Traidorez beteriko eta sindikalista kaxkarrez osatutako Euskal Herri berria

Bai noski, ezaguna denez, nonahi daude traidoreak Granada honetan, ez aipatzeko sindikalista kaxkarrak.

2018an hasi deneko Euskal Herri berriarentzat, segituan aipatuko ditudan traidoreak eta sindikalista kaxkarrak nahi nituzke. Zenbat eta gehiago, hobe!

Izan ere, hona hemen bi kategoriatako eredu bana, besterik ez.

(i) Traidoreen artean, Geoff Coventry

DTM: dibulgaziorako hasiera on bat

Politika berria…, ‘traidorez’ beterikoa?


Geoff Coventry‏ @gladkiwi


If the economy confuses you (as it did for me for years), this might help. We made this super simple to help the average person get a fresh perspective on how a sovereign currency can be better used to help improve our nation’s living standards.

A beginner’s guide to how modern economies work


Geoff Coventry‏ @gladkiwi

And don’t miss the video if you’re new to all this #MMT stuff:

The Basics of Modern Money


(ii) Sindikalista kaxkarren artean, Patricia Natalia Pino

Neoliberalismoaren aurka, benetan kontra. Sindikalista, emakumea, ingeniaria, artista eta DTM-ren aldekoa. Jeremy Corbyn-i zuzenduz, politika sindikalaren finantzazioaz eta abarrez…

Lan-ekonomia eta DTM


Episode #07 (Interview with Patricia Natalia Pino from progressive media outlet, The Pileus about ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ being a monetary reality for governments)



Bai, horrelako jendea nahi nuke Euskal Herri berriarentzat, inongo dudarik gabe!

Edward Snowden eta Daniel Ellsberg

Hasierarako, ikus ondokoak:

George Orwell: bi hitz

George Orwell: bi hitz (segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (bigarren segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (hirugarren segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (laugarren segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (bosgarren segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (seigarren segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (zazpigarren segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (zortzigarren segida)

George Orwell: bi hitz (bederatzigarren segida)


‘Is whistleblowing worth prison or a life in exile?’: Edward Snowden talks to Daniel Ellsberg

The two most famous whistleblowers in modern history discuss Steven Spielberg’s new film, The Post, about Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers – and if they’d advise anybody to follow in their footsteps.

Daniel Ellsberg, the US whistleblower celebrated in Steven Spielberg’s new film, The Post, was called “the most dangerous man in America” by the Nixon administration in the 70s. More than 40 years later, the man he helped inspire, Edward Snowden, was called “the terrible traitor” by Donald Trump, as he called for Snowden’s execution.

Worried about Trump’s assault on press freedom … Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg

The Guardian has brought the two together – the most famous whistleblower of the 20th century and the most famous of the 21st so far – to discuss leaks, press freedom and other issues raised in Spielberg’s film.

Starring Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, The Post deals with Ellsberg’s 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed presidents from Truman to Nixon lying about the Vietnam war. It deals, too, with the battle of the US media, primarily the Washington Post and the New York Times, to protect press freedom.

During a two-hour internet linkup between Ellsberg in Berkeley, California, Snowden in Moscow and the Guardian in London, the whistleblowers discussed the ethics, practicalities and agonised internal debate involved in whistleblowing and how The Post has a special resonance today in Trump’s America.

They are worried about Trump’s assault on press freedom and express fear that journalists could be indicted for the first time in US history. And they are alarmed by the prospect of a US nuclear strike against North Korea, urging a new generation of whistleblowers to come forward from the Pentagon or White House to stop it.

It is madly reckless for this president to be doing what he is doing. Whether he is, in some clinical sense, crazy or not, what he is doing is crazy,” says Ellsberg. His book based on his experience as a defence analyst and nuclear war planner, The Doomsday Machine, was published in December.

Back when Snowden was debating whether to leak secret NSA documents, showing the scale of government mass surveillance, he found inspiration in a 2009 documentary, The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. After Snowden handed over material to journalists in 2013, Ellsberg was among the first to express support and the two became friends, with Ellsberg visiting Snowden, who is living in exile in Moscow, in 2015.

They have a shared interest in press freedom. Ellsberg cofounded the US-based, not-for-profit Freedom of the Press Foundation, which helped organise the linkup. Snowden, who also serves on the foundation’s board, devotes much of his time in Moscow to developing tools that help journalists protect their communications and sources.

Ewen MacAskill: How has whistleblowing changed in the 40-plus years between your leaks? One of the striking images from The Post is of leaked documents having to be laboriously photocopied, in contrast with today.

Daniel Ellsberg: Certainly, the ability to copy and release hundreds of thousands of files or documents, as Chelsea Manning did, or millions of pages, as Ed Snowden did, was quite impossible then. I was using the cutting-edge technology of the day, Xerox, to do what I did do, which was to copy 7,000 “top secret” pages. That could not have been done before Xerox.

So, in a sense, it is easier to get the truth out now than it was in my day. It took me months of effort – copying night after night. On the other hand, unless you are an expert like Ed or Chelsea, their ability to trace who has done the leak is probably greater than it used to be. You can’t do it safely. As I understand it from Ed – you tell me, Ed, if I am wrong here – you felt with your counterespionage expertise you probably could have done it anonymously, but you chose not to do so. But others would be more likely to be caught.

Edward Snowden: First of all, a small correction for the record. Dan said I gave millions of documents to journalists. The figure is thousands. The point between the period of Dan’s activities and mine is the expansion of reach of a particular source who witnessed some wrongdoing. In Dan’s case, what he had in his safe was the limitation of his reach. My reach was across a network rather than the confines of a safe … And what this ultimately results in is a dynamic where a particular employee can plausibly – in fact, not just plausibly but demonstrably – have more access at their fingertips than the director of an office or a unit or a group or an agency – or perhaps even the president.

EM: Another difference is Ed was able to operate solo whereas you, Dan, needed a team of volunteers.

DE: There was a kind of pickup crew, largely graduate students at Harvard, who helped find us places to stay and helped transport these papers. They were known as the Lavender Hill Mob, after the British movie in which a random bunch of petty criminals carry off a great heist. When my book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, came out in 2003, I wanted to tell their story, but they still did not want their names known because they thought the attorney general, John Ashcroft (who was in George W Bush’s administration), might have imprisoned them. I was signing books and people were giving me little cards with the inscriptions they wanted me to write. A little card appeared: “To the Lavender Hill Mob.” And there was someone I had not seen in 40 years.

EM: How do you feel about your portrayal in The Post?

