Η κότα γέννησε το αυτό ή το αυγό την κότα;
Τι συμβαίνει πρώτο και τι τελευταίο; Πόσο χρόνο χρειάζεται κάτι για να συμβεί; Τι είναι χρόνος; Ένας χρόνος ενός ανθρώπου είναι 7 χρόνια μιας γάτας, μισός χρόνος μιας χελώνας και μερικοί αιώνες ενός βακτηριδίου. Στον πνευματικό κόσμο, στην έλλειψη της ύλης ο χρόνος είναι μηδέν. Τα πάντα συμβαίνουν διαδοχικά αλλά όχι χρονικά.
Γιατί μας ενδιαφέρει αυτό; Πίσω του κρύβεται η υπομονή, ο νόμος της έλξης, η έννοια της προσευχής, η πραγματοποίηση των επιθυμιών και των φόβων. Η πραγματοποίηση διαδέχεται την επιθυμία αλλά μεταξύ της επιθυμίας και της πραγματοποίησης μεσολαβεί ο χρόνος.
Ο χρόνος αυτός όμως στην πραγματικότητα δεν υπάρχει. Στην πραγματικότητα τα πάντα συμβαίνουν ταυτόχρονα, παρόλα αυτά διαδοχικά, για την ακρίβεια: Διαδοχοταυτόχρονα. Είναι σαν το χαμόγελο και την χαρά. Η χαρά φέρνει το χαμόγελο. Αλλά και το χαμόγελο με ένα μαγικό τρόπο φέρνει την χαρά. Το ένα διαδέχεται το άλλο, χωρίς να έχει σημασία ποιό συμβαίνει πρώτο. Μόλις γεννηθεί το ένα γεννιέται και το άλλο. Έτσι και τα δύο συμβαίνουν ταυτόχρονα, παρόλο που συμβαίνουν διαδοχικά. Πόσο θα κρατήσοτν; Εξαρτάται, αλλά το σίγουρο είναι ότι όταν σβήσουν θα σβήσουν ταυτόχρονα. Σαν το κύμα που έχει το ύψος και το βάθος που γεννιούνται και σβήνουν ταυτόχρονα.
Έτσι είναι και η επιθυμία. Όταν γεννιέται η επιθυμία την ίδια ώρα γεννιέται και η πραγματοποίησή της. Απλά επειδή στον υλικό κόσμο υπάρχει η έννοια του χρόνου η οποία μας επιτρέπει την υλική ζωή, η διαδοχή παρόλο που συμβαίνει ταυτόχρονα παίρνει χρόνο μέχρι να διαπιστωθεί. Είναι σαν το κύμα όπου πρώτα έρχεται η μια του φάση και μετά η αντίθετη, παρόλο που γνωρίζουμε όυι πίσω από το ύψος του κύματος κρύβεται το βάθος, μπορούμε μόνο να βραθούμε είται στο ύψος είτε στο βάθος παρόλο που και τα δύο υπάρχουν ταυτόχρονα. Αυτό συμβαίνει επειδή ο υλικός κόσμος κυβερνάται από τις διαστάσεις, κατι το οποίο δεν συμβαίνει στον πνευματικό κόσμο. Στον υλικό κόσμο μπορούμε να βρισκόμαστε μόνο σε ένα χώρο ή ένα χρόνο, ενώ στον πνευματικό κόσμο αυτός ο περιορισμός δεν υπάρχει. Στον υλικό κόσμο μπορούμε να βρισκόμαστε είτε στην επιθυμία είτε στην πραγματοποίηση παρόλο που η μια διαδέχεται την άλλη και παρόλο που και οι δύο γεννιώνται ταυτόχρονα. Η αρχή διατήρησης της ενέργειας δεν τους επιτρέπει να δημιουργηθούν μεμονωμένα.
Επομένως χρειάζεται υπομονή. Υπομονή και γνώση ότι η πραγματοποίηση ακολουθεί την επιθυμία και η επιθυμία ακολουθεί την πραγματοποίηση. Ποιό γεννιέται πρώτο; Δεν έχει σημασία γιατί και τα δύο γεννιώνται ταυτόχρονα. Ταυτόρονα γεννιέται η κότα, ταυτόχρονα και το αυγό. Ταυτόχρονα χαμογελάμε, ταυτόχρονα νιώθουμε χαρά. Το ένα διαδέχεται το άλλο, αλλά στον υλικό κόσμο μπορούμε να βρισκόμαστε ή στο ένα ή στο άλλο. Και η διαδοχή χρειάζεται χρόνο στον υλικό κόσμο και εμείς χρειαζόμαστε υπομονή.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Wie frisches deutsches Steuergeld in die (schmutzige) griechische Wirtschaft fließt
(geschrieben von
einem Griechen)
Über 50 Milliarden Euro der griechischen Schulden werden in der Zukunft den deutschen Steuerzahler
belasten, falls Griechenland Pleite geht. Statt Griechenland bei zukunftsfähigen Projekten zu unterstützen, verschwendet Deutschland immer noch sein Geld in unwirtschaftliche Projekte. Die Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), ein staatliches Kreditunternehmen, steht hinter der Finanzierung eines neuen schmutzigen 660MW Kohlkraftwerkes in Griechenland, das sogenannte Ptolemaida 5. Das Kraftwerk wird rund 1,3 Milliarden Euro kosten, davon werden 730 Millionen Euro direkt von der KfW bereitgestellt. Der Kredit hat eine sogenannte Hermesdeckung: Zahlt der ausländische Kreditnehmer nicht, springt der deutsche Staat ein.
DEI, das staatliche Unternehmen, das die Investition trägt, ist ein Unternehmen mit einem Standard & Poor’s CCC+Rating (nur bei günstiger Entwicklung sind keine Ausfälle zu erwarten). Das Unternehmen muss mit bis zu 2 Milliarden Euro Schuldenerlass rechnen: Entspricht den aktuellen Schulden der griechischen Privathaushalte, die für Ihren Stromkonsum nicht mehr aufkommen können. Doch das kann der deutsche Steuerzahler tun: Falls DEI Pleite geht (und mit CCC+ kann das gut der Fall sein), muss der deutsche Bundeshaushalt die 730 Millionen zusammen mit ihren Zinsen übernehmen.
Die Bauarbeiten
haben schon angefangen. Nach dem Einsatz des Kraftwerkes muss Griechenland mit einer zusätzlichen
Umweltbelastung von 4,6 Millionen Tonnen CO2 rechnen. Ohne das KfW Kredit wäre
das Projekt nicht zustande gekommen. Durch das Projekt wird aber der CO2 Ausstoß
von Griechenland kräftig wachsen und auch die Schulden des Landes sowie des
deutschen Steuerzahlers. Stattdessen könnte Deutschland mit seinem Technologie Know-How einen wesentlich positiveren Einfluss auf die Energieversorgung in Griechenland nehmen.
Eine Schande für Deutschland.
Eine Schande für Deutschland.
Mehr Informationen:
Petition:
Μια ιδέα για την Ελλάδα: Pfand
Ζώντας αρκετά
χρόνια σε αρκετές χώρες έχω δει καποιες ιδέες που μου άρεσαν και θα μπορούσω να
φανταστώ και για την Ελλάδα. Μια από αυτές είναι και το σύστημα επιστροφής
μπουκαλιών, γνωστό στις Γερμανικές χώρες ως Pfand και στην Φινλανδία ως Pantti.
Το Pfand είναι ένα μικρό ποσό το οποίο
χρεώνεται έξτρα στον καταναλωτή κατά την αγορά ενός συσκευασμένου ροφήματος.
