What can we learn, according to you, from the Argentinean and the Icelandic lessons, in response to the dominant neoliberal mantra? There is any vague hope, in front of what’s happening in the European context , of building a social Europe, as the one aimed from the Indignados and Occupy movements in Europe and in general, a social West, considering also the Occupy movements in the U.S?
The hope is present, for sure, but certainly not in this way, I mean that the idea of imposing an economic identity in Europe, in the absence of a financial and fiscal is an error. If we have had a fiscal union, we would have had a fiscal harmonization and the Eurobonds also, this has not happened because there have been errors in the construction of E.U and the Euro, which need to be solved, but it doesn’t looks like that there’s a political will to reach this aim, because no country in Europe wants to renounce to its sovereignty, and the U.K showed that clearly, through its non-adherence to the Treaty. There was the idea of creating the United States of Europe, in order to create a united Europe, but this clearly seems unlikely to happen because of the sovereignty issue. For example, do you think that the Italians would accept to give their fiscal revenue to Bruxelles, which would distribute it in the ways considered valuable, trough Europe? The answer is no, for sure, and this is the main obstacle in building a similar reality, but if we think to what happened with the Occupy and Indignados movements , we would be in front of a different way to build a Net, not based on western economic principles, rather on principles like solidarity, collaborative consume and this kind of values will create a cultural revolution, a different way to manage and exploit economy , which could lead to an integration, but currently this is a far and philosophical discussion, and the answer is no.
In front of the crisis that is affecting Europe and the U.S, which are suffering an economic and democratic deficit both, which kind of sceneries are outlining for the B.R.I.C.S and the other standing out countries?
I have noticed that, in the reunion of yesterday night, the E.U countries have decided to give 267 billions of Euros to the I.M.F, in order to persuade the B.R.I.C.S countries to provide money to Europe. This mechanism seems absurd; we provide money to Washington in order to be helped, but according to me, the Europeans would like that the Chinese help the bail-out, but I don’t think that they will do that, considering that they are interested in making business, but I don’t see which kind of business, with positive results, they could realize in Europe. In Europe, currently, there’s no chance to invest with a remarkable return, because it’s not clear if this construction will last and that’s the reason why I strongly doubt the Chinese will provide money to us, for not mentioning the Brazilians, which have their own problems and I don’t see the reason why they should provide money to us. The answer is no and according to me, they will remain on the borders of this context and they’ll purpose their leadership during the G20. The only advantage in participating in a group of economic support, coordinated by the I.M.F, is the increase of the presence in the Fund itself, and considering that currently the Fund is completely led by the Western, the president, is traditionally, a European. I believe that these countries would ask, in return for the economic support, a major presence and decisional power inside the I.M.F and probably the presidency of the Fund itself, and I strongly doubt that the Western would give it to them.
Visit the site: http://lorettanapoleoni.net/