Who owes whom ?:

Who Owes Whom ?: The German debt cancellation in London in 1953 - Greece-Germany: Protected creditors and the Greek people sacrificed

Since 2010, most of the political leaders in the strongest countries in the euro area, supported by the mainstream media, praising the merits of their supposed generosity with respect to the Greek people and other weakened countries in the euro zone are in the front page of today (Ireland, Portugal, Spain ...).
in this context, the so - called "rescue plans" originate measures continue sinking increasingly the economies of recipient countries and advocating unprecedented social decline during the past 65 years in Europe. in this con plan to reduce Greek debt taken is added in March 2012, which implies a reduction of the debts owed ​​by Greece to private banks in the order of 50% / 1 while these same credits as they had lost between 65 and 75% of its value in the secondary market. the reduction of the debts of private banks is offset by an increase in public debts in the hands of the Troika and leads to new measures of brutality and a great injustice. This agreement debt reduction is intended to finally stringing the Greek people to permanent austerity, but also constitutes an insult and a threat to all the peoples of Europe and the world. according to the research services of the IMF, in 2013 the Greek public debt represents 164% of GDP, ie the reduction announced in March 2012 will not lead to a real and lasting relief from the debt burden weighing on the Greek people. Given this situation, Alexis Tsipras, on a visit to the European Parliament on September 27, 2012, noted the need for a real initiative to reduce Greek debt and referred to the cancellation of a large part of the German debt under the London agreement February 1953. Recall this agreement. London Agreement of 1953 on German debt radical debt relief of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and its rapid reconstruction after the second world war were made ​​possible by the political will of its creditors, ie, the United States and its main western allies (UK and France) within the framework of the cold war. in October 1950, these three allies formulated a project in which the German federal government recognized the existence of debts of the pre- and post-war periods. in addition they added a statement stipulating that "the three countries agree that the plan provides adequate clearance for Germany of the requirements, the final effect should not unbalance the financial situation of the economy German by undesirable effects or unduly affecting potential foreign exchange reserves. the three countries are convinced that the German federal government shares its position and that the restoration of German solvency shall be accompanied by an appropriate reimbursement of German debt to ensure all participants a fair negotiation that takes into account the economic problems of Germany ". / 2 The debt claimed to Germany for the pre-war period amounted to 22,600 million marks including interest. The debt of the postwar period was estimated at 16,200 million marks. By an agreement reached in London on February 27, 1953 / 3, these amounts were reduced to 7,500 million and 7,000 million marks, respectively. / 4 representing a reduction of 62.6%. The agreement provided for the possibility of suspending payments and renegotiate their terms if a substantial change to limit the availability of resources presented. / 5 To ensure that the economy of West Germany really be relaunched and constitute a stable and central element in the Atlantic bloc against bloc, the allied creditors made ​​great concessions to the authorities and German companies, which were far beyond the . debt reduction . it was based on the principle that Germany should be able to repay the debt while maintaining a high level of growth and improved living conditions of the population . Pay without impoverishing to this end, the creditors agreed: 1. that Germany reimbursed in its national currency, the Deutsche mark, the essence of the part to be claimed. in marginally reimburse hard currency (dollars, Swiss francs, British pounds ...). 2. that the beginning fifties, while the country still had a negative trade balance (the value of imports is greater than exports), the creditor powers accepted that Germany would reduce its imports since it could produce many goods previously imported. by enabling Germany imports replaced by self - produced goods, creditors accepted to reduce their exports to this country. in the period 1950-1951, 41% of German imports came from the United Kingdom, France and the United States. If it adds to this figure includes the share of imports from other creditor countries participants of the conference (Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland), the total came to 66%. 3.