Slaying A Few Austerity Myths.


BRITANNIA WAS LATIN & WESTERN. JERUSALEM WAS NOT.

When Austerity Is Too Great Even Reason Shrinks:

Abstract: Austerity can go way too far. Austerity in finance, austerity in military matters, austerity in logic, or in one’s emotional system (“Puritanism“), can be a disaster. For individuals, or civilizations.

 Austerity is why Britannia collapsed, 16 centuries ago. Austerity in logic is why one prefers to cover that fact up, by denying the evidence: English is a  Latin language. Not a Germanic one. The latter “fact” is sheer propaganda.

 A similar situation one tries to cover-up was the take-over of the Greco-Roman world by the Jewish religion, and its criminally sectarian aspects. Making us believe Jerusalem was a “pillar” of our civilization is a form of austerity of evidence.

 Whereas the wealth of evidence is that Christianism was the cross on which civilization got nailed, and that there is nothing loving about brandishing a cross, let alone threatening to kill a child.

***

***

WHEN MENTAL AUSTERITY ALLOWS MYTHS TO DOMINATE:

 May First. A celebration, a remembrance in honor of workers killed in a conspiracy in Chicago. (Modern Americans will tell you there are no conspiracies in the USA. They have been trained to say this.)

A conspiracy involving the police, judges, industrialists. A conspiracy long forgotten in the USA, but not in the rest of the world. Someday, maybe the Americans will realize how they were led where no dignity deliberately goes… And that they stayed there, because that was the lazy thing to do. The austerity of little minds, in full evidence.

 Visiting Rome was enlightening. I am writing essays on the subject. The first one breaks new philosophical ground. It has proven difficult to write. A kind critique told me to rewrite it before publishing it, and I have been obeying ever since she grated her teeth in a persuasive way.

 In the meantime, let me handle a few tidbits. They are apparently unrelated, but the misfortune of righteous empires unites them.

 They are erroneous ideas, one should actually say, erroneous moods. Grown from austere, all too austere, minds.

 One of these lies has to do with the myth that there is something as a purely Anglo-Saxon economic model. Verily that model is half Dutch. Great Britain is a Dutch plutocratic fabrication.

 Twelve (12) centuries before, Britannia, left by Rome to its own instruments, collapsed in all ways, as it fell victim to Anglo-Saxon invasions. That was a real holocaust that killed most of the population. England was created by a French counter-strike, much later.

 Another myth is that the West has three pillars: Rome, Greece and… Jerusalem. Please don’t laugh. What does that forsaken small city in the middle of nowhere have to do with great civilizations? Verily, the West has more pillars than that: Sumer, Egypt, Crete, Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, and Germania (not to say Francia!). All these places created ideas we use to this day. But Jerusalem is not of them. A pitfall is not a pillar. A primitive mother of a prehistoric child could not be sure that a turtle did not support the world. But she sure would have told you that a guy called Joshua did not invent love. How come so many people are not that smart? Do they have an agenda?

***

WHY A PLUTOCRATIC INVASION IS CALLED  “GLORIOUS”:

 I have long subscribed to several British media. And it riles me up when I read disinformation emanating from London, that speaks of Britain as if it were on the other side of the Earth. Many English media deplore the unthinkable “Eurozone crisis“, decrying anemic growth, and huge deficits.

 Meanwhile Great Britain enjoys negative growth (it’s in a recession), and has at least twice the deficits. It is intriguing that English media fail to notice that the conditions on planet Britain are strangely similar to those on the rest of the same continental plate, 30 kilometers away.

 But the credit rating agencies, owned by Obama’s guru, Mr. Buffet, give a triple A to Britain, presumably because Britain is their friend, just like Buffet is friend to Obama. And that no doubt would come in handy, should Obama go the way of the crazed Sarkozy rushing to hell in his Sarkophage. Friends take care of friends, that’s what friends are for. Each Obama needs a buffet to splurge, like a Sarko, his sarcophagi.

 What are these misinformators trying to do? Hide the total failure of the “trickle down“/plutocratic model, by insisting instead that the Eurozone is disaster. (OK, right, the Eurozone is a disaster, and it needs to grow out of it, as Mr. Hollande, to be elected France’s next president in 5 days, insists).

