Pourquoi la crise financière est la résultante d’une offensive concertée de fonds spéculatifs ! Pourquoi la Commission et le Conseil européens sont un groupe de vendus ! … LA GUERRE FROIDE FINANCIERE POUR LES NULS…

A force d’entendre les télétubbies de l’économie nous expliquer en boucle que si l’Europe est aujourd’hui en crise, c’est qu’elle l’a bien cherché, le citoyen s’abstient de poser les bonnes questions, par exemple :

– Pourquoi la crise maintenant,  alors que le niveau des dettes nationales est pharaonique depuis des décennies ?

– Pourquoi autoriser des produits spéculatifs qui misent sur l’effondrement de valeurs ?

– Pourquoi obliger les Etats européens à emprunter à des banques privées ?

Certes, à certains égards, la gestion dépensière, les prébendes, l’absence de vision à long terme sont indiscutablement à imputer à un personnel politique qui prend aujourd’hui sa retraite. Regardez donc le gros Dehaene, ce provincial bouffi qui a monopolisé l’attention des médias flamands hier soir à l’occasion de l’annonce de la sortie de ses Mémoires.

Here’s the fit pag !

Regardez donc cet imposteur bouffi et fier, ce quasi-criminel en col blanc, qui, à travers le naufrage de Dexia, coûte désormais des milliards d’euros à la Belgique… alors que sont rabotées avec le sourire et “dans leur intérêt” les allocations de subsistance des chômeurs.

Shame on you, Socialist Traitor ! “Justice”, my ass !

Rappelez-vous les “grands travaux inutiles“, ces scandales publics (tronçons d’autoroutes entamés mais jamais finis, ponts gigantesques au milieu de champs, etc.) dévoilés naguère par Jean-Claude Defossé. Oui, le personnel politique a une responsabilité éclatante dans la pseudo-faillite des Etats. Mais ils ne sont que l’iceberg qui cache la forêt !

La stratégie est bien huilée :

1/ Contraindre les Etats à investir massivement des fonds publics dans des entreprises privées (banques déficitaires, entreprises qui menacent de délocaliser leurs activités, réduction massive de charges patronales);

15 milliards d’euros de réductions de charges patronales en Belgique sous Verhofstadt,

aujourd’hui à la tête du groupe libéral-démocrate du Parlement européen

2/ Une fois vidées les mannes du trésor public, entreprendre des coupes drastiques dans la sécurité sociale, de sorte qu’une fois encore, le privé récupère la mise (en termes de pension complémentaire, d’assurance hospitalisation, et autres). Seule compte l’économie virtuelle ! L’éducation, la santé et la culture, qui répondent à des besoins républicains réels, sont relégués à l’arrière-plan. A cet égard, l’évolution du salaire d’un professeur d’école au fil du XXe siècle est révélatrice : le temps est aux managers de ceci et de cela…

3/ Réduire les Etats à néant pour assurer le grand soir matérialiste, capitaliste et totalisant.

C’est, en effet, l’incompétence, le suivisme et le pervers petit parcours initiatique des ces Messieurs-Dames de la politique, qui les forcent à caresser leur ego, à faire la courbette et à évacuer toute notion de solidarité, qui rendent une telle stratégie possible !

Ceux qui ont pris l’habitude et la peine de nous lire au cours des derniers mois ou dernières années savent que si nous nous efforçons de demeurer rationnels, nous ne mâchons pas nos mots pour autant. Ce qui précède pourrait donc vous inciter à refermer ce blog illico. N’en faites rien ! Ecoutez plutôt l’édifiante analyse de la crise financière qu’effectuent ci-après Madame Myret ZAKI, Journaliste économique suisse romande, et Monsieur Etienne CHOUARD, Enseignant français d’Economie et de Droit. Et vous comprendrez pourquoi, plus que jamais, la Révolution démocratique est vitale !

“L’euro, la fin d’un rêve néolibéral” (says the Guardian…)

Sum food 4 thought 4 alla y’all…

__________________________________________________________

“Why the euro is not worth saving

This crisis has exposed the fact that – unlike the EU itself – the eurozone’s monetary union was always a rightwing project.

Mark Weisbrot (guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 July 2011, 20.30 BST)

The euro is crashing to record lows against the Swiss franc, and interest rates on Italian and Spanish bonds have hit record highs. This latest episode in the eurozone crisis is a result of fears that the contagion is now hitting Italy. With a $2tn economy and $2.45tn in debt, Italy is too big to fail and the European authorities are worried.