- creditors authorizing Germany to sell their products abroad, stimulating even exports, in order to achieve a positive trade balance. These different elements were set forth in the above statement. "the ability to pay of Germany, to private and public debtors, it does not mean only the ability to perform payments regularly in German marks without inflationary consequences, but also the economy of the country can cover its debts taking into account their balance of current payments. the establishment of the payment capacity of Germany needed to address certain problems were: 1) future productive capacity with particular consideration on the productive capacity of exportable goods and the ability to import substitution; 2) the possibility of selling German goods abroad; 3) the likely conditions of trade in future; 4) fiscal and economic measures necessary to ensure internal surplus for export. "/ 6 Furthermore, in case of litigation with creditors in general, German courts were competent. It says explicitly that, in certain cases," the German courts may refuse enforcement [...] the decision of a foreign court . or an arbitration body " is the case when" the execution of the decision would be contrary to public policy "(p.12 of the London Agreement). Another very important element: the debt service was fixed based on the ability to pay of the German economy, taking into account advances in rebuilding the country and export earnings. Thus, the relationship between debt service and export earnings must not exceed 5%. This means that West Germany should not spend more than one - twentieth of its export earnings to pay its debt. In practice, Germany has not destined never more than 4.2% of these revenues to pay debt (figure achieved . in 1959) and other exceptional measure was the implementation of a drastic reduction in the interest rate, which ranged between 0% and 5%.the Western powers gave him to West Germany an offering of enormous economic value: Article 5 of agreement signed in London postponed the payment of reparations and war debts of both the first and the second World war that the German Federal Republic was occupied countries, annexed or assaulted, and their populations.Finally , must take into account donations in US dollars to West Germany: 1173, $ 7 million under the Marshall Plan, between April 3, 1948 and June 30, 1952 (ie, near 10,000 million current dollars). to them were added, at least 200 million dollars (about 2,000 million current dollars), entre1954 and 1961, mainly through the International Development Agency (USAID) . Thanks to these exceptional conditions, West Germany recovered economically very quickly and ended up absorbing East Germany at the beginning of 1990. and now, it is by far the strongest economy in Europe. Germany 1953 / Greece 2010-2012 . If we risk making a comparison between the treatment which is sometidaGrecia and that was reserved to Germany after world war II, the differences are staggering and injustice present here a non - exhaustive list in 11 points: 1.- proportionally, the debt reduction granted to Greece in March 2012 is infinitely less than that granted to Germany. 2. the social and economic conditions that are included in this plan (and previous) do not favor at all relaunching the Greek economy while those granted to Germany largely contributed to the revival of its economy. 3.- Greece imposed privatization in favor of foreign investors, mainly while Germany encouraged it to strengthen its control over sectors strategic economic, with a public - growing sector. 4.- bilateral debts of Greece (regarding the countries participating in the plan of the Troika) have not been reduced (were only debts to private banks) while that bilateral debts of Germany were reduced by 60% or more. 5. Greece must repay in euros even though it is in trade deficit-and thus a shortage of euros with European partners (especially Germany and France), while Germany reimbursed most of its debt in its own currency sharply devalued. 6. the Greek central bank can not lend money to the Greek government while Deutsche Bank lent itself to the German authorities and was operated (by the way, sparingly) machine to manufacture banknotes. 7. Germany was authorized not have more than 5% of its export earnings to pay the debt while no limit has been set it to Greece. 8. new titles Greek debt, which replace the former due to the banks, no longer respond to the competition of the Greek courts, but are the responsibility of the jurisdictions of Luxembourg and the United Kingdom - and we know how they are favorable to creditors private- while German courts (the old aggressive power) had such jurisdiction. 9. regarding foreign debt repayments, German courts could reject the execution of judgments of foreign courts or arbitral tribunals in the case where its application would threaten public order. in Greece, the Troika rejected, of course, that the Greek courts may invoke reasons of public order to suspend debt repayment. Now the huge social protests and the burgeoning rise of forces neo-Nazis are a direct result of the measures dictated by the Troika and the payment of debt. in fact, the Greek authorities could well invoke the state of necessity and reasons of public order to suspend payment of the debt and abrogate the anti - social measures imposed by the Troika, despite protests from Brussels, the IMF and the "financial markets" such acts provoke. 