The financial and economic crisis in Europewas all very predictable. As a political
activist in the 1990s, I campaigned against the whole Europe 1992 thing. Seeing that British finance and the European nobility were behind “uniting” Europe, I knew that no good could come out of it, that it was a way for nations to give up their sovereignty, wipe away the nation state, and let the decisions for their populations be made by a small group of people.
I saw it as a return to a Feudal political system because, well, for one reason, the European oligarchs were pushing it, as well as the City of London finance. It’s interesting that the british never joined the Euro system but they handle all the finances for the Euro. Just ask yourself: what economy was really prosperous, for the majority of the population, that is, during the Feudal period? The answer is virtually NONE. It was a looting ground for the wealthy to stay rich off the backs of the population.
So, why would one think that there could be anything but disaster in an economy run by, literally, some of the same families that made up the nobility and royalty of Europe? An article in the dailybeast titled ‘It Can Happen Here: Europe’s Screwed Generation and America’s‘ is rather cynical and misleading although peppered with some truth.
It is true that this younger generation is screwed. Maybe they are coining a new term: the screwed generation. Whatever, it does talk about the bleak futures for countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, among others. And, it goes into the massive demographic reduction, how the young are putting off having families because of the economy; how it’s happening in the U.S. as well, where people are living with their parents longer.
But to say that it was caused by overspending of the previous generation is an outright lie. I’ve seen this in other media as well. They are trying to make you believe that having a good retirement and take lots of time off for vacations, good medical coverage is the source of spending too much money and creating debt. That’s not what’s a fault here.
The article puts out the line, as do most media outlets, that there is only a choice between brutal austerity of budget cuts or deficit spending by governments to put people back to work which would create more debt. This is a trap to get people used to the idea that there are only bad choices. And that’s totally false. A wise man once told me (he was the former foreign minister of British Guyana, actually) that whenever you’re given only two choices, always take the third.
The third option in this case would be to implement American System style policies. This was done several times in the history of the U.S. That is, to grow your economy by sovereign acts of credit issuing for productive purposes. Changing the banking laws along the lines of the Glass-Steagle Act in the U.S. would shut down most of the financial speculation where most debt, and money, is created out of thin air.
To give you an indication as to why no one will do it now, even in these bad circumstances in the Us and Europe, is because every American president who did this died in office. The pro Wall Street presidents, or neutral presidents didn’t die in office. Quite an interesting correllation there. European leaders who implemented similar policies have also died, or have been scandalized out of office. It’s a battle between sovereign nation states and an international financial empire centered around the City of London finance.
It’s not a question of older vs younger, or budget cuts vs deficit spending, but it’s a question of growing a national economy through sovereign acts of issuing credits for productive purposes in industry, agriculture and infrastructure.
Do you know the difference between American System policies on the one hand, and a Monitarist system on the other?