


Ode to growth


See article

Readers' comments


maximus zeebra

Hah, what a ridiculous amount of silly comments on this forum. People who clearly swing their opinion based on what populist propaganda magazines like the economist make them believe, ever so slowly.

Ofcourse, people are quick to blame the EU and so fourth when they do not underastand that the real problem is our broken economic model and corrupt political model.
Capitalism doesnt work and democracy is deeply corrupt. Blaming this on the EU, which is one of the few political organisations in the world who is actually doing something right is quite ridiculous.


The EU, which boasts that solidarity is its founding principle, is forcing Greece into destitution and chaos

Greek democracy is being destroyed. Not by soldiers marching with insane slogans on their lips, but by “moderate” men and women, like Schäuble and Merkel, who think themselves immune to ideological frenzy. Greece's enemies are novel, but no less frightening for that: extremists from the center ground; the 'respectable' running riot.


Greece has invaded no one and committed no crimes against humanity. Yet the EU, which boasts that solidarity is its founding principle, is forcing it into destitution and chaos. As Tacitus said of the Roman legions “Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant”. (‘They create a desert everywhere and call it peace’) And this 'desert' isn’t just Greece either.

The alternative to bowing to the demands of their German overlords is not noticeably better. If Greece were to leave the euro, there would be hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of law suits, as parties argued whether contracts should be honored in the old or new currency. Hyper-inflation might set in. The European banking system might collapse.

Instead of saying: "We are rich because they are poor", Angela Merkel and her boorish colleagues imitate the smug, parochial, selfish ‘Bild’ reader, who thinks that foreigners' problems would be solved if only they could turn themselves into him. Germany insists that the Greek crisis is the result of the corruption of Greek public life (conveniently forgetting that devastation is rife elsewhere too on the Continent) Greek politics is undoubtedly corrupt, although it should be added that the first victims of corruption are poor Greeks who cannot afford to bribe officials or hide their savings from the taxman.

Rather than rectify it, European leaders attack the welfare states, employment protections and public services that the best of the European center-left fought for after 1945. In the name of saving the euro at all costs, everything must go.

Europe does not seem pleasant, prosperous and certainly not at ease with itself or its neighbors today. When historians write about the end of its postmodern utopia, they will note that it was not destroyed by invading armies anxious to plunder Europe's wealth or totalitarian ideologs determined to install a dictatorship, but by politicians and bureaucrats, who appeared to be pillars of respectability, but turned out to be fanatics after all.

It’s just another European tragedy unfolding. Yet another.

emmafinney in reply to crammerboy

Yup EU fanaticism has wrecked havoc on Europe.

However the German narrative on the euro crisis somehow mysteriously fails to note that it was Germany that used its clout within the eurozone to defang the stability pact rules on deficits in order to avoid paying fines when it violated the stability pact rules.

The German narrative also somewho mysteriously fails to note that nobody put a gun to German banks and forced them to buy worthless junk. Greed and incompetence of German bankers somehow never get mentioned.


Mrs Merkel and all the nations to the north and east of the Rhine must stand together against the French. 60 years after WWII, 100 years after WWI, 140 years after the franco-prussian war, Europe has seen enough war-mongerers. The Boche-bashers like François Hollande, Benoît Hammon and his ilk are dangerous not just for the economy, but they are also a threat to stability and peace in Europe.

Germanambassador in reply to ZeFox

Well, I would not see things that dramatic.
If the French insist going on the Spanish, Greek and Portuguese way, they are freed to do that.
Their deficit is already now more than big enough.
I just think that a rupture between Germany and France will speed up the disbanding of the EU and it might happen that Germany has no other choice but leaving the Euro.
Europe could break into two pieces consisting of the ClubMed as previewed by Sarkozy already and a North-Eastern new part of the EU without the rest.
The Rhine would be then the new economic border in Europe.

But I would not regard France as a threat to peace in Europe.
And stability we had since 1945 in all European countries without the EU.

professorpaul4 in reply to ZeFox

Hamon especially is a buffoon, desperately trying to secure himself a government post. Hollande, if he's as intelligent as his courtiers claim, is already aware that he will not have long to wait before his has egg on his face when announcing that his electoral platform will not be implemented. So he will try his best to avoid having the likes of Hamon inside the French government to spoil an already difficult situation. Less than an actual clash between French and German views, it's likely that after some theatrics, the new French government will just do a U turn. Of course there would have been less time wasted had Hollande not won this election, but that's life.

Reluctant Polluter

The European leaders “look foolish”... no, they ARE foolish not when they refuse to meet Mr As Yet Nobody, but when they allow non-elected European bureaucrats (Barroso & Co.) to “have a bigger EU budget” when “the debt crisis taking another lurch for the worse.”
Notice, that all phrases in quotation marks are from this Charlemagne post... meaning that he uses all right words to derive absolutely wrong conclusions.
Well, EU is on suicidal watch right now... it looks like Barroso & Co. know they can't save the stupid overinflated social engineering project of supranational pseudo-empire, but have no guts to publicly recognize the failure and close up the shop. So the bureaucrats do everything possible to lead it towards inevitable and torturous death, and tell after that “We tried, but evil (whoever) failed us”.
They surely miss GWB very much – he was such a convenient figure to blame for everything. Suppose, they secretly hope Romney to replace their poster boy in the White House. Evil right wing rich Mormons will do, too?

crammerboy in reply to Reluctant Polluter

The Europeans don't need GWB to blame for their failure. There are plenty of other candidates who will carry the can when it all goes pear-shaped.

Goldman Sachs, the WSJ, the City, 'lazy Greeks', 'speculators' the Anglo press and the Jews all come to mind.

Choose any one or more of these, but be sure that no Continental European will ever be held responsible when the time comes.

Rather like WW2 which was caused by "Anglos, capitalists and Jews".

crammerboy in reply to emmafinney

BTW Emma, you seem to have found a new ally in Milovan/Joe against Josh. See the 'Euro-zone contagion: if Greece goes' thread.

Pumpernickel too is very disappointed in Joe. See his whining posting against him on the 'Add Hollandaise Sauce thread'.

Joe is now a 'traitor' to the EU cause.


emmafinney in reply to crammerboy

Yup poor Pedro. He sometimes drops in but seems to be in a daze rambling incoherently and lashing out in rage at the Dutch.

And poor Pumpy, all his desperate attempts to control people with his manipulative tricks has backfired badly. He loves that word "traitor" which was also a favorite word of one German leader with a funny mustache. Same mentality.