 This is part of a general mood that the world’s largest continent is isolated, while Britain and the plutocratic model thrive.

 In truth, Britain thrived, because a highly leverage financial system entangled with the Royal Navy and the Bank Of England was imposed by the Dutch, three centuries ago. Nothing very glorious about being successfully invaded. So to prevent examination of this sordid affair, the term “Glorious Revolution” is used to depict the invasion and usurpation.

 Ironically, the aim of the successfully invading Dutch republic was to use the British bulldog to attack France (France was the Netherlands’ creator, it is another case of ingrate child). But that cost a huge amount of money and effort on part of the Dutch, and by 1712 CE, a quarter of a century later, the Netherlands was a shadow of its former self, and stays so, to this day. Britain, though, profitted.

***

ROMAN  BRITANNIA FELL, & SO DID EUROPE TO THE NAZIS, BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY:

 Britain was a part of the Roman empire that was cut-off, without a battle, as part of an austerity program! I hope the word “austerity” sounds familiar. That is what is evoked much nowadays. Nowadays that the banks have spent all the public money in the world on themselves and their friends, especially the ones in white houses.

 This observation is nothing really new: for decades in the last century, or so, the defense of the West has been pretty much reduced to France, Britain and the USA. Some will say it does not matter anyway. Wrong. Remember Auschwitz?

 Europe fell to the Nazi invasion in 1940 in part because massive austerity throughout the democracies had left the entire West with just 110 French divisions to face 153 fanaticized Nazi divisions.

 The USA and Britain had basically no armed forces, because they were practicing austerity. The Netherlands and Belgium were even more stingy on defense, as they believed that France would protect them from much admired Germany… And it was most profitable to contradict neither the German, nor American, anti-French drives.

 The “Occidental Part” of the Roman empire fell without a grand battle.

 Whereas in the Orient the Roman army suffered catastrophic defeats at Adrianopolis (Eastern Thrace, presently, European Turkey) against the Goths (378 CE) and against the Arabs at Yarmouk in Syria (636 CE).

 The defeat against the Goths allowed them to roam the Western empire, until the Franks and the Romans bottled them in Spain. The defeat against the Arabs allowed the latter to quickly seize two-thirds of the Roman empire, before they were mauled by the Franks (721 CE to 748 CE). The Franks did not practice austerity: they nationalized the church, and rose the largest army since republican Rome, complete with professional soldiers.

*** 

ENGLISH IS A LATIN LANGUAGE, OR, MORE EXACTLY, A TYPE OF FRENCH:

 The old Britons, like other old Celts, learned to read and write… From the Romans. Mostly. This explains why the Roman civilization was accepted so well, and so durably (it lives on in these lands, to this day).

 Indeed, the Romans taught much of higher civilization to common Celts, such as how to read and write, and why law was better than gods. The Celtic religion had forbidden that dangerous knowledge to the People. That was a deliberate trick of Celtic oligarchies, as the Celtic civilization was very advanced in other important ways, for example in metallurgy, or ocean going ships.

 One reason for calling English a Germanic language is pure propaganda. Many common Brits talked, read and wrote Latin for at least four centuries, no Jutes, Angles and Saxons involved. Those savages did not read or write.

 The smashing of the Oriental Roman army by the Goths in 378 CE had far reaching consequences. The legions of Britannia were soon withdrawn, to save money. Fascist Catholic terror was cranked up by a new emperor (a Spanish general), throughout the empire, in the hope of stopping the Goths.

 Learning that Britannia was defenseless, the Angles and Saxons crossed the North Sea in ever greater numbers. Civilization collapsed in Britannia, war blossomed. Most people died. Finally, in the mid-Sixth Century, many Romans from Britannia fled to Gallia (Gaul) giving its name to Armorica (now known as Bretagne). 

 In fact 70% of English words are of French (a third), Roman (a third) and Greek origin. The same words of Greek and Roman origin are also found in French (French is degenerated Latin, where much of the efficient Latin grammar was replaced by little prepositions, German style; meanwhile the Franks latinized the Germanic language’s grammar).

 Hence the common content of French and English is roughly 70%. (In truth much more than that, because French and English have many words of common Germanic, Celtic, Arab, Indo-European, Semitic origin, for example algebra, algorithm, amen, etc.)  

