Galbraith on Greece

[jk]

Re: Pilger on Greece

Here in Greece, the bitter pill of Austerity and Reforms could only be successfully handed to the electorate by a populist.

Hey, whatever it takes, I guess...

it took nixon to go to china. no democrat could have done it. similarly i doubt that a democrat could have gotten ratification for the treaties reagan negotiated with gorbachev. and, otoh, it took clinton to do away with "welfare as we know it."

[gnk]

Re: Pilger on Greece

True.

And Tsipras has the added advantage of not being part of the old guard. He never had a chance to dip his hands into the cookie jar during the lawless spending bubble days.

However, his coalition partner - Independent Greeks, headed by Panos Kammenos is not looking to good. Its popularity is falling, not that it was popular in the first place. They may not get the 3% needed for representation in Parliament. I don't see any other party willing to partner with Tsipras' SYRIZA if SYRIZA doesn't get a clear majority on its own.

Panos Kammenos, as I wrote in a post earlier, is the MP and Minister of Defense that used profane language to belittle the opposition, in Parliament no less - the "on all fours" episode. Well, he was visiting the island of Kos, where many Syrian refugees have been landing recently and the local Greeks gave him a special welcome.

They threw eggs at him and shouted obscenities, including the phrase: "on all fours!"

Meanwhile, Tsipras is a teflon politician of sorts.

Never a dull moment in Greece.

[ljaycox]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

I know this thread is a bit old old. But I want to personally thank Astonas and a few others who lead a very edifying conversation on this. This thread made me happy to still be coming to this site.
It does remind however how disappointing it feels to have the site leadership now committed to making a new toy to distract a new generation easily led nitwits.
Oh well. You take what crumbs you can find intellectually in this society and this thread was a meal about the weltanschauung driving the Greek situation.
I am very grateful the discussion did not get derailed on certain contentious points and want to thank everyone involved in helping me understand what is going on here.

[Polish_Silver]

investments vs social good

. . .
It does remind however how disappointing it feels to have the site leadership now committed to making a new toy to distract a new generation easily led nitwits.
. , .

I had the same thought about Mkues.

EJ does not always discuss the social ramifications of investment ideas. I think he liked Trutouch because of it's potential to improve
public safety.
I was a little surprised about Ej's participation in Mkues, but one way you could look at it is this:

0) Mkues technology might have possibilities other than advertising/brain washing.

1) If Mkues doesn't do this, somebody else will.

2) If I make money on Mkues, I can spend that on something beneficial for society: Nature conservancy, educating women in poor countries,
vaccine research.

A nation of impoverished saints get's less done than a nation of well heeled benefactors. (At least in my observation of the world)

[jk]

Re: investments vs social good

i think part of the attraction of virzoom is its potential to help the health of millions by fostering exercise in the form of play instead of work or duty.

i would also second ljaycox's statement that this thread is a product of itulip at its best.

[astonas]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

I know this thread is a bit old old. But I want to personally thank Astonas and a few others who lead a very edifying conversation on this. This thread made me happy to still be coming to this site.
It does remind however how disappointing it feels to have the site leadership now committed to making a new toy to distract a new generation easily led nitwits.
Oh well. You take what crumbs you can find intellectually in this society and this thread was a meal about the weltanschauung driving the Greek situation.
I am very grateful the discussion did not get derailed on certain contentious points and want to thank everyone involved in helping me understand what is going on here.

Thanks, ljaycox, though I think credit on this thread goes to other iTulipers at least as much as myself, and likely much more. gnk, in particular, provides first-hand insight that grounds more distant interpretations such as my own in reality. Without such close-at-hand validation, any contribution I might put forward would (and should!) be considered mere suspect musings.

For my part, I certainly enjoyed the conversation with such bright, informed, and engaged discussion partners, and I have to say that the opportunity to have my thoughts on such matters challenged and thus vetted here is a privilege that keeps me coming back to iTulip whenever my schedule lightens up enough to permit it. Your kind words of appreciation make this self-interest look more noble than it is, but I am nonetheless extremely gratified that you found benefit in it.

