O oportunismo, desfaçatez e má-fé de Ingrid Bettencourt 2/2 - Segue a 2ª parte do folhetim. Elucidativo!

QUIEREN ESQUILMAR A COLOMBIA....

  

 

 

Estas líneas siguen siendo vigentes. El hecho de que la exsecuestrada y expolítica colombiana no viva en el país como tampoco su madre, no le restan importancia a las consideraciones aquí expuestas por este Soldado de la patria.

Para su lectura, análisis y difusión. Se puede perdonar pero nunca olvidar !!!!!!!


CARTA A INGRID BETANCOURT
  (Carta enviada por un ex-soldado de Colombia que en cumplimiento de su deber perdió ambas piernas y que ya ha sido re-enviada a mas de 100.127 personas en Colombia, si usted es afín a lo que la carta dice, hágala llegar a más personas para que reflexionen sobre personas que son capaces de vender sus ideales, su patria y hasta su moral tan solo por conseguir sus propios intereses, sin importar a quien deben hacerle daño)   
TEXTO:
  Señora Betancourt: Me dirijo a usted con la idea ilusa de que en algún momento a través de alguien importante Ud. reciba esta carta… para decirle que sí, que nos alegramos mucho por su rescate y vi a mi esposa llorar como una niña al ver a su señora madre rodilla en tierra rezando y dando gracias a Dios por su libertad, se le vale, se le acepta y se le felicita… de corazón… 
Lo que no le acepto ni a usted ni a su familia son esas ínfulas de ciudadanos de mejor categoría, las ínfulas de europeos, producto del fortuito matrimonio suyo con el señor francés ese, de no ser por eso, usted sería una colombiana más, igual a la señora madre del Capitán Guevara… si, la madre de ese mismo mártir de nuestra patria que se murió secuestrado en la selva, condenado por cumplir con su deber, esa noble señora a la que le toca subirse a un bus urbano exponiéndose a que la apuñalen por robarle el marco de la fotografía de su hijo muerto y que sigue secuestrado… nunca le devolvieron su cuerpo
Sabemos que usted era secuestrada estrato 9, no producto de su importancia política, que con los meses fue decayendo, usted era una secuestrada estrato 9 gracias a Francia y gracias a todas las gestiones que su señora madre hizo con ese país y las bajezas que dijo de este. 
Francia no le salvó la vida, usted fue salvada por un pequeño grupo de “patirrajados', aquellos que juraron dar su vida al ejercito o a la policía de Colombia, no por usted, por todos nosotros los Colombianos, esos héroes anónimos que la acompañaron y apoyaron durante su secuestro junto con los grupos de la inteligencia militar de COLOMBIA, si señora, esos que en algún momento juraron ante Dios y la Patria defender las instituciones y a Colombia con su propia vida si fuera necesario y que además lo cumplieron. 
Mire señora Betancourt, su mamá en medio de su desespero, maltrató a este país al decir que esperaba más de las FARC que de su patria (mas de las FARC???? Será que su señora madre no ha podido leer, ni las entrevistas, ni los libros de los secuestrados que han sido liberados para que entienda la clase de delincuentes sin alma que son????????), esa señora que se dedicó, apalancada en su doble nacionalidad, a dejar por el piso europeo el buen nombre de Colombia, esa señora adinerada de la alta sociedad quien siempre culpó al gobierno de su secuestro, será que no ha vuelto a pensar por que paso todo lo que paso? no señora, a usted no la secuestró el gobierno como ustedes mismas le han hecho creer los cocainómanos europeos (como la primera dama francesa), la secuestraron sus proveedores de coca, los terroristas de las Farc. La secuestró su ambición política, su deseo de llamar la atención cuando el gobierno le advirtió que no tomara el riesgo, la secuestro su terquedad, sus ínfulas de que por que era usted las FARC no la iban a secuestrar, la vanidad de que por ser usted la iban a oír y simplemente permitirle regresar para que usted se vanagloriara por haberse sentado a “dialogar” con quienes ya habían dejado al gobierno sentado y con los crespos hechos en la mesa de dialogo como hicieron con el entonces presidente Pastrana???
Si, señora, el Presidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez no merece las disculpas de su 'mamita querida', no mereció nunca el descrédito del que fue victima por parte de su familia. Las disculpas de su mamita, también las merecemos los colombianos que de una u otra manera trabajamos todos los días para que este país no se hunda más de donde la gente de su clase económica y social lo ha hundido… de donde las clases sociales, las diferencias entre la gente y la falta de oportunidades y sobre todo el desplazamiento y el terrorismo lo han postrado, ese país que ha perdido a generaciones completas de ciudadanos gracias al éxodo hacia otros países en busca de paz, seguridad y oportunidades. Y no, no soy de izquierda ni mucho menos, soy uno más, uno que se levanta enfermo a trabajar duro para poder pagar los servicios públicos y el colegio de su hija, un colombiano que conoce los Campos Eliseos gracias a las transmisiones gratuitas de televisión del Tour de Francia, un colombiano que debe ahorrar todo un año para poder pasar unos días en un Hotel pequeño en Melgar, no un colombiano, que como su familia, se mantienen en hoteles 5 estrellas y apartamentos elegantes fuera del país y critica la infraestructura que no conoce.... 