DE: I am portrayed by a very handsome actor, Matthew Rhys. So my wife and I are quite satisfied with that. The movie is incredibly timely because we are dealing with a president who lies as he breathes, unapologetically. Also, a president who is contemptuous of the press. Nixon called the press the enemy. And Trump’s people say it is the opposition party, which is of course the enemy. When I was watching the film’s premiere, I was thinking: this is a question of freedom of the press.

EM: How about you, Ed, your portrayal by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Oliver Stone’s 2016 movie? Did it have the impact you hoped for?

ES: I loved Joseph Gordon-Levitt. One of the funny things is they have trapped me in time over the course of my existence as the way I looked when I came forward, always wearing glasses, kind of nerdy. But the funny thing is most of my life, even today, I never wore glasses. I wear glasses in professional settings not because I love the look or whatever. For all the complexities of the film, which was basically slapped together in a hurry because events were developing around the world, they got the core of it, the most important part of it, right, which is what is happening with mass surveillance and why it matters.

When we talk about the impact that it produced in the public, I see responses to this day from people who had seen this but who have not seen Citizenfour [Laura Poitras’s 2014 documentary about Snowden], which is the real documentary. And they just had not understood the issue. News reports had not reached them, but cinema did. They might not be the type to watch documentaries but they are the type to watch a drama. I think that is an incredible thing.

EM: What motivated you to take the final step in becoming a whistleblower?

DE: I would not have thought of doing what I did, which I knew would risk prison for life, without the public example of young Americans going to prison to make a strong statement that the Vietnam war was wrong and they would not participate, even at the cost of their own freedom. Without them, there would have been no Pentagon Papers. Courage is contagious. I have heard you say, Ed, that The Most Dangerous Man in America was a factor in encouraging you to do what you did.

ES: That is absolutely true. While I was weighing up whether to come forward or not – and this was an agonising process because it was certainly life-changing – I watched that documentary. Dan’s example, hearing the arguments from someone who has lived through this, it helps prepare someone to make that jump themselves.

I read, Dan, that you were described, maybe it was by Nixon, as self-righteous. But there is in whistleblowing a kind of righteousness that is required, even self-righteousness. Everything in your head, in society and everything we have been indoctrinated into believing is screaming: “Don’t do this!” And yet there is some voice that builds over time that has to persuade a person that they do not just have the right to do this but a responsibility to do so; to make the move that will certainly burn their life to the ground. But, theoretically, the wellspring of hope that is the motivational force behind this is that it will redress some wrongdoing.

EM: Is the threat posed by Trump greater than that posed by Nixon?

DE: I believe this president will indict journalists, which has not happened yet in our country. We fought a revolution to avoid that. And we have not yet broken that first amendment, which protects press freedom, in our constitution. But this president is likely to do so. The climate has changed. And that was true under Obama, who prosecuted three times as many people for leaking as all previous presidents put together – he prosecuted nine. I think Trump will build on that precedent. He will go further and do what Obama did not do and directly indict journalists.

EM: Is the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and fearful of extradition to the US, one of those at risk?

ES: Julian’s best defence, perhaps his only enduring defence, is that he is a publisher and has never even tried, as far as we are aware, to publish something untruthful. There are lots of criticisms, many of which are legitimate, to be said about his political views or his personal expressions or the way he put things or his agenda. But ultimately the truth speaks for itself.

DE: Assange is in danger. There are those who say that Julian does not have to fear extradition if he came out of the embassy and served a brief sentence, if anything at all, for violating the rules. I think that is absurd. I think Britain would ship him over here [to the US] in a minute and we would never see or hear from him again … under Trump, he may well be the first journalist in this country to be indicted.

EM: What about whistleblowing to prevent a US attack on North Korea?

DE: I am sure there are thousands of people in the Pentagon and the White House who know an attack on North Korea would be disastrous because they have estimates and studies that show the outcome of a supposedly limited attack would be catastrophic in terms of hundreds of thousands of lives, millions of lives and what comes after.

ES: What would you say, Dan, to the next whistleblower, who is sitting in the Pentagon? They have seen the attack on North Korea planned, they have seen the consequences and it can be stopped.

DE: They have, of course, something I did not have then, which is they can go directly to the internet. And that is not something I would advise them to do. I think that, let’s see, in your case you went to the Guardian, you did not put the stuff on the net directly as you could have done. I think you did the right thing … If the New York Times does not do it, if the Guardian does not do it, you have the internet to go to.

EM: Was whistleblowing worth it?

DE: I once read a statement by Ed Snowden that there are things worth dying for. And I read the same thing by Manning, who said she was ready to go to prison or even face a death sentence for what she was doing. And I read those comments and I thought: that is what I felt. That is right. It is worth it. Is it worth someone’s freedom or life to avert a war with North Korea? I would say unhesitatingly: “Yes, of course.” Was it worth Ed Snowden spending his life in exile to do what he did? Was it worth it for Manning, spending seven and a half years in prison? Yes, I think so. And I think they think so. And I think they are right.

Warren Mosler (eta The Real Progressives eta magister)

Warren Mosler eta The Real Progressives


Warren Mosler joins Real Progressives with Steve Grumbine to discuss the GOP Tax Bill, The Headline #Progressive Left’s failure to capitalize on the moment, and the rise of #Cryptocurrency and its implications on the #Macroeconomy


Warren Mosler, magister

Richard Murphy @RichardJMurphy


Modern monetary theory questions: what do you want to ask?  via @richardjmurphy

2018 urt. 14

Modern monetary theory questions: what do you want to ask?

(…) One of the things I have not done as a result is work on a the questions for a written Q& A on modern monetary theory with Warren Mosler, one of the founders of that economic school, which he has offered to do.

Then it occurred to me that I might as well open out the question setting process in advance. My aim for this is threefold:

a) To provide short answers to the theoretical basics – so short questions would also help;

b) To deal with the obvious issues that are raised in response to these basics;

c) To deal with the crass comments (from Venezuela / Zimbabwe / Weimar) onwards.

So fire away please. As many as you like. I will edit them though, and hope you will understand.


Dakienak badaki, ez dalienak baleki!

(Galdera zehatzak eta, Mosler-en eskutik, erantzunak plazaratuko direnean, itzuliko gara gai garrantzitsu hau ikusteko eta analizatzeko.)

Motxiladun umeak

Jatorrizko bertsioa









(Zabaldu, arren)

Lan-ekonomia eta DTM

Patricia Pino-ren Labour’s economic alternative to neoliberalism


(i) Alderdi Laborista eta DTM

It is often said that ordinary people do not have sufficient understanding of complex issues to make important decisions. But it is seldom mentioned that this is what those who rule us have intended for us. This is especially true when it comes to the subject of economics.

