| ||||||||||||||||||
|
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label imf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label imf. Show all posts
28 April 2016
DEMOCRACY NOW DAILY DIGEST 28APR16; Noam Chomsky: Young Bernie Sanders Supporters are a "Mobilized Force That Could Change the Country"
15 July 2015
Ελλάδα Το Κοινοβούλιο εγκρίνει τα μέτρα λιτότητας 15JUL15
Η ελληνική οικονομική κρίση δεν έχει τελειώσει, η συμφωνία αυτή ωθεί ακριβώς το έθνος πιο κοντά στην άβυσσο της συνολικής οικονομικής κατάρρευσης. Το φταίξιμο πηγαίνει σε όλα τα εμπλεκόμενα μέρη. Οι Έλληνες ψήφισαν με συνέπεια για τις κυβερνήσεις που απέτυχαν να πατάξει τους φοροφυγάδες. Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση εξαπάτησε τους δικούς τους ανθρώπους να πιστέψουν ότι θα μπορούσαν να έχουν μια σοσιαλιστική κοινωνία, χωρίς να χρειάζεται να πληρώσουν για αυτό. Και οι δανειστές συνέχισε να ρίχνει τα χρήματά τους σε ένα έθνος που εξαπάτησε να πιστέψει την καλή ζωή θα συνεχιστεί χωρίς να χρειαστεί να αναλάβει την ευθύνη για την καταβολή τίποτα πίσω. Οι δανειστές τυφλώθηκαν από τη δική τους απληστία, τα κέρδη που θα κάνουν όταν οι λογαριασμοί ήρθε οφείλονται. Τώρα τα κοτόπουλα έχουν έρθει στο σπίτι στη φωλιά. Εάν η Ελλάδα είναι να επιβιώσει ο πόνος θα πρέπει να μοιραστεί με όλους. Η πλούσια και οι εταιρείες θα πρέπει να πληρώνουν τους φόρους ίσες με εκείνες που επιβάλλονται στα ευρωπαϊκά έθνη να χρηματοδοτήσουν το είδος των προβλημάτων κοινωνικής πρόνοιας οι Έλληνες θέλουν. Μέσος Έλληνες θα πρέπει να αποδεχθεί δίκαιη, ανθρώπινη περικοπές στις συντάξεις και τα κοινωνικά προγράμματα που θα επιτρέψει σε αυτά τα προγράμματα να επιβιώνουν και να παρέχουν για τις λιγότερο μεταξύ τους. Οι δανειστές θα πρέπει να αποδεχθεί χρονοδιαγράμματα πληρωμών που θα επιτρέψει στην Ελλάδα να επουλωθούν οικονομικά, κοινωνικά και εθνικά. Θα συμβεί αυτό, είναι αρκετά περιθώρια στην παρούσα συμφωνία με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και αρκετό θάρρος στους Έλληνες πολιτικούς να σώσει το έθνος εκεί; Ή μήπως Ελλάδα έχουν ριχτεί με τους λύκους, για να περιέλθει στο μοναδικό Τρίτου Κόσμου έθνος στην ΕΕ; Ο Θεός να είναι με την Ελλάδα και τους ανθρώπους της. Από + NPR .....
Ενημερώθηκε στις 19:42 ET
στην Ελλάδα Κοινοβουλίου ενέκρινε τα αμφιλεγόμενα μέτρα λιτότητας χτύπησε τη Δευτέρα με τους πιστωτές της χώρας, αλλά η ψηφοφορία δημιουργήσει ρήγμα στο εσωτερικό του κυβερνώντος αριστεράς ΣΥΡΙΖΑ.
"Εμείς δεν πιστεύουμε σε αυτό, αλλά είμαστε αναγκασμένοι να εγκρίνει, "ο πρωθυπουργός Αλέξης Τσίπρας έκκληση στους νομοθέτες πριν από την ψηφοφορία.
Η ψηφοφορία ήταν 229 - 64, με έξι αποχές. Τριάντα δύο από τους ψήφισαν «όχι» προήλθε από τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ νομοθέτες? έξι από αυτούς ψήφισαν σήμερα. Επίσης, ψηφίζοντας «όχι» ήταν μέλη της ακροδεξιάς Χρυσής Αυγής.
Τσίπρας χρειαζόταν την υποστήριξη της κυβέρνησης 121 νομοθέτες. Στο τέλος, 124 υποστήριξε το νομοσχέδιο.
Νικ Malkoutzis, αναπληρωτή αρχισυντάκτη της ελληνικής καθημερινής Καθημερινή της στην ελληνική γλώσσα, έγραψε ότι αυτό σημαίνει "Τσίπρας κρατά το κεφάλι πάνω από το νερό."
Το μέτρο που εγκρίθηκε σήμερα αυξάνει τους φόρους, τις περικοπές των δαπανών και την ανανέωση συνταξιοδοτικού συστήματος της χώρας. Η ψηφοφορία επιτρέπει στην Ελλάδα να αρχίσει διαπραγματεύσεις με τους πιστωτές της για ένα τρίτο πακέτο διάσωσης.
Ιωάννα Κακίση, που αναφέρει για NPR από την Αθήνα, λέει μονάδα δελτίο ειδήσεων μας ότι ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ εξελέγη πριν από έξι μήνες μέχρι το τέλος της λιτότητας. Αυτή λέει:
Ήταν ανάμεσα στους εξέχοντες «όχι» οι ψηφοφόροι.
Τσίπρας είπε αν και η συμφωνία που υπεγράφη τη Δευτέρα ήταν πλημμελής, η εναλλακτική λύση, η έξοδος από την ευρωζώνη, ήταν χειρότερα.
Η ελάφρυνση του χρέους για την Ελλάδα ήταν το επίκεντρο μιας μελέτης που δημοσιεύθηκε την Τρίτη από το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο, ένας από τους πιστωτές στην Ελλάδα, που ονομάζεται βάρος του χρέους της χώρας "πολύ μη βιώσιμο». Το Ταμείο δήλωσε ότι δεν θα στηρίξει το νέο πακέτο διάσωσης, εκτός αν η συμφωνία μείωσε το βάρος του χρέους της χώρας.