Αυτό μπορεί να είναι για παράδειγμα ένα κρασί, μια κόκα κόλα, ένα νερό, μια
μπύρα και γενικά οποιοδήποτε ποτό βρίσκεται σε ανακυκλώσιμη συσκευασία. Ο
καταναλωτής αφού χρησιμοποιήσει την συσκευασία, αντί να την πετάξει την
επιστρέφει πίσω σε ένα τόπο πώλησης του ροφήματος και παίρνει πίσω το ποσό του Pfand το οποίο είχε πληρώσει κατά την αγορά
του. Όλα τα σημεία πώλησης ροφημάτων (περίπτερα, σούπερ μάρκετ, μινι μάρκετ
κλπ) υποχρεούνται να δέχονται τα άδεια μπουκάλια και κουτάκια και να
επιστρέφουν στον καταναλωτή το Pfand. Τα σούπερ μάρκετ συνήθως έχουν ένα μηχάνημα το οποίο κάνει την διαδικασία
αυτοματοποιημένα διαβάζοντας το bar code της συσκευασίας.
Το πρώτο προφανές
πλεονέκτημα αυτού του συστήματος είναι οτι καταλήογυν λιγότερα αλουμινένια
κουτάκια και πλαστικά μπουκάλια στους δρόμους και στα σκουπίδια. Τα υλικά απο
τα οποία κατασκευάζονται αυτές οι συσκευασίες είναι ανακυκλώσιμα και ιδιαίτερα
βλαβερά για το περιβάλλον αν καταλήξουν σε χωματερές (υγειονομική ταφή) ή απλά
στο δρόμο και στις θάλασσες, αφού η διάσπασή τους είναι πάνω από 100 χρόνια και
στις δύο περιπτώσεις.
Το δεύτερο
πλεονέκτημα είναι ότι το σύστημα αυτό δημιουργεί μια σημαντική οικονομία για
φτωχούς ανθρώπους που σε άλλες περιπτώσεις θα ζητιάνευαν. Μιας και πολύς κόσμος
πετάει συσκευασίες στους κάδους των πόλεων (στάσεις λεωφορείων κλπ) ή απλά στον
δρόμο, αυτοί που δεν έχουν οικονομική ευχέρεια μαζεύουν αυτές τις συσκευασίες
από εκεί και τις δίνουν στα σούπερ μάρκετ για ανακύκλωση συλλέγοντας το ποσό
του Pfand. Το ποσό αυτό αν
και είναι σχετικά μικρό (από 0,10 Ευρώ ως 0,25) είναι πολλές φορές μεγαλύτερο
του ποσού που μπορούν να συλλέξουν από ζητιανιά στο δρόμο. Έτσι υπάρχουν
λιγότεροι ζητιάνοι και μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό ανακύκλωσης συσκευασιών.
Σε μια χώρα που
οι χωματερές έχουν γεμίσει και οι περισσότερες πλέον λειτουργούν παράνομα,
συστήματα σαν και αυτό έχουν μεγάλη σημασία για το περιβάλλον. Επίσης εφόσον
στην Ελλάδα δεν υπάρχει ακόμα αυτόματη διαλογή σκουπιδιών και τα περισσότερα
σκουπίδια δυστυχώς απλά είτε θάβονται είτε καίγονται (και τα δύο πολύ βλαβερά
για το περιβάλλον) αυτό το σύστημα είναι ένας πολύ αποτελεσματικός και άμεσος
τρόπος διατήρησης ενός καθαρού περιβάλλοντος.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Photography Tips: Selecting your first real camera
It is a whole different world owning a point and shoot camera and a single lens reflex (SLR) camera. Point and shoot cameras are lightweight, they fit in the pocket and they shoot pretty good pictures, especially when light conditions are good. SLR cameras are heavy, big, expensive, but they shoot a lot better and sharper pictures, especially in dim light conditions (evening, clouds, mist etc). They also have a lot more functions than a point and shoot camera. Some of them I would like to highlight later.
The selection of your first real digital SLR camera can be complicated, especially since you need to choose two parts, the body and the lense. Yes, SLR cameras, in contrast to point and shoot cameras, are usually sold without a lens. The lens has to be selected and bought separately and it is both the most important part of the the picture quality and the most expensive part of the camera.
Selecting a camera body is challenging, because this binds you to the lenses. You can't mount Nikon lenses on a Canon body and vice versa. Therefore many of the times the decision of the body depends on the decision of a lens that you like. My first SLR camera was a Nikon, since Michael, my friend who introduced me to SLR photography, had a Nikon and I could lend lenses from him. It turned out that I didn't lend so many times lenses from him, but I still have Nikon cameras, since all my Nikon lenses would be otherwise useless.
Generally for an SLR camera I would go either for Nikon or Canon. The debate Canon vs Nikon is an old debate where many pro photographers are fighting over technical details that a regular person would not understand. However I have seen brilliant pictures with both Nikon and Canon cameras, if the lens used was good.
Regardless of brand, the first choice you need to make is if you buy a full frame digital SLR camera or a crop sensor camera. The sensor is the most expensive part of the camera and it is the one that captures the image and replaces the traditional chemical film of the analog camera. The bigger the sensor the better, so if your wallet can afford it go for a full frame SLR camera. This defines also the lens that you will buy, since there are full frame (expensive) lenses and crop frame (cheaper) lenses. If you choose to go for crop frame, then you need to know that a crop frame (cheaper) lens is not suitable for a full frame camera. Full frame lenses can fit everywhere.
A very good site that can help you choose is this one: http://www.dpreview.com/
My personal favorite cameras are (both full-frame):
Nikon D810: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7947009894/high-end-full-frame-roundup/12
Canon EOS 5D Mark III: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7947009894/high-end-full-frame-roundup/11
A good comparison of full frame DSLR cameras can be found here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7947009894/high-end-full-frame-roundup?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
Going to the lens topic:
The main challenge for the lenses is that the zoom factor. The millimeter (mm) number that comes with every lens defines the focal length, meaning how much you can zoom with that lens. A low mm number means a wide angle lens and a high mm number means a telephoto lens. This means that with a 300mm lens you can zoom to that clock in the church tower from far away , but with a 24mm lens you can shoot the entire church, even if you are very near to it. The eye's focal length is equivalent to 45mm of a full-frame SLR camera. Everything below that value is wider angle than your eye can see and above that value is zoomed compared to what you can see.
When choosing a lens you need to know how bright is the lens. This is measured in its aperture, which is the f-value that is in the lens specifications. The lower this value, the brighter and more expensive the lens. This means that you can shoot better pictures even in lower light conditions.
Also when choosing lenses avoid general purpose lenses that cover all focal lengths. My first lens was a 28mm-300mm f5.6 lens. I used it for my first 5 years of shooting and then I packed it away together with the pictures I shot with it (now I judge them as low quality). My second lens was a brilliant fixed 50mm lens with aperture of f1.8. The difference in the pictures is immense. The same 50mm lens in f1.4 costs three times more, just for this 0.4 difference in its aperture. However this small difference is noticeable in the pictures you shoot. Therefore a rule of thumb for the lens is to choose the lowest f-value you can afford!
Finally, here is a picture I shot with my Nikon D-700 DSLR camera and my 70-200mm f2.8 Nikon lens:
This is a picture that can only be shot with an SLR camera. Notice the focused drops on the leaf in the middle and the out of focus drops in the back. This dramatic effect requires a zoom lens (more than 70mm) and a low aperture (less than f4.5). Also the clarity of the image is to be attributed to the quality of the lens.
Hope I helped! If you have questions please comment this post and I will be happy to answer them.