 This is a second reason not to call English a Germanic language. English is Anglo-Norman, one of the three languages of the French middle ages… It’s not because the language of the Parisians, the Langue d’oïl , came to dominate, Langue d’Oc, and Anglo-French, through the most brutal means, that we should pursue the oppression.

 This point of view refutes the Franco-French bigotry of viewing English as the enemy. The correct point of view is to use English for what it is, a French language, to foster one of the oldest and most complex civilizations.

 Another myth, another lie, is that, somehow Jerusalem brought something positive to the West. If so, what? Believing in something that never was? How come historical records don’t mention Jesus, how come his bible is full of horrors?

***

 JERUSALEM BROUGHT NOUGHT: 
Some say “monotheism” is a pillar of the West. But a close inspection shows that most religions had a principal god. Moreover, Christianism and Islam use several super natural entities that god is unable to submit (Satan and the Djins in the case of Allah… Besides the Moon, and entities in the Satanic Verses).

 Monotheism was invented in India and Egypt, well before Jews appeared on the scene. Vishnu, is the supreme god with many Indian avatars (26?). For example Krishna. 1,000 years before some Jews wrote some book in Baghdad.
Before Indian and Egyptians, there was Cybelle and the cult of the Great Mother. For 10,000 years. The Christians have (re)produced “Mary” from this fundamental religion. A religion which is, altogether, more natural, than the “jealous” god of the Bible (that god is “jealous” is revealed in the second commandment).
 
 “Deus” by the way has the same root as “Zeus”. By the time Jews wrote the Bible, the Greeks considered there was one main god, a version of the 15 centuries old Ahura Mazda.
 
  I do not see what Judaism brought to the antique civilization that was sorely missing. The biblical Jews claimed they stole the land of their enemies the Canaanites (that is the inventors of the Western alphabet, the Phoenicians). However, archeological and textual evidence shows that early Jews were actually Canaanites. So they are liars.

 When one examines the situation in 70 CE, during the great war of Judea, it is clear that the Greco-Roman civilization is completely formed, universalist, tolerant. OK, it’s also a bit fascist, but not as much as the fiercest of the Jewish leaders, such as Simon (who is also completely crazed besides; he was later whipped to death in Rome).

 The enormous population of Jews in Alexandria, next door to Jerusalem, thought the sectarians in Jerusalem were crazy to have treacherously assassinated 600 legionnaires. They did not take part in the revolt… which killed one million, many of them Jews at the hands of other Jews. During the siege of Jerusalem, to make fun of Jewish superstition, Roman artillery bombarded the city with thousands of ripe pig heads…

 Josephus, the most competent and supreme Jewish general, came to the conclusion that the Jewish revolt he had himself led, was not wise. He retired in Rome, where he wrote his extensive memoirs, which provide ample indirect evidence that Jesus existed only in Saint Paul’s head (as the latter admitted).

 The contribution of the Jews to the antique civilization, was, roughly, nought. Okay. the followers of one of their sects, Christianity, have acted as if said sect had discovered, invented and promoted love, first to do so, ever. And there are some naïve, or cruel enough, to believe them. When, obviously, altruism is the essence of civilization. Civilizations had existed for millennia before Jews were invented. (Yes people are invented: Romans, Gauls, Celts and Germans are example.)

 But the doctrine of the “Chosen People”, chosen by jealous (and murderous) god, no less, central to Jewish tribal theism, has caused a havoc. See Fourth and Fifth Century Christianity, busy exterminating, in the best Bible style, everybody, as if everybody were a Canaanite. See Auschwitz. The coup of the apprentice sorcerer? What is Nazism, but for the cult of the Chosen People? “Gott mit Uns”, said the SS, fundamentally.
 
 The Christians say Christianity discovered love and altruism, but it is not the Christians who outlawed slavery.

 Instead it is the “Merovingian” Franks (Imperium Francorum) in the year 660 CE under the “regency” of (English born) queen Bathilde who outlawed slavery. Christian bishops were from the richest families, and they were very appreciative of their armies of slaves.

