Yanis Varoufakis's Blog, page 112
December 24, 2017
Bitcoin, Blockchain and the Future of Europe – Interviewed by Tom Upchurch for WIRED
In an exclusive interview with WIRED, Yanis Varoufakis discusses Bitcoin’s bubble, the fantasy of apolitical money and the opportunities for the blockchain to reform Europe.
By TOM UPCHURCH
Saturday 23 December 2017
When I first met Yanis Varoufakis in the summer of 2014, he was a highly respected but relatively obscure economist. Back then, the price of one bitcoin fluctuated around $440. Fast-forward three years and his career has followed a similar trajectory to bitcoin’s valuation. Both have experienced a meteoric rise in popularity, characterised by high-drama and volatility. Varoufakis would be thrust into the limelight as Greece’s finance minister; battling the austerity programme put forward by the Troika and today pursues the lofty ambition of trying to reform Europe. Reaching similar heights, just two weeks ago the price of one bitcoin broke $20,000 for the first time.
Varoufakis may have been one of the very first senior political leaders to explore the use of blockchain-based payments for a national economy. At the height of Greece’s financial crisis, he developed a plan for creating a peer-to-peer parallel payments system, based on the blockchain. Yet he wants to make one point very clear: “I was never impressed by bitcoin itself; but from the beginning I was saying that blockchain is a remarkable solution to problems that we have not even imagined yet.”
As bitcoin’s price continues to fluctuate, it has come under a steady barrage of criticism. Varoufakis is no less damning of the cryptocurrency but on very different grounds.
Bitcoin is “the perfect bubble”
Citing the 17th Century Dutch financial bubble in tulip bulbs, Varoufakis sees bitcoin’s current valuation as, “the perfect tulip bubble.” His explanation is simple. “Just take a look at two graphs. Graph one is a time-series of the dollar price of bitcoin, which has been growing exponentially. Graph two is the number of transactions and the quantity of goods and services that are sold and purchased by bitcoins.” The juxtaposition between these two graphs, suggests that the price of bitcoin is grossly inflated relative to its actual use. This leaves Varoufakis to conclude that, “without a shadow of a doubt, this valuation is the perfect bubble.”
READ NEXT
How to explain blockchain to your family over the Christmas turkey
What is driving the belief behind bitcoin? Some suggest that bitcoin is becoming a “safe haven” from national fiat currencies, particularly those that have been inflated through Quantitative Easing (QE). But Varoufakis is quick to reject this narrative. The fact that similar safe-haven assets such as gold and the dollar are not matching bitcoin’s wild price swings is a clear indication to Varoufakis that investors are not fleeing fiat currencies for fixed assets. As he argued, “If there was a correlation in the price of gold and bitcoin, then of course you could make the case that investors are fleeing fiat currencies towards fixed supply assets. But that is not what is happening.”
In Varoufakis’ view, what is really happening is the formation of a classic self-perpetuating bubble. It can be explained by one of Varoufakis’ primary intellectual influences, the British economist, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes famously studied the irrational and emotionally charged decisions that investors make when overcome by speculative fever, greed and hubris. Varoufakis believes bitcoin’s valuation is underpinned by the same irrational exuberance; “as Keynes argued, this is the kind of bubble that forms when average opinion is trying to guess what average opinion will be.” This self-referential game is what continues to erratically drive the price of bitcoin. But in terms of guessing when this bubble might burst, Varoufakis is adamant; “In non-linear dynamic systems, to predict when the bubble will burst, is actually impossible.”
We can not subcontract the discussions about what is proper, what is just, what is fair, what is right, to some algorithm, to any algorithm – even to the most fascinatingly brilliant algorithm
Whilst it may be impossible to anticipate its bursting, Varoufakis remains less concerned that the bitcoin bubble will trigger a wider financial crisis. Despite the intense media attention and a rapid rate of growth, the size of the bitcoin market remains miniscule, compared to the overall financial sector. The crypto-currency’s market capitalisation is roughly 0.25 per cent of the $73 trillion global stocks market, 0.083 per cent of the $217 trillion global real estate market and 0.033 per cent of the $544 trillion global derivatives market.
Bitcoin is also unlikely to cause the “chain reaction effect” that Collateral Debt Obligations (CDOs) and Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) caused in the run-up to the financial crisis of 2008. Varoufakis maintains that it was the interconnection of CDOs and CDSs, with almost every other aspect of the financial sector, that caused such a widespread financial crisis in 2008. However he raises one note of caution; “I’m worried and I hear lots of noises about the creation of new financial instruments based on bitcoin, including CDOs based on bitcoin and so on. If that grows with the vengeance that we saw in 2007, then we will probably be having such worries, but I don’t think we will.”
The fantasy of apolitical money
Critics of bitcoin have tended to focus upon the technical limitations of the technology; its energy expenditure, its anarchic structure, its slower transaction speeds and its user anonymity. Yaroufakis agrees that there are numerous design flaws with the currency. Not least, he adds, “the fact that there are no controls, no democratic checks and balances of a bit issue and no way of back-stopping financial transactions by means of some kind of insurance policy for those that get defrauded.” Yet his central criticism focuses upon what he refers to as “the fantasy of apolitical money.”
To Varoufakis, money is inherently political. The decisions regarding whether money is produced or not, how it is distributed and who receives it, all have significant political consequences, benefiting certain social groups over others. Bitcoin’s central design feature, that it is not governed by a central bank or decision-making authority, means that responsibility for its distribution is forfeited. This can have profound social and political implications in times of crisis.
To understand what Varoufakis means by the political nature of money, consider how governments respond to financial crises. When a major financial crisis occurs, it is usually caused by the failure of widespread and interconnected debts. Once these debts fail, what happens is that a large part of the money supply effectively disappears. With this money gone, governments have a choice whether to replace it or not. Choosing not to replace it through the creation of new money (inflation) becomes a political decision with political repercussions. As Varoufakis suggests, “effectively you are choosing to shift the burden of a crisis onto the debtors and usually the weakest and poorest of debtors. So effectively you are redistributing power and wealth against the weaker members of society.”
If the decision is made to replenish the money supply, like it was in 2008 through Quantitative Easing (QE), then how this money is channeled through the economy will also influence the political economy. In Varoufakis’ opinion, QE was engineered in a way to benefit large corporations. Alternative options, such as creating a new public investment bank which invests in infrastructure, education or healthcare, would have had very different political repercussions. To Varoufakis, “these decisions are fundamentally political that change the political economy and the distribution of income across a society. Whether you want to make these decisions or not, you end up with political decisions, even if the decision is not to do anything – which is also a political decision.”
To Varoufakis, the moment you adopt bitcoin’s fundamental philosophy, which sets the quantity of money separately from the business cycle, the economy and the political process, in effect you, “make it exogenous from anything that has to do with our collective decision-making systems. You’re making a political decision, that during times of crisis, our society is opting for a shift of power and wealth to the creators and the richer members of society.” Thus by removing the creation of money away from human decision making systems, bitcoin’s algorithm risks cementing and even accentuating current inequalities in wealth.
As an economist inspired by the theories of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, Varoufakis is chiefly concerned with the distribution of wealth and the impact this has on relationships between creditors and debtors. So, what if someone designed an algorithm that not only controls the production of money (like bitcoin) but also the distribution of money? If an algorithm could be designed to redistribute wealth more equitably, would this allay Varoufakis’ concerns with technical systems that operate outside of human decision-making processes?
Even if such an algorithm could be designed, Varoufakis insists that “democracy and the democratic process, in my mind, is irreplaceable.” This is because humans can never settle upon a precise and defined notion of justice, fairness or equality. Even in the case of the redistribution of wealth there are various competing theories of how wealth should best be redistributed. Consequently, human societies will never perfectly agree upon an apolitical, algorithmic and technical process by which to redistribute wealth. As Varoufakis warned, “we can not subcontract the discussions about what is proper, what is just, what is fair, what is right, to some algorithm, to any algorithm – even to the most fascinatingly brilliant algorithm. These are always going to be the result of debate, of dialogue, of ‘agora’ in the ancient Greek tradition. Of sitting around and discussing until the cows come home – there is no escape from that.”
