Saturday, December 14, 2013


A Nobel prize-winning economist will on Thursday withdraw his support for the euro saying it has created a “lost generation” unemployed youngsters and should be broken up.   Sir Christopher Pissarides was once a key proponent of a single currency but will on Thursday accuse the euro of “dividing Europe” and say action is needed to “restore the euro’s credibility in international markets” and the “trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other”, according to the Daily Mail.   Speaking at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, Professor Pissarides will say: “The euro should either be dismantled in an orderly way or the leading members should do the necessary as fast as possible to make it growth and employment-friendly,.   “We will get nowhere plodding along with the current line of ad hoc decision-making and inconsistent debt-relief policies.   “The policies pursued now to steady the euro are costing Europe jobs and they are creating a lost generation of educated young people. This is not what the founding fathers promised.” The Cypriot-British economist, who won the Nobel prize in 2010, is speaking days after Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, insisted the crisis in the eurozone was not yet over.   The eurozone economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the third quarter of the year compared with 0.8 per cent in Britain and 0.9 per cent in the US.   Unemployment within the single currency area now stands at 12.1 per cent, meaning more than 19million people are out of work   Some economists argue Europe cannot enact the policies needed to boost growth and create jobs due to the huge variations in economies across the region.   German taxpayers are unwilling to pay out to help crumbling economies such as Greece or Spain while even France now faces financial crisis.   Explaining why he had worked hard to persuade Cyprus to join the currency union in 2008, Professor Pissarides will say: “I was completely sold on the idea.  “Back then, the euro looked like a great idea. But it has now backfired. It is holding back growth and job creation and it is dividing Europe. The present situation is untenable.”   Professor Pissarides, 65, is the regius professor of economics at the LSE and chairman of its new Centre for Macroeconomics. He was knighted in June.(sourse , telegraph.uk)....The simplest way is to describe the EU as a centralizing, top down, all controlling, undemocratic project designed to force compliance and standardization on European peoples in all things in order to serve a New World Order controlled by International Corporates and Financial markets. It Doesn't matter what you want to call the dominant political parties in the EU structure, or what you make of their politicians' claims to be on the Left, whatever that means.
We know that they want to impose mass immigration and destroy national identity - so that makes them anti-nationalist socialists , who tend to be much the same in practice as National Socialists, just without the nationalism- isn't that what we have got? Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"(borrowed from H.G. Wells) is a useful term which embraces left and right.
It's the outcomes we should concentrate on not what they choose to call themselves.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Westerners still don't get it, do they? China is a "closed" economic model - with the exception of a relatively few foreigners invested into non-fixed assets. So other than these foreigners, if a Chinese financial institution collapses, who loses? The government? But the government lent money to the institution who then lent it on to the large State Owned Enterprises. The financial institution and the SOEs are all owned by the same "golden" shareholder - the government - so this is just "money" going round in circles. There is a diminution of value but no loss of capital. If you then spread this loss across the entire government-owned spectrum it amounts no nothing but a minor hiccup. As Harold Wilson might have put it, "the Renminbi in your pocket will still be the same". OK, in an "open" economy like the UK that turned out to be bollox. But in a "closed" economy like China, these potential defaults will have little if any non-political meaning.

This is why China will NOT be "opening" their economy much in the coming years.

Anonymous said...

1. There has been massive investment from western countries - it's where most of Britain's looted industrial base ended up.

2. It's the exact opposite of a closed system as the entire globalist scam is built on the premise of shipping the western industrial base to cheaper climes while still *selling the products back to the west.* This distortion of global supply and demand - which has made the banksters so rich - is obviously unstable and has to readjust.

3. How the Chinese choose to readjust, or if they wait how they are forced to by the need to rebalance supply and demand, is up to them but it will happen.

4. Separate from all that and even if the above points weren't true, if increasing debt saturation (i.e. shifting discretionary spending to loan repayment) reduces the velocity of money and if China continues to follow the western banking model then as they get close to catching up with the west they'll have a massive credit bubble and bust like the Japanese.

Anonymous said...

1. There has been massive investment from western countries - it's where most of Britain's looted industrial base ended up.

2. It's the exact opposite of a closed system as the entire globalist scam is built on the premise of shipping the western industrial base to cheaper climes while still *selling the products back to the west.* This distortion of global supply and demand - which has made the banksters so rich - is obviously unstable and has to readjust.

