Replies

I guess you align more with the “takers” and less with the producers. I’m sorry to inform you (and you certainly won’t believe me) but, for the takers, the party is almost over. It will take awhile to get all the guests to leave of course.

No. My alignment is with the free market. Justifying a larger socialist entity’s imperialism over a smaller one is not part of being aligned with the free market. The EU is the biggest “taker” in this scenario, never mind the biggest liar.

BTW, it would be a good thing to take note of one of the major causes of the 2008 collapse, which led to the EU and ECB being able to lord it over countries it tempted into the eurozone by bending its own rules in the first place (Page 3).

Following the European Union’s adoption of the euro, the ECB (European Central Bank) kept its interest rates at 2 percent to help reunified Germany. Money poured into Britain and America, distorting money markets.

After December 2005, the ECB inched up interest rates seven times.

In January 2007, Germany raised VAT by 3 percent and the German unions asked for increased wages in compensation. German Bundesbank President Axel Weber sought and secured another ECB interest rate rise to curb German wage inflation. Higher interest rates then caused funds to sweep back to Europe, and soon the US and UK financial systems began to crack.

After a further ECB interest rate rise in July 2008, stock markets (a)round the world collapsed. …

And lest anyone thought it was not deliberate, take note.

The European Commission’s top economists warned the politicians in the 1990s that the euro might not survive a crisis, at least in its current form. There is no EU treasury or debt union to back it up. The one-size-fits-all regime of interest rates caters badly to the different needs of Club Med and the German bloc.

The euro fathers did not dispute this. But they saw EMU as an instrument to force the pace of political union. They welcomed the idea of a “beneficial crisis”. As ex-Commission chief Romano Prodi remarked, it would allow Brussels to break taboos and accelerate the move to a full-fledged EU economic government. …

And that is exactly the pattern they pursued after 2008. Justifiable? or nefarious? Legitimate reason to induce the governments of five sovereign nations to fall in order to get them to elect governments that would not refuse the ECB/IMF “bailout” loans? (The prior governments did not intend to be “takers”, remember, especially of these loans.)