Why Euro Wrecks. So Argue About It.

In Greece, some of the upper class, including conservative officers high in the army, or investors who absolutely did not vote for the leftist Syriza, plan to follow Prime Minister Tsipras’ advice to vote NO to the referendum. In other words, the country is very divided.

(In the same vein, I have, unusually, no strong advice: there are great arguments for both the YES and the NO vote; however, I think it’s a good thing to vote, people ought to do this all the time, because they are all forced to go out and think about the process; it’s too bad Tsipras called the referendum with such short notice, though; the arguing process needs time, as the “votations” in Switzerland show: one can see opinions change, over a period of months. If I had to vote, I would vote NO. But it’s not a vote against the Euro, of course. It is just a vote against the obsequious butlers of arrogant plutocrats, their institutions, the so-called “creditors”, and the wanton cruelty, viciousness and outrageous lies, and sneaky misrepresentations and red herrings.)

Paul Krugman in “Europe’s Many Economic Disasters” points out that:

“It’s depressing thinking about Greece these days, so let’s talk about something else, O.K.? Let’s talk, for starters, about Finland, which couldn’t be more different from that corrupt, irresponsible country to the south. Finland is a model European citizen; it has honest government, sound finances and a solid credit rating, which lets it borrow money at incredibly low interest rates.

It’s also in the eighth year of a slump that has cut real gross domestic product per capita by 10 percent and shows no sign of ending. In fact, if it weren’t for the nightmare in southern Europe, the troubles facing the Finnish economy might well be seen as an epic disaster.”

Greek Debt Service Was Reduced Too Little, Too Late

Greek Debt Service Was Reduced Too Little, Too Late

Astutely, Krugman insists that these crises are not just ubiquitous, but also that the usual plutocratic interpretation cannot be brandished, because the FRENCH Republic, the most social country of them all, escapes relatively well. Krugman:

“And Finland isn’t alone. It’s part of an arc of economic decline that extends across northern Europe through Denmark — which isn’t on the euro, but is managing its money as if it were — to the Netherlands. All of these countries are, by the way, doing much worse than France, whose economy gets terrible press from journalists who hate its strong social safety net, but it has actually held up better than almost every other European nation except Germany.”

The case of the French Republic is special: France in more ways than one, is a mini USA. The French economy does everything, from extremely high tech and science to exporting agriculture. It is the most diversified economy in the world, with the USA. However, it has been suffering immensely from too high a currency.

In comparison, Finland is a two tricks pony: timber and Nokia. Germany does well with high quality high tech exports, but one can expect China to catch up with luxury cars.

The meaning of recovery in Greece has become unreal. Krugman:

“And what about southern Europe outside Greece? European officials have been hyping the recovery in Spain, which did everything it was supposed to do and whose economy has finally started to grow again and even to create jobs. But success, European-style, means an unemployment rate that is still almost 23 percent and real income per capita that is still down 7 percent from its pre-crisis level. Portugal has also obediently implemented harsh austerity — and is 6 percent poorer than it used to be.”

European so-called “leaders”, these corruptocrats drunk on power, have a lot of explaining to do. Krugman:

”Why are there so many economic disasters in Europe? Actually, what’s striking at this point is how much the origin stories of European crises differ. Yes, the Greek government borrowed too much. But the Spanish government didn’t — Spain’s story is all about private lending and a housing bubble. And Finland’s story doesn’t involve debt at all. It is, instead, about weak demand for forest products, still a major national export, and the stumbles of Finnish manufacturing, in particular of its erstwhile national champion Nokia.”

Krugman comes close to the real explanation, but his semantics start to drift inappropriately:

“What all of these economies have in common, however, is that by joining the eurozone they put themselves into an economic straitjacket. Finland had a very severe economic crisis at the end of the 1980s — much worse, at the beginning, than what it’s going through now. But it was able to engineer a fairly quick recovery in large part by sharply devaluing its currency, making its exports more competitive. This time, unfortunately, it had no currency to devalue. And the same goes for Europe’s other trouble spots.

Does this mean that creating the euro was a mistake? Well, yes.”

Well, no. The Euro was not a mistake. The mistake was to put Goldman-Sachs and its ilk in command (see below). Competitive devaluations are a form of war. And the idea of an Union is no more war. The USA went to war for Union, and out of it came the “greenback”, the national currency of the USA (which was created for the war, and was part of the war effort). The dollar was created to make a more perfect union. Europe wants, and needs, a more perfect union.

