Hasteko, irakur Grexit ez da garestiagoa oraingo bidea baino… (1)1
Aipatu bezala, ‘plan’ batzuk egon dira zirkulatzen…
Plan desberdinak:
(i) A Workable Reform Programme For Greece
Plan horren arabera Greziak bere zor publikoa ordaintzen segitu behar du, eta hemen onena: “…Greece has to “achieve a primary surplus of 2% of GDP” until at least 2019 or 2020.”
Dakigunez, “… austerity fails, so why recommend it? They just cannot break out of the Groupthink no matter how ‘helpful’ they want to be.”
Greziak ez ditu behar superabit primarioak, defizit fiskalak baino, hazkundea pizteko2
(ii) “Left Platform of Syriza”: The Alternative to Austerity.
Mitchell-en iruzkinak:
a) Gutxienez, errealitateari aurre egiten dio: Greziak irten behar du eta zor ordainketak ‘eten’ ez bada eurogunean austeritatea alboratuko den.
b) Onartzen du Troikak txantajea erabili duela eta, horren aurrean, Greziako gobernuak soilik hauxe adostu behar duela:
“… a program without any further austerity, providing liquidity, and leading to debt cancellation, or exit from the euro and default on the repayment of an unjust and unsustainable debt.”
c) Gainera, onartzen du austeritatea ondokoekin baliokidea dela: “to any insistence of “primary surpluses and balanced budgets” and that “exit from the euro”…”
d) Zorraren parte handiaren ezeztapena erraz moldatzekoa da:
“… cancellation of the major part of the debt … are absolutely manageable choices that can lead to a new economic model oriented towards production, growth, and the change in the social balance of forces to the benefit of the working class and the people.”
e) Ohartzen du Grexit egin daitekeen prozesua dela:
“… exit is a “feasible process” that saves Greece from “the unacceptable programs included in the Juncker package”.”
f) Alta, badirudi planak Grexit ikusten duela soilik oraingo diru laguntzari buruzko eztabaidan, eta ez batasun monetarioak daukan oinarriko disfuntzioaren afera zabalagoan, Oskar Lafontaine-k ohartu duen bezala3.
Izan ere, Mitchell-en hitzez:
“Exit is the option that all Eurozone nations should plan unless the basic architecture of the monetary union is radically altered to create a true fiscal union.”
Hala ere,
“The Left Platform of Syriza appears to be the only Greek political element that understand that exit would:
1. Restore “monetary sovereignty” and allows the financial system (banking etc) to be safeguarded.
2. Provide the capacity to invest in Greek infrastructure and engender employment growth.
3. Aid the development of productive enterprises.
4. Bring “fiscal justice and redistribution of wealth and income”.
5. Accelerate growth and reduce unemployment.
They also understand that being part of the EMU does not mean you are European just as leaving the EMU does not take away a nation’s status as being European.”
(Segituko du.)
1 Ikus https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2015/07/13/grexit-ez-da-garestiago-oraingo-bidea-baino-1/.
2 Ingelesez: “There can be no legitimate case for the Greek government running primary surpluses at this time. They need substantial fiscal deficits to stimulate growth. An investment of €35 billion from external funds, while helpful, would not be anywhere near sufficient to get the economy back on a growth path.”
3 Ikus Mitchell-en A Greek exit could not be more costly than the current path:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31357. Ingelesez: “The former boss of the German Social Democratic Party (SDP) – Oskar Lafontaine – who became German Finance Minister for a short period (October 27, 1998 to March 18, 1999) in the first government of Gerhard Schröder after he helped undermine Helmut Kohl’s Chancellership in the 1998 Federal elections, has pronounced (https://magazin.spiegel.de/digital/?utm_source=spon&utm_campaign=vorab#SP/2015/29/136184589): Der Euro ist gescheitert … In English, “the euro has failed”.
(…)
… in 1998, the Sun newspaper had a different public enemy No. 1 – Oskar Lafontaine.
All was explained in this ‘Saturday profile” in the British Independent (November 28, 1998) – The Saturday Profile: Oskar Lafontaine: Europe’s most dangerous man?
(…)
Most recently, Lafontaine gave an interview to the Magazine section of Der Spiegel (29/2015), which carried the title noted above – Der Euro ist gescheitert.
He said the Euro is a step backwards in the path to European integration. The people of Europe are not moving closer together but are, instead, becoming more estranged from each other. He cited the rise of extreme right groups, like the National Front in France as a dangerous trend.
He said the crucial error in the formation of the monetary union was not to have first, created a political union. Without a truly European government with fiscal authority, the common currency could not operate effectively.
He says that is what is now patently obvious. With wages flat and growth in Germany being driven by a mercantlist export mania, the neighbouring nations such as France and Italy are slowly losing their industrial market shares. He also said that the German model cannot be the basis for a European agreement.
It is not the first time he has said this. Back in May 2013, he referred to the monetary union as the “catastrophic euro”.
At that point he called for the EMU to be abandoned. He said that the way the monetary union had unfolded was “leading to disaster” and “unemployment has reached a level that puts democratic structures ever more in doubt”.
He particularly though that “Germany’s strong-handed tactics in carrying out internal devaluations in Spain, Portugal, and Greece” were generating catastrophic effects.
In terms of domestic wage freezes in Germany, he considered these were just a “self-serving” strategy “to improve their own export niche”.
He said:
The Germans have not yet realized that southern Europe, including France, will be forced by their current misery to fight back against German hegemony sooner or later …”