3. How the Chinese choose to readjust, or if they wait how they are forced to by the need to rebalance supply and demand, is up to them but it will happen.

4. Separate from all that and even if the above points weren't true, if increasing debt saturation (i.e. shifting discretionary spending to loan repayment) reduces the velocity of money and if China continues to follow the western banking model then as they get close to catching up with the west they'll have a massive credit bubble and bust like the Japanese.

Anonymous said...

If there are unlimited good investment opportunities then bankers can be doing something useful (turning static savings into investment) even if capital ratios are very high. However if there aren't unlimited good investment opportunities and the capital ratios are high then the bankers turn into banksters and they pour the money supply derived from their magic money tree into asset bubbles and debt saturation both of which create hidden deflationary spirals.

The banksters are only economically benign when the capital ratio is just enough for the available supply of good investment opportunities thus preventing them from creating a boom and bust. If the capital ratios are too high banksters are entirely malign.

If a country has unlimited good investment opportunities for a time, for example because they were catching up after a long period of stagnation, and then that supply tapers off as that country closes the gap but the capital ratios remain the same as before then the banksters will create a massive boom / bust bubble near the end of the process e.g Japan.

Having said that I have no idea if China is at or nearing that point yet

Anonymous said...

Italian political parties will no longer be funded by the state and their accounts will be externally audited, under plans announced on Friday.

The new system would avoid "the scandals of recent years", Prime Minister Enrico Letta said.

Taxpayers will now be able to choose whether to fund a party.

However, Beppe Grillo, leader of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement, called on Mr Letta's party to return the state funds it has received.

Mr Letta said that the decree issued on Friday would fulfil an election pledge of his to abolish state funding for parties by the end of the year.

However, Mr Grillo called the move a "joke", writing on his blog: "In order to give up public money, it is sufficient to simply not take it, as the Five Star Movement has done."

Under the new system, Italians will now have the option of earmarking 0.2% of their annual income tax to the party of their choice.

If they choose not to to fund a party, the money will go to the state.

Anonymous said...

Ministrul rus de externe Serghei Lavrov a declarat sâmbătă că Moscova este "uimită" de reacția Occidentului față de decizia suverană a Ucrainei de a amâna semnarea Acordului de asociere la UE. Lavrov afirmă că țările occidentale au "pierdut contactul cu realitatea", referindu-se la manifestațiile din Ucraina, informează agenția de presă RIA Novosti.

"Suscită uimire reacția la limita isteriei față de decizia suverană a autorităților legitime ale Ucrainei. Deci, ce a făcut guvernul lui Viktor Ianukovici (președintele ucrainean)? Poate că a ieșit din Tratatul de neproliferare a armelor nucleare? Sau că este pe cale să construiască o bombă atomică, în contradicție cu angajamentele asumate? Ori a ucis pe cineva?", a întrebat retoric Lavrov, într-un interviu acordat postului public de televiziune Rossia-24.

Oficialul rus consideră că reacția occidentalilor după refuzul Ucrainei de a semna Acordul de asociere la UE luna trecută "frizează isteria" și este disproporționată în raport cu o decizie "perfect normală", conform AFP.

"Occidentul a pierdut contactul cu realitatea" în raport cu situația din Ucraina, a apreciat Lavrov. "Pe stradă, manifestațiile sunt de o asemenea amploare, cu sloganuri atât de agresive, de parcă țara a declarat război unui stat pașnic împotriva voinței poporului ucrainean", a mai spus ministrul rus.

Această reacție nu corespunde unei 'analize umane normale", a estimat el în continuare, adăugând, referindu-se la manifestațiile de la Kiev: "Nu am nicio îndoială că în spatele lor sunt provocatori".

"Faptul că partenerii noștri occidentali și-au pierdut, se pare, simțul realității, mă întristează profund", a mai spus ministrul rus de externe. "Imaginați-vă că m-aș fi deplasat în Germania în toiul evenimentelor când a apărut partidul eurosceptic, care în câteva luni a câștigat suficientă popularitate cu sloganurile: ,,De ajuns să hrănim Europa!' și ,,Germania trebuie să se distanțeze de UE". M-aș fi plimbat printre demonstranții care susțin acest partid' — a spus Lavrov, adăugând că nu se îndoiește că, într-un astfel de caz, Parlamentul European, Adunarea Parlamentară a NATO, OSCE și alte foruri europene ar fi votat rezoluții în lanț denunțând ingerința Rusiei în afacerile interne ale Germaniei.