Our current economic system is guarded by those who endeavour to keep the public ignorant and easily manipulated. But while it is true that ordinary people may not understand the intricate financial structures that govern their lives, they can certainly tell that there’s a problem with our current economic model: Neoliberalism.

The Labour Party movement endeavours to provide an alternative. But while most of its members enthusiastically promote it, it is rarely given a name. I would like to suggest one here.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) takes lessons from Keynesian theory, but it is primarily based on sound understanding of macroeconomics, that is, the relationship between government spending and the non-government sector.

In recent years, MMT has achieved a much higher public profile, as people seek alternatives to the neoliberal domination of the economic debate.

Initially, as a result of challenging the dominant view, MMT was largely ignored. Now, after successfully predicting the financial crash of 2008 and the Eurozone crisis, interest in it has skyrocketed.

(ii) Patricia Pino eta Bill Mitchell

Professor Bill Mitchell, one of the original developers of MMT has blogged on the subject for many years. His blog has a strong following from readers all around the world. Many within Labour, including myself, believe that this sound economic theory should form the basis of the alternative we propose.

Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss MMT at length with Professor Bill Mitchell himself. My objective was to find a way to explain its fundamentals in a way which could be easily understood by anyone, without the requirement of an academic background. He was kind enough to help me in this task.

To understand MMT, it is best to start by comparing it to Neoliberalism.

(iii) DTM eta neoliberalismoa

The Neoliberal Model

In the Neoliberal Model the economy is the ends in itself

The Neoliberal model presents the economy as an entity whose needs are separate and above the needs of people and the planet. Within it, our individual success and that of our planet is considered separate from that of the economy.

Thus, the indicators used to measure economic success are remote to our personal needs and those of the environment. We speak of ‘GDP’ and not ‘well-being’, of ‘fiscal balance’ and not ‘happiness’. Moreover, economic success must be prioritised, even if it comes at the expense of leisure time, of air quality, of health and life expectancy.

The economy also acts as a sort of moral enforcer: issues such as personal debt and poverty are blamed on the individual rather than seen as a failure of the economic model. If poverty is rising, the conclusion is that those people are not doing enough for the economy and thus, cannot expect to be rewarded.

The Progressive model

In the Progressive model the economy is a means to an end

Within the progressive vision offered by MMT, it is acknowledged that people have a reliance on the planet and thus the needs of the environment are our needs.

The economy is reduced to a tool which serves our interests and that of the planet. Targets in this model are based on specific goals related to well-being: reduce poverty, reduce carbon emissions, etc.

Policy interventions are appraised only in terms of how functional they are in relation to these goals. The economy is not a moral enforcer but a tool to achieve our collective objectives.

It should now be evident why the neoliberal model presents a destructive path. Immediate environmental and human concerns (namely climate change and destitution) are relegated to issues of secondary importance. But to replace this model with that proposed by MMT a number of challenges remain.

(iv) Erronkak

(a) The neoliberal myths and how to challenge them

The reason why we have so readily accepted the neoliberal model, Is because powerful metaphors have been used to galvanise it.

The best example of these is the household analogy. We are encouraged to make parallels between government economics and household economics, as if government fiscal outcomes were comparable to personal budgets. This is as intuitive as it is dangerous: practices that are considered responsible in households can often be very destructive in governments.

The household analogy’.

Like Newton’s 3rd law of motion, government spending policies have an equal and opposite effect on us, the private sector. All government spending is our income, a government surplus is our deficit (debt) and a government deficit is our surplus (savings). Government spending isn’t just necessary to run our public services it also helps us to increase our wealth.

Unfortunately, during its long historical battle against egalitarianism, neoliberalism cemented myths in the public psyche that were designed to make people fear government spending. Phrases such as ‘living beyond our means’, ‘bankrupt the Nation’ and ‘budget black hole’, evoke the household analogy and make us project our personal financial fears onto the running of the economy.

The following are a few basic principles of MMT which must be understood in order to challenge the neoliberal myths:

(b) The Government cannot run out of money
The Bank of England issues currency on behalf of the government. Much in the same way that a scoreboard in a cricket match can never run out of runs to post,
the government can never run out of money. Therefore, government is not physically limited in its spending. The requirement that government needs to either collect taxes or ‘borrow’ before it spends is arbitrarily imposed, in the (false) neoliberal belief that fiscal balance is a desirable economic target.

(c) There’s no such thing as ‘taxpayers’ money’
If the government has unlimited access to Pounds, why does it need to tax us? Put simply,
taxes give value to the currency. It is the guarantee that government will honour currency as a means to pay for our tax liabilities which give the currency its worth. The way tax is distributed can also help achieve other outcomes such as reducing inequality, discouraging damaging behaviour (e.g. tax on cigarettes), amongst others.

(d) Government ‘debt’ is not debt at all
What neoliberals call government debt is in fact savings to the private sector. This is composed of bonds and guilts which are purchased by the population at large (and often also by foreign investors).

The reason they are so popular is because they are seen as the safest form of investment. Unlike savings accounts in banks and shares, government bonds do not run the risk of default. Government can always pay its liabilities. These savings are merely a service the government provides, it is not a source of income as government does not need an income.

(e) Government spending does not cause hyperinflation
This is one of the most difficult concepts to grasp, not least because mainstream economics has accepted as dogma the explanation that excessive spending caused crises in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

The truth is, inflation and its more extreme counterpart, hyper-inflation, are the result of an inability to meet demand with supply. All spending, either from government, from private sector debt or other sources, results in higher incomes and is therefore likely to increase demand for goods and services.

If this demand can be met by an equivalent increase in supply then there is little risk of inflation. Therefore, as long as there is spare production capacity (namely, unemployment), the government can spend.

(f) MMT and the Labour Party

Many of Labour’s anti-austerity policies already fall in line with the progressive economic vision that MMT offers. The full employment, Northern investment, National Education Service pledges can be easily justified with MMT because it does not require spending to be balanced with taxation or the issuing of government bonds.

Macroeconomics is a complex subject, and I would expect the issues discussed here to have raised many questions. I would very much like to explain other aspects of MMT in future, but my immediate aim is this:

We Labour members must endeavour to change our language around economics so that they do not reinforce neoliberal myths: the rich must be taxed to reduce inequality not to fund our spending, government money belongs to all of us not just the tax payers, and government issuing of bonds (‘debt’) is not an indicator of bad economic performance.

Ultimately, explaining left wing policies with right wing economic narrative will simply not do. Ordinary people can sense inconsistency, just as they can sense the chaos in our current economic structures.