Arturs1978 in reply to JustBeGood

I am not surprised by that, because all countries in transition suffers the same disease...It is impossible to become prosperous in a split of a second! USA has 200 years of experience as long as many other prosperous countries...it is horrible but in same time normal way of the development of any country.

professorpaul4 in reply to JustBeGood

One of the problems is, you can "reject the fraud", but then what? The coffers are still empty, the debt still outstanding, especially as this debt has been in effect transfered from private banks to States, ie, their citizens, who are lot more demanding than private investors. What the Greeks are also saying in this election is "We can't manage to get our fraudulent rich and our underground economy to cough up the needed money", but unfortunately, that still leaves the ball in their court. The foreign creditors say: "What's next?", and they receive as answer: "Just write off the debt. And since there's no money anyway, loan us some more". As much as one may have sympathy for people in dire straits, one also has to recognize that we're still short of a solution here!

SET Sail

Logically if France was to miss its deficit target, Hollande should not enact any austerity measure at all, just slam it in the face of Merkel & co.

in a fashion not dissimilar from his Spanish colleague few weeks back.

the fiscal compact cannot be renogiated ? really ? seriously ? "Watch this" Mons. Hollande will say in French :))). And Merkel will give in 100%, for the simple reason the Germans will realize they would otherwise foot the bill. Ande Merkel too, at her next elections, will Be sorely missed...not

professorpaul4 in reply to SET Sail



For France as well as for Germany we all can only hope for a real rupture because a real rupture would turn this comedy into reality and dismantle the faked and dishonest relations of France to Germany.
The way of Germany and France should finally split up with each other because the rifts and contrasts are getting bigger day by day.
Germans only can hope on the Greeks making the first step of the EU-members.
Another proof that EU will never work and must come to an end now.

SET Sail in reply to professorpaul4

I guess the debacle of Frau Doktor Merkel at these latest land elections, where she's lost double the point s they said they would...will prove the point.

On the issue of French firms losing competitiveness, surely the legal framework and bureaucracy played a part if not a major part, but please rest assured that this austerity-spread lousy mechanism has given German financial institutions (and therefore firms of other nature) a huge and pretty unfair advantage. Euros have left all European countries to find refuge in German coffins, that have scored lowest possible interest rates, and from then have poured in their national industries, et au revoir..

professorpaul4 in reply to SET Sail

Indeed, the news of the results in Nordrhein-Westphalen is widely commented in France this morning... unsurprisingly, French journalists who are falling over themselves to court the favour of the new government are trumpetting that NRW electors have just validated the unsurpassed economic thinking of Mr Hollande and that he will be in much better position to "impose his views" on the chancellor at their meeting tomorrow.

As usual this wishful thinking accompanies sloppy reporting. First of all, NRW was already being governed by an SPD-Green coalition before the election. They have just confirmed their hold on that Land. Perhaps it shows a possibility of an improved SPD performance at the next national elections, but these will not take place tomorrow. Mr Hollande would do best not to huff and puff too much at tomorrow's meeting. Second, wages are actually going up in Germany, the contrary of "austerity". And why? Because Germany can afford to, it's trade is performing well, its firms are hiring unemployed, taxes are coming in so public finances are in a better shape (apart from the now open dispute between western Länder who contest the necessity to still carry on with post-unification transfers to the Eastern).

It is doubtful the Franco-German discussion will go anywhere if, for instance, Hollande were to begin it with this charge of "unfair advantage". It's less austerity that Germany has chosen than growth (enhanced by the structural reforms that have been begun at a much earlier stage) as well as a rigorous management of public money. Nobody, save Mr Hollande and his friends, prevented France from doing the same over the past few years and the economic disparity between the two countries is a direct result of the non-choices on the French side of the Rhine, wasting the assets that the French economy might undoubtedly have in the opposite case.

This debate is presented in completely false terms amongst the French public, as politicians and journalists much prefer to spout populist simplifications. If Mr Hollande wants growth, he can take measures to support it (though it's not in his power to decree it, as he pretends). All he needs is to stop shooting himself in the foot, and to create a healthy and optimistic setting for the real French economy, to start managing his public finances better as well as his public sector better (instead of showering it with needless expenses). That does not represent in any way "taking orders" from Germany, but making useful decisions; suddenly, he'd find Mrs Merkel much less skeptical about his political wisdom, and she'd be a lot more helpful too.

ZeFox in reply to professorpaul4

although your arguments are solid, you are I believe, missing an essential point. The French power elite are a very closeted lot, frequenting the same schools, the same clubs, the same journalists. Their view of the world is totally blinkered. Sarkozy was a bit of an outsider and paid the price for trying to impose a different view of the world.
The French like to think of themselves as a beacon to the world, a model of enlightenment that other nations strive to imitate. It is mentally impossible for them to learn from either their own failure or the example of others.
In a way there is hope in this blindness. The fact that France is steadily disintegrating, leaves the road open to other incomers who are more dynamic and more likely to make good use of France's natural advantages. Already large swathes of the delightful French countryside are being bought up by those with the finances. The locals are selling up to keep buying chinese flat-screen televisions and other essentials, living off the scraps of a social security systems that is hooked on credit and can be cut off by the banksters at any time if they so choose.


That there has been a lack of perspective, and of professionalism on the part of European elites in politics and business is easy to observe.
One of the problems is to see whether populations can make the right decisions in these circumstances when they have had such poor guidance and explanations for a long time. Populism will not make solutions to the crisis any simpler to implement.

pietro dangeli

European leaders have suddenly discovered that we need growth, the austerity is not enought to solve our dark time, good better late then never!
But they don't know how we should grow, everyone has its own idea, perhaps two have the same solution no more...
Euro area is not like USA, we are not a big nation founded by 27 countries. Brussel has decided over everything from bananas to currency but it did not check the accounts of Euro members and worse when the house was burning we were ill prepared to handle the reality.
There is only one way for our future we need to be like USA but it could be a dream

forsize in reply to pietro dangeli

european leaders have discovered no such thing. "growth" is just the word they're using for their desire to not cut welfare programs, pensions, and union benefits. it has nothing to do with actual growth, but a malignant socialist need to continue spending other people's money until there is no more money to be had.

mvr36 in reply to forsize

And since the financial economic system of the west is unsustainable, 'growth' is pretty much over for the west anyhow. The decline has already begun around 2008. Part of our prosperity came at the expense of the rest of the world, and they ain't playing along anymore.