The selection of your first real digital SLR camera can be complicated, especially since you need to choose two parts, the body and the lense. Yes, SLR cameras, in contrast to point and shoot cameras, are usually sold without a lens. The lens has to be selected and bought separately and it is both the most important part of the the picture quality and the most expensive part of the camera.
Selecting a camera body is challenging, because this binds you to the lenses. You can't mount Nikon lenses on a Canon body and vice versa. Therefore many of the times the decision of the body depends on the decision of a lens that you like. My first SLR camera was a Nikon, since Michael, my friend who introduced me to SLR photography, had a Nikon and I could lend lenses from him. It turned out that I didn't lend so many times lenses from him, but I still have Nikon cameras, since all my Nikon lenses would be otherwise useless.
Generally for an SLR camera I would go either for Nikon or Canon. The debate Canon vs Nikon is an old debate where many pro photographers are fighting over technical details that a regular person would not understand. However I have seen brilliant pictures with both Nikon and Canon cameras, if the lens used was good.
Regardless of brand, the first choice you need to make is if you buy a full frame digital SLR camera or a crop sensor camera. The sensor is the most expensive part of the camera and it is the one that captures the image and replaces the traditional chemical film of the analog camera. The bigger the sensor the better, so if your wallet can afford it go for a full frame SLR camera. This defines also the lens that you will buy, since there are full frame (expensive) lenses and crop frame (cheaper) lenses. If you choose to go for crop frame, then you need to know that a crop frame (cheaper) lens is not suitable for a full frame camera. Full frame lenses can fit everywhere.
A very good site that can help you choose is this one: http://www.dpreview.com/
My personal favorite cameras are (both full-frame):
Nikon D810: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7947009894/high-end-full-frame-roundup/12
Canon EOS 5D Mark III: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7947009894/high-end-full-frame-roundup/11
A good comparison of full frame DSLR cameras can be found here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7947009894/high-end-full-frame-roundup?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
Going to the lens topic:
The main challenge for the lenses is that the zoom factor. The millimeter (mm) number that comes with every lens defines the focal length, meaning how much you can zoom with that lens. A low mm number means a wide angle lens and a high mm number means a telephoto lens. This means that with a 300mm lens you can zoom to that clock in the church tower from far away , but with a 24mm lens you can shoot the entire church, even if you are very near to it. The eye's focal length is equivalent to 45mm of a full-frame SLR camera. Everything below that value is wider angle than your eye can see and above that value is zoomed compared to what you can see.
When choosing a lens you need to know how bright is the lens. This is measured in its aperture, which is the f-value that is in the lens specifications. The lower this value, the brighter and more expensive the lens. This means that you can shoot better pictures even in lower light conditions.
Also when choosing lenses avoid general purpose lenses that cover all focal lengths. My first lens was a 28mm-300mm f5.6 lens. I used it for my first 5 years of shooting and then I packed it away together with the pictures I shot with it (now I judge them as low quality). My second lens was a brilliant fixed 50mm lens with aperture of f1.8. The difference in the pictures is immense. The same 50mm lens in f1.4 costs three times more, just for this 0.4 difference in its aperture. However this small difference is noticeable in the pictures you shoot. Therefore a rule of thumb for the lens is to choose the lowest f-value you can afford!
Finally, here is a picture I shot with my Nikon D-700 DSLR camera and my 70-200mm f2.8 Nikon lens:
This is a picture that can only be shot with an SLR camera. Notice the focused drops on the leaf in the middle and the out of focus drops in the back. This dramatic effect requires a zoom lens (more than 70mm) and a low aperture (less than f4.5). Also the clarity of the image is to be attributed to the quality of the lens.
Hope I helped! If you have questions please comment this post and I will be happy to answer them.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Κρίση χρέους ή κρίση αξιοπιστίας; (EL)
Μπορεί να έχουμε το υψηλότερο ποσοστό χρέους/ΑΕΠ στην Ευροζώνη, δεν έχουμε όμως και το υψηλότερο ποσοστό χρέους/ΑΕΠ στον κόσμο. Με ποσοστό 230% η Ιαπωνία κατέχει το παγκόσμιο ρεκόρ.
Γιατί όμως η Ιαπωνία είναι επενδυτικός προορισμός με πιστοληπτική ικανότητα ΑΑ ενώ η Ελλάδα δεν μπορεί να ελκύσει επενδύσεις;
Για να απαντήσουμε αυτό το ερώτημα πρέπει να εξετάσουμε με τι κριτήρια γίνονται οι επενδύσεις. Έτσι όπως γνωρίζουμε ότι οι τουρίστες το καλοκαίρι πάνε ως επί τω πλείστον στις παραλίες, οι οικονομολόγοι γνωρίζουμε ότι επενδύσεις πάνε ως επί τω πλείστον στους ασφαλείς προορισμούς. Ο μεγαλύτερος τρόμος του επενδυτή είναι να χάσει το κεφάλαιό του, γιατί αυτό και μόνο αυτό θα του εγγυηθεί το μελλοντικό του εισόδημα. Έτσι προσπαθεί να μεγιστοποιήσει την απόδοσή του, διατηρώντας όμως το κεφάλαιό του εγγυημένο.
Αυτό το προφανές δεδομένο οδηγεί στην διαπίστωση ότι οι επενδύσεις ελκύονται μόνο από αξιόπιστες επενδυτικές προτάσεις, έτσι όπως οι παραθεριστές ελκύονται από καθαρές παραλίες. Όταν διαμαρτυρόμαστε λοιπόν ότι οι ευκαιρίες επένδυσης στην Ελλάδα όπως π.χ. τα αεροδρόμια, οι αυτοκινητόδρομοι ή το οικόπεδο του Ελληνικού, δεν αποτιμώνται στο ύψος που θα έπρεπε, θα πρέπει να εξετάσουμε αν αυτές οι επενδυτικές ευκαιρίες προσφέρουν αξιπιστία και όχι μόνο αν προσφέρουν κέρδος. Και τι σημαίνει αξιοπιστία; Σημαίνει ότι αυτό το οποίο υποσχόμαστε είναι άξιο πίστης. Στις επενδύσεις σημαίνει οτι η απόδοση η οποία προβλέπεται θα είναι και η απόδοση την οποία όντως θα έχει η επένδυση. Στο επίπεδο της αξιοπιστίας βρίσκεται και η βασική μας διαφορά με την Ιαπωνία.
Στην Ιαπωνία όταν ένα τρένο αναγράφει την ώρα άφιξης, αυτό πραγματικά φτάνει την ώρα που υπόσχεται οτι θα φτάσει. Πρόσφατα οι Ιαπωνικοί σιδηρόδρομοι ανακοίνωσαν ότι η μέση καθυστέρηση άφιξης των τρένων μακράς απόστασης Shinkansen τα τελευταία πενήντα χρόνια ήταν 54 δευτερόλεπτα. Επίσης στην Ιαπωνία εάν ένα τρένο καθυστερήσει πάνω από πέντε λεπτά οι επιβάτες δικαιούνται να λάβουν ένα πιστοποιητικό καθυστέρησης για να το χρησιμοποιήσουν στην εργασία τους αφού και αυτοί είναι υποχρεωμένοι να είναι στην ώρα τους σε επίπεδο δευτερολέπτου.