MMT provides us with an economic model which ensures government can provide security for all its citizens in partnership with business enterprise and Labour. This is the positive anti-austerity vision the Labour Party needs to ensure unity and prosperity for all.

Patricia Pino

Patricia Pino is an engineer, artist and campaigner living in London. She joined the U.K. Labour Party movement in early 2015 and is a board member of Republic: a non-politically affiliated organization campaigning for an elected head of state. Though her values are aligned with those of the organizations she has joined, she believes in thorough questioning of the issues rather than blind loyalty to any particular ideology. Throughout her involvement in the Labour movement, she written extensively on issues regarding economics. An advocate of Modern Monetary theory, she endeavours to present new economics findings in a way which is accessible to the masses. She has often been assisted by renowned MMT economist, Bill Mitchell, in this task. It should be noted that she writes only on a personal capacity — her views may not necessarily reflect the views of the various organizations she has joined.


(1) Steve Grumbine Hosts Patricia Pino: Dismantling #Neoliberalism

Patricia Natalia Pino, author at The Pileus joins Steve Grumbine to discuss the global scourge of #neoliberalism and how to defeat it.

(2) Patricia Pino eta Bill Mitchell

The fringe event that promises to empower Labour’s Progressives against neoliberalism

(3) Patricia Pino eta Jeremy Corbyn

Copeland, Corbyn & the Labour Party: A member’s view

Jeremy Corbyn does not need to borrow to pay for his policies

(4) Facebook-enj Patricia Natalia Pino

Ive always liked this graph as it shows clearly the damage done in the last 40 years. The Gap between productivity and wages has largely been filled by private debt.

Noiz LAB edo/eta ELA sindikatuetan DTM erabiliko duten horrelako sindikalistak?

Zeren esperoan daude?

Elkarrizketa De Zayas-i

De Zayas: “Hi ha una conspiració de silenci contra Catalunya per part de la UE i l’ONU”

Relator independent de l’ONU i professor de dret internacional, recomana als “presos polítics i exiliats” que exigeixin empara a Nacions Unides i que Catalunya perseveri “amb diàleg i legalitat internacional”

Alfred de Zayas (La Habana, 1947) és relator independent de l’ONU i expert en dret internacional que exerceix a Suïssa. Conversa amb El Món com a autor de l’informe A-69-272 que va presentar el 2014 davant de l’Assemblea General de l’ONU sobre teoria i pràctica del dret a la lliure determinació, que va ser “totalment acceptat” i que “té una gran rellevància per al cas de Catalunya”. Considera “aberrant” que als catalans “se’ls hagi negat la solidaritat internacional” en declarar la independència el 27 s’octubre del 2017.

Senyor de Zayas, considera que Espanya té presos polítics?

És evident que aquestes quatre persones estan empresonades per suposats delictes que són essencialment polítics, perquè no hi ha res més polític que defensar pacíficament la cultura i la identitat pròpies i exercir el dret a la lliure determinació. L’article primer del Pacte Internacional pels Drets Civils i Polítics i del Pacte Internacional pels Drets Econòmics, Socials i Culturals, tots dos ratificats per Espanya, contemplen el dret d’autodeterminació com un dret que no es pot derogar en cap cas i, això és molt rellevant, és un dret que prima sobre altres drets. Em remeto a l’article 96 de la Constitució espanyola, que dóna prioritat al dret internacional per sobre del dret nacional. Com és ben sabut per Madrid, les lleis i la Constitució han de ser interpretades a la llum del dret internacional. 

Espanya defensa que la integritat territorial prima per sobre d’aquest dret reconegut internacionalment.

És cert que alguns sectors intenten implantar aquest argument, però és totalment fals. La integritat territorial és un principi del dret internacional, però sempre ha evolucionat i depèn de molts factors. En el moment en què hi ha un conflicte entre aquest principi i un dret, com ho és el de la lliure determinació, és evident que passa per davant el dret

Per tant, els ‘Jordis’ i els consellers del Govern empresonats, són presos polítics?

Desgraciadament, Espanya té presos polítics i la UE i l’ONU callen. Són presos polítics perquè se’ls acusa de defensar un dret polític sense haver comès cap acció violenta ni haver sabotejat res. Comparem el cas d’Espanya i Catalunya amb altres països on hi ha manifestacions, que són violentíssimes, en què s’utilitzen tota mena d’armes de foc. Doncs bé, l’Estat espanyol, que com a membre de la UE és un estat democràtic, pretén equiparar les manifestacions pacífiques dels catalans amb situacions de violència extrema, i això és molt greu. Precisament, el que hem vist a Catalunya és una gran disciplina pacífica en el camp independentista, que insisteix dialogar amb el govern central. No ho ha res més legítim que exigir aquest diàleg.

Si es constata que Espanya té presos polítics, la UE es pot permetre aquest comportament per part d’un Estat membre contra ciutadans europeus? Tampoc l’ONU s’ha pronunciat al respecte.

Comparteixo aquest sentiment, és obligació de l’ONU i de la UE condemnar una situació en què persones són detingudes i empresonades per accions de naturalesa estrictament política.

Han guardat silenci fins ara. No semblen pas interessats a denunciar aquesta situació.

Recomano que els presos polítics s’adrecin per escrit al grup de treball de la detenció arbitrària de l’ONU, amb enviament de tota la documentació necessària. I a la vegada, recomano que es facin arribar aquests casos al comitè de drets humans de l’ONU. Jo he estat funcionari de l’ONU i era el cap del departament de queixes, de manera que si s’adreça una queixa a aquest comitè demanant com a mesura cautelar l’alliberament dels presos, és factible un gest. Aquesta petició d’alliberament es troba plenament dins del protocol facultatiu i és viable. 

En tot cas, els polítics independentistes estan en el punt de mira. A més dels presos, els consellers que ja han sortit de la presó estan a l’espera de judici, i si bé han tornat a estar escollits a les urnes, es troben en risc permanent de tornar a entrar a presó si exerceixen el seu mandat.

És una situació absolutament aberrant, però la impunitat en les relacions internacionals i el dret és molt habitual i coneguda. Si la UE, per interessos geopolítics i no per interessos de drets humans, es nega a actuar davant aquesta aberració comesa pel govern d’Espanya, perd la seva credibilitat i el projecte europeu queda tocat. I el mateix passa amb l’ONU. Jo, en la meva funció limitada de mandatari de l’ONU sobre l’ordre internacional democràtic i equitatiu, he deixat molt clar que Catalunya té dret a la seva lliure determinació i que Espanya té l’obligació de respectar aquest dret. És un dret que pertany als pobles i que no té limitació. I és fals que estigui limitat a pobles que han estat antigues colònies.