 Meanwhile, the Christians had burned books, libraries, philosophers, free thinkers, “people who had made a choice” (“heretics“), academies, science, etc. … All this made directly the bed of Islam, another religion that celebrates the myth of Abraham, the guy who ties up his son to cut his throat to please his boss!

 OK, Abraham was right say those for whom exploitation is the highest value. Indeed bible god then gave Abraham the land of the Canaanites. So the fact that Abraham was willing to kill his child was highly profitable to Abraham. And for those who believe profits should overlord it all, have there, all the god they want.
 
 I categorically refute the myth of the would be slaughterer of a child as foundational for our civilization.

 OK, that perverse foundational myth obviously explains why so many priests imitate Abraham, and engage in child abuse. But is this the civilization we want? A civilization where daddy ties up the child, threatens him with death, so that he can satisfy his boss’ strange desire. Is that a civilization we can afford?

 Oh, some say they did not look at it this way. Sure. Willful blindness is most profitable. Mental retardation is the ultimate soporific. Austerity of thinking, indeed. No emotions involved.

***

Patrice Ayme

Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “Slaying A Few Austerity Myths.”

  1. Dominique Deux Says:

    The story of Abraham’s son could be dismissed as some kind of harsh but not inhumane lesson: after all his hand is held back, an inferior mammal is substituted. A bad jest at most, except for the halal-slaughtered mammal.

    However Jephte’s daughter’s tale is a much harder to escape indictment. It proves that human sacrifice was a common occurrence in Hebrew society, only worthy of relation because the victim turned out to be the brute’s own daughter. Yet another bad jest from God, so to speak.

    Of course many other societies fed deities with human lives, including Celts. But the idea that somehow a religion of love (no, the only religion) evolved from just another girl-killing barbaric goat-herders’ tribe’s self-serving beliefs is preposterous.

    The humane, charitable, progressive elements in Christianity are purely man-made and could have occurred in any other set of beliefs. They in fact did. Hence Christian insistence that pre-JC philosophers and wise men could be seen as God-driven precursors, in a recuperative ploy not unlike the Muslim claim that Jesus was an Islamic prophet.

    But the ploy falls apart when the said wise and good man has the misfortune of competing with the religion’s founding father: if Apollonios of Tyane had been born substantially later than JC rather than almost simultaneously, he’d been hunted down as an heretic instead of being half-canonized as a pre-Christian!

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: Thank for the lesson! You refer to several characters I never heard of. They look well worth pursuing.

      I concentrate on Abraham, because he is the founding character. That the Jewish god is an atrocious criminal is amply demonstrated in other stories, indeed, such as the torture to death of the son of David. Of course there are other savage beliefs than the Judeo-Christo-Islamist cruelties. My main underlying argument is that they should go through a reconsideration similar to what happened to the Aztec religion.

      I do know that moods are unstable. In recent days I met a member of the 1%, less than 30 year old, German, who, after asking to sit at the table where I was somewhere in Europe, haughtily told me it was impolite to talk about Hitler, to the people I was conversing with, and would I please stop.

      Instead of lashing back, and telling her that Auschwitz was fed by exactly that kind of mentality she flaunted, I observed politely where this was going. My conclusion? If one does not beat infamy, infamy will beat us.
      PA

      Like

  2. Old Geezer Says:

    Britain will survive the Euro crisis (which is in reality a BANKING crisis) because the Pound can fluctuate. Smartest thing the UK ever did was to NOT join the Euro.

    That said, nobody ever got out of a deep recession through austerity. Where are the students of the Great Depression? Bernanke, didn’t you do your dissertation on it? Didn’t you LEARN anything?

    And while Germany is holding her head smugly high, she has reaped the benefits of a cheap Euro (cutting her export prices vis-a-vis the DMark) and making the German Nation look like the epotome of thrift and hard work while painting the Greeks as lazy and slothful.

    Not the whole story here by a longshot.

    The EU without a fiscal union was an accident waiting to happen. And now that the gamblers on Wall $treet caused that accident, the EU sovereign nations are scrambling to stay ahead of the international currency speculators.

