Throughout recorded history populations have been in fear of their “governments”. Well they might have been. It has been calculated that, in the 20th century, 50 million people were killed by their own governments. That figure is in addition to those forced into and then killed in combat on behalf of their “governments”. Those wars, themselves, were, for the most part, initiated in order to keep an authoritative regime in power. Thus humans have good reason to be afraid of their governments.
Attempts have been made to restrict authoritarian power. The political period in office has been limited (or attempts have been made to limit) the period of supreme control, such as restrictions of term in office by statute. Another attempt has been made to ensure that the prevailing regime is obliged to have its mandate reassessed by the population by using “democratic” processes after limited periods in power. Attempts to draw up agreements to limit the power of government have been made repeatedly, in the forms of “constitutions”. All have failed in their purpose. Ways have been found around the limiting hurdles repeatedly by political powers.
Even where individuals have been restrained in their periods of power or have elected to retreat by retirement (usually having acquired substantial wealth during the period in office) or by their death, a continuum of authority has often been maintained by a predetermined succession. At times this is a relatively simple succession displayed by “royalty”. At other times it is a succession of power interests hidden from the general population and maintained by complex manipulative strategies.
Retention of power requires the labour of a subservient population. This might be obtained directly by forcing a population into subservient service – such as by conscription. On the other hand, this forced servitude might be via the indirect route of usurping the products of labour – money.
Resistance by the population is to be expected and has been expressed in modern times by “draft dodging” or the hiding of assets by “tax dodging”. But populations have been schooled into believing that these are “morally indefensible”.
“Taxation” is, of course, an integral part of societal biology. However, such has been the extractive perfidy of governments that the population reaction has often been to secrete or disguise the ownership of money.
Various attempts have been made to measure the average accumulation of money in populations. This often takes the form of “saving per unit GDP”. Primarily this is measured from banking data and the assumption has been that individuals will utilise banks to protect their funds. But this may not be the case when populations are put under extreme stress. For example, in the current “financial crisis” the percentage of “savings” might well reflect the degree of stress placed upon a population, and distort the figures. Thus regional behaviour patterns can skew “universalised” data and its collection.
The Greek population is under substantial stress currently, which includes that forced upon that nation by the European Union in a complex compendium of behavioural impositions. One result is the apparent reduction of per capita savings, recorded as well below the rest of the European Union. [Currently Greece -14.64%, EU +5.76%]. [http://knoema.com/OECDNA2014/oecd-national-accounts-at-a-glance-2014?tsId=1017460]This is likely the end product of a highly complex social aberration. At its most simple it might mean that the Greeks no longer entrust their funds to the banking system and translate or transfer their savings in a wide variety of alternate directions.
One practical consideration is that the Greek economy might well be supportable by the (occult) savings of individual Greeks. This concept is not new. The payment of taxes has always reflected the contribution of individuals to their society. Thus one could, in Greece, expect that contributions from individual savings might be made towards the preservation of their society. In mundane terms a potential solution would be for the Greeks to fund their government via loans. The day-to-day mechanism of such loans would be by the issue of “bonds”, donation of money in return for a promissory note from the government to return the funds after a pre-determined date. However, in the case of Greece it is likely that the distrust of the government is so profound and the fear of inordinate taxation so great, that this is unlikely to occur. It is certainly unlikely to occur within the overriding ambit of the European Union, where Greeks will not be supporting their own nation. If EU pressure were to be applied, as is the case currently, the Greeks will be expected to contribute to a giant, impersonal, culturally undefined conglomerate with their own funds. That is unlikely to be acceptable to the Greeks.
Should the Greeks decided to isolate themselves from the European Union, it might well be that the nation could then be funded by these personal “bonds”, provided only that these were guaranteed to be tax-free indefinitely, ideally in a Greek currency, in off-shore accounts in neutral nations. These bonds might, but not necessarily be confined to Greek nationals. Thus much of the Greek “hidden wealth” could become available to shore up and re-establish national identity, culture, and a social independence. This concept is also not new. The Greeks have already conceded control of their currency to another, superior power.