Η θέση αυτή βάζει το οποίο εδρεύει στην Ουάσινγκτον ΔΝΤ σε σύγκρουση με τους άλλους πιστωτές στην Ελλάδα - η ευρωζώνη και η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Οι New York Times επισημαίνει:
στην Ελλάδα Κοινοβουλίου ενέκρινε τα αμφιλεγόμενα μέτρα λιτότητας χτύπησε τη Δευτέρα με τους πιστωτές της χώρας, αλλά η ψηφοφορία δημιουργήσει ρήγμα στο εσωτερικό του κυβερνώντος αριστεράς ΣΥΡΙΖΑ.
"Εμείς δεν πιστεύουμε σε αυτό, αλλά είμαστε αναγκασμένοι να εγκρίνει, "ο πρωθυπουργός Αλέξης Τσίπρας έκκληση στους νομοθέτες πριν από την ψηφοφορία.
Η ψηφοφορία ήταν 229 - 64, με έξι αποχές. Τριάντα δύο από τους ψήφισαν «όχι» προήλθε από τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ νομοθέτες? έξι από αυτούς ψήφισαν σήμερα. Επίσης, ψηφίζοντας «όχι» ήταν μέλη της ακροδεξιάς Χρυσής Αυγής.
Τσίπρας χρειαζόταν την υποστήριξη της κυβέρνησης 121 νομοθέτες. Στο τέλος, 124 υποστήριξε το νομοσχέδιο.
Νικ Malkoutzis, αναπληρωτή αρχισυντάκτη της ελληνικής καθημερινής Καθημερινή της στην ελληνική γλώσσα, έγραψε ότι αυτό σημαίνει "Τσίπρας κρατά το κεφάλι πάνω από το νερό."
Το μέτρο που εγκρίθηκε σήμερα αυξάνει τους φόρους, τις περικοπές των δαπανών και την ανανέωση συνταξιοδοτικού συστήματος της χώρας. Η ψηφοφορία επιτρέπει στην Ελλάδα να αρχίσει διαπραγματεύσεις με τους πιστωτές της για ένα τρίτο πακέτο διάσωσης.
Ιωάννα Κακίση, που αναφέρει για NPR από την Αθήνα, λέει μονάδα δελτίο ειδήσεων μας ότι ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ εξελέγη πριν από έξι μήνες μέχρι το τέλος της λιτότητας. Αυτή λέει:
"Οι διαπραγματεύσεις αυτές απέτυχαν, διότι οι πιστωτές αρνήθηκαν το μόνο θέμα που θα θέσει την Ελλάδα σε βιώσιμη πορεία και πάλι," Βαρουφάκης είπε, «το θέμα της ελάφρυνσης του χρέους."«[Μ] μεταλλεύματος από το ήμισυ της Κεντρικής Επιτροπής του αριστερού κόμματος υπέγραψαν μια δήλωση που χτυπά η συμφωνία υπεγράφη από τον αρχηγό τους, τον πρωθυπουργό ο Αλέξης Τσίπρας. Ο πρώην υπουργός Οικονομικών Γιάννης Βαρουφάκης σε σύγκριση με τη συμφωνία με τη Συνθήκη των Βερσαλλιών του 1919, τα οποία συνθλίβονται Βαϊμάρη της Γερμανίας και βοήθησε τροφοδοτήσουν τον Δεύτερο Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο. "
Ήταν ανάμεσα στους εξέχοντες «όχι» οι ψηφοφόροι.
Τσίπρας είπε αν και η συμφωνία που υπεγράφη τη Δευτέρα ήταν πλημμελής, η εναλλακτική λύση, η έξοδος από την ευρωζώνη, ήταν χειρότερα.
Η ελάφρυνση του χρέους για την Ελλάδα ήταν το επίκεντρο μιας μελέτης που δημοσιεύθηκε την Τρίτη από το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο, ένας από τους πιστωτές στην Ελλάδα, που ονομάζεται βάρος του χρέους της χώρας "πολύ μη βιώσιμο». Το Ταμείο δήλωσε ότι δεν θα στηρίξει το νέο πακέτο διάσωσης, εκτός αν η συμφωνία μείωσε το βάρος του χρέους της χώρας.
Η θέση αυτή βάζει το οποίο εδρεύει στην Ουάσινγκτον ΔΝΤ σε σύγκρουση με τους άλλους πιστωτές στην Ελλάδα - η ευρωζώνη και η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Οι New York Times επισημαίνει:
«Η συμφωνία που ανακοινώθηκε τη Δευτέρα το πρωί δήλωσε ότι οι πιστωτές δεν θα συγχωρήσει οποιαδήποτε ελληνικού χρέους και προσφέρεται μόνο μια γενική διαβεβαίωση για περαιτέρω συζητήσεις σχετικά με τη μείωση των ετήσιων πληρωμών του χρέους από απλώνει τις προθεσμίες καταβολής ή τη μείωση των επιτοκίων.
"Η απόφαση του Ταμείου να πάει δημόσια με τη στάση της, πρότεινε ότι το σχέδιο συμφωνίας θα είναι μόνο το σημείο εκκίνησης για περαιτέρω διαπραγματεύσεις σχετικά με τη βιωσιμότητα του χρέους στην Ελλάδα και την προθυμία των δανειστών της να αναγνωρίσει ότι μπορεί να μην πάρει όλα τα χρήματά τους πίσω."
Η Ελλάδα οφείλει στους πιστωτές της περίπου 330 δισεκατομμυρίων δολαρίων, σύμφωνα με την Times, ένα ποσό το οποίο έχει εκτιμηθεί ότι είναι 177 τοις εκατό του ακαθάριστου εγχώριου προϊόντος της χώρας.
Greece's Parliament Approves Austerity Measures 15JUL15
THE Greek financial crisis isn't over, this agreement just pushes the nation closer to the abyss of total economic collapse. The blame goes to all parties involved. The Greek people consistently voted for governments that failed to crack down of tax evaders. The Greek government deceived their own people into believing they could have a socialist society without having to pay for it. And the lenders kept pouring their money into a nation that deceived itself into believing the good life would continue without having to accept responsibility for paying anything back. The lenders were blinded by their own greed, the profits they would make when the bills came due. Now the chickens have come home to roost. If Greece is to survive the pain will have to be shared by all. The rich and companies will have to pay taxes equal to those levied in the European nations to fund the kind of social welfare problems the Greeks want. Average Greeks will have to accept fair, humane cuts in pensions and social programs that will allow these programs to survive and provide for the least among them. The lenders should have to accept payment schedules that will allow Greece to heal financially, socially and nationally. Will this happen, is there enough leeway in this agreement with the European Union and enough courage among Greek politicians to save the nation? Or has Greece been thrown to the wolves, to devolve into the only Third World nation in the E.U? God be with Greece and her people. From +NPR .....
