Democracy. In the West, we make a colossal mistake taking it for granted. We see democracy not as the most fragile of flowers that it really is, but we see it as part of our society's furniture. We tend to think of it as an intransigent given. We mistakenly believe that capitalism begets inevitably democracy. It doesn't.
Demokratija. Na Zapadu pravimo kolosalnu grešku uzimajući je zdravo za gotovo. Vidimo demokratiju ne kao najkrhkiji cvet, što uistinu jeste, već je vidimo kao deo društvenog nameštaja. Imamo naviku da mislimo o njoj kao o beskompromisnoj datosti. U zabludi smo da kapitalizam neizbežno stvara demokratiju. Ne stvara.
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and his great imitators in Beijing have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it is perfectly possible to have a flourishing capitalism, spectacular growth, while politics remains democracy-free. Indeed, democracy is receding in our neck of the woods, here in Europe.
Li Kvan Ju iz Singapura i njegovi veliki podražavaoci iz Pekinga su protestovali van razumne sumnje da je savršeno moguće imati procvat kapitalizma, spektakularan rast, a da politika bude bez demokratije. Uistinu, demokratija je u opadanju u našem kutku sveta, ovde u Evropi.
Earlier this year, while I was representing Greece -- the newly elected Greek government -- in the Eurogroup as its Finance Minister, I was told in no uncertain terms that our nation's democratic process -- our elections -- could not be allowed to interfere with economic policies that were being implemented in Greece. At that moment, I felt that there could be no greater vindication of Lee Kuan Yew, or the Chinese Communist Party, indeed of some recalcitrant friends of mine who kept telling me that democracy would be banned if it ever threatened to change anything.
Ranije ove godine, dok sam predstavljao Grčku - novoizabranu grčku vladu - u Evrogrupi kao njen ministar finansija, nedvosmisleno mi je saopšteno da demokratski procesi naše nacije - naši izbori - ne bi smeli da se mešaju u ekonomsku politiku koja se primenjuje u Grčkoj. U tom trenutku sam osećao da nema boljeg opravdanja za Li Kvana Jua ili za Kinesku komunističku partiju, i zaista za neke moje neposlušne prjatelje koji mi stalno govore da će da zabrane demokratiju čim postane pretnja bilo kakvim promenama.
Tonight, here, I want to present to you an economic case for an authentic democracy. I want to ask you to join me in believing again that Lee Kuan Yew, the Chinese Communist Party and indeed the Eurogroup are wrong in believing that we can dispense with democracy -- that we need an authentic, boisterous democracy. And without democracy, our societies will be nastier, our future bleak and our great, new technologies wasted.
Večeras vam ovde želim predstaviti ekonomski argument za autentičnu demokratiju. Želim da zatražim od vas da mi se pridružite u ponovnoj veri da Li Kvan Ju, Kineska komunistička partija kao i Evrogrupa greše u ubeđenju da možemo bez demokratije - i da nam je potrebna autentična, žestoka demokratija. A bez demokratije, naša društva bi bila gnusnija, naša budućnost mračna a naša sjajna, nova tehnologija bi bila protraćena.
Speaking of waste, allow me to point out an interesting paradox that is threatening our economies as we speak. I call it the twin peaks paradox. One peak you understand -- you know it, you recognize it -- is the mountain of debts that has been casting a long shadow over the United States, Europe, the whole world. We all recognize the mountain of debts. But few people discern its twin. A mountain of idle cash belonging to rich savers and to corporations, too terrified to invest it into the productive activities that can generate the incomes from which you can extinguish the mountain of debts and which can produce all those things that humanity desperately needs, like green energy.
Govoreći o traćenju, dozvolite da ukažem na jedan zanimljiv paradoks koji trenutno preti našim ekonomijama. Zovem ga paradoksom blizanačkih vrhova. Jedan vrh razumete - poznat vam je, prepoznajete ga - to je planina dugova koja baca veliku senku preko Sjedinjenih Država, Evrope, čitavog sveta. Svima nam je poznata planina dugova. Ali nekolicina raspoznaje njenu bliznakinju. Planinu ležećeg novca koja pripada bogatim štedišama i korporacijama, koji su suviše uplašeni da ga ulože u produktivne delatnosti koje bi proizvodile dobiti kojima biste mogli da eliminišete planinu duga i koji bi mogli da proizvedu sve ono što je čovečanstvu očajnički potrebno, poput ekološke energije.