10. in the case of Germany, the agreement provided for the possibility of suspending payments to renegotiate conditions if a substantial change that limited availability of resources occurred. None of that is scheduled for Greece. 11. The agreement on German debt is explicitly provided that the country could produce on its territory which previously imported in order to achieve a trade surplus and thus strengthen their local producers . Instead, the philosophy of the arrangements imposed on Greece and the rules of the European Union prohibit the Greek authorities to help subsidize and protect their local producers, whether in agriculture, industry, or services face competition from other EU countries (which are the main trading partners of Greece). one might add that Germany, after world war II, received donations in a considerable amount, especially, as we saw, under the Marshall Plan. you can understand why the leader of Syriza, Alexis Tsipras, refers to the London agreement of 1953cuando is addressed to European public opinion.the injustice with which it is treated by the Greek people (as well as other peoples whose authorities follow the recommendations of the Troika) should raise awareness of a part of public opinion. But we harbor illusions, the reasons that pushed Western powers to treat West Germany the way they did after the second world war are not acceptable in the Greek case. to get a real solution to the drama of the debt and austerity will be needed more and more powerful social movements in Greece and the rest of the European Union and the rise to power of a popular government in Athens. the Greek authorities (supported by the people) must make a unilateral act of disobedience such as the suspension of debt repayments and abrogation of anti - social measures. This wouldforce creditors to make concessions major and eventually could impose the cancellation of the illegitimate debt.The realization, popular scale of a citizen audit of Greek debt should serve to prepare the ground. Eric Toussaint is a doctor of political science, chairman of the Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt -CADTM- of Belgium, www. cadtm.org , member of the Scientific Council of ATTAC France). Damien Millet and Eric Toussaint have directed the collective book Debt or Life (Editorial Icaria, Economics, ISBN: 9788498883848, Year Released: 2011, pages: 336, he received the Prix du livre politique à la Foire du livre politique de Liège . 2011) Notes: 1 / the debts of private banks on Greece went, more or less, from 200,000 to 100,000 million euros.The total public debt of Greece exceeds 305,000 million euros. 2 / "Deutsche Auslandsschulden" 1951, pp. 7 and ff., In Philipp Hersel, The London Agreement of 1953 (III), http://www.lainsignia.org/2003/ener... 3 / See the full text in French of the London Agreement 27 February 1953 : http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/i9/0.94... 4 / The US dollar was at that time DM 4.2. Debt West Germany after reduction (ie 14,500 million DM) amounted to 3,450 million. 5 / Creditors always refused to include such clauses in contracts with developing countries or countries such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and those of Europe centrale and Eastern. 6 / 'Deutsche Auslandsschulden "1951, pp. 64 et seq., In Philipp Hersel, The London Agreement of 1953 (IV), 8 January Creditors protected and sacrificed Greek people is a moral obligation revolt against liars speeches about the supposed solidarity that the rulers of the strongest countries in Europe have with the Greek people and other countries weakened as Ireland, Portugal, Spain ... The facts contradict his statements, constantly reissued by mainstream media. Let 's start with a little practice verification. connect yourselves to Internet and write "Greece benefits" in a search engine. Constataréis the amount of media that take up the mantra according to which Greece has already received a considerable help. for example, Hans-Werner Sinn [1], one of the most influential economists in Germany, government advisor Deangela Merkel not hesitate to say: "Greece benefited from foreign aid of 460,000 million euros through various provisions. so far, the assistance provided to Greece represents the equivalent of 214% of GDP, or about ten times more than it received Germany through the Marshall Plan. Berlin contributed about a quarter of the aid provided to Greece , that is, 115,000 million euros, representing means at least ten Marshall plans or twice and the London Agreement. " [2] This calculation is totally false. Greece never received that amount of funding and received can not seriously be regarded as aid. Hans-Werner Sinn matches, outrageously, Germany out of the Second World War, the Nazi leaders they had caused, with the Greece of the 2000s also did