Yanis Varoufakis's Blog, page 24

The Greek Watergate – UNHERD

Nothing surprises me more than politicians professing to be surprised that their phones have been tapped. In the world revealed to us by Edward Snowden almost a decade ago, no phone is beyond the reach of motivated eavesdroppers. This is not to say, however, that phone-tapping political opponents has lost its capacity to poison democracy. If those in power can get off  after they are caught red-handed, the floodgates of authoritarianism open widely. Soon, what remains of our democratic checks and balances is washed away. This is why Greece’s own Watergate scandal, which has gradually come to light over the past few months, has a significance well beyond the borders of democracy’s supposed cradle.To put the recent revelations in context, Greece has as proud a tradition of politically motivated phone-tapping as any other country. I still chuckle when I recall what happened in the early hours of a May morning in 2015 during my short stint as Greece’s finance minister. Soon after I had concluded a sensitive conversation with my friend Jeff Sachs, the phone rang. It was Jeff again, this time laughing uncontrollably.“You will not believe this,” he said. “Five minutes after we hung up, I received a call from the National Security Council. They asked me if I thought you meant what you’d told me.” I had fully expected my phone had been tapped, but two things made Jeff’s news remarkable. First, the eavesdroppers not only had the capacity to instantly recognise that what I had said to Jeff was of real significance, but they must also have had an open line to America’s NSC. Second, they had no compunction whatsoever about revealing that they were tapping my phone!I was, of course, neither the first nor the highest-ranking Greek politician to have been honoured with such attention. We now know that, back in 2008, the phones of the then-prime minister, his wife, half the cabinet and close to 100 government officials were tapped by US agencies. Nor was eavesdropping monopolised by US agencies. In 2015, operatives of EYP — the Greek intelligence agency — dropped into my ministerial office to check for bugs, and pointed out the window at two vans which, they said, belonged to the German Embassy and contained listening equipment trained at me and my team. A few months later, the Prime Minister I was serving under told me that the EYP’s head had been spreading the toxic lie that I was in cahoots with Wolfgang Schäuble (Germany’s then Finance Minister) to get Greece out of the eurozone.Clearly, in view of such experiences, I was not at all surprised, let alone shocked, at the news that EYP has recently been eavesdropping on politicians and journalists. So, why am I branding this latest incident as Greece’s Watergate? Why do I go so far as to believe it poses a greater threat to democracy than Richard Nixon’s original?The short answer is: because Nixon was forced to resign once it was revealed that he had endeavoured to cover up spying. Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the current Greek Prime Minister, has in contrast succeeded in neutralising the democratic institutions set up to maintain a semblance of legality — before they neutralised him.The sequence of events leading to the exposure of Greece’s Watergate scandal began in July 2019, immediately after Mr Mitsotakis won the last general election on behalf of New Democracy, our conservative party. One of the very first decrees he issued, as incoming Prime Minister, was one that gave his office direct control over and responsibility for EYP. “Why on earth is the PM taking over the supervision of EYP?”, I remember a parliamentary colleague asking me that very day. It was, indeed, a curious move.Our trepidation only grew following two personnel choices. First, Mitsotakis appointed a nephew of his, Grigoris Dimitriadis, to oversee EYP on his behalf. Secondly, he chose as EYP’s new head Panagiotis Kontoleon, the CEO of the Greek franchise of the private security firm G4 — a man with no record of public service, and whose appointment Mitsotakis could only complete after amending the relevant law to remove the prerequisite that the EYP chief holds a postgraduate degree.Given his concerted and very public efforts to take complete control of the state intelligence agency, something no other PM had ever done, it became impossible to shift blame to some other minister once the faeces hit the proverbial fan.Of the more than 17,000 wiretaps that EYP admits it has placed during the last year alone, two cases are at the heart of the current scandal. The first is that of Thanasis Koukakis, an investigative journalist who dared look into Greek shipowners’ loans that had been illegally written off by the Bank of Piraeus (one of the banks that Greek taxpayers have had to repeatedly bailout). It turns out that Koukakis was one of EYP’s “subjects of interest”, an outrage that would have probably gone unnoticed without the second, higher profile, case.It was this case that broke the camel’s back: an investigation begun by the European Parliament’s IT department accidentally revealed that Nikos Androulakis, an MEP belonging to PASOK (the formerly dominant party in Greek politics), was being phone-tapped by EYP. It was explosive news because, at the time his phone was tapped, Androulakis was contesting the leadership of PASOK — a contest that he, eventually, won. The significance of that contest cannot be understated, since its outcome mattered a great deal to Mitsotakis and his governing New Democracy party.Since the middle of the pandemic, opinion polls have persistently suggested that the next election, which must take place by July 2023, will result in a hung parliament. While Mitsotakis’ New Democracy seemed likely to remain the largest party, it was not even close to an absolute majority. PASOK, in third place, was therefore positioned as kingmaker: whoever the party chose to side with would end up in government.The stakes of PASOK’s leadership race suddenly seemed very high. Of the three main candidates, the one that would almost certainly choose to back New Democracy and Mitsotakis to form a government was Andreas Loverdos — an MP and former minister who had served gladly in New Democracy-PASOK coalition governments between 2011 and 2015. Every newspaper, radio and television station supporting Mitsotakis was rooting for Loverdos to beat Androulakis in the PASOK leadership primary. Is it any wonder that the revelation of EYP’s surveillance of Androulakis was big news? In a period during which the ruling party was rooting for Androulakis’s opponent, the nation’s spy agency — which ruling party’s leader and his nephew controlled and supervised to the full — was tapping Androulakis’ phone!As if that were not sufficiently outrageous, the Prime Minister doubled down with a disgraceful reaction to the ensuing uproar. In a six hour-long parliamentary debate on the subject, the Mitsotakis repeatedly insisted that the wiretap on Androulakis was perfectly legal, even if it was politically disingenuous. When we pressed him on the legal and logical justification for tapping Androulakis’ phone, he referred vaguely to grounds of “national security” — claiming that such sensitive matters cannot be spoken about in an open parliamentary session. At that point, we — the leaders of the opposition parties — called his bluff and voted to convene a special parliamentary Select Committee, which would debate these “national security” grounds in confidence.And so it was that, a few days later, a Select Committee convened. Among the summoned witnesses were, naturally, the two men Mitsotakis had appointed to run EYP: Dimitriadis and Kontoleon. Both appeared in front of the Committee and both, reading from the same invisible script, repeated the same mantra: “We cannot answer your questions because the information the Select Committee seeks is privileged.” After a few pointless and cacophonous sessions, lacking any power to arrest witnesses for contempt of Parliament, the Committee disbanded and the case was closed.And here’s the rub. Politicians, like corporations and athletes, often try out illegitimate practices to tilt the playground in their favour. In our surveillance society — in which our every move, thought or click is turned into a valuable commodity — phone-tapping is, unfortunately, commonplace. However, when a President or a Prime Minister seeks direct control over the nation’s spooks in order to press them, and their gadgets, into spying on opponents, they cross a Rubicon. If a leader is caught red-handed, our democratic institutions may be judged on whether they can neutralise him. In the case of Watergate, it was hard to unveil Nixon’s complicity, but the moment the President’s involvement was established, he was gone. In the case of Greece’s Watergate, our parliamentary sovereignty was jettisoned so that the guilty PM could stay put. In this sense, Greece’s Watergate bodes more ill for democracy than America’s original.The reader may, understandably, ask: why should this defeat of Greece’s parliamentary democracy, however sad it may be, matter in the grander scheme of things? Because, my dear reader, you should never underestimate Greece’s capacity to be the harbinger of terrible developments that will come to your shores before you know it. Can you recall where the Cold War began? Not in the streets of Berlin in 1945, but in the streets of Athens in December 1944! Do you remember where the eurozone crisis began? Not in Italy or Spain or France, but in Greece in 2010! For some reason I am not privy to, my country has a proven record of giving birth not only to some important values, like democracy, but also to existential threats to Western civilisation. Which is why the ever-complacent West should be paying attention as our Greek Watergate scandal unfolds.