Now let me give you two numbers. Over the last three months, in the United States, in Britain and in the Eurozone, we have invested, collectively, 3.4 trillion dollars on all the wealth-producing goods -- things like industrial plants, machinery, office blocks, schools, roads, railways, machinery, and so on and so forth. $3.4 trillion sounds like a lot of money until you compare it to the $5.1 trillion that has been slushing around in the same countries, in our financial institutions, doing absolutely nothing during the same period except inflating stock exchanges and bidding up house prices.
Sada mi dozvolite da vam ponudim dva broja. U protekla tri meseca u Sjedinjenim Državama, Britaniji i Evrozoni smo uložili, sveukupno, 3,4 biliona dolara na sve tekovine za proizvodnju bogatstva - stvari poput industrijskog bilja, mašina, kancelarija, škola, puteva, železnica, mašina i tako dalje. 3,4 biliona zvuči kao mnogo novca, sve dok ga uporedite sa 5,1 biliona dolara koji se prebacuju okolo u istim tim državama, u našim finansijskim institucijama, sve to vreme ne radeći ništa, osim što dovodi do inflacije na našim berzama i uvećava cene nekretnina.
So a mountain of debt and a mountain of idle cash form twin peaks, failing to cancel each other out through the normal operation of the markets.
Dakle, planina duga i planina ležećeg novca formiraju blizanačke vrhove koji ne uspevaju da se ponište kroz normalan rad tržišta.
The result is stagnant wages, more than a quarter of 25- to 54-year-olds in America, in Japan and in Europe out of work. And consequently, low aggregate demand, which in a never-ending cycle, reinforces the pessimism of the investors, who, fearing low demand, reproduce it by not investing -- exactly like Oedipus' father, who, terrified by the prophecy of the oracle that his son would grow up to kill him, unwittingly engineered the conditions that ensured that Oedipus, his son, would kill him.
Rezultat toga je stagnacija plata, više od četvrtine onih od 25 do 54 godine u Americi, Japanu i Evropi su bez posla. I posledično, niska ukupna potražnja koja u beskrajnom ciklusu, učvršćuje pesimizam investitora, koji iz straha od niske potražnje ne investiraju i tako stvaraju istu - baš poput Edipovog oca, koji, preplašen proročanstvom iz proročišta da će ga njegov odrasli sin ubiti, nenamerno stvara uslove koji će obezbediti da ga ubije njegov sin Edip.
This is my quarrel with capitalism. Its gross wastefulness, all this idle cash, should be energized to improve lives, to develop human talents, and indeed to finance all these technologies, green technologies, which are absolutely essential for saving planet Earth.
Ovo je moje neslaganje s kapitalizmom. Njegova sveukupna protraćenost, sav taj ležeći novac bi trebalo da bude podstaknut da unapređuje živote, da razvija ljudske talente i zaista da finansira svu ovu tehnologiju, ekološku tehnologiju, sve to je apsolutno ključno za spas planete Zemlje.
Am I right in believing that democracy might be the answer? I believe so, but before we move on, what do we mean by democracy? Aristotle defined democracy as the constitution in which the free and the poor, being in the majority, control government.
Jesam li u pravu što verujem da bi demokratija mogla da bude rešenje? Verujem da da, no pre nego što nastavimo, šta podrazumevamo pod demokratijom? Aristotel je definisao demokratiju kao uređenje u kome slobodni i siromašni kao većina upravljaju vladom.
Now, of course Athenian democracy excluded too many. Women, migrants and, of course, the slaves. But it would be a mistake to dismiss the significance of ancient Athenian democracy on the basis of whom it excluded.
Sad, naravno atinska demokratija je izuzimala mnoge. Žene, migrante i naravno robove. Međutim, bila bi greška odbaciti značaj antičke atinske demokratije na osnovu toga koga je isključivala.
What was more pertinent, and continues to be so about ancient Athenian democracy, was the inclusion of the working poor, who not only acquired the right to free speech, but more importantly, crucially, they acquired the rights to political judgments that were afforded equal weight in the decision-making concerning matters of state. Now, of course, Athenian democracy didn't last long. Like a candle that burns brightly, it burned out quickly. And indeed, our liberal democracies today do not have their roots in ancient Athens. They have their roots in the Magna Carta, in the 1688 Glorious Revolution, indeed in the American constitution. Whereas Athenian democracy was focusing on the masterless citizen and empowering the working poor, our liberal democracies are founded on the Magna Carta tradition, which was, after all, a charter for masters. And indeed, liberal democracy only surfaced when it was possible to separate fully the political sphere from the economic sphere, so as to confine the democratic process fully in the political sphere, leaving the economic sphere -- the corporate world, if you want -- as a democracy-free zone.
