31 Comments

• Nice video and showcasing of your eurostar power, Yani.

  However, the overall framing of the DW narrative is disturbing (as is everything based on the propaganda of lies and deceit). Under the the pretext “that no one really knows” and “the economists are still talking and haven’t figured it out yet”, Germany continues to clear the table with big winnings while pretending to be ignorant and clumsy as everybody else about this “crisis thing”.

  Nice theater really. The poor Germans are eating everybody’s lunch while pretending that such was never their intent and that they are as dazed as everybody else about this “darn crisis” which can’t go away but it’s so effing profitable for the Bundes-innocents of sorts.

  The sheer duplicity, insincerity, and deep down exploitation of these criminals makes my stomach turn.

• And as this theater continues, I guess the only way change will come about is if we “turn against each other” as the Professor said with whatever consequences…. I don’t expect politicians will budge – they have sold their soul to the devil.

  • You mean you don’t like political theater? Even if the presenters are attractive?

• Milken Institute conference discussion this week with Bernard Connolly and Hugh Hendry.

  Investors talking about the implications of their asset allocation given the EURO crisis. If you like it or not the French/ClubMed vision of Europe just would not attract a lot of capital:

  From wikipedia:

  Hugh Hendry is a Scottish fund manager at Eclectica Asset Management. He has become prominent in the United Kingdom for his commentary on the financial crisis.

  Bernard Connolly is an Oxford educated British economist from a working class background[1] noted for his pessimistic analysis of the Euro. After writing The Rotten Heart of Europe: The Dirty War for Europe’s Money, a negative treatment of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, he was terminated in 1995 from his employment at the European Commission. An appeal of his dismissal to the European Court of Justice was unsuccessful.[2] As of 2011, Connolly, 61, was working as a financial consultant in New York City.[1]

  You should all read that book to understand how fucked up the EU is!!!

• To Dean and Dimitri

  By reading your posts, and enjoying this nice discussion i have a new question for you. My purpose is to discuss proposals and underlying logic. I rather like to see the things from as many perspectives as possible.
  Allow me to put my question in a context first. There is a false dilemma about a national currency or Euro. There is a false dilemma about going out of Europe or not. It’s important to stress why it is false.It is false because It is evident, based on your thoughts as well, that the right strategy and planning of Greece is a bit of both.
  But this combination is extremely difficult to be expressed as a proposal.
  It creates two poles that none of them will yield in practice the intented, wanted result.
  A direction towards clinging on Europe, a Europe though that makes it extremely difficult for us(both Merkozy and our “bright” minds lead to that).
  Towards a pan-european solution which answers to the systemic crisis, but Europe is not willing to implement.
  A solution, which Varoufakis and others states that is a possibility for a better Greece but not a certainty.
  On the other hand, out of Europe, either if we want it or not, cuts the links with our alliaces which are important for our future development. Whether this development means knowledge trasfer, investments, support of Greece in terms of bargaining power. Having though the chance to use macro-economic tools for our growth.

  How do we combine all these? One thing is for sure, it’s not a game for amateurs. (Point to Dean, though Samaras for me is not the one). A game for bold people with very very good communication skills.
  The implementation requires national unity, it is absolutely important for people to back up such government. This is an additional reason for PASOK and ND to move away. What is good and what is wrong unfortunately can not be judged on the spot.

  Nevertheless, we must point out that greek people has shown extreme patience and holding off against extreme solutions (point to Dimitri). Which shows some of our good merits. I am optimistic that we will have good developments as early as this year. I firmly believe that it’s extremely easy to unite all Greeks at these circumstances and therefore i am optimistic.

  • How do you combine such proposition into a comprehensible and simple manner?

  • Ilia:

    In practical terms: Leaving the euro now after a 50% erosion on your assets already, it will mean an additional erosion of 80% on what is left. In rough calc terms it means that you are going to end up with 10% of the original asset value. So, at this stage leaving the euro is like closing the barn door after all the cows have left.

    People unity and coalition/unity government are not the same thing.

    I think, as you say, Greeks are already united in wanting their brightest and best to come to the aid of the country. However, a coalition government is the opposite of uniting. It’s a tower of Babel where each one speaks a different language. What you are trying to achieve (which is some form of mezethakia government – or a little bit of everything government) is unworkable by definition. Unity is not something that translates in the practical world of politics. If you accept unity in politics it means by definition to cease the idea discourse and surrender yourself to tyranny.

  • You are right about what you say Dean. The whole idea of my saying is that you must have a plan B! And be ready to implement it if you must.

    I agree with your discrimination between unity of Greeks and unity in government. What i was trying to convey is that Greeks are united in exactly that. If political parties fail to take advantage of that, it’s another big fail for them and for us.

    Now, isn’t the non-implementation of memorandum a goal for the people? It’s unfair, it’s been totally criticized all over the world, it’s perfectly normal and understable by everyone that Greek people should oppose to that with all their power.

    Imagine what people of Europe will think. After all this destruction the last two years, greek people still re-elected the same government. How bad this sound? And i am not talking about pride or democratic fights. I am talking about inter-nation communication.

    I have mentioned it again and i ll repeat it. The communication strategy in foreign policy that Papandreou and Diamantopoulou followed was a disaster. I still remember a debate in BBC where the journalist was defending Greece and Diamantopoulou was arguing that we deserve what we are been through and it is our fault and Euro is the perfect currency. The reaction of english friends of mine was frustrating.

    Oland used as a tool that he’s going to help Greece. If our image of us outside Greece is that of a victim and still re-elect the same government, other european nations will not sympathize with us.

    Ofcourse, this is not a significant argument of not voting ND and PASOK but believe me it counts.

    I know what you mean about the coalition government, Papadimos was the perfect example to support your argument. But what can we do? Put in power a party ready to implement memorandum II. This is madness.
    At least, i “believe” that if a anti-memorandum coalition is formed, anti-memorandum bills will not pass, at least not without a fight.

    Let’s see what the outcome will be first because i don’t believe in opionion polls.

    But tell me really, i am curious, what do you think that ND will do if manage to form a government on its own. Do you think that this is a prospect? Φως στο τούνελ?

  • o.k. And NO, I don’t think the memorandum terms should be adhered to. The PSI, according to Venizelos, was his idea and was done without consultation with the Greek people. So, it needs to be reversed.

    And if it were up to me, instead of political elections first we would be having a national referendum with a Yes/No vote on whether all memoranda should be abolished (on the basis that a European funding obligation has arbitrary Merkel terms attached to it). And it would be after the results of such referendum that elections should be held because then the public could ask the candidates the only question that matters:

    “How are you going to reverse the terms of the memoranda”.

    BTW, the same referendum will have two clauses attached:

    1. That any future negotiations with the EU need to approved only via future referenda voted by all Greek citizens.

    2. That it expressly prohibits FALSE dilemmas such as “staying or not staying in the EU”. Any politician who raises the question of leaving the EU should be imprisoned for life under the state terrorist act(which we must promptly enact).

  • Great idea, we will also have a referendum in Germany and vote on sending more money to Greece “yes” or “no”! (ok via Greece to French banks)

  • Sounds good what you say, but one more thing. I am against the undelying logic of the memorandum as it is. Cuts to all in the same way. Tax raids, saies of public infrastracture for a tiny fraction of its value etc is destructive and lead to a downward spiral. In such global crisis, underinvestment etc, it’s been discussed all over the world that it’s wrong.

    I agree to the basis of the logic, reforms in public sector, reforms in enterpreneurship enviroment etc. But such reforms should have been done a long time ago by the same people (PASOK and ND) that are declaring the same thing once again.

    To my logic, these parties are interested in one thing and only. How to please themselves and their contributors. It’s been proven. Why don’t you vote Manos or dhmiourgia ksana. I am sure that they will do a much better work towards this direction.
    Why to vote ND? I don’t believe to this ideology, so i am interested in them. Let alone that, as Varoufakis mentions in his article, their program is out of subject in terms of the global crisis we are all in.

    Generally i like your ideas about the memorandum though. It’s clear and fair, but memorandum must be on the right track as well.
    It must necessarily be your way though, no implementation can be managed without the will of the people.

  • What i would like to see is open – minded amateurs getting the lead and Samaras conveying ideas. The right parties will be the mental filter.

    If it doesn’t succeed don’t worry Dean ,we will be here for you to make us feel like s–. 🙂

    But i accept the pain. I am willing. And no ,i am not rich.

  • @ Dean

    I totally agree with the referendum ,but it is not part of the reality we are experiencing.

    Again what ever you say is correct.
    And what i am saying is that Samaras being the one will keep us eventually in the same reality.

    It is just what it is.

  • @ Ilias

    Someone else could do some of the things that Samaras suggests.

    We do not leave the eurozone and we renegotiate the memoranda.
    But in such a way that we create a parallel reallity in Greece.

    One that should have been created a long time ago.

    Free inventions ,
    lower taxes for certain businesses ,
    an environmental outlook
    etc.

    but truthfully.

    Now noone has a complete plan and noone will ever have ,not only now but even if we didn’t have the troika over our heads ,if the plans are dictated by the markets and the overlords.

    Samaras has plans. He is an expert of the game. But they are not for us.
    They may seem they are ,but come on already.

    Dean talks about lack of unity in politics. Correct.
    There is a reason everybody has opposite systems of action.
    So they can always find excuses for what they decide.

    “We made that decision based on the markets ,because that was the reasonable thing to do.”
    “We made that decision based on politics ,because that was the reasonable thing to do.”

    And everyone will be right. They truelly will.
    The analysis shown to you will be absolutely reasonable.
    One decision based on the logic of the markets and another based on the logic of politics. Two different subframes of a broader one.

    So they can always and forever say something that it actually is correct.
    What we do not get is that every time they choose what suits them better. The markets and politics are uncompatible systems.
    This is their advantage. This is what we do not comprehend.

    Then every analysis we make is a part of an already established grid ,a system over the systems that manipulates the flow of decisions.

    And Samaras is part of that grid.

    One more time ,if Samaras becomes a government he may “save” Greece.

    And then we sleep again.

  • Again sorry for my writing too much.

    When PASOK and ND fight ,it is a false fight. A lie.
    They are the same. Even their own politicians may not comprehend this but they are.

    Then we have the extreme left and the extreme right.
    Some may say that they are just too faithfull to their ideologies.

    BS. They are slaves of their ideologies. They do not see reality as it is ,they want to force reality their own absolute ways at the level of human activity.

    This is for KKE and LAOS and GOLDEN DAWN.
    Then we have clones of them and political toxic derivatives.
    KKE especially has many.
    Away with them.

    We have the center ,which always talks and talks and talks and talks and talks and says nothing at all and does even less.

    Why do they exist? Why do we let them? They offer nothing.

    Everybody becomes a slave of ideologies. And everybody proves that she/he thinks logically. As you do Dean. Logic can still prove that the Earth is flat. Until the mind sees the broader picture. Then suddenly the Earth changes shape.

    Ofcourse Samaras is the logical choice. Of the already established logic.
    If we do not want to comprehend that they tell us the Earth is flat ,we vote for him. If we want to see the broader picture we don’t.

    Ofcourse whatever we choose will be considered treason by someone. Especially by those that will not be able to cope with more parameters.
    People have died for a single idea. Not necessarily for a complete ideology but for the truth.

    Do not get to close to the highway as close – minded scientists do. They only see their own car ,not the others coming at them.
    Go up the hill.

    Ofcourse parties are not ready. Let them drown and let people revive them. Eventually they must understand that their opposite suggestions are half parts of the same circle. Two parties may be mirror opposites.
    Maybe the independent greeks with the ecogreens.

    As i’ve said before ,they can agree at everything if they are not fanatics and see that is the different weight they put at every matter and the different reference – sentimental impact they use that causes them to disagree.

  • @ Crossover

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=19265

    Exactly. That is what i am talking about when it comes to psychology.

    @ Dean and Ilias

    Read this and also read the comments below. Especially the comment of jrbarch about the Yoga sutras of Patanjali.

    Dean when i am talking about higher principles i am not talking about ideologies. I am talking about what is. Whether we like it or not.

  • o.k. Ilia and Dimitri.

    Obviously if you are already convinced that Samaras will not do, then there is no point for me arguing that he might.

    The purpose of this argumentation is not to reveal the private right of choice that every citizen has. The purpose of this argumentation is to examine the logical construct that leads to a decision on the vote.

    Dimitri’s argument is that if I self-segregate and self-isolate myself in a room, obviously I am missing the whole world perspective.

    And what I am saying in response is let’s examine the mechanics one should use in arriving at a decision. The reason the name(Samaras) has been given is to underscore two obvious realities here:

    1. Your enemy(let’s call it Merkel) wants you divided.
    2. Even if you arrive at the right choice, your enemy wants you to doubt it. Actually seriously doubt it. (this is part of the art of war).

    And since the best victories in war are the ones you never have to take the battlefield to fight for, your enemy wants you defeated before you even vote.

    You fill in the blanks. I don’t know how else to say it.

    If something is beneficial for you, your enemy will convince you that is not and in fact the art here is to use your own exact arguments so that your final decision feels and looks like a “no brainer”. The fact that all of us have already decided that 3 different solutions to the same problem are possible, ought to give you pause at at least one or more of us are wrong. It doesn’t matter who is wrong, for this discussion. What matters is that we have already decided with certainty on what we think is right.

    Unless I am mistaken, your enemy wants:

    a. A coalition government
    b. Not for Greece to have a single party government under any circumstances.

    You are saying: I can’t vote for Samaras or Venizelos because they are one and the same. You then proceed to cast your vote for the alternatives.

    Casting your vote for the alternatives:

    1. ensures that a coalition government will be formed.
    2. that your vote of choice will not be the government in command.

    This is just a simple observation but it would appear to me that your enemy (using perfectly plausible arguments, in fact your very own; so such arguments are as authentic and solid as they come) has been able to convince you to do the precise thing that your enemy wants (produce a coalition government). It further looks to me that between two evils (choosing a fellow that you find absolutely unacceptable, and a fabricated solution provided by your enemy) you chose the evil offered by your external enemy because you can’t stand the internal front-runner. You may be right. I, on my part, will chose the opposite on the basis that a devil I know is better than a devil I don’t. I can’t be any more practical than this, even if you ask me.

  • You are amazingly clear and practical Dean.
    Yes you are perfectly right.

    But knowing already that most people will not do such a thing ,you have to plan for the next step. And for me the next step is to strengthen the procedure of inputing more data in the system ,hopefully more than even Merkel can process.

    Unfortunately it is a fact that Greeks do not have a common plan yet so the expected dividing occurs.

    Everybody can thing of something logical and have a reason to act upon his thoughts. Exactly because this happens ,dividing and conquering is possible. That is why i said we should not be to close to our own highway. Yet again this is what happens. We are all becoming a part of the procedure. I just choose to acknowledge that ,as you did now and take an action that may give the opportunity for evolution.

    You on the other hand acknowledge the diversity and decide to take an action that may bring us back to the same old structures.

    This dividing and conquering of the enemy is known. And it was expected what will happen in Greece.

    It is not about who is right or wrong ,not about ideologies. We do not have the education to not become slaves of our own minds. Greece hasn’t evolved for quite some time.

    My point is that i lay my hopes on the fact that this dividing will shake people’s heads.

    So i might as well vote for higher principles and more input.

    We will have dividing any way ,let’s make this dividing our own advantage ,so that the powers that be can not cope.

  • In other words you choose the most practical solution ,but this solution does not reflect reality as it is. I choose to strengthen reality in order to force it’s change.

  • Strengthen to the point of pressing more than it can preserve it’s known status.

    And now i can not get more clear than that.

  • Always be the broader frame. And when you do not have data ,to make a most accurate decision ,do the better thing. We can not be sure of all the decisions of the powers and we have to acknowledge that.

    So ,now that we have more parties ,the procedure is this:

    The president will suggest the first party to form a government. If it is not accepted ,he will suggest the second. Then the third. The end. After that ,elections again.

    Until then i expect a lot of parliamentarian turmoil. Most people today are not that fanatics about their parties ,except of the known fanatics ,so problems will not reach a new practical high. I want them however to reach a new mental high. Gain clarity people.

    I wouldn’t want this if i was expecting a lot of brainless activity from the majority.

    Now we see. Either a solution appears or we revert back and have Samaras not as a new refreshed leader ,but the same old stuff.

    Now according to known data about the condition of education in Greece ,it is unfortunately a fact that people haven’t yet grasped the idea of changing their own habits.
    So, without making predictions ,one could say that the probable future is for us to revert back.

    Atleast now we have a chance for a white swan event. A black swan event for the powers that be.

    Now do you see the broader “logic”?
    (Remember that at the level of individual human activity (too close to our own highways ,confused thinking that we can control uncontrollable parameters) ,logic is what we make of it).

    Who’s the man? 🙂

  • “Now we see. Either a solution appears or we revert back and have Samaras not as a new refreshed leader ,but the same old stuff.”

    I am not talking about Samaras only. I am talking about any “Samaras”.
    I am just using Samaras because he was a part of the discussion with Dean.

• About the voting strategy, that you suggested in your article in protagon today. This must change for sure. The current voting system is a disgrace for democracy and makes the voter easy to be blackmailed.
  What you suggested reminded me of Eurovision.
  Nevertheless i would like to vote people independently of political parties. Good candidates are not privilege of one party only. It’s stupid to be blackmailed. And candidates are blackmailed as well, because big parties tend to remind the candidates after the elections that their authority belongs to the “institution”.