Thank you for your kind and generous assessment.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

September 1st

James Galbraith: First of all, it’s important to distinguish between the public rationale for the policies that have been imposed on Greece, which are as you describe, and the underlying reasons which are quite different. The public rationale is the notion that so-called structural reforms will produce growth. The underlying reason is that the creditors wish to get their hands on as many Greek assets as possible at the lowest possible prices. Once you see that you’ll see that the policies are quite consistent with the reason, though not with the rationale…

There is no “rescue” going on here. There is no “rescue,” there is no “bailout,” there is no “reform” going on. I really need to insist on this, because these words creep into our discourse. They are placed there by the creditors in order for unwary people to use them, but there is nothing of the kind taking place. What is going on is a seizure of the assets owned by the Greek state, by Greek businesses and by Greek households. There is no sense that this has anything to do with the recovery of the Greek economy or with the welfare of the Greek people. On the contrary, the policy is utterly indifferent to those considerations…

On the third point I’ll give you two examples. In 2010, the IMF came into the Greek loan, the largest in the history of the IMF in relation to quota, and the reason it did was that Dominique Strauss-Kahn wanted to curry favor with the French bankers because he wanted to become president of France. That was a personal political objective that basically subverted the mission of the International Monetary Fund. Jean-Claude Trichet again bought Greek bonds for the European Central Bank, to curry favor with the French bankers - not because it was in the interest of Europe, nor in the interest of the ECB….

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-eu...isoned-chalice

[astonas]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

September 1st

James Galbraith: First of all, it’s important to distinguish between the public rationale for the policies that have been imposed on Greece, which are as you describe, and the underlying reasons which are quite different. The public rationale is the notion that so-called structural reforms will produce growth. The underlying reason is that the creditors wish to get their hands on as many Greek assets as possible at the lowest possible prices. Once you see that you’ll see that the policies are quite consistent with the reason, though not with the rationale…

There is no “rescue” going on here. There is no “rescue,” there is no “bailout,” there is no “reform” going on. I really need to insist on this, because these words creep into our discourse. They are placed there by the creditors in order for unwary people to use them, but there is nothing of the kind taking place. What is going on is a seizure of the assets owned by the Greek state, by Greek businesses and by Greek households. There is no sense that this has anything to do with the recovery of the Greek economy or with the welfare of the Greek people. On the contrary, the policy is utterly indifferent to those considerations…

On the third point I’ll give you two examples. In 2010, the IMF came into the Greek loan, the largest in the history of the IMF in relation to quota, and the reason it did was that Dominique Strauss-Kahn wanted to curry favor with the French bankers because he wanted to become president of France. That was a personal political objective that basically subverted the mission of the International Monetary Fund. Jean-Claude Trichet again bought Greek bonds for the European Central Bank, to curry favor with the French bankers - not because it was in the interest of Europe, nor in the interest of the ECB….

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-eu...isoned-chalice

In this interview, Galbraith is making the same mistake that many analysts make, namely treating Europe as though it is already a single nation. It is most certainly not. At this stage, it remains a game between nations, being played for national political interests. Time will tell if it can ever move beyond this stage.

Here he refers to France, and correctly identifies the Anglo-Saxon-style capture of governmental and central-banking functions there. But he fails to identify that whatever France wins for its banks in this game, it comes at the expense of the ordoliberal faction. Thus, it is inherently incorrect to extrapolate France's motivations to all the creditors. Various creditor nations not only have different hidden objectives, these objectives are often directly opposed, and on occasion even mutually exclusive. Some creditors are indeed behaving as he describes, and France is quite clearly one of them. But the ordoliberal nations can only earn a "win" for their own banking systems if the French banks, placed at risk by light-touch regulations, lose sufficiently dramatically that more tightly-regulated banking systems again look good by comparison. That's how they'd like to re-establish market share in international banking. They need to crush French banks, not save them.

Galbraith, like Krugman and Varoufakis, repeatedly uses this erroneous "French and German" conflation. It is a lazy oversimplification.

At the risk of likewise oversimplifying, a similarly brief response is that even the most rudimentary research reveals that France and Germany are only infrequently on "the same side" when it comes to issues in Europe. If they appear close at times, it is safest to assume first that this is in a "keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer" sense. A better characterization of the relationship might be a broad and lasting economic rivalry, usually hidden behind diplomatic smiles. Their responses to Greece thus usually reflect conflicting and competing, not aligned, interests.