Despite Varoufakis’ criticisms of bitcoin, the crypto-currency is gaining traction. Crisis-ridden countries, like Venezuela, are beginning to turn to it, as a surrogate to their ailing national currencies. So does Varoufakis believe that bitcoin could supersede national fiat currencies in the near future? “It’s perfectly feasible that a small nation can adopt a currency whose money supply can not be manipulated or controlled. But the real question is whether it’s desirable. On this question, I’m categorically negative.”
In the case of Venezuela, Varoufakis advises, “Venezuela must solve its interminable political affairs before it starts thinking about bitcoin.” Rapprochement between the government and opposition must come first, for without it the polarisation in Venezuelan society makes any currency system impossible. Again, Varoufakis emphasises the primacy of politics and the limitations of technical solutions to political problems; ‘Let’s not forget that our market economies require a degree of political consensus and legitimacy in order to function. And without that there’s no technical solution that you can bring to bear upon a crisis like that in Venezuela.
Some bitcoin enthusiasts have suggested that bitcoin may one day challenge the dollar reserve global system upon which America’s economic might is based. But again, Varoufakis sees this vision as pure fantasy. “Bitcoin would never undermine the exorbitant privilege of the US dollar or indeed any currency backed up by strength,” he says. In Varoufakis’ view currencies are supported, not only by the “soft power” of institutions, but also by the “hard power” of military might and geopolitical power. As he explained, “if you’re a Saudi oil king or an industrialist from China or Korea, you want to put your money in the bonds and assets that are denominated in the currency of the superpower that has the military might and the geo-political strength, to back-up its own currency.”
Blockchain and the future of Europe
While acknowledging the limitations of bitcoin and other technical solutions to political problems, Varoufakis does see potential in blockchain technologies. For him, “the algorithm that operates behind bitcoin, caught my attention right from the beginning. I consider this to be a remarkable technology.”
As early as 2012, Varoufakis was toying with ideas for using blockchain to help solve Europe’s financial woes. By the time he was appointed Finance Minister of Greece in 2014, within days his anti-austerity programme was met with the direct threat from the Troika to close Greece’s banks. With no banking system, the country would grind to a halt. To counter this threat, Varoufakis devised an audacious plan to keep Greece’s financial system operating.
Effectively Varoufakis proposed creating an alternative, peer-to-peer payments system based on the blockchain. This would disintermediate the financing they were receiving from the Troika and from the money markets. But with no money coming from the Troika, Varoufakis would need to create a parallel payments system, that would leverage the tax that all citizens and companies of Greece need to pay, as a new form of money. This is what he would eventually brand, “fiscal money.”
To understand how fiscal money works, imagine that a pharmaceutical company in Greece is owed money by the state. Due to the constraints of the crisis, it may take years to pay the company in normal central bank euros. However what if there was an alternative option? What if the Greek State created a reserve account for the company under its tax file number, in which it placed tax credits of one million euros? This IOU could then also be used by the company to pay other organisations and individuals within the country.
Every financial system is abused and used for purposes of propagating corruption. The 500 Euro note is jokingly referred to as the ‘al-Qaeda’ – it is a remarkable tool for the mafia and for terrorism
One of the most disruptive aspects of this unrealised plan, was to enable the state to borrow directly from citizens and vice versa. In effect, Varoufakis was attempting to use new digital technologies, such as blockchain, to cut out the European lending authorities and build new lending relationships between citizens, companies and the state.
The risk this system faced was the threat of corruption and the subsequent decline in public trust of authorities, something that Varoufakis admits is “in very limited supply” in a country like Greece. For example, what if Greek authorities abused these tax credits and began to distribute this new fiscal money to close allies and friends? This is where Varoufakis saw blockchain’s potential. “If the payments system was based on the blockchain, this would allow the combination of anonymity but perfect transparency, regarding the total aggregate size of the transactions of the currency….blockchain would overcome the trust problem as we know it.”
For Varoufakis, herein lies the great potential with blockchain. Not only has it the ability to disintermediate incumbent middlemen, but it can also improve the overall transparency of systems. Make no mistake, Varoufakis does not believe that blockchain will completely solve the problem of corruption. In his opinion, “every financial system is abused and used for purposes of propagating corruption. The 500 Euro note is jokingly referred to as the ‘al-Qaeda’ – it is a remarkable tool for the mafia and for terrorism.” However what Varoufakis believes we must do is to try and embrace technologies that allow us to limit corruption. In his opinion, “the blockchain has many qualities and capacities that could help us limit this abuse.”
In designing future digital systems, like blockchain, Varoufakis calls for “coordination” and “openness” amongst technologists, designers and citizens. He also advises that organisations, “do the opposite of what Silicon Valley is trying to do, which is secure the profit stream, by trying to create property rights over everything they do.” Yet when it comes to the contentious debate of whether blockchains should remain public (such as bitcoin and Ethereum) or private, he anticipates a mixture of systems based on public, consortium and private blockchains. According to Varoufakis, “any useful tool should have a use at all levels: private and public”. And he predicts blockchain will be used by central banks to create national currencies, by private banks and companies to expedite settlements and by cooperatives for internal payments and transactions.
Looking to the future, Varoufakis is now leading the charge for a newly reformed Europe. His organisation, DIEM25, aims to create a more homogenised European system. In his view, “federal structures are essential – they are like the foundations of an edifice of a building.” But currently they only pertain to trade, industry standards, environmental standards and, of course, the currency. For Varoufakis, Europe needs full political, fiscal and constitutional union. Otherwise, “If we don’t have the whole thing, it will constantly threaten to collapse on top of our heads.”
Blockchain does feature in Varoufakis’ vision of a newly homogenised Europe. Ideally it would be used to create a two-tier monetary system. Individual member states would move towards a blockchain based version of Varoufakis’ concept of ‘fiscal money’. Atop of this, the European Central Bank (ECB) would create an over-arching, European-wide digital currency. As he surmised, “my dream for the monetary reconfiguration of the European Union, in particular for the eurozone, is blockchain based nation-state, euro-denominated fiscal money, hanging under a broader blockchain based euro.”
Technologies such as blockchain, may also help fulfill Varoufakis’ vision of a Europe that is at once homogenized to tackle the big problems (like the banking system, fiscal redistribution and poverty) whilst decentralized for the smaller, day-to-day decisions. Indeed DIEM25 is calling on Europeans to “imagine the European Union, not as a union of governments but as a union of cities, a union of regions, where power is simultaneously decentralised while problem solving of basic common problems is done at the broader level at the level of Europe.”
Blockchain can play a role in delivering this vision but as Varoufakis confesses, “I have to say that I’m not very optimistic about the capacity of technological innovation, on its own, to change the course of history.” For Varoufakis, politics and people come first.
NYT: “What to Get Theresa May for Christmas?” Answer: Adults in the Room!
LONDON — If Santa is listening, here’s a suggestion about what to deliver Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain and David Davis, her chief Brexit negotiator: a copy of Yanis Varoufakis’s “Adults in the Room.”
Mr. Varoufakis is the former Greek finance minister and his book sets out in excruciating detail the story of the 2015 negotiations between Greece’s government and its creditors. It feels like necessary reading for the Brexit team.
Last week, European Union leaders agreed that sufficient progress had been made on the first phase of the Brexit negotiations to move on to the next phase, which will set out future trade relations between Britain and the European Union. The first phase revolved around three main issues: payment of what Britain owes the European Union; the rights of European Union citizens in post-Brexit Britain; and what kind of border should exist between Northern Ireland, which will be outside the union, and the Republic of Ireland, which will be inside.
In the nine months of negotiations so far, there has been remarkably little give and take. What Britain agreed to last week was largely what Europe had demanded at the beginning.
European Union citizens’ rights have been largely protected, with Britain agreeing that its courts will take into account rulings of the European Court of Justice, the European Union’s supreme legal body. The money being paid by Britain for the divorce is less than what some politicians on the Continent were hoping for, but about double what was first offered.
On the Irish border, the two sides have agreed that there will be no border with passport and customs checks — but also that the details will be left to later talks. If there is no mutually agreeable solution, then Britain has promised to maintain “regulatory alignment” with the European Union to ensure that customs checks aren’t necessary, even though Britain will have no say over those regulations. A country that voted for Brexit as a way to “take back control” will be acceding even more control to the European Union.
