Galery

1

So, on the one hand, they were saying that they respected, appreciated and loved those with whom they were in direct contact, but on the other - they were afraid of the other immigrants. The sum of these opinions results in a very interesting position. It shows that the people who are aware of the benefits from immigration are more willing to accept a political position, according to which the economy and society, and the immigrants themselves greatly benefit from immigration. Unfortunately, the politicians failed to do this when the times were better and when the positive effect of immigration was apparent. Now, during the crisis, the probability of them doing so is minimal.

Has the debt crisis surprised the European politicians? How do you consider their actions?

Many assessments have been written subsequently, namely that the crisis could have been foreseen, that it was the result of a hypertrophic growth of the financial system, which had been developing at a much faster pace than the governments and international organizations were able to control.

In fact, the bitter truth is that when something in the economy brings profits, it is very difficult for someone to say, “The party is over, the music is over. We will impose some rules and prohibitions, we will carry out some inspections.” It is because when the system works, the people do not want to hear anything negative. All that stops suddenly, it does not happen gradually. Banks collapsed overnight, some were rescued, others – were not. Large companies that provided guarantees were also close to bankruptcy, but they were saved because otherwise the problem would have been even worse. In countries such as Iceland, the governments took over the burden to fill the "black hole" of local banks. As a result, society paid much of the cost and then, many commentators pointed out that it was not possible for taxpayers, who have benefited a little or did not benefit at all from it all, to pay to save the banks.

Ireland took individual actions too and saved its banks, and as a result, the national debt increased. Spain’s case is similar. The state saved the banks, not the private but the peripheral banks, which seem to have been operating under less than transparent conditions and the country has almost collapsed due to this burden.

In Greece, things are different. The banks here have not failed. They were very conservative and in the past, we were even accusing them of not risking at all. The result of this policy was that when the crisis came, they were in relatively good condition. The problem in Greece is that the state has failed. The banks suffered because they had bought government bonds. This means that their need for recapitalization is due primarily to the fact that they had taken on a significant part of the burden of the state bankruptcy.

No one could have predicted this. But the fact is that the government was spending more than it had, the external debt was constantly growing, the high values ​​were not apparently worsening only because of the rapid growth that could not last forever and it was clear that the fiscal policy should be regulated. Many of us were saying this, but we were "the bad" ones. Unfortunately, our words have proved true and it is a pity that, three years after the signing of the first Memorandum, we have not yet realized that the time of false abundance is over and we must start doing not merely difficult but different things.

What were the mistakes of the European policy in the case of Greece?

When Europe decided to save Greece, it took a very big step into uncharted territory. This was something that was not stipulated in any of the European agreements. The founders of the European Union and the euro zone had considered that if they included in them measures to be automatically taken in such a situation, they would give a signal that they were not sure about the success of the initiative. I am not sure whether this position was correct, but that was their concept. Furthermore, Europe has taken up the challenge and decided to take action.

This has created the Troika. Europe did not know how to deal with such a situation. The International Monetary Fund knew what to do since it has been functioning as a life belt. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it fails but in all cases, it has gained a very rich positive and negative experience. The European Central Bank is the institution that has the money and takes decisions on it.

Similarly, the International Monetary Fund provided a small amount but its extensive knowledge in addition, the European Central Bank - the money, the European Union controlled all the actions. I think that future historians will identify this decision as a brave and well-considered action.