Però Espanya insisteix també que la UE i el dret internacional donen prioritat a la integritat territorial. No és cert?

És clar que no! La legalitat internacional diu que l’Estat A no pot envair la integritat territorial de l’Estat B, però l’Estat A i l’Estat B tenen l’obligació de respectar la lliure determinació de tots els pobles que viuen en aquest territori. La lliure determinació no pot ser interpretada de manera restrictiva, la legislació internacional és summament clara i s’ha d’aplicar sense matisos en el cas de Catalunya.

Una cosa és el que diuen els tractats internacionals i una altra és allò a què estan disposats els Estats. La UE no hauria de fer complir els tractats als seus Estats membres?

És evident que hi ha una conspiració de silenci contra Catalunya per part de Brussel·les i de l’ONU, el silenci dels quals és ensordidor. I també ha quedat palès que els estats apliquen el dret internacional de manera selectiva, a la carta. Com pot Europa demanar-li a Espanya que reconegui la independència de Kosovo, i a la vegada, negar que els catalans puguin aspirar a la independència? És una incoherència espectacular que posa en qüestió la solvència democràtica de la UE. Si s’aplica aquest principi a Kosovo, o també a Eslovènia o Croàcia, en què els estats d’Europa van reconèixer immediatament la declaració unilateral d’independència d’aquests pobles, per què no volen reconèixer la DUI de Catalunya? Jo no entro a dir si vull o no que Catalunya sigui independent, però sí que vull que els catalans ho puguin decidir. Sempre pacíficament, com han fet els catalans, que no volen la violència sinó el diàleg.

Creu que els catalans han de seguir confiant en la UE i l’ONU, malgrat el silenci i la vulneració del dret internacional per protegir els interessos d’Espanya?

Tant l’ONU com la UE han perdut credibilitat per la seva falta de coherència, és un fet. Però malauradament, quines opcions tenen els catalans? És aberrant que se’ls hagi negat la solidaritat internacional quan han fet el pas per exercir el seu dret d’autodeterminació. Però si perseveren, i si els altres pobles que aspiren a la lliure determinació, com per exemple Còrsega o el Veneto, també perseveren, el camí serà més pla. El que és realment trist és que Espanya faci servir la violència per impedir l’exercici d’un dret tan bàsic com l’autodeterminació i negui qualsevol voluntat de diàleg. Malauradament, els catalans ja tenen l’evidència que, per moltes raons geopolítiques i econòmiques, els europeus els han negat la solidaritat internacional. És escandalós però real, això és el que ha passat i cal actuar sabent que aquesta és la situació, amb prudència i sempre sense violència. Els catalans han de buscar aixopluc sempre en el dret internacional.

Sobre el fet que el president de la Generalitat i quatre consellers legítims es trobin a l’exili, perseguits per la justícia espanyola, i no puguin prendre possessió de la seva acta de diputats, té alguna recomanació a fer per tal que es respectin els seus drets polítics?

Evidentment, hi ha una violació de l’article 25 del Pacte Internacional de Drets Civils i Polítics, i aquesta violació es pot fer arribar també al Comitè de Drets Humans de les Nacions Unides amb una queixa individual. Ara bé, encara que una persona tingui una decisió favorable de la Cort Europea de Drets Humans, cal voluntat política per implementar aquesta decisió. Lamentablement, hi ha moltes decisions que s’han quedat sense implementació. Insisteixo, el més important per a Catalunya és perseverar en la via pacífica, el diàleg i la legalitat internacional.

Antoni Abat Ninet-i egindako elkarrizketa

Antoni Abat Ninet: ‘No se n’han anat, els “piolins”, del port? Doncs què esperem?’ 

Entrevista a l’acadèmic català i professor a Dinamarca

Antoni Abat Ninet. Quaranta-tres anys. Professor de dret a la Universitat de Copenhaguen. Però també ho ha estat a Stanford, Georgetown i ESADE. L’any 2016, va fer una sonada intervenció al parlament català que va ajudar molt a modificar el full de ruta sobiranista: després de la seva intervenció, molta gent va passar de voler fer eleccions a encarar el referèndum amb ganes. Ara VilaWeb ha volgut tornar a parlar-hi per demanar-li com veu les possibles sortides al moment actual. I la seva opció es pot resumir així: opta per un mandat de desobediència civil.

Què hem de fer, ara, professor? Quin seria el pas a fer en la investidura, per exemple?
—Vosaltres vau publicar l’article del professor Resina, que proposava un mandat de desobediència civil i ferma. Hi estic d’acord. Per començar, la investidura. Si llegiu el reglament del parlament, la investidura telemàticament es pot fer, perquè no és prohibida.

Es pot?
—Qui us digui que no, vol dir que en fa una lectura restrictiva i poc garantista del reglament. Es poden fer servir arguments de dret constitucional comparat a favor de la investidura telemàtica. I l’especial protecció que tenen els drets dels representants a la cambra, també. Això està explicitat a la jurisprudència del Tribunal Europeu dels Drets Humans (TEDH). Els catalans faríem bé de començar a pensar en el TEDH com a garant dels nostres drets fonamentals, obviant de considerar el pas per la justícia espanyola com un mal processal necessari. En resum: fem la investidura telemàtica i mantinguem una part del govern i la presidència a Bèlgica, i una altra, al Principat. No pot ser que per una qüestió formal i amb una lectura restrictiva dels drets no es permeti que el president prengui possessió. Home… Aquí t’apliquen el 155 com una
carte blanche. Donen un cop d’estat amb un article anticonstitucional, no accepten el resultat de les eleccions i volen interposar entrebancs i lectures restrictives de drets perquè el president no pugui prendre possessió. Doncs no. Per això crec que un acte de desobediència fort seria que el president prengués possessió. I tindríem un president de la República, el president Puigdemont, a Bèlgica. I un president del govern aquí. Dues figures. Un president i un primer ministre. I pas a pas, consolidar el que s’ha fet.

I si l’estat espanyol ataca amb més jutges i presó? Som-hi igualment?
—Efectivament. I si no tenim representants que tinguin collons de fer això, que en posin uns altres que en tinguin. Per què alguns ens els han escapçats. Potser ha de venir una altra generació. Aquí només tenim dues opcions. Una és preguntar-se: hi ha algú comprant AK-47, aquí? Oi que no? Doncs aleshores tenim l’altra opció, que és la desobediència ferma del govern, i aprofitar cada pas políticament. Perquè si no, què fem? Màrtirs?