All this is as Mr. Varoufakis might have predicted. In the wake of the financial crash of 2008, the Greek economy had imploded. The European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund (collectively known as the “troika”), stepped in to provide huge loans, not for spending in Greece, but largely to bail out the banks (many of them German and French) that had so recklessly lent to Greece in the first place. In return, the troika insisted on an eye-watering austerity program, slashing jobs, welfare payments and pensions.
Anger at the harshness of this program led to the victory in 2015 of the left-wing party Syriza; its leader, Alexis Tsipras, had promised to renegotiate the deal with the troika.
Mr. Varoufakis, who led the Greek negotiating team, writes in “Adults in the Room” that rather than negotiate in good faith, the troika employed a number of tactics to ensure that it got its way. The key maneuver was insisting that negotiations be staged in two parts: Greece first had to “commit to the compromises they wanted and then, much later, we could begin negotiations on debt relief.”
It has been a similar story with the Brexit talks. Britain is dealing not with the troika, but directly with the European Union. The bruising negotiating tactics, however, are much the same.
The European Union insisted at the beginning that the negotiations be split into two parts. Only when “sufficient progress” had been made on the “divorce” could talks on future relations begin. Britain’s real interest is in signing a post-Brexit trade deal. London’s desperation to move on, Brussels knew, would lead it to capitulate on the terms of divorce.
And that is exactly what happened. With much bluster but little resistance, Britain accepted not only the two-part process, but also most of the European Union’s demands in the first phase.
Mr. Varoufakis tried to warn Mrs. May. To negotiate successfully with the European establishment, he argues, you must have a fallback position that no one wants, but that you are prepared to follow through on if negotiations break down. In Greece’s case, the fallback was Grexit: unilaterally leaving not the European Union but the euro’s common currency area. This would have caused immense turmoil — not least in Greece — but in Mr. Varoufakis’s view, the only way to get the troika to negotiate seriously was to show that the threat was not a bluff.
Greece, in the end, did not follow this advice. Even when a referendum in 2015 decisively rejected a new austerity program, the Syriza government feared the chaos of Grexit more than it did the pain of austerity. It submitted to the troika’s demands and made spending cuts harsher than the ones it had previously been offered and rejected.
In the case of Brexit, Britain’s fallback position is to leave the European Union without a negotiated deal. This would be as chaotic as Grexit. But, as with Greece, it is a threat without substance. From the beginning of the negotiations, many supporters of Brexit have pushed the slogan “No deal better than a bad deal.” But it has also been clear that far from being willing to make good on such a threat, Britain, like Greece, is desperate to avoid chaos.
Recognizing this, the European Union is already hemming in Britain’s options for the next phase of the negotiations. It has again demanded that the talks be split in two, the first part to deal with the terms of the transition period — a period of probably two years starting in March 2019, when Britain formally leaves the European Union, and ending when it fully separates from it — followed by the terms of trade relations.
The issue is not simply European Union intransigence. It is also that of British incompetence. Mr. Davis, the Brexit secretary, recently admitted that he had not commissioned a single study of Brexit’s impact on the economy. Only on Monday did the cabinet finally formally discuss what exactly it wants out of Brexit negotiations. To negotiate with neither detailed information nor a firm vision of the endpoint is akin to playing poker blindfolded.
The combination of European Union inflexibility and British incompetence means that however, and whenever, Britain finally exits, it is likely to be on the European Union’s terms. “Adults in the Room” is necessarily a one-sided account from Mr. Varoufakis’s perspective. But it does provide a glimpse of the maneuverings usually shielded from public view. Reading it will change little, but at least it might prepare British ministers for what is to come.
Kenan Malik (@kenanmalik) is the author, most recently, of “The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics” and a contributing opinion writer.
For the NYT site click here.
December 17, 2017
Εντατικοποιημένος ταξικός πόλεμος – ΕφΣυν, 16 Δεκεμβρίου 2017
Στη σημερινή Βρετανία πάνω από 40% των οικογενειών αδυνατούν να βάλουν φαγητό στο τραπέζι χωρίς να χρησιμοποιήσουν πανάκριβες πιστωτικές κάρτες ή να καταφύγουν σε κοινωνικά συσσίτια προσφερόμενα από φιλανθρωπικές οργανώσεις.
Αυτό το απλό, οικτρό στατιστικό δεδομένο, σε μια χώρα όπου ο πλούτος ρέει ασταμάτητα (τουλάχιστον στο Λονδίνο και τα προάστιά του) και η ανεργία βρίσκεται σε ιστορικά χαμηλό επίπεδο, εξηγεί πλήρως και αδυσώπητα γιατί η πλειοψηφία είναι τόσο θυμωμένη που επέλεξε το Brexit για να τιμωρήσει ένα κατεστημένο που τους ωθεί στην ανέχεια, την απαξίωση και την αναξιοπρέπεια, την ώρα που τα μέσα μαζικής παραπληροφόρησης γιορτάζουν την «υπέρβαση» της κρίσης και βροντοφωνάζουν ότι όλα βαίνουν καλώς.
Στην Αμερική, η οικονομία της οποίας έχει ανακάμψει πλήρως από το Σοκ του 2008 αν κρίνει κανείς από το εθνικό εισόδημα και τους πακτωλούς χρήματος που ρέουν στους λογαριασμούς των πλουσίων, πάνω από τις μισές οικογένειες δεν έχουν ούτε τις αποταμιεύσεις ούτε την πιστοληπτική ικανότητα που απαιτείται για να λάβουν τραπεζικό δάνειο ώστε να αγοράσουν (με δόσεις έστω) το φθηνότερο αυτοκίνητο στην αμερικανική αγορά (το Nissan Versa, το οποίο πωλείται προς 12.825 δολάρια) – σε μια χώρα όπου η ζωή χωρίς αυτοκίνητο είναι αφόρητη, καθώς για να πάει κανείς στη δουλειά του ή ακόμα και στο κοντινότερο μπακάλικο πρέπει να καλύψει τεράστιες αποστάσεις.
Αυτό το απλό, οικτρό στατιστικό δεδομένο είναι ένα χαστούκι σε όλους εκείνους που ακόμα επιμένουν να μην καταλαβαίνουν τον θυμό των πολλών που τους έστρεψε στο να ψηφίσουν τον Τραμπ μόνο και μόνο ως αντίδραση σ’ ένα κατεστημένο που τους γονατίζει επί τριάντα συναπτά χρόνια, φέρνοντάς τους στο σημείο να μην μπορούν ούτε να δανειστούν αρκετά για το παλιο-αυτοκίνητο που έχουν ανάγκη ώστε να ζουν και να δουλεύουν με μια μικρή δόση αξιοπρέπειας.
Αστεγοι στην ουρά του συσσίτιου φιλανθρωπικής οργάνωσης στις ΗΠΑ | Στη Γερμανία, την ώρα που η χώρα πλέει στα πλεονάσματα που δημιούργησε η κρίση της υπόλοιπης Ευρώπης
[(α) πλεόνασμα κρατικού προϋπολογισμού, που δημιούργησαν τα αρνητικά επιτόκια της κρίσης,
(β) πλεόνασμα τραπεζικού συστήματος, που δημιούργησε η φυγή αποταμιεύσεων από την Ιταλία, τη Γαλλία αλλά και την Ελλάδα προς τη Φρανκφούρτη, και
(γ) εγχώριο πλεόνασμα καθώς, λόγω κρίσης, οι επενδύσεις είναι χαμηλότερες από τις αποταμιεύσεις],
το ποσοστό των εργαζόμενων πτωχών έχει αυξηθεί 250% από το 2007, ενώ το 40% του πληθυσμού τα φέρνει πιο δύσκολα βόλτα σήμερα απ’ ό,τι πριν από μία δεκαετία.
Αυτό το απλό, οικτρό στατιστικό δεδομένο εξηγεί απλά και χωρίς περιστροφές γιατί ο μέσος Γερμανός είναι θυμωμένος και όλο και περισσότερο αποφασισμένος να τιμωρεί στην κάλπη το κατεστημένο (τους Χριστιανοδημοκράτες και τους Σοσιαλδημοκράτες οι οποίοι τους κυβερνούν μια δεκαετία από κοινού).