Ono što je bilo značajnije, i danas je tako, kod atinske demokratije to je uključenje siromašnih radnika, koji ne samo da su stekli pravo na slobodu govora, već značajnije, krucijalnije, stekli su pravo na političke sudove koji su im obezbeđivali jednaku težinu u donošenju odluka koje se tiču državnih pitanja. Sad, naravno, atinska demokratija nije dugo trajala. Poput sveće koja jarko svetli, brzo je sagorela. I zaista naše današnje liberalne demokratije nemaju korene u antičkoj Atini. Njihovi koreni su u Velikoj povelji, u Slavnoj revoluciji iz 1688, kao i u američkom ustavu. Dok se atinska demokratija usredsređivala na slobodnog građanina i na jačanje siromašnih radnika, naše liberalne demokratije su zasnovane na tradiciji Velike povelje, koja je, sve u svemu, bila povelja za gospodare. I, uistinu, liberalna demokratija je tek isplivala s mogućnošću potpunog razdvajanja političke i ekonomske sfere, kako bi se demokratski procesi ograničili u potpunosti na političku sferu, ostavljajući ekonomsku sferu - korporativni svet, ako hoćete - kao prostor oslobođen demokratije.
Now, in our democracies today, this separation of the economic from the political sphere, the moment it started happening, it gave rise to an inexorable, epic struggle between the two, with the economic sphere colonizing the political sphere, eating into its power.
Sad, u našim današnjim demokratijama ova razdvojenost ekonomske od političke sfere, u trenutku kad se počela dešavati dovela je do neumoljive, epske borbe između njih, pri čemu je ekonomska sfera kolonizovala političku sferu, nagrizavši njenu moć.
Have you wondered why politicians are not what they used to be? It's not because their DNA has degenerated.
Jeste li se ikad zapitali zašto političari nisu što su nekad bili? To nije zbog degeneracije njihovog DNK.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
It is rather because one can be in government today and not in power, because power has migrated from the political to the economic sphere, which is separate.
Već zato što danas pojedinac može da bude u vladi, ali ne na vlasti jer je vlast prešla iz političke u ekonomsku sferu, koja je oodvojena.
Indeed, I spoke about my quarrel with capitalism. If you think about it, it is a little bit like a population of predators, that are so successful in decimating the prey that they must feed on, that in the end they starve.
Zaista, govorio sam o mom neslaganju s kapitalizmom. Ako razmislite o tome, on je nalik na populaciju grabljivica, koje su toliko uspešne u desetkovanju plena kojim se hrane da na kraju umiru od gladi.
Similarly, the economic sphere has been colonizing and cannibalizing the political sphere to such an extent that it is undermining itself, causing economic crisis. Corporate power is increasing, political goods are devaluing, inequality is rising, aggregate demand is falling and CEOs of corporations are too scared to invest the cash of their corporations.
Slično, ekonomska sfera je kolonizovala i kanibalizovala političku sferu do te mere da je počela da podriva samu sebe, uzrokujući ekonomske krize. Korporativna moć raste, politička dobra gube vrednost, nejednakost je u usponu, ukupna potražnja je u padu, a izvršni direktori korporacija su isuviše uplašeni da ulažu novac svojih korporacija.
So the more capitalism succeeds in taking the demos out of democracy, the taller the twin peaks and the greater the waste of human resources and humanity's wealth.
Pa, što je kapitalizam uspešniji u uklanjanju demosa iz demokratije, to su blizanački vrhovi viši i sve se više traće ljudski resursi i ljudsko bogatstvo.
Clearly, if this is right, we must reunite the political and economic spheres and better do it with a demos being in control, like in ancient Athens except without the slaves or the exclusion of women and migrants.
Očito, ako je ovo tačno, moramo da ponovo ujedinimo političke i ekonomske sfere i bolje da to učinimo s narodom na vlasti. Kao u antičkoj Atini, samo bez robova ili isključivanja žena i migranata.
Now, this is not an original idea. The Marxist left had that idea 100 years ago and it didn't go very well, did it?
Sad, ovo nije originalna zamisao. Marksistički levičari su imali ovu zamisao pre 100 godina i nisu se baš proslavili, zar ne?
