Coronavirus Cases Rise by a Record Half a Million in a Single Day

Global daily COVID-19 cases have risen by nearly 25% in less than two weeks as the world witnessed 400,000 daily reported cases for the first time last Friday.

Global coronavirus cases rose by more than 500,000 for the first time on Wednesday, a record one-day increase as countries across the Northern Hemisphere’s reported daily spikes.

Global daily COVID-19 cases have risen by nearly 25% in less than two weeks as the world witnessed 400,000 daily reported cases for the first time last Friday.

Most western countries and parts of Latin America have reported their highest single-day surges in the past few weeks. Many governments, with the notable exception of the United States, have started taking stronger measures to bring the spread of the virus under control.

The global coronavirus tally stands at 44.7 million cases and about 1.17 million deaths. Europe, North America and Latin America account for over 66% of global cases and over 76% of global deaths. Europe’s new daily infections have doubled over the past two weeks as it reported more than 250,000 cases for the first time on Wednesday, according to a Reuters tally. The region has so far reported about 9.5 million cases and about 261,000 deaths. France reported a new record daily total of more than 50,000 infections for the first time on Sunday.

Euro-zone economic activity has slipped back into decline this month as renewed restrictions to control the coronavirus pandemic forced many businesses to limit operations in the bloc’s dominant service industry , a survey showed last Friday.

The US continues to lead the worldwide coronavirus tally with about 8.9 million infections and about 228,000 fatalities since the pandemic started. The US broke its daily record for new coronavirus infections on Friday as it reported 84,169 new cases due to outbreaks in virtually every part of the country shortly before its presidential election on Tuesday. The US reports about 75,000 cases a day, on an average, according to a Reuters analysis. America’s death toll from COVID-19 could surpass 500,000 by February unless nearly all Americans wear face masks, researchers said.

Asia surpassed 10 million infections of the new coronavirus on Saturday, the second-heaviest regional toll in the world, according to a Reuters tally. This does not come as a surpise since cases continue to mount in India despite a slowdown and sharp declines elsewhere. India, the world’s second most populous country as well as the second worst affected country, is reporting about 48,000 cases a day on an average with a total of about 8 million cases, according to a Reuters tally. As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to provide any successful vaccine to each of India’s 1.3 billion people. The country is preparing a database of all government and private health personnel to speed up vaccinations once they become available.

In the Middle East, Iran, the most affected COVID-19 infections country is reporting one death every three minutes, according to state television.

(Reuters)

Lessons from the Greek Crisis

In his new book, Alain Badiou seeks to find an orientation from the economic and political misadventure that threatened the integrity of the Eurozone.

In one of the web’s most popular philosophy comics we find Karl Marx attempting to hold up a job as a greeter in a departmental store. But rather than simply doing his job by greeting people, Marx erupts into diatribes against the state of bourgeois society and global capitalism until he is expectedly fired. In the end, when Friedrich Engels asks him why he was fired, all he can say is that perhaps he was “greeting people too well.”

It might seem juvenile to equate a philosophy webcomic with a book by Alain Badiou, one of France’s most important living philosophers. However, when one reads the latter’s new book, Greece and the Re-invention of Politics, it is apparent that the basic point of the two is the same: one must not only do one’s duty (as Kant had said) but that one must do it too well. This eruption of the ‘too well’ into the humdrum banality of duty is itself the event which marks the rupture of the existing situation by its excluded part.

Alain Badiou
Greece and the Re-invention of Politics
Verso, 2018

This was Badiou’s exciting new idea which, in his 1984 book Being and Event, he derived from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZFC) set theory. An Event (for example a communist revolution) is not a simple historical progression but the appearance of something which from the standpoint of the existing situation cannot be definitively said to belong to it; only by identifying it as an ‘event’ can it be definitively said to be the excluded part, that which does not belong to the situation.

For example, the 1789 French Revolution could be said to be the outcome of famine, peasant unrest and so on, by which it is inserted into the linear scale of history. But it is only by naming it as an event which does not belong to the existing situation that it becomes the French Revolution – the symbol and beacon for militant revolutionaries everywhere.

What appears is thus profoundly new, yet also terribly old. It is in a similar sense that the travails of modern Greece, under crushing national debt (Greece has currently been bailed out by the European Union, meaning that it now has scheduled debt payments till 2059), holds for Badiou the promise of something new, an event, amongst the people who can boast of being the most ancient European civilisation.

Badiou’s new book is not a systematic work like his earlier ones such as Being and Event, Theory of the Subject or The Logic of Worlds; rather, it is a collection of eight articles and public lectures written or addressed from 2010 to 2016 – the years which saw the Greek crisis threaten the integrity of the Eurozone itself.

From 2010 onwards, the threat that Greece might default on its national debt led to the EU and the International Monetary Fund providing it with 240 billion Euros, which led to the imposition of austerity measures. This, in turn, led to the election of a far-left political party, Syriza, under the leadership of Alexis Tsipras. Tsipras held a referendum in July 2015, where the Greek voters said no to the austerity measures. Ten days later, however, the parliament under his leadership passed the measures.

Badiou’s lectures and articles collected in this book do not attempt a detailed history of this great economic and political misadventure, but rather seek to find an orientation from them. For him, the current disorientation prevalent in France (and the world at large) is a result of the attempt to “render the previous (by which he means the French Revolution before the execution of Robespierre) sequence unreadable.” This means to deprive it of its political understanding and its principle of orientation, by which its very impasses (the Terror, mass executions and so on) could be overcome.

Also read: Greece Set to Exit Bailout, Still Faces Daunting Challenges

Badiou succinctly distills the Communist hypothesis into three axioms: the egalitarian idea; the conviction that the state must wither away; and that “the organisation of labour does not imply the division of labour” (to which we can add our own Ambedkarite supplement that it does not also imply the division of labourers). These are not programmes in the older Marxist sense but, as Badiou calls them, “maxims for orientation.”

Badiou further discusses new imperial practices which are no longer of the colonial type but rather involve ‘zoning’, which is “the creation of territories lacking any organised authority” and “imperialism of disorganisation rather than colonisation.” This zoning is no longer just a practice restricted to countries like Libya, Iraq, Somalia and others, but it is a policy that will soon be enforced in Greece, Spain and Portugal – and perhaps in all countries – to crush popular revolts against capital’s predation. The goal of such a process is to create “such troubled and anarchic conditions that people will lack any means of organising their opposing vision.”

Badiou also differentiates between the various senses of the term ‘people’ in politics. For the fascists, it is equivalent to people-race; for the parliamentary democrats it is the same as people-middle class. The two positive senses of the term ‘people’ are for Badiou the constitution of a people denied by colonialism or imperialism, and the ‘people’ as those excluded by the state from its supposedly legitimate people – like the workers in the 19th century, or provocatively, proletarian immigrants today.