Το κοινό σημείο στα τρία παραδείγματα από τη Βρετανία, τις ΗΠΑ και τη Γερμανία είναι ένα: η συμπίεση των μισθών της εργατικής τάξης σε συνδυασμό με τη συρρίκνωση των κοινωνικών επιδομάτων. Κι επειδή τα πολλά λόγια είναι φτώχεια, ας πούμε τα πράγματα με το όνομά τους: η εντατικοποίηση του ταξικού πολέμου εναντίον των πιο αδύναμων κοινωνικών στρωμάτων.
Ναι, έτσι είναι. Και το πιο ενδιαφέρον, και ταυτόχρονα χυδαίο, είναι ότι οι μόνοι που ντρέπονται να μιλήσουν για ταξικό πόλεμο είναι οι απαξιωμένοι σοσιαλδημοκράτες και κάποιοι άλλοι (βλ. σημερινή κυβέρνηση) που φλερτάρουν με τη λεγόμενη Κεντροαριστερά. Πράγματι, η Δεξιά δεν το κρύβει.
Ο Βόλφγκανγκ Σόιμπλε, απαντώντας σε ερώτημά μου για το ποιο είναι το όραμά του για την ευρωπαϊκή κοινωνική οικονομία, μου είπε ευθαρσώς: Να πάει το κόστος της εργασίας, μισθοί και επιδόματα, σε επίπεδο ανταγωνιστικό με την Κίνα και την Ινδία.
Οταν του απάντησα ότι στόχος των Κινέζων και των Ινδών είναι να ανέβουν οι δικοί τους μισθοί στο ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο, και σε αυτό δεν βοηθά η καταβαράθρωση των ευρωπαϊκών μισθών, επέμεινε: Το κοινωνικό κράτος της Δύσης είναι το πρόβλημα.
Θα μου πείτε: Τι περιμένεις από τον Σόιμπλε και την ευρωπαϊκή Δεξιά; Ορθόν. Αυτό όμως που είναι εξωφρενικό είναι η σιωπηλή, στην πράξη, αποδοχή των μισανθρωπικών και ανορθολογικών δοξασιών των διαφόρων Σόιμπλε από την Κεντροαριστερά και την «κυβερνώσα Αριστερά».
Ακόμα κι ο νέος πρόεδρος του Eurogroup, ο Πορτογάλος υπουργός Οικονομικών μιας κυβέρνησης της Αριστεράς που εκλέχτηκε για να βάλει τέλος στη μέσω μεγαλύτερης λιτότητας ενίσχυση του ταξικού πολέμου, εμφανίζεται ως υπερασπιστής των κανόνων του Σόιμπλε.
Στη Γαλλία, ο Εμανουέλ Μακρόν υπόσχεται (κλείνοντας το μάτι στη Μέρκελ) μείωση του ποσοστού του εθνικού εισοδήματος που καταλήγει στους μισθωτούς συνολικά (σημ.: Καθώς αυτό σημαίνει ο όρος «διαρθρωτικές αλλαγές στην αγορά εργασίας»).
Παράλληλα, στην πατρίδα μας τα κυβερνητικά στελέχη επενδύουν στο αφήγημα της ανάκαμψης που φέρνει η πιστή εφαρμογή του σοϊμπλικού προγράμματος και των επενδύσεων που, δήθεν, αυτό θα προσελκύσει.
Ακούμε έκθαμβοι τις θριαμβολογίες για τη μείωση της επίσημης ανεργίας στο 20,5% που επιτήδεια αγνοούν, από τη μία, τους χιλιάδες νέους που έριξαν πίσω τους μαύρη πέτρα ενώ, από την άλλη, παρουσιάζουν το όνειδος της αυξημένης απασχόλησης ως επιτυχία. Ποιο όνειδος;
Κοιτάξτε τα πρόσφατα στοιχεία που δημοσιοποίησε ο ΕΦΚΑ: Σήμερα, αυτή τη στιγμή, 560 χιλιάδες Ελληνες και Ελληνίδες εργάζονται προς 384 ευρώ μεικτά μηνιαίως! Υπάρχει κάτι που να καταδεικνύει καλύτερα την εντατικοποίηση του ταξικού πολέμου από αυτό το απλό, οικτρό στατιστικό δεδομένο;
Σε μια περίοδο που σε όλη την Ευρώπη αλλά και την Αμερική οι μισθοί συρρικνώνονται σε επίπεδα Τρίτου Κόσμου (την ώρα που οι τιμές παραμένουν αλώβητες και τα κέρδη πετυχαίνουν ιστορικά ρεκόρ στο άλμα εις ύψος)…
Σε μια περίοδο που τα εθνικά κόμματα «εξουσίας» είτε συμμετέχουν ενεργά είτε συναινούν στον ταξικό αυτό πόλεμο σπέρνοντας την αγανάκτηση μέσω του αφηγήματος της ανάκαμψης που θα φέρει η εντατικοποίηση του ταξικού πολέμου…
Σε μια περίοδο που θριαμβεύουν, ως απόρροια του βουβού ταξικού πολέμου, η μισαλλοδοξία, ο ρατσισμός και το δόγμα «ο καθένας για την πάρτη του» (είτε πρόκειται για άτομο είτε για έθνος)…
Σε αυτήν ακριβώς την περίοδο έχει ωριμάσει η ανάγκη για ένα νέο διεθνιστικό μέτωπο εναντίον ενός καθεστώτος που ούτε καν καπιταλισμός δεν μπορεί να θεωρηθεί – ενός συνδυασμού πτωχοτραπεζοκρατίας και παρεοκρατίας που χωρίς δεύτερη σκέψη ή αιδώ αντλούν γιγαντιαίο πλούτο από τους πολλούς με τρόπο που θυμίζει το πριόνισμα του κλαδιού στο οποίο κάθονται.
Ως DiEM25 θεωρούμε υποχρέωσή μας να κάνουμε το πρώτο βήμα προς την κατεύθυνση του Ευρωπαϊκού Διεθνισμού στον δρόμο προς τις ευρωεκλογές του Μαΐου του 2019. Μ’ ένα πρόγραμμα για όλη την Ευρώπη που θα έρχεται σε μετωπική σύγκρουση με τον επιθετικό ανορθολογισμό των απανταχού κυβερνώντων και τον ταξικό τους πόλεμο εναντίον των αδυνάτων.
Για την ιστοσελίδα της Εφημερίδας των Συντακτών, πατήστε εδώ.
December 14, 2017
Calling for an immediate end to investments in new fossil fuel production and infrastructure
We the undersigned, call for an immediate end to investments in new fossil fuel production and infrastructure, and encourage a dramatic increase in investments in renewable energy.
We are issuing this call to action in the lead up to the climate summit hosted by President Macron in Paris this December. President Macron and other world leaders, have already spoken out about the need for an increase in finance for climate solutions, but they have remained largely silent about the other, dirtier side of the equation: the ongoing finance of new coal, oil and gas production and infrastructure.
Ongoing global climate change and environmental destructions are happening at an unprecedented scale, and it will take unprecedented actions to limit the worst consequences of our dependence on oil, coal, and gas.
Equally as critical as drastically curbing the carbon intensity of our economic systems is the need for immediate and ambitious actions to stop exploration and expansion of fossil fuel projects and manage the decline of existing production in line with what is necessary to achieve the Paris climate goals.
Research shows that the carbon embedded in existing fossil fuel production will take us far beyond safe climate limits. Thus, not only are new exploration and new production incompatible with limiting global warming to well below 2ºC (and as close to 1.5ºC as possible), but many existing projects will need to be phased-out faster than their natural decline. Simply put: there is no more room for new fossil fuel infrastructure and therefore no case for ongoing investment.
It is time for the community of global economic actors to fully embrace, safe, and renewable energies and phase out fossil fuels. This letter affirms that it is the urgent responsibility and moral obligation of public and private investors and development institutions to lead in putting an end to fossil fuel development.
A global transition to a low carbon future is already well underway and we recognize that a full transition away from fossil fuels is an opportunity for a new economic paradigm of prosperity and equity. Continued expansion of oil, coal, and gas is only serving to hinder the inevitable transition while at the same time exacerbating conflicts, fuelling corruption, threatening biodiversity, clean water and air, and infringing on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable countries and communities.