To put it even stronger, if you factor out government overspending and central bank moneyprinting, there hasn't been any real growth anywhere in the west for a decade.


Mostly to la.výritý, jamesyar, Josh, pumpernickel, pedrolx, and others who have had the patience to comment my boring simple maths reasoning.

Whether in agreement or otherwise which is unimportant as long as we look for the reality as it is, not as we'd wish it to be.

Shall we do this bit of research together? It seems off topic; it's far more connected to it than it appears at first sight.

To relax, first a true story.

Benoît Mandelbrot (Jew, Polish, French, American, mathematician, a rare combination of human groups that I am very fond of) is the well known genius that founded fractal geometry and a great contributor to chaos maths.

His PhD thesis in the 50's should be read by all those involved in financial thinking or practice.

In a nutshell: ordinary maths tools severely underestimate risks of market collapse.

Now, let me proceed under Mandelbrot's unwittingly given sponsorship.

Yearly World nominal GDP roughly 70 trillion US$

Yearly Total International trade roughly 28 trillion US$

Yearly Total Foreign Exchange Volume of Transactions: 1040 trillion US$


If total international Trade is 28 and Forex Market is 1040 trillion does this means we bet yearly 1012 trillion dollars?

36 times international trade, 14 times world GDP?

Are we all so addicted to betting?

Well, not so fast. Currency exchange is necessary for many other things.

Tourism, the world's largest industry, for example, is about 4% of GWP (Global World Product) or some 3 trillion dollar.

Legitimate speculation.

For those who think legitimate and speculation can never go together, think again: there is always a chance that commodities, because of weather, wrong planning, whatever, are produced in larger scale than needed.

So you have a surplus.

Sometimes it is the other way round: a commodity becomes scarce.

That's where speculators come in usefully: they hoard in surplus time; they de-stock in shortages.

They are a useful legitimate activity.

What would be the size of legitimate speculation in Foreign Exchange? Ten thousand research papers will give you ten thousand answers. So let me give you mine, rule of thumb wise: the same amount as international trade will be far above anything required.

So we have another 28 trillion.

But naturally Foreign Direct Investment needs FX trade too.

Global FDI is estimated at less than 2 trillion but let's be generous and accept this is the FX trade needed.

And Financial Investment? If anybody claims to know how much it is, he/she are either mistaken or lying.

Let's guess: 5 trillion? Far too high, but again let's be generous.

So, if I can still add, we need a grand total volume of less than 70 trillion which happens to be the same as the World's GDP or GWP.

Sounds reasonable.

Yet, total FX trade is really 1040 trillion. In other words there's an excess of 970 trillion, not far from 14 times GWP.

Is it wise to spend all that money in betting?

Come on!

Let me put forth my thoughts on betting.

If a minority, to which I belong, has the right to to spend a sizeable amount of money to listen to symphonic, chamber music and opera, certainly a much larger minority who enjoy the lowbrow amusement of betting have the right to do it too.

So I'm not against betting.

But listeners and performers of good music have to obey rules. Nobody expects the London Symphony Orchestra to play in Regent St with an audience in Piccadilly Circus at 5 pm, on a working day. The chaos in traffic would stop London down to Whitechapel if not to Greenwich.

So we obey rules.

Do FX betting houses (Deutsche Bank, Barclays, UBS, Citi, J P Morgan, HBSC,...) obey the simplest rule of all: caution when dealing with the by far largest betting product?

J P Morgan has just lost in three months two billion. They claim it was an egregious mistake apparently made by their London outfit.

What can we expect to come next?

Is this all?


There is much, much worse.

Most large economies have a share of FX market a little smaller than their share of world GDP. True for the US, truer for Germany, Japan, France.

False for Britain: British Forex trade accounts for 37% of the world's FX trade or 9 (nine) times her share of World GDP.

Being as old as I am I did live in London fully devastated by Nazi planes and V2.

I don't want to see it devastated by an FX tsunami that may occur if things don't change very fast.

And this is where Mandelbrot comes in again: if in doubt, read his PhD thesis that markets hugely underestimate risks.

As I keep repeating: CDO' were such a clever idea, were they not?

The few who did similar sums to the above knew what was going to happen, and unfortunately did.

Let's avoid the similar fate with Forex trade if we still have the time to do it.

That was a very impressive research, SanMartinian. A lay person's question: would a single currency help to resolve the betting problem?

And I don't mean Euro, though in the light of what you posted the British refuse to join it looks a pragmatic step (what with 37% of the world's FX trade).

I mean a single WORLD currency. Or some sort of universal (gold?) standard...

To Relluctant Polluter (repetition for my poster history)

Thank you for kind words.

A single currency would certainly solve the problem of betting on currencies.

But that wouldn't solve the problem: betting is an urge of even rational creatures, and money makers on betting always find new betting issues if others disappear: horse racing, simple lotteries, sports events, election results, you know all that.

The problem with betting on currencies (and a lot of derivatives, stock indices and so on) is that it strongly affects finance, hence economy, hence our lives.

Markets erroneously think of bets as normal markets moves.

A world single currency would avoid betting on currencies but wouldn't avoid betting on local prices, local wages, what have you so we'd be back at square one.

Besides, if having a single currency for 17 countries with rather similar economic and social levels is the management nightmare it has proved to be (I am aware of the lot of torpedoing by interest parties to make it sink...), imagine what it would be to establish a single global currency for countries as diverse as Switzerland and Sierra Leone.

I know I'll be blasted by serious economists, if they will ever read this, but as a feet on solid ground engineer, my opinion is that nothing of this will be sorted out until humankind learns to separate two obvious function of money: a scale of values that allows us to price and value different things and a commodity that is taken, at a price called interest, from where it is exist in excess to where people need it.

More or less like wheat, a commodity if ever there was one....

Well, hoping economists don't read this,I guess in some two hundred years we may find a solution for it.

Shall we meet then to drink to it? Champagne, Scotch or Port wine?

So the whole problem boils down to human mentality: ungrounded in the reality hopes to strike jackpot. I'm afraid it won't ever be resolved, mentality remaining one of the most stable... hmmm... commodities?
There is a good side even to this, too: we don't need to wait for two centuries to shout couple of drinks to each other. For me: champagne (as well as Coke, soda and other bubbles) - never; Port Wine - when in Lisboa, washing down the best in the world seafood; Scotch - anytime; but New Zealand Rose is my drink of preference.

to Reluctant Polluter


Vinho verde in Saint Martin in the Harbour(where I got my silly pen name from) where shellfish can even be better than in Lisbon, 60 miles to the south, and Port for a toast after the meal.