Abans de l’1-O pensava: anem a mesos vista. Ara penso: anem a anys vista.
—Depèn dels tempos. I no pot passar que els espanyols marquin els nostres tempos. No pot ser. Nosaltres endavant i endavant. I endavant sabent que tenim un milió de paios al nostre país que són espanyols i que no solament estan per la violència, sinó que en volen més, de violència. Doncs molt bé. Hem de gestionar també això.

Un sol poble, diuen.
—I creieu que això no ho han passat altres estats? I altres processos d’independència? De tensió interna, sempre n’hi ha. Torno a Resina: la violència és contraproduent per a ells. Penseu que van demostrant al món que nosaltres som espanyols a la força. Per violència. I això és molt depriment i no funciona
in illo tempore. Si els paios es mantenen en l’àmbit internacional és perquè hi ha una sèrie d’interessos que els catalans no han pogut trencar. I ara sembla que a la comunitat internacional hi ha un debat, i a Europa poden considerar el referèndum acordat. Ells arribarien a acceptar un referèndum, sí. Però jo crec que aquesta pantalla ja l’hem passada.

Ja l’hem passada?
Efectivament. L’hem passada. No hi ha res més a fer. Ens han pegat per defensar urnes, eh? De què parlem, aquí? Aquí han pegat àvies per defensar una urna, sabeu? Aquí parlem de drets fonamentals, home. Això ho han de pagar. Ells. Tots. I la Unió Europea, també.

Anem als presoners polítics. Tema cru i delicat. Elisenda Paluzie proposava empatia, però que no en quedi ni un manant, de presoner. Ni un. Perquè no pot ser que marquin agenda política gent que parla amb l’advocat penalista al costat. No facis això, no facis allò. Això inclou Junqueras, Sànchez i Forn.
El tema és molt cru. La pregunta que jo em faig és: serveixen els presos per a assolir la consolidació de la República Catalana? O l’alenteixen? És la pregunta que ens hem de fer. Hem de ser crus. I analitzar-ho des d’un punt de vista més fred. Són bons per a l’assoliment de l’objectiu? Passa que respondre això ens toca molt la fibra. Però respondre segons com permetria que el president de la República vingui a Catalunya per la frontera, protegit per la gent. Per exemple. O ara o més tard. Hem d’estar preparats per coses d’aquestes. Hem de pensar en actes de desobediència forts. Cops. Pums. No se n’han anat, els piolins, del port? Doncs què esperem?

Potser mobilització al carrer i organització.
Perdoneu, però això ho ha de liderar el govern. També les vagues, o els impactes econòmics. Els polítics han de donar exemple. El govern de la Generalitat deu al país l’esforç que va fer l’1 d’octubre. I s’ha de fer alguna cosa amb efectes reals. I res de ‘visca el 155’ per a poder sortir de la presó.

Consellera Ponsatí dixit: s’ha anat amb el lliri a la mà no tant amb Espanya, sinó amb Europa. És Europa que diu frena, i jo t’assec, Rajoy, a la taula. I no passa.
Sigui pel que sigui, van acceptar el 155. De manera vergonyosa, alguns d’ells. I no em feu dir noms, perquè alguns no els conec de res. Ni resistència ni hòsties. Els paios pleguen. Acatem les eleccions imposades vergonyoses. I vergonyants. Perfecte. Guanyem. I ara hem d’aspirar a l’autonomia del 78 centralitzada i descafeïnada? No. Hem d’anar endavant. Em sembla que ens ho hem guanyat. Ara tot això ho hem de fer efectiu. El govern ha de fer aquest pas endavant? És clar que sí. Ells són els primers que han de fer exemple.

Crític amb el post 1-O?
Molt crític. Jo, això de les morts, em sembla que… No ho veig clar. Si t’han de detenir, que vinguin al parlament. Que vinguin. Amb un milió de gent fora. A veure si ho fan.

Risc: ho fas, no guanyes, i ets al mateix lloc, però amb deu morts damunt la taula.
—Amb deu morts no seríem al mateix lloc.

[ACLARIMENT D’ANTONI ABAT NINET ENVIAT 15 DE GENER] :Escric aquesta missiva per tal de puntualitzar quelcom que en principi no em semblava necessari, per ser obvi i evident, però després de veure la mena d’interpretacions i suposicions injustes que s’han fet a partir de la meva entrevista he trobat necessari aclarir el sentit de les meves paraules. Hi ha qui ha interpretat la meva resposta a una pregunta de l’entrevistador que explícitament planteja l’escenari de 10 morts: “Amb deu morts no seríem al mateix lloc” com una mena de suggeriment que jo estaria defensant la necessitat de persones assassinades. Òbviament, aquesta no va ser en cap cas la meva intenció, no hi ha cap suggeriment al darrere. No ser al mateix lloc no implica ser més a prop o lluny de res, ni estar en millor situació, sinó simplement trobar-se en un lloc diferent, i parlant de morts, es tractaria de trobar-nos en un lloc que ningú desitja.

A més per a contextualitzar la resposta, en la següent pregunta, on l’entrevistador demana si amb 10 morts la UE es mullaria, responc que amb més de dos-cents morts als fets del 6 d’octubre no es va aconseguir cap objectiu polític i episodis que no cal repetir mai. Convido als que interpreten injustament i de manera ofensiva les meves paraules que analitzin tots els meus escrits científics, articles d’opinió i altres obres, escrites i orals, on no trobaran una simple frase on jo recolzi la violència, l’odi o el terror de cap mena de classe. Ans al contrari. Algunes de les meves expressions transcrites literalment d’una conversa telefònica, expressades en paper, poden resultar desencertades, ara bé entenc que en el context de l’article també queda clar en tot moment la meva aposta per la desobediència civil, ferma i pacífica.

En qualsevol cas, l’objectiu d’aquestes puntualitzacions és primer deslligar qualsevol interpretació forçada de suport a la violència per part meva, i sobretot evitar, que les meves paraules puguin ser interpretades de manera perjudicial per a la causa independentista a Catalunya.


Amb cent, la Unió Europea es mulla. Amb deu, segur?
És un debat, sí. El 6 d’octubre en van matar 256. I no va passar res. I van posar a la trena el president Companys, que es va fer enrere. No ho sé, tu. Jo declaro i no marxo. Vaig a Palau. I que em busquin. A hòsties, si cal. Tot cristo enregistrant. Passa que no ho van fer perquè crec que ho tenien tot apamat fins al referèndum i prou. El dia de l’endemà, no. Els va agafar en calces. Potser no s’esperaven que 2,2 milions de persones votessin el referèndum. I ara com ho gestionem? I això que ho tenien molt enllestit i molt preparat. Demanar reconeixement internacional als organismes internacionals. Estava preparadíssim. Passa que al final, pels motius que siguin, ja ens ho explicaran algun dia algú, van acatar el 155, van abaixar el cap.