not mention the amounts claimed just by Greece to Germany as compensation for damage suffered by Nazi [3] occupation and the forced loan Nazi Germany imposed on Greece . the debt of Germany with Greece rises, so low, to 100,000 million euros. As published on the website a l' I found, on the basis of the work of Karl Heinz Roth, historian looting of Europe occupied by Nazi Germany: [4] "Germany has paid to Greece only sixtieth (ie 1.67%) of what to him as compensation for the devastation caused by the occupation between 1941 and 1944." a series solid arguments should be made ​​public to demonstrate the lack of intellectual honesty of statements by Hans-Werner Sinn, the German rulers and media at your service. what follows is not only valid for Greece, since it could make a Similarly regarding the alleged aid given to the countries of the former Soviet bloc that are now part of the European Union, Portugal, Ireland, Spain ... study But as discussed in the third part of this series of articles, relations between Germany and Greece have a history that deserves to be taken into account. I. plans "help" serve the interests of private banks, and not those of the Greek peopleplans "help", launched since May 2010, served to protect the interests of private banks of the strongest countries in the eurozone, which had greatly increased its lending to the private sector and the Greek government during the years 2000. the loans granted to Greece by the Troika since 2010 were to stop the reimbursement of Western private banks and allow them to break free, limiting the minimum losses. they were also used in the recapitalization of Greek private banks, some of which are subsidiaries of foreign banks, particularly French. the plans' aid served to protect the interests of private banks in the strongest eurozone countries. the private sector debt increased rapidly during the 2000s families, which banks and the whole private commercial sector ( great distribution, automobiles, construction ...) proposed tempting purchase conditions, resorted to massive borrowing and non - financial firms and banks could borrow at low cost (low interest rates and high inflation compared to the countries most it industrialized of the European Union like Germany, France, Benelux, and Great Britain).This private debt was the engine of the economy. the chart below shows how the accession of Greece to the eurozone in 2001, fired entry financial capital corresponding to loans or portfolio investments. Within the same, non-IDE means entries that do not correspond to long - term investments and have increased tremendously, while the long - term investment (FDI, Foreign Direct investment) is . stagnating Chart 1 Source: IMF [5] with the huge liquidity made ​​available to banks in western Europe (especially German and French but also Italian banks, Belgian, Dutch, British, Luxembourg, Irish ...) by central banks during 2007-2008, there was a flurry of loans to Greece, both the private sector and public authorities. We must also take into account the fact that the accession of Greece to the euro earned the confidence of bankers in Western Europe who they thought that the major European countries would help in case of problems. therefore, they did not worry about Greece's ability to repay the borrowed capital in the medium term and felt they could face very high risks in that country. the story they has proved right so far, the European Commission and in particular the French and German governments contributed continued support for private bankers in western Europe. the chart below shows that banks in the countries of Western Europe increased their loans Greciapor first time between December 2005 and March 2007 (during that period, the volume of préstamosaumentó 50%, from just under 80,000 million to 120,000 million). While the subprime crisis erupted US, loans increased again strongly (+33%) between June 2007 and summer 2008 (from 120,000 million to 160,000 million), then kept at a very high level (about 120,000 million dollars). This means that private banks of Western Europe used the money he paid them generously and cost the European Central Bank and the federal Reserve of the United States to increase its lending to countries like Greece. [6] Being in those countries higher interest rates, private banks could obtain huge profits. Therefore private banks have a great responsibility in the over - indebtedness of Greece. Figure 2. Evolution of the involvement of banks in Europe Western regarding Greece Source: BIS [BIS consolidated statistics, ultimate risk basis] [7] As shown in the following figure compared to 2008 (valid until 2010), an overwhelming majority of the Greek debts are held by European banks, starting by French banks, German, Italian, Belgian, Dutch, Luxembourg and británicos.Gráfico 3 [8] the loans granted by eurozone governments (directly or via the European Financial Stability Facility established from 2010), aims in fact ensure, particularly Greece continue reimbursing banks of the countries of Western Europe (being the most exposed in Greece German and French banks). in short, the money lent to Greece returns to the boxes German banks, French and other countries as reimbursement of Greek securities that these banks bought massively until the end of 2009. [9] also goes to the treasury of lenders countries and the ECB, the IMF and EFSF (see below). 