|
«Είχαμε διαφορετικές μακροοικονομικές απόψεις,
αλλά πάντα σταθήκαμε από κοινού στη σημασία
διατήρησης της Ατλαντικής Συμμαχίας και της
Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης», αναφέρει μεταξύ άλλων για τη
συνεργασία του με «έναν καλό φίλο», τον υπουργό
Οικονομικών της Γερμανίας Βόλφγκανγκ
Σόιμπλε. Εξάλλου, ο ίδιος
διακρίνει διατηρήσιμη οικονομική βελτίωση στην
περιοχή της Ευρωζώνης, αν και κατά τη γνώμη του
«η βελτιωμένη οικονομία της Ευρώπης θα ήταν
ακόμη ισχυρότερη αν ο διαθέσιμος δημοσιονομικός
χώρος χρησιμοποιούνταν πληρέστερα».
Παράλληλα, ο κ. Lew τονίζει με νόημα ότι
εμπορικές συμφωνίες όπως η TTIP και η TPP είναι
σαφώς προς το συμφέρον των ΗΠΑ. Αναφερόμενος
ειδικότερα στην αμερικανική οικονομία, εκφράζει
την άποψη ότι μέσα σε ένα περιβάλλον μεγέθυνσης
δεν χρειάζονται μεγάλες περικοπές φόρων που
προσθέτουν στο έλλειμμα. «Θα ήταν το αντίστροφο
του Ρομπέν των Δασών να περικόψεις
ιατροφαρμακευτικές παροχές προς χαμηλόμισθους
εργαζόμενους για να μειώσεις φόρους σε υψηλά
επίπεδα επενδυτικών εισοδημάτων, αλλά αυτό
ακριβώς θα έκανε η εκκρεμούσα νομοθεσία»,
συμπλήρωσε ο τέως υπουργός Οικονομικών των ΗΠΑ.
Ολόκληρο το κείμενο
της συνέντευξης στα Αγγλικά:
Do you detect a reverse in the course of the
Greek economy? Or is it still too early? On the
one hand, Grexit seems to have left the table,
but on the other hand we still don't see any
growth rates that would point to a success story
in Greece.
Greece has clearly made progress. The most
recent IMF review reflected that progress, as do
measures of economic performance. After a period
of better growth, the economy did flatten out,
but improved fiscal conditions are a basis for
better growth in the future, and a first step
back into capital markets reflects that
progress. Countries cannot simply cut or borrow
their way to sustained growth. To reach
sustained growth and improved income equality
requires a balanced and disciplined approach
that supports both economic demand and
investment - which is why maintaining reforms
and ultimately reaching an agreement on debt
restructuring remain so important. With this
balanced approach, Greece should be an
attractive place to invest, and should see
growing access to capital markets. There is
still more work to be done, but with the
continued determination of the Greek people and
their elected government, and the ongoing
cooperation of international partners, the
future holds the promise of further economic
improvement in this birthplace of democracy.
As it emerges from the Eurogroup meeting of June
15th in Luxembourg, the IMF will continue to
participate actively in the Greek program, but
will only disburse money if and when the medium
term measures on the Greek debt are specified.
How do you evaluate this development? Is it a
good solution?
I have long agreed with the IMF that debt
restructuring is essential to achieve a long
term solution that puts Greece back on a path to
sustained economic growth. It is in the interest
of Europe, as well as the IMF and the US, for
Greece to be on an economic path that promotes
domestic and geopolitical stability. I was
encouraged that the Luxembourg meeting produced
greater certainty that debt restructuring will
be addressed, and in that context hopefully
resolve the Greek financial situation so that it
does not require constant revisiting. That in
and of itself will help produce a better
environment both for economic growth and
political stability. Since Luxembourg,
additional progress on the IMF review and an
initial step into the private capital markets
are both positive developments.
In your opinion, where should the Greek side
give more emphasis? On the demand for further
frontloaded debt relief or on the implementation
of reforms that will improve competitiveness and
increase GDP? What's more important?
The best solution is not a choice between these
options, but all of the above. A well balanced
plan that maintains credible fiscal targets,
economic reforms that promote sustained
investment and hiring, and debt restructuring
that produces sustainable flows should all be
combined in a comprehensive plan. Until all the
elements are addressed at the same time, there
will be an expectation of additional rounds of
negotiations and all parties will hold back
because of that. Moreover, the sum is greater
than the parts if done together, and the impact
on confidence and investment would be greater.
What is your experience through your cooperation
with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble,
and how do you assess the performance of the
Eurozone today?
Minister Schauble is a good friend, and I deeply
value the role he has played to advance US and
European cooperation to build a stronger and
safer world. He and I sometimes have different
macroeconomic views, but always stood together
on the importance of maintaining the Atlantic
Alliance and the European Union. On matters of
mutual security and protecting sovereignty, one
could ask for no better partner than Minister
Schauble, whether addressing Russia's invasion
of Ukraine, supporting Iraq's economy so
battlefield gains against ISIL were not lost in
a weakened economy, or working together to stop
terrorist financing. In response to the refugee
crisis, Germany relaxed fiscal demands, at home
and through Europe, to promote an immediate and
significant response.
Minister Schauble was a leader within Germany to
knit together east and west, at substantial
economic cost, and to advance cross European
cooperation, including in the areas of financial
reform and resolution
Europe is finally experiencing sustained
economic improvement, and in my view Europe's
improved economy would be even stronger if
available fiscal space was used more fully, and
this would relieve pressure to use monetary
tools. But it is also the case the Europe's
economy is much healthier than it was a few
years ago.
Where do you detect changes in US economic
policy until now, following Donald Trump's
election, and how is the prospect for the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
being shaped?
I believe that trade agreements like TTIP and
TPP are very much in the interest of the United
States. High standard agreements that open
markets for trade also advance progress on
labor, health, environmental protection and
business practices. Since the US has
historically held to high standards on our own,
broadening the acceptance of high standards
makes the US more competitive. I fear that
abandoning US leadership in these multilateral
negotiations invites others to fill the void,
with the likelihood of lower not higher
standards as an outcome.
The workplace is changing rapidly not just
because of globalization, but even |