Updated at 7:42 p.m. ET
Greece's Parliament approved the controversial austerity measures struck Monday with the country's creditors, but the vote created a rift within the ruling left-wing Syriza party.
"We don't believe in it, but we are forced to adopt it," Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras appealed to lawmakers before the vote.
The vote was 229-64, with six abstentions. Thirty-two of the "no" votes came from Syriza lawmakers; six of them voted present. Also voting "no" were members of the far-right Golden Dawn.
Tsipras needed the support of 121 government lawmakers. In the end, 124 backed the bill.
Nick Malkoutzis, deputy editor of the Greek daily Kathimerini's English edition, tweeted that this means "Tsipras keeps head above water."
The measure approved today raises taxes, cuts spending and overhauls the country's pensions system. The vote allows Greece to begin negotiations with its creditors on a third bailout.
Joanna Kakissis, who is reporting for NPR from Athens, tells our Newscast unit that Syriza was elected six months ago to end austerity. She says:
He was among the prominent "no" voters.
Tsipras said though the deal signed Monday was flawed, the alternative, an exit from the eurozone, was worse.
Debt relief for Greece was the focus of a study released Tuesday by the International Monetary Fund, one of Greece's creditors, which called the country's debt burden "highly unsustainable." The fund said it would not support the new bailout unless the agreement reduced the country's debt burden.
That position puts the Washington-based IMF in conflict with Greece's other creditors — the eurozone and the European Central Bank. The New York Times notes:
Greece's Parliament approved the controversial austerity measures struck Monday with the country's creditors, but the vote created a rift within the ruling left-wing Syriza party.
"We don't believe in it, but we are forced to adopt it," Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras appealed to lawmakers before the vote.
The vote was 229-64, with six abstentions. Thirty-two of the "no" votes came from Syriza lawmakers; six of them voted present. Also voting "no" were members of the far-right Golden Dawn.
Tsipras needed the support of 121 government lawmakers. In the end, 124 backed the bill.
Nick Malkoutzis, deputy editor of the Greek daily Kathimerini's English edition, tweeted that this means "Tsipras keeps head above water."
The measure approved today raises taxes, cuts spending and overhauls the country's pensions system. The vote allows Greece to begin negotiations with its creditors on a third bailout.
Joanna Kakissis, who is reporting for NPR from Athens, tells our Newscast unit that Syriza was elected six months ago to end austerity. She says:
"These negotiations failed because the creditors refused the only issue that would put Greece on a viable path again," Varoufakis said, "the issue of debt relief.""[M]ore than half of the leftist party's central committee signed a statement slamming the deal signed by their leader, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. Former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis compared the deal to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which crushed Weimar Germany and helped fuel World War II."
He was among the prominent "no" voters.
Tsipras said though the deal signed Monday was flawed, the alternative, an exit from the eurozone, was worse.
Debt relief for Greece was the focus of a study released Tuesday by the International Monetary Fund, one of Greece's creditors, which called the country's debt burden "highly unsustainable." The fund said it would not support the new bailout unless the agreement reduced the country's debt burden.
That position puts the Washington-based IMF in conflict with Greece's other creditors — the eurozone and the European Central Bank. The New York Times notes:
"The deal announced Monday morning stated that the creditors would not forgive any Greek debt and offered only a general assurance of further discussions about reducing annual debt payments by stretching out payment periods or reducing interest rates.
"The fund's decision to go public with its stance suggested that the draft agreement would be only the starting point for further negotiations about the sustainability of Greece's debt and the willingness of its lenders to recognize they might not get all their money back."
Greece owes its creditors about $330 billion, according to the Times, an amount that has been estimated to be 177 percent of the country's gross domestic product.
24 April 2014
Chaos in Crimea as Capital Flight from Russia Continues & (VIDEOS) A Struggle Amongst Oligarchs in Ukraine Pts.1&2 22APR&7&9MAR14
THE U.S. government and the free world must increase sanction on Russia, that is the only way putin's plans for anschluss of eastern Ukraine can be stopped. Russia's people must suffer economically, the Russian business community must become a pariah in the world economy as sanctions have made Iran's until the Russian people force their government to change it's policies. They are already starting to feel, in a small way, the consequences of putin's aggression. Seizure of Ukrainian Crimea is costing the Russian economy and people billions of dollars. We must make it cost them more, make them feel serious, long lasting economic pain. At the same time, we will do no favors for the people of Ukraine if the financial aid we provide props up undemocratic, corrupt oligarchs. Government and economic reform is critical for Ukraine to survive as a free and democratic nation and aid from the U.S. and free world must be tied to realizing these reforms. If Ukraine fails in reforming their nation they will be no better than Russia, and if that happens then we should leave them to suffer the consequences of their political and economic vices......
Eternal Hope
It is easy for a country like Russia to grab chunks of territory from a smaller country like Ukraine, especially with its modernized special forces.
The abilities the Russian military has displayed are not only important to the high-stakes drama in Ukraine, they also have implications for the security of Moldova, Georgia, Central Asian nations and even the Central Europe nations that are members of NATO. The dexterity with which the Russians have operated in Ukraine is a far cry from the bludgeoning artillery, airstrikes and surface-to-surface missiles used to retake Grozny, the Chechen capital, from Chechen separatists in 2000. In that conflict, the notion of avoiding collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure appeared to be alien.But it is a lot harder to actually govern. Chaos is running rampant in Crimea and is growing as few basic services and institutions there are functioning. For instance, there are massive waiting lists for the passports that were supposed to be issued by the Russian government. Only 200 a day are being issued, with waiting lists of over 4,000 people. And there is plenty more.