The lesson that we learned from the Soviet debacle is that only by a miracle will the working poor be reempowered, as they were in ancient Athens, without creating new forms of brutality and waste.
Lekcija koju smo naučili iz sovjetskog debakla je da će samo uz pomoć čuda siromašni radnici biti ponovo osnaženi, kao što su bili u antičkoj Atini, bez stvaranja novih oblika brutalnosti i traćenja.
But there is a solution: eliminate the working poor. Capitalism's doing it by replacing low-wage workers with automata, androids, robots. The problem is that as long as the economic and the political spheres are separate, automation makes the twin peaks taller, the waste loftier and the social conflicts deeper, including -- soon, I believe -- in places like China.
Međutim, postoji rešenje: uklonite siromašne radnike. Kapitalizam to radi, zamenjujući loše plaćene radnike automatima, androidima, robotima. Problem je da dok su god ekonomska i politička sfera razdvojene, automatizacija povećava blizanačke vrhove, traćenje je blagorodnije, a društveni konflikti dublji, uključujući - verujem uskoro - na mestima poput Kine.
So we need to reconfigure, we need to reunite the economic and the political spheres, but we'd better do it by democratizing the reunified sphere, lest we end up with a surveillance-mad hyperautocracy that makes The Matrix, the movie, look like a documentary.
Zato moramo da rekonfigurišemo, moramo da ponovo ujedninimo ekonomske i političke sfere, ali bolje da to učinimo demokratizacijom nanovo ujedinjenih sfera, inače ćemo da završimo u hiperautokratiji opsednutoj nadzorom zbog koje film "Matriks" izgleda poput dokumentarca.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
So the question is not whether capitalism will survive the technological innovations it is spawning. The more interesting question is whether capitalism will be succeeded by something resembling a Matrix dystopia or something much closer to a Star Trek-like society, where machines serve the humans and the humans expend their energies exploring the universe and indulging in long debates about the meaning of life in some ancient, Athenian-like, high tech agora.
Zato nije u pitanju to da li će kapitalizam preživeti tehnološke inovacije koje stvara. Zanimljivije je pitanje da li će kapitalizam naslediti nešto što liči na distopiju iz "Matriksa" ili nešto što je bliže društvu iz "Zvezdanih staza", gde su mašine u službi ljudi, a ljudi troše svoju energiju u istraživanje univerzuma i u upuštanju u duge rasprave o smislu života u nekakvoj antičkoj, nalik atinskoj, visoko tehnološkoj agori.
I think we can afford to be optimistic. But what would it take, what would it look like to have this Star Trek-like utopia, instead of the Matrix-like dystopia?
Mislim da možemo sebi priuštiti optimizam. Ali šta bi nas koštalo, kako bi izgledalo da imamo ovu utopiju iz "Zvezdanih staza" umesto distopije iz "Matriksa"?
In practical terms, allow me to share just briefly, a couple of examples.
Prostim rečima, dozvolite da podelim s vama sažeto nekoliko primera.
At the level of the enterprise, imagine a capital market, where you earn capital as you work, and where your capital follows you from one job to another, from one company to another, and the company -- whichever one you happen to work at at that time -- is solely owned by those who happen to work in it at that moment. Then all income stems from capital, from profits, and the very concept of wage labor becomes obsolete. No more separation between those who own but do not work in the company and those who work but do not own the company; no more tug-of-war between capital and labor; no great gap between investment and saving; indeed, no towering twin peaks.
Zamislite glavno tržište na nivou preduzeća, gde možete da steknete kapital dok radite, i gde vas vaš kapital prati s jednog posla na drugi, od jedne do druge firme, a firma - u kojoj god da radite u tom trenutku - je u potpunosti u posedu onih koji u tom trenutku rade u njoj. Tako sav prihod proizilazi iz kapitala, iz profita, a sam koncept plaćenog rada postaje prevaziđen. Nema više razdvajanja između onih koji poseduju firmu, ali ne rade u njoj i onih koji rade, ali ne poseduju firmu; nema više rastrgnutosti između kapitala i rada; nema velikog jaza između investicije i štednje; uistinu, nema više gomilanja blizanačkih vrhova.