Στην Ελλάδα όταν τα ακούμε αυτά γελάμε, γιατί ακούγονται σαν ιστορίες από άλλο πλανήτη, τελείως μακρινές από εμάς. Στην χώρα μας καθυστερούν όχι μόνο τα τρένα και τα λεωφορεία αλλά τα ραντεβού, οι πληρωμές, οι αποφάσεις των δικαστηρίων, οι δημόσιοι φορείς και το ταχυδρομείο. Επειδή η καθυστέρηση στην Ελλάδα συνηθίζεται, δεν διαμαρτύρεται κανείς (ωχ αδερφέ, πως κάνεις έτσι για δέκα λεπτά που άργησα να έρθω, ή μια μέρα που καθυστέρησα να πληρώσω κλπ). Έτσι όπως η καθυστέρηση είναι αθέτηση της υπόσχεσής μας να εκτελέσουμε ένα έργο ακριβώς στην ώρα που το υποσχόμαστε, παρομοίως και οι λοιπές μας υποσχέσεις έχουν ισχύ μόνο στο περίπου. Έτσι οι υποσχέσεις μας δεν είναι άξιες πίστης. Η έλλειψη αξιοπιστίας είναι θέμα κουλτούρας.
Έχοντας παντρευτεί Γιαπωνέζα, ένιωσα στην αρχή πολύ ξένος με την κουλτούρα τους. Στην εταιρεία της όλοι οι υπάλληλοι ξεκινάνε την εργασία τους στι 9:30πμ και όλοι είναι στο γραφείο τουλάχιστον δεκαπέντε λεπτά νωρίτερα ώστε να μην υπάρχει η πιθανότητα να αργήσουν. Η γυναίκα μου είναι στο γραφείο είκοσι λεπτά νωρίτερα ενώ οι περισσότεροι συνάδελφοί της είναι εκεί μισή ώρα πιο πριν. Όταν συναντιέται με τις φίλες της πάει πάντα 15 λεπτά νωρίτερα για να μην υπάρχει περίπτωση να αργήσει στο ραντεβού της. Όταν στείλαμε τα προσκλητήρια γάμου με το ταχυδρομείο από την Ευρώπη, αυτά φτάσανε στην Ιαπωνία μέσα σε μια εβδομάδα, ενώ στην Ελλάδα μέσα σε τρεις εβδομάδες.
Είναι λοιπόν το πρόβλημά μας το υψηλό μας χρέος; Αν ήταν τότε η Ιαπωνία θα έπρεπε και εκείνη να έχει πρόβλημα. Κι όμως με αυτό το χρέος ρεκόρ η Ιαπωνία ανήκει στις 7 ισχυρότερες οικονομίες του κόσμου, το γνωστό G7 group.
Στο βιβλίο μου "The Greek Tragedy - The European financial crisis in simple words" γράφω ότι στην Ελλάδα καταναλώνουμε πολλά εισαγόμενα προϊόντα (αυτοκίνητα, φάρμακα κλπ) για τις ελιές που εξάγουμε. Και αυτό είναι αλήθεια. Το ισοζύγιο τρεχουσών συναλλαγών (πόσα χρήματα φεύγουν από την χώρα μείον πόσα χρήματα μπαίνουν) δεν έχει υπάρξει ποτέ πλεονασματικό από το 1974 που υπάρχουν στατιστικά στοιχεία μέχρι σήμερα. Το αντίθετο συμβαίνει με την Ιαπωνία όπου τις περισσότερες χρονιές το ισοζύγιο ήταν πλεονασματικό. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι ενώ η Ιαπωνία λαμβάνει χρήματα για κατανάλωση των αγαθών της και επενδύσεις στην χώρα της, η Ελλάδα ξοδεύει χρήματα για κατανάλωση αγαθών και επενδύσεις σε άλλες χώρες (μετοχές, ομόλογα, καταθέσεις κ.λπ.).
Αυτή είναι και η ειδοποιός διαφορά που κατά τη γνώμη μου ευθύνεται για την κρίση. Αντί να κοιτάμε πως θα περικόψουμε τα έξοδα του κράτους κλείνοντας την ΕΡΤ και πως θα αυξήσουμε τα έσοδα με αυξήσεις στον ΦΠΑ πρέπει να δούμε πως θα αυξήσουμε τις επενδύσεις στη χώρα μας ώστε το ισοζύγιο τρεχουσών συναλλαγών να γίνει πλεονασματικό και σαν χώρα να λαμβάνουμε χρήματα από το εξωτερικό αντί να ξοδεύουμε. Μόνο με τον ισοσκελισμό κρατικών εσόδων - εξόδων και χωρίς επενδύσεις δεν θα καταφέρουμε να αποπληρώσουμε το χρέος και να λύσουμε το πρόβλημά μας. Μόνο με νέες επενδύσεις θα αυξηθεί το ΑΕΠ και θα καταφέρουμε να βγούμε ξανά στις αγορές. Και μιας και οι επενδύσεις αγαπάνε την αξιοπιστία όπως ο παραθεριστής την καθαρή θάλασσα, πρέπει να δούμε πως εμείς θα γίνουμε πιο αξιόπιστοι ώστε και οι επενδυτές να μας αγαπήσουν.
Η αξιοπιστία ως έννοια είναι χαρακτηριστικό της ανθρώπινης συμπεριφοράς και ως τέτοιο είναι ένας συνδυασμός συνειδητής (αποφασίζω να είμαι αξιόπιστος) και ασυνείδητης συμπεριφοράς (συνηθίζω να είμαι αξιόπιστος χωρίς να το σκέφτομαι). Εάν αποφασίσουμε συνειδητά να είμαστε αξιόπιστοι και επαναλάβουμε αρκετά αυτή την συμπεριφορά τότε η αξιοπιστία θα περάσει στο υποσυνείδητό μας και θα είμαστε σε γενικές γραμμές αξιόπιστοι σε όλες τις πτυχές της ζωής μας χωρίς να το σκεφτόμαστε. Αυτό παρεπιπτόντως συμβαίνει και με την αναξιοπιστία σήμερα στην Ελλάδα, γι' αυτό λέμε και ότι η αναξιοπιστία είναι μέρος της κουλτούρας μας. Είναι δηλαδή περασμένη στο υποσεινήδητό μας γι' αυτό και την εχουμε συνηθίσει και δεν διαμαρτυρόμαστε.
Αν λοιπόν γίνουμε γενικώς αξιόπιστοι, δηλαδή εφαρμόζουμε επακριβώς αυτά που λέμε τόσο στον προσωπικό όσο και στον επαγγελματικό τομέα, τότε θα είμαστε και πιο ελκυστικοί σαν επενδυτικός προορισμός. Οι επιχειρήσεις μας θα έχουν μεγαλύτερη αξία, η γή μας θα αποτιμάται περισσότερο και ακολούθως οι δημόσιες επιχειρήσεις θα μπορούν να "πιάσουν" καλύτερη τιμή στην αγορά. Σίγουρα ένα μεγάλο μέρος της έλλειψης αξιοπιστίας μπορεί να αποδοθεί στο δημόσιο, όμως το να κατηγορούμε τους άλλους δεν είναι ποτέ αποδοτικό. Είναι καλό να αρχίζουμε πάντα από τον εαυτό μας και να δίνουμε το καλό παράδειγμα και έτσι σιγά σιγά θα αλλάξουν και οι άλλοι γύρω μας και κατά συνέπεια και το δημόσιο, αφού το δημόσιο δεν είναι τίποτα άλλο από την συγκέντρωση πολλών από εμάς.
Γινόμαστε πιο αξιόπιστοι αν συνειδητά αλλάξουμε την συμπεριφορά μας και σταματήσουμε να ανεχόμαστε την αναξιοπιστία των άλλων. Πρέπει να είμαστε σκληροί τόσο με τον εαυτό μας όσο και με τους άλλους. Μια τεχνική που αναπτύχθηκε για αυτό τον λόγο από τον Sakichi Toyota για την βελτίωση της αξιοπιστίας των αυτοκινήτων του ήταν η προσπάθεια εύρεσης της πραγματικής αιτίας της αναξιοπιστίας (στην περίπτωσή του για ένα αυτοκίνητο) ερευνώντας τον λόγο σε πέντε διαφορετικά αιτιολογικά επίπεδα. Έτσι έβρισκε την πραγματική αιτία και μπορούσε να την διορθώσει με τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να μην ξανασυμβεί ποτέ. Ένα παράδειγμα από τα δικά μας δεδομένα θα ήταν το εξής:
- Δεν πλήρωσα τον προμηθευτή μου στην ώρα του. Γιατί;
- Επειδή δεν με πλήρωσε ο πελάτης μου στην ώρα του αυτό το μήνα. Γιατί;
- Επειδή αυτός ο πελάτης γενικά δεν πληρώνει στην ώρα του. Γιατί;
- Επειδή δεν τον διάλεξε προσεκτικά ο πωλητής της εταιρείας μου. Γιατί;
- Επειδή το bonus του πωλητή βασίζεται μόνο στο ύψος των συμβολαίων που φέρνει.
Επομένως για να μπορώ να πληρώσω τους προμηθευτές μου στην ώρα τους και να γίνω πιο αξιόπιστος θα μπορούσα να κοιτάξω τι μεταβολές μπορώ να κάνω στο σύστημα bonus των πωλητών.
Είναι στο χέρι μας λοιπόν να γίνουμε πιο αξιόπιστοι σαν Έλληνες, ο καθένας μεμονωμένα βέβαια και έπειτα κοινωνικά. Αν γίνουμε πιο αξιόπιστοι στην προσωπική μας ζωή θα είμαστε πιο αξιόπιστοι και στην επαγγελματική μας ζωή γιατί η αξιοπιστία θα μας γίνει συνήθεια. Και έτσι όπως όταν πάμε σε μια παραλία που έχει σκουπίδια φεύγουμε απο κει και πάμε στην επόμενη έτσι θα φεύγουμε και απο αναξιόπιστα άτομα και θα πάμε στα επόμενα.
Ας σκεφτούμε λοιπόν ξανά την κουλτούρα μας. Ας δούμε την κρίση με άλλο μάτι, γιατί η κρίση μας είναι πιο πολύ κρίση αξιοπιστίας παρά κρίση χρέους. Αν είχαμε επενδύσεις θα είχαμε ανάπτυξη, απασχόληση, πλεονασματικό ισοζύγιο τρεχουσών συναλλαγών και πιστοληπτική ικανότητα. Αξιόπιστα κράτη έχουν επενδύσεις. Αξιόπιστες επιχειρήσεις βρίσκουν κεφάλαια. Αξιόπιστες ιδέες υλοποιούνται. Αξιόπιστες χώρες δεν υποφέρουν από το χρέος τους.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
A third, irrational, bailout of Greece (EN)
As the talks in European countries and Greece are finalizing a third bailout of 85bn Euros, my reader's eye was caught by the following confession of our former finance minister, Yannis Varoufakis:
"There is something called the Hellenic Financial Stability Facility, which is an offshoot of the European Financial Stability Facility [EFSF]. This is a fund that contained initially €50 billion – by the time I took over it was €11 billion – for the purpose of recapitalising the Greek banks.
[...]
I discovered at some point that the law that constituted the EFSF allowed me one power, and that was to determine the salary of these people. I realised that the salaries of these functionaries were monstrous by Greek standards. In a country with so much hunger and where the minimum wage has fallen to €520 a month, these people were making something like €18,000 a month.
So I decided, since I had the power, I would exercise that power. I used a really simple rule. Pensions and salaries have fallen by an average of 40% since the beginning of the crisis. I issued a ministerial decree by which I reduced the salaries of these functionaries by 40%. Still a huge salary, still a huge salary. You know what happened? I got a letter from the Troika, saying that my decision has been overruled as it was insufficiently explained."
Source: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/august/1438351200/christos-tsiolkas/greek-tragedy
This confession of Yannis Varoufakis strengthened my opinion that I stated in my book "The Greek Tragedy", that "these people were not capable of saving our country".
Today the Greek parliament will vote on 57 new measures for the economy, most of them leading to a further contraction of the economy.
Here are some of the most obvious examples:
- Increase of the tax percentage of low incomes (below 12000 Euros per year) from 11% to 15%
My opinion: Increasing the taxation of the poor hurts the economy more than it helps. Taxation is a way to transfer money from the rich to the poor and taxing the poor is misusing one of the main tools of stability in capitalism. Especially when these taxes are used for bank rescues, the tax money flows from the poor people to the already wealthy international funds. This is a clear path to an increase in poverty in the future and of course social unrest. In any case poverty does not affect the rich classes, but the middle and lower class, which are a majority and therefore can cause political instability.
- Gradual cancellation of the preferential tax treatment of shipping companies
My opinion: Shipping, tourism and agriculture are the main business sectors that are left in Greece. They are the only ones that can trigger the much needed GDP growth. Increases in corporate taxation can lead businesses to flee abroad in our today's world open economic area. Especially shipping companies can be based anywhere since the boats are based on the sea and not on the land of a specific country. This is why Greece has a special tax treatment of shipping companies, in order to have them taxed in Greece instead of losing their entire tax income to another country.
- Increase of taxation in heating oil (about 0,35 Euros per liter)
My opinion: Heating oil is essential for the winter months in Greece. Taxation of oil is already high and most of the oil price consists out of taxes. A past increase of the price of heating oil has proved ineffective: People stopped buying it and instead were burning wood in fireplaces and ovens to warm up their houses. Since cheap wood ovens do not have proper filtering this practice caused massive pollution in Athens in 2013. In addition the total tax income of heating oil on that year fell by 400 million Euros, despite the higher tax percentages. This measure was a failure and it will be no different now.
It is very notable that most of those 57 new measures target to increase the income of the government. Very few target to reduce the expenses such as the following measure:
- Decrease in annual military spending by 100 million Euros
My opinion: This is nonsense. 100 million Euros is too low of an amount to be mentioned. The current military spending is 3.300 million Euros.
Just as it is revealed in the article I quote above, the target of troika all these years has been to increase revenue but not to cut spending. This practice, as I outline in my book, is leading to a shrinkage of the economy, which is not what is needed for the debt to be repaid. A growth of the economy is needed so that the debt can be made more viable as a percentage of the GDP. Since the measures have started in 2010, the debt to GDP ratio has risen from 112,9% in 2009 to 177,1% in 2015, not because of an increase in debt itself, but mainly because of a decrease in the GDP amount. Had the GDP remained the same as in 2009, then the debt/GDP ratio would be about 131% of the GDP instead of the current 177,1%.
It is clear that the measures needed for the debt to be repaid should target an increase of GDP and not an increase of revenues. It has been proven by the results of the financial policy of the last years in Greece that an increase of revenues through higher taxation damages GDP growth. Thus the revenue increase can only be short-lived, since tax revenues depend on the GDP.
The third bailout measures -to be voted this week- again target a short-lived increase of revenues. GDP is again predicted to fall. The European governments are asked to give further loans from their own budgets in the black hole of the Greek debt. This will not only hurt Greece but the entire European region. Those funds will be entirely lost in a non-viable debt. Even the IMF is not willing to back this action, since it states that the measures planned will not lead to an increased viability of the Greek debt.
My proposal is clear: If Europe wants to help Greece and itself, it should not give those funds, definitely not on condition of austerity measures. The hole is getting bigger and Europe will fall in it. A default of one country now is a lot more manageable for Europe as the same default after 10 years. Political stability cannot be guaranteed in a country with more than 25% unemployment. The same counts for Spain.
In my book "The Greek Tragedy" I propose measures to get Greece out of the crisis and the the GDP growing again. Those measures are some among hundreds of different possibilities that target GDP growth.
Modest GDP growth, sustainable unemployment rates and low inflation is the only way for any country to succeed in today's capitalism. It is no different for Greece.
"There is something called the Hellenic Financial Stability Facility, which is an offshoot of the European Financial Stability Facility [EFSF]. This is a fund that contained initially €50 billion – by the time I took over it was €11 billion – for the purpose of recapitalising the Greek banks.
[...]
I discovered at some point that the law that constituted the EFSF allowed me one power, and that was to determine the salary of these people. I realised that the salaries of these functionaries were monstrous by Greek standards. In a country with so much hunger and where the minimum wage has fallen to €520 a month, these people were making something like €18,000 a month.
So I decided, since I had the power, I would exercise that power. I used a really simple rule. Pensions and salaries have fallen by an average of 40% since the beginning of the crisis. I issued a ministerial decree by which I reduced the salaries of these functionaries by 40%. Still a huge salary, still a huge salary. You know what happened? I got a letter from the Troika, saying that my decision has been overruled as it was insufficiently explained."
Source: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/august/1438351200/christos-tsiolkas/greek-tragedy
This confession of Yannis Varoufakis strengthened my opinion that I stated in my book "The Greek Tragedy", that "these people were not capable of saving our country".
Today the Greek parliament will vote on 57 new measures for the economy, most of them leading to a further contraction of the economy.
Here are some of the most obvious examples:
- Increase of the tax percentage of low incomes (below 12000 Euros per year) from 11% to 15%
My opinion: Increasing the taxation of the poor hurts the economy more than it helps. Taxation is a way to transfer money from the rich to the poor and taxing the poor is misusing one of the main tools of stability in capitalism. Especially when these taxes are used for bank rescues, the tax money flows from the poor people to the already wealthy international funds. This is a clear path to an increase in poverty in the future and of course social unrest. In any case poverty does not affect the rich classes, but the middle and lower class, which are a majority and therefore can cause political instability.
- Gradual cancellation of the preferential tax treatment of shipping companies
My opinion: Shipping, tourism and agriculture are the main business sectors that are left in Greece. They are the only ones that can trigger the much needed GDP growth. Increases in corporate taxation can lead businesses to flee abroad in our today's world open economic area. Especially shipping companies can be based anywhere since the boats are based on the sea and not on the land of a specific country. This is why Greece has a special tax treatment of shipping companies, in order to have them taxed in Greece instead of losing their entire tax income to another country.
- Increase of taxation in heating oil (about 0,35 Euros per liter)
My opinion: Heating oil is essential for the winter months in Greece. Taxation of oil is already high and most of the oil price consists out of taxes. A past increase of the price of heating oil has proved ineffective: People stopped buying it and instead were burning wood in fireplaces and ovens to warm up their houses. Since cheap wood ovens do not have proper filtering this practice caused massive pollution in Athens in 2013. In addition the total tax income of heating oil on that year fell by 400 million Euros, despite the higher tax percentages. This measure was a failure and it will be no different now.
It is very notable that most of those 57 new measures target to increase the income of the government. Very few target to reduce the expenses such as the following measure:
- Decrease in annual military spending by 100 million Euros
My opinion: This is nonsense. 100 million Euros is too low of an amount to be mentioned. The current military spending is 3.300 million Euros.
Just as it is revealed in the article I quote above, the target of troika all these years has been to increase revenue but not to cut spending. This practice, as I outline in my book, is leading to a shrinkage of the economy, which is not what is needed for the debt to be repaid. A growth of the economy is needed so that the debt can be made more viable as a percentage of the GDP. Since the measures have started in 2010, the debt to GDP ratio has risen from 112,9% in 2009 to 177,1% in 2015, not because of an increase in debt itself, but mainly because of a decrease in the GDP amount. Had the GDP remained the same as in 2009, then the debt/GDP ratio would be about 131% of the GDP instead of the current 177,1%.
It is clear that the measures needed for the debt to be repaid should target an increase of GDP and not an increase of revenues. It has been proven by the results of the financial policy of the last years in Greece that an increase of revenues through higher taxation damages GDP growth. Thus the revenue increase can only be short-lived, since tax revenues depend on the GDP.
The third bailout measures -to be voted this week- again target a short-lived increase of revenues. GDP is again predicted to fall. The European governments are asked to give further loans from their own budgets in the black hole of the Greek debt. This will not only hurt Greece but the entire European region. Those funds will be entirely lost in a non-viable debt. Even the IMF is not willing to back this action, since it states that the measures planned will not lead to an increased viability of the Greek debt.
My proposal is clear: If Europe wants to help Greece and itself, it should not give those funds, definitely not on condition of austerity measures. The hole is getting bigger and Europe will fall in it. A default of one country now is a lot more manageable for Europe as the same default after 10 years. Political stability cannot be guaranteed in a country with more than 25% unemployment. The same counts for Spain.
In my book "The Greek Tragedy" I propose measures to get Greece out of the crisis and the the GDP growing again. Those measures are some among hundreds of different possibilities that target GDP growth.
Modest GDP growth, sustainable unemployment rates and low inflation is the only way for any country to succeed in today's capitalism. It is no different for Greece.
Friday, December 26, 2014
The Greek Tragedy - An excerpt from the new book
Walking on the esplanade of Loutraki I stopped to
gaze at the empty stores of the once vibrant city. Without local demand these
small businesses had to slowly die, like the flowers left without water for
days are dried to death. In the beginning they weaken, then their stems become
soft and unable to support the weight of their floral head. If watered they can
quickly revive, but if they are left dry they face a slow and painful death.
Once they die the water is not held anymore by their roots and the soil they
rest becomes their grave.
These stores were lifeless graves too. Even in the
unlikely event that Greece would exit the financial crisis, these stores would
remain empty, like the ghost towns of the U.S. Midwest reminding of the growth
during the gold and mining era. The human capital had already left for the
cities of the European north. It was no wonder why the property prices of
London and Stockholm were growing so rapidly after the crisis.
I was angry, not with the Swedish or the British,
but with our own incapable politicians, who surrendered our country to the Troika
unconditionally, in exchange for their pennies. They already had raised the
white flag, but the opponent wanted to have it all.
Looking to the front I noticed a hand waiving at
me in the background. It was John, or Sir John, as I called him sitting outside
enjoying his lunch on this cold sunny day. He was a retired businessman from
the U.K. who had bought an apartment in Loutraki to escape the grey winter of
his country and enjoy the tasteful food of Greece. Since I had lived in Britain
in the past, I was happy to meet him a year ago and he was happy to meet
someone, who was familiar with his culture.
- Manos my friend why don't you join me for a
drink? I just finished my lunch and I am about to order coffee. Would you like
one too?
Sir John was the only one customer sitting
outside, dressed in a short sleeve check shirt and a pair of elegant beige
trousers.
- Sir John, what a pleasure to meet you! I said
while zipping my jacket. I have plenty of time nowadays. When there is no
money, time is not an issue. I can sit here as long as I can keep myself warm.
- Come on Manos, the weather is lovely today! said
Sir John biting an ice cream he had ordered for desert. The sun is always
inviting and warm in this country!
- Well the maximum temperature was forecasted to
be eight degrees today and I bet they were right.
- But in the sun it's at least fifteen!
That was our usual starting conversation. In the
summer he was never here, he said thirty degrees was too hot, but for me it was
almost perfect. Ordering a hot chocolate drink I changed the topic:
- John, today I left my house determined to find
answers. Lately I only have questions like why I ended up unemployed or why my
country has come to its knees. I need to find answers.