    They will lose, because the specs have more money. Remember how George Soros got rich? By blasting the Bank of England. Every Brit paid for his “victory”. How proud he must be.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the contribution, Old Geezer!
      As you yourself point out, the UK did not chose to stay out of the EMU, Soros threw it out.
      Bernanke, as Friedman before him, was viewed as the final word on the Great Depression. From my point of view, they had understood only some consequences. Ditto Krugman.
      We now have more than a Greater Depression on our hands. It’s an end of civilization crisis.

      Speculators may heve more money, but it’s the states which allow them to create that money. See private banks borrowing at 1% from the ECB “monetery base” and then lending their leverage at 7% to the Spanish People…

      Hopefully new French president Hollande will start changing this Monday morning. In other words, hopefully he is not just a brown air balloon like Obama… Saying whatever to get elected, and then doing the opposite.
      Britain out of the EMU is not tenable, BTW, if the EMU survives, that is. Germany is doing OK, thanks to courageous reforms started by socialist Schroeder, and then amplified by Merkel (who behaved like a socialist government supremacist in some ways). Instead Sarkozy behaved like a Reagan-Clinton-Obama style American: give to the rich, they will give to you. That was totally un-French, and Hollande will have the opportunity, starting Monday, to revert 40 years of socialist plutophilia.

      BTW, the USA is not a complete fiscal union.
      Ah, last but not least, not only the states create the money the speculators use, but the state have more bullets. And let’s keep in mind that Democracy without force, that’s a herd of sheep.
      PA

      Like

      • Old Geezer Says:

        The way the US manages its fiscal integrity is through military contracts. I live in California, which receives only about 60 cents for every dollar of federal tax paid by Californians. Alabama, OTOH, receives about $1.60 for every dollar paid by Alabamians. That is how the feds balance the value of the dollar in all 50 states.

        The EU does not have this capability, as far as I know. Even if they had the legal mechanism to tax on a federal basis, it is unclear how they would balance all the nations out.

        Public works programs would be a lot better than weapons.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Old Geezer: These are good points you make. The USA redistribute, at this point, through the military (and also Social Security, Medicare, and, to some extent, Medicaid). And the EU cannot do this, right. Because only the UK and France have a serious integrated military program.

          However:
          1) What is patently absent in the USA, AT THIS POINT, is massive redistribution through infrastructure (be it Very High Speed trains, or Federal education). This absence actually weakens the USA, starting with lack of massive education, and, thus addled minds. Krugman just did two editorials related to this, and they are among themes I have long pointed at, I will write a little memoranda on this. Let’s say that the decay of infrastructure is no coincidence.
          Too much military, not enough of the rest, is how Rome, or any plutocracy, has died. It makes for a society of stupid brutes, easy to defeat by a smart adversary.

          2) The EU has actually the European Investment Bank. It’s financing thousands of infrastrure projects throughout Europe. Merkozy forgot it existed, but it’s actually twice the World Bank in size. President Hollande, to be elected Sunday, is going, hopefully, to focus on the EIB. As you observe, public works programs are a lot better than weapons.
          PA

          Like

  3. Per Kurowski Says:

    Two things!

    First, though in this area of the history of Christianity I declare myself a neophyte, I do not find any bigger value in arguing that our Christian civilization is not our Christian´s civilization, but that it is in fact Demetrio´s Lucio’s, Joe´s Albert´s and Frank´s, especially as most these thought they were listening to some Christian Holy Spirit.

    Second, I am amazed at how austerity has come to signify mostly austerity in monetary terms, especially fiscal. In my mind the greatest and most damaging austerity that affects the Western World at this time, is its risk-taking austerity, much imposed by sissy bank regulators.

    That risk-austerity is what has got us into this mess of our banks drowning in obese exposures to whatever is or was perceived as not risky, like AAAs, Greece and Icelandic banks, while at the same time that risk-austerity is what produces the anorexic bank exposures to whatever is officially perceived as risky, like the small businesses and entrepreneurs, and which, of course, keeps us from getting out of the hole.

    Risk taking not only brings growth; it also provides the financial system with that Lebensraum that makes it sturdy… And, so what about our Christian tradition of praying “God make us daring”?

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Per:
      Thanks for your thoughtfull comment. I mostly agree with what you say financially. The fundamental problem, though is that banks have created a casino in the sky with each other in which they invest the public, leveraged, monetary base, and that the casino allows them to fake profits. The consequence is no more money for normal investments. Tha’s why Hollande wants to push the European Investment Bank, a public bank, managed publicly (mostly).