The construction of walls today is, according to Badiou, a means of creating a false world of separate nations, a lie whose sole aim is to obliterate the truth that there is only one single world of living humans. For Badiou, the fact that these refugees and immigrants are unable to assimilate and integrate is not a problem; instead, it is an opportunity to create a new form of internationalism. It is this ‘nomadic proletariat’ who can offer us the politics of the future – which, for Badiou, is always under the aegis of the communist hypothesis.

Also read: Karl Marx: Flawed, Manic, and One of Us

While some may accuse Badiou’s axiomatic attachment to the communist hypothesis as a sign of his utopian inclination, one must remember that the decision on what is possible and impossible must not be left to one’s opponents. What matters is thus the magic of the unforeseeable and the improbable encounter, or as Marx (in the comic cited above) says to his manager when asked why he is not simply doing his job: “Improvising: the thing you told me to do was kind of boring.”

Perhaps Badiou’s major complaint against Syriza and Tsipras is that, in the end, they chose not to improvise, and took the boring option in a crisis that could have been so much more than a mere missed opportunity. It is thus apt that the original French title of this book was Un Parcours Grec, or ‘a Greek Course’ – a course that might have truly missed making history but yet has offered us what Badiou calls an “open-air political lesson” through its very failure.

Huzaifa Omair Siddiqi is a PhD candidate at the Centre for English Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

What Should Europe Expect From the Macron Government?

France is counting on its new president to bring down unemployment and public debt – will he be able to do it?

France is counting on its new president to bring down unemployment and public debt – will he be able to do it?

File 20170618 28763 19avtg5

French President Macron attends a ceremony marking the 77th anniversary of de Gaulle’s resistance call of June 18, 1940. Credit: Bertrand Guay/Reuters

French President Emmanuel Macron’s party, La République en Marche (Republic on the Move), captured a decisive majority on Sunday, June 18, in elections for the National Assembly, France’s lower and more powerful legislative chamber.

The victory caps a remarkable six weeks for Macron, who catapulted to the Elysée Palace after his first-ever campaign for elective office, and for his party, which he created just 14 months ago.

It also follows an impressive first month for the new French president, which has included the now famous white-knuckle handshake with US President Donald Trump, and a meeting at Versailles with Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which Macron openly criticised his state media outlets Sputnik and Russia Today for being “agents of influence,” and accused them of interfering in this year’s French presidential election.

Now Macron will shift his attention to implementing his economic reform agenda, reviving the Franco-German relationship, and convincing German leaders to pursue deeper integration in the eurozone.

Legislative victory

Just a few weeks ago, many analysts gave Macron’s party little chance of gaining a legislative majority. But Macron once again defied sceptics, with his party claiming one of the biggest legislative landslides in modern French history. Early forecasts project La République en Marche winning 361 out of 577 seats. The record for the most number of seats secured was set in 2002, when Jacques Chirac’s Union for a Popular Movement party won 365 seats.

The mainstream Socialists and Republicans fared dismally, and the parties of the extreme left and extreme right received far fewer votes than they did in the first round of the presidential election on April 23.

The Socialists controlled parliament for the past five years, but they’re now looking to claim just 46 seats. While the National Front expanded its presence from two to as many as eight seats, that total is far fewer than what some analysts and party insiders were forecasting only recently. Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed party and the communists together look set to capture 26 seats.

The centre-right Republicans will be the main opposition party, but they also lost seats. They are projected to finish with 126 seats, down from 196.

But with record low voter turnout in this year’s legislative elections, some commentators have suggested that Macron’s popular support is not as deep as his parliamentary majority may indicate.

Macron’s agenda

With a solid parliamentary majority behind him, Macron has a much better chance of implementing his economic platform.

France’s economy faces a range of problems: Unemployment, at nearly 10%, remains stubbornly high. Among young workers, it’s nearly 25%. France also faces slow growth, high levels of public spending, chronic budget deficits, and rising public debt.

Macron has vowed to make French firms more competitive in the global marketplace. He wants to allow businesses to hire and fire more easily, give companies more flexibility and latitude over wages and working hours, trim France’s bloated civil service sector, lower corporate taxes, reduce some pensions, cut public spending, and relax safeguards on the 35-hour working week.

The last three French presidents faced fierce resistance when they tried to change France’s labour and pension laws. National strikes and street protests stymied their efforts.

Macron has momentum, however, and his vision of governing from neither the left nor the right still carries some novelty among many French voters. But to implement even half of his ambitious economic agenda, Macron will have to find a way to succeed where his predecessors failed.

Franco-German axis

Reforms at home are a precondition for Macron’s hope for a rejuvenation of the Franco-German relationship. If Macron cannot deliver at home, German leaders will not take his reform proposals for the eurozone seriously.

The economic performance of France and Germany has diverged widely over the past decade. France’s unemployment rate is more than twice as high as its neighbour across the Rhine. Germany is an export powerhouse, whereas French exports have been declining. As a result, Germany increasingly calls the shots today in eurozone governance.

Macron has surrounded himself with top advisers who know Germany well, speak the language, and can explain France and France’s situation to a German audience. He will also try to get German leaders on board for wide-ranging eurozone reform. Among other propositions, Macron has suggested the introduction of a eurozone finance minister and the creation of a common budget for investment and fiscal transfers throughout the bloc, which, he claims, would help stabilise the currency zone and give a lifeline to countries in trouble.

Opposition to these ideas runs high among those in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party (CDU). On the whole, German officials are taking a wait-and-see approach when it comes to Macron’s ability to reform France’s ailing economy.

They remain reluctant to implement wide-ranging eurozone reforms. And German officials, such as finance minister Wolfgang Schauble, fiercely resist the idea of the eurozone becoming a permanent transfer union. They also say that Macron’s ideas would require treaty changes, a risky undertaking in today’s political environment.

Instead, German leaders are more likely to pursue smaller though symbolically important initiatives with Macron’s government, such as joint investment projects, the harmonisation of corporate tax rates, closer security and defence cooperation, and moving forward on the digital and energy union fronts.

Tough road to reform

With his legislative victory in hand, Macron now embarks on the tough road to reform. Convincing French voters that his policies will benefit them may turn out to be his toughest political test yet. And it will show the degree to which French citizens have embraced him and his ideas.

Europe needs Macron to succeed. A strong Europe needs a strong Franco-German core, especially in the time of Brexit, Trump, and creeping illiberalism in Hungary, Poland, and other parts of Europe.

German leaders want a strong France. They are wary of being seen as too powerful and assuming all the burdens of leadership, and know from long experience that crises are more effectively dealt with if France and Germany work together.

The ConversationThe road ahead is uncertain, and will be filled with challenges both foreseen and unforeseen. But across France, after many years of incessant talk of French decline and malaise, a new attitude can be seen: one that is hopeful, confident, and optimistic about what the future holds.

Richard Maher, Research Fellow, Global Governance Programme, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Greek Parliament Approves More Austerity Measures for Debt Relief

These new austerity measures will be adopted in 2019 and 2020 to convince the IMF to participate financially in its latest 86 billion euro bailout.

Greek Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos walks past Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras as he prepares to address lawmakers before a parliamentary vote on the latest round of austerity Greece has agreed with its lenders, in Athens, Greece, May 18, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Alkis Konstantinidis

Greek finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos walks past Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras as he prepares to address lawmakers before a parliamentary vote on the latest round of austerity Greece has agreed with its lenders, in Athens, Greece, May 18, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Alkis Konstantinidis

Athens: Greek lawmakers approved pension cuts and tax hikes on Thursday sought by the country’s lenders to unlock vital financial aid, as angry demonstrators protested outside parliament over new austerity, the latest since the country plunged into crisis seven years ago.

The leftist-led government hopes that legislating the measures, four days before euro zone finance ministers meet in Brussels, will convince its lenders to release a 7.5 billion euro bailout tranche and grant it further debt relief.

It is now up to the lenders to make good their promises, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras told journalists.

“We deserve and we expect from Monday’s Eurogroup a decision regulating debt relief which will correspond to the sacrifices of the Greek people,” he said, referring to a meeting of eurozone finance ministers on Monday.

Lenders have agreed in principle to debt restructuring but not on details.

Shortly before the measures were approved just before midnight, some protesters hurled petrol bombs and firecrackers at police guarding the legislature. They responded with tear gas.

Greece has seen its national output shrink by a quarter since it was first forced to seek external financial aid in return for spending cutbacks in 2010.

The government, sagging in opinion polls, hopes a conclusion by lenders of its reforms progress, coupled with a restructure to bring down a mountain of overhanging debt, will allow Greece to be included in the European Central Bank’s asset-buying programme and return to bond markets in the coming months.

Athens needs aid to repay debt maturing in July.

It agreed to adopt more austerity, which will be implemented in 2019 and 2020, to convince the International Monetary Fund to participate financially in its latest 86 billion euro bailout.

To sweeten the pill, Tsipras has promised to offset the new measures with tax relief also legislated on Thursday. It will be implemented only if Greece meets its fiscal targets.

New austerity has drawn brickbats from the opposition, which has accused Tsipras of costly foot-dragging.

“You’ve become the best advertisement for austerity in Europe,” opposition Conservative leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis said, addressing Tsipras.

Greece has received about 260 billion euros in bailout aid since 2010 in exchange for reforms and deep spending cuts that plunged the economy into recession. The loans have helped balloon its debt, now at 179% of GDP despite a 2012 haircut.

The IMF has been reluctant to join Greece’s current bailout, saying it wants assurances that its debt will be sustainable.

Euro zone finance ministers will discuss these issues on Monday and assess Greece’s bailout progress following the parliamentary approval of the reforms.

(Reuters)

France: Election Poll Says Macron Gaining Lead on Le Pen

Le Pen, who leads the anti-European Union, anti-immigration National Front, faced strong criticism of her policies on Thursday from International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, a former French economy minister.

Marine Le Pen, who leads the anti-EU, anti-immigration National Front, faced strong criticism of her policies on from IMF chief Christine Lagarde.

Emmanuel Macron, head of the political movement En Marche !, or Onwards !, and candidate for the 2017 presidential election, attends a meeting in Talence near Bordeaux, south-western France March 9, 2017. Credit: Regis Duvignau/Reuters

Emmanuel Macron, head of the political movement En Marche !, or Onwards !, and candidate for the 2017 presidential election, attends a meeting in Talence near Bordeaux, south-western France March 9, 2017. Credit: Regis Duvignau/Reuters

Paris: Centrist Emmanuel Macron saw his position as favourite to win France’s presidential election boosted on Thursday in two polls, with one showing him ahead of far-right leader Marine Le Pen in the first round of the two-stage contest.

A monthly Cevipof survey, considered the most authoritative because it has a far bigger sample size than most polls, put Le Pen well ahead in the April 23 first round, although Macron was seen easily beating her in a May 7 runoff.

However, a Harris Interactive poll showed Macron winning the first round with 26% of votes, with Le Pen taking second place on 25%, setting him up to trounce her in the run-off with a score of 65%.

It was the second poll in a week that put the 39-year-old ahead of Le Pen in the opening round, a signal that the centrist former economy minister may be consolidating his position 45 days from the first stage of the contest.

Le Pen, who leads the anti-European Union, anti-immigration National Front, faced strong criticism of her policies on Thursday from International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, a former French economy minister.

Without referring to Le Pen by name, Lagarde told Le Parisien newspaper that her flagship policy– pulling France out of the euro – would lead in the short term to “a period of very grave uncertainty, of great imbalance and of impoverishment of France.”

French President Francois Hollande, at a summit in Brussels, said there was concern among his European counterparts about the strength of the National Front. “There is concern because the extreme right is present everywhere in Europe at high levels,” he told a news conference.

Exaggerated

A research note from Credit Suisse bank said, however, that the risk of a Le Pen victory was exaggerated.

Macron’s showing in the Harris poll helped ease investor concerns about the prospects of Le Pen winning, with the gap between French and German bond yields narrowing on Thursday morning.

The race remains difficult to call, though, after a string of surprises, including Socialist incumbent Hollande’s decision not to seek a second term, and surprising wins in primaries for contenders the pollsters had ruled out.

Hollande has asked his ministers to wait until March 24 before stating publicly which candidate they will support. That has led to speculation some senior ministers will throw their weight behind Macron as the best bet to beat Le Pen rather than Socialist candidate Benoit Hamon, who is polling poorly.

Financial scandals have engulfed Le Pen and conservative Francois Fillon, who slumped in the polls after he was accused of using public cash to pay his wife for a ghost job. The latest surveys suggest his support is stabilising.

After a series of resignations, Fillon’s team announced senior appointments on Thursday to try to shore up his campaign, including former finance minister Francois Baroin in the special role of unifying the increasingly fragmented Republicans party.

Fillon stepped up his attacks on Macron at a rally on Thursday evening, calling him a “golden boy” who was offering disguised socialism.

(Reuters)

Why Raghuram Rajan Was Right To Be Wary of Low Interest Rates

Low interest rates are demanded in the name of helping small and medium-sized enterprises, but in reality, it is the over-leveraged corporates that will most likely benefit from it.

Low interest rates are demanded in the name of helping small- and medium-sized enterprises, but in reality, it is the over-leveraged corporates that will most likely benefit from it.

A worker makes auto parts on a machine inside a workshop in Faridabad, India, on December 24, 2015. Credit: Reuters

A worker makes auto parts on a machine inside a workshop in Faridabad, India, on December 24, 2015. Credit: Reuters

The latest to join the low interest rate bandwagon is India’s commerce minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, who wants the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to reduce the benchmark interest rate – the rate at which the central bank lends money to commercial banks in the event of any shortfall of funds – by a whopping 200 basis points or 2 percentage points.

According to Sitharaman, the cost of credit is very high for cash-starved small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which make up for 45% of the manufacturing GDP and 40% of exports. The SMEs thus need urgent relief in the form of cheaper capital to create jobs and push exports.

Before her, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy criticised former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan, saying his hawkish interest rate policy was hurting the SMEs.

However, given the heavily indebted status of India’s top companies – especially those from infrastructure, realty and metals businesses – a rate cut would be more helpful for them rather than SMEs. This, in turn, is needed to improve the health of India’s banking system, which is troubled by stressed loans despite having one of the highest interest rate spread of 3.5% – mainly because of its over-exposure to big business, which Rajan had been trying to rein in. It is worth noting that large borrowers account for 86% of all bad loans.

Rajan was correct when he said, “Often when monetary policy is easy, it becomes the residual policy of choice”. Low interest rates cannot be a substitute for the structural reforms that are needed to encourage growth.

In India, many consider interest rate cuts a panacea for all the macroeconomic challenges the country faces – of investment in particular. Gross capital formation, an indicator of new capacity addition by businesses, shrank by 3.1% in the first quarter of the financial year 2016-17.

Firms that have borrowed heavily from the central bank, and stand to benefit the most from a rate cut, claim that investment is the key to job creation and high interest rate – by making capital expensive – acts as an obstacle to that.

Economic logic

The economic logic is simple: a rate cut will reduce cost of capital and increase its demand, i.e. rate of investment. If investment increases, it will automatically push GDP growth and create jobs.

If that is the case, then why is investment not happening either in Japan or Eurozone, where interest rates are negative? Supporters of interest rate cuts would like to say that India, being a developing economy, is different from Europe or Japan.

However, experience shows that investment will continue to grow irrespective of interest rates (the real rate of interest was 7% during the boom period of 2003-08) if investors are confident about recovering their money. The cost of capital is thus important, but only one factor in the investment decision.

Another important determinant is demand, low at present in domestic and export markets, which is why no business wants to add new capacities and would prefer lower interest rates to reduce interest cost and improve margins.

India is certainly different from Eurozone and Japan, but it suffers from sluggish global demand, growing trade protectionism, over capacities and dumping of cheap Chinese products from steel to textile.

Moreover, less than 5% of India’s household savings flow into equity and mutual funds. Another two-thirds go into low-risk bank deposits and small saving instruments such as provident fund and the balance goes into gold and real estate.

Source: www.tradingeconomics.com

Source: www.tradingeconomics.com

A rate cut – especially when inflation is high (5% versus 1.3% in China in August 2016) will divert more savings into gold/real estate, thereby reducing the supply of savings into financial channels – and in turn India’s capacity to make investment – as over 70% of India’s savings comes from households.

Lower interest rates also tend to increase income inequality by hurting savers and pensioners. It discourages the inflow of cheaper foreign funds to India, which is needed to keep the rupee stable.

Pruning interest rates on savings lowers the purchasing power (via negative wealth effect) of households and hurts business prospects from the demand side as consumption demand accounts for 60% of aggregate demand.

Services aren’t dependent upon external demand and are (mostly) consumed locally. A key sub-sector, real estate is suffering from buyers’ disinterest accentuated by the unwillingness of builders to meet basic contractual obligations on timely delivery and quality. Yet, not even BJP-ruled states have shown any urgency to establish real estate regulator that can improve the credibility of the sector and bring back buyers.

Delayed completion of projects slows demand for not only inputs such as cement and steel (supplied by large companies) but also demand for services such as electrification, plumbing and interior decoration – mostly supplied by SMEs.

The problem of SMEs is not ‘cost of credit,’ but ‘access to credit’ that forces them to rely on money lenders and traders who charge a higher interest without requiring much documentation or collaterals.

SMEs also suffer from poor accounting and book-keeping and dealing in cash as credit from institutional sources is conditional on demonstrable revenue streams.

Moreover, making capital artificially cheaper promotes its sub-optimal use in a labour abundant economy like India. That may induce adoption of labour saving production technologies, especially if labour laws are not business friendly. Raising minimum wage without any commensurate rise in productivity does the same and kills jobs.

The major supply side problem for businesses, especially first time entrepreneurs, SMEs or foreign investors, is poor contract enforcement that increases the cost of doing business and in turn discourages investment.

The World Bank, in its latest ranking on enforcing contract, has put India at 178, along with Liberia (176) and Comoros (179). Yet, most discussions on ease of doing business escape any mention of India’s contract enforcement regime.

The way forward

Top Indian corporates are heavily indebted and an interest rate cut will surely provide them an immediate relief, but at the cost of savers and pensioners. Lower rates will not induce heavily indebted corporates to add new capacities till the problem of demand deficit persists.

Besides, RBI cutting policy rate doesn’t mean commercial banks will pass on the benefits to borrowers when nonperforming assets (NPA) are at an all time high at 7.6% and stressed loans are 11.5% as in March 2016.

Between January 15, 2015 and April 5, 2016, the RBI has reduced its policy rate by 150 basis points, but commercial banks have reduced their lending rates by 60 basis points.

Lower interest rates encourage financially stressed firms to seek more money from banks and add to stressed loans that will reduce the availability of credit (hence raise its cost) for other borrowers, including SMEs.

Realistic interest rates, reflecting the true scarcity-value of capital along with macroeconomic stability, will bring in investment from all sources if demand and supply side concerns are addressed.

To help SMEs, the government should instead focus on initiatives like the Mudra Bank. Similarly, strengthening micro finance institutions (MFI), which provide small loans without collaterals, will help. If small borrowers are ready to borrow from MFIs at 24%, then cost of bank credit at 12% cannot be a problem.

If indeed the government wants credit to be cheaper, it would be better to put a cap on interest rate spread, say from 3.5% to 2%. That would make banks more efficient and will also encourage them to avoid lending to the likes of Vijay Mallya.

Ritesh Kumar Singh is a corporate economic advisor and a former government official based in Mumbai.

How the IMF Bungled the Greek Debt Crisis

Greece’s public debt, which was 120% of the GDP when the IMF undertook the “rescue”, has since risen to 170%. If the objective underlying the bailout was the restoration of the Greek economy to its health, it has been a clear disaster.

Greece’s public debt, which was 120% of the GDP when the IMF undertook the “rescue”, has since risen to 170%. If the objective underlying the bailout was the restoration of the Greek economy to its health, it has been a clear disaster.

image imf

Greek riot policemen rest in front of graffiti written on the wall of a bank during violent demonstrations over austerity measures in Athens, May 5, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Yiorgos Karahalis

In 2010, what has since come to be known as the Eurozone crisis, erupted. It all started in Greece. Yields on the Greek government bonds rose sharply and it was clear that the European country would not be able to repay its creditors by raising funds from the market.

The IMF joined the European Union and the European Central Bank (the “troika”) in providing a rescue package to Greece, which consisted of €80 bn in bilateral loans provided by 15 euro area partners of Greece and €30 bn by way of a Stand-by Arrangement provided by Greece.

It turns out that the “rescue” that was done was not of Greece at all. It was a rescue of the private banks that had lent to Greece. The bank loans were duly repaid by the funding provided by the EU and the IMF.

In other words, the taxpayers’ money was used to bail out private banks – an all too familiar story of “socialisation of losses”.

And what about Greece, the country that was meant to be rescued? Well, some five years on, its GDP has shrunk by nearly a third, its unemployment is at around 24%, pensions have been cut and the public services have been devastated by the fiscal austerity package forced on to it by the troika.

Greece’s public debt, which was 120% of the GDP when the “rescue” was mounted, has since risen to 170%. If the objective underlying the bailout was the restoration of the Greek economy to its health, it has been a clear disaster.

Many objective commentators have come to recognise that the IMF bungled the handling of the Greek crisis and now we even have a confirmation from IMF’s own watchdog, the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO).

In a scathing report that was released last month, the IEO makes clear that the IMF made a series of lapses that ultimately contributed to Greece’s seemingly unending misery.

Common sense tells us what the proper response to a debt crisis should be to put the troubled economy on a path where it generates enough revenues to be able to repay its debt. Or, to use jargon, we must ensure ‘debt sustainability’.

Debt sustainability happens when both, the lenders and the borrower, make adjustments. Lenders agree to write-off some of the debt, and in return, the borrower – the country facing a debt crisis – takes steps to put his house in order by raising more revenues through the sale of assets, higher taxes or better tax compliance, and by cutting back on expenditure.

If lenders refuse to accept any loss on their loans, the entire burden of adjustment falls on the borrower. Since people cannot be asked to make sacrifices beyond a certain point, the required adjustment simply doesn’t happen. The result is that the country ends up more steeped in debt than it was when the rescue started off.

This is precisely what has happened with Greece. The IMF and its partners in the troika went ahead with their bailout with little regard for the issue of debt sustainability. The IEO report grimly notes:

Perhaps no other IMF decision connected with the euro area crisis has received more criticism than that of providing exceptional access financing to Greece when its sovereign debt was not deemed sustainable with a high probability. The decision not to seek pre-emptive debt restructuring left debt sustainability concerns unaddressed. It also magnified the required fiscal adjustment, and thereby, at least in part, contributed to a large contraction of output and a subsequent loss of public support for the program.

Why did the troika ignore the issue of debt restructuring that is so crucial to sustainability?

The IEO report says that they were concerned about the “contagion” effects, mainly that the private creditors in other countries would start dumping the debt they were holding. The crisis in Greece would thus spread and engulf other countries in the eurozone.

While this was a legitimate concern, the IEO is of the view that the IMF should have properly examined a range of options and prepared itself for the contagion effects under each option and then presented the scenarios to the board of directors. Instead, one option was simply rushed through.

Ignoring the issue of debt sustainability was a violation of the IMF’s policy of ‘exceptional access’, which requires it to satisfy the condition that the distressed country’s debt should be sustainable ‘with a high probability’.

The IMF staff went around that violation by building an exception to this condition in the situations where systemic risk was involved. What is worse is that this was done in a non-transparent manner and without adequate deliberation on the part of the IMF’s board of directors.

The fact that the policy was being modified was concealed in the request for the Stand-By Arrangement itself. In other words, a small group of technocrats decided the policy on Greece without a proper oversight by the IMF’s board.

The IEO points to several other failures over a long period. The IMF allowed itself to be carried away by optimism of the euro project:

Before the launch of the euro in January 1999, the IMF’s public statements tended to emphasise the advantages of the common currency more than the concerns about it that were being expressed in the broader literature. How a monetary union could be effective without a fiscal, banking or political union is an issue that was flagged in the literature. The IMF ought to have made a technical analysis of this crucial question. It failed to do so.

In the run-up to the financial crisis, the IMF’s surveillance failed to capture the build-up of risks in the Eurozone which was signalled by widening current account deficits of several countries. The IMF staff did not view matters with objectivity. The IEO makes some damning observations:

Lack of analytical depth, rigor, or specificity and the failure to highlight sufficiently the need for stronger remedial action in a currency union were among the factors that undermined the quality and effectiveness of surveillance. At the euro area level, IMF staff’s position was often too close to the official line of European officials, and the IMF lost effectiveness as an independent assessor.

The IEO report highlights “groupthink and intellectual capture”, a “culture of complacency”, “ad hoc task forces” and the non-availability of crucial documents.

There were other failures as well. The IMF’s working arrangements with its European partners were far from satisfactory. The growth projections for Greece and Portugal were overly optimistic, and the lessons from past crises were not applied.

Most importantly, there appears to be a complete lack of accountability within the IMF. The former finance minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, who stood up to the troika and demanded the IMF functionaries who handled the crisis be dismissed, paid the price by being ousted by his own party, Syriza. Instead, the then head of the IMF’s mission in Greece has since been promoted to become the European chief.

The mishandling of the Greece crisis is among the many costly errors that the IMF has made over the years. In the East Asian crisis, it had imposed a similar fiscal austerity on Thailand and other countries, a policy that was seen as having prolonged the downturn in those countries.

The IMF promoted capital account liberalisation for many years before changing its views on it in 2012. In the run-up to the crisis of 2007, it saw securitisation as promoting financial stability; as a result, it completely failed to anticipate the build-up of risks in the financial system. In June of this year, its deputy managing director went so far as to admit that neo-liberalism had been oversold. Given the record of the IMF, it is legitimate to ask: how safe is it for borrower countries to rely on IMF’s advice?

Despite its record, the IMF has not proved amenable to the reform of its governance. The US and other western nations have disproportionate voting rights. The managing director’s post is reserved for Europeans (with the post of World Bank president being the preserve of the US).

It is unlikely that things will change dramatically in the near future. Perhaps, the best way for developing countries to take care of themselves is to be sceptical of the nostrums being peddled by the IMF.

T.T. Ram Mohan is a professor at IIM Ahmedabad.

Britain Is Leaving the EU – Will Other Countries Follow?

No longer merely an irritant, euroscepticism is now a clear and present threat to the union’s future development.

No longer merely an irritant, euroscepticism is now a clear and present threat to the union’s future development.

image-20160624-30244-1j8d8z5

The British decision to leave the EU has been a long time in the making, but it does not lessen the shock that many politicians in the UK and across the EU are feeling.

While London begins the long process of negotiating an exit from the EU, some of our attention must now turn to the rest of the organisation and to the other member states.

Even though the UK has been an outlier, in terms of its attitudes towards the EU, it is far from alone in harbouring people who want to change the direction and nature of the union. The ultimate success of the long-running British campaign to secure exit will have given succour to counterparts elsewhere to continue and redouble their efforts.

To some extent, eurosceptics outside the UK have an easier time of things. The use of proportional representation means it has been much easier for them to gain seats in national parliaments. And because vocal eurosceptics are to be found right across the European political spectrum, they have a relatively good chance of making it into a coalition government. They come from the right, the left and even the centre ground, and they already occupy positions of power in Denmark, Finland and Poland.

Citizens in many European countries are also far more used to voting in referendums than the British, leaving their governments in a bind.

As the British debate has shown, it is very hard to argue a case against “giving the people a voice”, especially while the EU continues to look so weak in its response to the refugee crisis and the continuing failings of the eurozone.

Populists across the continent have seen the EU as both a symbol and a direct cause of what ails their countries. They have found it a particularly convenient target for blame when it comes to austerity and immigration. After all, the EU is poorly placed to defend itself and there are very few people at the national level willing to devote political capital to shielding it.

The end of the EU?

However, this desire to continue attacking the EU does not necessarily mean others will follow Britain out of the EU.

For one thing, the shock of the British vote is likely to concentrate a lot of minds. No longer merely an irritant, euroscepticism is now a clear and present threat to the union’s future development. That means ignoring or trivialising the problem looks less and less viable as a strategy.

Quite how the EU can engage with eurosceptics is not clear. It has not had a huge amount of success at becoming more democratic, despite good intentions. The best way to start is to build from a willingness to try to debate the issues. Eurosceptics might not have the answers to the EU’s woes, but they ask many of the right questions.

The British case is also likely to demonstrate the costs of exit much more graphically than any speech ever could. With a strong consensus from economists that the UK is now about to take a hit to its bottom line in the coming months, this might well give eurosceptics elsewhere second thoughts. This will only be strengthened by the likely desire of governments to offer the UK a less-than-generous deal, precisely so as to head off domestic demands.

Of course, in the longer term if it does prove that the UK is better off outside the EU, then this can only be bad for those same governments and good for eurosceptics. The threat of economic ruin will recede and everyone will have to recalibrate their understanding of the benefits of membership. However, this is something that will not become evident for several years at least.

And this brings us to the final logic: the UK is different.

On the outside. Credit: EPA/Laurent Dubrule.

As was rightly pointed out during the campaign, the UK had a number of opt-outs from various EU policies, including the Schengen system of free movement, justice and home affairs and, most importantly, the euro. No other member state has such a degree of latitude.

This matters because the more a country is entangled in the EU, the harder it is to leave. Euro membership in particular is a degree of entanglement far beyond what the UK had.

Any eurozone country that voted to leave the EU would find that the resulting need to reintroduce its national currency would cause huge economic outflows (by those worried about a loss in value during any subsequent conversion process) that would dwarf anything we will see for the UK. With no easy solution to this problem, those who might push for an exit from the EU might feel that the cost is simply too high.

However, such practicalities are not the point, at least not at this stage. There is now a scalp that eurosceptics from all countries can claim in support of their cause. They will now be looking for their next one.

The Conversation

Simon Usherwood, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Surrey

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Here’s Why the Greek Bailout Package is Headed for #EpicFail

As things stand, the prospects of an economic recovery in Greece appear bleak. Many forecasts have predicted that Greece will be unable to break the vicious cycle on the current path and that its debt-to-GDP ratio will rise over 200% by 2018.

File photo of police in Athens guarding a shuttered bank. Credit: underclassrising/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0

File photo of police in Athens guarding a shuttered bank. Credit: underclassrising/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0

On Monday, August 3, when the Athens Stock Exchange reopened after a five-week shutdown, the share price index plunged by more than 23% in early trading. The banking index covering Greece’s biggest banks witnessed the largest decline, down to its 30% daily limit. This was the worst stock market bloodbath in decades despite an ongoing ban on short selling in Greek markets. In 1987, its share index collapsed by 15% in the wake of Wall Street stock market crash, popularly known as “Black Monday.”

The massive sell-off on August 3 was partially triggered by the release of three surveys which revealed that Greek manufacturing output has plummeted to its lowest level in July 2015. The surveys have indicated that Greece will suffer a further contraction in its economy this year. Investors are wary about the dismal outlook of the Greek economy, which was in recession during 2008-14. In addition, there is general uncertainty over the country’s membership of the eurozone.

Protracted negotiations

Even though Greece struck a €86 billion bailout-for-reform deal with its official creditors on July 12, 2015, news reports on the ongoing negotiations raise doubts about whether an agreement can be reached in time to service the debt due this month. Greece is keen to conclude negotiations on the bailout deal by mid-August so that it gets the money before debt repayments are due.

In August, Greece needs as much as €24 billion to service its debt and recapitalise its banks and to meet other financing needs. This figure includes €7 billion to repay an emergency bridge loan, €3.2 billion towards Greek bonds held by the European Central Bank and close to €10 billion towards recapitalisation. If no agreement with creditors is reached before August 20, Greece may seek another bridge loan to avoid a doomsday scenario.

It is very difficult to predict the outcome of the ongoing negotiations as the troika is demanding the strict implementation of austerity measures.

Third bailout program

On July 23, the ruling Syriza party won crucial approval from the Greek parliament for the new bailout reform program being negotiated. Much of the opposition came from Syriza’s Left Platform faction which is opposed to the austerity measures sought by creditors.

The new bailout deal is much more stringent and wider in scope than previous ones. The new deal demands large-scale privatisation of public assets (such as electrical and utility companies, airports and ports), substantial cuts in pensions, overhauling of value added taxes and changes in labour laws.

It is important to note that many of these demands were earlier rejected by the Syriza government as well as by voters in a referendum held on July 5. The Greek public is still struggling to understand the abrupt change of course by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras in accepting all the terms dictated by creditors. In its July 8 letter seeking a new bailout program, the Greek government had agreed to implement pension and tax reforms as early as mid-July.

One of the most controversial elements of the new deal is the setting up of an externally supervised fund to manage the privatisation of Greece’s public assets. The Greek government has accepted the demand put forward by Eurozone leaders that Greek public assets worth up to €50 billion should be transferred to an independent fund. Based in Luxembourg, the proposed fund will be run by an entity overseen by Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble.

But the moot question is: Would the people of Greece benefit from the money generated by this fund. The answer is No. The bulk of the money generated by the fund through public assets sales will be used to repay money borrowed from creditors and to reduce the debt burden. There is no provision for channeling some of the money to support social programs or invest in social and physical infrastructure.

Given the real situation of the economy, Greece may not achieve the creditors’ targets for achieving a primary budget surplus. Such a surplus occurs when tax revenues exceed government spending (excluding debt interest payments) ,thus enabling the government to deploy surplus revenue to repay the public debt.

The creditors are demanding that Greece achieve a primary budget surplus of 3.5% of GDP by 2018. In its previous negotiations with creditors, the Syriza government had sought a gradual increase in the primary budget surplus to ensure that austerity measures do not act as a drag on economic recovery. Due to slowdown in business activity in Greece, the target of a budget surplus of 1% this year is likely to be missed. Rather, a deficit is expected this year. Next year’s target of 2% can only be achieved through a heavy dosage of austerity measures as the introduction of new tax measures may take some months.

Further, the long-standing demand of the Syriza government seeking substantial debt relief is not part of new bailout package. Nor is there any assurance by creditors that debt relief would be forthcoming in future. This is despite the fact that the International Monetary Fund has expressed its unwillingness to participate in the new bailout program unless substantial debt relief is immediately granted to Greece. Can Germany and other European creditors sign a new deal without the IMF?

Lack of popular support

The kind of popular support needed to implement tough policy measures is squarely missing in Greece. The government is finding it difficult to convince citizens that debt relief is still not under consideration. The proposed privatisation fund and other austerity measures are deeply unpopular in Greece. There is considerable opposition to the fund within Syriza. Hence, it would be very challenging for Tsipras to implement the demands of creditors while maintaining the party’s social base.

Needless to say, Syriza is the first anti-austerity party to take power in Greece. It won the January 2015 election promising to end the austerity measures and renegotiate the country’s debt. Already some commentators are reading the ongoing negotiations as a “sell-out” by Syriza. Most likely, the government may seek a fresh mandate by holding snap elections in September or October.

As things stand, the prospects of an economic recovery in Greece appear bleak. Many forecasts have predicted that Greece will be unable to break the vicious cycle on the current path and that its debt-to-GDP ratio will rise over 200% by 2018. Without rapid economic recovery, Greece’s debt burden will remain unsustainable. The growing public debt and its servicing costs will burden the economy further. And if Greece continues to remain in the eurozone, a fourth bailout cannot be ruled out in future.

Kavaljit Singh is Director of Madhyam, a policy research institute based in New Delhi.

Greeks Remain Proud and Defiant, but Daily Life is Quite Tough

All kinds of misconceptions about Greece are doing the rounds, but there is another side to the debt story

Greek people in front of their Parliament. Credit: alk_is/Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

Greek people in front of their Parliament. Credit: alk_is/Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

Athens: As my plane circled over the Aegean sea before landing into Athens, the city lay sprawled below, gleaming white in the bright summer sun. I was thinking of the heated arguments I had had with friends before leaving.  “The Greeks have after all been greedy and must face consequences” they said, almost indignant, “Surely one has to pay their debts?” You are probably asking yourself the same question. Chances are, you have or only want to hear the “creditor version” of the story, haven’t yet read David Graeber’s book on debt or haven’t been to Greece in this last week that saw deep turmoil in the run up to the referendum.

Reaching out to Greek people to find out if whether they’d vote “yes” or “no” in the referendum, I’d ask them hesistantly what they did for a living. They’d proudly respond that they were “ex-plumbers” or “ex-sailors”. Athens is the only city in the Europe, of at least 50 odd I’ve reported from in the last decade, where in charity clinics I saw more poor locals than immigrants, lining up to get free medicines and basic health care. The doctors there told us, people were distraught and depressed, having lost their jobs and homes. A quarter of Greeks and half of the country’s youth are unemployed. They’re grappling with brain drain, rising child mortality and an alarming jump in suicides rates.

I’d never seen so many old people out in the street at once, lining up in the sweltering heat: at ATMs to withdraw just 60 euros per day or walking to polling booths to vote for the referendum. Some were over 90 years old, and couldn’t walk unassisted. The voter turnout was 65%, one point less than for the general elections. Clearly, Greeks turned up in large numbers, because they felt they had something important to say.

In Syntagma in central Athens, where the Greek Parliament looms over a large square, many young Greeks, out of jobs, would offer to speak to us to tell us they didn’t see a bright future in their own country and felt “humiliated” by what the European instituions were offering “as if we are their slaves”. 30-year old Mohammad, Greek born and of Libyan origin, was helping me with translating interviews and news releases. He works as a journalist and seldom gets paid for it. Unlike the “corporate media”, which he says, tows the line of those who wield real power in Greece- the rich and the corrupt “we report the real news instead of spreading panic”. Mohammad was all fired up, pleased to see the television crews swarming in the square. He said he was happy the world was finally watching. “All we want is a life of dignity”, he said. Mohammad was only echoing what I would hear over and over again in the eventful week that I spent in and around Athens.

The debt is crushing

I got into a taxi and zipped past the square behind the University of Athens. It was here the ruling Syriza held its victory rally in January. Alexis Tsipras, who is now the Greek PM, was on stage as people danced to “Rock the Casbah” by The Clash. Defiance is the new mantra in Greece. Syriza’s win was seen as a shift in ideology, ushering in a new era in a country mired in problems of massive tax evasion and corruption. It’s the crushing debt and the austerity that have shaken people out of complacency.

As we reached closer to my hotel, we got into a traffic snarl. A common occurrence during the week, as mass rallies from the “yes” and “no” camps blocked streets everyday. Stuck in the jam for fifteen minutes, with no hope of moving anytime soon, I started worrying that the taxi meter would break my budget. But another ten minutes later, I got off having to pay only 10 euros. Everything seemed exceedingly affordable to me in Athens (I live in Paris). Sumptuous meals for just 8 euros, a four-star hotel with a stunning view of the Acropolis for just 100 euros. In fact, as a foreigner, I could withdraw as much money as I wanted, as the 60 euro cap applied only to Greek account holders, most of whom were panicking that hair cuts in savings would strip them of the little they had. I felt privileged, and a bit guilty. 