Energy access and demand can and must now be met fully through the renewable energies of the 21st century. Assertions that new fossil fuels, such the current push for gas, are needed for this transformation are not only inaccurate; they also undermine the speed and penetration of renewable energy.
The global investment community has the power to create the conditions under which this shift is possible. Current and future investments in fossil fuel production are at odds with a safe and equitable transition away from ever stronger climate disasters.
Global investor and international development actors and institutions must recognize that continued investments in fossil fuel production supply-side is irreconcilable with meaningful climate action. Instead, let us all prioritize the tremendous investment opportunities for a 100% renewable future that support healthy economies while protecting workers, communities, and the ecological limits of a finite planet.
Signers of the Declaration on Climate Finance:
Alain Grandjean
Economist, Scientific advisor to the Foundation for Nature and Mankind
Alain Karsenty
Research Director at CIRAD, Montpellier
Ann Pettifor
Director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics, Prime
Anu Muhammad
Professor of Economics, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Aurore Lalucq
Economist and Director of the Veblen Institute
Camilla Toulmin
Professor, Dr
Carolina Burle Schmidt Dubeux
Environemental Economist, PhD and teacher at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro · COPPE/Centro Clima
Cédric Durand
Maître de conférences en Économie, université Paris 13
Claudia Kemfert
Head of the department of energy, transportation and environment at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin
Co-Pierre Georg
Associate Professor, University of Cape Town. Research Economist – Deutsche Bundesbank , Policy Associate – Economic Research Southern Africa
Denis Dupré
Professor of finance and ethics
Dominique Plihon
Professor Emeritus of Economics, Paris-Nord University Director, Center of Economics of the University of Paris Nord
Dr Ben Groom
Associate Professor of Environment & Development Economics, LSE
Dr Michael Mason
Associate Professor, Department of Geography and the Environment, LSE
Dr. Alaa Al Khourdajie
Teaching Fellow in Environmental Economics, School of Economics, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Ashok Khosla
Chairman, Development Alternatives
Dr. Charles Palmer
Associate Professor of Environment and Development, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE),
Dr. Ron Milcarek
UMASS Economics Department
Dr. Simplice Asongu
Lead Research Economist, African Governance and Development Institute
Emilio Padilla Rosa
Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics, Autonomous University of Barcelona
Frank Ackerman
Principal Economist, Synapse Energy Economics
Gail Whiteman
Professor
Gautam Sethi
Associate Professor of Economics and Econometrics, Bard Center for Environmental Policy
Helene Ollivier
Research fellow of the CNRS and Associate Professor at Paris School of Economics
Herman Daly
Emeritus Professor, University of Maryland
Ian Kinniburgh
Former Director of Department of Policy and Analysis Division, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Ilan Noy
Chair in the Economics of Disasters, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Ivar Ekeland
Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Former President, the University of Paris-Dauphine
Jaime De Melo
Scientific Director at Ferdi (Emeritus Professor, University of Geneva)
James Kenneth Galbraith
Economist
Jean Gadrey
Jean Gadrey, former Professor of economics, University of Lille
Jean-Pierre Ponssard,
Senior Research Fellow CNRS France
Jeffrey Sachs
Economist, Senior UN Advisor
John C. Quiggin
Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and professor at the School of Economics, University of Queensland
John Hewson
Former Leader of the Federal Opposition, Australia
Jon D. Erickson
David Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy
José Almeida de Souza Jr.
Economist
Jusen Asuka
Professor Tohoku University
Kate Pickett
Professor, University of York Research Champion for Justice & Equality
Kate Raworth
Senior Visiting Research Associate, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University
Katheline Schubert
Associate Professor at the Paris School of Economics and researcher at the Sorbonne Center for Economics.
Katrin Millock
Associate Professor, Paris School of Economics & Research Fellow at CNRS
Lionel Fontagné
Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics – University Paris 1
Maria rosa ravelli abreu
Prof. Universidade Brasilia
Mariana Mazzucato
Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value, Director, UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose
Mark Campanale
Founder & Executive Director, Carbon Tracker Initiative
Marzio Galeotti, Ph.D.
Professor of Environmental and Energy Economics, University of Milan – Milan, Italy
Maxime Combes
Maxime Combes, economist for ATTAC
Michael Jacobs
Visiting Professor, School of Public Policy, University College London
Michael Pirson
Professor, Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University
Mohammad A Jabbar
Agricultural Economist, International Livestock Research Institute
Mouez FODHA
Professor of Economics, Paris School of Economics & University Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne.
Mutsuyoshi Nishimura
Former Ambassador of Japan to the UNFCCC negotiations Research Fellow, The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIAA)
Neva Rockefeller Goodwin
Co-Director, Global Development And Environment Institute, Tufts University
Nicolas Bouleau
Mathematician, Economist
Oliver Sartor, PhD
Senior Research Fellow Climate and Energy, IDDRI
Patrick Criqui
Research Director, CNRS
Peter A. Victor Ph.D.,FRSC
Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University
Pierre-Richard Agenor
Professor of International Macroeconomics and Development Economics, University of Manchester
pirax didier
Econnomist
Prof Ross Garnaut
Professorial Research Fellow in Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne
Prof. James Renwick (Victoria University of Wellington
Professor at Victoria University of Wellington, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences
Prof. Michael Finus
Chair in Environmental Economics
Prof. Phoebe Koundouri
Athens University of Economics and Business, Director of International Center for Research on the Environment and the Economy, Chair Sustainable Development SOlutions Network Greece
Prof. Simone Borghesi
President Elect IAERE – Italian Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
Ramón López
Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
RENOUARD Cécile
Professor, Centre Sèvres-Jesuit University of Paris and researcher, ESSEC Business School
Reyer Gerlagh
Professor of Economics, Tilburg University, Netherlands
Richard Denniss
Chief Economist, The Australia Institute
Richard Wilkinson
Emeritus Professor of Social Epidemiology University of Nottingham.
Rick Van der Ploeg
Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies at Oxford University, former Chief Financial Spokesperson in the Dutch Parliament
Robert Costanza
VC’s Chair in Public Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University
Robert M. Freund
Theresa Seley Professor in Management Science, Sloan School of Management, MIT
Serge Reliant
Economiste
Seyhun Orcan Sakalli
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Economics, University of Lausanne
Shahriar Shahida
Co-Chief Investment Officer Constellation Capital Management LLC
Shuzo Nishioka
Counsellor, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Slim Ben Youssef
Professor, ESC de Tunis
Suzi Kerr
Senior Fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research
Takeshi Mizuguchi
Professor Takasaki City University Of Economics
Terra Lawson-Remer
Fellow at the Stanford Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences
Thomas Porcher
Associate Professor, Paris School of Business, member of “Les économistes attérrés
Thomas Sterner
Chair LOC World Conference of Environmental Economics
Tim Jackson
Professor, University of Surrey, UK
Tom Sanzillo
Director of Finance for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
Tom Steyer
Founder and former co-senior managing partner of Farallon Capital and the co-founder of OneCalifornia Bank
Valentina Bosetti
Associate professor at the Department of Economics, Bocconi University, President of the Italian Association of Environmental Economists
Véronique Seltz
PhD in Economics
Yanis Varoufakis
Co-founder DiEM25, economist, former Greek finance minister
Yifat Reuveni
Head of social-finance innovation JDC College of Management business school, Faculty of Management – Tel Aviv University
For the petition site click here.
December 12, 2017
The High Cost of Denying Class War – Project Syndicate op-ed, 8th December 2017
ATHENS – The Anglosphere’s political atmosphere is thick with bourgeois outrage. In the United States, the so-called liberal establishment is convinced it was robbed by an insurgency of “deplorables” weaponized by Vladimir Putin’s hackers and Facebook’s sinister inner workings. In Britain, too, an incensed bourgeoisie are pinching themselves that support for leaving the European Union in favor of an inglorious isolation remains undented, despite a process that can only be described as a dog’s Brexit.
The range of analysis is staggering. The rise of militant parochialism on both sides of the Atlantic is being investigated from every angle imaginable: psychoanalytically, culturally, anthropologically, aesthetically, and of course in terms of identity politics. The only angle that is left largely unexplored is the one that holds the key to understanding what is going on: the unceasing class war unleashed upon the poor since the late 1970s.
For the rest of the article please click here.