For the UNHERD original webpage click here

The post The Greek Watergate – UNHERD appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Europe’s electricity market: the scam of the century? – Video

Every fortnight, DiEM25’s coordinating team livestreams our internal discussions of topics central to Europe’s and the world’s current predicament. On 8th September 2022 we discussed the electricity price hikes that, like a wrecking ball, are destroying what is left of Europe’s sustainability as an economic and social entity. Here is a clip of my analysis of why these markets are exploding and of the scandalous financialisation that is responsible for so much hardship spreading around Europe.

The post Europe’s electricity market: the scam of the century? – Video appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Why energy markets should be dismantled, especially during and after the war in Ukraine – On Democracy Now!

We look at how the Ukraine war is contributing to an energy crisis across Europe with Greek politician and economist Yanis Varoufakis. Last week Russia announced it would not resume sending natural gas to Europe via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, blaming Western sanctions for supposed maintenance delays keeping the gas shut off. Prior to the war, Russia supplied Europe with 40% of its natural gas, but now European nations must find ways to cope with fuel shortages and soaring energy prices as winter approaches. Varoufakis says a history of market liberalization and reliance on cheap Russian gas has left the continent scrambling, in turn pushing up energy costs in the Global South as richer European countries buy up other sources of energy. “Yet again, Europe is exporting misery to the rest of the world,” says Varoufakis, a member of the Greek Parliament and former finance minister. His latest piece for Project Syndicate is “Time to Blow Up Electricity Markets.”Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

As Ukraine continues to seize more Russian-occupied land in its largest counteroffensive to date, we turn now to look at how the war in Ukraine is leading to an energy war in Europe. Last week Russia announced it would not resume sending natural gas to Europe via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline until the West lifts sanctions imposed after Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Prior to the war, Russia supplied Europe with 40% of its natural gas. Now European nations are scrambling to find ways to cope with gas shortages, as well as soaring energy prices. There are growing fears the energy crisis could lead to rolling blackouts and the shuttering of some industries during the winter.

We go now to Athens, Greece, to Yanis Varoufakis, member of the Greek Parliament, former finance minister of Greece. His latest piece for Project Syndicate is headlined “Time to Blow Up Electricity Markets.”

Yanis, welcome back to Democracy Now! What do you mean?

YANIS VAROUFAKIS: We shouldn’t have electricity markets. It’s an abomination. Think about it, Amy. There can’t be an electricity market, to the extent that in your apartment, in your studio, there is one single wire coming out of the wall carrying electricity. There can’t be a market. It’s an actual monopoly. The only way we could have had a market would be if we had 50 different wires, each belonging to a different company, and we could choose which one we connect our appliances to. But, of course, that would be completely crazy, because we would have 50 grids running through every suburb, through every city, through the land. That would be so inefficient, it would be ridiculous.

So, what we have is not really markets. We have the state that steps in and pretends that it is a market, simulates a market, creating a kind of semblance of competition between producers of electricity and a semblance of competition between, supposedly, retailers of electricity, people who — companies that buy electricity wholesale and then sell it to you individually. But all that is a state creation. It’s, you know, a libertarian’s, right-winger’s nightmare, if you want. It’s a market — it’s a fake market created by the state.

And the impact of this being a fake market emerges during periods of stress, like in the 1970s, when we had the oil crisis, and then, of course, that translated into electricity price crisis, and now with what is happening with supply chain interruptions and the war in Ukraine. The thing to remember is that electricity prices, the prices that people in New York, in Los Angeles, here in Athens, everywhere, the prices we pay have risen by a much greater factor than the cost of producing electricity. So, you’ve got the oligarchs that are dominating this state market, that pseudo-market, that fake market, benefiting tremendously out of this crisis.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Yanis, I wanted to ask you about this. Europe made a decision, clearly, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, that it would integrate its economy, especially when it came to energy, with Russia, now, of course, being forced rapidly to move for other sources of gas and oil. Could you talk about this decision, the original decision and now the change, and what the impact of Europe’s strategic decisions are having on the rest of the world?

YANIS VAROUFAKIS: Actually, if you look at it historically, the decision goes back to the early ’70s. It was back in the early ’70s that West Germany and the Soviet Union started this arrangement of providing cheap gas to the German industrial machine in exchange for détente, in exchange for cash that the Soviet Union was collecting.

The tragedy is that since the Lehman Brothers collapse and the Wall Street implosion in 2008, which very quickly brought down the whole of the banking sector in Europe and precipitated a major economic and social crisis in Europe, with Greece being, of course, the worst-hit place, but Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal — we all suffered as a result — during that period, we didn’t invest in energy, in renewables. We had zero investment, almost zero investment in the renewables, that we needed in order to save the planet, on the one hand, and to decouple from the Putin regime in Russia. And it is only now, years and years later, that the chickens are coming home to roost across Europe.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the impact on the Global South of Europe buying up gas and oil wherever it can find it?

YANIS VAROUFAKIS: Well, it’s awful, isn’t it? We are exporting poverty. In 2008, 2009, 2010, with the crisis of the German and the French banks initially, and then the public debt crisis, Europe exported deflation to the rest of the world. We exported unemployment to the rest of the world. Now we are exporting poverty, energy poverty, which translates then into food poverty, because, as we speak, there is a scramble, by Germany, by France, by Italy, even by little Greece, to buy all the gas that we can, you know, in liquefied form from Norway, from Qatar, from Algeria, from wherever they are selling it. And, of course, rich Europe, rich European countries, relatively rich, they can outbid the whole of the African continent and most of Asia, Latin America in those markets. So they’re pushing prices up for those countries, the developing world, while at the same time food shortages are hitting those countries. So, you know, yet again, Europe is exporting misery to the rest of the world. We’ve doing this for a thousand years; it’s not new, right? Colonialism began from these shores.

AMY GOODMAN: Yanis, if you could talk about your call for an end to Russian sanctions and your response to the latest kind of Ukrainian blitz taking back city after town, Russia, though, saying they would not negotiate at this point?

YANIS VAROUFAKIS: Well, it’s a tragedy that people are not negotiating when there’s a war, wherever that war happens. But I have say that, Amy, whenever an invaded country manages to repel the invader, I rejoice. I rejoice now that the Russian troops have been pushed back. I would rejoice if Palestinians managed to claim back their stolen land. I would rejoice everywhere and anywhere invaded peoples claim back their homes, their cities, their villages, their fields, their olive trees, whatever.

Having said that, we have a complete tragedy here in Europe with Ukraine, because I cannot see this war ending. There can be no final victory either for Putin or for Ukraine. There is very little doubt that Putin, as we speak, is planning another murderous escapade in different parts of Ukraine. We are in for a very long war, the victims of which are going to multiply and, you know, which will spread far and wide, as we said. There will be people dying of hunger in Africa, in Latin America. We are going to have an inflammation of the new Cold War between the United States and Europe, on the one hand, and China and Russia, on the other hand, with African nations, Asian nations pulling their hair out, because they — clearly, they don’t like Putin. They don’t like what Putin is doing. But at the same time, they refuse to accept that the United States of America, the government of the United States of America, or the Europeans can impose sanctions on anyone they don’t like, because they know that these sanctions have never been either efficient or in the interests of the majority of people in a majority of countries.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Yanis, I’m wondering — the big story in the corporate and commercial media the past few days, obviously, has been the death of Queen Elizabeth. Your perspective from — as a leftist political leader from Greece about all the fixation in much of the Western world over monarchs and, obviously, the royal family of Britain?

YANIS VAROUFAKIS: I try to be very careful, whenever somebody dies, independently of my opinion of the deceased, to respect the people who are in grief. And therefore, I will be very restrained in my response. Let me, however, give you a response.

My grief is for civil liberties, for freedom of expression. An acquaintance of mine the other day had a very interesting experience outside the House of Commons, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in London, you know, next to Big Ben, or under the Big Ben. There was an arrest recently of a demonstrator who had the audacity to hold a placard up — not actually. It wasn’t even a placard. It was a piece of paper in which he had scribbled “not my king” as Charles was passing by. This person was arrested. My acquaintance, a couple of days later, went to the same spot and had a blank piece of paper and a pen. Blank piece of paper and a pen. And the police came along, and they were about to jump on him. And he said to them, “So, if I write here on this piece of paper, ‘not my king,’ will you arrest me?” And they said, “Yes.” So they were waiting. Now, that, to me, is the death of democracy. And since your wonderful channel is called Democracy Now!, I think, it is something that we should all be very, very aware of.