The real mistake is that Jacques Delors, head of the European Commission,  and his team had said the Euro ought to stand on two legs. However, only one was built. National governments, power hungry, made sure that the other transnational leg not be built. It was also handy that by not building the required transnational EUROPEAN governance, one made the sure that High Finance and its plutocrats could have free rein. In other words, Goldman Sachs and its ilk were given the opportunity to lead Europe, precisely because the European “leaders” did not give the Peoples of Europe the opportunity to build a European governance in matters financial, monetary and economic. Krugman:

“But that’s not the same as saying that [the Euro] should be eliminated now that it exists. The urgent thing now is to loosen that straitjacket. This would involve action on multiple fronts, from a unified system of bank guarantees to a willingness to offer debt relief for countries where debt is the problem. It would also involve creating a more favorable overall environment for countries trying to adjust to bad luck by renouncing excessive austerity and doing everything possible to raise Europe’s underlying inflation rate — currently below 1 percent — at least back up to the official target of 2 percent.”

But there are many European officials and politicians who are opposed to anything and everything that might make the euro workable, who still believe that all would be well if everyone exhibited sufficient discipline. And that’s why there is even more at stake in Sunday’s Greek referendum than most observers realize.”

A characteristic of the Euro has been that, in spite of a terribly worsening economic situation, and desperately low interest rates, the Euro stayed very high, as if the situation was rosy. When the situation was bad in Germany, ten years ago, the Euro was at 86 cents on the Dollars. When several Euro countries hit unemployment of nearly 30% (as Spain did), the Euro was very strong, nearly 150 cents on the dollar. Who engineered that absurdity? The same Goldman Sachs specialists who (were paid to) hid part of the Greek debt The bankers lent inappropriately, and to whom did they lend? To their friends, their associates, the rich? 92% of the money borrowed by Greece since the crisis began went to banks. Why were the bankers not prosecuted? Differently from simple Greek retirees who saw their retirement collapse, they are culprit. The real question is, to whom did establishing this mess profit? The creditors? Are they trying to reduce everybody to misery?

Krugman feels that using a bit of violence against European authorities would be a good thing:

“One of the great risks if the Greek public votes yes — that is, votes to accept the demands of the creditors, and hence repudiates the Greek government’s position and probably brings the government down — is that it will empower and encourage the architects of European failure. The creditors will have demonstrated their strength, their ability to humiliate anyone who challenges demands for austerity without end. And they will continue to claim that imposing mass unemployment is the only responsible course of action.

What if Greece votes no? This will lead to scary, unknown terrain. Greece might well leave the euro, which would be hugely disruptive in the short run. But it will also offer Greece itself a chance for real recovery. And it will serve as a salutary shock to the complacency of Europe’s elites.

Or to put it a bit differently, it’s reasonable to fear the consequences of a “no” vote, because nobody knows what would come next. But you should be even more afraid of the consequences of a “yes,” because in that case we do know what comes next — more austerity, more disasters and eventually a crisis much worse than anything we’ve seen so far.”

Well, it’s not that simple. In 2008, everybody was supposed to freak out because ONE BANK of the USA went bankrupt. Now we have an entire country going bankrupt. A country with twice the population of Norway, or that of the average state of the USA.

If Greece is allowed to go fully bankrupt (no, I am not contradicting myself: in the case of the IMF, there is a three month grace, or limbo, period), we will know that European countries are allowed to go bankrupt.

And why? There are many reason, but one is particularly salient: Goldman Sachs, an American bank, and high finance conspiracy outfit, deliberately engineered a misrepresentation of Greek finance. Why are these conspirators not punished?

If countries are allowed to go bankrupt, why don’t they all go bankrupt? After all, that’s the idea of devaluation Krugman likes so much.

The referendum is a good idea, allows Europeans to accuse those who torture Europe. Already the IMF is backing off, and just announced that, after all, some of the Greek debt ought to be reduced (PM Tsipras immediately asked for a 30% debt reduction).

The referendum is good, because it allows Europeans to argue about which Europe they want.

Do they want a Europe where Goldman-Sachs is free to conspire, or one where We The People rule? Let’s have referenda and arguments all over.

