"Governments that want to make progressive policies may not remain in the euro" -- "Los gobiernos que quieran hacer políticas progresistas no podrán permanecer en el euro" | VdeVerdadNews.com - Contrainformación 24h.
"Los gobiernos que quieran hacer políticas progresistas no podrán permanecer en el euro" | VdeVerdadNews.com - Contrainformación 24h.
Interview Costas Lapavitsas, professor of economics at the University of London
"The stabilization of the European economy has been rather by
destruction: the economy is destroyed, unemployment increases," says
economist Costas Lapavitsas Greek.
Costas Lapavitsas is a professor of economics at the University of London.
His latest book Profiting without producing is essential to understand
what he calls financialization, the uncontrolled growth of the financial
system and imposing their interests throughout society unaradiografía. In Spanish has released Crisis in the Eurozone, where charge against austerity measures in the eurozone. SYRIZA has high hopes, but warns that his principle of staying in the eurozone is serious resistance within their own ranks. Lapavistas was just in Barcelona invited by the Platform for Citizen Debt Audit, the Debt Observatory Seminar and Taifa.
How will the Greek vote in European?
There are a lot of discontent and anger, there is both despair and lack of organizational capacity.
I do not know if people in Europe so you understand, but the Greeks are
very frustrated but also very disappointed and feel weak.
Perhaps the Pasok-old Social Democratic Party-government completely
disappears, and New Democracy, the party of the right in power suffer
significant losses. SYRIZA is likely to grow up to be the most voted do not know if could govern alone. It is expected a growth of fascist party to stand as a second or third party.
European combined with municipal elections in Greece, will occur at the same time, will be a significant political event. The European elections can make a complete transformation of the political and electoral map Greek.
If the vote of the governing coalition of the right and the Pasok it
collapses, it will be very difficult for them to continue to govern with
stability and carry out the measures required by the Troika.
And this added to the nomination of Alexis Tsipras, the leader of SYRIZA, the presidency of the European Commission.
I think it's a mistake that Tsipras access the EU presidency, is very dangerous.
In any case, it is extremely important that SYRIZA does well,
especially if it becomes the most voted party in Greece, because it is
generating a lot of hope, both in Greece and in the rest of Europe. This occurs for several reasons: the left can finally be a key player does not have to be marginal. I mean, can become a real alternative government. But we must be clear what SYRIZA is capable of and what not.
SYRIZA will face great difficulties if elected.
In part because of its own internal workings, its composition, and also
some problems with the goals that you will find both at home and
abroad.
If SYRIZA does not meet expectations, lose control over their own
training or not up to scratch, left the situation to be very
complicated. The stakes are very high.
In 2012, there were in Greece, a default. From the results of this process, can we deduce that the default policy is a variable?
The way in which the Greeks made their default in 2012 is the worst possible way. No other country in Europe, or the world, should handle a default that way. If given, must be sovereign and must be considered from the needs of the debtor, not from the needs of the lender.
The Greek default was organized by the Troika and why it was so bad. What happened in Greece is that the default was private debt, not public. So the big losers were the Greek lenders, Greek banks, bondholders and Greek pension funds. As a result, the state had to borrow again to bail out banks that were in trouble after the default.
This must be the first time in history that a country makes default
against itself rather than against foreign lenders in order to restore
its economy. Greece restructured its debt and further complicated his situation. That's incredible. Therefore, the default is a very important element, but it must be organized differently. You are right, the policy here is very important. The policy approach is to be in the interest of the debtor with pressure from below.
In Spain the now widespread view is that we are safe from that situation. The Government, based on some positive macroeconomic indicators, says the crisis is over and we are growing.
Two things have changed in Europe similarly in Spain and Greece on 2010 and even 2012. The first is that in the periphery the current account deficit has decreased due to the recession. Imports down, therefore the external deficit has been reduced. The second is that the budget deficit has also declined due to the recession. So there has been some stabilization on the fiscal side and the current account.
Furthermore, this situation was reinforced by the actions of the
European Central Bank does more than a year, when Draghi said he would
do whatever was necessary.
Then the combination of shrinking the deficit and stabilizing the
financial markets Draghi has resulted in no immediate pressure of
default. Financial markets have calmed down.
But if we look at the real economy we can see that in fact, this
stabilization has occurred rather by destruction: the economy is
destroyed, unemployment increases, the recession is very deep. This is what the market is stabilizing. It is not a sustainable situation because it is unlikely to be rapid growth to repair the losses. All evidence indicates that peripheral economies will stagnate.
This is not to resolve the crisis, but to transform an acute financial
crisis in a lasting crisis in the real economy, which is what occurred
austerity measures
In Greece, just extend the moratorium why can not evict a first home. The situation in Spain is different, what is that?
In Greece the situation is quite murky. The Troika is pushing for the suspension of the moratorium to allow banks to get rid of some of their real estate investments. He says it may clean up their balance sheets so that when they have done so they can start lending again.
This logic is so intricate that fools no one: banks lend if we allow
them to throw people out of their homes because this is good for
balance. Only the IMF could invent something. It is too manufactured idea.
The Greek government not to lift the moratorium but is under pressure.
And I do not want to, not because I feel sympathy for the owners or
tenants, but because he realizes that it would suspend the moratorium
political dynamite. As Spain, Greece has one of the highest proportions of Europe owners. It is a cultural issue associated with the idea of social success. Begin to take people out of their homes because they fall behind in their payments involve a huge increase in political unrest. And the government knows it, so she is resisting. This shows the difference in opportunities for political action in different contexts such as Greece and Spain.