AMY GOODMAN: Yanis Varoufakis, we want to thank you so much for being with us, member of the Greek Parliament, former finance minister of Greece. We’ll link to your latest piece in Project Syndicate, “Time to Blow Up Electricity Markets.”

The post Why energy markets should be dismantled, especially during and after the war in Ukraine – On Democracy Now! appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Are we Greeks insufferable nationalists? UNHERD

We Greeks have a reputation for being insufferable nationalists, most of whom genuinely believe that Greek culture is superior to that of other nations and peoples. We were even anointed the most culturally chauvinistic Europeans in a recent Pew survey. At the risk of confirming that stereotype, I shall blame it on… foreigners, with their immoderate praise of Greek culture and their superficial reading of their own silly surveys.On 28 May, 1979, the occasion of Greece’s accession to the European Economic Community, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then president of France delivered a speech in Athens and declared: “Europe without Greece would not be Europe… We are all, in our language and thought processes, children of Greek civilisation…” Today, he concluded, “Europe is rediscovering Europe.”A century or so earlier, the Cambridge mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote that “the safest general characterisation of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato”. Not to be outdone in philhellenism, commenting in 1941 on the Greek resistance to the Italian and German invaders, Winston Churchill famously added: “Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks.”Surely any people showered with such lavish praise by influential foreigners would be forgiven for taking a certain pride in their culture. For Greeks used to hearing folks like Giscard d’Estaing insist that. Greece  Europe, and vice versa, telling a pollster that they do not believe their culture to be superior would be tantamount to questioning the superiority of European civilisation. In fact, from a Greek’s perspective, it is the equivalent of asking the French, German, Spanish or Dutch to respond, with a yes or no answer, to the silly question: “Is European civilisation better or worse than other civilisations?” In this sense, modern Greeks are neither more nor less culturally chauvinist than Europeans who celebrate European civilisation as if the horrors of European colonialism had never happened.But ask us Greeks about modern Greek culture and you will get a very different response. Sure enough, we have our fair share of looney ultra-nationalists, some of whom believe that Darwinism applies to every human except the Greeks, who stem from some divine extra-terrestrial gene. Yet the vast majority of my countrymen and women think very little of our contemporary culture, ways and behaviours. The past decade, especially since our wholesale bankruptcy, has left us reeling, insecure and verging on self-loathing.Yes, we still appreciate the glowing successes of Greeks who left Greece in search of a better life elsewhere. Yes, we celebrate the odd athletic victory and we appreciate the beauty of Greece’s land, sea and environment. Yes, we maintain some pride in uniquely Greek concepts like philotimia — a penchant for acting in a dignified way simply for the hell of it. But at the same time, we fear that these qualities, natural and spiritual, have been diluted terribly in recent decades; partly because we neglected and cannibalised them (our monstrous investment in tourism, for example), and partly because of a European Union that helped us lose our way.When Giscard d’Estaing made his 1979 speech, a year before northern Europe formally admitted us to the EU, most Greeks rejoiced. Alas, we soon realised that a general loss of dignity was the hefty price we would end up paying for the privilege. I am often asked why Europe first let us Greeks into the Common Market and later into the euro. The correct answer sounds improbable today: because, back in 1979 when Giscard was waxing lyrical about Greek civilisation, the Greek state had one of the lowest levels of public debt in Europe and its citizens had next to none. Yes, we were a poor people but we managed within our modest means, living and breathing paradigms of parsimony. That’s what we brought into the EU: low debt and high levels of home ownership — a combination that was the Western banker’s wet dream.Even in 1999, just before we were admitted to the euro, barely any Greeks had a mortgage, let alone a credit card. However, to enter Europe we had to lower our trade barriers and, later, to dismantle all capital controls. Immediately, a tsunami of imports, money and loans left northern Europe for Greece. Not that we resisted it, hungry as we were for the material trappings of modernity. Before we knew it, our factories were shut (and converted into warehouses for the imported washing machines and fridges that were once manufactured here); our bank accounts went from thin black to deep red; our dignity and philotimia were torn asunder.It was only a matter of time before the global debt and banking bubble burst, before the same Europeans and Americans who once praised us as the pillars of Western civilisation turned on us. Conveniently ignoring that they had insisted we borrow mountains of their money — so we could buy their cars, washing machines and haute couture — they did not hesitate to call us all sorts of names unfit to print here.Worse still, under our breath, we call ourselves similar names. When talking to each other, we have no qualms of being highly self-critical, often bordering on self-hatred. No Greek I know would, for instance, disagree with David Holden, the Times journalist who in 1972 depicted Greece as “rich in talent and poor in resources, developed in its tastes and underdeveloped in its capacities”. And so partly out of a false dedication to not disappointing those who talk up Greek civilisation, and partly due to our anger with ourselves and with a Europe that led us astray before treating us like cattle that lost their market price, we respond to idiotic survey questions with fake pride. Of course, we know it is fake — but, then again, fake pride is the last resort for those who have forfeited the real thing.For the Unherd webpage click here

The post Are we Greeks insufferable nationalists? UNHERD appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Time to Blow Up the Electricity Markets – Project Syndicate

The European Union’s power sector is a good example of what market fundamentalism has done to electricity networks the world over. With the end of cheap natural gas, retail consumers and businesses are paying the price for their governments’ embrace of a shoddy theory.ATHENS – The blades of the wind turbines on the mountain range opposite my window are turning especially energetically today. Last night’s storm has abated but high winds continue, contributing extra kilowatts to the electricity grid at precisely zero additional cost (or marginal cost, in the language of the economists). But the people struggling to make ends meet during a dreadful cost-of-living crisis must pay for these kilowatts as if they were produced by the most expensive liquefied natural gas transported to Greece’s shores from Texas. This absurdity, which prevails well beyond Greece and Europe, must end.The absurdity stems from the delusion that states can simulate a competitive, and thus efficient, electricity market. Because only one electricity cable enters our homes or businesses, leaving matters to the market would lead to a perfect monopoly – an outcome that nobody wants. But governments decided that they could simulate a competitive market to replace the public utilities that used to generate and distribute power. They can’t.1The European Union’s power sector is a good example of what market fundamentalism has done to electricity networks the world over. The EU obliged its member states to split the electricity grid from the power-generating stations and privatize the power stations to create new firms, which would compete with one another to provide electricity to a new company owning the grid. This company, in turn, would lease its cables to another host of companies that would buy the electricity wholesale and compete among themselves for the retail business of homes and firms. Competition among producers would minimize the wholesale price, while competition among retailers would ensure that final consumers benefit from low prices and high-quality service.Alas, none of this could be made to work in theory, let alone in practice.The simulated market faced contradictory imperatives: to ensure a minimum amount of electricity within the grid at every point in time, and to channel investment into green energy. The solution proposed by market fundamentalists was twofold: create another market for permissions to emit greenhouse gases, and introduce marginal-cost pricing, which meant that the wholesale price of every kilowatt should equal that of the costliest kilowatt.The emission-permit market was meant to motivate electricity producers to shift to less polluting fuels. Unlike a fixed tax, the cost of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide would be determined by the market. In theory, the more industry relied on terrible fuels like lignite, the larger the demand for the EU-issued emission permits. This would drive up their price, strengthening the incentive to switch to natural gas and, ultimately, to renewables.Marginal-cost pricing was intended to ensure the minimum level of electricity supply, by preventing low-cost producers from undercutting higher-cost power companies. The prices would give low-cost producers enough profits and reasons to invest in cheaper, less polluting energy sources.To see what the regulators had in mind, consider a hydroelectric power station and a lignite-fired one. The fixed cost of building the hydroelectric station is large but the marginal cost is zero: once water turns its turbine, the next kilowatt the station produces costs nothing. In contrast, the lignite-fired power station is much cheaper to build, but the marginal cost is positive, reflecting the fixed amount of costly lignite per kilowatt produced.By fixing the price of every kilowatt produced hydroelectrically to be no less than the marginal cost of producing a kilowatt using lignite, the EU wanted to reward the hydroelectric company with a fat profit, which, regulators hoped, would be invested in additional renewable-energy capacity. Meanwhile, the lignite-fueled power station would have next to no profits (as the price would just about cover its marginal costs) and a growing bill for the permits it needed to buy in order to pollute.But reality was less forgiving than the theory. As the pandemic wreaked havoc on global supply chains, the price of natural gas rose, before trebling after Russia invaded Ukraine. Suddenly, the most polluting fuel (lignite) was not the most expensive, motivating more long-term investment in fossil fuels and infrastructure for LNG. Marginal-cost pricing helped power companies extract huge rents from outraged retail consumers, who realized they were paying much more than the average cost of electricity. Not surprisingly, publics, seeing no benefits – to them or to the environment – from the blades rotating above their heads and spoiling their scenery, turned against wind turbines.The rise in natural gas prices has exposed the endemic failures that occur when a simulated market is grafted onto a natural monopoly. We have seen it all: How easily producers could collude in fixing the wholesale price. How their obscene profits, especially from renewables, turned citizens against the green transition. How the simulated market regime impeded common procurement that would have alleviated poorer countries’ energy costs. How the retail electricity market became a casino with companies speculating on future electricity prices, profiting during the good times, and demanding state bailouts when their bets turn bad.It’s time to wind down simulated electricity markets. What we need, instead, are public energy networks in which electricity prices represent average costs plus a small mark-up. We need a carbon tax, whose proceeds must compensate poorer citizens. We need a large-scale Manhattan Project-like investment in the green technologies of the future (such as green hydrogen and large-scale offshore floating windfarms). And, lastly, we need municipally-owned local networks of existing renewables (solar, wind, and batteries) that turn communities into owners, managers, and beneficiaries of the power they need.