2. Loans to Greece take back the money ... out of Greece! Loans to Greece under the umbrella of the Troika are well paid. The different countries participating in these loans make money. When the first loan plan 110,000 million euro was adopted, Christine Lagarde, then finance minister of France, [10] publicly noted that France lent to Greece with 5% interest while this was done with money raised at a rate much lower. the situation is so outrageous (a high rate was also applied to Ireland from November 2010 and Portugal from May 2011) that lenders governments and the European Commission decided in July 2011 that the type required to Greece would be reduced. [11] What aconfession! While this decision was put into practice, the difference between the loan rate that these countries are financed and demanded that Greece remained important. Under the protests of the Greek government and against a deep popular discontent expressed by strong demonstrations in Greece, lenders countries finally decided to return to Greece a share of the income earned from loans to Athens. [12] But attention, the returned income will reimburse the debt. 3. The eurozone crisis lowers the cost of debt for Germany and other strong countries But the story does not stop there. The countries that dominate the eurozone profit from the misfortune of peripheral countries (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain , countries of the former Eastern bloc, EU members).the deepening crisis in the eurozone due to the policy pursued by their leaders and not because of external phenomena, involves a shift of capital from the Periphery to the. Center Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium are benefiting thanks to a very high reduction in the cost of financing its debt. on January 1, 2010, before the outbreak of the Greek crisis and the eurozone, Germany should offer an interest rate of 3.4% for issuing 10 - year bonds while the May 23, 2012, the rate had been 1.4%. And this corresponds to a decrease of 60% on the cost of funding. [13] According to the French financial daily Les Echos "A rough estimate shows that the savings generated by lower rates of financing costs for 3 years amounted to 63,000 million euros." [14] Sum that we can compare with the 15,000 million (about 110,000 million distributed among the different creditors) actually rendered (with interest, see above) by Germany between May 2010 and December of 2011. Greece as part of its contribution to the first plan "help" the Troika. the total commitments from Germany to Greece, if corresponding to European decisions taken between 2010 and 2012 is added, rises to 67,000 million euros. However, most of this amount has not yet been disbursed while the savings made ​​according to the calculation of Les Echosya is 63,000 million euros. We have discussed interest rates to 10 years and six years paid by Germany in its emissions bond. If we consider the type to 2 years we see the May 23, 2012, Germany issued securities at zero interest. [15] In early 2012, Germany issued bonds to 6 months by 3,900 million euros to a negative type. In this respect, Le Soir published on May 23, 2012, "investors will receive at the end of these 6 months a little less (0.0112%) than they have borrowed. " [16] If there were any truth to the multitude of lies told regarding Greece (or Portugal or Spain ...), you should be able to read that Greece allows Germany and other strong eurozone countries to save considerable sums . We must complete the list of advantages exploited by Germany and other countries of the Center, with the elements described in the following points. 4. Privatization program of private companies in the countries of Central benefit. The austerity policies imposed on Greece contain an extensive program of privatization [17] of the large economic groups, mainly German and French can make a profit because the public goods are sold at clearance prices. a l' I found quotes and comments a long interview on April 7, 2012 by the Swiss newspaper Le Temps Costas Mitropoulos, one of the characters in charge of the privatization program in Greece: "the offices of the Hellenic development Fund assets (Hellenic Republic asset development Funds) adjoin, accommodation in Athens, with the museum dedicated to the history of the Greek capital. a symbol, since the privatization process conducted by twenty experts, or under the direction of former banker Costas Mitropoulos, will change the face of Greece "


























He adds: "It is to this fund, created at the request of the European Union (EU), the Greek State is transferring properties, concessions and holdings that must find a buyer.