Tesi: fallem per petits. Siguem humils, també. No tot són traïcions i renúncies. Potser som el Rayo Vallecano i a vegades ens fallen les forces. No les conviccions.
Totalment d’acord. Ara, i aquí ve la meva crítica. Sigues honest. Explica-ho. Tenim força per a declarar la independència, però no per a implementar-la. Digues-ho. Explica-m’ho. I això no es va fer. Aquesta és una crítica que també tinc. Ara, també et generen empatia. Aquests paios han anat endavant. Hi haurà un moment que s’arronsaran, pensaven molts. Doncs aquests han anat endavant, però endavant, eh? Que fiquin aquests paios a la presó és com si fiquessin un familiar. Estem tots tocats. Hi són per haver fet el que tu demanaves, el que hem celebrat. Hi són pel que tu haguessis fet exactament igual. Com pot ser que siguin a la presó ara?

Us veig escèptic amb Europa.
Ara sí que sóc escèptic amb Europa. I molt optimista i molt content amb el país. Molt orgullós de ser català. Si hem pogut arribar on hem arribat, i si continuem aquí, amb tot el merder que tenim, amb un cop d’estat, amb el 155, amb empreses amenaçades, i que la gent va i defensés l’1 d’octubre i guanyés el 21-D. Espectacular. Per això crec que quan quatre es mobilitzin una mica, això pot ser molt gros. Perquè la simpatia europea, la tens. Sobretot als països escandinaus. La gent està amb tu. Ara, quina és la manera que aquesta gent reaccioni? Tocar la butxaca als europeus. L’única manera. Escoltin, que som en un estat d’excepció i sense garanties. Aquí no s’apliquen els procediments de la constitució espanyola.

I com es paralitza l’economia sense els grans sindicats a favor?
Ens tenim a nosaltres. Us sembla poc?

Res a afegir?
Endavant. Optimisme. Que els qui ho tenen complicat són ells. Amb tota la pasta, amb un cop d’estat i d’excepció, i encara som aquí? Doncs som-hi. Endavant. Anem a l’atac. A l’atac. Això hem de fer: mandat de desobediència civil, i ferma.

Varoufakis bluff handia hasiberrientzat

Ezaguna da bluff hori nola aipatua izan den Granada honetan…

Bestela, irakur, besteak beste eta sarrera gisa, ondokoak:

Dante, Eurolandia, Y. Varoufakis, Grezia…

W. Mosler eta Y. Varoufakis

EBZ eta Varoufakis

Varoufakis-en azken (aurreko) xelebrekeria

Greziari buruzko aspaldiko kontuak: Varoufakis eta Grexit

Warren Mosler eta Yanis Varoufakis

Varoufakis’ pipe dream (ezinezko ametsa)

Yanis Varoufakis? Ez da aski!

The Big Bluff: heroia Granada honetan


F. William Engdahl-en What Stinks about Varoufakis and the Whole Greek Mess?


(i) Jolas zikin baten partaidea

Something stinks very bad about Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis and the entire Greek mess that has been playing out since the election victory of the nominally pro-Greek Syriza Party in January. I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that far from being the champion of the hapless Greek people, Varoufakis is part of a far larger and very dirty game.

The brilliant psychologist Eric Berne, author of the seminal book Games People Play, would likely call the game of Varoufakis and the Troika, “Rapo,” as in the rape of the Greek people and, ultimately of all the EU, Germany included. How do I come to this surprising conclusion?

When the left-right coalition was elected by a Greek population desperate for change from the several years of austerity, pension cuts, health and education cuts demanded by the IMF in order to insure that Greek creditors be repaid their pound of flesh in terms of state debt, I was among many who held out hope that finally a government that stood for the interests of her people was in office in Athens.

(ii) Austeritatearen aldeko pailazoa

What we have witnessed since is what can only be called a clown show, one in which the laugh is on the Greek people and EU citizens as a whole. The ones laughing, as often is so, are the mega banks and Troika–ECB, IMF and EU. Behind the Troika, almost invisible, are the Greek oligarchs who have robbed the state coffers of hundreds of billions over the years, tucking it away in numbered Swiss and Lichtenstein secret bank accounts, avoiding paying a single penny tax to support their nation. And it is looking more and more as though the “leftist” economist, Varoufakis’s role is that of a Trojan Horse for the destruction of the entire Eurozone by the bankers and those Greek oligarchs. Next after Greece Italy looks poised to become victim, and that will put the entire Euro in a crisis that is today unimaginable.

Suspicious friends

A man is known by the company he keeps, so goes the adage. By this measure Yanis Varoufakis keeps very bad company for a finance minister who claims to be defending the living standards of his people. Before becoming Greek Finance Minister in the January coalition government of Alexis Tsipras, Varoufakis spent time in the United States working for the Bellevue Washington video game company, Valve Corporation, whose founders came from Bill Gates’ Microsoft. In the late 1980’s he studied economics and game theory in the UK at University of Essex and East Anglia and taught at Cambridge. Then he spent the next eleven years in Australia teaching and even taking Australian citizenship.

As an Australian citizen Varoufakis returned in 2000 to teach at the University of Athens. Then from January 2013 until his appointment as Finance Minister of Greece, Varoufakis taught at the University of Texas where he became close with James K. Galbraith, son of deceased Harvard economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, also with the Washington establishment think-tank, Brookings Institution. In short Varoufakis is an Australian citizen who has spent most of the past three decades in Britain, USA and Australia and little of that in his native Greece.

That of course per se does not disqualify him at all from being an honest and effective finance minister of his native Greece. But to date he has done more to increase the misery of the Greek people in six short months than almost anyone else, even Wolfgang Schäuble or the IMF’s Christine Lagarde.

He pretends to be against austerity but his record shows the opposite. Varoufakis was the adviser to Prime Minister George Papandreou and PASOK when Papandreou made the disastrous draconian austerity deal with the EU on behalf of Greece so that French and German banks could be bailed out. Varoufakis also has at various times heaped praise on Mario Draghi and the ECB, suggesting solutions for how to keep Greece in the EU, a track that pre-programs Greece for self-destruction under the current Troika regime of austerity.

In Varoufakis’ book on the EU financial crisis titled “A Modest Proposal,” he invited former French Prime Minister Michael Rocard to write the forward. Rocard has called for the EU to appoint a European “strongman”–read dictator–and Rocard’s choice is European Parliament president Martin Schulz, the very same man who warned the new SYRIZA government to abide by the austerity agreements concluded by the past PASOK and conservative governments. Varoufakis has repeatedly argued that Greece must “grin and bear” the measures imposed on it by the bankers and the German government as a member of the Eurozone. He has insisted that a Greek Euro exit is not going to take place.