That’s how baboons vote (they vote with their feet). If baboons can do it, Europeans ought to be enable to emulate them.

Fundamentally, plutocrats want the monopoly of money and power, which defines them. In Europe, they have made sure to starve all what We The People want or need, and they did this by restricting how many Euros, how much currency, circulates.

By the way, it’s also how the Roman economy collapsed. By 300 CE, Rome did not have enough money, and so established a control and command economy (what the USSR became famous for).

Now the corrupt clowns who lead Europe are afraid that We The People, all over Europe, is going to start fighting against the creditors. An obvious case is “Podemos” in Spain, a party similar to Syriza. All over, We The People has to ask: how come so much borrowing was made in our name, to reimburse banksters?

Things are coming to a head. The economic crisis, engineered by plutocrats, feeds the Islamist crisis, whose deep inception was also plutocratic:

The danger of an extremely violent insurrection against the established order is increasing by the day. After all, president Teddy Roosevelt took drastic measures against monopolistic capitalism. What had happened before? Well, Teddy’s predecessor, Mac Kinley, had been assassinated (1901 CE). So had been French president Sadi Carnot (1894). These assassinations were part of a general assassination campaign against political leaders of anarchist ideology. Islamist ideology may well play a similar role. Already many blond blue eyed Europeans are converting to Islam, and joining Jihad. Rage against the system is why they do. The enemies of my enemies may not be my friends, but, when violence has gone too far, only more violence can stop it.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , ,

29 Responses to “Why Euro Wrecks. So Argue About It.”

  1. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Let’s be logical: 15 years of the euro have brought economic ruin and misery to the Greeks, and cost US billions. Time to try something else: only a lunatic persists with something that has manifestly failed.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, it has failed for the reasons I gave: the Drachma was deliberately overvalued by 100%. Goldman-Sachs, in charge of representing Greek finances, lied. 92% of the debt “to Greece” was actually to replenish British, French and German banks. Then the “austerity” killed the economy.

      It’s time to try something else, namely flood Europe with enough liquidity to refloat the economy. The Euro is grotesquely high relative to the dollar.

      By comparison, in 2014, China spent nearly $200 BILLION in scientific research, with a main axis towards biological sciences.

      BTW, Britain is not doing much better. Cameron has cut in the muscle, especially for the military. As a result France is alone fighting the good fight. The good side is that we can roll the tanks unopposed to Berlin…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The Greeks had an excellent roll until 2008. Make no mistake: most Americans work like beaten dogs, oir, let’s say in conditions Europeans would not accept. In spite of all the dirt cheap oil and goodies.

  2. Bud 1 Says:

    No, the creditors are merely attempting to escape responsibility, and liability, for their bad bets, and they’re infantilized by their respective governments.

  3. Mark Thomason Says:

    “Are they trying to reduce everybody to misery?”

    They are trying to keep themselves rich and get richer.

    If that drives everyone else into misery, too bad, they don’t actually care very much, not enough to do anything different.

  4. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Many blond blue eyed Europeans are converting to Islam, and joining Jihad. Rage against the system is why they do.”

    Chris Snuggs: There have always been a certain percentage of lunatics among Homo Sapiens. If they all want to join the same weird sect and go off to get killed, that sounds fine to me.