Escuchar hablar a su hermana y a sus hijos de justicia social en Colombia, desde una costosa heladería a orillas del río Sena, recién 'apeados' de los 200 caballos de potencia de un lujoso Citröen es realmente increíble o mejor aun inverosímil. 
Le repito, me alegra que haya salido de ese secuestro, la libertad es un derecho de todos, no solo de las familias con apellidos y dinero como la suya, pero a un ex soldado como yo le duele mucho ver como usted que proclama la libertad y la igualdad se sube a un lujoso avión, cruza el Atlántico y desde el blindaje de los micrófonos en Europa empieza a decir que se va a quedar allá por seguridad, mientras los verdaderos héroes de esta patria, llegan después del secuestro a sus casas de interés social a medio terminar en donde a duras penas pudieron sobre vivir en sus ausencias sus familias, e intentan seguir sobreviviendo, intentando recuperar sus familias, sus amigos y buscar el dinero para pagar los servicios y lo del almuerzo en la tienda de la esquina. 
La reto a que hable de igualdad social y política aquí, en su patria (que al parecer no lo es tanto), en esa patria en la que públicamente usted prometió no volverse a cortar el cabello hasta que se liberara hasta el ultimo de los secuestrados… esa patria que ha podido observar sus ultimas fotografías en las que Ud. aparece bastante recuperadita y con nuevo corte de cabello… venga y hable de justicia social y lidere la que prometió iba a ser su causa humanitaria, siga luchando por aquellos a quienes usted vio amanecer y anochecer encadenados en la selva, venga y cumpla con lo prometido, venga y háganos sentir que todas esas condecoraciones que le dieron en Francia y España si se las merece, venga y luche junto a nosotros, aquí en su tierra, venga y lidere desde aquí un movimiento de divulgación internacional de la verdad a cerca de las FARC, cuéntele al mundo, a ese mundo en el que usted se mueve y en todos los idiomas que usted habla, cuente la verdad, use sus influencias internacionales para decir la verdad sobre los asesinos mas crueles de la historia, hable sin temor, no haga parte de los que se callan por conveniencia, si ya se corto su pelo, no corte la poca fe que nos queda en usted! Cuéntele al mundo con orgullo como una operación de inteligencia COLOMBIANA, la operación Jaque, la libero, cuéntele al mundo que las instituciones colombianas son respetables y sagradas para los colombianos, hable aquí señora, en esta patria que se debate entre la vida y la muerte y que todavía llora la muerte infame del capitán Guevara, de lo contrario, no hable basura, no venga, no vuelva, quédese en la seguridad de sus apartamentos lujosos en Europa y láncese a la política pero allá, hágale competencia a su amigo Sarkozy y espero verla algún día como presidenta del parlamento europeo, hasta presidenta de Francia, pero no cuente con los colombianos 'de a pie', nosotros los que estamos aquí trabajando muy duro por este país, no señora no se vaya a confundir, yo detesto a las FARC tanto o mas que usted, a los paramilitares y a los corruptos por igual, esos terroristas que nos han hecho daño, respeto profundamente las instituciones de Colombia, a pesar de los problemas de corrupción, producto de gente tanto o más ambiciosa que su familia misma, que le rezaron al que fuese con tal de obtener sus objetivos. 
No venga a nuestra tierra señora Betancourt, no acompañe nuestras luchas, tranquilamente quédese allá, aquí seguiremos pidiendo por la libertad de los otros compañeros secuestrados, los colombianos de a pie, esos que sacan fiado el aceite en la tienda de la esquina para poder fritar una salchicha a la hora del almuerzo, esos que juramos defender la patria y en el cumplimiento del deber hemos sufrido el secuestro y otros han dado su vida en la selva para que Colombia siga sobreviviendo. Colombia necesita líderes que se duelan de su dolor, que vivan su pena, Colombia necesita líderes que le devuelvan al pueblo el valor de luchar cada día con esperanza y fuerza  por un futuro mejor. Tranquila señora, descanse que bien merecido lo tiene, quédese por allá cuidando a su señora madre, quien la necesita más que nosotros… Quédese por allá al otro lado del atlántico o en el pacifico de vacaciones, quédese por allá donde la gente todavía le cree o finge creerle…  aquí donde estamos los que estuvimos padeciendo ese infierno del secuestro que usted también vivió y ya pareció olvidar … no la necesitamos.   