At the level of the global political economy, imagine for a moment that our national currencies have a free-floating exchange rate, with a universal, global, digital currency, one that is issued by the International Monetary Fund, the G-20, on behalf of all humanity. And imagine further that all international trade is denominated in this currency -- let's call it "the cosmos," in units of cosmos -- with every government agreeing to be paying into a common fund a sum of cosmos units proportional to the country's trade deficit, or indeed to a country's trade surplus. And imagine that that fund is utilized to invest in green technologies, especially in parts of the world where investment funding is scarce.
Na nivou globalne političke ekonomije, zamislite na trenutak da naše nacionalne monete imaju slobodno-plutajuću stopu razmene, sa univerzalnom, globalnom, digitalnom monetom, koju bi izdavali Međunarodni monetarni fond, G-20, u ime celokupnog čovečanstva. Zamislite još da je sva međunarodna trgovina izražena u ovoj moneti - nazovimo je "kosmos", u jedinicama kosmosa - uz dogovor svih vlada da će uplaćivati u zajednički fond sumu kosmičkih jedinica proporcionalnu trgovinskom deficitu te zemlje ili, zapravo, trgovinskom višku te zemlje. I zamislite da se taj fond koristi za ulaganje u ekološke tehnologije, naročito u delovima sveta gde su investicioni fondovi oskudni.
This is not a new idea. It's what, effectively, John Maynard Keynes proposed in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference. The problem is that back then, they didn't have the technology to implement it. Now we do, especially in the context of a reunified political-economic sphere.
Ovo nije nova zamisao. To je u suštini nešto što je Džon Majnard Kejns predložio 1944. nakonferenciji Breton Vuds. Problem je da tada nisu imali tehnologiju da bi ovo primenili. Sada imamo, naročito u kontekstu ponovnog ujedinjenja političko-ekonomske sfere.
The world that I am describing to you is simultaneously libertarian, in that it prioritizes empowered individuals, Marxist, since it will have confined to the dustbin of history the division between capital and labor, and Keynesian, global Keynesian. But above all else, it is a world in which we will be able to imagine an authentic democracy.
Svet koji vam opisujem je istovremeno libertarijanski, u smislu da mu je prioritet osnaživanje pojedinaca, marksistički, pošto bi poslao na đubrište istorije podelu između kapitala i rada i kejnsijanistički, globalni kejnsijanizam. Ali iznad svega to je svet u kome bismo bili u stanju da zamislimo autentičnu demokratiju.
Will such a world dawn? Or shall we descend into a Matrix-like dystopia? The answer lies in the political choice that we shall be making collectively. It is our choice, and we'd better make it democratically.
Hoće li takav svet da se začne? Ili ćemo da skliznemo u distopiju nalik Matriksu? Odgovor leži u političkom izboru koji ćemo kolektivno da napravimo. Izbor je na nama i bolje bi nam bilo da ga napravimo demokratski.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
Bruno Giussani: Yanis ... It was you who described yourself in your bios as a libertarian Marxist. What is the relevance of Marx's analysis today?
Bruno Đuzani: Janise... ti si sebe u biografiji opisao kao libertarijanskog marksistu. Koji je značaj Marksove analize danas?
Yanis Varoufakis: Well, if there was any relevance in what I just said, then Marx is relevant. Because the whole point of reunifying the political and economic is -- if we don't do it, then technological innovation is going to create such a massive fall in aggregate demand,
Janis Varufakis: Pa, ako je iole značajno ono što sam upravo ispričao, onda je Marks značajan. Jer je čitava svrha ponovnog ujedinjenja politike i ekonomije - ako to ne uradimo, onda će tehnološke inovacije stvoriti tako velik pad u sveukupnoj potražnji,
what Larry Summers refers to as secular stagnation. With this crisis migrating from one part of the world, as it is now, it will destabilize not only our democracies, but even the emerging world that is not that keen on liberal democracy. So if this analysis holds water, then Marx is absolutely relevant. But so is Hayek, that's why I'm a libertarian Marxist, and so is Keynes, so that's why I'm totally confused.
nešto što Leri Samers označava kao sekularnu stagnaciju. Uz migraciju ove krize iz jednog dela sveta u drugi, kao što imamo danas, to će destabilizovati, ne samo naše demokratije, već čak i svet u razvoju koji nije toliko naklonjen liberalnoj demokratiji. Pa, ako ova analiza pije vodu, onda je Marks apsolutno relevantan. Ali je i Hajek, zato sam ja libertarijanski marksista, kao što je i Kejns, eto zašto sam potpuno zbunjen.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
BG: Indeed, and possibly we are too, now.