  5. EugenR Says:

    A lot of talk went through the media about the Greek crisis. Yet most of it is how to solve, or not to solve the problem of Greek debt, which is in its essence a monetary problem, that can be solved relatively easily by monetary tools, that as were shown can be very effective if implemented correctly. But as it happens to be, monetary policy influences the physical scenery too, mainly if it is all about greed, deception and theft, and for very long time, like in the case of Greece. The mounts of loans that the Greek politicians took, since they entered the Eurozone based on false statistics, where used mainly to enrich the Greek plutocracy. To be able to do so undisturbed, they corrupted the whole Greek nation by enabling to them standard of living of Germany, without to be productive like Germany. This policy not only did not prepared the Greek economy for the D-day, when eventually the creditors will ask for loan repayments, but in contrary. The wages, the pension system, the business environment, were all formed not on economic achievements but on protective incorporation of employment associations, to protect those who are members of the incorporation from those who are not. These incorporations could be workers or profession unions or association of drivers, etc. When the hangover day came, all this associations and their members, will stuck together even more tightly than ever before. 50% youth unemployment is direct result of this situation.
    These phenomena evolved in decades and there is no monetary policy, which can resolve it. So even if most of the Greek debts would be erased it couldn’t help to create a long term sustainable Greek economy.
    Economics is not just about curves and numbers. It is also about people, their intentions and their acts within an economic, political and social system. If certain senior employees created in an organization where they are employed an union, which prevents from more talented new employees to bring positive changes to the organization (and I am not against the unions as principle, only if it fights for self destructive policy ) its damage to economy can’t be quantified. If certain entity becomes a monopoly and increases the prices of the products, it’s negative influence is also not measurable in the GDP. If highly educated young Greeks can’t get jobs, because the senior less educated and less effective Greeks are protected by laws, unions, professional guilds, etc. the negative impact of this state on the GDP is also not measurable.
    So if Greece wants to overcome its problems, reduction of its debts is not enough. Somehow this economic train has to be relocated to a different track.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: Greek government debt was stable and roughly 100% of GDP before 2008. It’s the crisis which made it explode. The creditors were plutocrats and they lent to plutocrats (as you said). However transfers of money by the Greek government to plutocratic creditors got them of the hook. Meanwhile the so-called “institutions” (ex-Troika) lent to the Greek government. Initially it was all EC and EU, but they introduced the IMF Trojan. So now Greek government “debt” is more than double what it started with.

      Lots of Greek Pluto money is in rich country banks (like France and Germany). Conclusion: there is a lot of blame to go around, little of it the fault of those most punished, the Greeks.

      We don’t want to do like Hitler who accused the “plutocrats” (sic) and then punished the Peoples. (For example by pretending, as Hitler did, that all “Jews” were plutocrats.)

  6. EugenR Says:

    One other thing about the Greek economic crisis. I read some commentaries, where professional “economists” pointed out, that at 2008, Greece debt was “only” 100% out of the GDP, and now with the shrink of the GDP, even after its reduction it became 170%. This claim is worse than a lie, it is professional deception, done intentionally our out of ignorance. Before the crisis, the Greek GDP per capita was close to that of Germany, mostly financed by loans. The GDP can be sometime a very sleazy measure instrument, since it measures the short term economic performance calculated out of national income. Out of definition General Domestic Product equals to General Domestic Income. But this income doesn’t makes difference between income generated out of merchandise or service production an the income created by financial operation which creates indebtedness. So the Greek GDP did not represent real values, but values generated by debts, which became the very core of all the economic problems of Greece.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All you say is correct. However…
      As I hope I pointed out clearly enough, the problem in Greece is actually general. Everywhere, plutocrats stole most of the money, and the Public replenished it. Now the Public stands accused to be in debt. In the court of public propaganda. Well done.

      What our trembling Pluto leader fear is not Syriza, but Podemos.

      • EugenR Says:

        To my opinion economy cannot function, if there will be no system, according to which, in principle debts will be repaid. Without it there couldn’t be effective allocation of finances from those who want to save them, to those who know how to use them to enrich themselves and the whole society around them. Economy based on equity financing only has many defects. The major one is that it would give great advantage to those who are rich already, compared to those who want to become rich. Just this argument should be enough to do everything to save the proper credit market. I know the banks have done very lousy job in the last decade, and channelled most of their finances to improper hands. Yet this little that went to the proper places made wonders. Look at the postcomunistic countries. The banks, (non of the big ones) took the opportunity participating on the profits that these fast transformation and high growth economies can provide. They had done well as contrary to the big banks, that put all their stakes on the “secure ” Euro government bonds of Greece. And some of these post communist countries, inspite of all the problems thrive.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The problem is bait and switch; as I said. Money losses from banksters to plutos were recovered by the public (now indebted). Instead of expropriating plutos… Case of Lehman: 3 guys left, with 5 billions, is just ONE example…