  • After all, in political history, people are those who are remembered for their contribution, not parties. And this not by accident.

• Bill Mitchell here debunking several myths.Austerity maniacs feel free to read:

  http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=19265

• What we have here is a plutocratic(aka oligarchic) state called Germany – whose official state religion is a soul corrupting extreme form of mercantilism – interfering with the democratic process of another state, Greece(which is already imploding by unsustainable pluralism making it ungovernable). The aim of plutocratic Germany is to push Greece into some form of Tyranny (aka coalition/unity government) whose sole purpose is complete obedience with the German oligarchic terms.

  Plato wrote about in The Republic. He spoke of an ideal state and then four regressive forms(one worse than the other in a descending order):

  Timocracy
  Oligarchy(plutocracy)
  Democracy
  Tyranny.

  Germany is serving Greece all the worst political choices imaginable under the guise of reform. And of course there are plenty of naive Greeks who are buying such nonsense by either becoming willing collaborators or traitors to their own citizens.

  There is only one way to get out of this mess which is to elect our own independently strong government able to defend our state. Putting ideology aside, we ought to accept the wisdom of the Greek electorate which has already chosen Samaras (ND) as the lead party. Our job now is to make sure that whatever the lead party is, that such political group is given the tools to do the job. Factionalism at this stage is treason and stupidity of the highest order both serving the enemies of the state.

  BTW – I agree with Yani’s high marks of Drasis (Manos) and Thimiourgia Xana (I just befriended him on Facebook the other day). But their voices are not loud enough to make a difference.

  http://www.protagon.gr/?i=protagon.el.8emata&id=14893

  • “Timocracy
    Oligarchy(plutocracy)
    Democracy
    Tyranny.”

    How about a more healthy form of Personocracy?

    I am trying to convey the meaning that these categorizations were created to help us and instead we became their slaves.

    Everything exists at the same time. We decide were we will give power to.

    That is why i want more voices. In order for the system to get more input that it can handle. Then if people are ready it either will reorganise to something superior or if people aren’t we will fall back again.

    If Samaras was to have a government this chance would have gone to hell.

  • Dimitri:

    I agree with the voices part. The more the better. However, in the age of Twitter, Facebook, e-mail and 10 more others ways to communicate with politicos on a daily basis about many issues of the Polis, do we need to waste a vote as a form of protest?

    If as citizens we feel compelled to talk to our politicians frequently and without limit, why don’t we do that and then when it comes time to cast a vote we cast it because we believe that’s the best government. Not the best ideology.

    A vote is a form of mandate. Not a form of approval. It’s antiquated politics to use a vote to approve of disapprove a political party. Those times that citizens rarely had contact with their government and in the few instances they had they used it to deliver a message are gone. You can deliver millions of messages if you wish on a daily basis using modern technology.

    The purpose of a modern vote is to say “I checked you all out and it is YOU, the person I am voting for, that you should form a government to govern. The voices part is old and non applicable in modern politics. All we do all day long is listen, talk and argue. A vote is when the argumentation phase is over and the practical phase of effective/efficient government begins.

    If I have an opinion as a citizen and you want to know what it is, all you have to do is Google my name. But when I vote it means that I have chosen the most probable form of practical government. Not where I belong ideological. Football fans vote preference. Competent citizens vote highest probability regardless of personal preference.

    If Tsipras for example had a reasonable chance of providing able government then a disciplined citizen would vote for such after carefully excluding all other possibilities. Good politics are NEVER personal, but always communal. Your vote is not about you it’s about us.

• For those speaking Greek, here is the video of Tsipras. Do you think his performance is flawless?

  • he was much better at the inter-channel one but … personally i think all his logic and speech was protest and critique not solutions and clear standings. And this is the reason i don’t trust him. Voting him seems to me like a blank cheque. His party is large enough and long enough in parliament to have produced plans and solutions… It may sound harsh, but he’s claiming governance, is he not?

    P.S. Neither ND and PASOK really had ever a plan, but my expectations at these times, requires more clear standings and thinking.

    I am not going to vote Kammeno, but he seems to know a lot about defence and foreign policy. And he definately has some clear standings in some issues. That’s a plus for him. And i am not referring about his public speeches which are awful and populistic but to the following interview.

    Dean, you should see it, it’s interesting.

  • What do you want Dean?

    A different makeup for Tsipras? A better suit?