All around us are the effects of what everyone calls simply
“the crisis.” As we listen to our Greek
friends discuss economic perspectives, I have begun to understand that we (Americans)
think about money, ownership, and financial arrangements in fundamentally
different ways than they do. With no
background in economic theory, I can’t assess the relative merits of these
perspectives. Nor do I know how
representative is the small sample of people with whom I have had these
discussions. With those caveats, here is
what I think I am coming to appreciate.
Mind-set may not be everything, but it’s a lot. (Gee, who would have thought that people’s
socio-cultural frameworks and life experiences might contribute to their
world-views—which, in turn, would direct their activities? Whaddaya know!)
Facts/surmises in evidence: After its well-known period as
the illustrious home of the great classical philosophers, Greece was overrun in
every direction by conquerors and occupiers.
I have little detailed knowledge, but the last 400 years of Turkish/Ottoman
oppression ended only 175 years ago, give or take. During that period, as blogged earlier, the
core values of society were “family first, religion always, and screw the Man
whenever possible.” (“The Man” being the
term for those who tell you what to do and over whom you can exert little
direct control—or as it is known in modern times, the “government.”)
[Granted that my understanding of American history is also
full of holes, I nevertheless contrast that with the early American values of
“freedom first, individual effort is (often) rewarded, and government is (more
or less) in our control.” (Though this last deserves deeper analysis, in the
U.S. periodic “elections” have over the centuries brought new people and ideas
into prominence. Government was not an unrelentless “them” to be mistrusted and
countered in whatever ways one could manage.)]
So here is an illustrative example of how things work in
Greece in light of the sociological imperatives just described. It condenses aspects of several stories we
have heard. How do Greeks who appear to
be “middle-class” come to own new, well-situated flats outright, with no
mortgage? Apparently, somewhere in
recent history there was an older house that might be dilapidated and outdated
(no indoor plumbing, for example) or where the owners died, leaving (more or
less useless) property to family members.
But the house was situated on property that could be developed into
apartment blocks. (And with the coming
of the European Union, there was both more money available for such development
and more people wanting to own.)
The “arrangement”: The developer got to build; the old
owners got some number of square meters of the finished building—which might be
more than one flat; or some additional money might change hands for extra
amenities, and so on. (We didn’t follow
all the details but there it seemed there were also tax advantages in such
property exchanges.)
When we described to our friends what we considered the “normal”
approach in the U.S., where the old house and property would be bought outright
and developed and then all the apartments would be sold on the open market, one
friend said emphatically “we [i.e. Greeks] never sell property!—our dream is to own
property."
This in turn leads to the following peculiar (to us, but not
unusual here) phenomenon. Given the crisis, many developers ran out of money
before their project could be completed.
But—because construction here is stone or concrete/plaster, as compared
to ours which is largely wood-frame—it is possible for them to leave the
building unfinished for years and come back to it later. (To be clear, “unfinished”
means that it has all the walls, ceilings, and roof.
|
Note: first floor is occupied; above is "skeleton." |
See photo on left.)
By comparison, we in the US can’t leave the framework of the upper
levels of a wood frame house unfinished for years. And commercial buildings can
be left unfinished, but if so are unusable.
Here in Greece, we have seen many apartment blocks that are
obviously only partially completed, yet people live on the completed lower
floors! (One such building had a taverna
on the ground floor, presumably the owners of that business occupied the floor
above, and two additional floors were unfinished.) Our friends say of these incomplete
buildings, “they will finish it when they have more money.”
Again, the idea of cutting one’s losses,
selling the property to someone who does have the money to go forward, and then
starting a new project when one has the needed funds—this is anathema! (I asked one friend about the “time value of
money.” She said, “yes, we know this
concept”—but didn’t seem to think it was relevant.)
A related phenomenon occurs even in commercial buildings. (See photos below.) When we asked our friends why some
industrial-looking buildings seemed to have a forest of rebar above the top
floor (usually at the corners of the buildings or above weight-bearing columns)
we were told, “they had a permit to build higher than they had money at the
time. They are prepared to add another
level when they can.”
(Note "forest" of rebar at corners and above structural columns.)
In the apartment
buildings, as noted above, the person who owns the property and outdated or derelict
house negotiates with the builder (who may occasionally be a distant member of
the family, but that is not an essential factor) for some percentage of the
finished project. In one case, several family members inherited
from an aunt who had no children. Their
family decided who should benefit from the windfall. The sibling in another country and the well-established
sibling in another city in Greece “didn’t need” it. So each of the two remaining siblings got an apartment
in the new building. One was married
with kids and got the larger flat (and even paid more for an extra bedroom). The other wasn’t married and so was given the
smaller apartment—even though he didn’t live in that city. The idea was that by renting it out, he would
off-set the costs of his rent where he actually lived.
At one level it’s quite brilliant. From our perspective, though, it seems oddly convoluted.