  7. EugenR Says:

    one other thing about plutocracy. I just published this on my blog;
    As it appears, monetary policy of quantitative easing, which in practical terms means printing new money, implemented by the Federal Reserve bank since the economic crisis in the US, and more recently by the ECB in the Eurozone, did not bring economic catastrophes as some predicted. If so why not to do it even in wider range? Why not make our citizens rich by dropping on them US Dollar and Euro bills out of the helicopter?
    Of course there are many problems with this policy.
    1. The newly printed money is channeled in certain way, and through certain financial institutions. For example if the newly printed money is used to purchase government securities, their price will rise, and this means lower interest rates. Then the monetary investors, mainly pension funds and small investors, who try to preserve the value of their life savings for the hard times are impoverished, while the economically active entrepreneurs, who base their economic activities on credit are enriched. This enlargement of gap of income, we see everywhere. It causes social and political disruptions, but also negatively influences the aggregative demand, since the top rich have limited capacity for demand, so it has deflationary influences too.
    2. The newly printed money is channeled to the economy through financial institutions, mainly banks, and the top managers of these banks, who use some of this money for their own enrichment, and even worse, to buy political influence. This phenomena even more impoverishes those who are out of the circle of the few on the top. More damaging than this is the monopolization of resources in the economy, that is direct result of concentrated financial power in the hands of view.
    As example i would bring the mining industry of most of the basic raw material production like oil, ore and even fertilizers concentrated in very few hands. This has negative effect on both, the price level for the users, and the consumers, who are forced to pay higher prices, who are again the masses not connected to the top. But monopolization in the economy is not just in the resources. It is in the financial world too. No one can compete the very few biggest US, European and the Swiss banks, behind them are the three most worldwide used currencies, which are the basis and the point of reference to most of the other currencies in the world.
    3. Excessive money printing will eventually make the money very abundant. Abundance of some item makes it cheap, (like glass crystal compared to diamond crystal). It means the money necessarily will lose its value. Or in other words the inflation is a necessary outcome of such a policy. Inflation did not occur yet, because the banks, following the 2008 meltdown needed to build up reserves to save themselves. Also new International regulatory framework for banks called Basel III, introduced by Basel Committee on Banking Supervision since the economic crisis, forced the banks to squeeze the credit. This era of stabilization of the banking system is coming close to its goals, and probably the monetary squeeze the banks caused will end. All these occurrences will bring instability to the world economy.
    4. While the monetary policy strongly influences the aggregative demand, it has relatively little direct influence on the aggregative supply. Its direct influence on supply is mainly through the interest rate.
    The aggregative supply is more influenced by technological development, and/or by limited resources which can have different nature. The main limited factor in last years has been the negative environmental impact of the economic activity. At first it forced the producers to introduce expensive equipments and cleaning systems into the production processes. Now the new events are more intensive and catastrophic. It is caused more often by natural disasters caused by changes in the world environments. (as example i would use the Fukushima nuclear disaster, even if not caused directly by the human activity, it could have such an immense consequences, because of the concentration of nuclear power plants in one, not very appropriate spot, due to lack of alternative more appropriate locations. All these economic events have limiting influence on the supply side if the economy. Of course these limiting factors are mostly balanced and even overbalanced by the technological developments, but as well known, technologic development is unpredictable, so is its economic, political and social influence.
    5. What the recent economic history teaches us is that monetary policy on the global scale is able to moderate economic imbalances between the countries, and also on the time scale between the present and the future. But it is doing it through the tool of borrowing from those who accumulate assets in monetary form as savings, to those who accumulate it in physical form as investments in economic assets, be it tangible or intangible assets (knowhow, good will, etc.). Then when the day of repayment comes, and it doesn’t come in a smooth flowing way, but rather in big chunks the whole system tends to collapse. The collapse is not good for those who saved their money, and not to those who borrowed it with a perspective of future income and profits. The only one who can gain from this collapse are the financial sharks, who know how to react to any new financial circumstances, and who are close enough to the events to be the first to react. And as to my opinion their impact on the economy is mostly if not entirely only negative.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Very interesting comment, Eugen (is it not nice to have got rid of the god-troll?). My answer was delayed because my main, brand new computer was attacked, the anti-viruses disabled, and all sorts of other things disabled. Took six hours of hacking to recover (I have, Snowden like other computers I can stealthily use).

      I have talked really a lot about QE, in the past, especially when done maximally in the USA, 5 years ago. Krugman is all for it, I am against it, as the money is given by Plutos to Plutos. Plutos, and connected banksters should have been put in jail, and their properties seized.

      Partha said that in India banking was (more?) public.

      At this point, you need to give money directly to STATE TREASURIES. (Or more exactly endow treasuries with the ability to create money, which they have in fully sovereign countries. I used to say the Greek Central Bank could create Euros. But apparently that did not happen… yet.)