I'd love it could be NZ Rosé but the place is a bit far for my 80 year old bones.

So now I just move from birthplace in West Europe to Saint Martin for quality time.



It just looks like as if it is turn for Greece to leave the EU as the first member.
We will see which countries will be the next.
Also the new French government will arrive in reality very soon when the rating agencies make their choice and the international monetary markets show their reactions.
The markets make the rules and if a country like Greece does not find anybody who is prepared to lend them money, the game is over.

The line which will come up to Europe is nothing but obvious and logic.
Europe will disband into a wealthy part of countries and divide into a less wealthy part.

In former times these were the reasons for wars between European nations. Today the risk seems extremely low.

A economic disbanding Europe will have also clear consequences to rest of the existing NATO.
Probably NATO will disband as well or get reduced on only a few members.

But the idea of a common market in Europe and a common currency will not die and so it is rather possible that a smaller number of economic strong countries will carry on while some other members re-introduce their old money they had before.

There is not any reason worrying about (depends in which country you live:)
Nobody ever said that Europe has to be a United continent like the USA or the old Soviet Union.

The variety of European nations, their extreme diversity of ethnics, cultures and languages will never allow a United continent which is only similar to the USA.

One fails to see why the EU as an organization as well as a treaty compact would have to dissolve because economic disparities between the member states could not be resolved: after all, the EEC and EU existed before some of the member states went into phase three of the monetary union. There remain, apart from monetary issues, plenty of incentives and reasons for European countries to continue to be associated with one another through the different European treaties going back to that of Rome.

One also fails to see why NATO should disband either: is there no reason for European countries to be associated in a treaty that provides for common efforts to ensure each other's security?

Providing security of other nations can only work if different countries have the same political goals and ideas.
The foreign policy of Britain or France are completely different and in regard of their foreign policy
France as well as Britain often have been into the deepest contrasts over the last 60 years.
France and Britain are super- powers with an immense military capacity playing in the highest league on the stage world politics by having global interests while countries like the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and Germany are nothing but little local factors without much importance and very few power.
So how can a treaty work with members who are that much and extremely different.
National safety is seen by the Greeks completely different as the Germans ever will see and the Spaniards see their safety from a very different pov as the Dutch or Norwegians ever will do.
So Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Poland which have quite similar interests will have to do anything that they never get involved by a wrong kind of solidarity into foreign conflicts outside of their own soil and country.
With the break-down of the Soviet Union which has been regarded falsely as the common enemy which they never were, NATO became useless and obsolete.

European countries can stay associated if they are members of the EU or not.
It just depends on the countries itself if they want to create and foster friendly and trustful bi-national relationships to each other.
Europe could exist very well for a very long time without the EU and Europe will stay prosperous in some parts if the EU is disbanding or not.
But anyway the disparities are much more powerful and stronger in Europe as anything the European countries have in common.
The illusion of a united Europe actually is blasting off and the Greeks as well as the French have clearly expressed their opinion.
So we see now that the way of more European integration has been a very wrong and harmful way.

Your reasoning relies on the belief that differences between States are as permanent as they are impossible to overcome. Or that time does not reveal that even some interests in common may resurface. The point here is not to minimize the difficulties that differences and disparities between States, but to observe that integration has been conceived as a way to work together despite differences and disparities. Europe always functioned with the assumption that there were big players and small players, but it never saw this as an obstacle that couldn't be overcome and required giving up; rather it saw it as a challenge that again and again could be met with creative imagination, and, arguably, good will. The same principle applies to Atlantic integration which in many ways has developed as a twin of the European one.
Perhaps the current difficulties can tempt some people to espouse a kind of post-Cold War neutralism that would reduce European cooperation to the kind that was associated with the pretty insignificant EFTA (which even the British, its conceptors, recongized as a dead end within a year of its launch in 1960). Maybe there's this belief that atomized European states can do very well all by themselves with some pick and mix association with a few select partners.
Some other people will find that this vision is actually not very ambitious, and that it does not aim to deliver, for a greater number of Europeans, the benefits of a larger multilateral association.
I suppose if one has always dismissed the potential beneifits of multilateral integration it is not hard to consider that "more European integration has been a very wrong and harmful way". I will contend that the history of the last few decades in Europe also shows that integration yielded benefits which are now taken for granted and dismissed by your kind of reasoning. But those benefits are not worth junking as easily as you feel the union may be junked.

In general I could agree with you but as we see actually as matter of fact and result that the differences between the different states are more than permanent. It is impossible to overcome the huge rifts between the different European nations.
France will stay in contrast to Germany by nature as well as Britain will always stay in an extreme contrast to German has it ever has been.
So why should these historic facts ever get changed? Especially if never in France nor in Britain anybody ever has been interested showing any trace of a good-will to overcome.
In fact the rifts between the nations have widened as more as more as integration took place.

Never before European nations have been in such a hostile diversity as we actually are.
Increasing anti-German campaigns all over Europe , anti-German politics combined with anti-German alliances make it senseless believing to any success of further European integration.

Actually we can clearly watch the final liquidation of the European idea because of a basic lack of good-will.
A larger multilateral Europe can not work as we see now clearly because the European nations are strictly against it.
Nobody in France and nobody in Greece or Britain ever wants to get lost in multilateral united Europe. This would be the worst thing that ever might happen to them.
So Britain, France Greece and some other nations have been practicing sabotage by doing anything against any kind of a reconciliation of the European nations and a closer multilateral integration.
You never will change the mind of the British, French or Greeks as we actually can see very well.

So there has been never any kind of a good-will in Europe and therefore the chauvinist card is played all over in Europe primarily against Germany as the old and well tested enemy.

So I can clearly say that the end of European integration is obvious and we will see what will happen when Greece has left the EU.
I am rather sure that Spain, Portugal and Italy will follow and then the whole dream will be over.
The French will get back their French Franks and the Germans get back their Deutsche Mark again.

Europe will be rather the same as it was in 1945. You can not act against history and its unalterable facts.
The great statesman Stalin already in 1945 knew these facts.

Of course Europe as a whole will completely lose its global weight but I think this will not bother anybody.
Europe can only exist in different blocks as it has been existing over centuries.
And the USA are a wrong example for Europe.

Germans for e.g want still speak their German language and they do not want getting forced by the EU and the rest of Europe to forget their own language and speak French or English.
The Poles want to stay Poles and the French never would waste a single thought learning a foreign language just like each British has been thinking since ever.

