Varoufakis makes a nice job of a fact-based dismantlement of the ruling narrative, but it seems it is all for naught. At one point he counters the narrative that "[the Greeks had it good and] it would be fair if they would show more reform willingness in exchange for bailout money" with a point differentiating between Greeks, saying that for 65% living standards dropped in the "fat years" of 1993-2009 while per capita GDP grew, because a small Greek elite in conjuction with the financial sector in Germany and France hogged all the profits. However, in the very next question, the Die Zeit journalist is again talking about "the Greeks".

And that's how the latest episode in the Lagarde outrage is reported, too. When Lagarde talked about having more sympathy with children in Nigeria than "the Greeks", she pointed at tax evasion in Greece, halving which would have plugged the deficits. Now Greece's chief tax controller told that she was right that tax evasion isn't confronted sufficiently, citing numbers that out of 5000 requests for looking into accounts which his authority made towards Greek banks, only 214 received a positive reply so far, and the others include 500 politicians. Now, does the latter concern "the Greeks", or the thin elite?... (BTW Varoufakis says that believing that solving the crisis with only a reform of tax collection is idiocy because the tax collection authority is cash-strapped too and wage cuts only increase corruption, but the above shows that tax authority corruption is not the only and maybe not even the chief problem.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}