BĐ: Uistinu, a verovatno smo sad i mi.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
YV: If you are not confused, you are not thinking, OK?
JV: Ako niste zbunjeni, ne razmišljate, u redu?
BG: That's a very, very Greek philosopher kind of thing to say --
BĐ: To baš zvuči kao nešto što bi rekli grčki filozofi -
YV: That was Einstein, actually --
JV: Ovo je zapravo rekao Ajnštajn -
BG: During your talk you mentioned Singapore and China, and last night at the speaker dinner, you expressed a pretty strong opinion about how the West looks at China. Would you like to share that?
BĐ: Tokom svog govora, pomenuo si Singapur i Kinu, a sinoć na večeri za govornike, izrazio si veoma snažan stav o tome kako Zapad gleda na Kinu. Da li bi želeo da podeliš taj stav?
YV: Well, there's a great degree of hypocrisy. In our liberal democracies, we have a semblance of democracy. It's because we have confined, as I was saying in my talk, democracy to the political sphere, while leaving the one sphere where all the action is -- the economic sphere -- a completely democracy-free zone.
JV: Pa, radi se o velikom stepenu licemerja. U našim liberalnim demokratijama imamo naličje demokratije. To je zato što smo ograničili, kao što sam rekao u govoru, demokratiju na političku sferu, dok smo ostavili jednu sferu u kojoj se sve događa - ekonomsku sferu - u potpunosti lišenu demokratije.
In a sense, if I am allowed to be provocative, China today is closer to Britain in the 19th century. Because remember, we tend to associate liberalism with democracy -- that's a mistake, historically. Liberalism, liberal, it's like John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill was particularly skeptical about the democratic process. So what you are seeing now in China is a very similar process to the one that we had in Britain during the Industrial Revolution, especially the transition from the first to the second. And to be castigating China for doing that which the West did in the 19th century, smacks of hypocrisy.
U smislu, ako mi dozvoljavate da budem provokativan, da je današnja Kina bliža Britaniji iz 19. veka. Jer upamtite, često poistovećujemo liberalizam s demokratijom - to je istorijska greška. Liberalizam, liberalnost, to je poput Džona Stjuarta Mila. Džon Stjuart Mil je bio naročito sumnjičav po pitanju demokratskih procesa. Ono što trenutno gledate u Kini je veoma sličan proces onome koji smo imali u Britaniji tokom Industrijske revolucije, naročito prelaz iz prve u drugu. A kritikovati Kinu zato što radi ono što je Zapad radio u 19. veku ima šmek licemerstva.
BG: I am sure that many people here are wondering about your experience as the Finance Minister of Greece earlier this year.
BĐ: Siguran sam da se mnogi ovde pitaju o tvom iskustvu ministra finansija Grčke ranije ove godine.
YV: I knew this was coming.
JV: Očekivao sam to pitanje.
BG: Yes.
BĐ: Da.
BG: Six months after, how do you look back at the first half of the year?
Šest meseci kasnije, kako sad gledaš na prvu polovinu godine?
YV: Extremely exciting, from a personal point of view, and very disappointing, because we had an opportunity to reboot the Eurozone. Not just Greece, the Eurozone. To move away from the complacency and the constant denial that there was a massive -- and there is a massive architectural fault line going through the Eurozone, which is threatening, massively, the whole of the European Union process.
JV: Izuzetno je uzbudljivo, s lične tačke gledišta i veoma razočaravajuće jer smo imali šansu da nanovo definišemo Evrozonu. Ne samo Grčku, već Evrozonu. Da napravimo otklon od samozadovoljstva i stalnog poricanja da smo imali ogromnu - i dalje imamo ogromnu arhitektonsku pukotinu koja prolazi Evrozonom, koja masivno preti celokupnim procesima Evropske unije.
We had an opportunity on the basis of the Greek program -- which by the way, was the first program to manifest that denial -- to put it right. And, unfortunately, the powers in the Eurozone, in the Eurogroup, chose to maintain denial.
Imali smo šansu, na osnovu grčkog programa - koji je usput bio prvi program koji je obelodanio to poricanje - da ispravimo stvari. A, nažalost, snage u Evrozoni, u Evrogrupi, biraju da održavaju to poricanje.
But you know what happens. This is the experience of the Soviet Union. When you try to keep alive an economic system that architecturally cannot survive, through political will and through authoritarianism, you may succeed in prolonging it, but when change happens it happens very abruptly and catastrophically.
Ali znate o čemu se radi. To je iskustvo Sovjetskog saveza. Kada pokušavate da održite u životu ekonomski sistem, koji arhitektonski ne može da preživi, političkom voljom i autoritarnošću, možda ćete uspeti da ga produžite, ali kada dođe do promene, ona se dešava naglo i katastrofalno.
BG: What kind of change are you foreseeing?
BĐ: Kakvu promenu predviđaš?
YV: Well, there's no doubt that if we don't change the architecture of the Eurozone, the Eurozone has no future.
JV: Pa, nema sumnje da ako ne promenimo arhitekturu Evrozone, Evrozona nema budućnost.
BG: Did you make any mistakes when you were Finance Minister?
BĐ: Da li si napravio neku grešku dok si bio ministar finansija?
YV: Every day.
JV: Svakodnevno.
BG: For example? YV: Anybody who looks back --
BĐ: Na primer? JV: Svako ko se osvrne -
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
No, but seriously. If there's any Minister of Finance, or of anything else for that matter, who tells you after six months in a job, especially in such a stressful situation, that they have made no mistake, they're dangerous people. Of course I made mistakes.
Ne, ozbiljno. Ako postoji ijedan ministar finansija ili bilo čega drugog, koji vam nakon šest meseci na poslu kaže, naročito u tako stresnoj situaciji, da nisu napravili nikakvu grešku, radi se o opasnim ljudima. Naravno da sam grešio.
The greatest mistake was to sign the application for the extension of a loan agreement in the end of February. I was imagining that there was a genuine interest on the side of the creditors to find common ground. And there wasn't. They were simply interested in crushing our government, just because they did not want to have to deal with the architectural fault lines that were running through the Eurozone. And because they didn't want to admit that for five years they were implementing a catastrophic program in Greece. We lost one-third of our nominal GDP. This is worse than the Great Depression. And no one has come clean from the troika of lenders that have been imposing this policy to say, "This was a colossal mistake."
Najveća greška je što sam potpisao molbu za produženje dogovora o zajmu krajem februara. Zamišljao sam da postoji stvarna zainteresovanost od strane kreditora da se nađe zajednički jezik. Međutim nije tako bilo. Jedino ih je interesovalo da sruše našu vladu, samo zato što nisu želeli da budu prinuđeni da se bave arhitektonskim pukotinama koje se šire Evrozonom. I zato što nisu želeli da priznaju da su tokom pet godina primenjivali katastrofalan program u Grčkoj. Izgubili smo trećinu našeg nominalnog BDP-a. Ovo je gore od Velike depresije. A niko nije izneo na videlo, od strane kreditorske trojke koja je primenjivala ovu politiku priznanje: "Ovo je bila kolosalna greška."
BG: Despite all this, and despite the aggressiveness of the discussion, you seem to be remaining quite pro-European.
BĐ: Uprkos svemu ovome, i uprkos agresivnosti diskusije, čini se da si i dalje prilično pro-Evropljanin.
YV: Absolutely. Look, my criticism of the European Union and the Eurozone comes from a person who lives and breathes Europe. My greatest fear is that the Eurozone will not survive. Because if it doesn't, the centrifugal forces that will be unleashed will be demonic, and they will destroy the European Union. And that will be catastrophic not just for Europe but for the whole global economy.
JV: Apsolutno. Vidite, moja kritika Evropske unije i Evrozone dolazi od osobe koja živi i diše Evropu. Moj najveći strah je da Evrozona neće preživeti. Jer, ako ne preživi, centrifugalne sile koje će se osloboditi će da budu demonske i uništiće Evropsku uniju. A to će da bude katastrofalno, ne samo za Evropu, već za celokupnu globalnu ekonomiju.
We are probably the largest economy in the world. And if we allow ourselves to fall into a route of the postmodern 1930's, which seems to me to be what we are doing, then that will be detrimental to the future of Europeans and non-Europeans alike.
Mi smo najverovatnije najveća ekonomija na svetu. I, ako dozvolimo sebi da skliznemo na trasu postmodernih 1930-ih, a čini mi se da to radimo, onda će to da bude štetno po budućnost Evropljana i sličnih neevropljana.
BG: We definitely hope you are wrong on that point. Yanis, thank you for coming to TED.
BĐ: Definitivno se nadamo da grešiš po tom pitanju. Janise, hvala što si došao na TED.
YV: Thank you.
JV: Hvala vama.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)