Editorial: The responsibility of banks

In the 1960s Greece had an annual growth rate of six or seven percent and was treated by the OECD as a state that was a model of economic growth.

One might have called it a European tiger, a small version of the Asian tigers of the 1990s.

This happened in an entirely different environment and in an essentially unfree political cycle with limits on expression but without trade union freedoms, and with a state that was largely a police state and economically protectionist, with controls on exports and pricing.

Obviously, there is no direct parallel to today's situation.

Yet, one cannot ignore the more general environment of creativity and reconstruction that prevailed in the post-war years. From the horror and untold misery of the war arose a hope for life and rebirth, a wave of reconstruction that encompassed the entire world.

In Greece, development was based on limited (compared to now) funding from the Marshall Plan and the so-called undeclared resources - essentially money wired by our migrants and sailors, who en masse back then were working for the Greek-flag fleet.

The most important thing was that the money was put to good use. Despite the economic scandals of that period, it was earmarked for productive activity with plans that inspired trust and transformed economic opportunities into foundations for growth and the creation of new wealth.

The role of banks was decisive back then. Banks in the 1960s placed great stress on creating new, viable businesses and organising durable "new books", as they used to say.

They functioned mainly as investment advisors. They visited businesses on-site, chose their collaborations, knew people, and generally opened new paths.

They did not have a culture of interest-laden...