Since then Russia has sought to develop more effective ways of projecting power in the “near abroad,” the non-Russian nations that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has tried to upgrade its military, giving priority to its special forces, airborne and naval infantry — “rapid reaction” abilities that were “road tested” in Crimea, according to Roger McDermott, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.
In fact, switching countries has brought disarray to virtually all aspects of life. Crimeans find themselves needing new things every day — driver’s licenses and license plates, insurance and prescriptions, passports and school curriculums. The Russians who have flooded in seeking land deals and other opportunities have been equally frustrated by the logistical and bureaucratic roadblocks. “The radical reconstruction of everything is required, so these problems are multiplying,” said Vladimir P. Kazarin, 66, a philology professor at Taurida National University. (The university’s name, which derives from Greek history, is scheduled to be changed.) “It will take two or three years for all this chaos to be worked out, yet we have to keep on living.”A massive wave of Russian land buyers has flocked into Crimea. The problem -- there are no land offices in Crimea that are functioning; therefore, no land transfers can be conducted. People who do business there had better hope their customers pay, because there are no court systems there to collect debts. If Russia were to annex East Ukraine like they did Crimea, this sort of chaos would be multiplied many times over. And that is on top of the guerrilla warfare that Ukrainian partisans would likely begin to wage at some point, capitalizing on nostalgia for Ukraine, when everything actually ran smoother. It is really interesting that people are all of a sudden nostalgic for Ukraine in Crimea when Russia was able to exploit nostalgia for the old Soviet Union to seize Crimea. Vice President Joe Biden pledged $50 million more to Ukraine during his visit. But corruption there is so rampant that it explains why the US is unwilling to commit resources to prop that country up. Biden also called it out:
But the vice president had some tough words for Ukraine’s government, saying that governmental and judicial corruption could undermine the gains made since pro-Western leaders came to power after massive protests forced out President Viktor Yanukovych, a Moscow ally, in February. “You have to fight the cancer of corruption that is endemic in your system right now,” said Biden. “You need a court system that not only you and your people but the rest of the world assumes can actually adjudicate fairly disputes among people.”But given the reports out of Crimea, the corruption in Ukraine is nothing compared to the chaos that is running rampant in Crimea right now. Russia can talk all it wants to about turning it into a gambling zone or rehabilitating the Tatars, who were sent to Siberia by Stalin in 1944. And they can talk all they want about building a massive bridge there. But they have lost sight of the basics of providing actual services. And if someone complains too much, there are always the friendly green men in uniforms without insignias who will pay you a friendly visit. Russian special forces and their allies have seized two more buildings in East Ukraine yesterday.
Late on the night of April 21 – during a holiday extension of Easter – some 20 armed, masked men in camouflage took the Kramatorsk city police station, the Interior Ministry reported. As a result, the local police chief was kidnapped. The same night, 20 armed men seized the local Kramatorsk SBU building. The Interior Ministry also reported that around 10 armed men captured the training grounds of Ukraine’s Interior Troops in the village of Vasylivka in the Yasynuvatsky District of Donetsk Oblast.This will only serve to antagonize the US, which will bring new sanctions to bear. The losers will be the oligarchs in Ukraine as well as the Kremlin. The oligarchs:
Hryvnia earnings will fail to grow as fast as revalued dollar and Euro-denominated debts, so covenant and loan defaults will multiply, say analysts at European banks with exposure to the Ukrainian oligarchs’ debts. Audits promised by the IMF of the oligarch-owned banks – Bank Credit Dnepr (Pinchuk), PrivatBank (Igor Kolomoisky), First Ukrainian International Bank (Rinat Akhmetov) – are expected to put additional pressure on their owners to stump up the cash to recapitalize them. The capacity of this trio, and other eastern Ukrainian oligarchs, to keep their businesses solvent is now held hostage by the terms of the Geneva agreement of April 17. If neither Pravy Sektor nor the pro-Russian groups agree to lay down their arms, halt drive-by and sniper killings, and restore municipal and regional authority; if no presidential election can be conducted in a month’s time for the voters of the region – if at last Russian forces are deployed to re-establish law and order because the Kiev regime cannot, then Pinchuk, Kolomoisky, Akhmetov and the others are likely, according to Ukrainian sources, to lose the power to keep their assets and incomes.And the capital flight out of Russia continues as companies weigh the costs of doing business in light of impending sanctions.
“The eastern oligarchs,” says a US source close to their businesses, “can’t gain influence with Kiev and the US Government unless they crack down on the locals. If they do, they will be Russian targets. They can’t advance. They can’t retreat. They can only disappear from the reckoning that’s coming. It’s already happened to Pinchuk. It’s going to happen to Akhmetov [right], then Kolomoisky.”
Ilan Berman at the Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday, “What Putin Is Costing Russia,” citing Alexi Kudrin, former finance minister of Russia, who projects $160 billion of capital flight this year. This, in answer to the question: “Just how much is Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian adventure actually costing Russia?” Only three weeks ago, we cited Moscow News‘ report of $-65-70 billion for the first quarter, based on estimates from Andrei Klepach, Russia’s deputy economy minister who was quoted as saying it would be “closer to $70 billion.” So now it seems there is to be quite a bit more before the year’s over. The foreign currency reserves are estimated to be $400 billion.So, almost half of Russia's foreign currency reserves would disappear by the end of the year if this keeps up. Russia can continue on this adventurism for 1-2 years at tops. But then the bill will come due.
Transcript
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.As
Russian and Western diplomats work towards a political solution for the
crisis caused by the Russian intervention into Crimea, we'll speak with
our next guest about just why Russia decided to seize control of the
peninsula region.We're now joined by our guest, Aleksandr Buzgalin. Aleksandr is a professor of political economy at Moscow State University.Thank you so much for joining us, Aleks.ALEKSANDR
BUZGALIN, PROF. POLITICAL ECONOMICS, MOSCOW STATE UNIV.: Thank you for
the opportunity to have this interview and to tell important things, I
hope, for you.DESVARIEUX: So, Aleksandr, can you just
start off by talking about how Crimea became a part of the Ukraine in
1954, as well as the history of the region and the relationship with
Russia?BUZGALIN: So it's a long history. First of all, I
want to remind that during many hundreds of years, many decades, Ukraine
was part of Russian Empire, and it was really not bad relation between
Ukrainians and Russians, and it was difficult to say where there is a
border, because Kiev, the modern capital of Ukraine, was one of the most
important and cultural centers of our country, and Gogol and Shevchenko
and other writers, painters, actors, were part of our common culture.