Although there is currently little basis for the concern that Italy’s interest rates could rise high enough to put its solvency in jeopardy, financial markets are acting irrationally and elevating both the fear and the prospects of a self-fulfilling prophesy. The fact that the European authorities cannot even agree on how to handle the debt of Greece – an economy less than one sixth the size of Italy – does not inspire confidence in their capacity to manage a bigger crisis.

The weaker eurozone economies – Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain – are already facing the prospect of years of economic punishment, including extremely high levels of unemployment (16%, 12%, 14% and 21%, respectively). Since the point of all this self-inflicted misery is to save the euro, it is worth asking whether the euro is worth saving. And it is worth asking this question from the point of view of the majority of Europeans who work for a living – that is, from a progressive point of view.

It is often argued that the monetary union, which now includes 17 countries, must be maintained for the sake of the European project. This includes such worthy ideals as European solidarity, building common standards for human rights and social inclusion, keeping rightwing nationalism in check and, of course, the economic and political integration that underlies such progress.

But this confuses the monetary union, or eurozone, with the European Union itself.

Denmark, Sweden and the UK, for example, are part of the EU but not part of the monetary union. There is no reason that the European project cannot proceed, and the EU prosper, without the euro.

And there are good reasons to hope that this may happen. The problem is that the monetary union, unlike the EU itself, is an unambiguously rightwing project. If this has not been clear from its inception, it should be painfully clear now, as the weaker eurozone economies are being subjected to punishment that had previously been reserved for low- and middle-income countries caught in the grip of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its G7 governors. Instead of trying to get out of recession through fiscal and/or monetary stimulus, as most of the world’s governments did in 2009, these governments are being forced to do the opposite, at enormous social cost.

Insults have been added to the injury: the privatisations in Greece or “labour market reform” in Spain; the regressive effects of the measures taken on the distribution of income and wealth; and the shrinking and weakening of the welfare state, while banks are bailed out at taxpayer expense – all this advertises the clear rightwing agenda of the European authorities, as well as their attempt to take advantage of the crisis to institute rightwing political changes.

The rightwing nature of the monetary union had been institutionalised from the beginning. The rules limiting public debt to 60% of GDP and annual budget deficits to 3% of GDP, while violated in practice, are unnecessarily restrictive in times of recession and high unemployment. The European Central Bank’s mandate to care only about inflation, and not at all about employment, is another ugly indicator. The US Federal Reserve, for example, is a conservative institution but it is, at least, required by law to concern itself with employment as well as inflation.

And the Fed – for all its incompetence in failing to recognise an $8tn housing bubble that crashed the US economy – has proved to be flexible in the face of recession and a weak recovery, creating more than $2tn as part of an expansionary monetary policy. By comparison, the extremists running the European Central Bank have been raising interest rates since April, despite depression-level unemployment in the weaker eurozone economies.

Some economists and political observers argue that the eurozone needs a fiscal union, with greater co-ordination of budgetary policies, in order to make it work. But rightwing fiscal policy is counter-productive, as we are witnessing, even if it were better co-ordinated. Other economists […] have argued that the large differences in productivity among the member economies present serious difficulties for a monetary union. But even if these problems could be overcome, the eurozone would not be worth the effort if it is a rightwing project.

European economic integration prior to the eurozone was of a different nature. Unlike the “race-to-the-bottom” approach of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – which displaced hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers while contributing to reduced wages and manufacturing employment in the US and Canada – the European Union made some efforts to pull the lower-income economies upward and protect the vulnerable. But the European authorities have proved to be ruthless in their monetary union.

The idea that the euro must be saved for the sake of European solidarity also plays on an oversimplified notion of the resistance that taxpayers in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Finland have demonstrated to “bailing out” Greece. While it is undeniable that some of this resistance is based on nationalist prejudice – often inflamed by the mass media – that is not the whole story. Many Europeans don’t like to pay the bill for bailing out European banks that made bad loans. And the EU authorities are not “helping” Greece, any more than the US and Nato are “helping” Afghanistan – to take a somewhat analogous debate where those who oppose destructive policies are labeled “backward” and “isolationist”.

It appears that much of the European left does not understand the rightwing nature of the institutions, authorities and especially macroeconomic policies, which they are facing in the eurozone. This is part of a more general problem with the public misunderstanding of macroeconomic policy worldwide, which has allowed rightwing central banks to implement destructive policies, sometimes even under leftwing governments. These misunderstandings, along with the lack of democratic input, might help explain the paradox that Europe currently has more rightwing macroeconomic policies than the United States, despite having much stronger labour unions and other institutional bases for more progressive economic policy.”

[Les inserts soniques sont de la rédaction]

Archives

October 2019
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5 other followers