Languages are fortunately more effective as any strict border and language barriers are insurmountable and we have in Europe the strictest language borders in the world.
German is banned in most European countries and even by the EU and in a way even worse as after WW II.
With a planned discrimination of ethnics as previewed by French, British and other nations you can not create a common Europe.

"Never before European nations have been in such a hostile diversity as we actually are.
Excuse me, but we're not actually in 1914, or in 1945. If a German citizen today can't step back, take a deep breath, and see the difference between a few misguided comments in the course of political debate in 2012 and the depth of hostility and contempt in which his or her forefathers were the object of in 1945, then obviously that person is, at most, misinformed, and in the least, oversensitive.
That there are some ludicrous and angry people out there, including on The Economist discussion boards is not to be denied. But to draw conclusion from this that there isn't a shred left of willing cooperation, understanding and dialogue left in Europe is plainly excessive. It's not what most Germans feel, nor does it represent in any accurate way the diverse views of people all around Europe, even in difficult times.
"The great statesman Stalin already in 1945 knew these facts."
At least now we know from which angle you're coming to this discussion.

Having travelled for a long time all over Europe and especially to the UK, I am not that optimistic as you are.
Indeed we are not in 1914 or in 1945 but anyway if you just have a look at the recent polls and surveys, the Germans are the most hated people in all West European countries.
In other countries indeed it is quite different but unfortunately not in Europe.
They are clearly and offensively disliked.
Germans are watching quite closely the nations around their country and I do not think that they are oversensitive.
And the remarks on many discussion boards including the Economist are not an exception but much more a basic stance and opinion of an overwhelming majority of West Europeans.
Indeed I agree with you, that in Poland, Russia or the Czchech Republic it is quite the opposite.
But in all those countries the political class has ben enforcing and supporting some kind reconciliation by adding fuel to the fire as they have been doing expressively in the UK since ever.
And it is quite typical for the attitude of Western countries almost 70 years after WW II that a German president has been declared to a persona non grata like in the Netherlands this year.
So the anti-German campaigns during the election campaign in France seem to me also typical as well as people think in Greece or Spain.
Germans are accepting the view of people all around in Europe and therefore in case of a referendum you would have a majority of at least 80 % Germans who would prefer leaving the EU, NATO and the Euro better yesterday as tomorrow.
Germans have learned to deal with the unalterable fact that they are completely disliked in most European countries.
And as you can watch now in most European countries they are playing the card of nationalism by creating a non-existing threat by Germany and the Germans.
So it is my opinion that Germany should leave this club called EU, where they definitively are not welcome and look for better and more honest partners like Poland and first of all Russia.
It seems absolutely inconceivable that Germany and France ever can really cooperate and even less a cooperation between the UK and German will ever be a reasonable possibility.
Too big are the rifts, too big are the contrasts and too far away are the political goals.

So, I am rather sure like most experts that this kind of an EU as we have it now, soon will disband completely and there will form a completely different new alliance in Europe, probably without France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece.
Germany was clever enough not to rely on its Western partners and everybody in Germany never will forget the shameful actions of Britain, France and some other nations at the time of reunification after the breakdown of the iron curtain.
The USA were supporting together with the Soviet Union against the clear will of the whole rest of Europe, the re-unification of Germany.
Meanwhile everybody in Germany knows what kind of allies we really do have.
These are facts of history and they represent the real opinion of the neighbour nations of Germany.

Just ask a German in the street and he will perhaps tell you his opinion if you ask him in German.

As it happens, I spent the last two days speaking about this topic with a group of varied Germans, most of them young, including a senior diplomat from the German Embassy here.

Their views are nothing like what you have just written, and they don't feel the least threatened by anti-German hatred. In fact, when confronted with a couple of specimens on television, they laughed this off as a dirty joke. I also heard no wish from them for the dismantling of the European Union.

Trust the Telegraph to be the voice of authority on this: honestly, these kinds of incidents have long been routine at football matches. I have numerous German colleagues and students who have been living in the UK for years and have never been themselves involved in such kind of problems. So it's a bit weak to draw on this as evidence of the supposed "great hatred of Germany across the continent". Those Germans I know are more mature about this: they dismiss it and get on with their lives.

I think you are operating on double standard.
The same- if it would happen in Germany towards people from the UK-you would denounce and generalize in huge campaigns as typical for the Germans as it indeed has been happening over centuries.
There are no isolated cases as you like to play down those incidents in the UK but they are much more a very vital and deep rooted feeling of each British (without exception- because they all are the same)
If still some German people undertake the risk visiting the UK they are not the rule but an exception.
Both nations should be at least honest in their feelings and not play a cheap comedy.
Germans can deal with the fact being hated and the British will have to deal with the fact that we do not like them, but we don't hate them.

Double standard? I think not. I know Germany well, as well as the UK. I'm perfectly aware that such incidents which you brandish as evidence of rabid Germanophobia are very rare, as rare as incidents in Germany involving other Europeans. Even when some Turkish people suffered attacks from bands of German skinheads, I've never taken this to be representative of the the broad feelings and behaviour of the ENTIRE German population.

It may disappoint you, but there are plenty of other people out there who hold the same common sense judgment as I do. But well, you want to persuade yourself that all Germans are hated by everybody else so this can justify your case for isolationism, that's your problem, and it is pointless to discuss this with you.

Well it looks like that you know Germany well - but you are indeed an exception because in the UK nobody ever has been interested into Germany because they prefer their bias and stereotypes.
If a majority of the people of the UK would think and want to see things as you do, we would have no problem at all.
And I also agree that there are out there plenty of other people who hold the same common sense judgement as you do by treating Germany and the Germans fairly.

But you know as well as I do what the Murdoch medias & Co are daily publishing against Germany .
And it is my clear opinion that Murdoch and his legions of opinion producers are nothing but satisfying with their anti-German rants a deep yearning of the British public.

Clearly we are on the very same way if there would be more open-minded people like you in the UK who are able to an unbiased and fair judgement of Germany of today.
And even from the British parliament we hear quite powerful anti-German rants by insinuating German politics that they want to create a 4th Reich by using the EU.


Hopefully, the UK's tacit war with Norway will be revealed.




Halo, the truth please, the truth please.



"On Serbia, you're spouting weak rhetoric there (you're not a creationist are you?"

Ok so if anybody mentions the FACT that Milosevic's party holds the key to power now in Serbia it means they are "creationists"?

One can only assume your intolerance for the truth reflects the culture you were raised in. However your obsession with creationists seems understandable given Europe's big problem with creationists.