December 11, 2017
December 7, 2017
One Schulz does not a federation make: Comment on Martin Schulz’s belated federalist speech
Isn’t it remarkable how establishment European politicians speak common sense once they have lost power and are about to begin their long slide into oblivion? Martin Schulz just copied that pattern with his passionate federalist speech and his pronouncement that “the EU cannot afford another four years of German European policy à la Wolfgang Schäuble”.
Pity that when his party was in government, and had the numbers in the Bundestag (in association with Die Linke and the Greens) to put an end to Schäuble’s throttling of Greece, which was Wolfgang’s signal to the rest of Europe that a federal-like union was out of the question, Mr Gabriel and Mr Schulz chose to play the ‘good cop’ alongside Schäuble’s bad cop.
Pity that during the pre-election campaign last summer Mr Schulz remained mute on Europe and, indeed, sided with Schäuble to kill off President Macron’s proposals for a Eurozone budget (counter-offering a toxic European Monetary Fund, effectively Schäuble’s idea of installing the troika across Europe, including Paris).
“Better late than never”, some will say. True. But make no mistake dear reader: Mr Schulz’s sudden burst of Europeanism is intended as a tactical move to bring the SPD into another arid coalition with Angela Merkel – whose first move will be to kill off all aspirations to European federalism.
O Βασίλης Βασιλικός για τους “Ανίκητους Ηττημένους”
Στην βιβλιοπαρουσίαση του βιβλίου μου “Ανίκητοι Ηττημένοι” ο Βασίλης Βασιλικός είπε τα πιο κάτω λόγια. Σε συνδυασμό με την, παράλληλη, ανακοίνωση του Κώστα Γαβρά (ότι εργάζεται πυρετωδώς για την μεταφορά του βιβλίου στην κινηματογραφική οθόνη), τα λόγια του Βασίλη Βασιλικού με αφήνουν βουβό και βαθειά υπόχρεο.
Αγαπητοί φίλες και φίλοι,
Η παρουσία μου απόψε εδώ μου θυμίζει τον στίχο του Εγγονόπουλου ή μπορεί να είναι και του Εμπειρίκου «Τι ζητάς στη Λάρισα , εσύ, ένας Υδραίος;» Πράγματι είναι η πρώτη φορά που παρευρίσκομαι στην παρουσίαση ενός καινούργιου βιβλίου που δεν ανήκει στο χώρο της λογοτεχνίας. Αν δέχτηκα, είναι γιατί το διάβασα σαν ένα μυθιστόρημα. Με παρέσυρε σαν πλοκή που ήξερα βέβαια όπως όλοι μας την κατάληξη από την την παραμόρφωσή της από τα Μέσα Μαζικής Αποβλάκωσης όπως τα χαρακτηρίζει επανειλημμένα ο συγγραφέας, αλλά εκείνο που με παρέσυρε στην ανάγνωση ήταν η ίδια η γραφή του. «Μια μέρα στη ζωή του Ιβάν Ντενίσοβιτς» λεγόταν η νουβέλα του μεγάλου Ρώσσου συγγραφέα Σολζενίτσιν. «Εξι μήνες στη ζωή του …» θα ήταν ο τίτλος που θα έδινα στο συναρπαστικό μυθιστόρημα του Γιάνη Βαρουφάκη. Κι όταν λέω «μυθιστόρημα» δεν εννοώ καθόλου την μυθοπλασία. Μυθιστόρημα συναποτελεί ο Μύθος με κεφαλαίο Μ και η Ιστορία με κεφαλαίο Ι. Και πάλι με Μύθο δεν εννοώ το μύθευμα. Αλλά τον Μύθο που πλάθουν οι άνθρωποι για μία έννοια ή ένα τίτλο που δεν γνωρίζουν. Όπως εμείς, οι απλοί πολίτες, που μιλάμε συνεχώς για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ενωση και ουσιαστικά δεν ξέρουμε τίποτα για το πώς αυτή λειτουργεί. Ξεχνάμε βέβαια ότι η ίδια η Ευρώπη ανήκει σε ένα πανάρχαιο μύθο: την αρπαγή της από τον Δία μεταμορφωμένο σε ταύρο. Αλλά αυτό ήδη το έχει καλύψει ο ίδιος ο συγγραφέας με το προηγούμενο βιβλίο του «Η αρπαγή της Ευρώπης». Σε κείνο όμως το βιβλίο δεν μπήκε στο Λαβύρινθο της Κνωσού. Με το «Ανίκητοι Ηττημένοι» περιγράφει ακριβώς αυτόν το λαβύρινθο όπου ο Μινώταυρος (Σόϊμπλε) και η Αριάδνη (Μέρκελ) συγκατοικούν με τη διαφορά ότι η τελευταία δεν έχει μίτο (νήμα, κλωστή) για να βγει. Όπως κι εμείς, οι φτωχοποιημένοι, δεν μπορούμε να «βγούμε στις αγορές». Μια έκφραση που απεχθάνομαι σαν συγγραφέας. Αφου η Αγορά για μας με κεφαλαίο άλφα δεν είναι μάρκετ ή σούπερ ή μήνι μάρκετ, αλλά η Αρχαία Αγορά του Δήμου, δηλαδή η ίδια η Δημοκρατία.
Κι ας αρχίσω από το οξύμωρο του τίτλου. Είναι δυνατόν να υπάρχουν ανίκητοι ηττημένοι; Ως τώρα, στο λογοτεχνικό τοπίο μας, υπήρχε μόνο « Η ποίηση της Ηττας» όπως χαρακτηριζόταν η μετακατοχική και κυρίως μετεμφυλιακή ποίηση με κύριους εκφραστές τον Μανώλη Αναγνωστάκη και τον Τίτο Πατρίκιο. Διαβάζοντας όμως το βιβλίο του Βαρουφάκη πρώτα στα Αγγλικά, πριν τέσσερεις μήνες με τον τίτλο «Adults in the room” (Ενήλικοι στο Δωμάτιο) και τώρα στην εξαιρετική ελληνική του μετάφραση κατάλαβα γιατί οι ηττημένοι μπορεί να είναι ανίκητοι. Διότι ηττημένος ήταν ο ίδιος ο ελληνικός λαός που παρόλες τις διαχρονικές ήττες του και πτωχεύσεις του μέσα στα τρεις χιλιάδες τελευταία χρόνια που εξακολουθεί να υπάρχει παραμένει ανίκητος αφού μιλά την ίδια γλώσσα και κατοικεί στον ίδιο χώρο. Η πίστη του συγγραφέα στον ανώνυμο λαό που διαποτίζει όλο το βιβλίο του τον μεταμορφώνει και τον ίδιο σε ανίκητο, παρ’ ότι ηττημένο, αφού μεταλαμπαδεύει την προσωρινή ήττα του εν Ελλάδι ή Μνημονιστάν, όπως την αποκαλεί στο βιβλίο του, ιδρύοντας ένα πανευρωπαϊκό κίνημα το Diem 2025. Από την εξάμηνη εμπειρία του ως υπουργός Οικονομικών μιας πτωχευμένης χώρας διαπιστώνει ότι το πρόβλημα, πέραν της χώρας του, είναι στη ρίζα του πανευρωπαϊκό. Και εκτινάσσεται με τους στίχους του Παναγούλη μελοποιημένους από τον Μίκη «Πάλης ξεκίνημα, νέοι αγώνες, οδηγοί της ελπίδας …» ξανά τον προσκαλούν.
Διαβάζοντας το βιβλίο του, θυμήθηκα ένα ακόμα ποίημα του Αλέξανδρου Παναγούλη από τη φυλακή. Την « Μπογιά». Θα σας το διαβάσω. Και αν αντικαταστήσετε τη φυλακή με την αίθουσα όπου συνεδριάζει το Γιούρογκρουπ και τους δεσμοφύλακες με τους δανειστές μας, θα καταλάβετε γιατί:
Η ΜΠΟΓΙΑ
Ζωντάνεψα τους τοίχους/ Φωνή τους έδωσα/ πιο φιλική να είναι συντροφιά/ Κι οι δεσμοφύλακες ζητούσαν/να μάθουν πού βρήκα τη μπογιά.
Οι τοίχοι του κελιού/ το μυστικό το κράτησαν/ κι οι μισθοφόροι ψάξανε παντού/ όμως μπογιά δεν βρήκαν.
