Galery

2

1

Subsequent changes in the political system followed the International Monetary Fund in all countries in which it was introduced. Do you think it will happen here?
 
The International Monetary Fund goes to countries with problems. Sometimes changes cause reactions that change parties. This may happen and may not happen. Nothing is given. For example, in Turkey, it seemed at the beginning that there would be changes in the political system, but then things soon returned to their familiar form. Recep Erdogan has not appeared as a result of the presence of the International Monetary Fund. The Fund representatives went to Turkey when Bulent Ecevit was in power. The changes took place during his term. Old parties have continued to exist, but on an already stronger base. Perhaps the most important thing is that when you invite the International Monetary Fund to the country, the government must be determined not to go to psychosis of the past. In Turkey, they were saved because they had great help from Kemal Dervis. He returned from abroad, stayed for about two years and then left again, but during that time, he has done much to change the situation in Turkey. By this, I mean that the representatives of the International Monetary Fund have not turned to the Turkish analogue of our minister Mr. Venizelos, who acts thinking only of whether he will become party leader, if he will be elected, etc. They just called a man from outside, who knew what to do. This is needed now in Greece - several people able to do the job.

Are there such people abroad?

Of course, there are. They are here and abroad. The point is that now, when the danger is ahead of us, the political system itself should decide to address them. But if it could take the right decisions, we would not end up there.

Is society aware that there should be changes?

You may have noticed that after the day of turmoil in Cannes there are no longer protest processions. People are afraid and rightly so, because things have come to the brink.

What should be done to avoid bankruptcy?

Putting aside the formalities for the ratification of the loan agreement, the most important thing is to make a very drastic cut in government spending. It will include many redundancies in the public sector. This will allow reduction of the tax burden on the rest of society and government authorities will start to work somewhat more efficiently. Cutting the public sector does not take anything you need, but quite unnecessary parts that cost money. This, of course, is very simplified. Significant changes are necessary to reduce and modernize the public sector.

The second thing is to decide that we need to use and sell a very large part of state property, which is not incurring any income. If this is done in an organized and reasonable way, the country could handle the debt issue and very quickly. I would say that this could happen next year. But of course, this is only possible with deep interventions rather than epizootic actions.

If these two things happen in a decisive manner, the problems could be resolved almost completely within one year.

How could this happen?

I am talking about a massive effort, which will include thousands of properties. We will receive money for them now, but the sale will happen in the future. Similar proposals were made not only by us but also by a German group some time ago. This would generate about € 125-150 billion. The logic here is that we get money now, but the sale will happen later, when there will be market for it and the economic environment is quite stable. There is a specific methodology for this. Of course, nothing can be sold in today’s conditions.

Therefore, the Greeks must choose between solving the problem to a large extent next year and living worse in the next at least ten years to limit the debt.

It is not certain that the debt would be limited. The decision adopted on October 26 is not a solution. What are we saying to the Greek people? That our vision is that after eight years of difficulty we would get to where we were when George Papandreou took power? He took the debt in the amount of 120% of GDP and within two years, it reached 165%. Italy, which is now declining, has a debt of 120% of GDP. Does this mean that our goal, and if all goes well, is to go back to the starting point after eight years? This is not serious.

However, there is no other choice for tomorrow. We will accept this and we must take the actions I have already indicated.

How real is the threat for Greece to exit the eurozone?

It is very real. If they do not give us money, we will not have money to exist. And the state will be forced to print money to be able to pay salaries and pensions. For example, it will give us a thousand drachmes per month. Each month, their fair value will decline and this will lead to inflation. In this case, the country cannot remain in the eurozone. Along with this, we will exit the European Union. This, I think, would be disastrous for Greece from the perspective of national security. We are located in an area that is not determined by conditions of stability. Then, we will talk about disastrous consequences for the country and they would be due to the politics of New Democracy and PASOK, which are in the present composition of parliament.