      There is a financial shark pandemic, and the solution can only be global. It starts with a world CADASTRUM (Latin word and concept). I suggested it eons ago, and French Thomas Piketty suggested it in his more recent famous book…

  8. John Rogers Says:

    “The danger of an extremely violent insurrection against the established order is increasing by the day. ”

    I could not agree more. It is VERY worrisome.

    • Kevin Berger Says:

      I don’t know; in France, IMHO, the real worry, from those in power, is more in the lines of an ethnic clash, hence the double standards on where and whom to spend money (if you’re a poor old white guy in the boondocks somewhere in the countryside, you’re quite out of luck), and the instant and repeated appeal to “vivre-ensemble” anytime there’s a possible spark – IIRC, as this shocked me on the moment, though I may be misrembering that, Jospin first public call after the WTC attack was something like “let’s not stigmatize muslims”, with an heavily pregnant subtext of “let’s not start pogromizing and throw Arabs in the Seine” (as this it was how France *is*, FFS…)
      I’d say the way the French society handles its “social” requests (kudos to the taxi-drivers, for example! Thugs they may be, effective thugs they are) has left the Powers-That-Be very well equipped to deal with actual social unrest, both in terms of police know-how (riot cops who break heads if and when necessary, mostly,so they do not *shoot* protesters), and in terms of political know-how (keep issues separated, and always be ready to cave in, the Big Scheme is more important than any particularset of demand).

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Ethnic clash? Yes and no. I rather think Jihadism is going up, and its worst aspect is not ethnicity, but that it is driven, indirectly by banksterism, and thus very hard to stamp out, without a humongous anti-terrorist effort.

        See latest essay, and Atrios’s concurring point of view… Although Atrios does not go as far as Varoufakis, who still has not exposed my full opinion: Msulim terrorism is fed by banksterism… And the worse, is that it could be a plan, however semi subconscious…

  9. Kevin Berger Says:

    I won’t comment on the core of this entry, as this is above my paygrade, and I basically agree anyway, FWIW, so I’ll just let the regulars do so, and willgo about the fluff :

    – “I am just saying that we may be facing soon a real insurrection, with the corresponding security/Big Brother state in return…”
    Yeah, the “preparations” of the Power-That-Be are rather obvious, aren’t they? Spain’s “gag law”, French law on intelligence-gathering, Cameron’s gaffe/supposed intent on banning cryptography,… I’d say that on both sides of the Atlantic, the water is simmering, and that “populist” candidates are on the rise, or establishment candidates using a populist rethoric (HRC); for the USA, cue in the street theater/cosplay “Occupy” from a few years ago, that was actually taken very seriously (and ridiculed and “cointel-pro”-ed to the ground, whereas the gun-totting clowns from the Brady ranch were allowed to take bead on LEO and settle their little armed camp, to the praise of the conservative pundits).

    – “Yes, France is not far from explosion…”
    OTOH, Greece and Spain were hit harder, and didn’t explode. I certainly don’t know, and can’t know, really, if France still “has it” in itself, to explode, or if it just is an old, neutered, hollow husk of a Nation, like the rest of those making the “Anglo Empire”, for lack of a better wor(l)d (and I include the American and UK people in that description).
    And as explosions go, if France indeed explode sometime in the future, I fear it might well be more in the mold of “all against all”, along ethnic, religious, class,… fault lines, rather than in a “Grand Soir” fashion, an outcome that wouldn’t be too unpleasant for the Masters of the Universe, especially if we’re talking about France.

    (Which btw begs the question, is this by design? A la importing Tamoul workers/settlers in Sri Lanka, for example? Not in France only, but as a global phenomenon, IE “liquidazing” people through mass population shifts, along with acculturation, par exemple avec une France de 2015 qui ne peux même plus assimiler/intégrer des Français blancs, nés en France de parents de nationalités et de culture Française?)

    – “The French economy does everything, from extremely high tech and science to exporting agriculture.”
    This one just for fun, it’s not an exact recollection, but my personal top of online comments about the French economy include, in no particular order : “without tourism”, France would be like Kosovo – no diss against Kosovo” (UK fellow); “France is a small agricultural country” (US blog regular); “France is kept afloat by the EU (the CAP is a particularly loved topic), as it receives a lot of money, while the UK pays a lot and gets nothing” (too many variants to recall, from UK commenters); and “France never has mattered in economic matters” (Austrian school blogger, so that one actually is kind of a compliment I guess); and just about any top “Daily Mail” comments in an article about the French economy.