According to initial plans of the EU, target of taking at least 50,000 million of revenue by the end of 2017. "
Mitropoulos Costas, banker, was very active in Geneva and notes that" the transfer of the properties to our fund by Greece, has accelerated . "
He continues:" Our first message to convey is: we are not the Greek state. We are an independent fund manager privatization, since now owns 3% of Greek territory. We have a term of three years. . Are protected from political interference "
journalist Le Temps insists:" You really are you? Privatizations around the world, are always "political" and the Greek State, which continue to be present in the capital of many companies has very bad reputation ... "
The answer presents no ambiguity:" As a business banker, drove the process one of the most important mergers and acquisitions in Greece. the purchase by the Watson international group, the Greek pharmaceutical group Specifa for about 400 million euros
I know the rules: an inverter, so that today you are interested in privatization Greek, you should be able to expect your investment to triple or quadruple. For every euro invested, should get three or four. " [18]
5. The sacrifices imposed on workers
possible to contain the increase in claims
in the countries of Central
inflicted social setbacks Greek workers (and also the Portuguese, Irish, Spanish ...) get defensive workers in Germany, the Netherlands low, Austria, France, Belgium ...
His union leaders fear into conflict.
They wonder how to claim wage increases if countries like Greece, a member of the eurozone, the legal minimum wage by 20% or more is decreased.
in part of the union leadership in the Nordic countries (Finland in particular), we find, even with dismay, they think that there are good aspects in the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (or European budgetary pact) and austerity policies since . is supposed to reinforce sound management of the budget of the United
Let 's talk again of the London agreement
of 1953 on German debt and the Marshall Plan
As indicated in the article " Greece-Germany: who owes whom? (1). The cancellation of the German debt in London in 1953 , "the agreement signed in London Zanjan radically the way currently is to Greece.
They had gathered multiple conditions to allow West Germany quickly developed, allowing reconstruction of its industrial unit.
not only the debt incurred by Germany, contracted outside the two world wars, was reduced by more than 60%, but the payment of war debts and pay reparations to civilian victims and States were delayed to an undetermined date: in fact, the German reunification which took place in 1990 and the peace treaty was signed in Moscow the same year between the authorities of the two Germanys in the process of unification, the United States, the USSR, the UK and France.
therefore, the weight of reparations on the German economy was long delayed.
and in the case of repairs due to Greece, never deserved the slightest effort by Alemaniaya that the German authorities They refuse to give effect to the Greek demands.
Unlike what had happened at the end of the first world war, the Western powers wanted to avoid that, after world war II, Germany suffered the weight of unsustainable repayments, as happened in the first postwar, since they considered that favored the rise of the Nazi regime to power.
the Western powers also wanted an economically strong West Germany (but unarmed and militarily occupied) against the Soviet Union and its allies.
None of this was contemplated with Greece and with the other peripheral countries within the European Union.
to achieve this goal, not only the burden of debt owed ​​by Germany lightened and was granted financial aid in grants, but above all he was allowed to apply a completely favorable economic policy to its relaunch.
the large private industrial German groups were consolidated, although some were the same who had played a key role in the military adventure of the first world war, in supporting the Nazis, in the genocide of the Jewish people, gypsies, etc., in the looting of occupied or annexed countries, in military production and the huge logistical effort of world war II.
Germany could develop impressive public infrastructure, support their industries in order to meet local demand and to conquer foreign markets. He was even allowed to repay a large part of its debt in its own currency.
To be specific, let us reflect on the situation following the London Agreement of 1953.
Let's say Germany reimburses Belgium and France debt interwar in German marks.
these frameworks do not show any interest in trade with the rest of the world, therefore the Belgians and the French tried to get rid of them buying goods and equipment supplied by the German economy.
and so helped to rebuild Germany as a great power export.
for its part, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia and other peripheral eurozone countries must repay their public debts in euros even though they do not have, given the trade deficit with the strongest countries the euro area.
at the same time, the powers that dominate the eurozone force them , via the European Commission and the treaties adopted to develop policies that prevent them both to meet domestic demand and export.