Γιατί στιγμή δεν σκέφτηκαν/ στις φλέβες μου να ψάξουν»
Το «Ανίκητοι Ηττημένοι» είναι γραμμένο με το αίμα του Γιάνη. Πονάει γράφοντας το. Το καταλαβαίνω σαν συγγραφέας που είμαι κι εγώ. Θα προτιμούσε ίσως να μην το γράψει ποτέ. Αλλά δεν επιτέπονταν αυτό όταν γίνεσαι από την «τρόικα του εσωτερικού», και τα Μαζικά Μέσα Αποβλάκωσης το εξιλαστήριο θύμα, ότι για όλα εσύ μόνο φταις. ΄Όταν σε μεταμορφώνουν, δηλαδή, σε αποδιοπομπαίο τράγο. Και πάλι θα αναφερθώ στον Παναγούλη. Ξέρετε τι λέγαν στην εμιγκράτσια για τον Αλέκο μετά την αποτυχημένη του απόπειρα ενάντια στον αρχιδικτάτορα Παπαδόπουλο, αριστεροί κυρίως, αλλά και άλλοι αυτοεξόριστοι; Τον αποκαλούσαν, μετά την απόπειρα, ως πράκτορα της CIA. Και στις πρώτες εκλογές της Μεταπολίτευσης κινδύνεψε να μη βγει ούτε καν βουλευτής.
Εγώ θέλω να ευχαριστήσω τον κύριο Βαρουφάκη για το βιβλίο που έγραψε. Πρώτα πρώτα έμαθα πως λειτουργεί η τρικέφαλη Ευρωπαϊκή Ενωση, της οποίας το ένα κεφάλι και το ισχυρότερο δεν αποτελεί θεσμοθετημένο τμήμα της. Το Brussels Group συγκεκριμένα και το παρακλάδι του Euro Working Group. Γιατί όταν ο πρόεδρος του πρώτου που πρόσφατα μας επισκέφτηκε περιχαρής , σαν τον Στρατηγό Βάν Φλήτ που ήρθε στο τέλος του Εμφυλίου να συγχαρεί τον Παπάγο για τη νίκη του, όταν λοιπόν ο μη ιπτάμενος Ολλανδός και πρόεδρος του Brussels Group κύριος Ντάισελμπλουμ απαίτησε σε μια από τις τελευταίες συνεδριάσεις να φύγει από την αίθουσα η ελληνική αντιπροσωπεία της διαπραγμάτευσης κι ο επικεφαλής της υπουργός Οικονομικών, δηλαδή ο Βαρουφάκης, ζήτησε να μάθει από το αρμόδιο νομικό τμήμα βάσει ποιου άρθρου είχε αυτό το δικαίωμα, η απάντηση που έλαβε από τη νομική υπηρεσία ήταν ότι καθώς το Γιούρογκρουπ ήταν ένα άτυπο όργανο, χωρίς ιδρυτικό καταστατικό, ο πρόεδρος του μπορούσε να ενεργεί κατά βούλησιν! Δεν δεσμευόταν από καμιά ρήτρα.
Τέλος πάντων. Η ουσία είναι ότι όταν μπαίνεις σε ένα χώρο που δεν ανήκεις οι μόνιμοι κάτοχοι του χώρου σε βλέπουν ως εξωγήινο. Κι όταν χωρίς να το επιδιώκεις καταλαβαίνουν πως ξέρεις καλύτερα απ’ αυτούς τον Παγκόσμιο Μινώταυρο και έχεις μάλιστα συγγράψει το Games People Play, δηλαδή την «Θεωρία Παιγνίων» στα οικονομικά, σε απορρίπτουν μετά βδελυγμίας. Τέσσερα χρόνια είχαν συμπληρωθεί από το πρώτο μνημόνιο όταν εμφανίστηκε ο άνθρωπος με το σακίδιο στην πλάτη και χωρίς προηγούμενη εμπειρία πολιτικού ή κρατικού υπαλλήλου. Μοναδικός του στόχος ήταν εξ αρχής , πριν οποιαδήποτε νέα διαπραγμάτευση, η αναδιάρθρωση του χρέους. Κάτι που και προ τετραετίας ο τότε επικεφαλής του ΔΝΤ ο Ντομινίκ Στρως-Καν είχε συμβουλεύσει τον ΓΑΠ πριν υπογράψει κανένα μνημόνιο με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ενωση και με το δικό του Ταμείο να προεξασφαλίσει την αναδιάρθρωση . Κι αυτό οι Ευρωπαίοι Εταίροι μας δεν ήθελαν τότε ούτε να το ακούσουν. Γι’ αυτούς το πρωταρχικό τους μέλημα ήταν να δανείσουν στην Ελλάδα λεφτά που θα επέστρεφαν ως αποπληρωμή των δανείων που της είχαν δώσει οι τράπεζες της Γαλλίας και της Γερμανίας και κινδύνευαν να χρεοκοπήσουν. Οπερ και εγένετο. Ακολούθησε το δεύτερο μνημόνιο τον Φεβρουάριο του 2012 και το 2015 με τη νέα κυβέρνηση ο Βαρουφάκης επανέλαβε ως προτεραιότητα την αναδιάρθρωση. Κι άρχισαν τα όργανα για το Τετέλεσται του Εσταυρωμένου που η νέα κυβέρνηση τον βρήκε επί του σταυρού να πνέει να λοίσθια ενώ το Ιερατείο της προηγούμενης προανήγγειλε το success story της Ανάστασης Του.
Το συναρπαστικό βιβλίο που σήμερα έχω την τιμή να μετέχω στην παρουσίαση του είναι καθόλα βατό και στον πιο ανειδίκευτο στα οικονομικά αναγνώστη. Γιατί εστιάζεται πάνω στους ανθρώπους κι όχι στους αριθμούς. Δημιουργεί μυθιστορηματικούς χαρακτήρες με την διεισδυτικότητά του στην ψυχολογία τους . Σαν γεννημένος πεζογράφος ο συγγραφέας του, με πλούσια αναγνωστική παράδοση της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας, με χιούμορ εδώ κι εκεί που σε ανακουφίζει και με εικονοποία αξιοζήλευτη, με κέρδισε με την ειλικρίνεια του και, με την κατανόηση του Αλλου, του διαφορετικού, κυρίως του αντίπαλου. Χωρίς καμιά εκδικητική διάθεση για «ξεκαθάρισμα λογαριασμών», με πρότυπο τη σεξπηρική τραγωδία του «Μάκβεθ» και μότο τη φράση του Νίτσε «όταν κοιτάξεις το εσωτερικό της Αβύσσου για ώρα πολλή, στο τέλος η Αβυσσος θα κοιτάξει μέσα σου». Και για να θυμηθούμε τον Ελύτη «ένα το χελιδόνι κι η άνοιξη ακριβή, για να γυρίσει ο ήλιος θέλει δουλειά πολλή».
Σας ευχαριστώ.
Βασίλης Βασιλικός
‘Adults in the Room’ and ‘And the Weak Suffer What They Must?’ reviewed by B. Baumer for the INDYPENDENT
Along with French economist Thomas Piketty, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis is making economics sexy again. Journalists enjoyed snapping photos of Varoufakis, clad in a black leather coat, commuting to the finance ministry’s offices on his Yamaha motorcycle. But his short tenure in the Greek government was marked by clashes with the country’s creditors and ultimately with the leadership of Syriza, the left-wing party that came to power in Greece in early 2015.
Varoufakis, a self-described “erratic Marxist,” also happens to be a gifted storyteller who can deftly relate personal experiences to larger themes without sacrificing analytical rigor. It’s not something you would expect to find in your average finance minister, but he is no ordinary government bureaucrat.
He opens Adults in the Room, his memoir about his short time in government, by describing a late-night meeting in a Washington bar in which former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers asks him if he would behave as an insider or outsider. It is a sly narrative construct, as Varoufakis tells all from the outsider-insider perspective and recounts the negotiations over Greece’s debt with the “Troika”: the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB).
Varoufakis names the individual actors in the Greek tragedy, but where he really shines is in explaining the central economic and political forces that created Europe’s economic crisis.
Greece’s population is 10.75 million but its public debt is around 330 billion euros ($390 billion). He argues that Greece is in a modern-day debtor’s prison and cannot pay its sovereign debt without a serious restructuring. Adults in the Roomtakes pains to describe his attempts to end the country’s “fiscal waterboarding” at the hands of the Troika. Varoufakis demanded new debt terms and some debt cancellation — “haircuts” for the banks and other institutions that held Greece’s bonds. One problem was that the ECB’s charter explicitly prohibited debt cancellation and bailouts, thus stacking the deck against the debtor nation.
An outsider’s tale of crashing the ultimate insiders’ club.
Once in power, Varoufakis got creative. He offered to convert Greece’s unsustainable debt payments to perpetual bonds that paid lower but perpetual interest, and the country would be able to choose when to pay off the principal, sometime in the distant future. Another novel but workable idea was that Greece would swap its largest debt obligations for new 30-year bonds that had crucial provisions: Annual payments would be suspended until Greece’s national income increased, and would then be linked to its economic growth.
It would have been a win-win solution for both sides, but the Troika rejected all of Varoufakis’ proposals. It held the upper hand: It could close Greece’s banks and turn off the liquidity spigot. Varoufakis wanted Greece to play hardball and default on its ECB debt if that happened. He was convinced German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not want to force Greece to leave the Eurozone, the 19-nation group that shares a common European currency. He believed a “Grexit” would have spurred a stampede out of the Eurozone by other debtor countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal. However, the Syriza government lost its nerve and did not default. The chapter “Lions Led By Donkeys” details what happened when the Troika shut Greece’s banks down and the Syriza government capitulated.
Adults in the Room unflatteringly portrays Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and how he cracked in the face of intense diplomatic pressure, bank closures and the threat of being kicked out of the Eurozone. When Tsipras agreed to impose a new round of austerity on his country in order to procure a new loan from the Troika, Varoufakis resigned and sped away on his motorcycle. He was finance minister for just five and a half months.
The title of the latter is derived from an infamous scene in the Greek historian Thucydides’ recounting of the Peloponnesian War, in which the Athenians demand that their weaker rivals unconditionally surrender or else face complete annihilation, because “the strong do as they like while the weak suffer what they must.” More than 2,000 years later, Varoufakis contends, this same merciless logic can be found in today’s neoliberal global economy. He does us the favor of showing us how we came to this moment.
In his retelling, the United States shifted in the 1970s from an industrial powerhouse that ran large trade surpluses to a debtor nation, within which economic and political power shifted from industrialists to Wall Street.
“The trick for America to gain the power to recycle other countries’ surpluses… was to persuade foreign capitalists to voluntarily send their capital to Wall Street,” he writes. Wall Street offered high returns on investment in the form of higher interest rates to attract Japanese, German and eventually Chinese capital. Higher interest rates meant American manufacturers’ costs jumped and consumer purchasing power nosedived.
Then the party stopped with the financial crash of 2008. Varoufakis thinks the United States can no longer effectively manage the global economy. The Great Recession decimated Americans’ already stagnant incomes, so they do not have the purchasing power to absorb surpluses and recycle money that they did in previous generations.
Varoufakis warns that unstable, debt-ridden countries are a breeding ground for fascism. While Greece’s neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is hobbled by murder trials and corruption charges, elsewhere the far right is capitalizing on economic insecurity by blaming immigrants for society’s problems.
Varoufakis, like Piketty, advocates a federal European Union system that would socialize debts, stabilize debtor countries’ economic growth and democratize the EU bureaucracy. After his stint as finance minister, he came away convinced that no one country by itself could successfully challenge Europe’s powers that be. He cofounded DiEM25 (Democracy in Europe Movement 2025) — “a pan-European, democratic, humanist movement” — that seeks to transform the European project while preventing it from sliding into a 21st-century version of fascism.
It won’t be an easy task. But from his writing, it is clear Varoufakis knows exactly who and what he is up against.
Reviewed:
‘Adults in the Room: My Battle with the European and American Deep Establishment’
By Yanis Varoufakis
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017
‘And The Weak Suffer What They Must?’
By Yanis Varoufakis
Nation Books, 2016
BENNETT BAUMER Nov 21, Issue 230 For The Indypendent site click here.
A Life in the Day – Sunday Times, 26th November 2017
On the occasion of the publication of ‘Talking To My Daughter about the Economy: A brief history of capitalism‘, the Sunday Times published this interview, in the context of their series ‘A Day in the Life of…’ Apologies for the lifestyle-like style and content…
Interview by Gabriel Pogrund
Best advice I was given A statistics professor told me: “Say what will happen or when it will happen. Never predict both as you’ll end up with egg on your face”
Advice I’d give To be moderate, you have to constantly subvert the dominant paradigm
What I wish I’d known That the worst enemy lies within your own camp
Born in 1961 in Athens, Varoufakis, 56, served in Greece’s government as the minister of finance during the 2015 bailout crisis, before resigning in protest over austerity measures. He has a flat in Athens and a villa on the island of Aegina, which he shares with his wife, Danae Stratou, an artist, and her two children. Varoufakis has a daughter with his first wife. He is the author of several books on the global economy.
Rising early is the only way I can work. I wake at 5.30am and put the coffee machine on. By the time it’s ready, I’ve finished my press-ups: three sets of 80. I’ve been doing them for 50 years.
Before I get to my desk, my Labrador, Mowgli, and I have a big hug. I bite him, he bites me.
Then, for two or three hours, I’ll write intensively, the equivalent of a whole day’s work. In my most recent book, I wrote to my 12-year-old daughter about capitalism. My personal tragedy is I’ve never lived with Xenia. She lives in Australia with her mother, and so the clock’s always ticking: counting down when we’re together, or until we’re together. As a child, she would fall asleep as I read her bedtime stories on Skype, but this book brought me closer to her without a ticking clock.
After I finish writing at 10am, my wife, Danae, and I have breakfast: tea and Greek yoghurt with chopped-up fruit. This is a special part of my day. Every time, it feels like a first date.
Before I actually knew Danae, I’d fallen in love with her work. I came across an exhibit in Athens and assumed she was a 90-year-old woman — it was a mature piece of art and the name sounded old-fashioned. Then I met her and thought: “Now I’m in trouble!”
Nothing happened because we were both married, but two years later, we met by chance in a London restaurant. The rest is history.
My big project at the moment is the Democracy in Europe Movement [DiEM25]. Our aim is to spread a new politics through the democracy-free zone that is the EU. It will probably fail, but we don’t give a damn. It’s fun trying. For the European elections, we’re putting up transnational candidates: Greeks in Germany, Italians in France. I’ll probably have to stand. I’m dumbfounded by career politicians, though, and think anyone keen to be a minister should be disqualified.
At 1pm, I’ll have lunch. Danae and I have something cold: our latest craze is black lentils with Greek white goat’s cheese, cherry tomatoes and salad. I used to cook, but my time in government ended that. I lost the luxury of time. Reflecting on that period, I’d say my relationship with Alexis Tsipras [the Greek prime minister] is beyond repair. To justify his U-turn [over the EU’s austerity package], he has to tell himself stories that, deep down, he knows are false.
I’m not enthusiastic about the EU, but my view remains that, instead of leaving, one should stay and veto the hell out of everything until we can have a serious conversation about reform.
Corbyn and I are very close and I’m pleased he’s come to my original position: that in terms of Brexit, Britain should have a long transition period and give itself a chance to prepare. Then you can leave but maintain good links, and potentially come back in if the EU shows it’s transformed itself.
After an afternoon of reading and writing, I’ll go to the gym at 7pm. If I don’t go, my back starts to hurt. I used to bench-press 150kg. Now I can’t do more than 90.
Two or three nights a week, we’ll go out with friends, whether it’s the theatre or a film or to eat.
For dinner, we’re keen on simple grills with meat or fish and a big salad with balsamic and figs and tomatoes. Danae has a glass of wine. I enjoy a shot or three of raki.
At the end of the evening — and that can be anywhere from 9pm to 3am — we crash on the sofa, listen to music and fall asleep.
Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: A Brief History of Capitalism by Yanis Varoufakis is out now (Bodley Head £15)
Yanis Varoufakis's Blog
- Yanis Varoufakis's profile
- 2351 followers