      I do not know who “Demetrio´s Lucio’s, Joe´s Albert´s and Frank´s” are supposed to be.

      I have writen literrally hundreds of essays demonstrating that our “Christian civilization” was actually NOT “Christian”. In ethics, the biggest values dominate. The biggest values exhibitied by Abraham are blind faith in the boss, obsession with satisfying the boss, child abuse and greed. The greed is about making the land of the Phoenicians into the land of Israel, Israel being a people created five minutes before, duting the famous invasion by the “Peoples Of The Sea” (that nearly extinguished mighty Egypt, and made Estruscan literate, while propelling them towards Italy).

      The biggest values of the West are not obedience to, and obsession with, bosses, stealing lands after exterminating the inhabitants, and child abuse. Christ insists that whoever do not follow him shall die. See: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/luke-1927/

      These are specifically Christian and biblical-Jewish values (because the bible is obsessed by “Mollech” aka “Moloch”, a devourer of children, and insists it’s not as bad!!!)
      PA

      Like

      • Per Kurowski Says:

        “Demetrio´s Lucio’s, Joe´s Albert´s and Frank´s”? Just some ordinary Christians blokes… and I forgot the Laidis…sorry! But, what is really wrong with calling all them riding on the wave of Christianity?

        And, as boys will be boys, so will bankers be bankers… but the Casino? Well that was the regulators who authorized it, by allowing for instance banks to leverage 62.5 to 1 their equity when lending to Greece.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Per: Sure it seems the regulators are in bed with the (privately managed) banks. But you are certainly in a better position than any of us why. So I ask you the question: why, in your opinion?
          PA

          Like

      • Per Kurowski Says:

        A small group regulators, gathered in a small mutual admiration club of accountables to no one, and by means of an incestuous thinking process came up with a regulatory paradigm that sounded so logical, so that out of respect for each other, no one dared to qualify it for what it really was, and is… sheer lunacy!

        And of course, once they adopted that paradigm – more perceived risk more equity and less perceived risk less equity – then you have effectively created a huge inventory of capturables, like the risk-weights.

        PS. Why is it crazy? For the simple reason that no bank crisis ever has occurred because of excessive lending to what is perceived as risky, they have all, no exceptions, resulted from excessive lending to what was ex-ante perceived as absolutely not risky.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          dear Per: Mutual admiration societies are a feature of human evolution, and I intent to touch upon it again in an essay soon, to give some perspective to the last two editorials of Krugman, including the latest, which starts with:”Plutocracy,…”
          On the point you touch in your P/S, it seems to me that “moral hazard”, the fact that big bankers are sure to have captured the imagination of the politicos, and have become TBTF is a factor that goes beyond risk. So, at this point, no lending is perceived as risky.
          PA

          Like

      • Per Kurowski Says:

        Why is it impossible for someone like PA to envision the possibility of lousy bank regulations simply being the result of regulators regulating badly and with no malice behind it? Could it be because that would be to waste an opportunity to hit out at a predefined foe… like the banksters?

        As boys will be boys, so will also bankers be bankers, and, if you are a regulator, that is what you should know you must deal with.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Per: Let me reassure you. Although I see malice everywhere, I have noticed that even that Satanic paranoia is not enough to explain all the horrors thereabout, so I gladly accept the simple argument that plain bad behavior motivated by lack of intelligence goes a long way to elucidate the catastrophic.
          Against stupidity, the goods themselves content in vain. Verily, only greater intelligence can have stupidity for dinner.
          PA

          Like

      • Per Kurowski Says:

        Right, and so let us just call them stupid, and not allow their stupidity to hide behind the skirt of a conspiratorial black drama.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Why can’t we have the black stuff too? I talked with some bankers recently, and they were pretty clear that their institutions are useless. But not the income they got from them… All right, so maybe that’s not conspiratorial, and not black, but then what is?
          Stupidity without malice make the lion go tame, if not lame. In other news: there used to be well fed lions.
          PA

          Like

      • Per Kurowski Says:

        Just normal behavior… as I said before “boys will be boys and bankers will be bankers”

        The problem with the black-stuff is that, as part of that reality show that monopolizes the political debate, it stops so much of the normal “mid-range stupidity or truths” from coming out… conservatives blame Fanny Mae and liberals the lack of bank regulations… and meanwhile the world suffers.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          dear Per: OK. However, as shown by the Third Reich, malice can leverage itself tremendously, using stupidity. And fighting the later, as Von Schiller pointed out, can be hopeless. Proving that Hitler and company were malicious was easier than making 80 million Germans intelligent.