    • EugenR Says:

      To my opinion the problem of France, England, Germany is not economic. Economically they can overcome almost every crisis. Modern economy can’t thrive without the right social and political structure. Even Chine had to recognise it. And Europe has the right structures. The problems of France and most of the western European countries started in sixties, when they decolonized the world, and pulled out from their responsibilities in these countries. Most of the previous colonies had no capacity to create a functioning statehood, so they became impoverished. Other effect of their impoverishment was high birth rate and practically non existing birth control, due to lack of education and cultural reasons.
      Then out of the shortsighted policy of the politician’s, they solved the lack of workers in the most simple occupations, by opening the gates to immigration of the least educated masses from the previous colonies. If in sixties the Europeans believed in the strength of the modern European culture and education, that will be adopted by the imigrants, they were mistaken. Now it seems the tribalism has much stronger influance than some rational, liberal, humanistic point of view.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Indeed. And it’s even worse. It’s not just that pseudo-progressivism was hiding racist indifference, from the pseudo-left (Sartre, etc.) It was way worse:

        Decolonization, plutocratization.

        My simili pseudo miniature colleague, Bernard Henri Levy, the plutocrat who plays philosopher, made a fortune from being in president Mitterrand’s pants, and then organizing complicities with other pseudo-poodle presidents throughout Africa, the devastation of the tropical forest.
        Just an example. Relative to that Musk, Bambi’s boyfriend, looks like a saint.

        Ever since BHL plays leftist (to hide his plutocratism). Also he followed (?) my line on Libya, the reasons he gave, ultimately, were shallow.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        They did not care about Western civilization, just money and power. So the immigrants were actually alienated. The case of the Harkis in France was the horrendous paradigm. Actually dropping all of Algeria in the arms of the FNL was the harbinger of what followed. The anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racist De Gaulle did this for power: the FNL was to support France, he naively thought, with characteristic shortsightedness…

        • EugenR Says:

          The belief in European cultural superiority was in the root of the immigration policy. They even couldn’t think about the possibility, that culture, based on primitive thousand years old tribalism can survive when in confrontation of the much more sophisticated modern, liberal, humanistic, rational, scientific Europe. Yet they have forget that only a decade ago Europe itself was completely in its tribalism, much more devastating and murderous than anything the Muslims of today can even think of. For the post WWII Europeans the two world wars was only an unfortunate accident, nothing to do with their culture. The African and Muslim settlers occupying Europe is the direct result of this European arrogance. There is a wonderful documentary from the late sixties, done by Louis Malle, Place de la republique. In the move he interviewed an African passer by immigrant. You could see from it the unbridgeable cultural gap between him and anything European. It was released in late sixties.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            I was brought up in Africa. Then it was clear that European culture was crushingly superior in many ways, but not all. However, the main philosophy coming out of Paris was very different. It was that European culture was not just inferior, but immoral. That philosophy, a form of NAZISM, actually spread. Worldwide. And became dominant. That’s why the immigrants were not integrated.

            The USA’s situation is different, as it is endowed with powerful acultural and cultural integrators. Also as immigrants there comes from worldwide, they can’t build a hostile mass (the closest to that are “Hispanics”, but they are too family oriented, and feel too much at home, to be hostile).

            Sartre, De Beauvoir and company were actually pro-Nazi when they were not pro-Stalin. In any case, deeply against the Franco-African mental mix.

  10. EugenR Says:

    I understand you grow up somewhere in horn of Africa. Djibouti? I understand it became independent at 1977. How this part of the world came to such a mess?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Algeria, Sahara, a bit of Ivory Coast, lots of Senegal. Never been to Djibouti.
      I explained how it became a mess: serious French administration was replaced by decolonization, also known as PLUTOCRATIZATION. See Bernard Henri Levy for a poster boy of that: claiming to be one thing (liberator), and being the exact opposite (terminator).

  11. Hassie Queja Says:

    I just can’t wait for the next article of this blog! This article about – Gulvafslibning | Kurt Gulvmand was very informative. For now on I’m following you by RSS!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: