Greek Debt Tan

Karl FitzgeraldMultimediaLeave a Comment

Renegade Economists 206

Listen to the podcast weekly, broadcast from the almighty 3CR.

Broadcast Oct, 26th, 2011

Listen to the interview.

K.F: Let’s have a chat with Yanis Tziligakis. He’s a New York based academic – he’s got a bachelors, a masters, and a phd in the field of physics – he’s now realized he’s got to get his head around economics and he’s headstrong into it, in the last 3 years doing some really good stuff on creative commons. We started off talking about Jeffrey Sachs’ new book. He was off to see his speech earlier today. Sachs’ new book is called the Price of Civilization. Anyway let’s get into this right now.

Can you give us a broad brush overview of the Greek economy? How much money do they owe? What’s the next tranche of debt they’re struggling to gain finance for at present? Set the scene for us.

Y.T: the level of the Greek debt is about €350 billion but of course that’s sensitive to the interest rates. Now Greece got about €110 billion bailout from the European Union and this is channeled- it’s been given to Greece in installments so this is exactly what the current problem was because Greece is supposed to be fulfilling certain obligations for each installment to be handed to it. Now as you can understand the problem lies in that those expectations that the Greek economy has to be fulfilling every time the new installment comes due to be paid out is that they are unrealistic. Or let me put it they are overly optimistic.

The Greek government thinks that they can target their deficit by austerity but at the same time losing track of their income – the tax revenues keep shrinking because of the austerity. It seems to me that the battle of tax evasion which is the main affliction of the Greek economy, if not of most of the economies around the world, that’s the battle that is impossible to win without international cooperation and that’s what Greece is lacking right now.

K.F: How do people evade their taxes in Greece? We hear a lot of stories of corruption going on there but tell us some of the stories you’ve heard of how the social contract in Greece is somewhat different to most countries, where only fools pay their taxes.

Y.T: I think the problem of tax evasion is not a moral problem. I’m against this corruption nuance that’s been passed around and I don’t think tax evasion is a corrupt act. I think it’s an act that makes economic sense. It basically shows that the citizens do not trust to give their money to the state. So, actually the Greek citizens have withdrawn their trust from the Greek government way before the markets sniffed something iffy in the Greek economy. Now it’s sort of a vicious circle of merry-go-round.

Greeks are very entrepreneurial people. 80% of the work force are entrepreneurs and only 20% are public servants so that’s another defamation that Greece has been afflicted with that it’s a country of an overgrown public sector – overgrown, overpaid and basically an inefficient public sector . That’s not actually true.

Greece is actually on the bottom tier of the European Union as far as size of public sector workforce and the size of its salaries that are devoted to the public sector. So the tax evasion has a very interesting nuance that actually nobody has picked up yet. The nuance is this – if the Greeks were simply tax evading, Greece wouldn’t have a problem because Greece would have been shrinking its economy and the cost of living in Greece would be going down if the Greeks were simply exporting their money overseas but that’s not really what is happening in Greece.

The money gets evaded to offshore tax havens and mattressed to places like Switzerland, the Caymans – Greeks are champions in offshoring – and the money comes back to the country untaxed – inflating real estate prices – which affects the overall cost of living and the cost of doing business. So that’s how Greece gets doubly hurt by tax evasion.

K.F: Tell us about the size of the Greek property bubble through the 2000s – how high did it grow?

Y.T: Greece’s real estate index inflated from the years 1993 to about 2008 – it inflated about 225%. So Greece has wealth – but it is under the mattress we call “slow turnover yielding capital”. That is called, in common parlance, real estate. Now the tragic-comic aspect to this is that offshore companies hold the bulk of this real estate and they artificially make Greece expensive for its own citizens.

K.F: Phenomenal – and then the property tax system in Greece has the curse of taxing the improvements like it does in so many other countries, so I hear there are lots of unfinished houses with steel turrets poking out of the roof as if the house isn’t really finished (only finished houses pay property taxes on the improvements). Is that one of the common sights around Athens and so forth?

Y.T: The common sight in Athens – but I haven’t visited for a few years – but a number I’m going to give you, Karl, is that a few months ago they had about 200,000 vacant properties – lets say available for sale or rent – I mean that’s an amazing supply of housing, however, the ratio of wages and pensions to rent has been constantly decreasing. In other words it becomes more and more unbearable to come up with the everyday living expenses especially for people who are getting unemployed and especially for pensioners.

Everybody’s talking about unemployment relief and extra relief to the pensioners but nobody can see that an immediate relief, which would be of no cost to the budget of the government, is by taxing rents and thus forcing them (house prices) down.