          Cheney was malicious, but he leveraged the USA. Inflecting the USA: a hard task. Showing Cheney malicious: easier.
          PA

          Like

      • Per Kurowski Says:

        Now I am lost… I was talking about dumb bank regulators…how did we get to Hitler malice?

        Like

  4. Old Geezer Says:

    The EIB has capital of only 232 Billion Euro according to Wiki. George Soros leaves bigger tips than that. Super Mario anted up 1.5 Trillion Euros when he took over the ECB.

    But it;s not enough – the sharks know that there are 3 trillion in sovereign debts out there. And the sharks have more money. And they will eat their prey.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear OGP: I am not sure, but I wonder if we are talking about apples, oranges and nukes here. It’s funny to say Soros leaves bigger tips, but the largest fortunes (Gates and his foundation, Wall mart family) are around 100 to 200 billion $. OK, let’s admit that the EIB has only 232 billion euros in active financial placements. Citigroup has about 700% of that (about 2 trillion dollars).
      Now the EIB invests, or, rather is a co-investor, in real infrastructure projects. So it is intrinsically leveraged, and allows to engage in trillions of infrastructure.

      Now, as far as the sharks, etc. Ultimately one can do like the Argentine president. Christina fernadez demonstrated how it’s done, and that it works: Krugman had a nice graph on that 2 days ago, or so. and he shares my opinion.

      We can actually put the sharks in jail expropriate them. We could, but don’t need to, nuke them. The ultimate lender of last resort is not the central bank. It’s the army.
      PA

      Like

      • Old Geezer Says:

        Actually, it was Nestor Kirchner who did it, not Christina Fernandez, but no matter.

        Telling the IMF to pound sand was a bold move, but the Argentines paid dearly for many years. It is only now that they are standing up straight; they still cannot borrow from the international lenders. Perhaps when they settle up on those defaulted loans the banksters will lift their heel off Argentina’s neck.

        As for the “lender of last resort”, I hope we don’t have to resort to them. I don’t like their terms.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear OGP: From what I know, most lenders have now settled with Argentina. Christina has embarked on an interesting de-privatization program, which is being imitated elsewhere… Maybe they can’t borrow, but their economy is doing great… At least according to their numbers (vociferously contested by their opponents).

          I do believe there should be a generalized default, though.
          https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/to-save-the-world-please-default/
          I think the essence of my argument would be this. Even France cannot realistically pay her debt…except if serious CPI inflation is injected to grease the wheels…

          There is nothing terrible about default (all the more since, according to me, private banks are public companies in disguise). But there is something terrible about banks that do not lend to the real economy anymore. To remake the economy, one has to remake the banks, nothing better than defaulting the old ones…
          PA

          Like

  5. Old Geezer Says:

    NOBODY can realistically pay their debts off because the planet is maxed out.

    No more cheap oil, minerals, farmland.

    10 Billion souls to feed by 2050.

    It is not clear to me that capitalism works in a flat or shrinking economy. We are all about to find out.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Absolutely true. Maxed out is the expression. Maxed out, and shrinking, because energy availability is going to fall off a cliff, once Obama is done fracking below the White House. (I guess!)
      Don’t forget, no more water. Britain is thinking about drastic water restrictions, such as no more flowing water for the plebs. They will have to go the water hole, like baboons in Africa (one of my fields of expertise).

      What is going on, as the case of Spain, among others, shows, is that debt is exploding relative to the rest of the shrinking context. Thus half default (say) is a way to stand still.

      In the final section of my next ready-to-go essay, I adress the reality of what an economy is. Not really new material, but worth repeating from a drastic angle. Capitalism: at the limit, not needed. History and logic show.
      PA

      Like

  6. Demeter Says:

    Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on the subject. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him. So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!

    Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: