European Politics Thread.

[st_dux 26]

@Hans Ludwig:

The United States most certainly was a capitalist state throughout the whole of the 20th century, arguably excessive government intervention notwithstanding. The core economic system was still one in which the means of production were privately owned.

Debatable of course... Allow me to prioritize other standards of measure on succesful policy (Gini Coefficient)

Relative distribution of wealth has nothing to do with what I said. My point was that capitalism is directly responsible for the greatest and most rapid rise in the overall standard of living, and this is a fact that really isn't debatable.

From 1000 to 1820 (1720 years) the world economy grew to about six times its size. It is at the end of this time period that capitalism had just begun to spread widely, and in the years following through 1998 (178 years), the world economy grew to about fifty times its size, which is nine times per person on average, and this was substantially higher in heavily capitalist, industrialized nations such as those found in Western Europe. The historical evidence is quite clear: Capitalism works.

Is everything fair? Of course not, but I would argue that there is no way to make it fair without bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator, i.e., destroying wealth and the average standard of living. I also see no reason why fairness should even be a goal. Life has never been fair, and not everyone contributes equally to society (nor could this be realistically expected).

Edited June 1, 2011 by ST_Dux

[gammadust 12]

Relative distribution of wealth has nothing to do with what I said. My point was that capitalism is directly responsible for the greatest and most rapid rise in the overall standard of living, and this is a fact that really isn't debatable.

and your original quote

Capitalism is directly responsible for the greatest and most rapid rise in the standard of living for the greatest number of people in all of recored history.

I am not contesting the fact by itself (did not even check my sources), what seems implied underneath when you present the fact is that it constitutes a good (or perhaps the best) measure of what one could designate as a "successful policy". If this is a wrong assumption on my part, what was your point when presenting that fact?

This was what I found "debatable" (again, not the fact), hence I tried to offer you an alternative on an agreeable "successful policy" measure. And I am sure there is many more ways to evaluate that. I just pointed one that also leads to my next point:

Sustainability - How polemic could this be? How could ever this word be out of any kind of long term planning?

Stability - Dependent on internal equilibriums, wealth, living conditions, etc... (I am talking globally of course, that is where we're at - Globalized Everything)

I am all talking common sense here, I am sure, scientifically it is much more deep.

Could we agree on what are "policy" basic requirements for one to consider it "successful"? There is no point in deepening the conversation if not.

From 1000 to 1820 (1720 years) the world economy grew to about six times its size. It is at the end of this time period that capitalism had just begun to spread widely, and in the years following through 1998 (178 years), the world economy grew to about fifty times its size, which is nine times per person on average, and this was substantially higher in heavily capitalist, industrialized nations such as those found in Western Europe. The historical evidence is quite clear: Capitalism works.

There is our basic disagreement. If not by what those 2 centuries of trends show... (again I am not checking too much sources). I point to you the present state of affairs. Finance is at the brink of total colapse, Economy is risking being wiped by financial interests, Politics and Governments are corrupt and bankrupt (in this order), Media is in lunacy mode (totaly disconnected with the real deal - by design), World is at the brink my friend. That is not successful, or something "working".

Is everything fair? Of course not, but I would argue that there is no way to make it fair without bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator, i.e., destroying wealth and the average standard of living. I also see no reason why fairness should even be a goal. Life has never been fair, and not everyone contributes equally to society (nor could this be realistically expected).

My bold. That is of course your prerrogative, we disagree. That is the unquestionable belief (dogma) of current Economists, those inner to the system, in absolute compromise with Capitalist System. Of course...

Again: "Eppur si muove!" - "And yet it moves!"

You mention "fairness" as if we're talking about two kids in school, one which copied in his examination and got an A, and the other which studied for it but couldn't achieve better than a C. Result one gets a good place in the work market and the other barely goes through. Guess what is unfair?

"Fairness" (which was your wording) but in the sense tha I am trying to bring up is related with stability. How can a society mantain itself, if increasingly, large parts of it barely survive, of course there will be a rupture (not a rapture btw). Look at greece... look at Iceland... Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, without "fairness" in the proper sense there is no stability, hence society does not hold.

I could also bring up the point that is what we have legislation for, a common society standard without which civilization could not distinguish itself from barbarism. If that legislation on the other hand furthers imbalances... I think you get my point.

The basic flaw of current economists, is, in their desperate pride and lunacy expect the Earth resources are infinite, that Human ingenuity will solve any problem in useful time no matter how oblivious it is to the essence at hand (look at Fukushima and the nuclear imbroglio), that Order arises from Chaos, all of this as a given. Assumptions uppon assumptions, unmeasured consequences uppon disasters.

All this when what one has to do is exercise "cautinionary optimism" (copy-cat an alpinist climbing a mountain, don't bet your life in a rock you are not totally sure is stable). Back to the real deal, equate that with AAA ratings by S&P, Fitch and Moody's, which was the rating on Lehman Brothers the same day it filed for bankrupcy (sorry if any imprecision on this statement, but it was something on these lines), creditors of which where scattered around the world, this was straight down a criminal rating by respective agencies! Why aren't they accountable for this... (I just have no words)

We're talking about something much deeper than "fairness".

Edited June 1, 2011 by gammadust

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

There is already a solution to a planned economy/resource-based civilisation: the elimination of the majority of the population on this planet, 80-85% reduction.

As ST_Dux said, there are billions of ever-changing variables of wants & desires of a multitude of people you can not even comprehend of controlling, what you can do, though, is simplify the system by lowering the number of participants in society, thus lowering complexity.

A prominent U.S. foreign policy adviser once said, "In the Middle Ages, it was easier to control a million people, than to kill the same number; In this century we posses technology to do the reverse, and, in fact, it is easier to eliminate a million, than to control that many today."

Communists, got guts for the above? ;)

P.S. There was no need for such drastic action a hundred years ago, whether the system was somewhat stable, or the people in control could not foresee the developments of the XX century, or they outright choose to let natural course do its reign.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Spokesperson 0]

Every system has its role in history. Both slavery and feudalism were necessary and unavoidable. The question is not whether capitalism was good or bad for the development of modern society, but if it supports or boosts new technology today.

At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.

Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.

No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.

In broad outlines Asiatic[A], ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close. - Marx

Capitalism once served as a promoter of new technology, but today it keeps innovation at bay by supporting monopolies and by enforcing copyright laws against file sharing and such. Capitalism is inhibiting the development of new technology.

It is not capitalism that has created wealth, it is work combined with technology that makes production efficient. Capitalism is just a legal framework that supports the idea that a few owners own the means of production while the rest wage slaves for them. The free market in China has just allowed western technology to spread into that country. Nothing says that freed wage slaves work worse just because they have no masters. Look at Cuba, GDR or the USSR.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Spokesperson

[gammadust 12]

There is already a solution to a planned economy/resource-based civilisation: the elimination of the majority of the population on this planet, 80-85% reduction.

If I may prolong the bad taste in my mouth with the joke... How would those 80-85% be characterized? More likely the powerless, disenfranchized of the global population, in the base of the wealth piramid, or its inverse?

I would say we would get pretty much the same result if instead we could point to the remaining 15-20%, going by the first characterization. And for that matter we could just point to a 0.000001% and get the same result still, as long as we mantain the characterization...

More bitter-sweet taste now at least.

/lalaland over

We all know what we're talking about: War - massive destruction of people, wealth and infrastructure, right?

In perspective:

WWI Casualties - about 1% world population (16,500,000 in 1,700,000,000)

WWII Casualties - about 3% world population (70,000,000 in 2,200,000,000)

WWIII Casualties - ???

A prominent U.S. foreign policy adviser once said, "In the Middle Ages, it was easier to control a million people, than to kill the same number; In this century we posses technology to do the reverse, and, in fact, it is easier to eliminate a million[1], than to control that many today[2]."

1] MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

2] PR (Public Relations lack of effectiveness)

That guy keeps comming up over and over... geeeez! Suggestive much?

By Design or by Chance?

Edited June 2, 2011 by gammadust

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

If I may prolong the bad taste in my mouth with the joke... How would those 80-85% be characterized? More likely the powerless, disenfranchized of the global population, in the base of the wealth piramid, or its inverse?

I would say we would get pretty much the same result if instead we could point to the remaining 15-20%, going by the first characterization. And for that matter we could just point to a 0.000001% and get the same result still, as long as we mantain the characterization...

More bitter-sweet taste now at least.

Top-down pyramid. A committee of Wisemen decides on the survivors, the vast majority of 85% would perish in a relatively natural course of history, say, like a world war, perhaps?

/lalaland over

We all know what we're talking about: War - massive destruction of people, wealth and infrastructure, right?

In perspective:

WWI Casualties - about 1% world population (16,500,000 in 1,700,000,000)

WWII Casualties - about 3% world population (70,000,000 in 2,200,000,000)

WWIII Casualties - ???

I concede, it need not be a 85% death rate, let's say that with the availability of high definition global telecoms, the people only have to be "soften up" before whatever message you wish to convey after and during the apex of the event, i.e: the Marshall plan after WW II, European Steel and Coal Community, the EU etc.

By Design or by Chance?

Our evolution, by Design of our own Hand. Little will be left to chance, although, some variations during the course of the war/calamities are acceptable.

Pre-determined targets, mostly on suburbs of cities, and cities unfit to survive in our age. What, you thought it's all going to be left to chance?

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

Trichet Calls for Single Euro Finance Ministry

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/trichet-proposes-euro-area-finance-ministry-to-coordinate-fiscal-policies.html

Would it be too bold, in the economic field, with a single market, a single currency and a single central bank, to envisage a ministry of finance of the union?†Trichet said in a speech today in Aachen, Germany. He also favors giving the European Union powers to veto the budget measures of countries that go “harmfully astray,†though that would require a change to EU Treaties.

Nothing.left.to.chance.

Remember the League of Nations shortly after WW I? Remember the CO2 tax proposals? Are you following me on what would happen, if there isn't a consensus on such things?

[st_dux 26]

There is our basic disagreement. If not by what those 2 centuries of trends show... (again I am not checking too much sources). I point to you the present state of affairs. Finance is at the brink of total colapse, Economy is risking being wiped by financial interests, Politics and Governments are corrupt and bankrupt (in this order), Media is in lunacy mode (totaly disconnected with the real deal - by design), World is at the brink my friend. That is not successful, or something "working".

Much of the world is experiencing a recession, yes, but your statement here is a massive exaggeration. The world is not on the brink of total collapse, and the fact is that we are still wealthier today -- per person, mind you -- than we ever have been in the past.

You mention "fairness" as if we're talking about two kids in school, one which copied in his examination and got an A, and the other which studied for it but couldn't achieve better than a C. Result one gets a good place in the work market and the other barely goes through. Guess what is unfair?

What if the kid who got an A didn't cheat, but was just much smarter than the kid who got a C? Let's say the kid with a C studied really hard, but he just couldn't do any better. Meanwhile, the kid with the A barely studied at all, spent most of his night before partying, and still managed to get an A. The end result is the same, with the A kid getting a good place in the work market and the C kid barely getting through. Is this still unfair? Is there even any difference between this hypothetical situation and the original one?

Like it or not, life is unfair. Even if we take away all of the blatantly unfair things like lying, cheating and stealing, the fact of the matter is that some people are just born with more natural opportunities than others. Some people are smart, others are dumb. Some people are born wealthy, others are born into poverty. Some people are born in Africa, others are born in Western Europe. None of this is under anyone's control, and none of it is fair. If we take it a step further and pretend we live in a utopia-like fairytale where wealth is equally distributed throughout the world, we still can't make people equal. We can give them equal rights, perhaps, but we will never be able to make them equal in ability... unless we simply make it a crime to excel, which is exactly what historical communist regimes attempted to do (for example, during the Chinese Cultural Revolution under Mao, schools were closed and young intellectuals were forced into the fields to be "re-educated" by peasants -- or they were simply tortured and/or killed). Like I said, lowest common denominator.

@Spokesperson:

First off, you make it sound as if capitalism and copyright law -- or intellectual property rights in general, for that matter -- necessarily go together. I would argue that intellectual property need not be a part of a capitalist system; in fact, I believe that the very concept of intellectual property is fundamentally at odds with the concept of property in general. I won't elaborate on that further as it is beyond the scope of this conversation, but suffice it to say, you can be against intellectual property and still be in favor of capitalism.

As for your main point:

It is not capitalism that has created wealth, it is work combined with technology that makes production efficient. Capitalism is just a legal framework that supports the idea that a few owners own the means of production while the rest wage slaves for them. The free market in China has just allowed western technology to spread into that country. Nothing says that freed wage slaves work worse just because they have no masters. Look at Cuba, GDR or the USSR.

Are you suggesting that the rise of capitalism just happened to coincide with a massive increase in wealth across the world? You don't think there's at least a correlation here? Looking at the history, I don't really see how you can deny capitalism's wealth-generating effects, potential ethical issues aside. Yes, you need work to create wealth, but work has been around since the dawn of man: It clearly isn't a sufficient cause for the level of wealth generation that consistently arises in capitalist economies.

The free market is what saved China from spiraling further into the hell that Mao created when he dragged his agrarian society, kicking and screaming (and starving), into the industrial era. It did a hell of a lot more than allow Western technology to spread; it is directly responsible for China's position in the world today. Had Mao's system been allowed to continue, the PRC would have collapsed by now, just like the USSR and GDR.

People are still trying to swim (literally) their way out of Cuba to get to the United States, but its has improved a little in recent times. And every one of these improvements is the result of a free market initiative.

Edited June 2, 2011 by ST_Dux

[gammadust 12]

(...) What, you thought it's all going to be left to chance?

Mine was kind of a rethorical one. But to make it clear (I tought I had been more explicit somewhere):

"Funny" dice are rolling, and they aren't going to stop any soon. (EDIT: Quotes)

Trichet Calls for Single Euro Finance Ministry

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/trichet-proposes-euro-area-finance-ministry-to-coordinate-fiscal-policies.html

Nothing.left.to.chance.

Remember the League of Nations shortly after WW I? Remember the CO2 tax proposals? Are you following me on what would happen, if there isn't a consensus on such things?

Germany vs Greece:

Will the secret weapon be playing for the winning side again? Or referees may also get replaced nowadays?

ur5fGSBsfq8

---------- Post added at 03:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------

Much of the world is experiencing a recession, yes, but your statement here is a massive exaggeration. The world is not on the brink of total collapse, and the fact is that we are still wealthier today -- per person, mind you -- than we ever have been in the past.

"Much of the world is experiencing a recession." Media keeps telling otherwise! I wonder why...

Per capita wealth is terribly insuficient to assert anything in regards to sustainability of the system. You have 8 I have 2, on average we have 5. Bellow subsistence is 4, you're in great shape forever and acumulate 4 per month, I die in 2 weeks. Economist looks at average, tells Polititian everything is ok. The problem is that after I am dead there will be one less producing and one less consuming. You can stress that system up to a point!

Gini Coefficient.

...

None of this is under anyone's control, and none of it is fair. If we take it a step further and pretend we live in a utopia-like fairytale where wealth is equally distributed throughout the world, we still can't make people equal. We can give them equal rights, perhaps, but we will never be able to make them equal in ability... unless we simply make it a crime to excel, which is exactly what historical communist regimes attempted to do (for example, during the Chinese Cultural Revolution under Mao, schools were closed and young intellectuals were forced into the fields to be "re-educated" by peasants -- or they were simply tortured and/or killed). Like I said, lowest common denominator.

There comes the dogma again. Putting a man in orbit around the earth was also a "utopia-like fairytale", laying an American step on the Moon as also a "utopia-like fairytale", etc etc...!

And that was dealing with natural phenomena (orders of magnitude more chaotic, but still having intelligible laws to discover), nevermind a System which is human product - artificial (no matter how complex, still obbeys man made laws).

You are assuming defeatism ("there is nothing we can do") while regarding yourself as an optimist ("we will all do just fine")! This is the explosiveness of your position.

"Energy requirements force on us Nuclear, there is no way it can harm us!"

Again of again: "Eppur si muove!" - "And yet it moves!"

"Like I said, lowest common denominator."

You really could question stuff more! How many have-nots to make a rich?

Total US net worth in 2007 $65 trillion.

In mathematics, the lowest common denominator or least common denominator (abbreviated LCD) is the least common multiple of the denominators of a set of vulgar fractions. It is the smallest positive integer that is a multiple of the denominators.

Any special reason any redistribution of wealth could only be obtained by finding a totally abstract entity as is a "multiple of the denominators", specifically, "smallest positive integer"?

EDIT---- I had to add the exercise:

I have 1/8 you have 1/6, someone else has 17/24 > LCD = 1/24

That would mean in total there is 1, after redistribution would end up 3/24 in total (each of us as 1/24), meaning that somehow 21/24 simply vanish in the air!

Why not making the average of the total to get an idea of something you think is even more "utopia-like fairytale".

While averaging it, does wealth disappear?

EDIT2---- How about a self-test?

Think the previous values are totaly out of touch, unrealistic? So did I! Overestimation?

Launch notepad and fill these values:

(In column _ 1 _ fill in your estimation of respective value.)

(In column _ 2 _ fill in the value that you would regard as "fair" or "ideal".)

Wealth distribution in the United States.
                               _ 1 _     _ 2 _
Top            20% Wealth owned _____ % | _____ % (in percentage of total wealth in US)
Second-highest 20% Wealth owned _____ % | _____ %
Middle         20% Wealth owned _____ % | _____ %
Second-lowest  20% Wealth owned _____ % | _____ %
Bottom         20% Wealth owned _____ % | _____ %

Cross check your values with the following:

Be fair with yourself, have you filled in the values / have them in your memory?

The actual United States wealth distribution plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions.

Note: In the "Actual" line, the bottom two quintiles are not visible because the lowest quintile owns just 0.1% of all wealth, and the second-lowest quintile owns 0.2%.

Graphic Source: Norton & Ariely, 2010.

Study Source: G. William Domhoff, 2011 Wealth, Income, and Power

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.

I repeat what I said earlier:

"We're talking about something much deeper than "fairness"."

Edited June 3, 2011 by gammadust

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Mine was kind of a rethorical one. But to make it clear (I tought I had been more explicit somewhere):

"Funny" dice are rolling, and they aren't going to stop any soon. (EDIT: Quotes)

Germany vs Greece:

Will the secret weapon be playing for the winning side again? Or referees may also get replaced nowadays?

The Winning side will do whatever it takes to keep on Winning for the sake of Mankind. On media: you say they distort every single report on economic activity, let's say, since 2001, and well, that is correct, but why do you think that is? Is it incompetence? You know, you can always go down deeper into the rabbit hole - what clueless people see as incompetence in politics, MSM & sometimes business (banking), I see eloquent benevolent in the long-term secret dealings, deals & agreements.

Are you from Europe? What nationality are you & yours? You can ask me the same question, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to answer you truthfully, because I don't remember where I come from short-term, whether I choose to forget, or it is genuine amnesia regarding this particular matter is irrelevant.

Am I the unlucky one?

Is the European Union a bad concept?

Do you honestly think the world has any chance outside of the EU concept?

The sole reason for this financial 'meltdown' is the destruction of the USD, consolidation of power in the supranational State of Europe, possibly even introduction of some sort of Community/Union into the Asian region.

God does not play dice. ;)

[gammadust 12]

The Winning side will do whatever it takes to keep on Winning for the sake of Mankind. On media: you say they distort every single report on economic activity, let's say, since 2001, and well, that is correct, but why do you think that is? Is it incompetence? You know, you can always go down deeper into the rabbit hole - what clueless people see as incompetence in politics, MSM & sometimes business (banking), I see eloquent benevolent in the long-term secret dealings, deals & agreements.

I welcome your serenity Iroquois, but you apparently "see" more than I am able to. Trying hard, and at first glance, semi-public shows, of good faith perhaps, pop-up (Basel). In the end of the day, so far, translations of whishfull thinking. I hope future prooves me wrong or just ignorant!

Are you from Europe? ...

In strict sence: Portuguese here. So yes. But lived elsewhere and tried to imbue my identity with diversity. In the context of Europe, but mainly Globalization, I would consider myself simply human.

Am I the unlucky one?

Is the European Union a bad concept?

Do you honestly think the world has any chance outside of the EU concept?

Original concept of EU, allowed peace in those frontiers to prevail (France-Germany specially). EU's expansion (not just the most recent) came along in the most perverse context... An overwhelming one actually, should the artificial fracture Old-New Europe be ignored? Yes I am sure it is not ignored at the high levels, but what about european peoples? People must be involved in the decision making or at the very least aware. No sucessful long term policy without the recipients understanding it.

I have always trouble being so categoric outside of my expertise, but I am inclined to answer that Europe has not much chance outside its concept, but lets be sure what that concept is! Export/Internationalization of the model is an eventual next step... should not be taken as given.

The sole reason for this financial 'meltdown' is the destruction of the USD, consolidation of power in the supranational State of Europe, possibly even introduction of some sort of Community/Union into the Asian region.

God does not play dice. ;)

Part of it is just down the line the next part is, as of now, again whishful thinking.

And yes... He does not but Man does.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I welcome your serenity Iroquois, but you apparently "see" more than I am able to. Trying hard, and at first glance, semi-public shows, of good faith perhaps, pop-up (Basel). In the end of the day, so far, translations of whishfull thinking. I hope future prooves me wrong or just ignorant!

Just keep this thought floating, you'll eventually notice the pattern, when Iran gets bombed, when Egyptians amass North-East of their border, when United States defaults, again, when China assumes the role of the USSR, courtesy of U.S. defense companies supplying them with MIRV'ing of ICBMs.

Original concept of EU, allowed peace in those frontiers to prevail (France-Germany specially). EU's expansion (not just the most recent) came along in the most perverse context... An overwhelming one actually, should the artificial fracture Old-New Europe be ignored? Yes I am sure it is not ignored at the high levels, but what about european peoples? People must be involved in the decision making or at the very least aware. No sucessful long term policy without the recipients understanding it.

I think the people do understand, if not rationally, then subconsciously for sure, remember who shot & murdered other human beings in World War II? Wasn't Hitler.

A few years ago I was outraged at the post-fact announcement of the passing of the Lisbon Treaty without any referendums, or voting whatsoever. I've since seen the reason why: the majority of people can not be trusted to vote on certain things, like the Constitution, important international treaties and agreements within the EU, otherwise there'd still be a Berlin Wall standing.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

[gammadust 12]

Just keep this thought floating, you'll eventually notice the pattern, when Iran gets bombed, when Egyptians amass North-East of their border, when United States defaults, again, when China assumes the role of the USSR, courtesy of U.S. defense companies supplying them with MIRV'ing of ICBMs.

Rolling dice...

"You will be part of nature when you'll refuse to shape it according to aknowledged ignorance."

A few years ago I was outraged at the post-fact announcement of the passing of the Lisbon Treaty without any referendums, or voting whatsoever. I've since seen the reason why: the majority of people can not be trusted to vote on certain things, like the Constitution, important international treaties and agreements within the EU, otherwise there'd still be a Berlin Wall standing.

Ohhhh... that is debatable! Lets accept that premise "there are certain realities which by their complexity cannot be put to common sense appreciation". I would say that lack of understanding might result in such a disconnect (the one we can observe in the present) that you run on short legs, eventually, not allowing the base of society to pressure in the same direction as their leaders. Resulting in failure.

The advisable course of action is getting people involved to the best extent possible, not having them ignorant of the issue at hand. It is the defeatist argument again.

The solution is to raise common sense to cientific knowledge, not perpetuation of the dogma/myth. Specially if the means to implement it exist.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

"Mr. Obama, tear down this wall." (US dollar?)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The advisable course of action is getting people involved to the best extent possible, not having them ignorant of the issue at hand. It is the defeatist argument again.

The solution is to raise common sense to cientific knowledge, not perpetuation of the dogma/myth. Specially if the means to implement it exist.

"Mr. Obama, tear down this wall." (US dollar?)

That was a quote from Reagan telling Gorbachev to accept a truce between East & West for the welfare of all on the Eurasian continent. Was Gorbachev a traitor to his country? Many people still regard him as such, so is the Greek government currently comprised of traitors, as is the United States Congress and the Presidential office.

"Traitors" in the sense that they betray the old world, forfeiting the Sovereignty of a small land mass on planet Earth, only to reforge it into a more cohesive, long-term entity. And Obama is doing a good job for which he was recruited by the top Bankers, you can see the circus playing out in full force, as the government contemplates raising the debt ceiling above 14 trillion USD, failure to do so results in a technical default of the US, which will be unable to pay short-term interest on the bonds & Treasuries issued up-to this point. No one will see the principal on their loan re-payed in our lifetime. The circus will culminate into the inevitability of it all, and the people will blame incompetence, as always. ;)

Ah, back to the common people: I do agree that all available information should be provided to the people of Europe, and in fact, the politicians in the EU bureaucracy give out all of data and information regarding upcoming decisions, prospects of growth; ECB website has a lot of data, but you have to look for it - that is essentially the problem of miscommunication, and the need for backstage deals to pass various legislature. People do not have time to look through raw, unedited data, people in power in Brussels are somewhat of technocratic nature in this sense.

Also,

Troica Demands Deep Public Sector Cuts, Higher Taxes As Part Of Greek Bailout #2, Or My Big Fat Greek Anschluss

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/troica-demands-deep-public-sector-cuts-higher-taxes-part-greek-bailout-2

So here it is:

EU, IMF: GREECE NEEDS TO REINVIGORATE STRUCTURAL REFORMS (so, fire more people and generate more GDP with whoever is left?)

EU, IMF: GREECE WILL REDUCE PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT (so, fire even more peple)

EU, IMF: GREECE TO REDUCE TAX EXEMPTIONS, RAISE PROPERTY TAXES (So, generate more GDP by taxing people more?)

EU, IMF: `AMBITIOUS' MID-TERM PLAN, WILL MEET 2011-2015 TARGETS (If the targets are all Greek bankruptcy, yes)

EU, IMF: OVERALL ASSESSMENT GREEK PROGRAM `SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS (uh, where?)

EU, IMF: GREEK ECONOMY TO STABILISE AT TURN OF YEAR (Idiots)

And now, the people get angry. Expect live webcast from Syntagma square shortly.

Zer gut. The end of public leeches. Coming to a country near you.

P.S. From the full report,

The government is committed to significantly accelerate its privatization program. To this effect it will create a professionally and independently managed privatization agency, and has drawn up a comprehensive list of assets for privatization with the aim of realizing revenues of EUR 50 billion by the end of 2015. The government will assess progress against intermediate quarterly and annual targets.

Deja vu. ;)

Edited June 3, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[nettrucker 142]

The clock is ticking and we are already facing a worldwide economic crises. The collapse of the economies on a worldwide scale is just a matter of time.

kind regards

[gammadust 12]

Deja vu. ;)

Indeed, in fact almost all of the above has been scripted... Not to worry too much: "it is just a glitch in the matrix", "they must have changed something", "ohhhh, that was what they changed! Hurry...". :D

I do wonder, at the rate change is going, if it will be worth knowing before hand anything, this at all levels of insight. The sidestep out of the normal progression has been taken.

Will the dress reharsal be of any value, if on Premiere night there is a blackout?