The post Time to Blow Up the Electricity Markets – Project Syndicate appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Greeks and other southern Europeans could now be feeling ...

Greeks and other southern Europeans could now be feeling schadenfreude as Germany faces the collapse of its economic model in the face of the Ukraine war and the new cold war with China. But with a democratic Europe in the balance, this is no time to gloat.ATHENS – It is never easy to wake up to the news that your country’s business model is busted. It is difficult to acknowledge the obvious: that your political leaders had either been deluded or lying to you when they assured you for decades that your hard-earned living standards were safe. That your immediate future now relies on the kindness of foreigners determined to crush you. That the European Union, in which you had placed your trust, had been engaging in a permanent concealment exercise. That your EU partners, to whom you are now appealing for help, look at you as a villain whose comeuppance is long overdue. That economic elites in your country and beyond are seeking novel ways to ensure that your country remains stuck. That you must endure massive, painful changes to ensure that nothing changes.Greeks know this feeling. We experienced it in our bones in early 2010. Today, it is the Germans who are facing a wall of condescension, antipathy, and even mockery. Ironic as it may seem, no Europeans are better placed than the Greeks to understand that the Germans deserve better; that their current predicament is the result of our collective, European failure; and that no one – least of all the long-suffering Greeks, southern Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese (the PIGS as we were once called) – benefits from schadenfreude.The tables have been turned on Germany because its economic model relied on repressed wages, cheap Russian gas, and excellence in mid-tech mechanical engineering – particularly manufacturing cars with internal combustion engines. This resulted in massive trade surpluses during four distinct post-World War II phases: under the US-led Bretton Woods system, which provided fixed exchange rates and market access to Europe, Asia, and the Americas; then, after the collapse of Bretton Woods, when the single European market proved highly lucrative for German exports; again following the introduction of the euro, when vendor financing opened the floodgates for both goods and capital flowing from Germany to Europe’s periphery; and, finally, when China’s hunger for intermediate and final manufacturing products took up the slack after the euro crisis dampened demand for German goods in southern Europe.Germans are now slowly coming to terms with the demise of their economic model and are beginning to see through the multifaceted Big Lie their elites were repeating for three decades: Fiscal surpluses were not prudence in action, but rather a monumental failure, during the long years of ultra-low interest rates, to invest in clean energy, critical infrastructure, and the two crucial technologies of the future: batteries and artificial intelligence. Germany’s dependence on Russian gas and Chinese demand was never sustainable in the long term; and they are not mere bugs that can be ironed out.The claim that the German model was compatible with Europe’s monetary union is also being exposed as false. Lacking a fiscal and a political union, the EU was always going to saddle Club Med governments, banks, and corporations with unpayable debts, which eventually would force the European Central Bank to choose between letting the euro die and embarking upon a permanent bankruptcy-concealment project.Germans are realizing this today as they observe a hamstrung ECB which is damned if it raises interest rates substantially (causing Italy and others to implode) and damned if it doesn’t (allowing runaway inflation). While it never should have been the ECB’s job to save the euro from its flawed foundations, Germans can see that their politicians lied to them that their economic model could survive the 2008 crisis as long as other eurozone countries practiced enough austerity. They are also coming to understand that their leaders’ stimulus-phobia led to permanent socialism for the southern European oligarchs, the Franco-German bankers, and various zombified corporations.Once upon a time, those of us who criticized the notion that every eurozone country should become like Germany objected that the German model worked only because no one else had adopted it. Today, with the end of cheap gas and America’s new cold war with China, the German model is kaput even for Germany. Yes, German exports will rebound, aided by the low value of the euro. Volkswagen will sell a lot more electric cars once supply chains are restored. BASF will bounce back, once energy supplies are secured. What will not return is the German model: A large chunk of Volkswagen’s revenues will go to China, whence the battery technologies come, and mountains of value will shift from the chemical industry to AI-related sectors.Some German friends are pinning their hopes on the falling euro to restore the German model to health. It won’t. Low-savings countries with a structural trade deficit, like Greece or Ghana, do benefit from devaluation. High-savings countries with a structural trade surplus, do not – all that happens is that poorer domestic consumers subsidize richer exporters, which is precisely the opposite of what the German social economy needs.My message to German friends is simple: Quit mourning. Cut through the denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, and start designing a new economic model. Unlike Greeks, you still have enough sovereignty to do so without the permission of creditors.But first, you must resolve a critical political dilemma: Do you want Germany to retain political and fiscal sovereignty? If so, your new model will never work within this eurozone of ours. If you do not want to go back to the Deutsche Mark, you need a model embedded within a full-fledged, democratic European federation. Anything else will continue the Big Lie with which you are now painfully coming to terms.

The post appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Inflation, socialism’ for corporations & austerity for workers: FORTUNE comments on Yanis Varoufakis’ take

Known for sporting a leather jacket in meetings with foreign dignitaries during his brief stint as Greece’s finance minister in 2015, Yanis Varoufakis has become a bit of a rebel in economic circles. A member of Greece’s Hellenic Parliament and founder of the left-wing European Realistic Disobedience Front, or MeRA25 party, Varoufakis hasn’t historically pulled any punches when it comes to his scathing criticism of fellow economists and politicians, and his most recent article is no exception.The author of  Adults in the Room: My Battle With the European and American Deep Establishment  and currently an economics professor at the University of Athens, Varoufakis continued his long-running critique of austerity in a Project Syndicate op-ed published over the weekend, and added a new argument about the inflation that has shocked the world in 2022.Central banks have given corporations a type of “lavish socialism” since the 2008 financial crisis, Varoufakis wrote, while workers have been stuck with “harsh austerity,” and the highest inflation in 40 years is just the latest twist.A half-century–long power playThe economist’s argument is based on the idea that corporations have led a “half-century–long power play” to boost their stock prices, creating unsustainable business models and fragile global supply chains along the way. But it’s all gone wrong in recent years, and workers have been left to clean up the mess.Before the great crisis of 2008, he said, U.S. corporations used “pyramids of private money” from cheap and plentiful imports and consistent foreign investment to create a “labyrinth” of global just-in-time supply chains instead of focusing on increasing productivity.Then, when the 2008 financial crisis hit, the pyramid collapsed and central banks were forced to step in and save the day. Interest rates were slashed to near-zero and many central banks began a somewhat controversial policy known as quantitative easing—which involves central banks buying government bonds and mortgage-backed securities in hopes of increasing the money supply and spurring lending and investment.But while corporations were being saved by central bank policies and federal government bailouts, workers were left to fend for themselves.“Governments were cutting public expenditure, jobs, and services. It was nothing short of lavish socialism for capital and harsh austerity for labor,” Varoufakis says. “Wages shrunk, and prices and profits were stagnant, but the price of assets purchased by the rich (and thus their wealth) skyrocketed. Thus…capitalists became both richer and more reliant on central-bank money than ever.”Wealth “triumphed” in real estate and equity markets in this era of government and central bank support, but Varoufakis says asset prices quickly became divorced from the real economy. Then the pandemic hit, and the flows of cash that had allowed corporations to flourish over the past decade were suddenly redirected to consumers.“Western governments were forced to channel some of the new rivers of central-bank money to the locked-down masses within economies that, over the decades, had depleted their capacity to produce stuff and were now facing busted supply chains to boot,” he said.When consumers spent some of the money they were given by the federal government via stimulus checks, suppliers couldn’t keep pace with the new demand, leading inflation to rise—and corporations, the war in Ukraine, and COVID-19 lockdowns only added to the problem.“Corporations with great paper wealth responded by exploiting their immense market power (yielded by their shrunken productive capacity) to push prices through the roof,” he said.Still, Varoufakis argued that we aren’t seeing a wage-price spiral in the U.S., where workers asking for pay increases to preserve their income amid inflation end up increasing costs for companies, which in turn increase their prices to compensate. The lack of a wage-price spiral means central banks shouldn’t be asking workers to “take one for the team” and go without wage increases.“Today, demanding that workers forgo wage gains is absurd. All the evidence suggests that, unlike in the 1970s, wages are rising much more slowly than prices, and yet the increase in prices is not just continuing but accelerating,” Varoufakis said.Still, the inflation problem means Western governments and central banks are faced with a tough decision, Varoufakis argues: “Push conglomerates and even states into cascading bankruptcies, or allow inflation to go unchecked.”The economist didn’t describe what he believes central bank officials will choose, but he argued the end results are unlikely to be appealing to the masses.“So, what happens now? Probably nothing good,” he said. “To stabilize the economy, the authorities first need to end the exorbitant power bestowed upon the very few by a political process of paper wealth and cheap debt creation. But the few will not surrender power without a struggle, even if it means going down in flames with society in tow.”

For the FORTUNE original webpage click here

The post Inflation, socialism’ for corporations & austerity for workers: FORTUNE comments on Yanis Varoufakis’ take appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Inflation as a Political Power Play Gone Wrong – Project Syndicate op-e

The blame game over surging prices is on. Was it too much central-bank money being pumped out for too long that caused inflation to take off? Was it China, where most physical production had moved before the pandemic locked down the country and disrupted global supply chains? Was it Russia, whose invasion of Ukraine took a large chunk out of the global supply of gas, oil, grains, and fertilizers? Was it some surreptitious shift from pre-pandemic austerity to unrestricted fiscal largesse?The answer is one that test-takers never encounter: All of the above and none of the above.Pivotal economic crises frequently evoke multiple explanations that are all correct while missing the point. When Wall Street collapsed in 2008, triggering the global Great Recession, various explanations were offered: regulatory capture by financiers who had replaced industrialists in the capitalist pecking order; a cultural proclivity toward risky finance; failure by politicians and economists to distinguish between a new paradigm and a massive bubble; and other theories, too. All were valid, but none went to the heart of the matter.The same thing is true today. The “we told you so” monetarists, who have been predicting high inflation ever since central banks massively expanded their balance sheets in 2008, remind me of the joy felt that year by leftists (like me) who consistently “predict” capitalism’s near-death – akin to a stopped clock that is right twice a day. Sure enough, by creating huge overdrafts for the bankers in the false hope that the money would trickle down to the real economy, central banks caused epic asset-price inflation (booming equity and housing markets, the crypto craze, and more).But the monetarist story cannot explain why the major central banks failed from 2009 to 2020 even to boost the quantity of money circulating in the real economy, let alone push consumer price inflation up to their 2% target. Something else must have triggered inflation.The interruption of China-centered supply chains clearly played a significant role, as did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But neither factor explains Western capitalism’s abrupt “regime change” from prevailing deflation to its opposite: all prices taking off simultaneously. This would require wage inflation to overtake price inflation, thus causing a self-perpetuating spiral, with wage rises feeding back into further price hikes which, in turn, cause wages to rise again, ad infinitum. Only then would it be reasonable for central bankers to demand that workers “take one for the team” and refrain from seeking higher wage settlements.But, today, demanding that workers forgo wage gains are absurd. All the evidence suggests that, unlike in the 1970s, wages are rising much more slowly than prices, and yet the increase in prices is not just continuing but accelerating.So, what is really going on? My answer: A half-century long power play, led by corporations, Wall Street, governments, and central banks, has gone badly wrong. As a result, the West’s authorities now face an impossible choice: Push conglomerates and even states into cascading bankruptcies, or allow inflation to go unchecked.For 50 years, the US economy has sustained the net exports of Europe, Japan, South Korea, then China and other emerging economies, while the lion’s share of those foreigners’ profits rushed to Wall Street in search of higher returns. On the back of this tsunami of capital heading for America, the financiers were building pyramids of private money (such as options and derivatives) to fund the corporations building up a global labyrinth of ports, ships, warehouses, storage yards, and road and rail transport. When the crash of 2008 burned down these pyramids, the whole financialized labyrinth of global just-in-time supply chains was imperiled.To save not just the bankers but also the labyrinth itself, central bankers stepped in to replace the financiers’ pyramids with public money. Meanwhile, governments were cutting public expenditure, jobs, and services. It was nothing short of lavish socialism for capital and harsh austerity for labor. Wages shrunk, and prices and profits were stagnant, but the price of assets purchased by the rich (and thus their wealth) skyrocketed. Thus, investment (relative to available cash) dropped to an all-time low, capacity shrunk, market power boomed, and capitalists became both richer and more reliant on central-bank money than ever.It was a new power game. The traditional struggle between capital and labor to increase their respective shares of total income through mark-ups and wage increases continued but was no longer the source of most new wealth. After 2008, universal austerity yielded low investment (money demand), which, combined with plentiful central-bank liquidity (money supply), kept the price of money (interest rates) close to zero. With productive capacity (even new housing) on the wane, good jobs scarce, and wages stagnant, wealth triumphed in equity and real-estate markets, which had decoupled from the real economy.Then came the pandemic, which changed one big thing: Western governments were forced to channel some of the new rivers of central-bank money to the locked-down masses within economies that, over the decades, had depleted their capacity to produce stuff and were now facing busted supply chains to boot. As the locked-down multitudes spent some of their furlough money on scarce imports, prices began to rise. Corporations with great paper wealth responded by exploiting their immense market power (yielded by their shrunken productive capacity) to push prices through the roof.After two decades of a central-bank-supported bonanza of soaring asset prices and rising corporate debt, a little price inflation was all it took to end the power game that shaped the post-2008 world in the image of a revived ruling class. So, what happens now?Probably nothing good. To stabilize the economy, the authorities first need to end the exorbitant power bestowed upon the very few by a political process of paper wealth and cheap debt creation. But the few will not surrender power without a struggle, even if it means going down in flames with society in tow.

For the Project Syndicate site click here.

