4 ms·

> and is director of The Institution for Growth which he suggested 50B in Greek assets be transferred to. More blatant corruption would be hard to find. That i

> and is director of The Institution for Growth which he suggested 50B in Greek assets be transferred to. More blatant corruption would be hard to find. That is /highly/ misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KfW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KfW "It is owned by the Federal Republic of Germany (80%) and the States of Germany (20%).[3] It is led by a six-member Managing Board headed by Ulrich Schröder, which in turn reports to a 37-member Supervisory Board. The chair of the Supervisory Board changes annually between the German Federal Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs; the chairman for 2015 is Wolfgang Schäuble.[4]" Other members of the supervisory board (from the list you linked to) are members of the German parliament, trade union leaders, other federal ministers, ministers from various German states, etc.

grey-area 11y ago
That is /highly/ misleading. I disagree, I think it's highly improper that he even suggested money be given to an institution in which he has influence (currently Chairman of the Board), and which disburses money to German companies (Germany being one of Greece's creditors so not a neutral third party). Particularly given his history of fraud and corruption. If money/assets are to be held in escrow, they should be held at a completely neutral third party.
- peterfirefly 11y ago
  Greece wants access to other people's money. Those people can demand pretty much what they like -- if Greece doesn't like /that/ they can borrow on the free market (and pay dearly for their CCC- rating). Collateral must always be placed where those who lend the money can get at it if the borrower breaks the terms. Germany was in no way alone in wanting collateral and the rest of the Northern EZ was fine with having Germany/Luxembourg in control of the "Treuhandfonds". But it could also have been placed in Hamburg or Helsinki and they would still have been okay with it. (It was, as you might know, not to be placed directly under KfW but under the IfG in Luxembourg probably precisely so that it was not under Germany's /direct/ control.) It should in no way whatsoever have been placed in Athens under Greek management, though! Can we at least agree on that?

grey-area 11y ago

That is /highly/ misleading. I disagree, I think it's highly improper that he even suggested money be given to an institution in which he has influence (currently Chairman of the Board), and which disburses money to German companies (Germany being one of Greece's creditors so not a neutral third party). Particularly given his history of fraud and corruption. If money/assets are to be held in escrow, they should be held at a completely neutral third party.

peterfirefly 11y ago
Greece wants access to other people's money. Those people can demand pretty much what they like -- if Greece doesn't like /that/ they can borrow on the free market (and pay dearly for their CCC- rating). Collateral must always be placed where those who lend the money can get at it if the borrower breaks the terms. Germany was in no way alone in wanting collateral and the rest of the Northern EZ was fine with having Germany/Luxembourg in control of the "Treuhandfonds". But it could also have been placed in Hamburg or Helsinki and they would still have been okay with it. (It was, as you might know, not to be placed directly under KfW but under the IfG in Luxembourg probably precisely so that it was not under Germany's /direct/ control.) It should in no way whatsoever have been placed in Athens under Greek management, though! Can we at least agree on that?