I was forgeting this one... (the subtitles are important)

WZFbvBwkw1c

Edited June 3, 2011 by gammadust

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

European politics, somewhat,

Berlin Conference 2.0: Russia To Bail Out Hyperinflationary Belarus As Colonization Scramble Heats Up

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/berlin-conference-20-russia-bail-out-hyperinflationary-belarus-colonization-scramble-heats

Who said that only Germany is allowed to annex Greece (and soon Ireland and Portugal)? (and if Der Spiegel has anything to say about it, again, Bailout #2 is far from certain... more on that shortly). In a surprising move, Russia has decided to remind everyone just how irrelevant the IMF is now that Russia and China run the "sovereign rescue" show, and that it too can play the imperialist game just as well as the Troica. Following the recent hyperdevaluation of the Belarus Ruble as discussed on Zero Hedge, and the country's collapse into a hyperinflationary hell, Reuters has just reported that Putin, that "White Knight" of former USSR imperialist dominance, has decided to "bailout" Belarus. From Reuters: "Cash-strapped Belarus will receive a three-year $3 billion loan from a Russia-led regional bailout fund as it seeks to stabilize its economy, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Saturday. The former Soviet republic on Friday unveiled a series of measures to end the crisis, including a vow to cut its budget deficit in half, after its currency lost 36 percent of its value in May and inflation reached 20.2 percent." It is unclear just how many billions in funds will need to be derived from forced "privatization" of Belarus assets for the benefit of the old KGB guard, or what the interest rate on the rescue loans will be. What is more than clear is that as more and more countries fall into the toxic debt spiral, their neighbors who actually have capital and/or natural resources (ergo the irrelevance of the IMF), will "bail them out" only to remind the world that colonization is what it has always been truly about.

The April 11th Minsk Subway bombing could've been a KGB job, pretty sneaky.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Trichet: "Strong Vigilance" Needed, ECB Raises 2011 Inflation Range From 2.0%-2.6% To 2.5% to 2.7%; July 1.50% Rate Hike Coming

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/trichet-strong-vigilance-needed-july-150-rate-hike-coming

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Hans,

You be careful there, holding cash in FRNotes. A rise in rates by ECB is the end of the dollar, even if Europe sacrifices Greece, Ireland & co. :eek:

[Hans Ludwig 0]

2L9wtK1hmOw

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Roubini Warns Of Euro Break Up As Greek Credit Rating Tumbles

Greece and the Eurozone increasingly resemble a dying animal, with vultures circling above. A double-whammy of terrible news hit on Monday, with a multi-notch downgrade of Greece’s credit rating by S&P, making it the worst in the world, and a gloomy commentary by Nouriel Roubini who warned that “the Eurozone heads for break up.â€

SOURCE:

http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecchia/2011/06/13/roubini-warns-of-euro-break-up-as-greek-credit-rating-tumbles/

[Hans Ludwig 0]

U.K. Retail Sales Drop More Than Forecast (Bloomberg)

Europe Faces ‘Lehman Moment’ as Greece Unravels (Bloomberg)

Czech transport workers strike over austerity (FT)

Ireland Opens New Front as ECB Battles to Avert Another Meltdown (Bloomberg)

[vilas 477]

instead of Bloomber which is channel about money and stock

i recommend to watch French Planete

they show from time to time document about tragedy of people in some parts of world... if you heart, not calculator, when i hear americans i feel like they have calculator, not heart

economy is not all in life , not something more important than dignity or happiness of people

[Hans Ludwig 0]

i recommend to watch French Planete

they show from time to time document about tragedy of people in some parts of world... if you heart, not calculator, when i hear americans i feel like they have calculator, not heart

If I wanted to watch something with an emotional appeal, I would watch Oprah or take estrogen.

[Rovka 14]

One is good at calculating statistics, the other at helping out. If people want change, they gotta get off their arses, and act to see it come about!

Edited June 16, 2011 by Thani '82

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Hardline IMF forced Germany to guarantee Greek bailout (Guardian)