This question raised emotions in Poland in 2010-2012. They began with the statement by the Prime Minister in March 2010 that Poland was ready to participate in a program of assistance to Greece. It evoked very strong reactions – not only in debates in conferences halls and in professional journals, but also in the tabloids and on TV and the radio. It was not only politicians and academic experts in economics who took part in those debates, but also the editors (...) of the popular newspapers. The arguments “for” and “against” of different character were raised. Those “for” advocated on the grounds of the principle of solidarity, but also on the grounds of the principle of subsidiarity – arguing that the burden of the problem is beyond the possibilities of Greece to solve herself. They also raised the necessity to defend the endangered common good – the European Union, and argued that prudence advises earning reciprocation in case Poland meets problems in the future. Those “against” pointed out that it was immoral to expect that a much poorer society was expected to assist one that was better off. Another point raised in the debate was that it was the Greeks themselves, both the political elites and the society as such, who were guilty of creating Greece’s problems. The main problem was the institutions of the welfare state, developed beyond the capacities of the country. But there were also some more shocking reasons of the Greek economic problems – and among them massive tax-avoidance, unauthorized social benefits payments, and transfers of incomes to foreign bank accounts. There was also the manipulation of statistical data or even their falsification, by (or with the approval of) the government. Some participants in the debate raised the problem Greek frauds and social dysfunctions being very well known to the EU authorities, the partners of Greece in EMU and by the German and French commercial banks. So – following from the above – Poland should not participate in any programs of assistance to Greece, and the burden of the problem should rest on those who had been responsible for it or who had tolerated its growth because of expected profits. In other words: Greek society, its political elites and the banks and those countries that had tolerated the developments. The debate ended in Poland when the member-states of the EMU decided that they would take decisions concerning Greece within their own group. And it was decided that “troika” – representatives of the European Commission, ECB and IMF – would decide on the size of the assistance and of the conditions. Poland, as a member of the IMF, does in fact participate in the costs of the assistance programs, but this fact does not evoke great emotions. (shrink)

Non-ethical behaviour of persons belonging to financial elites of the world has been characteristic of our times. They could be found in many countries – from the USA to France, Japan, China, etc. Their activities have financially ruined many people and caused enormous losses to the institutions they have been working for. Their motives have been simple and obvious – greed with no moral reservations. However, greed has also been evident in those naive people who have chosen to believe the (...) swindlers and entrust their money. Moreover, greed has motivated the management of prominent companies, who seemed to tolerate evidently illegal but profitable activities. This paper presents the specific careers of the 10 biggest swindlers: Bernard Madoff, Allen Stanford, Jérôme Kerviel, Ramalinga Raju, Nevin Shapiro, Stein Bagger, Wu Ying, Kevin Foster, Hannu Kailajärvi and Kenneth J. Starr. The 11th person mentioned at the very beginning of the paper isCharles Ponzi, the infamous inventor of the “Ponzi Pyramid”. (shrink)

For me the history of the battle for fundamental values of our civilization began in the mid-1990s. At that time three major conferences took place: the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing and the Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul in 1996. Surprisingly to most governments and international public opinion they became the battlefield of the war of ideas, which was especially significant during the conferences in Cairo and (...) Beijing. The liberal circles fiercely attacked traditional values which constitute the basis of the international order. Among others, it was the right to live and the institutional family which were especially attacked. There was even an attempt to replace the word family with partnership. The Polish delegation for the conference in Cairo was instructed not only to support the idea of strengthening the family as a basic unit of society, but also to insist on accepting the common definition of marriage as a union of a man and women and defend the position that abortion cannot be treated as a method of family planning or birth control. The discussion at the Cairo conference evolved into a battle for the right to kill unborn children as a method of family planning. Among the Holy See and Poland, it was the countries of Latin America and Muslim countries including African Muslim countries that spoke in defence of traditional values. At the Istanbul conference, also thanks to the Polish delegation, the family was acknowledged as a natural subject of housing policy. In the years 1999, 2000 and 2000 three UN special sessions were held: Cairo +5, Beijing +5 and Istanbul +5. The Polish representation played an important role and the instruction for the Cairo delegation was fulfilled and remains valid.Although the documents of UN Special Sessions are not legally binding for the UN member states they are important for UN policy agendas e.g. economic help for third world countries. It is possible to define the problem of famine as a one of the overpopulation and think of sending condoms to the starving as a solution. There is another consequence of such documents and their language: they influence the public opinion and, after some time, they have an impact on rules of law in the UN member states. That consequence indicates the importance of that battle for the quality of life in the contemporary world. (shrink)

he last 2000 years have seen a change in the prices of silver, grain, land as well as a change in living costs, the salary of hired labourers and police informers. The relationships between those figures have also changed and the monetary systems are quite different nowadays. Thus, it is difficult to answer an apparently simple question: how much is Judas’s 30 pieces of silver? An equivalent of 30 pieces of silver could be 95 zlotys, but also 46 500 zlotys (...) (i.e. about $28 and $13 700 respectively). However, it is obvious that this amount of money is dramatically little in comparison with the scale of betrayal of God and no sum of money would be adequate. But again: even if Judas had lacked faith in Jesus, the sum of money was excessively small for betraying a good and innocent man by one who was chosen by that man from the others and in whom his companions placed so much confidence. Even if Judas had realized that, it was unfortunately too late (Mt. 27: 1–5). (shrink)