IMF - We destroyed Greece to save the banks!Maria Negreponti-Delivan Maria Negreponti-Delivan

IMF - We destroyed Greece to save the banks!Maria Negreponti-Delivan Maria Negreponti-Delivan

IMF - We destroyed Greece to save the banks!

Maria Negreponti-Delivanis

29 May 2019

 2379

           

The IMF has recently confessed that, together with our "dear partners", Greece has chosen Greece as a modern Iphigenia in order to save European banks from a certain disaster. This confession fell like a massive bomb on the eve of the European elections.However, this tragic reality has been completely transparent since the first moment of our conviction.

Perhaps, however, as a semi-official announcement, it has been easier for us to fall into the category of conspiracy than those of our grateful compatriots who insist on arguing that for all our horrors that have been happening for about ten years, we are at fault. While, on the contrary, the same IMF and the EU always hesitate to save us by offering us billions, from their woes, to spend well.

Indeed, even before this official IMF confession, and almost from the beginning of our hostage of the Troika, a bunch of books and articles by economists from Greece and foreign - and not without exception - saw the light of publicity with in-depth evidence and extensive references and analyzes, about this infrequent crime against Greece.

These findings were also accompanied by the necessary and plausible explanations of why Greece, in order not to risk the EU, was deemed necessary to lead to the hell of the IMF. And yet how and why it had to be swallowed, beforehand, by its deficit, in order for its introduction to the IMF to be necessary.At the same time, since the beginning of the crisis, it was proposed by economists, and additional but less lethal ways from the Memoranda, in order to address the problem of Greek debt.

Ways, which, unlike the memorandums, were hoping that they would not destroy our homeland. Unfortunately, however, the Greeks responsible for all but the memorandum governments, economists and non-economists, having previously read or not read the criminal content of the memoranda, regarded them as a one-way street, and ignored the parallel salvation proposals of the country.

Without themselves wanting to realize the stalemate in which they were leading Greece, these timeless officials, they have always appeared highly inventive in argumentation to support, apply or even preach this supposedly one-way course of memorial misery, but also to defend the supposed viability of a highly unsustainable debt.

The lost chance of debt restructuring

With these erroneous beliefs, and while there was still time for a rescue debt rescue, it was rejected by a series of totally unfounded and frivolous arguments. And when this restructuring was finally decided, it was not only no longer beneficial to Greece, but it also destroyed a lot of public funds.

On the IMF and the EU side, this fatal delay in restructuring was, of course, aimed at ensuring that the European banks that were at risk were given the time to get rid of Greek bonds. It is now a common testimony that this debt restructuring lag was the tombstone of Greece. However, in about ten of these martyrtic years for Greece, officials within and outside did not stop seeing growth coming, and foreign investment flocking to the country.

On the contrary, in these ten years, those responsible for our fortunes, inside and outside the country, did not manage to see that debt, despite the bloody sacrifices of the people, was climbing indefinitely in relative and absolute terms. They were concerned about the unemployment and poverty that had flooded the country while GDP was down 26%. They closed their eyes to the fact that the public property was gradually devoured by the satanic fund, the creation of which they themselves had accepted.

At the same time, many students fainted in schools from starvation while the number of suicides from desperation grew with geometrical progress and our youngsters left thousands of Greece, etc., and of course, no importance was given to those of us who were screaming and despair of the alarm, proving irrefutable proof of the impossibility of the memorandums and of the inevitable destruction the country was undergoing.

Early IMF warnings

Let me recall, at this point, a very important event, which has probably been forgotten, because it has never been relevant. I am referring to the fact that it was not the first time that the IMF acknowledged the contents of the memorandums that were wrong and destructive for Greece. On the contrary, on January 3, 2013, the then chief economist of the IMF, Olivier Blanchard, has already made a rather extensive reference to the impasse strategy of the wrong Greek memorandums. Meanwhile, similar warnings have been issued by former IMF Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, by OECD economist Reza Lahidi and others.

On 12 March 2006, the French newspaper Le Monde published my article entitled " The IMF error - a forbidden debate, " in which I mention, among other things, my surprise about the fact that "no leaf was shaken" clear statements by the then IMF chief and other top economists. On the contrary, all kinds of officers continued to underestimate their devastating work, as if nothing had happened, the endless discussions about the measures that supposedly had to be applied to our salvation continued uninterrupted to fully meet the troubling demands of the troika.

And in related journalists' questions about the IMF's error, this fatal error at the expense of the lives of millions of Greeks, our own respondents replied that they "did not know anything about it" while continuing to devote themselves to the execution of the troika mandates they finished Greece.