 
 

O oportunismo, desfaçatez e má-fé de Ingrid Bettencourt- 1/2  

Colombiana ou francesa conforme o vento sopra, depois dos desmandos que fez e que a imprensa internacional (genericamente falando quase toda de esquerda e quase toda francesa - são uns tristes os franciús!) escamoteou, enquanto inventava o fado da "desgraçadinha", com variações em lá menor, em ré menor e em dó menor!.Eis a verdade nua e crua que nos chega da Colômbia e de todo um povo que se sente injustiçado por esta aventureira de meia-tijela que a França criou e que o maçon Sarkozy apadrinhou. Expôs-se a riscos desnecessários, pondo em perigo a vida de compatriotas seus e vem, agora, exigir um indemnização ao estado colombiano pela sua irresponsabilidade, estupidez e perfídia! É tempo de denunciar estas coisas, para que esta gente não se ria quando lhe convém e faça o que lhe dá na real gana. Infelizmente, exemplos destes há por toda a parte.
Segue:

CARTA ABIERTA A INGRID BETANCOURT

Ingrid:

Difícilmente podría encabezar esta carta con un “respetada” o “apreciada”, dado que su condición actual frente a los colombianos no da para tanta diplomacia.

Bien complicado es para una ciudadana normal como yo, digerir sin indigestarse su última gran idea que tiene convulsionada, indignada y asqueada a la opinión pública. Me encantaría realmente poder hablarle de frente y expresarle la profunda antipatía que millones de colombianos estamos sintiendo por usted. Pero gracias a internet, estoy absolutamente segura de que terminará leyéndome, quizá en la intimidad de su habitación o tal vez frente a sus igualmente desvergonzadas madre y hermana.

Quiero decirle que no solamente estamos viéndola como el ícono del cinismo y la desfachatez si no también como la prueba fehaciente de que su oportunismo no tiene límites y de que la vergüenza no es una palabra que usted conozca en ningún idioma. Y, una vez más, como en ese febrero de 2.002, usted se equivocó. Si señora, se equivocó de cabo a rabo, porque los colombianos unidos hemos demostrado que no nos arredramos ante ningún tipo de delincuencia. Y usted es una vulgar delincuente oportunista. Más chanchullera terminó siendo que sus captores. Por lo menos con esos terroristas sabemos a qué atenernos, pero no hay nada peor que la condición subterránea de quien aparenta decencia y es solamente un vulgar y desvergonzado ladrón.