■In Germany, the Ministry of Education for the state of Hesse saw no infringement of the curriculum when teachers at a number of schools were found to be teaching the Biblical theory of creation in biology class.

■In Italy in 2004, there was a proposed decree against the theory of evolution.

■In the United Kingdom, creationists hold lectures at schools and organize international symposia.

■ The publishing house "Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen" is now publishing the sixth edition of a grade school textbook that includes the theory of intelligent design.

emmafinney in reply to shaun39

Of course you are no doubt projecting your behavior onto me.

After all it was you who behaved Murdoch style by injecting "creationism' into a discussion about Serbia in order to mock me but it backfired when I gave the link on Der Spiegel about creationism in Europe.

Whats the matter you don't like the truth about creationism in Europe?

shaun39 in reply to emmafinney

I don't especially like fanatical Christianity - but it's more an irrelevant annoyance than a threat.

I could list more than 4096 distinct issues that I care more about.

Analogies to creationism and nativist criticism of the human rights act in the UK, were inspired by your rejection of reason, rejection of history and rejection of any understanding of current affairs in quoting this:

In Serbia, Milosevic's party is going be in power after winning the most votes. See link...



Back to reality:
The Socialist Party of Serbia (which won 18% of seats with 14.5% of the vote to become the 3rd largest party) is not "Milosevic's Party" (though, indeed, he founded it). It was almost wiped out in 2007 (vote was down to 5.6%), and Dačić has led a revival with a platform of pursuing EU membership and fighting organised crime (ironic given the party's history).

It is only because the SPS has largely abandoned nationalism and is now seeking EU integration, that the liberal Democratic Party (28% of seats, 22.1% of the vote) has sought to involve it in the coalition.

If you're wilfully denying reality and promulgating insidious bullshit - in defiance of all reason as I understand it - then I'm left slightly confused. "Creationists" are just the first thing that come to mind. I could as easily have made the analogy with gambling addicts (just one more punt and I'll make millions), holocaust deniers or the Vatican's policy on contraception. Just one of those things I can't get my head around.

If you genuinely didn't know this, cool - and sorry for overreacting.

Serbia's another place that's making a lot of progress right now - the new government has recently affirmed a ridiculously ambitious policy of joining the EU by 2015/2016 - something they will not achieve (2020 is a more realistic date, if progress continues at current pace). The fact that ministers have all been tasked and will be judged by their implementation of the accession chapters, gives reason to expect rapid economic and social convergence to European norms. There is no prospect of military conflict in Europe - not even in Bosnia or Kosovo (or Greece).

emmafinney in reply to shaun39

Once again projecting your behavior onto me.

It was you who rejected reason and promulgated insidious bullshit by equating the Pope's membership of the Hitler youth movment as a 16 year old which he was forced to join to ex-Milosevis in power now.

And your mindblowing lie about most of the Afghan government being ex-Taliban.

All lies to make excuses for being in favor of ex-Milosevics because they are in favor of EU membership.

Perhaps you need to take a good look at your own "creationist' mentality before pointing fingers at others.

shaun39 in reply to emmafinney

People don't vanish when regimes change - and skill sets don't transform either. It is unremarkable that prominent people today had positions (whether minor or senior) in systems that are now despised.

Meh, let's kiss and make up.

I think we both want the same outcomes anyway.

All the best

783Nine in reply to shaun39

Shaun, I agree with your views on Europe and especially views on Serbia’s election results. In fact, it was Milosevic’s socialism that made Serbia an easy American target to interfere in the civil war that has created artificial solutions.

One advice though, please do not address your posts as a reply to to emmafinney (alias sherryblack- now banned and alias cramerboy)...she sometimes even debate with her aliases - pathetic. You are wasting your valuable time and will not achieve anything just more incoherent anti-European litany from her.




Malopolanin in reply to Ludwick

Capitalism demands credit. Telling the banks to charge 4% for loans instead of 20-30% is not a reason for rejecting Keynes.

Haha, I'll start laughing at Western Europe when Credit Agricole, BNP Paribas and Societe Generale start charging the same for credits in the West as they do in Poland and Romania. Imagine, Frenchmen and Germans having to pay 23% interest for loans, with good credit history!! haha!



Are you an EU employee?








Germanambassador in reply to emmafinney



So where please is the problem for you?
And did the American solution of the Iraqu make anything better?

This is democracy as I was told.

shaun39 in reply to emmafinney

** slightly disturbed that 8 people have recommended this, and are presumably walking away with a very inaccurate impression of Serbia right now.

The party founded by Milosevic's: the Socialist Party of Serbia, won 18% of seats with 14.5% of the vote to become the 3rd largest party. It is not "Milosevic's Party" in any meaningful sense. It was almost wiped out in 2007 (vote was down to 5.6%), and Dačić has led a revival with a platform of pursuing EU membership and fighting organised crime (ironic given the party's history).

It is only because the SPS has largely abandoned nationalism and is now seeking EU integration, that the Democratic Party (28% of seats, 22.1% of the vote) has sought to involve it in the coalition - along with other political centre parties.


The sky isn't falling down - the past 20 years have seen more human progress than any other period in recorded human history.

P.S. realise that we have world peace right now? There are a number of cold conflicts and low key civil/ separatist conflicts (plus a couple of higher key conflicts in Colombia, Iraq, Mexico, Syria and Yemen) - but not a single international war (unless you count western deployment in Afghanistan). Pretty cool - especially in Africa, which has rarely seen a year of peace.





Keep everything in context.











Marie.Claude in reply to shaun39

"Trade continues to grow rapidly between eurozone countries -"

except in the southern Europe

Banks integration isn't possible, since beginning the euros are "nationalised

a evidence that was pointed by a american friend:

"First off: the Euro is NOT one currency…

Rather, it’s a fiat version of a gold/silver/specie standard.

If you’ll recall: under a non-fiat standard, the non-fiat intermediates between exchange rates.

If gold, every currency ‘crosses’ based upon what it commands in weight of pure gold — as defined: 99.99%.

Under the Euro fraud all of the independent nations were to converge their economic policies so that they could and would be able to maintain an exchange parity set at one:one; fiat to fiat.

If it were truly a unitary currency, then we’d not be seeing X’s on German Euros and N’s on Austrian Euros.