- Oh Manos, in Greece every second shop is a
coffee shop or a restaurant. Do you still wonder why? These places are always
full of customers, even on working days!
- What do you mean John? Do you mean that we don't
work enough? Yesterday I was reading a study about the average working hours
per employee in Europe. Greeks are among the hardest working employees. In 2012
an average Greek worked 2034 hours while an average British 1654 hours. Even
Germans worked less at an average of 1397 hours[i].
- Manos, please don't take it personally. Maybe I
don't know this country as well as you do, but I also believe that people work
very hard and for long hours in this country. In Greece I have never been told
that the kitchen is closed in a restaurant. I was always served food, even if I
entered a restaurant at midnight. You know in the pubs of London they ring the
bell before 11pm. In Greece they never ring the bell. Opa!
- Exactly! It is not only waiters that work long
hours in Greece. Everybody works long hours here.
- Manos the question is not how much Greeks are
working, but rather how many Greeks are working. Let me check the Internet
quickly, said John taking out his smartphone from his pocket.
» In 2009 in Greece, just before the crisis, the
workforce was 5 million persons, representing 54% of the population. Out of
them 514 thousand were unemployed and 972 thousand were working either for the
public sector directly or the public interest companies. This means that only
38% of the population supported the rest, since public sector employees,
unemployed people and pensioners are supported by the taxes of the private
sector. In Germany half of the population supported the rest in 2012 with 41,6
million people working and 1,7 million in the public sector. This means that in
Germany one out of twenty employees work for the public sector, while in Greece
one out of five.
He was right. Our country's workforce distribution
was not sustainable. It al started in 1981, when the socialist government of
Andreas Papandreou, the father of George Papandreou, and his socialist party
Pasok came into force. He only stayed in force for eight years, but this was
enough for the public workforce to rise, the number of pensioners to increase
and the number of private companies to decrease drastically.
- Thus even though Germans work on average less
than Greeks, there are more of them working, earning and being taxed to support
production and their economy.
- John you know that I can't say anything against
this. Of course your opinion about the public sector employees is very harsh.
They are also productive, they also support; they are not only supported.
- Well my point of view is that of a businessman,
you know that. However you also know that the majority of the public companies
are partly financed by the taxes or government bonds. In other words the public
servants are overpaid since they are receiving more money than the taxpayers
can provide. Just this factor makes the economy less competitive in the global
arena and more vulnerable to imports.
- But what do you think will happen if the
government fires those employees to cut costs, as the Troika suggests? They
will only become unemployed, so they will be still supported by the government.
At the same time the quality of public service will not be the same with less
teachers or less doctors.
- Well, not all of them will be unemployed. Some
will find alternative jobs in the private sector, but I agree that the majority
would have to face to the same problems you are facing now. I am not in favor of
releasing public servants now; it won't bring anything positive. But my honest
opinion about the reasons that led to this situation is the size of the public
sector, the social benefits and the excessive government intervention. You know
I was a businessman, so my point of view is that of an entrepreneur.
- Well other countries in Europe are also offering
a handful of benefits. Look at France!
- Manos they are in no better position than Greece
and the IMF will be knocking their door soon. But you have to admit that early
retirement in Greece was unique. A working mother in the 1980s could get early
retirement, earning 40% of a full retirement package with just 15 years of
work. Starting to work at 18 it was theoretically possible for a woman to get
retired at the age of 33 and a man at the age of 43 with 25 years of work. What
a shame for the economy!
- You are right, but in other countries the system
is even worse. In Japan for example a woman who has never worked can get equal
pension with her husband when he retires.
- Yes, but only when she reaches the retirement
age, not at 40 or 45.
- Still you can't compare the lifetime of Japanese
with ours, I said half joking.
- Their pension system does not work either Manos.
Don't think that the Greek crisis will stay in Greece. Wait for some time and
you see more balloons bursting. You are young enough to live it and I might
even live it as well. The world economy is like a domino game: Once a brick
collapses, the other bricks are waiting in the queue. Do you think that our
E.U. governments were interested in saving you, because they sympathized your
people?
- Of course not! Most of Greek pre-crisis debts
were purchased by German and French banks.
- Let me use my smartphone again. It makes me feel
smarter!
Again he quickly typed something in his smartphone
and the answer came in less than two minutes. Sir John was a successful
businessman in his heyday and I could also understand why. His sons had now
taken over his family business and he could enjoy spending his pension in
Greece.
- So here we are: According to OECD[ii]
European banks were holding 130 million dollars of Greek debt before the
beginning of the crisis and all international banks were holding 180 million
dollars of Greek debt, which was about half of the entire sum.
- So basically the European Union funding was an
effort of European Governments to save their banks.
- Bingo! And by doing so they also used their
taxpayers’ money, my money as well. In other terms they used my money to save
the banks of my country, because these banks maintained an open credit
relationship with your government.
- Well they did not only finance the Greek
government. They financed other governments too.
- Manos remember what I will tell you: There is no
solvent government in the Euro area now. Not even in Germany. No government
will be able to repay its debt immediately if this is asked by the markets,
like in Greece. Don't feel guilty that you were not able to repay your debt.
But you should feel guilty that your government used up so much credit,
especially in the 1980s. And I should feel ashamed that the banks of my country
agreed to finance this debt. It takes two to tango. You enjoyed a heyday during
the 1980s, which was not backed up by an increase in production. It was a
bubble and this bubble burst. Your economy was not efficient enough to grow
without loans.
- Why do you say this?
- Well I will give you an example and through it
you will understand the burden of the Greek economy. I am very much interested
in renewable energy and my sons invested in wind power generators in various
countries. In all countries but Greece the investment was profitable. In Greece
you have too many burdens, too many regulations, and the authorities take too
much time to issue licenses. Greece was and still is not a country to invest.
Investments. This was the magic word of every
government, every president and prime minister. It was the instant solution to
all of our problems. If this country was to receive investments then its people
would be rich. Productivity would rise, output would grow, income would be
soaring and spending would be sustainable. But somehow investments were not
growing in Greece, just like grasses.
- I have lived enough time in Greece, I have also
tried to make my own business here, you know I am a businessman. However your
culture is too unreliable. When you say something, you don't really mean it.
You are talking with approximations, however a business decision is based on
certainties. Your law is not clear enough on what is permitted and what is not.
Your government changes its tax regulations almost every year. Contractors are
too unreliable. In England we work with promises. Here you work with guesses.
It was difficult to detest this statement. In 2013
the government decided to raise the tax of the shipping and cargo industry.
Usually this would happen with an advance notice, but not in Greece. The law
was put in power at the end of the year and it was effective for all the income
from the beginning of the year. As a natural consequence the budget forecasts
of all the businesses of the sector could be thrown to the trash.
- Manos your issue is cultural. Just as you are
not punctual in your appointments, you are not punctual in your promises as
well. And this bad habit of private life is transferred to the public life. The
bus does not come on time here and no one complains. In Japan if a train is
late for more than two minutes three times the driver is fired. It is thus no
coincidence that Japan is such a developed industrial country. Business needs
certainty more than high profits. Investors prefer a low guaranteed profit
rather than an uncertain high profit. At least the kind of investors you want
to have.
» Manos you need investments in your country. You
need exports. With your tourism you cannot finance your trade deficit. You are
consuming way too much from abroad for the olives you are exporting.
He was right. Just before the Olympics in 2004 we
were considered a fully developed country. We had just joined the monetary
union, we had access to low-cost credit, house prices were booming, individuals
were buying new imported cars and the government had even found 9 billion Euros
to fund the most expensive Olympic games ever organized by that time. Where did
we suddenly find all this money?