If despite everything, would succeed export, are pushed to lower even more wages, which compresses a little domestic demand and recession deepens.
the privatization program gives the coup de grace to its industrial apparatus, its infrastructure and its heritage general.
to get out of this impasse, it is necessary to implement a set of economic and social measures radical break with the policies carried out so far, both at the national level and at European level. Therefore, we must make an emergency program against the crisis. [19]
Eric Toussaint, professor at the University of Liege, president of CADTM Belgium (Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt , www.cadtm.org ) and member of the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. With Daniel Millet is the author of AAA. Audit Annulation Autre Politique, Seuil, Paris, 2012.
Notes:
[1] A useful biography is published by Wikipedia in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Werner_Sinn
[2] Le Monde, August 1 2012, published on October 8, 2012. [4] See biographical note in German:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Heinz_Roth [5] Figure taken from C. Lapavitsas, A. Kaltenbrunner, G. Lambrinidis, D. Lindo, J. Meadway, J. Michell, JP Painceira, E. Pires, J. Powell, A. Stenfors, N. Teles: "The eurozone Between austerity and default", September 2010. http: //www.researchonmoneyandfinance. org / media / reports / RMF-Eurozone-Austerity-and-Default.pdf . You can see the French summary (written by Stéphanie Jacquemont CADTM) of this study: http://www.cadtm.org/Resume-de-The-Eurozone-between [6] The same phenomenon occurs at the same time in Portugal in Spain, and in countries of Central and Eastern Europe. [7] Figure taken from C. Lapavitsas et al., op.cit. [8] the main holders (ie, banks in these countries) of Greek debt securities are presented according to the graph: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, other holders are gathered in "rest of the world." This graph was taken from Lapavitzas C. et al., Op. cit. According to the BPI, in December 2009, the French banks held Greek government debt in the amount of 31,000 million dollars and German banks had 23.000 million. [9] Since 2010, Western banks stopped or decreased radically the purchase of Greek bonds and began to get rid of those who had previously purchased. They resold the European Central Bank that bought on the secondary market.







[10] Christine Lagarde became the General Director of the IMF in July 2011.
[11] See the Council of the European Union, Declaration of heads of state or government of the euro area and the EU institutions, Brussels, July 21, 2011, paragraph 3.http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/es/ec/123986.pdf
[12] See "The second program of economic juste for Greece ", March 2012, table Financial Times, "Investors rush for the safety of German Bunds , " May 24, 2012, p. 29 [14] Les Echos, Isabelle Couet, 'Support for Greece does not cost anything to Germany ", 21 June 2012. Precise journalist:" The types to 6 years -the corresponding to medium term debt issuance German- indeed have increased from 2.6% in 2009 to 0.95% in 2012. " [15] Le Soir, Pierre Henri Dominique Berns and Thomas," Germany is financed at 0% "May 23, 2012, p. 21. [16] Ibid.[17] See Catastroika documentary [18] See the dossier and And as regards the privatization process see: European Commission, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs, "The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece", March 2012, pp. 31-33,http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/op94_en.htm [19] See Damien Millet - Eric Toussaint, "Europe. Quel program d'urgence face à la crise "? Http://cadtm.org/Europe-Quel-programme-d-urgence first article of the series:" Greece-Germany: Who owes whom? (1) The German debt cancellation in London in 1953 " http://www.cadtm.org/Grecia-Alemania-Quien-debe-a-quien,8390 , published on October 3, 2012.Próximamente: Greece- Germany: who owes whom? (3) which deal with the refusal of the German leaders to pay the reparations due to the Greek people by the Nazi occupation. In Griselda Piñerohttp://www.attacmadrid.org/?p=7813

Posted by  WEB ALTERNATIVE PROMOTION