SYRIZA's position is not the majority within the left because it
opposes austerity but with a strong commitment to the single currency
and the EU. What does this position within the political framework of the EU?
For me it is exactly what the European ruling class wants. Because SYRIZA says: "We want to stay in the euro and will stay no matter what and it will be radical." But ruling class knows that this option is impossible.
What is really dangerous SYRIZA containing a radical-left current 40%
of the coalition, which disagrees with this proposal and that
potentially poses a danger of rupture. In other words, is not a reliable SYRIZA political body. It is unpredictable. And it is this possibility of a coalition radicalization what really worries the European ruling class.
Moreover, if it is chosen SYRIZA, there will be a growing popular demands, even if people are pessimistic and passive. If a Government of SYRIZA, want action on their salaries, pensions, work, etc., all kinds of demands. This really is a threat to the European ruling class. In addition, other European countries think, we can do the same. So SYRIZA embodies a promise but also a huge risk.
It seems that identifies "left" with the position advocated leaving the euro. Why?
To my knowledge, this is the only position that opens the possibility
of radical left policies that change the balance of power in favor of
labor against capital; policies needed to restore the damage done to
European countries in recent years due to the crisis. They are sensible, fundamentals, policies and redistribution control or nationalization of banks, reorganization of production.
These changes are impossible, in my opinion, within the monetary union
and mean the opposite of what it is today the European Union.
I can be more specific: a radical government in Greece should stop
paying a significant portion of the debt that is otherwise
unsustainable, and change the fiscal and monetary policies. We can not assume austerity, we can not bet on fiscal surpluses. Must have different policies, allowing the growth of the economy. A radical government should nationalize the banks and create public banks to give support to the reorganization of production. If we look at these proposals, we realize that they may not be within the structure of monetary union today.
Do not you think if we get to the situation where a government can
implement these measures, the European political situation has changed
so much that could conceivably change in the architecture of the EU?
Sometimes the left needs the nation state to protect the rights of workers and democratic rights, and can not be otherwise.
The Government of Greece or Portugal can not change the structure of
the European Union, but may intervene in Greece and Portugal. Of course, mine is not a nationalist argument. Sometimes you can use the mechanisms of the nation state to create an international power.
If given the possibility of a number of leftist governments in several
European countries in 2010 would talk, but now took four years of
crisis. And in these four years, Greece has been shattered, Portugal and Spain are very bad. We are not discussing about ideal cases. And we know that SYRIZA has a real chance of being in the government and have to decide what to do here and now.
If you come to power without a plan, thinking that you will change the EU, the result will be chaos. But there are a number of things you can do. And you have to prepare your people, keeping you informed of what is possible. You can engage people in this process, because ultimately that's where your strength comes from.
How to face off against the negative consequences of a transition type
as well, for example, the costs of return to a national currency?
They must understand that the choice is between a slow death, which is
what you have been experiencing, or a controlled shock that will leave
after.
If that is the case, the shock and its management will be easier: you
can speak on monetary circulation, nationalizing banks and put them
under public control and impose measures to prevent capital flight. Intervene in markets for oil, medicine and food. We will have to make provision for the immediate needs for a short period of time until demand returns to normal. All this can be implemented in a controlled manner if the leftist government is confident that it has to.
Much of his work focuses on financialization. Can you explain what it means and what consequences in contemporary capitalism?
Financialization is a term that refers to the growth of the financial
system that we see in the developed capitalist world in the past three
or four decades. Tremendous growth of finance, related to the rest of the economy. At the same time, there is an increased financial benefit. A huge proportion of unusual profits now comes from finance. We see that in the U.S. and in other countries where we have measured. We also know that the type of social strata get these financial benefits is now very different from before.
We know there are a small minority of people associated with the
financial system that gets a good share of these benefits through
bonuses, salaries and others, not to lend money, but as compensation for
working in finance. This changes the social stratification because this group of people have great power to influence public policy.
My view is that this occurs deeper than it looks and is a historic
transformation, structural transformation of capitalism form. Can we discover basically three trends.
First non-financial, industrial and commercial businesses have
financialised, which is not supported in both banks for their investment
and profit from their direct involvement in the financial system.
Second, banks have also been transformed and have begun to benefit from
other banks, both betting on the financial markets and lending to
individuals and families. And the third element is that families and individuals own-working people in developed countries-also have financialised. Borrow more and have more financial assets.
There is a major problem and that public services such as education,
health, pensions and housing-the essential-have been cut, and there is
now a privately run these utilities is mediated finance. And of course, you can not help to manage finances rights or basic needs. Therefore, wages are financialised, savings are financialised and financial system profits from them.
So if financialization means a big change in capitalism, how to adapt to this change struggles?
This is a good question on the left must start thinking.
Because history is important, we need to build on what was, but we must
adapt to the conditions present struggles and transformations undergone
by capitalism. We have to think about how to resist the financialization as reverse. We need to think of ways to restore public services.
Of course, you have to plan how to reverse the financialisation and how
to create public banks, and find ways to control capital flows, placing
restrictions on their movement. And you also have to think of ways to reorganize the productive economy. For me, fighting financialization reverse is the fundamental way to fight against capitalism today.