[LazyBoy]

Re: investments vs social good

I had the same thought about Mkues.
...
I was a little surprised about Ej's participation in Mkues, but one way you could look at it is this:

Mkues?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

In this interview, Galbraith is making the same mistake that many analysts make...

I don’t think Galbraith is conflating French and German interests except to say that creditors are creditors. They want 100 cents on the dollar and they don’t really care about reforms or the timing of asset sales.

The public has been bombarded with articles from Stratfor to Bloomberg to the Guardian about the German-French rivalry/split. Galbraith has been very articulate on this delving much deeper than most. He certainly is not lazy in his thinking, and should not be lumped in with Krugman.

It is interesting to go back and read this discussion in Harpers with Emmanuel Todd, Galbraith and others: How Germany Reconquered Europe…

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/02/h...ered-europe/2/

[gnk]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

September 1st

James Galbraith:

There is no “rescue” going on here. There is no “rescue,” there is no “bailout,” there is no “reform” going on. I really need to insist on this, because these words creep into our discourse.

Anglo American Intellectuals will never be able to spearhead reform anywhere when they use such nonsensical hyberbole. They lose all credibility , IMO.

No reform, no bailout, no rescue? Really? Obviously Galbraith doesn't live in Greece.

Who financed Greece's fiscal deficits the first few years of these non existent bailouts? Who prodded Greece to make necessary changes to its civil procedure laws, changes that have not been made since 1967? Who is forcing Greece to reform its pathetic, third world land registry ? (a must read) Who is breaking up special interest unions and guilds that have been strangling economic growth for decades? Who has forced Greece to do something, anything, about government corruption? Tax evasion? Unsustainable early retirements? I'll just cite those examples, as I have already posted countless articles in this thread detailing Greek corruption and dysfunctionality.

Greece has been a basket case for decades. I have seen real reform here in Greece (it still has a long way to go) that would have never occurred without EU "creditor" involvement.

Honestly, I stopped reading this article at the above quoted sentence. Sorry, it's intellectual dishonesty. I think Galbraith, who was a consultant to Varoufakis during the abysmal negotiations that led to capital controls, is merely presenting his side and not the entire story. Yes, unfortunately the EU member states have taken advantage of certain aspects of the memorandum, but that should be no surprise.

Why? Because in the real world, where grown ups live, if someone else has to get your house in order because you cannot, don't expect them to be 100% altruistic. There's always a price, and a choice.

That's the lesson of the day.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

Anglo American Intellectuals will never be able to spearhead reform anywhere when they use such nonsensical hyberbole. They lose all credibility , IMO.

No reform, no bailout, no rescue? Really? Obviously Galbraith doesn't live in Greece.

Who financed Greece's fiscal deficits the first few years of these non existent bailouts? Who prodded Greece to make necessary changes to its civil procedure laws, changes that have not been made since 1967? Who is forcing Greece to reform its pathetic, third world land registry ? (a must read) Who is breaking up special interest unions and guilds that have been strangling economic growth for decades? Who has forced Greece to do something, anything, about government corruption? Tax evasion? Unsustainable early retirements? I'll just cite those examples, as I have already posted countless articles in this thread detailing Greek corruption and dysfunctionality.



That's the lesson of the day.

According to Furgeson, Austria went through a similar process in the 1920's and escaped the worst of the inflation that later affected Germany.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/op...ht-region&_r=0

[astonas]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/op...ht-region&_r=0

I think his ending paragraphs say a great deal:

If the “Athens Spring” — when the Greek people courageously rejected the catastrophic austerity conditions of the previous bailouts — has one lesson to teach, it is that Greece will recover only when the European Union makes the transition from “We the states” to “We the European people.”

Across the Continent, people are fed up with a monetary union that is inefficient because it is so profoundly undemocratic. This is why the battle for rescuing Greece has now turned into a battle for Europe’s integrity, soul, rationality and democracy. I plan to concentrate on helping set up a Pan-European political movement, inspired by the Athens Spring, that will work toward Europe’s democratization.

This reads to me like Varoufakis has finally realized that the academic's conception of a unified European political culture, which all his previous actions assumed was already present, is really not in place yet, but still needs to be forged. If he is sincere in dedicating himself to doing so, that act is a demonstration that his error was borne of mere ignorance, rather than the more dangerous fanaticism.

A little late to the party, but progress of a kind. If he had realized this before he became finance minister, he could have spared Greece a lot of the hardship that stemmed from reversing the nascent economic recovery there with his negotiating tactics -- all of which were meant to appeal to a popular sense of European solidarity that does not, in fact, exist more broadly yet.

His pursuit of a coherent pan-European political movement -- even if it winds up just creating an ideologues' party -- could force opposing ideologies to do more of that as well, and encourage political thinking that actually does transcend national borders and regional blocks. One more step towards a unified Europe.

I suspect that he may not fully appreciate the magnitude of the task he is now undertaking. The disparate cultural elements he will be seeking to unify have built up in layers, over literally thousands of years, and are deeply embedded in long-lived and pervasive structures like languages' grammars, and idiomatic identity narratives, making even simple communication about them exceedingly difficult to translate. His persuasive prose in English (and presumably also Greek) may not be as effective in translation as he imagines. He is, after all, an economist, and not a linguist or rhetorician.

Nevertheless, greater European unity is a worthwhile ideal to pursue, and I for one sincerely wish him luck in his new endeavor.

He has not helped his future path by vociferously attacking, instead of listening to, those Europeans who have long understood what he has only just now accepted. But I suppose when Saul became Paul, his prior transgressions were even worse, so only time will tell if these scales falling from Varoufakis' eyes has a similar impact.

I suspect his success will depend on whether he learns to sincerely listen to divergent positions, and not merely spend all his time in the more confrontational stance of an advocate. This does not appear to have been his greatest strength over the past months, but freed from the incredibly oppressive obligation to represent a whole nation in negotiations, a more humble Varoufakis may be revealed as his more authentic self. If so, he could well play a defining role in bringing together certain previously irreconcilable cultural factions, and making European politics about ideas, more than nations.

He is in a unique position to be either extremely helpful, or extremely destructive, to the greater European project. The difference will lie not in whether he imagines he is being helpful (I don't question his motives) but in the choices he makes about how to pursue his ideals, meaning which ones to prioritize. Which will come to the fore, the "economic theorist", or the humanitarian? At this point, he could as easily wind up an out-of-touch extremist ideologue as a founding European statesman.

It will be very interesting to watch how his next few years unfold.

[astonas]

Re: Galbraith on Greece

I don’t think Galbraith is conflating French and German interests except to say that creditors are creditors. They want 100 cents on the dollar and they don’t really care about reforms or the timing of asset sales.

This doesn't fit the data. 15/19 nations are now considering Grexit as viable. That is an explicit acknowledgement that they would be repaid with a devalued currency. It is the exact opposite of getting 100 cents on the dollar. Only those nations whose foreign policy is directed mostly by strong Anglo-Saxon style banks, who are holding huge side-bets on the matter, are insisting that such an explicit private-sector default must never happen (as Trichet first did in 2010). In the EMU, that's France, Italy, and Cyprus. In the EU of course the UK is added to the list.

The public has been bombarded with articles from Stratfor to Bloomberg to the Guardian about the German-French rivalry/split. Galbraith has been very articulate on this delving much deeper than most. He certainly is not lazy in his thinking, and should not be lumped in with Krugman.

I will gladly stop lumping Galbraith in with Krugman when I am shown a substantive difference between their views. I mean that seriously, it's most likely I haven't read the same articles you have. Show me one major difference, and I'll separate out my criticisms.

The only difference I've found is style: Krugman writes more in the popular press, and so gives himself latitude to make more obviously risible statements in the name of communicating with the masses. Galbraith writes and speaks in more academic tones.

Their actual economic philosophy, and also their implicit unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of any other, is almost interchangeable.

Krugman tries to rally the masses to rise up. Galbraith tries to lobby the intellectuals. But the theory, and the intellectual dishonesty in presenting it, is exactly the same.

Try it. Diagram out the key points in any of their actual arguments. So far, I haven't found one significant point made by one that I would expect the other to disagree with, based on their own writings.

There's a difference between being articulate, and being rigorous. If your point is that Galbraith comes off sounding better, I'll gladly concede that point now. If you are claiming he's actually making better arguments than Krugman (meaning in substance, not style) that's what I'd strongly dispute.