- Manos to understand what happened to your
country, you need to understand how capitalism works and how money is flowing
between individuals and countries. Let me explain this with a simple diagram to
you.
Sir John took his notebook out of his pocket and
began scribbling an illustration with figures, boxes and arrows. He was a
retired banker and it was obvious that his experience gave him an immense
knowledge of the way the economic system works. He was focused so much on his
sketch that he didn't even notice the waiter asking us if we wanted something
else to drink. I figured out that it was a waste for such a brain to be retired
from business.
- Voila! he said.
I took his notebook in my hands. On the first page
he sketched a simple diagram of a non-monetary economy, which means an economy
where goods are exchanged directly. On the second page he sketched a rather
complicated diagram of a monetary economy, where goods are exchanged through
currency.
- Manos look at the simple economy of the first
page. Our worker works 20 days per month in the factory and he receives 20
liters of milk as compensation. Out of this he exchanges 2 liters of milk for 2
kilos of rice with a worker of another economy that produces rice instead of
milk. He also has to pay 2 liters of milk tax to his government. This leaves
him with 16 liters of milk and 2 kilos of rice per month for the amount of work
he performed. Oh, excuse me for the crown, I am just used to Her Majesty!
» Now look at the economy of the second page. This
economy uses currency that is issued by a central bank. This central bank - for
example the Bank of England or the European Central Bank - lends the money to
the government and its member banks on interest. This is the way that initially
the money goes to the economy. The member banks lend this money to other banks
and to corporations with a higher interest. The more intermediary banks
intervene before the money of the central bank reaches its final receiver - the
companies or individuals - the higher the interest.
» Interest is paid by the government, the
corporations and individuals. Practically interest is paid by everybody who is
using the money. Since everybody using money has to pay interest every year,
everybody is losing some of the available money every year. In the economy I
sketched on the second page, every year 40 dollars are removed from circulation
inside the economy to pay for the interests. Therefore this economy will start
with 2000 dollars, but it will only have 1960 dollars available for trade next
year. In 10 years it will have 1600 dollars and in 25 years 1000 dollars. You
have to imagine the monetary economy as a balloon that has an unsealed opening.
This balloon will be contracting with time.
- Does this mean that in 50 years the economy will
have 0 dollars?
- Like a balloon the economy deflates as well.
This is indeed called deflation in economic terms. Fortunately in capitalism
the central bank is constantly inflating the balloon with more air than this
balloon is losing. Therefore it pumps money every year to the economy, which
pays for the interest and keeps the balloon size constant or even slightly
growing.
- And what happens to all this money that goes to
the banks?
- Investments. The banks are pumping money back to
the economy, but not necessarily to the economy that paid it. The banking
system is international and it pumps money to stronger economies, because it is
safer to do it there. Weaker economies have to pay more interest than the
stronger, thus money for weaker economies is more expensive. Capital is more
attractive for stronger economies, thus it is pumped constantly through the
banks from weaker economies to stronger ones. The same happens with weaker and
stronger companies and weaker and stronger individuals by the way.
» Capitalism is a system that transfers wealth
from the financially weaker to the financially stronger. Capital attracts
capital just like in physics mass attracts mass.
» Fortunately for the poor there are taxes. Taxes
have the sole purpose to transfer money back from the rich to the poor. Thus
taxes equal a systemic deficiency of capitalism and the economies can remain in
equilibrium.
That was interesting. I thought taxes were
collected for use in public investments.
- Manos, it is up to the government to decide
where and how it will give back the money to the economy. It can be through
public investments, pensions, salaries or other means. What is important is
that not all taxes are given back to the economy, since the government also
pays interest out of those taxes and this is why in my sketch the government
only gives back 150 dollars for the 200 dollars that it is receiving.
» Apart of interest, another leak of an open
economy is trade. Trade deficits are created if the value of imports exceeds
the value of exports, which can happen due to the relative price of goods, in
our case milk and rice. Thus in my example the economy is contracting every
year not only by 40 dollars, but by 80 dollars, since it maintains a trade
deficit of 40 dollars per year.
- This means that our economy will die even sooner
than in 50 years!
- Not exactly Manos. Capitalist economies use
currency for trade and currency fluctuates freely in the market. If one country
is importing more than exporting it will demand currencies of other countries,
so its own currency will drop. Therefore the price of import products will be
increasing and demand will be geared towards local products, which will also
become more attractive for exports. Also the relative price of goods will
change. Thus the trade balance and the prices will tend to come to equilibrium
by themselves. There is no trade balance that can be sustained in the long
term. Such a great system is capitalism!
- I am not sure about your last comment Sir John,
I protested. If capitalism was such a great system our economy would be working
and I would not be jobless.
- Well let's not forget that you don't have your
own currency anymore, unlike Britain of course. We are good bankers in my
country and we knew beforehand what was waiting for us around the corner if we
joined the monetary union. Since there is no currency fluctuation in Europe,
there is no way for you to close the financial hole of the trade imbalance that
I described. Thus if Greece was the economy I described in my diagram, it would
have a lifetime less than the 50 years. And there we come to my initial
statement that you import way more products than you are able to export. In the
last 40 years you have never had a single month of trade surplus!
- There are other countries with long-term
deficits! I detested. Look at the United States. In the last 40 years they
didn't have a single year of trade surplus either. And how about U.K.? Since
2000 you haven't managed to stop your continuously growing trade deficit.
- You are talking about countries with their own
currency my friend. If our kingdom had joined the monetary union we would be in
no better state than you.
» Remember again Manos: In capitalism, capital
attracts capital. The bigger country grows bigger and the smaller country
becomes smaller. The bigger company grows bigger and the smaller company
becomes smaller. The wealthy individual grows wealthier and the poor individual
becomes even poorer. You have giants in Europe and you are just a small spot in
the map, somewhere at the edge of Europe.
That was too much. He was talking about my
country. He didn't have the right to talk like that, just because he had money.
While we were inventing democracy, they were still sleeping in the caves. I
decided to remain silent, for the sake of our friendship.
- Manos in capitalism you always need a balancing
mechanism. Inside of a community this mechanism is taxation. Between
communities it is currency. Since Europe decided to become one community, it
needs a common taxation. Why do you think the United States have the federal
tax? If they didn't then Utah would have long been the home of homeless and
whoever was able to leave, would have fled to New York and California. In Europe
our politicians are inventing a new financial system, without having an idea of
finance. In Britain we know better my friend.
- Are you suggesting that Europe has no future
without a federal tax?
- Absolutely so. Capitalism is a ruthless beast.
You need to keep it under control. Remember the crisis of 1929. It triggered
the Second World War. Capitalism knows no boundaries. It can kill you and it
will.
The face of Sir John was serious. He meant every
single word he said and he was neither a fool nor an ignorant. But who would
convince German citizens for a federal tax? It was obvious that Germany was
richer than all other countries and taxation always falls on the shoulders of
the rich. But didn't they do the same after the unification of eastern and western
Germany? Why was the unification of Europe any different?
Sir John cut the two pages out of his notebook and
gave them to me.
- This is for you my friend. As for me, I will pay
the bill as promised and enjoy the rest of my day.
As he lifted from the table I watched this elegant
old man walking away with proud. I was just a wreck sitting alone on a table of
leftovers. I was sad and poor, my clothes were old and big, since I had lost a
lot of weight. I looked old, but I was younger than him. He was shining while
he was walking away. Was this the fate of our countries as well? Would they
also walk away proudly when the party is over, leaving us with the leftovers?
[i] Source: OECD iLibrary, Dataset Code: ANHRS
[ii] Source:OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends 2011 Issue 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)