And for us, Ukraine was part of our civilization, and for majority of
Ukrainians, it was the same. So this is important.Of course it was oppression, but it was oppression of everybody but tsar elite and the Russian brutal capital in past.After
collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became independent. And it was
also important basis for conflict, because it was mainly conflict of
Ukrainian pro-Western oligarchs and Russian or Ukrainian pro-Russian
oligarchs, who were real exploiters Ukrainian people and Ukrainian
nature, both, and it is difficult to say who was better, who was worse.
Both worse.This Crimea, another story. Crimea was part of
Russia before it was part of Tartar and so on. It was long history then
in 18th century. It was part of Russian Empire. And only 50 years ago,
it became part of Ukraine artificially because Khrushchev, general
secretary of Communist Party, decided to make this present to Ukrainian
first secretary of Communist Party. Absolute majority of
Crimea people are Russian-speaking people, and a few are Ukrainians, and
Ukrainian language was artificial for this territory. I was many times
in this region. All my holidays I spended there. I delivered lectures in
Sevastopol, federal of Moscow State University. It's absolutely Russian
territory, not because of occupation attempts, but because of the
reality.Also, it was agreement between Russia and Ukraine
that in Sevastopol, the very important base for Navy, for military
troops, for airplanes, and so on will be common base of Russian and
Ukrainian fleet and Ukrainian and Russian troops, Ukrainian and Russian
airplanes, military airplanes, and so on. It was mutual control with
some conflicts, but typically it was the same people who were officers
in Soviet Union in past, with the same traditions, with the same
historical symbols, with the same victories, defeats, and so on.Also,
Crimea was part of absolutely heroic struggle against fascist
occupation, and defense of Sevastopol was extremely brutal and extremely
heroic. And this is part of the history of mankind, not only of our
countries, because it was real fight against fascism, German fascism,
Romanian, Italian troops, and so on, fascist troops during Second World
War. It's important prehistory. And now it's not really
intervention of Russian troops. Already it was Russian Navy and Russian
troops and Russian military airplanes and so on, because it was
agreement between Russia and Ukraine before.The problem is
that some military forces decided to participate in support of peace
and absence of battles in Crimea. This is question mark, because
according to agreement, it was necessary to do--the police was--or
militsiya of Ukraine was responsible for the peaceful situation in this
region, as in all regions of Ukraine. But when emissaries
from a new transitional government, if I can say so, came to Crimea, and
they came with support of Ukrainian nationalists, some of them with
fascist slogans and fascist symbols, it was like attack of occupants
from the point of view of majority of population in Crimea, and military
forces became more peaceful forces than the forces who occupied
territory of Ukraine. It's very contradictory. And I'm sure that
referendum will say no to modern Ukrainian government and they tell: we
want to have independence.And really I don't know why,
after collapse of Soviet Union, Ukraine said, we want to be independent,
and it was okay until everybody said it's not occupation or something
like this. Now if Crimea want to be independent, it's their business.Of
course, I'm very afraid that it will be real intervention of troops by
the NATO or Russian or both NATO and Russian troops. It can be
provocation for war. We have now nearly 100th anniversary of World
War I. And why this war took place? Why former friends, Germans and
French people, who were in one cultural Europe, started to kill each
other and 10 million peoples were killed? For what? It was the same
democratic country--Germany was democratic bourgeois country; France was
democratic bourgeois country. And then terrible battle for nothing,
because of imperialistic conditions.Now, of course, there
is problem of geopolitical ambitions of Putin and other officials of
Russia. And I am not supporter of such ambitions at all.DESVARIEUX:
I'm so glad you mentioned Putin, because I want to speak to why Putin
decided to move with such urgency to intervene in Crimea. Why do you
think?BUZGALIN: First of all, I am not Putin, and very
often I cannot understand his logic. So it's not question to me. It's
question to Putin. And he made some explanations, gave some explanations
in his interviews. I do not want to repeat them. But I do give you
advice. I do advise you to translate his interviews and to then think,
is it true or not; but not to ignore his interview.I think
it is both attempts to show that Russia is big state which plays a big
role in international world politics. And this is one of the ambitions
of Putin and Russian bureaucracy in general. But there is also another
aspect, because after such speech of Putin and decision of our
parliament, it became much more peaceful situation in Crimea than
before. And now these nationalists, Ukrainian nationalists, are afraid
to come to Crimea and to say, go out to people who came on the basis of
voting in the Square.In Crimea it was the same like in
Kiev. It was Maidan in Crimea. And people came to the squares and said,
we do not want to have the government which was established in Kiev.
It's not our government. We don't like them. We have our will. We people
of Crimea want to have our power. But please don't come to us. We don't
respect you. We don't think that you are elected. Don't. Why--.DESVARIEUX: And that's why they're going to have a vote at the end of March, is that right? There is a referendum vote.BUZGALIN:
[They] want to make referendum, and I think it will be more or less
democratic, as all voting in the situation of semi-revolution. You know,
now it's--in Ukraine, their power is based on the view of the squares,
and this is initiative not of majority of Ukrainians, but this is
initiatives of those people who came to Maidan, who came to squares in
Crimea, in Kharkiv, in Donbass, in other regions, in western regions of
Ukraine.From my point of view, it's necessary to respect
this opinion, but not to think that this is the only opinion of
Ukrainian people. There are different stratas, different interests, very
deep social-economic contradictions between oligarchs, pro-Western
oligarchs and pro-Russian oligarchs they're behind.By the
way, new emissaries of new Kiev for eastern regions are huge oligarchs,
owners of the biggest capitals in Ukraine. So it's not alternative to
Yanukovych or anybody else--the same bureaucratic oligarch capitalism,
which will organize the same bureaucratic manipulation, or even worse
than it was before.People were tired from Yanukovych, and I
understand very well that it is necessary and it was necessary to make
democratic revolution. But what was happened in Ukraine, unfortunately,
is not real democratic revolution on the basis of the--on the backs of
the ordinary people who wanted to change bureaucratic, corrupted power,
came to the power another--representatives of another oligarchical
groups, another geopolitical forces who want to manipulate with Ukraine.