The post Inflation as a Political Power Play Gone Wrong – Project Syndicate op-e appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Η πρόταση του ΜέΡΑ25 για ψηφιακές συναλλαγές εντός ή εκτός του ευρώ

Το ευρώ είναι έτσι δομημένο ώστε νομοτελειακά να οδηγεί στις φούσκες και τις φυλακές του χρέους. Ένα οικοδόμημα που καίγεται, χωρίς εξόδους κινδύνου, αποτελεί την χειρότερη φυλακή. Το ΜέΡΑ25, με το Σύστημα Δημοσιονομικών Συναλλαγών ΔΗΜΗΤΡΑ που σχεδιάζουμε και προτείνουμε, δημιουργούμε πυροσβεστήρες μέσα στο φλεγόμενο αυτό οικοδόμημα και, παράλληλα, ανοίγουμε εξόδους κινδύνου σε περίπτωση που χρειαστεί να αποδράσουμε. Σε αυτή την ομιλία, που διοργάνωσε το mέta (το Κέντρο Μετακαπιταλιστικού Πολιτισμού), παρουσίασα την 16η Απριλίου το Σύστημα Δημοσιονομικών Συναλλαγών «Δήμητρα» που αποτελεί μέρος του προγράμματος του ΜέΡΑ25 που εμπεριέχεται στην Ολοκληρωμένη Πρόταση Νόμου την οποπια καταθέσαμε στη Βουλή ως Συνολικό Σχέδιο Αντιμετώπιση της Οικονομικής Ασφυξίας της Κοινωνίας.«Όλοι χρωστούν σε όλους και κανείς δεν μπορεί να πληρώσει» αυτή είναι η οικονομική κατάσταση από το 2010 και μετά. Με το Σύστημα «Δήμητρα» πέρα από αμοιβαία εξόφληση χρεών, υπάρχει και η δυνατότητα ενίσχυσης των πιο ευάλωτων συμπολιτών μας σε περιόδους κρίσεις, ή ακόμα και σε «κανονικές συνθήκες», ενώ τέλος οι συναλλαγές αυτές είναι δωρεάν σε αντίθεση με όσες περνάνε μέσα από τις ιδιωτικές τράπεζες και θα βοηθήσουν στο ισοζύγιο πληρωμών της χώρας.Και, ναι, Δίνει, εφόσον χρειαστεί, το  Σύστημα “Δήμητρα” μπορεί να μετατραπεί σε εθνικό νομισματικό σύστημα. «Δεν πρόκειται εμείς να πούμε ότι η ΕΚΤ δεν υπάρχει περίπτωση να μας κλείσει τις τράπεζες αν έρθουμε σε ρήξη με όσα μας επιβάλλει η  ολιγαρχία-χωρίς-σύνορα.»«Αυτή είναι η διαφορά μας με το μνημονιακό τόξο: Πιστεύουμε ότι το χειρότερο που μπορεί να μας συμβεί ως χώρα, δεν είναι να μας πετάξουν από το ευρώ, αλλά να παραμείνουμε σε αυτό με όρους λιτότητας, συρρίκνωσης και ερημοποίησης.»«Δεν θα είναι εύκολο, αλλά θέλει αρετή και τόλμη η ελευθερία και αυτό θα είναι το σχέδιο μας αν χρειαστεί να βγούμε από το ευρώ, χωρίς να είναι αυτός ο στόχος μας. Εμείς εδώ κάνουμε μία πολιτική τομή, λέγοντας την αλήθεια στον κόσμο για το κόστος, από τη μία, της διατήρησης της Χρεοδουλοπαροικίας και, από την άλλη, της απαραίτητης για την βιωσιμότητα αυτού του λαού Ρήξης».

 

The post Η πρόταση του ΜέΡΑ25 για ψηφιακές συναλλαγές εντός ή εκτός του ευρώ appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.