Explanation of the inexplicable

I am unable to give some explanation for this inconceivable behavior of the Greek officials, since, of course, they knew from the beginning that the application of the memorandums had no way out. It was impossible to ignore it, given the timely statement of Olivier Blanchard. As, of course, they also knew that debt was not sustainable, and that growth was a dream of a summer night.

Of course, it would no longer be worthwhile to shuffle the details of this dark past, as well as any sort of search for responsibilities, now that everything has been destroyed and even sold out to Macedonia if the IMF did not put it all over again, quite recently , the error of the memoranda.

Indeed, there is something new on the Greek horizon, which seems hopeful if we handle it properly. This is precisely the official IMF confession, which has just been made recently, and which refers to the crime committed against a whole people, a member of the EU and a nation, for ten whole years. And this confession coincides with the emergence in power of a new Greek government.

I think, and I suppose, I express the majority of our compatriots, that is, it is understood that our new government has a duty to react directly to this official IMF confession although there is no case history that has obliged the IMF to pay compensation to its victims . Beyond that, even though there can be no representative amount of compensation that equates to knowingly destroying a whole country.

However, even for the price of arms, the new government would have to demand compensation, with the main reason that Greece was used as a test animal to save the banks. And, on this occasion, we should still talk about the return of the occupied and turbulent German loan, for which our German friends have been complaining about ... .75 years or so! But, however, they consider it appropriate to strangle their EU partner, so that their banks will not lose even one euro.

Will the new government be unwilling if ....

It is understood that our new government, if it finally proceeded to this move, having all the rights on its side, would have at its side the whole of the Greek people, who was battered by the European experiments, against it. And then, this new Greek government would be really lively. But will it decide to do so, or even this IMF confession about its infrequent crime, will continue to be considered a forbidden debate, like all the previous ones?

Finally, to express my concern about the reasons that have prompted the IMF to do now, but also in 2013, to make revelations about the Klettan, against Greece, as I am unclear at the moment. I do not believe, however, that the IMF suddenly caught up with remorse, considering, in addition, what Yanis Varoufakis describes in his book about the incidents in Greece during his days.

She went on to Lagarde to protest the memorandums, which instead of saving destroy Greece. And she replied: " This has been known for a long time, but we have gone so far that it is no longer possible to return ." And because everything is finally revealed, I expect it will come out in the light of day and what exactly happened with the deficit of Greece, so that overnight, loaded with additional units, to justify the country's entry into the IMF.

• The views mentioned in the text are personal to the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of SLpress.gr
• It is forbidden to republish the article from other sites without the permission of SLpress.gr. It is allowed to move the article by adding an active link.

• LABELS
• Olivier Blanchard
• IMF
• Greek economy
• Maria Negreponti-Delivan

Sunday, May 26, 2019

There is a saying that populism is gaining ground in the EU Maria Negreponti-Delivanis Maria Negreponti-Delivanis May 26, 2019

There is a saying that 'populism' is gaining ground in the EU

is gaining ground in Europe

Maria Negreponti-Delivanis

May 26, 2019

 274

or

           

On the occasion of the great and successful assembly of the populists of Europe in Milan on the 18th in the run-up to the European elections, as well as the poisonous criticism of the international press, the unanswered ques- tions about the cause of populism 'giant in Europe. So, the day of the European elections, I take a look at the pros and cons of these parties. I am trying to reject some Western taboos that prevent a rational view on this extremely serious issue.

First of all, it is necessary to ask the question of what modern "populism" means and what it means. More precisely what the 'populist' parties ultimately call for. This is because the consistent tactics of the rival traditional political parties are to accept as a matter of fact and in general as acceptable the fact that all the choices of these parties are negative and reprehensible. It therefore raises the need to reject them. The name that was deliberately given to these parties ('populist') by the traditional politicians was precisely what it intended.

The criticism that stems and is encouraged by the traditional political parties, against the "populist" parties, presents it, collectively, as fascist, racist, anti-Semitic and extremistly nationalistic. However, this version needs to be explored more seriously, since the 'populists', in a short space of time, are constantly expanding in Europe and beyond.

Indeed, predictions ahead of the European elections give 180 out of the 751 seats of the European Parliament to euro-skeptic "ælekists" who, if they appear united and with common goals, will be able to mark the beginning of the end of Europe we knew. This is also supported by the fact that the far-reaching plans for Macedonia's reforms were welcomed cold, not only by its compatriots but also by the German Chancellor. The plan, recently put forward by Mr Macron in an open letter to the French, refers to the need to set up a body for the protection of democracy, a committee on internal security and a bank on climate change.