And also--this is extremely important; I want to stress.
Their real force, which helped to receive power for modern Ukraine in
government, this is force of Ukrainian nationalists. And they directly
use symbols and slogans of troops in Ukraine which supported fascism,
German fascism, for terrible actions against peaceful population,
against Jews, first of all, against Belarus people, against Ukrainian
and Russian people who did not support fascism or who did not want to
collaborate with fascist Germany. It was anti-red, by the way, struggle,
anticommunist struggle. And now in some regions of Ukraine, regional
authorities said that Communist Party must be forbidden because this is
pro-Russian party.The law which restricted using of
fascist symbols now is not actual. Now they said you can use any symbols
of fascism; it doesn't matter; no problems.So I don't like Russian nationalism. I hate it. But I also hate Ukrainian nationalism or any nationalism.A
very important aspect (I'm sorry, Jessica; I want to stress this also),
this is position of United States and some European commentators--I
mean, not position of North Americans, ordinary people and democratic
people in the United States, but position of government and some
mainstream mass media. It is only one way of reflection of the events,
no very deep analysis of contradictions, no analysis of social-economic
backgrounds, even class contradictions, which did exist in the Ukraine
and which are very important.That's why I want to give
more complex, more contradictory reflection of the situation. We do not
have good solutions. We have choice between bad and very bad solution.
This is the case, unfortunately.DESVARIEUX: Alright. Aleksandr Buzgalin, professor at Moscow State University. In
part two I'd like to pivot back to Russia and just talk about some of
the internal politics at play. So please stay tuned for part two.Thank you so much for joining us, Aleksandr.BUZGALIN: Thank you.DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. Transcript
JESSICA
DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm
Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore. And welcome to part two of our
conversation with our guest Aleksandr Buzgalin to discuss the Crimea
crisis.Aleksandr is a professor of political economy at Moscow State University.Thank you for joining us again, Aleksandr.ALEKSANDR
BUZGALIN, PROF. POLITICAL ECONOMICS, MOSCOW STATE UNIV.: Thank you for
opportunity to discuss these extremely important for everybody--for us,
especially--questions.DESVARIEUX: We certainly do agree about that.So,
Aleksandr, let's first talk about what's happening there in Russia. Are
Russians in support of Putin's move to invade Crimea?BUZGALIN:
Again, in Russia, we do not have such terminology and such sentences,
intervention to Crimea or intervention to Ukraine. In Russia, we are
speaking--I mean mass media, officials, and so on--about support of
Crimea people, peoples of eastern regions of Ukraine who don't want to
follow to the decrees and order which was established in Maidan in Kiev
and in western regions of Ukraine with support of nationalist Ukrainian
forces. And this created big wave of Russian nationalism. But
also this wave has a real basis, because in eastern, southeastern part
of Ukraine, especially in Crimea, a majority of people are
Russian-speaking people, and we have very old and friendship traditions
of common life. And for us to have NATO troops, for example, in Crimea,
it's something like to have, I don't know, Russian Navy in New York,
Hudson River. It's the same. What will be reaction of normal, I don't
know, Americans if Russia will have bases in New York? Because we are
very peaceful, of course, Russians. So that's just image.Another
example. Why we are so emotion--and there are a lot of emotions, not
only of analysis, in Russia. Why? The situation is similar with, for
example, in Belgium. You know there is French-speaking part and there is
Flemish-speaking part of Belgium. What will be if by order it will be
forbidden to speak French for one half of population of Belgium, and all
degrees, all universities, all school textbooks, all main programs,
state programs of TV will be only in Flemish and nothing in French? What
will be reaction of France and French-speaking people in Belgium? What
will be reaction of Europeans?DESVARIEUX: But the prime
minister vetoed that, Aleksandr. So with President Putin claiming that
Russians in Ukraine were under attack, I mean, were people really buying
that? I mean, is that a way that he rallied a lot of support there in
Russia?BUZGALIN: So the problem is not to intervene with
troops. And I hope very much that it will be no intervention, because it
can be provocation for the war. And war between Ukraine and Russia,
this is, first of all, tragedy, but this is also extremely negative from
moral point of view, from cultural point of view, from all these
aspects. Yeah. It's not only victims and material problems; this is also
very big cultural and moral problems. They are extremely important,
because we had many, many--we had hundred years of friendship. This is
important.That's why, from my point of view, in Russia we
have both real friendly feelings to Ukrainians, and especially
pro-Russian part of Ukraine, which is reality. It's not artificially
created by Putin or anybody else. There is pro-Russian part of Ukraine,
and this is approximately one-half of population.But there
is also geopolitical games, there is also geopolitical goals, and there
is attempt to show that Russia now is superpower and everybody must
take this into the account. Fortunately or
unfortunately--it doesn't matter--but Russia is not superpower. This is
one of the important countries, but nothing more. And I hope very much
that we find peaceful solution without Russian troops and without NATO
troops.But if Ukraine will be part of NATO--and Crimea, in
this case, must be also base for NATO fleet and so on--Sevastopol will
be part of NATO territory. It will be terrible, negative feelings in
Russia. It will be explosive of mass enthusiasm against this, and not
only because of nationalism, but because of the historical traditions
and heroic traditions, as I said in the beginning. So be careful with
this.DESVARIEUX: Yes. I'm glad that you brought up NATO,
because I wanted to get your perspective on how the Russian political
elites and how they're concerned about Ukrainians forging closer ties
with the E.U. Is Putin also concerned that if they do forge closer ties
to the E.U., that eventually that will mean that they will become part
of NATO? Can you speak to that a bit?BUZGALIN: Yes. First
of all, the European Union and NATO is not the same, but there is a very
deep interconnection. And this interconnection is, by the way, not very
positive, because very often when people are thinking about economic,
cultural, political close relations with European Union, with standards
of European social democracy, this is positive, but when we must be part
of NATO policy, with attack against Iraq, for example, or something
like this, this is very negative. That's why it is a big question
mark--big contradiction between NATO and the European social democratic
values. And we are thinking more about not social
democratic values but about NATO. Why? Because in periphery of European
Union countries, there is a few features of social democratic model.