Another impact of the high rents is also on Greek businesses. About 1000 Greek businesses outsourced themselves – like they leave the country to go across the border – it’s a similar situation between the United States and Mexico. Its almost like it reaches the realm of the tragic-comic in Greece because it looks like Greeks keep shooting their own feet but they don’t seem to realize they are doing that. And it’s tragic for all these Greek companies that Greece is too expensive for them but Bulgaria isn’t. That’s the effect of high rents of an inflated real estate market which affects both workers and businessmen – it affects both labor and capital.
Read More

Do Revolutions Work?

Karl FitzgeraldArticles1 Comment

David Smiley

David Smiley is the author of Crumbling Foundations and Third World Intervention – A New Analysis

Revolutions usually start with the violent toppling of some hated figurehead, for example the French Louis XV, the Russian Tsar or some recent Middle Eastern despot. Revolutions usually finish in confusion. This is because, after the smoke and confusion of battle, a hastily patched up government may have given little thought about what comes next. And so, unless the underlying causes of revolution are carefully examined, then important opportunities for reform may be lost, and the revolution may not be successful.

In these articles I will examine a number of revolutions, look at some of the opportunities that were lost, and draw some conclusions. But first, how do we define revolutions?

Classical Marxists saw revolution as the violent anti-capitalist uprising of an urban proletariat. But the urban poor in Paris and St. Petersburg had fled there from rapacious rural landlords, then to be fleeced by rapacious urban landlords. Even today, in the slums of Rio or Mumbai, most of the proletariat would identify the oppressor with the rent collecting slumlord or protection racketeer round the corner rather than some conceptual capitalist. Marx would not have recognised today’s slum dwellers, without factories, workshops and work, without capitalist bosses, in a muddle of informal and criminal activities far beyond class mobilisation. Finally, since I wish to include some revolutions that have been non-violent, or simply evolutionary, I will therefore take revolution to mean any major socio-economic transition.

I must start with a few simplifying assumptions. I will test each of these against a number of revolutions. Where these assumptions do not fit I must explain why. Here, then, are my preliminary assumptions. Revolutions occur when relative deprivation becomes intolerable and some window of opportunity opens. Whether violent or non-violent, the focus on a king, a dictator or an occupying power prevents clear thinking about the powerful agencies that prop up this figurehead.

In a country sliding towards revolution, one of these agencies may control capital assets, collecting monopoly rents. A contemporary example is the Egyptian military. Another agency, a network of absentee landlords and slumlords, collects the land rent. Contemporary examples can be found in Kolkata, Mumbai or in any Latin American city. And a third agency controls the extraction of natural resources, collecting resource rents. Contemporary examples include the Saudi royal family and, at the time of writing, Colonel Gadaffi. Finally, there may be an external agency, an occupying power or a transnational corporation, often in collusion with one of the other agencies in order to share out the rents. So, when the king has been toppled, reforms that do not understand the power of these agencies may be quite inappropriate and the revolution is therefore unsuccessful.

A major object of these articles is to identify, for each case study, non-violent alternatives that could have avoided the huge costs suffered.

In part one I will analyse three classical revolutions, the French, Russian, and the Chinese up to the death of Mao Zedong. In part two I will examine four non-violent revolutions: an evolutionary one called the Industrial Revolution, the coercive but peaceful creation of the Asian Tigers, the spontaneous one that followed the death of Mao, and one called the bourgeois revolution in India. In part three I will trace recent evolutionary revolutions that are experimenting with something that is itself revolutionary, the use of social media.
Read More

Real Estate 4 Ransom this Sunday

Karl FitzgeraldCommentaryLeave a Comment

Our second Melbourne screening of Real Estate 4 Ransom will be a huge day.
We hope you can join us.

2.15pm – Melbourne’s Magic Money Walk
3.30pm – Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt introduces the film.
4.10pm – Co-Directors Karl Fitzgerald & Gavin Emmanuel Q & A
4.30pm – Drinks downstairs

Melbourne’s Magic Money Walk

Co-Director Karl Fitzgerald will head a walk through Melbourne’s real estate hot spots, describing how the interplay between community, government and creativity adds millions of dollars in magic money to the lucky few.

Why have certain shops turned over? Why have some been for sale/ rent forever? What are the stories behind developments during Melbourne’s recent apartment supply blitz. Speculative vacancies anyone?

The free 45 min walk will end up at ACMI cinemas to see Real Estate 4 Ransom the film.

Meet at the Roundabout near Victoria markets on the corner of Queen and Franklin st, call 0433255721 if you get lost.

Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt will introduce the film. What hope is there for affordable housing?
See the trailer.
Or Collect the Ransom.
Buy your tickets to the film for $10.

200th show – Hudson on the Great Russian Ripoff

Karl FitzgeraldCommentaryLeave a Comment

Renegade Economists

Subscribe to the weekly show linking economics to reality in an age of monopoly.

Michael Hudson was recently interviewed for our 200th show, following his visit to President Medvedev’s Global Policy Forum. The interview has gone viral following a link from Naked Capitalism and Michael’s popular site.

Listen here

Transcription

Karl Fitzgerald: Michael Hudson, our old friend here on the Renegade Economists, from the University of Missouri in Kansas City, has just returned from Russia speaking at the Global Policy Forum. Michael, tell us about the GPF.

MH: well that’s organized by President Medvedev more or less as an anti-Davos. Whereas the Davos invites many of the financial people to figure out how to run the West further into debt the subject of this forum was Russian poverty and how to overcome the fact that in the last 20 years the neo-liberal program that promised that Russia and the rest of the soviet republics would get rich has simply driven them all into debt and impoverished them.

KF: And so 30 years on from glasnost there must be quite some sense of concern about where the Russian economy has ended up.

MH: there certainly is. It’s been losing not only capital flight of $25 billion a year to the west but its people have been emigrating and President Putin, now Prime Minister Putin, has said that the demographic effect of just privatizing Russian real estate, and industry and following western advice has lost maybe 30 million Russians from what the normal demographic growth would be to 2050. So the effect of neo-liberal financial policy has been more devastating to Russia than WW2.

KF: 30 million people have gone due to neo-liberal policies?

MH: that’s right. The birth rate has fallen, life spans are shortening, and this is throughout the former Soviet Union. People of working age are emigrating. Instead of getting rid of the old Stalinist bureaucracy the neo-liberals simply privatized it and the result of course is corruption. Now public officials that used to be in charge of handing out public policies and administering them- not very efficiently its true – simply say give us a bribe or we won’t work.

In Latvia, for instance, people who go to doctors are expected to pay the doctors under the table in a little white envelope…but most notorious of all is the real estate debt they’ve taken on. What’s unique is that, just imagine, 20 years ago when there was the revolution that turned over power to Yeltsin in Russia and broke up the Soviet Union there wasn’t any debt at all. Families had all been living in their homes without paying rent and getting a free public education, public services were free and employers provided lunch, vacations and pensions, cultural and all of these connections were pulled up. And all of a sudden instead of just turning over the property to the people who lived in the homes and the businesses that used the offices the government said, okay, we are going to put it all up for sale and let the banks, usually the foreign banks, lend you the money, to buy it.

And the result was the biggest real estate bubble in the world in the mid 90’s and this is what started the whole real estate bubble- certainly what catalyzed it in the west because all of a sudden Russians, Latvians, Estonians and other people had to take on a lifetime of debt in order to get the homes that they’d been living in and not be thrown out on the street. So essentially they were told your money or your life – that’s neo- liberalism.

KF: And they’ve turned over from quite a stable society to one based on volatility, and oil price volatility. The after effects of the 2008 meltdown must have shocked a lot of people in the Russian government. What was the talk along those lines – what were people thinking about?

MH: Very little because they’d already in 1991 dismantled their industry. They were told that the way to get rich was to become a raw materials exporter or what the American protectionists and the bible called “hewers of wood and drawers of water”. So Russia simply dismantled its industry. The west said, oh, you’re not competitive and what the Russians didn’t realize is that all of this was very self serving to the west. The West, especially the American planners- the Harvard boys that went over said, well, we really don’t want is for Russia ever to be a military threat. We’d like to conquer it, to break it up, let’s now just slam them at the end of the cold war.

So without an industrial, manufacturing base there can’t really be much of a military. So the first thing they did was say – get rid of your manufacturing, get rid of your engineering, begin charging for your schooling, close down the schools – you don’t need engineers all you really need to do is make a hole in the ground.

But none of this export revenue from the hole in the ground should really be turned over to the state – we want to make sure that you only tax labor and tax business, but don’t tax natural resources – let it all be privatized. And so Russia thought, gee this sounds like a funny way to get rich but that’s what they did. And so they followed the Harvard advice to give away the oil, the nickel companies, the mineral resources, and that’s how they got the money to begin sending it all to the west. There wasn’t any Russian money to buy these companies because the IMF and World Bank wiped out Russian savers with a hyper inflation by getting rid of all the capital controls and letting the rouble float. So it was just one bad advice after another and now the Russians realize they’ve been taken.
Read More

Polly Higgins: Taking Ecocide to the UN

Karl FitzgeraldCommentaryLeave a Comment

Renegade Economists Show 199

Celebrating 4 years on air. Subscribe now.

Global activist Polly Higgins discusses the legal moves to protect the environment from corporate entities.

Listen here

Her websites are:
Trees Have Rights Too
Eradicating Ecocide – the book
Polly Higgins

Polly is currently touring Australia.

Following the interview we discuss our new documentary Real Estate 4 Ransom, the new screening dates and return fire to some minor criticisms from the recent film review by the Age property writer Chris Vedelago.

One day I will discuss royal libertarians.

If you are an online campaigner and would like to help with the film, I’d love to hear from you.