Έξω αγορές & εθνικισμοί από τις μήτρες των γυναικών

Αποδομώντας το Νόμο Πλεύρη για την ιατρικώς υποβοηθούμενη αναπαραγωγή: Όσοι κι όσες έχουμε γνωρίσει γυναίκες που θα τα έδιναν όλα για να μείνουν έγκυες, γνωρίζουμε ότι η ελπίδα της εγκυμοσύνης κινεί βουνά. Για να κρατήσουν αυτή την ελπίδα ζωντανή, είναι πολλές οι γυναίκες -και οι άνδρες σύντροφοί τους- που θα κάνουν τα πάντα, θα δανειστούν από φίλους και εχθρούς, μόνο και μόνο για να διατηρήσουν ζωντανή αυτήν την ελπίδα. Η πολιτεία έχει υποχρέωση να σταθεί αρωγός σε αυτήν τη λαχτάρα τους, αλλά και ταυτόχρονα να μην επιτρέψει αυτή η λαχτάρα να τις οδηγήσει στην παγίδα της εκμετάλλευσης από κλινικάρχες-πωλητές ιατρικής αναπαραγωγικής υποβοήθησης.Μέρος της υποχρέωσης της πολιτείας είναι να σταθεί δίπλα τους, συνειδητοποιώντας ότι στο κοινωνικό σύστημα στο οποίο ζούμε το κέρδος είναι η βασική κινητήρια δύναμή του. Συνεπώς, για μια μεγάλη μερίδα γυναικών η υποβοηθούμενη σύλληψη ενός εμβρύου φέρνει πάρα πολύ χρήμα στα σαράντα έξι ιδιωτικά κέντρα τεχνητής γονιμοποίησης αυτής της χώρας. Εδώ και καιρό τα έμβρυα είναι μια μεγάλη μπίζνα για εταιρείες με χυδαία ονόματα, όπως… «Embryoland».Το ΜέΡΑ25 τίθεται κάθετα εναντίον του παντρέμματος του ιδιωτικού κέρδους και της ιατρικώς υποβοηθούμενης σύλληψης.Ο λόγος είναι απλός. Ακόμα και οι πιο σοβαροί και ένθερμοι θιασώτες της ιδιωτικής οικονομίας, της αγοράς, ξέρουν ότι καμία αγορά δεν μπορεί να λειτουργήσει προς το κοινό συμφέρον, όταν υπάρχει έντονη ασυμμετρία πληροφόρησης μεταξύ του πωλητή και του αγοραστή – εν προκειμένω, της ιδιωτικής κλινικής και της γυναίκας ή του ζευγαριού που έχουν τη λαχτάρα να γεννήσουν και δεν έχουν την πληροφόρηση που έχει ο ιατρός ιδιώτης επιχειρηματίας.Αυτή η ασυμμετρία πληροφόρησης είναι μία βιαιότητα που, σε τελική ανάλυση, αν το δούμε μακροκοινωνικά, μας φέρνει στα πρόθυρα ενός καταστροφικού λόγου οφέλους και κόστους. Είναι ένα πολύ μεγάλο όφελος, βεβαίως, για ένα σχετικά μικρό αριθμό γυναικών που πετυχαίνουν τον στόχο τους και μένουν έγκυες αλλά κι ένα δυσθεώρητο κόστος (ψυχολογικό, σωματικό, οικονομικό) για έναν μεγάλο αριθμό γυναικών που ωθούνται από ιδιώτες επιχειρηματίες του κλάδου σε άσκοπες επεμβάσεις – σε επεμβάσεις με πολύ μικρές πιθανότητες επιτυχίας για χάρη της κερδοφορίας τους.Και βέβαια, είναι μια βιαιότητα με πολύ έντονα τα ταξικά χαρακτηριστικά. Γιατί το κόστος και το ψυχολογικό, αλλά βεβαίως ιδίως το οικονομικό, για μια φτωχή γυναίκα η οποία έχει δανειστεί για να πάει σε μια ιδιωτική κλινική, το κόστος μιας αποτυχίας είναι  πολύ μεγαλύτερο.Εμείς, λοιπόν, στο ΜέΡΑ25, θεωρούμε ότι μόνο το Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας ή άλλοι μη κερδοσκοπικοί κοινωνικοί θεσμοί θα έπρεπε να έχουν άδεια παροχής υπηρεσιών εξωσωματικής γονιμοποίησης.Αντί γι’ αυτό, το νομοσχέδιό σας είναι γραμμένο στο πνεύμα της εμπορευματοποίησης των ιατρικών διαδικασιών υποβοήθησης. Μάλιστα, υπόσχεστε να φέρετε και «ζεστό» χρήμα στη χώρα προσελκύοντας ξένες γυναίκες (όχι βέβαια πρόσφυγες, αλλά πλούσιες!) που θα έλθουν για αναπαραγωγικό τουρισμό. Τι άλλο μπορούσαμε να περιμένουμε από μια κυβέρνηση που τρία χρόνια τώρα λειτουργεί ως ανώνυμη επιχείρηση;Ίσως μια δόση εθνικισμού, για να κρατήσετε και την ακροδεξιά που τη βλέπουμε εδώ στο πρόσωπο του συγκεκριμένου Υπουργού Υγείας; Την προσθέσατε κι αυτή στο νομοσχέδιό σας: Αναφερθήκατε στην επίλυση του προβλήματος της υπογεννητικότητας. Όμως, το τι συμβαίνει στη μήτρα μιας γυναίκας, ή μεταξύ ενός ζευγαριού, δεν έχει τίποτα να κάνει με τα γενικότερα εθνικά ζητήματα. Μακριά από τη μήτρα της γυναίκας ο εθνικισμός σας, κύριε Πλεύρη.Και ποιοι τα λέτε αυτά τώρα για δημογραφικό και υπογεννητικότητα; Εσείς που δεκατρία χρόνια τώρα, όλες οι μνημονιακές κυβερνήσεις, υπογράφετε νόμους και περνάτε τερτίπια της τρόικας εσωτερικού και εξωτερικού που έστειλαν στο εξωτερικό ένα εκατομμύρια νέες και νέους. Τόσο πολύ σας μάρανε το δημογραφικό αυτής της χώρας!Εμείς είμαστε σαφείς: Ναι στην αρωγή σε ζευγάρια που θέλουν να γεννήσουν και δυσκολεύονται. Έξω, όμως, οι επιχειρήσεις από τις μήτρες των γυναικών και παροχή ιατρικών μεθόδων υποβοήθησης της σύλληψης μόνο από το Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας και μη κερδοσκοπικούς κοινωνικούς θεσμούς.Υπάρχουν κάποια σημεία του νομοσχεδίου με τα οποία είμαστε σύμφωνοι. Για παράδειγμα, είναι σωστό η διαζευγμένη γυναίκα πρέπει να έχει τον πλήρη έλεγχο του γενετικού της υλικού χωρίς να χρειάζεται συναίνεση του συζύγου ή του τέως συζύγου. Συμφωνούμε και με τις ρυθμίσεις όσον αφορά την αλλαγή φύλου για την κοινότητα ΛΟΑΤΚΙ, για τα intersex άτομα. Είναι σωστή η άρση του αποκλεισμού των οροθετικών ανθρώπων απ’ αυτήν τη διαδικασία, των HIV – αλλά, βέβαια, θέλω να σας θυμίσω, κύριε Υπουργέ, ότι τον Μάιο του 2021 ο ΕΟΔΥ σας ήταν αυτός που κατήργησε ουσιαστικά, στην πράξη, τη μοναδική μονάδα στο «Έλενα» για ειδικές ιατρικές υπηρεσίες σε άτομα οροθετικά, σε γυναίκες που είχαν ανάγκη παρακολούθησης κατά τη διάρκεια της κύησής τους. Ουσιαστικά το κλείσατε αυτό το κέντρο. Πάλι καλά που ήρθη αυτή η κατάφωρη αδικία απέναντι στους οροθετικούς ανθρώπους.Θέλω να κλείσω μ’ ένα θέμα για το οποίο θα μιλήσω ίσως πιο προσωπικά παρά ως ΜέΡΑ25 εδώ. Είναι ο βασικός λόγος που ήλθα να μιλήσω σήμερα: Οι λεγόμενες παρένθετες ή ένθετες μητέρες, κύριε Υπουργέ.Το να είναι διατεθειμένη μια γυναίκα να γεννήσει το βιολογικό τέκνο μιας άλλης γυναίκας, αδελφής της, φίλης της, αποτελεί εν δυνάμει πράξη συγκινητικής αλληλεγγύης σε συνάνθρωπο που αδυνατεί να κυήσει. Δεν έχουμε καμία αμφιβολία γι’ αυτό.Γιατί, όμως, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, χρειάζεται ειδικό νομοθετικό πλαίσιο, όταν ο νόμος περί υιοθεσίας αρκεί και περισσεύει;Παράδειγμα: Συμφωνεί η αδελφή να γεννήσει το παιδί της αδελφής της. Κάνουν τη διαδικασία της εξωσωματικής γονιμοποίησης με το γενετικό υλικό της αδελφής και του συζύγου, φαντάζομαι, γεννιέται το παιδί και μετά τον τοκετό, αν όλα έχουν πάει κατ’ ευχήν, το ζευγάρι που προσέφερε το γενετικό υλικό απλά υιοθετεί το νεογνό, βεβαίως με τη συναίνεση της γυναίκας που το έφερε στον κόσμο.Γιατί χρειαζόμαστε ειδικό νομοθετικό πλαίσιο εδώ; Καμία ανάγκη δεν υφίσταται για νομοθετικό πλαίσιο ειδικά προσαρμοσμένο στις γυναίκες που το νομοσχέδιο αναφέρει ως ένθετες μητέρες.[Θα μου επιτρέψετε σε αυτό το σημείο να καταθέσω την αντίθεση του ΜέΡΑ25 να με αυτόν τον κακώς μεταφρασμένο όρο: «ένθετη μητέρα». Εμείς προτιμάμε τον όρο «γεννούσα» ή «γεννήσασα μητέρα» από τη μια μεριά και «γενετική μητέρα» από την άλλη.]Νομοθετικό πλαίσιο υπάρχει λόγος να έχουμε αν ο απώτερος στόχος σας είναι η σταδιακή εμπορευματοποίηση της διαδικασίας και η απόδοση ιδιοκτησιακών δικαιωμάτων πάνω στο νεογνό ή στη μήτρα της γεννούσας ή γεννήσασας μητέρας.