On the other hand, if you judge from the beginnings of Salvin, Lepén, Faradz, etc., which are reflected in the polls for the European elections, the declarations of the populists find fertile ground for European citizens, such as: " We want to save Europe, which has nothing to do with bureaucrats, bankers and stockbrokers, "and we also said:" We are the ones we want to have nothing to do with Merkel, the Long and those who have destroyed Europe . "

The Scarecrow of Nationalism

The most common category, which political opponents address to 'populist' parties, is nationalism, which has fascist roots in them. The reference to nationalism certainly includes many scales: from the mild and simple national sovereignty that requires respect for national borders, as well as the protection of the religious, cultural and historical peculiarities of each people, to the aggressive and hostile Nazi bourgeois mentality, at the expense of other peoples, genocide and enslavement.

One reasonably wonders why the outcry against nationalism in our days chooses its most extreme positions to argue that " populists are fascists and racists ". If that were the case, then all the countries before globalization prevailed in the 1980s would be fascist and democratized by enforcing globalization as long as they were nation-states. It is obviously an inexpressible naive and false conclusion.

But beyond this completely unfounded argument, which is badly prevailing, with the partnership and the majority of the media, there is also a need to raise the following concern: Europeans, in an ever increasing proportion , they freely choose the 'populist' specifications, as they all already have, who would have the right to halt their evolution?And how democratic would such an effort be? And if, indeed, the 'populists' are fighting for a Europe of the peoples rather than the banks, as they claim, their views would be desirable to be heard by the EU leadership.

Then, since nationalism has been freed from its identification with far-right and expansive ideologies, it should also be recognized as a positive one: it shields the individual sovereign peoples from the risk of their absorption by a global government, the establishment of which efforts around the globe.

The choices of 'populism'

But let's take a brief look at the options of 'populism', in order to show that these belong to the far right and fascism as well. On the contrary, these choices may well be pursued by both the Left and the Right. Therefore, our endeavor should be to discourage the turn of 'populists' towards fascism and not the opposition to 'populism'. Especially if, as they all appear, the realization of their goals promotes social Europe and the peoples' Europe.

Populism, therefore, is directed against the adverse effects of globalization and is co-operating with most of the population of the Earth, who are its losers. He advocates a return to the nation-state. It should be remembered that with the war, the world has entered a protectionist regime, and therefore globalization is gradually past.

'Popularism' is against all forms of elitism and therefore advocates equality as much as possible among citizens. This is a very significant effort, after the peak of all forms of inequality, in the globalization phase. * It opposes the EU's austerity policy and supports a controlled expansionary fiscal policy.

'Popularism' favors state intervention and public investment rather than neoliberalism. It disagrees with the EU's policy and preferences and seeks to change and improve it, if not its dissolution. It wants controlled borders and a planned reception of immigrants, but not illegal immigrants. These 'populist' preferences are common to right and left parties, although they may differ in their relative percentages. That is why, with populism, it is correct to conclude that the traditional distinction in right and left politics is subdued.

The development of 'populism' seems to go hand in hand with other major developments that radically change the global landscape, such as the rise of protectionism, China's invasion of the West, the retreat of liberal democracy that gives way to illicit democracy, nation-state revival. Although the name of the 'populists' initially creates an unfavorable impression, which is also the intent of its opponents, the deepening of their principles greatly improves their image.

The 'snake egg' and 'populism' in Greece

The problem, of course, which I have already mentioned, is the threat of extreme right-wing preferences, of some of these 'populist' parties. If this trend is consolidated, it is clearly a rising danger. I believe it would be interesting to investigate the reasons for this right-wing trend of some of these new parties, but for the time being I do not have the answer.

It is likely to be related to the negative effects of globalization and the frustration of the functioning of the left-wing political parties, which are unable to implement the macroeconomic policy guidelines they pursue because the EU's one-dimensional policy prevails in European contexts. the problems posed by the influx of immigrants and the rise of terrorism, which perhaps refer to the need for more rigorous governance.

In Greece, I have difficulties in classifying political parties on the side of 'populism'. They are definitely excluded from this traditional party. But among the many newcomers, it is relatively insecure not only to include them in 'populism' but also to separate them from right and left. The difficulty is due to their considerable number of people, their limited time spent in showing their positions, and in some cases the confusion of their preferences, which originated both from the Left and from the Right.

Because of bipartism, which I expect to have an extremely strong presence in the European elections, in the case of Greece, it will not facilitate the emergence of the specificities of these new parties. I believe, however, that most of them will remain with us and after the elections, they will evolve and in some future they will probably play an important role. It is worth noting that the international press reports SYRIZA as a "populist" party. I would say, however, that this is certainly the case, but in the course of time the preferences it adopted ceased to rank it among the populists.