Que usted necesite plata es una cosa y otra bien distinta es que quiera arrebatársela al más pendejo. Demandar al Estado colombiano por su secuestro y sus consecuencias es algo que solamente cabe en su cabeza y en la de las dos hienas femeninas que la acolitan. De dónde sacó usted que los impuestos que pagamos los colombianos deben ir a su cuenta bancaria en retribución por su irresponsabilidad y sus ansias de protagonismo? ¿Cómo llegó usted a la conclusión de que la gratitud por un rescate que usted calificó como “perfecto” es traicionando a un país que marchó por usted y lloró de alegría el día en que el Ejército Nacional de Colombia la trajo a la libertad sin haber disparado un solo tiro? Dígale a su mami que es mejor quedar mal que quedar peor y que así quietecitas como estaban en Francia, era mejor. A los colombianos ya se nos estaba olvidando el show de odio y de mentiras que ella montó contra Colombia a causa de su absurda terquedad. También se nos estaba olvidando que fue usted misma quien propició su secuestro, empeñándose en ir a donde las fuerzas de seguridad le advirtieron no ir.

Su afrancesado talante no nos convenció nunca, Ingrid. Usted fue colombiana hasta que le convino y se convirtió en ciudadana francesa para que su familia pudiera denigrar de Colombia y su gobierno hasta el cansancio. No se nos olvida que rajaron de todo el mundo menos de los que la secuestraron. No se nos olvida que agradecieron a Chávez, Correa y Kirchner y lánguidamente a Uribe que fue el promotor de su libertad.

Por qué no demanda a su mami por esos genes tan torcidos que le dio? Por qué no demanda a Chávez por no haber intercedido en su favor frente a sus cómplices? ¿Por qué no demanda a Alfonso Cano, Iván Márquez y al Mono Jojoy? ¿Por qué carajos quiere mandarnos la mano al bolsillo de la manera más cínica y grotesca?

El sentimiento general de repudio es tal que en este momento desearíamos que usted jamás hubiera sido rescatada, porque si a alguien corresponde indemnizar por el sufrimiento de muchos es a USTED, descarada desagradecida.

En Francia le comen cuento. Usted se los tramó con “La Rabia en el Corazón”, que es la misma que estamos sintiendo al ver la manera como quiere asaltarnos. Su mamita los convenció de que usted era LA supercandidata presidencial, cuando en realidad su popularidad aquí valía menos que tres centavos. Su familia popularizó su secuestro en Europa poniendo a la comunidad internacional en contra de Colombia como si el Estado la hubiera raptado y callaron tímidamente la rampante verdad de que las FARC eran quienes se la habían trasteado, poniendo en absoluta responsabilidad del gobierno colombiano su libertad.

Calificativos para gentuza como usted hay muchos Ingrid, pero usted es la perfecta bruja arpía, capaz de pasar por encima de quien sea para lograr lo que quiere. Y lo que quiere es platica, de nuestro trabajo. ¡A ver!

A mi me importa un carajo lo que usted haga en Francia. Si la mantiene Sarkozy, si vende un libro o si se levanta un amante millonario. Poca falta le hace usted a Colombia, pero si se viene lanza en ristre a atracarnos, se estrelló contra el mundo otra vez, porque ese robo no lo vamos a permitir.

Sus pretensiones siempre van más allá de lo que la decencia permite, Ingrid. Qué hipocresía tan teatral la de sus declaraciones en el reciente aniversario de su rescate. Qué caradura. Visto está, lo que se hereda no se hurta, hijas de tigre salen pintadas, la perversión de su mamá elevada a la n potencia en usted. Ladronas desagradecidas.

Lleve la vida que le de la gana en París, pero no con nuestra plata, esquílmesela a otros, levántesela trabajando o como prefiera, pero ese zarpazo que le acaba de mandar a la Nación, no va a prosperar, a menos que la justicia de este país termine por demostrarnos categóricamente que es la más injusta del mundo.

MARITZA CASTRILLON SILVA

CIUDADANA COLOMBIANA

Crise? Soluções. Existem?
Creio que vale a pena ler. Quem sai?  A Alemanha ou a Grécia? Ou dobramos a finados pela Eurozona? Estamos todos metidos no mesmo barco e não sâo os nossos troca-tintas que nos ajudam a sair desta confusão. Especulações à parte, há muito que sabiam no que poderia ser realmente o resultado desta aventura. Quem nos acode?

Germany, Greece and Exiting the Eurozone

May 18, 2010

By Marko Papic, Robert Reinfrank and Peter Zeihan

Rumors of the imminent collapse of the eurozone continue to swirl despite the Europeans’ best efforts to hold the currency union together. Some accounts in the financial world have even suggested that Germany’s frustration with the crisis could cause Berlin to quit the eurozone — as soon as this past weekend, according to some — while at the most recent gathering of European leaders French President Nicolas Sarkozy apparently threatened to bolt the bloc if Berlin did not help Greece. Meanwhile, many in Germany — including Chancellor Angela Merkel herself at one point — have called for the creation of a mechanism by which Greece — or the eurozone’s other over-indebted, uncompetitive economies — could be kicked out of the eurozone in the future should they not mend their “irresponsible” spending habits.

Rumors, hints, threats, suggestions and information “from well-placed sources” all seem to point to the hot topic in Europe at the moment, namely, the reconstitution of the eurozone whether by a German exit or a Greek expulsion. We turn to this topic with the question of whether such an option even exists.

The Geography of the European Monetary Union

As we consider the future of the euro, it is important to remember that the economic underpinnings of paper money are not nearly as important as the political underpinnings. Paper currencies in use throughout the world today hold no value without the underlying political decision to make them the legal tender of commercial activity. This means a government must be willing and capable enough to enforce the currency as a legal form of debt settlement, and refusal to accept paper currency is, within limitations, punishable by law.

The trouble with the euro is that it attempts to overlay a monetary dynamic on a geography that does not necessarily lend itself to a single economic or political “space.” The eurozone has a single central bank, the European Central Bank (ECB), and therefore has only one monetary policy, regardless of whether one is located in Northern or Southern Europe. Herein lies the fundamental geographic problem of the euro.

Europe is the second-smallest continent on the planet but has the second-largest number of states packed into its territory. This is not a coincidence. Europe’s multitude of peninsulas, large islands and mountain chains create the geographic conditions that often allow even the weakest political authority to persist. Thus, the Montenegrins have held out against the Ottomans, just as the Irish have against the English.

Despite this patchwork of political authorities, the Continent’s plentiful navigable rivers, large bays and serrated coastlines enable the easy movement of goods and ideas across Europe. This encourages the accumulation of capital due to the low costs of transport while simultaneously encouraging the rapid spread of technological advances, which has allowed the various European states to become astonishingly rich: Five of the top 10 world economies hail from the Continent despite their relatively small populations.

Europe’s network of rivers and seas are not integrated via a single dominant river or sea network, however, meaning capital generation occurs in small, sequestered economic centers. To this day, and despite significant political and economic integration, there is no European New York. In Europe’s case, the Danube has Vienna, the Po has Milan, the Baltic Sea has Stockholm, the Rhineland has both Amsterdam and Frankfurt and the Thames has London. This system of multiple capital centers is then overlaid on Europe’s states, which jealously guard control over their capital and, by extension, their banking systems.

Despite a multitude of different centers of economic — and by extension, political — power, some states, due to geography, are unable to access any capital centers of their own. Much of the Club Med states are geographically disadvantaged. Aside from the Po Valley of northern Italy — and to an extent the Rhone — southern Europe lacks a single river useful for commerce. Consequently, Northern Europe is more urban, industrial and technocratic while Southern Europe tends to be more rural, agricultural and capital-poor.

Introducing the Euro

Given the barrage of economic volatility and challenges the eurozone has confronted in recent quarters and the challenges presented by housing such divergent geography and history under one monetary roof, it is easy to forget why the eurozone was originally formed.

The Cold War made the European Union possible. For centuries, Europe was home to feuding empires and states. After World War II, it became the home of devastated peoples whose security was the responsibility of the United States. Through the Bretton Woods agreement, the United States crafted an economic grouping that regenerated Western Europe’s economic fortunes under a security rubric that Washington firmly controlled. Freed of security competition, the Europeans not only were free to pursue economic growth, they also enjoyed nearly unlimited access to the American market to fuel that growth. Economic integration within Europe to maximize these opportunities made perfect sense. The United States encouraged the economic and political integration because it gave a political underpinning to a security alliance it imposed on Europe, i.e., NATO. Thus, the European Economic Community — the predecessor to today’s European Union — was born.

When the United States abandoned the gold standard in 1971 (for reasons largely unconnected to things European), Washington essentially abrogated the Bretton Woods currency pegs that went with it. One result was a European panic. Floating currencies raised the inevitability of currency competition among the European states, the exact sort of competition that contributed to the Great Depression 40 years earlier. Almost immediately, the need to limit that competition sharpened, first with currency coordination efforts still concentrating on the U.S. dollar and then from 1979 on with efforts focused on the deutschmark. The specter of a unified Germany in 1989 further invigorated economic integration. The euro was in large part an attempt to give Berlin the necessary incentives so that it would not depart the EU project.

But to get Berlin on board with the idea of sharing its currency with the rest of Europe, the eurozone was modeled after the Bundesbank and its deutschmark. To join the eurozone, a country must abide by rigorous “convergence criteria” designed to synchronize the economy of the acceding country with Germany’s economy. The criteria include a budget deficit of less than 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP); government debt levels of less than 60 percent of GDP; annual inflation no higher than 1.5 percentage points above the average of the lowest three members’ annual inflation; and a two-year trial period during which the acceding country’s national currency must float within a plus-or-minus 15 percent currency band against the euro.

As cracks have begun to show in both the political and economic support for the eurozone, however, it is clear that the convergence criteria failed to overcome divergent geography and history. Greece’s violations of the Growth and Stability Pact are clearly the most egregious, but essentially all eurozone members — including France and Germany, which helped draft the rules — have contravened the rules from the very beginning.

Mechanics of a Euro Exit

The EU treaties as presently constituted contractually obligate every EU member state — except Denmark and the United Kingdom, which negotiated opt-outs — to become a eurozone member state at some point. Forcible expulsion or self-imposed exit is technically illegal, or at best would require the approval of all 27 member states (never mind the question about why a troubled eurozone member would approve its own expulsion). Even if it could be managed, surely there are current and soon-to-be eurozone members that would be wary of establishing such a precedent, especially when their fiscal situation could soon be similar to Athens’ situation.

One creative option making the rounds would allow the European Union to technically expel members without breaking the treaties. It would involve setting up a new European Union without the offending state (say, Greece) and establishing within the new institutions a new eurozone as well. Such manipulations would not necessarily destroy the existing European Union; its major members would “simply” recreate the institutions without the member they do not much care for.

Though creative, the proposed solution it is still rife with problems. In such a reduced eurozone, Germany would hold undisputed power, something the rest of Europe might not exactly embrace. If France and the Benelux countries reconstituted the eurozone with Berlin, Germany’s economy would go from constituting 26.8 percent of eurozone version 1.0’s overall output to 45.6 percent of eurozone version 2.0’s overall output. Even states that would be expressly excluded would be able to get in a devastating parting shot: The southern European economies could simply default on any debt held by entities within the countries of the new eurozone.