We wouldn’t see the maintenance of all the old central banks as intra-national banking clearance centers"

shaun39 in reply to Marie.Claude

You look at the South European trade numbers:



For a fuller eurozone picture, here:







shaun39 in reply to shaun39





emmafinney in reply to shaun39

Are you an EU employee?








shaun39 in reply to emmafinney

Nope - I'm a British mathematics student.







crammerboy in reply to emmafinney










That is when the next Balkans war breaks out.

guest-isjsejw in reply to shaun39

Greece has not done very well. It has temporarily increased its GDP with debt fueled spending. GDP that is all going away now as the financial markets are no longer willing to lend them money.

It is not stable and it will go down further, unless somebody starts to funnel money into Greece again.

shaun39 in reply to guest-isjsejw

Since 2007, Greek imports have fallen by 43%, and Greek exports have soared 63%. The trade balance has drastically improved.

Exports continue to grow rapidly. Trade is funnelling ever more money into Greece - even amidst a recession and while tourism has essentially stopped.


Yes, Greek incomes were exaggerated in 2007/ 2008/ 2009 by high government deficits. Yes, Greek GDP was exaggerated slightly throughout this period by high private capital inflows which financed high investment. But we're passed that now.

The Greek economy is clearly below capacity. The government is now running a cyclically adjusted surplus (although still a primary deficit above 1%). Exports are doing well - and employment in the export sector is rapidly growing. The big hole is investment - which has collapsed by 7 percentage points of GDP (or by an amount equal to 9% of today's GDP). Greece still has plenty of room for productivity catch up and profitable residential/ tourism/ business investment. If the financial sector could be fixed, Greece might look a whole lot prettier much sooner than otherwise.

Even with the status quo, current account trends (and slow recovery of tourism), and the fact that the government deficit has been mostly closed (the remaining gap is now small enough that it can credibly be closed with growth), mean that Greek unemployment should be falling by the end of this year (unless government failure screws things up).

A few little extras that the Greek government could pull off:
- cut military spending by 4.5 billion euros.
- impose an additional 1 euro duty on cigarette packets. Greece has the highest smoking rate in the EU, and some of the cheapest cigarettes (a third of UK prices). If cigarette consumption remained unaffected (34 billion/ year), it would raise 1.7 billion euros. Of course, there will be some mix of reduced consumption and increased revenue - improve health and help facilitate growth in government investment.

Then there's tax fraud, the courts, etc - many structural reforms really would contribute to growth. The visa system needs to be easier for Russian/ Chinese/ Korean/ Gulf Arab tourists. Greece should milk the German environmental lobby for their proposed solar subsidies in Greece, and should chase English language higher education (big international market - if the Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians do it, so can Greece. It'd be all the easier if existing English universities were permitted to open Greek campuses). Etc.

That's all small fry - though any good government should be doing some of this. What really needs sorting is the financial system - Greece needs liquid banks that can lend to private business and households at competitive rates. The easiest route is to lobby hard for a single European banking system (centralised responsibility for banking regulation, central responsibility for any bank bailouts).

With or without such progress, GDP has essentially stabilised and the improving current account will soon yield a few slithers of growth.

emmafinney in reply to shaun39

You obviously have problem if you equate the Pope's membership in Hitler youth as a sixteen year old to the ex-Milosevic's in power now at Serbia who supported and aided a murderous tyrant as mature adults

And no most of the Afghanistan is not ex-taliban. No need to lie to make excuses for Milosevic's party in power now all because they support EU membership.

And your praises of the Greek, Spain etc economies rings hollow. Spain's youth unemployement rate is at 50%. If you were not so blinded by EU fanaticism you will realize that these are figures that EVENTUALLY lead to revolution if nothing is done

ralphmalph in reply to shaun39


The above are the GDP figures. Tells a completely different story to the one you are telling.

Trade in goods may be growing but it can not offset the reduction in services.
Spanish GDP 660 billion before the crash now 640 billon.

The problem is not complete national banking system collapse, as far as I am aware you can still get euros out of every cash point in Euroland. The problem is that the populations in general have either no surplus money to spend (unemployed) or they have no desire to take on more debt and are actually saving money (which generically is good). Companies are not investing in Europe because the fast growing markets are elsewhere so they are recruiting sales people and building factories in these markets. This all adds up to major, major problems for the countries that you mention.

Lacking Gravitas in reply to emmafinney

The thing with the extremists is that Europe has, on the whole, proportional electoral systems. Specifically wrt France. That means these people can vote for a party that caters specifically to them, rather than just the next best thing (like the Conservatives in the UK or the Republicans in the US). So yeah, extremeists get elected but that doesn't mean other countries don't have or support them *cough*Santorum*cough*


It seems obvious to me that Germany will not allow a situation where Euro would break (they are too dependent on it, and they also hold the control over it economically). But Euro is under pressures that will surely have consequences.
What can come out of this situation? A redefinition of the Euro, I think. With great losers (the less competitive countries in terms of capacity to outgrow their debt) and great winners (the others).

Now, I am curious to see what this redefinition (pressure release event) will mean in practical terms. Maybe it'll be less in how the Euro it is carved, but in what it ultimately represents (serves for). True, I am trying to stick to the happy-end assumption. For, there is always a by-default type of pressure release event: the war.

sanmartinian in reply to Ioan

To Ioan

who wrote


Having been of the same fear for years, I cannot but agree with you.

But I certainly hope we are both very wrong.

Germanambassador in reply to Ioan


But Germany could leave the Euro.
This would be cheaper than staying by wasting billions into a bottomless pit.

Germany can help itself and Germany did very well without the EU by reconstructing their country which has been bombed back to the Stone Age by the rest of the world.

The new trading partners for Germany are China and Russia. The EU- countries do not have any longer a priority for German economy.
And if there will be a collapse of the Euro the rest of the EU countries won't have the money buying German products.

It will be interesting how long Mrs. Merkel and her friends will be able making politics against their own voters and their own country.

In Germany you will find very little support of the actions of Merkel and her political class.
An overwhelming majority of Germans is clearly for an exit out of the EU and the Euro.



Did the Germans ever finance anything in EZ, but themselves?

"Germany has profited to the tune of €9 billion from the eurozone crisis over the past two years, an ING economist has calculated for EUobserver, as investors flock to "safe" but near zero interest rate bunds while southern euro-countries struggle with unsustainable rates"



I believe Charlemagne is joining the club of those who believe the main ideological struggle in the next few years will be the "Austerity Party" versus the "Growth Party".

Welcome to the club.

Goodbye to Conservatives and Labour, right of centre Christian-Democrats and Social-Democrats and all other similarly labelled parties in Europe.