There are a few aspects of social protection, social justice which is
more or less typical for Scandinavian countries. But there are a lot of
elements to use these territories as part of the full manipulation with
the goals of NATO. That is why there is big tension.And
the image of NATO as not very friendly organization to Russia is also
part of reality, unfortunately again. And very often we cannot
understand against whom is NATO--against terrorism, but here there is no
necessity to have strategic weapons; against China, but there is
no--any declarations about this; against Russia, no. So this is big
question mark for Russians: against whom is NATO? Why we cannot create
international system of security under the supervision of United
Nations? Why we need NATO? And for Russians, this is big questions. And
militarization of Russia is negative tendency, but for many people this
is understandable tendency. And I don't like both trends, militarization
and these changes in mass mentality of Russians.Also, in
Russia, we have people who are supporters of real human rights, real
protection of national sovereignty, and so on. But very often United
States politicians, NATO policy, has double standards, and what is okay
for NATO is not okay for Russia. We can start war in Iraq, I mean, NATO,
but Russia cannot start war in another region without our permission.
We are the only world policeman, NATO proclaims that NATO is the only
world policeman, nobody else. I don't know if all countries agree with
this. In Russia, a majority will not agree with this.And
one more aspect. We have negative aspect of behavior of our far-right
liberals, for whom all decisions of Western right-wing politicians are
good, all other decisions are bad, and it doesn't matter who made this
decision--Cuban leader, Venezuela leader, Russian leader, Chinese
leader: if Obama said it's bad, it's bad. And such type of behavior of
our so-called elite right-wing intelligentsia creates alienation of this
so-called elite from majority of Russians and provoke more and more
nationalism.Finally, real democrats and internationalists
like me, like all our friends and network alternatives, movement in
defense of democracy, movements in defense of education, and so on, we
are in terrible situation, because when we are speaking about democracy
for majority, this is democracy by NATO troops established by NATO
troops, not from below. And every time we must discuss this question, we
must explain that this is not geopolitics of NATO, this is real
necessity of Russian people, and so on. And the same with
Ukraine as example. I don't know if it will be Maidan in support of
Russia in joining of Ukraine to Russia. Will Western mass media support
this Maidan? Will they say it's very good that Maidan people occupated
all buildings who wanted to join to European Union? Please try to
imagine picture. Yanukovych decided that Ukraine will be part of
European Union, and Ukrainian people said, we don't want to be part of
European Union. And 50 percent of Ukrainians, or approximately
50 percent, doesn't want to be part of E.U. And then Maidan, and then
occupation of buildings. What will be reaction of the
United States? Bravo, peoples of Ukraine! Bravo! You want to be part of
Russia? We like your will, we like your real democracy. Or it will be
something opposite.In Russia we understand that it will be
opposite. That's why we don't trust too much to this support of
so-called democracy from the West very often, unfortunately.DESVARIEUX: Alright. Aleksandr Buzgalin, professor at Moscow State University, thank you so much for joining us.BUZGALIN: And thank you for opportunity to tell you this provocative and contradictory but important suggestions.DESVARIEUX: Absolutely.And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.Bio
Aleksandr Buzgalin is a Professor of Political Economy at Moscow State University. He is also editor of the independent democratic left magazine Alternatives, and is a coordinator of the Russian social movement Alternatives, author of more then 20 books and hundreds of articles, translated into English, German and many other languages.24 January 2012
Weekly Wrap: Greece and American banks 20JAN12 & IMF sees rising recession risk from euro credit crisis 24JAN12
HERE is a frightening warning about what may be on the way for the American and world economies. Listen to the story (click the link below the picture) from Marketplace from APR / NPR about the very possible Greek default / bankruptcy and then read the story about the world economy slowing down from the Washington Post......
In a sobering trio of reports on growth, public debt and financial stability, the agency described global trade and investment as waning and depicted the world as perhaps one shock away from a serious downturn. The epicenter of the economic turmoil remains the euro zone, where political leaders have not committed the money needed to prop up weakened governments and banks, thereby threatening to create a cycle of “self-perpetuating pessimism” that could undermine the recovery, the IMF said.
Whether the trigger is a government default in Greece, a bank failure or some other traumatic event, “the world could be plunged into another recession,” said Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s economic counselor. “The world recovery, which was weak in the first place, is in danger of stalling.”
The agency’s latest forecasts suggest the process may be underway. Projected worldwide economic growth for 2012 was trimmed to 3.25 percent from the 4 percent rate forecast in September. China and India, which have become major engines of global growth, are forecast to cool to around 8.2 percent and 7 percent respectively. The IMF projects that the euro zone will fall into recession and contract by about 0.5 percent this year.
The U.S. economy’s projected growth rate has been holding steady at 1.8 percent since September, the IMF said.
The new reports suggest that the world economy is being undermined by some of the policies the IMF has recommended in recent months to address government debt and strengthen Europe’s banking system. Along with other recent reports issued by the World Bank and private organizations, the IMF studies underscore the major quandry facing policymakers in the United States, Europe and elsewhere as they confront high unemployment rates, slow growth and in some cases the threat of public unrest.
Growth is now so precarious, the agency said, that deficit reduction in the United States and stronger European nations such as Germany should take a back seat.
The IMF said the “accident prone” U.S. political system is at risk of pushing too hard on the brakes. If Congress does not renew payroll tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits that are set to expire in February, government spending this year would drop by more than 2 percent of the country’s annual output, “with negative repercussions for the still unsettled economic outlook,” the agency said.
The Obama administration and Republicans in Congress have been battling over whether and how to extend the payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits. IMF officials say they worry that these political fights are distracting the U.S. government from developing a plan to address chronic problems of long-term spending on health care and retirement.
The IMF has begun pushing countries in Europe and beyond to gird for the worst. The agency wants euro zone nations to commit hundreds of billions of dollars to potential bailouts of Italy and Spain. Those countries are forecast to contract sharply next year, with a downturn of more than 2 percent in Italy making it that much harder for its government to meet its spending targets and retain the faith of investors on world bond markets. The IMF also wants to boost its own war chest and is pressing world economic powers to make an additional $500 billion available should it be needed.
