• The sound is not so good and we’re missing the clear argument – can you write and publish here the script of this important interview. Thank you.

    • I listened to the interview earlier today, and I also had trouble hearing Yanis clearly to the point where crucial parts of his arguments were unintelligible. The point where I found this particularly unfortunate for myself was when Yanis was discussing Greece leaving the euro not being a solution. In my country, Denmark, the right-wing is all like “Greece some conduct a “responsible economic policy” and implement “reforms”” (Those terms, in extra quotes, are buzz-words in Danish synonymous with, respectively, bourgeoisie neo-liberal economic policy and austerity), and on the left people argue, rightly, that the problem is the euro, but that the solution is to enable Greece, through some mechanism, to leave the euro, reconstitute its own currency, so that it could devalue etc. etc., and in the long term abolishing the euro entirely and reconstituting national currencies, rather than redesigning the euro system with the necessary “shock absorbers”, as Yanis have elaborated on, to hopefully actually work.

      I, being on the far-left, have been unconvinced and utterly opposed to the right-wing’s ideas on this, probably not to anybody’s surprise, not only are they unjust but also illogical, as Yanis so elegantly has pointed out many times. However, I have also found myself being unconvinced by the argument from the other side, it has never struck me as making solid sense, although I confess I cannot really articulate why that has been my impression. That was the reason I really sharpened my ears when Yanis, during this recent interview, was laying out why Greece leaving the euro was not a solution.

  • IMHO, not enough focus on the “subject to” terms imposed on Greece.

    In essence Greece (via her acceptance of the packages offered) has saved Europe and for such magnanimous act she has been penalized and her economy destroyed by some rigid thinkers and hypocritical moralizers.

  • Excellent interview yet again! You are right, I believe, not to want to enter Greek politics, though this is a problem since no one in their right mind and of any worth at all would even consider setting foot in that snake pit. Some of us naively thought Papademos might be such a one. Till we saw his government! So we were disabused soon enough. Oh, and I agree absolutely with the Quisling analogy. As to the state of politics in this country, my son was in the Middle East recently and talking to an Egyptian colleague about up coming elections in Egypt. The colleague said we are in such a desperate situation we really have no idea who to vote for. So my son answered, we are in exactly the same situation in Greece. We have elections coming up (or so we are being told) and we have no idea who we could vote for either!

  • Dear Yanni,

    as a regular reader I have pestered you over time about the economic argument you make against Greece leaving the euro. This interview gave me an answer. Or I think it did, so
    I am just checking:

    You spoke of 3 alternatives in order of your preference:
    (a) defaulting inside the euro
    (b) leaving the euro, and
    (c) apply the policies of the memorandum

    You say that (a) is preferable to (b) because (b) means leaving the EU (not just the EZ) and also a dual currency will cause huge distortions in the market (everybody rushing to collect the circulating euros). I have my doubts about the problems of the dual currency
    (after all, before the euro we had the drachma and the gold liras). But I agree with the EU exit prospect.

    What I hadn’t realized (and I do read this blog frequently) is that you rate (c) below (b).
    It would be useful to outline this much more clearly. I really do.

    PS. As I said, I ‘m just checking… the audio quality was quite poor.

    • You are quite right. The only difference is that I think (c) should not even get a hearing. We should simply default within the euro. Period. Let them force us out. They can’t and they won’t. Simple. [This is why I am saying that (c) ought to be ruled out of court.]

    • Obviously, the time to have defaulted for Greece has passed by roughly 2 years.

      Defaulting at this point is like closing the barn door after the cows have left.

      Not only we have in our hands a wrecked economy courtesy of Merkel, but by defaulting now we would also be denied access to EU funds necessary to stimulate growth.

      Not to mention all the punitive clauses of the new PSI provisions of having replaced Greek law with English law.

      I think defaulting is no longer an option, even though in practical terms we are at the same level as if we have defaulted already.

      Other than a temporary relief akin to a sugar high, advocating to default now has very little practical benefits except some moral satisfaction.

      The case of Greece is an experimentation on the new EU governance. Declaring freedom after you have become a slave is not the same as dying as a free man. Leonidas is not the same as Spartacus. Because in the Spartacus case the oppressor will make an example of the slave rebellion with a far more undignified death.