Maybe in North America too but I guess that, as in the past, the strong culture of the USA and some local important issues, as the stronger religious feelings of Americans, will give the debate a slightly different hue.

It may well be that in time the "Austere" will be labelled "Tories" and the "Growers", "Whigs". In countries with an even older political tradition, as Italy, one of them will be labelled Guelphs and the other Ghibellines but my lack of culture has not yet allowed me to decide which will be which.

Smaller parties will keep on being smaller parties: Liberals, Pirates, minority backed ones and so forth but they will fill their useful niche role of representing non aligned voters.

I rather welcome the move.

For the past nine or ten years, since the beginning of the CDO fiasco, it has been looking as if the World was ready to repeat the tragedy of thirties.

I'm not sure this development will halt it (in fact in the past tragedies have never been halted), but at least it has rationalized the debate and that is always welcome.

On a totally different tack.

In the past I have reduced to the state of apoplectic fury (sorry for the obvious good humoured leg-pull) some posters here for stating that if the Euro collapsed, the main sufferers would be the London Forex traders.

Jamesyar, with very well reasoned arguments, and Maher, with less understanding of applied maths, were particularly upset with this cold, totally unemotional piece of almost arithmetical analysis.

I suggest both read the Financial Times (definitely not my favourite newspaper) of May, 9th "Resilience of Euro frustrates forex trade" at


I certainly do not claim the article confirms my reasoning; in fact it seems to cover a different ground.

Yet, for those who live with figures in their minds, it fully confirms the left hand side half of my equation if I may use symbolic language (my point is not an equation and doesn't have a left or right hand side; but it may in mathematical jest be assimilated to one).

Well, if you don't think it does, it certainly confirms what was often written here beginning of March 2010(if my memory serves me right): that those speculators who had betted against the Euro after the first unsuccessful attack on Greece, would lose a lot of money.

Neither witchcraft, nor Omaha Sage's vision here: just pure application of that reasoning. As in the case of knowing in 2003 that CDO's would be a fiasco, just elementary, very simple, cold as ice maths.

Strongly recommend its use when trying to look into the future: no rocket science six degree differential equations; just basic multiplication and division tables.

MilovanDjilas in reply to sanmartinian



We are already there.

Guelphs (pro-Papists) support Growth - also because their politicians will then have resources to buy votes.
Ghibellines (pro-Civil State) support Austerity - because the healthy finances of the Civil State must be defended vis-a-vis Vatican City.

The Ghibellines of Liberal Italy (1860-1921) sent our troops to fight WWI without adequate artillery support, because they feared bankrupting the Civil State more than they feared the human losses - a strategy which played no small part in the later rise of Fascism.

The Guelphs of Christian Democrat Italy (1945-1992) drove the indebtedness of the Republic to 120% of gdp as a deliberate strategy to weaken the Civil State while they distributed patronage amidst economic growth.

As a Ghibelline, pro-Austerity is a religious (or anti-religious) commitment for me. My great- and great-great- grandfathers were tax collectors in the 1800's. Great-grandfather Giacomo left a saying in the family, "Every lira that goes to the State is a lira that does not go to the Church". The peasants were going to be fleeced anyway - better that the money go to building roads, schools and hospitals rather than monasteries.
Of course, the political failure of those efforts came when the money was used to finance war and empire.

James Yarwood in reply to sanmartinian

Just to clarify what those FX traders actually do..... they rarely take a large gamble on their own risk (this is known as prop or propriety trading). Normally they act as wholesalers, fulfilling an order for corporate clients, then going to the market to hedge the exposure with a market counterparty with the opposite position.
There is no debt or cash position left owed from one bank to another (e.g. nothing that needs to be collaterised to cover counterparty risk exposure) so FX is not really a market that is associated with systemic risk.

CDOs on the other hand were, as you rightfully point out. This story highlights how low Goldmans sank with their CDO business:


sanmartinian in reply to MilovanDjilas

to Milovan Djilas (repetition for my post history)

Thanks for clarifying my thoughts on the difference between Guelphs and Ghibellines.

I always get confused with names starting with the same letter...

And thanks for the more important and deep thought remainder of the post.

Well, that's usual with you.

sanmartinian in reply to James Yarwood

to jamesyar

who wrote

Just to clarify what those FX traders actually do..... they rarely take a large gamble on their own risk (this is known as prop or propriety trading).... FX is not really a market that is associated with systemic risk.

You are of course very right.

My posts are are already too boring long for me to be precise at every point (assuming wrongly that I have the knowledge to do so).

I struggled to find a short relative truthful expression to describe who would be most hurt by a Euro complete demise or, as the case is now, by not enough volatility.

So, I came up with "FX traders" forgetting I was falling into the trap you, jamesyar, have thankfully clarified.

As you say, FX is a market not normally associated with systemic risk. No betting house really is.

But where I start disagreeing with you is just there.

Casinos do not present systemic risks, either.

Apart from the rather small share of FX trade for "legitimate transactions" and "legitimate speculation" that's exactly what FX markets are now: huge casinos.

Yet, if big serious investors in large numbers start visiting casinos and sum huge losses there will be a shortage of liquidity to invest in the productive economy those serious investors normally invest in.

Obviously, I have no reliable data to prove my point but my beloved indirect and mostly intuitive maths indices, apparently indicate there was a shortage of "productive finance" when hedge funds and other big suppliers of funds made huge losses during the silly Euro war.

That JP Morgan has repeated just now the same mistake in a huge scale makes me wonder whether FX and derivative betting is not far more systemic than one is inclined to accept.

Paraphrasing Joe (Milovan Djillas) as he has just pointed out above: "every cent that goes into the casino economy, is a cent that doesn't go into the productive economy".

Well, I know quite a few companies that could increase employment and economic growth even if only one tenth of the 2 billion lost by JP Morgan were invested in their humble task of
producing potatoes, fish farms, wind turbines, new more productive software, better accounting practices, better health services or even moving goods from where they are built to where they are consumed.

That has been my point for years. I hope one day the cry will be heard.

I hope a war won't be needed to make the point as it has been known to happen a few times before in History.

But then I can be an irritating pessimist when I foresee dangers that may affect those I love.


" And by the way, let’s also have a bigger EU budget."

pas folle la guêpe Barroso !

I'll hep you, you'll help me to get my 6% increasing EU contribuation

The whole euro crisis and the EU is a big farce, these people don't care if the jobs are lost, if the people will starve...

People of EZ, let's get out of their scenario, tous à la Bastille !


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42


Products & events