's Games.

The state-supported television advertisement aired in the run-up to the London Games and featuring Zylberberg was branded in Britain as "tasteless and insulting". It shows Zylberberg running past symbolic landmarks on the Falklands, and exercising on the steps of a war memorial to British soldiers.

It ends with the voiceover: "To compete on English soil, we are training on Argentine soil."

The Argentina Olympic Committee (COA) issued a statement on Tuesday distancing itself from the advertisement.

"Using the Olympic Games to make political gestures of any kind is not acceptable and we will conduct ourselves in the proper spirit of Olympism in all that we do in London and elsewhere," the COA president Gerardo Werthein said.

• NOC president says 'Games are not a platform for politics'
• Clip shows hockey player training on British war memorial

The Argentine Olympic Committee has distanced itself from a television advertisement shot on the disputed Falkland Islands that has triggered a diplomatic dispute with Britain before the London Games.

"The Argentine National Olympic Committee is fully committed to the Olympic charter and the best practices of the Olympic movement," the NOC chief, Gerardo Werthein, said in a statement on Tuesday. "We strongly believe the Olympic Games are not a platform for politics and we have communicated this position to the International Olympic Committee."

The state-supported advertisement, which was branded by Britain as "tasteless and insulting", shows the Argentinian hockey captain Fernando Zylberberg training in the Falklands – the contested archipelago in the South Atlantic which the two countries fought over in 1982. He runs past several symbolic British landmarks and exercises on the steps of a war memorial to British soldiers.

The 90-second advertisement was made to coincide with the runup to the Olympics in London this year and ends with the voiceover: "To compete on English soil, we train on Argentinian soil".

Werthein added: "The Argentine NOC has made clear that using the Olympic Games to make political gestures of any kind is not acceptable and we will conduct ourselves in the proper spirit of Olympism in all that we do in London and elsewhere."

The broadcast aired on the 30th anniversary of the sinking of the Argentinian ship the General Belgrano by a British submarine, which led to the loss of over 300 lives.

The IOC said it found attempts to use the Games for political purposes regrettable.

"We are in contact with the Argentine NOC on a regular basis and we have been reassured on a number of occasions that the NOC will not seek to use the Games as a political platform and will fully respect the Olympic Charter," an IOC spokesperson said.

"The IOC has always strived to separate sport from politics and honour the spirit of the Games and all those who take part."

Decisive votes against austerity in Greece and France mean the ECB and Germany have to change policy to save the eurozone

Austerity was the big loser in the Greek elections on Sunday. The two main Greek parties, who endorsed the austerity pact signed last year, together got just over one-third of the vote. This is an extraordinary rebuke given that, between them, these parties have governed Greece since the end of the dictatorship in 1976.

On the anti-austerity side, a leftwing coalition came in second with around 17% of the vote. More ominously, a far-right anti-immigrant party, which is also anti-austerity, received almost 7% of the vote.

It is important for people elsewhere in the world, and especially in Europe, to understand that the Greek voters were not just being cranky kids who refuse to take their medicine. There is no doubt that Greece's government and economy were poorly managed in the years leading up to the crisis. However, the current path of austerity does not offer the country a path to a better future. The current path of austerity is simply a path of pain as an end in itself. 

This can be seen from examining the official projections. The IMF now projects that 2012 will be Greece's fifth successive year of economic contraction, with 2013 being a year of stagnation. Even with growth projected to resume again in 2014, Greece's per capita income is still projected to be more than 8% lower than it was a decade earlier. Its unemployment rate, which is currently hovering near 20%, is still projected to be almost 15% in 2017. And its debt to GDP ratio is projected to be 137% in five years – far higher than it was at the onset of the crisis.

This is not a path to a healthy economy. And it's important to remember that the projections from the IMF and European Central Bank have consistently proven to be overly optimistic. Given this economic reality, it's difficult to see why the Greek people should go any further with such a disastrous policy.

The argument usually given is that there is no alternative. This is not true. Leaving the euro and bringing back the drachma is an alternative, however disruptive this may prove to be.

Leaving the euro would spark a financial and political crisis, but ultimately, this move would almost certainly leave Greece better-off than staying on its current deadend path. With a devalued currency, Greece would become much more attractive as a tourist destination. Its agricultural exports would be much more competitive in the European Union and elsewhere.

It would be necessary to renegotiate debts. Where this can't be done, there will inevitably be many bankruptcies for those with large euro-denominated debts. This process will not be pretty, but there can be little doubt: at this point, it is the better path forward.

The model here is Argentina. After it defaulted and broke its currency link with the dollar at the end of 2001, its economy plummeted for three months. It stabilized in the second quarter of 2002 and then began six and half years of solid growth that was only derailed by world economic crisis in 2009.

There are reasons why Greece will have a more difficult path than Argentina; most importantly, Argentina always kept its own currency. But even if Greece can only achieve half the pace of growth sustained by Argentina, its prospects by going this route look far better than staying in the euro.

There is an alternative path that would be preferable to Greece leaving the euro: this would be the path where the ECB abandons its austerity path altogether. This would involve some sort of ECB guarantee for the debt of Greece and other heavily indebted countries, a relaxation of budget restrictions across the eurozone and, most importantly, a commitment to sustain a higher rate of inflation in Germany and other core eurozone countries. The latter is essential since it is the only way that Greece and other peripheral countries will be able to regain competitiveness if they stay in the euro.

Two weeks ago, the possibility of this sort of change of course seemed far-fetched. Today, it still seems unlikely – but following the elections in Greece and the defeat of Sarkozy in France, a major change in course is beginning to look like a possibility.

The leadership of the ECB and Germany may not recognize it, but their current path is unsustainable. The only question is whether they can adjust before the institutions of Europe begin to collapse around them. On Sunday, the voters in Greece gave this message as clearly as possible.