The IMF is one of several organizations offering downbeat assessments. The World Bank last week projected even slower worldwide growth, of just 2.5 percent, and also forecast a euro zone recession.
In a separate study released Tuesday, the Institute of International Finance said that the flow of capital into developing nations dropped by nearly 20 percent last year — a worrisome decline that also occurred during the 2008 financial crisis.
The IIF attributed much of that drop to European banks pulling out of investments and lending in Eastern Europe and Asia. This is one of the most direct ways in which Europe’s troubles are affecting the rest of the world. The decline poses particular problems for Eastern European nations such as Hungary and Ukraine which, unlike some countries in Asia, do not have access to local sources of money when French, Italian or German investors disappear.
The downturn in investment is partly the consequence of policies enacted in Europe to try to cope with its crisis. In this instance, European banks are retreating from other parts of the world to comply with stiffer regulations the European Union imposed last year — partly at the urging of the IMF — that require the firms to maintain larger capital buffers against possible losses.
The requirements are combining with government austerity measures to crimp growth.
The speed with which Europe demanded its banks meet the new requirements “is having a drastic negative impact,” said IIF chief economist Philip Suttle. The IIF, which represents the world’s major financial institutions, has been fighting to soften the impact of financial industry regulations crafted after the 2008 crisis.
In its new reports, the IMF shared the concern that Europe’s move to recapitalize its banking system could be damaging.
To limit the fallout, the agency said the euro zone should use taxpayer money from around the region to bolster banks that need help as well — just as euro zone countries are pooling resources to back troubled governments.
Weekly Wrap: Greece and American banks
Reviewing the week's headlines on Wall Street.
<iframe src="http://www.marketplace.org/node/50228/player/popout" width="600" height="300" ></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.marketplace.org/node/50228/player/popout" width="600" height="300" ></iframe>
About the author
Kai Ryssdal is the host and senior editor of Marketplace, public radio’s program on business and the economy. Follow Kai on Twitter @kairyssdalIMF sees rising recession risk from euro credit crisis
By Howard Schneider
The global economy is slowing sharply and is at far greater risk of recession than was thought just months ago with Europe’s debt crisis creating “fertile ground” for a rapid collapse, the International Monetary Fund warned on Tuesday.In a sobering trio of reports on growth, public debt and financial stability, the agency described global trade and investment as waning and depicted the world as perhaps one shock away from a serious downturn. The epicenter of the economic turmoil remains the euro zone, where political leaders have not committed the money needed to prop up weakened governments and banks, thereby threatening to create a cycle of “self-perpetuating pessimism” that could undermine the recovery, the IMF said.
Whether the trigger is a government default in Greece, a bank failure or some other traumatic event, “the world could be plunged into another recession,” said Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s economic counselor. “The world recovery, which was weak in the first place, is in danger of stalling.”
The agency’s latest forecasts suggest the process may be underway. Projected worldwide economic growth for 2012 was trimmed to 3.25 percent from the 4 percent rate forecast in September. China and India, which have become major engines of global growth, are forecast to cool to around 8.2 percent and 7 percent respectively. The IMF projects that the euro zone will fall into recession and contract by about 0.5 percent this year.
The U.S. economy’s projected growth rate has been holding steady at 1.8 percent since September, the IMF said.
The new reports suggest that the world economy is being undermined by some of the policies the IMF has recommended in recent months to address government debt and strengthen Europe’s banking system. Along with other recent reports issued by the World Bank and private organizations, the IMF studies underscore the major quandry facing policymakers in the United States, Europe and elsewhere as they confront high unemployment rates, slow growth and in some cases the threat of public unrest.
Growth is now so precarious, the agency said, that deficit reduction in the United States and stronger European nations such as Germany should take a back seat.
The IMF said the “accident prone” U.S. political system is at risk of pushing too hard on the brakes. If Congress does not renew payroll tax cuts and extend unemployment benefits that are set to expire in February, government spending this year would drop by more than 2 percent of the country’s annual output, “with negative repercussions for the still unsettled economic outlook,” the agency said.
The Obama administration and Republicans in Congress have been battling over whether and how to extend the payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits. IMF officials say they worry that these political fights are distracting the U.S. government from developing a plan to address chronic problems of long-term spending on health care and retirement.
The IMF has begun pushing countries in Europe and beyond to gird for the worst. The agency wants euro zone nations to commit hundreds of billions of dollars to potential bailouts of Italy and Spain. Those countries are forecast to contract sharply next year, with a downturn of more than 2 percent in Italy making it that much harder for its government to meet its spending targets and retain the faith of investors on world bond markets. The IMF also wants to boost its own war chest and is pressing world economic powers to make an additional $500 billion available should it be needed.
The IMF is one of several organizations offering downbeat assessments. The World Bank last week projected even slower worldwide growth, of just 2.5 percent, and also forecast a euro zone recession.
In a separate study released Tuesday, the Institute of International Finance said that the flow of capital into developing nations dropped by nearly 20 percent last year — a worrisome decline that also occurred during the 2008 financial crisis.
The IIF attributed much of that drop to European banks pulling out of investments and lending in Eastern Europe and Asia. This is one of the most direct ways in which Europe’s troubles are affecting the rest of the world. The decline poses particular problems for Eastern European nations such as Hungary and Ukraine which, unlike some countries in Asia, do not have access to local sources of money when French, Italian or German investors disappear.
The downturn in investment is partly the consequence of policies enacted in Europe to try to cope with its crisis. In this instance, European banks are retreating from other parts of the world to comply with stiffer regulations the European Union imposed last year — partly at the urging of the IMF — that require the firms to maintain larger capital buffers against possible losses.
The requirements are combining with government austerity measures to crimp growth.
The speed with which Europe demanded its banks meet the new requirements “is having a drastic negative impact,” said IIF chief economist Philip Suttle. The IIF, which represents the world’s major financial institutions, has been fighting to soften the impact of financial industry regulations crafted after the 2008 crisis.
In its new reports, the IMF shared the concern that Europe’s move to recapitalize its banking system could be damaging.
To limit the fallout, the agency said the euro zone should use taxpayer money from around the region to bolster banks that need help as well — just as euro zone countries are pooling resources to back troubled governments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)