With these political issues and complications in mind, we turn to the two scenarios of eurozone reconstitution that have garnered the most attention in the media.

Scenario 1: Germany Reinstitutes the Deutschmark

The option of leaving the eurozone for Germany boils down to the potential liabilities that Berlin would be on the hook for if Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland followed Greece down the default path. As Germany prepares itself to vote on its 123 billion euro contribution to the 750 billion euro financial aid mechanism for the eurozone — which sits on top of the 23 billion euros it already approved for Athens alone — the question of whether “it is all worth it” must be on top of every German policymaker’s mind.

This is especially the case as political opposition to the bailout mounts among German voters and Merkel’s coalition partners and political allies. In the latest polls, 47 percent of Germans favor adopting the deutschmark. Furthermore, Merkel’s governing coalition lost a crucial state-level election May 9 in a sign of mounting dissatisfaction with her Christian Democratic Union and its coalition ally, the Free Democratic Party. Even though the governing coalition managed to push through the Greek bailout, there are now serious doubts that Merkel will be able to do the same with the eurozone-wide mechanism May 21.

Germany would therefore not be leaving the eurozone to save its economy or extricate itself from its own debts, but rather to avoid the financial burden of supporting the Club Med economies and their ability to service their 3 trillion euro mountain of debt. At some point, Germany may decide to cut its losses — potentially as much as 500 billion euros, which is the approximate exposure of German banks to Club Med debt — and decide that further bailouts are just throwing money into a bottomless pit. Furthermore, while Germany could always simply rely on the ECB to break all of its rules and begin the policy of purchasing the debt of troubled eurozone governments with newly created money (“quantitative easing”), that in itself would also constitute a bailout. The rest of the eurozone, including Germany, would be paying for it through the weakening of the euro.

Were this moment to dawn on Germany it would have to mean that the situation had deteriorated significantly. As STRATFOR has recently argued, the eurozone provides Germany with considerable economic benefits. Its neighbors are unable to undercut German exports with currency depreciation, and German exports have in turn gained in terms of overall eurozone exports on both the global and eurozone markets. Since euro adoption, unit labor costs in Club Med have increased relative to Germany’s by approximately 25 percent, further entrenching Germany’s competitive edge.

Before Germany could again use the deutschmark, Germany would first have to reinstate its central bank (the Bundesbank), withdraw its reserves from the ECB, print its own currency and then re-denominate the country’s assets and liabilities in deutschmarks. While it would not necessarily be a smooth or easy process, Germany could reintroduce its national currency with far more ease than other eurozone members could.

The deutschmark had a well-established reputation for being a store of value, as the renowned Bundesbank directed Germany’s monetary policy. If Germany were to reintroduce its national currency, it is highly unlikely that Europeans would believe that Germany had forgotten how to run a central bank — Germany’s institutional memory would return quickly, re-establishing the credibility of both the Bundesbank and, by extension, the deutschmark.

As Germany would be replacing a weaker and weakening currency with a stronger and more stable one, if market participants did not simply welcome the exchange, they would be substantially less resistant to the change than what could be expected in other eurozone countries. Germany would therefore not necessarily have to resort to militant crackdowns on capital flows to halt capital trying to escape conversion.

Germany would probably also be able to re-denominate all its debts in the deutschmark via bond swaps. Market participants would accept this exchange because they would probably have far more faith in a deutschmark backed by Germany than in a euro backed by the remaining eurozone member states.

Reinstituting the deutschmark would still be an imperfect process, however, and there would likely be some collateral damage, particularly to Germany’s financial sector. German banks own much of the debt issued by Club Med, which would likely default on repayment in the event Germany parted with the euro. If it reached the point that Germany was going to break with the eurozone, those losses would likely pale in comparison to the costs — be they economic or political — of remaining within the eurozone and financially supporting its continued existence.

Scenario 2: Greece Leaves the Euro

If Athens were able to control its monetary policy, it would ostensibly be able to “solve” the two major problems currently plaguing the Greek economy.