Μόνο τότε έχει νόημα το ειδικό νομικό πλαίσιο. Αλλά τότε οποιοδήποτε νομικό πλαίσιο και να φέρετε, θα είναι εξ ορισμού μισανθρωπικό, μισογυνικό. Γιατί; Διότι θα προβλέπει τα εξής τρία πράγματα που τα έχουμε δει και στο εξωτερικό:Πρώτον, θα προβλέπει διά της βίας απόσπαση του νεογνού από τη γεννήσασα μητέρα η οποία άλλαξε γνώμη και επιθυμεί, μετά από εννέα μήνες εγκυμοσύνης ,να κρατήσει το παιδί.Δεύτερον, θα προβλέπει το δικαίωμα μήνυσης ή απαίτησης επιστροφής χρημάτων που δαπάνησαν εκ μέρους της γεννήσασας μητέρας οι γενετικοί γονείς στην περίπτωση που, για παράδειγμα, πυ το δικαστήριο κρίνει ότι η γεννήσασα μητέρα δεν φρόντισε αρκούντως το έμβρυο. [Π.χ. μπορεί να μηνυθεί ότι έπινε αλκοολούχα ποτά κατά τη διάρκεια της εγκυμοσύνης].Τρίτον, το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο κάλλιστα θα ρέπει προς απαγόρευση του δικαιώματος της γεννούσας μητέρας (η οποία μπορεί να άλλαξε γνώμη μετά την σύλληψη) να κάνει άμβλωση – με το ζευγάρι στο οποίο ανήκει το γενετικό υλικό να απαιτεί από το δικαστήριο την κύηση ως το τέλος, στέλνοντας μάλιστα δικαστικούς κλητήρες να αποσπάσουν το νεογνό μετά τον τοκετό.Αυτά τα έκτροπα είναι η λογική συνέπεια κάθε νομικού πλαίσιου. Ευτυχώς το σημερινό νομικό δίκαιο δεν προβλέπει – ακόμα – τίποτε απ’ όλα αυτά. Όμως, το άρθρο 7 που φέρατε κάνει μια αναφορά στις ένθετες μητέρες, όπως τις λέτε. Τι λέει; Δίνετε στην Αρχή Ιατρικώς Υποβοηθούμενης Αναπαραγωγής το δικαίωμα και την υποχρέωση να “ρυθμίζει κάθε θέμα σχετικό με τις ένθετες μητέρες”.Έτσι ανοίγει ο δρόμος προς τη δυστοπία, προς νομοθετικές ρυθμίσεις που μόνο λόγο ύπαρξης θα έχουν τη σταδιακή εμπορευματοποίηση της διαδικασίας και την απόδοση ιδιοκτησιακών δικαιωμάτων. Εδώ πρέπει να βάλουμε και την ταξική διάσταση: Ως επί το πλείστον καμία πλούσια γυναίκα δεν θα γεννήσει το μωρό φτωχών ανθρώπων. Το ανάποδο θα γίνει. Ξέρετε πολύ καλά τι σημαίνει αυτό.Ήδη το άρθρο 7 δειλά-δειλά εισάγει την ιδέα της διαδικασίας ανεύρεσης παρένθετης μητέρας από τα ενδιαφερόμενα πρόσωπα. Γιατί να υπάρξει μια τέτοια διαδικασία, κύριε Υπουργέ; Το να είναι διατεθειμένη η Ελένη, η Μαρία, η Κατερίνα να γεννήσει το βιολογικό τέκνο της αδελφής της, μιας φίλης της, μιας συντρόφισσάς της ως πράξη αλληλεγγύης προς άνθρωπο που γνωρίζει, που σέβεται, που αγαπάει, προς άνθρωπο με τον οποίο συμπάσχει που δεν μπορεί να κάνει παιδί, είναι κάτι όμορφο. Αλλά το να γίνεται «συνοικέσιο» μεταξύ ζευγαριών που θέλουν να αποκτήσουν παιδί και γυναίκας ένθετης –όπως τη λέτε- υπό την επίβλεψη Ανεξάρτητης Αρχής που ορίζει η νομοθεσία, είναι το πρώτο βήμα προς την εμπορευματοποίηση, η οποία θα παρεισφρήσει αρχικά ανεπίσημα. Πώς;Λέτε: Δεν μπορεί να γίνει πληρωμή για την «ενοικίαση» της μήτρα της Κατερίνας ή της Μαρίας, αλλά μπορεί να υπάρξει καταβολή χρημάτων έναντι του ιατρικού κόστους αρχικά, της περίθαλψης της γεννούσας γυναίκας. Κάποια στιγμή μπορεί να υπάρξει και μια αποζημίωση για τον χρόνο της, γιατί χάνει όλον αυτόν τον καιρό που πηγαίνει στους γιατρούς, που δεν μπορεί να μετακινηθεί προς την εργασία της προς το τέλος της κύησης κλπ. Που χάνει εισοδήματα. Να πώς μπαίνει λίγο-λίγο η εμπορευματοποίηση. Πριν το καταλάβουμε, αυτό που ξεκίνησε ως μια πράξη συγκινητικής αλληλεγγύης σε συνάνθρωπο που αδυνατεί να κυήσει, θα καταντήσει σε νομικό πλαίσιο που μετατρέπει τη μήτρα της γυναίκας σε ιδιωτική προς ενοικίαση ιδιοκτησία.Γι’ αυτό όχι μόνο δεν χρειάζεται, αλλά δεν πρέπει να υπάρχει ειδικό νομικό καθεστώς για τις λεγόμενες από εσάς ένθετες γυναίκες.Θα ρωτήσει κάποιος ή κάποια: Καλά, εσείς στο ΜέΡΑ25 δεν θέλετε οι γυναίκες να έχουν ιδιοκτησιακά δικαιώματα στις μήτρες τους; Και αν ναι, τότε γιατί να μην μπορούν να τις νοικιάζουν κιόλας;Απαντάμε. Εμείς απαιτούμε το δικαίωμα της γυναίκας στο σώμα της όπως ακριβώς απαιτούμε το δικαίωμα στην ψήφο για κάθε πολίτη, το δικαίωμα στην ελευθερία. Η άγρια ομορφιά των πολιτικών αυτών δικαιωμάτων είναι ότι δεν είναι προς πώληση ούτε προς ενοικίαση.Ναι, η ψήφος είναι δική μου. Όμως, έχω το δικαίωμα να ζω σε μια χώρα που, ενώ μου δίνει τη δυνατότητα να τη δίνω σε όποιο κόμμα ή πολιτικό θέλω, δεν μου επιτρέπει να την πουλάω ή να την ενοικιάζω.Ναι, το σώμα μου είναι δικό μου, αλλά έχω το δικαίωμα να ζω σε μια κοινωνία που δεν μου επιτρέπει να πουληθώ σε ένα δουλεμπόριο για να πάρω ένα μεγάλο ποσό για να βοηθήσω την οικογένειά μου.Ναι, τα νεφρά είναι δικά μου. Αν η γυναίκα μου ή το παιδί μου ή ένας φίλος μου χρειαστεί νεφρό, δικαιούμαι να το δωρίσω, αλλά έχω το δικαίωμα να ζω σε μια κοινωνία που δεν μου επιτρέπει να το πουλήσω!Το ίδιο και με τη μήτρα μιας γυναίκας. Έχει δικαίωμα ως πράξη αλληλεγγύης και αγάπης να κυήσει μέσα της βρέφος άλλης γυναίκας, αλλά έχει και το δικαίωμα να ζει σε μια κοινωνία που δεν της επιτρέπει να νοικιάσει τη μήτρα της, μια κοινωνία που –αντίθετα με το άρθρο 7 σας- δεν επιτρέπει στο κράτος να λειτουργεί, στην ουσία, ως ατζέντης ενοικιαζόμενων προσφερομένων μητρών.Είμαστε σαφείς:Έξω το κράτος και οι αγορές από τις μήτρες των γυναικών.Κανένα ειδικό νομοθετικό πλαίσιο ή νομοθετική πρόβλεψη για τις ένθετες μητέρες.Κλείνω, κύριε Πρόεδρε, λέγοντας γι’ άλλη μια φορά ότι μόνο η γυναίκα έχει δικαίωμα στο σώμα της. Αυτό τον καιρό, ένα τσουνάμι πατριαρχικού και ταξικού ρεβανσισμού εναντίον αυτού του δικαιώματος της γυναίκας έχει ξεκινήσει από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής, πρόσφατα, με την απόφαση του Ανώτατου Δικαστηρίου, του Supreme Court, να καταργήσει το δικαίωμα της γυναίκας στην άμβλωση –όχι να καταργήσει τις αμβλώσεις, να καταργήσει το δικαίωμα γυναίκας στην άμβλωση.Όμως, πρόκειται για ένα τσουνάμι που έρχεται σιγά σιγά και στην Ευρώπη –όχι ειδικά στην Ελλάδα στην Ευρώπη γενικότερα. Το τσουνάμι αυτό στη χώρα μας έρχεται, ίσως και υποσυνείδητα, τυλιγμένο στα εθνικιστικά χρώματα της δήθεν κοινωνίας που αγωνιά για το δημογραφικό, από πολιτικές δυνάμεις που με τις ολιγαρχικές πολιτικές τους διώχνουν τα νέα μας παιδιά στο εξωτερικό. Μην ξεχνάμε αυτό το παράδοξο.Παράλληλα με την εμπορευματοποίηση του γυναικείου σώματος, στην οποία ο ιδιωτικός τομέας της ιατρικώς υποβοηθούμενης αναπαραγωγής πρωτοστατεί, και η οποία θα πάρει τρομακτικές διαστάσεις μόλις ενεργοποιηθεί το κράτος-ατζέντης της ενοικίασης προσφοράς μητρών, οι γυναίκες σήμερα στην Ελλάδα, στην Ευρώπη, στη Δύση αντιμετωπίζουν τη μεγαλύτερη αντεπίθεση ρεβανσισμού της πατριαρχίας κατά τον 21ο αιώνα.Εμείς, το ΜέΡΑ25, είμαστε εδώ για να βοηθήσουμε το νέο φεμινιστικό κίνημα να αντισταθεί και το μήνυμά μας είναι απλό:Ναι, στη στήριξη γυναικών και ζευγαριών που παλεύουν να κάνουν ένα παιδίΝαι, στη στήριξή τους, αφού κάνουν το παιδίΑλλά μακριά το κράτος και οι αγορές από τις μήτρες των γυναικών.

The post Έξω αγορές & εθνικισμοί από τις μήτρες των γυναικών appeared first on Yanis Varoufakis.