We may instinctively think debts have to necessarily be repaid but what if the debt is really is just impossible to repay? Should the creditors then be allowed to wield arbitrary powers? Greece’s debt is more than 175 per cent of GDP. But to see how the moral force of “debt” works in irrational ways, you may want to rush to read Graeber’s book, Debt, the first 5000 years. Graeber tells the story of how Mafiosi trap people in their debt so they can use these people to return favours . They do so simply by offering free breakfasts to those they know will not be able to offer a free breakfast back. Later they broker this power into “greater wealth, greater power, greater debts.” Graeber writes of the sheer arbitrary power of the creditor, “If history shows anything, it is that there’s no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt – above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it’s the victim who’s doing something wrong”.

Cut to Germany vs Greece. Germany, “a nation of hard workers” who are being asked to rescue the culprits: “the lazy, immoral Greeks who are refusing to repay their debts”. This version suits Germany. But there are three things that puncture large holes into its sanctimonious balloon. Much of this has already been said, but in case you weren’t paying attention, read on.

One, Germany’s own debts were written off in 1953 and allowed it to prosper. Greek PM Tsipras in his address to the Greek parliament on 10th March, 2015 said, “Germany, despite the crimes of the Third Reich and of the Hitleric hordes that burned the world to the ground, despite the totalitarian evil of the Holocaust, was benefited – and rightfully so – by a series of interventions. The most important of these were its WWI debt write-off, with the Treaty of London in 1953, and of course, with the humongous sums that were disbursed by the Allies in order to rebuild the country.”

French economist, Thomas Piketty echoed the same view in a recent interview: “What a huge joke! Germany is the country that has never repaid its debts. It has no standing to lecture other nations.” Piketty says that Germany’s economic miracle was based on the same kind of debt relief that we deny Greece today.

The roots of German success

Two, when proud Germans say they are hard workers and their Chancellor says the bailout has been generous, (hinting that lazy Greeks are complaining for nothing), they forget to attribute any of their success to the fact that they’ve been getting a free ride on the back of the common currency. German success has much to do with the fact the Euro allowed them to remain competitive despite the export boom, something the Deutsche mark would not have allowed.

Three, and this will come as a big surprise, the Greeks are not lazy! OECD figures show Greeks work the longest hours in the Eurozone. A recent Wall Street Journal article found that if pension figures are adjusted for the fact that Greece has a lot of older people, its pension spending is below the eurozone average.

How did the Greeks get into the soup in the first place? “By living beyond their means”, is what the general perception is. “Diabetics should remain off sugar”, someone said on Twitter. Good point. Except that it wasn’t the majority of common Greeks who were diabetics who chose to go to the patisserie to commit suicide.

When Greece adopted the Euro in 2001, Goldman Sachs helped the government cook the books to make it look like it qualified under EU’s debt rules. Was the rest of Europe naïve? Once Greece was in the Euro, French and German banks starting lending blindly to Greek banks at insanely low interest rates. Had its lenders assessed Greece correctly, it would not have sunken so deep in debt. Did the citizens approve any of this? It’s like asking if Americans approved of the subprime mortgage crisis.

When the 2008-9 crisis hit Europe, the Greek government had to bailout its domestic banks. Greek government bonds were downgraded and the country was brought down to its knees. Greek citizens then had to receive a bailout and before they knew it, they were deep in debt and bearing the burden of austerity measures that led to their GDP plunging by a quarter and unemployment soaring to 25% and as high as 50% among youth.

So did Greek people swallow or squander this money? No. Hardly any money went into their pockets, it all went to the French and Greek banks. And it’s no less than the former Bundesbank Chief, Karl Otto Pöhl, who said the bailout was to protect French and German banks. So why did the European governments pay private debts and are now making it the “responsibility” of the Greek governement to crush their citizens under the weight of reform in order to repay this debt?

The Greek PM, Alexis Tsipras, told the European Parliament on Wednesday, “According to a study by Credit Suisse, 10% of Greeks possess 56% of the national wealth. And that 10% of Greeks, in the period of austerity and crisis, were left untouched–they haven’t contributed to the burdens as the remaining 90% of Greeks have contributed.”

Ineffective tax system

In fact Tsipras said he is not claiming “evil foreigners” are responsible for his country’s woes. He says Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy because the previous Greek governments created clientelism, supported corruption and left tax evasion on vast amounts of wealth unchecked. Oligarchs, private bank interests have a strong grip over the country. When names on the Greek HSBC list were revealed by a Greek journalist, he was sent to jail. Nothing was done with the list since. The country’s tax collection system has been ineffective so far. But Syriza claim they want to change that. When I visited their party headquarters in Athens, the young party members, were calm and confident, speaking of the “blackmail” of European institutions, that they said must come to an end. They believe theirs is a unique ideology, which sets them apart from “the pack of wolves” who have a stranglehold over their country.

When their motor-cycle riding, star Finance Minister, the former economics professor Yanis Varoufakis resigned last week, it was because people in Brussles couldn’t stand him for his outspoken ways. In his much talked about parting quote, Varoufakis said European institutions were behaving like “terrorists”. But his exit doesn’t mean Greece’s stand will soften. Euclid Tsakalotos, who took over from him as Greek Finance Minister, had famously told a gathering in Ireland, “Their fear of Syriza has more to do with the aspirations of their own people for social justice and a new model of socially inclusive development; it is you that they fear, not us.”

By voting in a new kind of party to power, Greek people tried to make amends. You may dismiss them as leftist-romantics who believe in “splurge now , rant later” or cast them as juvenile and inexperienced, but the reality is that today the Greek “no” is shaking up all of Europe and making the Troika very giddy.

Whether Greece “deserves” to stay in the Euro or go out is not the right question. It’s better to ask what Greece and the rest of Europe “needs”. In any case, the cracks in the European project have been exposed. And this may not end in Greece. More than 2000 kilometers away in Spain, the one year old party Podemos, fared exceeding well in local elections barely two months ago and are gearing up for the general elections in December. I met their leader Pablo Iglesias in Madrid in April. Podemos see Syriza as their allies. Both want to break from the traditional left-right divide and focus on an agenda that puts anti-austerity and anti-corruption right at the centre of their campaigns. Greek PM Alexis Tsipras’s tweet on election night was very telling, “First we take Athens, then we take Madrid”. Clear signs, that the story of unbearable debt burdens, could resonate in other parts of Europe.