With official Greek unemployment over 30% of the workforce and economic losses because of Troika-imposed budget austerity the government’s tax-revenue shortfall in January alone was 23% below its €4.5bn target for the month. The government in Athens has levied crippling taxes on the middle class and made sharp cuts to government salaries, pensions, and health-care coverage. While ordinary citizens suffer under the weight of austerity, now Banks are closed at least until the July 5 referendum on more austerity. Greece is a human catastrophe.

(iii) Grexit, Islandia, Errusia, Txina eta BRICS-eko herrialdeak

Strange acts

Were Varoufakis the man he pretends to be before his Greek countrymen, he would have set forth a strategy of Greek exit from the Euro and a strategy akin to that of Iceland to declare a debt moratorium, freeze all debt repayments to the Troika–IMF, ECB and EU. Then he would put Greece on a national currency, impose capital controls and seek strong economic ties with Russia, China and the BRICS countries.

Indeed, when Greek Prime Minister Tsipras was in St. Petersburg in mid-June to meet with Russian President Putin, Putin extended a very generous offer of prepayment of $5 billion towards the Greek participation in the Turkish Stream Gazprom pipeline.

That would have given Greece breathing room to service debt repayments to the IMF. Brussels and Washington of course were not at all happy with that. Putin then offered Greece membership in the new BRICS development bank which would allow Greece to borrow to get out of the worst of the crisis without more savage austerity. That of course would bring Greece closer to Russia and also to China, something Washington and Brussels oppose with all their might. But rather than accept, Greece and Varoufakis walked away from a solution that would have avoided catastrophe as it is now unfolding.

(iv) Troiako zaldia?

At this point it indeed looks as if Varoufakis’ role has been to act as the Western bankers’ Trojan Horse inside the Greek government, to prepare Greece and the Greek people for the slaughter, all the while posing as the tire-less fighter for Greek interests, all without a neck tie, of course.

As the former US Assistant Treasury and critic of the US foreign economic policies of recent years, Paul Craig Roberts recently described it, “Greece’s creditors, the EU and the European Central Bank…are determined to establish the principle that they can over-lend to a country and force the country to pay by selling public assets and cutting pensions and social services of citizens. The creditor banks then profit by financing the privatization of public assets to favored customers. The agenda of the EU and the central bank is to terminate the fiscal independence of EU member states by turning tax and budget policy over to the EU itself.”

(v) Europako estatu ezberdinetako subiranotasun eza

Roberts goes on to state that the Greek “sovereign debt crisis” is being used to create a precedent that will apply to every EU member government. The member states will cease to exist as sovereign states. Sovereignty will rest in the EU. The measures that Germany and France are supporting will in the end terminate their own sovereignty. “

(vi) Gorrotoa

How did Greece and the European Union’s Eurozone countries get in such a crisis? The energy that vibrates through all of Europe right now is not of love for fellow human beings, but of hate. There is hate from the Germans against what they are convinced are lazy and tax-cheating ordinary Greeks. They have been fed that image by controlled mainstream media itself in turn controlled by the American oligarchs and their think-tanks. There is hate from the EU Commission and the EU leadership against Greece for creating what they see as the existential crisis of the EU. There is hate from German Chancellor Merkel for ruining her legacy, perhaps.

Above all, there is hate towards the Greek people from their own Greek oligarchs. The Greek oligarchy—shipping magnates, oil refinery owners, telecoms owners, media magnates, billionaires many times over—since the early 1990s, has dominated Greek politics. Greeks call them “diaplekomenoi”–the entangled ones. These elites have preserved their positions through control of the media and through old-fashioned favoritism, buying politicians like Yanis Varoufakis.

The Greek oligarchs, with their untaxed billions hidden in foreign bank accounts, are willing to see their own nation destroyed to hold on to their billions. That’s real hate. Those oligarchs are deeply ashamed of being Greek. That shame likely goes way way back, perhaps some 700 years, to the defeat and subjugation of Greece by the Ottoman Empire beginning in the 1360s. Maybe it’s time to move on from such childish feelings of hate.

Gogorra? Bai, baina egiazkoa.

Ezezkoan, irakur ondokoak, Greziako bankugintza dela eta:

Warren Mosler eta Skender Fani-ren arteko elkarrizketa Greziako bankuen itxieraz (1)

Warren Mosler eta Skender Fani-ren arteko elkarrizketa Greziako bankuen itxieraz (2)

Warren Mosler eta Skender Fani-ren arteko elkarrizketa Greziako bankuen itxieraz (eta 3)

Ikasiko ote dugu inoiz?

Warren Mosler-en lanak euskaraz

Warren Mosler-en ildotik egindako eta argitaratuko lanak, euskaraz.


(i) Warren Mosler-en lanak, 2013ko liburuan

Ikus Diru Teoria Modernoa eta finantza-ingeniaritza1

Liburuan agertzen diren lanak: kapituluak, sailak eta azpisailak

4 Zazpi gezur politika ekonomikoan

5 Gizarte segurantzaz hitz bi

7.14 Mosler-en eta Hudson-en arteko eztabaida

7.15 Mito eta errealitatea

8.1 AEB eta Europa; berdintasunak eta ezberdintasunak

11.2 Euroaren paradisua: zein irtengo da lehena?

12.1.1 Petrolioaren prezioak: nondik nora?

12.1.6 Europar Batasunaz, berriz ere

12.1.7 Euroa, bonuak, Europar Batasuna, AEB

12.1.9 Warren Mosler-ek Obama presidenteari eta Kongresuko kideei

12.3 Europar Batasuneko eta EB-ko Estatuetako bonuak. Molser bonuak

12.4 EB: batasun fiskala versus zatiketa

12.5 Greziarako proposamenak

12.6 Diru-teoria modernoaren irtenbidea Greziarako

12.7 Greziar botoek diru-laguntza mehatxatzen dute

12.8 Eurogunea: hondorako lasterketa

12.9 Diru-teoria proposamenak %99rentzat

13.1 Ekonomia bost hitzetan

13.2.1 Ez dago inongo B planik. Odola kaleetan

13.2.3 EBko itun berria

13.3 Eskari agregatua da giltza

14 Euskoak, euroak eta abar…

16.2 Ponzi eskema Eurolandian

17.5 Warren Mosler

21.3 Shakespeare revisited

21.4 Poetry and Economics (Poesia eta Ekonomia)