First, Athens could ease its financing problems substantially. The Greek central bank could print money and purchase government debt, bypassing the credit markets. Second, reintroducing its currency would allow Athens to then devalue it, which would stimulate external demand for Greek exports and spur economic growth. This would obviate the need to undergo painful “internal devaluation” via austerity measures that the Greeks have been forced to impose as a condition for their bailout by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the EU.

If Athens were to reinstitute its national currency with the goal of being able to control monetary policy, however, the government would first have to get its national currency circulating (a necessary condition for devaluation).

The first practical problem is that no one is going to want this new currency, principally because it would be clear that the government would only be reintroducing it to devalue it. Unlike during the Eurozone accession process — where participation was motivated by the actual and perceived benefits of adopting a strong/stable currency and receiving lower interest rates, new funds and the ability to transact in many more places — “de-euroizing” offers no such incentives for market participants:

• The drachma would not be a store of value, given that the objective in reintroducing it is to reduce its value.
• The drachma would likely only be accepted within Greece, and even there it would not be accepted everywhere — a condition likely to persist for some time.
• Reinstituting the drachma unilaterally would likely see Greece cast out of the eurozone, and therefore also the European Union as per rules explained above.

The government would essentially be asking investors and its own population to sign a social contract that the government clearly intends to abrogate in the future, if not immediately once it is able to. Therefore, the only way to get the currency circulating would be by force.

The goal would not be to convert every euro-denominated asset into drachmas but rather to get a sufficiently large chunk of the assets so that the government could jumpstart the drachma’s circulation. To be done effectively, the government would want to minimize the amount of money that could escape conversion by either being withdrawn or transferred into asset classes easy to conceal from discovery and appropriation. This would require capital controls and shutting down banks and likely also physical force to prevent even more chaos on the streets of Athens than seen at present. Once the money was locked down, the government would then forcibly convert banks’ holdings by literally replacing banks’ holdings with a similar amount in the national currency. Greeks could then only withdraw their funds in newly issued drachmas that the government gave the banks to service those requests. At the same time, all government spending/payments would be made in the national currency, boosting circulation. The government also would have to show willingness to prosecute anyone using euros on the black market, lest the newly instituted drachma become completely worthless.

Since nobody save the government would want to do this, at the first hint that the government would be moving in this direction, the first thing the Greeks will want to do is withdraw all funds from any institution where their wealth would be at risk. Similarly, the first thing that investors would do — and remember that Greece is as capital-poor as Germany is capital-rich — is cut all exposure. This would require that the forcible conversion be coordinated and definitive, and most important, it would need to be as unexpected as possible.

Realistically, the only way to make this transition without completely unhinging the Greek economy and shredding Greece’s social fabric would be to coordinate with organizations that could provide assistance and oversight. If the IMF, ECB or eurozone member states were to coordinate the transition period and perhaps provide some backing for the national currency’s value during that transition period, the chances of a less-than-completely-disruptive transition would increase.

It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which such help would manifest itself in assistance that would dwarf the 110 billion euro bailout already on the table. For if Europe’s populations are so resistant to the Greek bailout now, what would they think about their governments assuming even more risk by propping up a former eurozone country’s entire financial system so that the country could escape its debt responsibilities to the rest of the eurozone?

The European Dilemma

Europe therefore finds itself being tied in a Gordian knot. On one hand, the Continent’s geography presents a number of incongruities that cannot be overcome without a Herculean (and politically unpalatable) effort on the part of Southern Europe and (equally unpopular) accommodation on the part of Northern Europe. On the other hand, the cost of exit from the eurozone — particularly at a time of global financial calamity, when the move would be in danger of precipitating an even greater crisis — is daunting to say the least.

The resulting conundrum is one in which reconstitution of the eurozone may make sense at some point down the line. But the interlinked web of economic, political, legal and institutional relationships makes this nearly impossible. The cost of exit is prohibitively high, regardless of whether it makes sense.

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"