Political Economy

Political Economy

On the afternoon of Friday 13th August 1971 Richard Nixon decided to close “the gold window” so that “foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold.”

On the afternoon of Friday, August 13, 1971, these officials along with 12 other high-ranking White House and Treasury advisors met secretly with Nixon at Camp David.

There was great debate about what Nixon should do, but ultimately Nixon, relying heavily on the advice of the self-confident Connally, decided to break up Bretton Woods by suspending the convertibility of the dollar into gold; freezing wages and prices for 90 days to combat potential inflationary effects; and impose an import surcharge of 10 percent.

To prevent a run on the dollar, stabilize the US economy, and decrease US unemployment and inflation rates, on August 15, 1971:

1. Nixon directed Treasury Secretary Connally to suspend, with certain exceptions, the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets, ordering the gold window to be closed such that foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold.

2. Nixon issued Executive Order 11615 (pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970), imposing a 90-day freeze on wages and prices in order to counter inflation. This was the first time the U.S. government enacted wage and price controls since World War II.

3. An import surcharge of 10 percent was set to ensure that American products would not be at a disadvantage because of the expected fluctuation in exchange rates.


The following year I went to college to be schooled in the mysteries of Political Economy.

It was a hoot.

The historians were busy trying [and failing] to rewrite Settled History.

To buy time the history lecturers focussed upon the industrialisation of Russia but studiously tried to avoid any mention of politics, Marxism-Leninism and the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Russian Revolution is the collective term for a series of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the creation of the Russian SFSR.
The Emperor was forced to abdicate and the old regime was replaced by a provisional government during the first revolution of February 1917
In the second revolution, during October, the Provisional Government was removed and replaced with a Bolshevik (Communist) government.

The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin’s writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a political ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the 20th century.


Sadly, the historians knew nothing about Russia but they knew they could bullshit.

The economists were busy trying [and failing] to rewrite the Settled Economics.

To buy time the economics lecturers focussed upon the mathematics of monetarism whilst studiously trying to avoid the problems of Keynesian, debt, fiat money, big government, the death throes of the free market and reality.

In monetary economics, monetarism is a school of thought that emphasizes the role of governments in controlling the amount of money in circulation.

Monetarism is an economic theory that focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. Formulated by Milton Friedman, it argues that excessive expansion of the money supply is inherently inflationary, and that monetary authorities should focus solely on maintaining price stability.

The rise of the popularity of monetarism also picked up in political circles when Keynesian economics seemed unable to explain or cure the seemingly contradictory problems of rising unemployment and inflation in response to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1972 and the oil shocks of 1973. On the one hand, higher unemployment seemed to call for Keynesian reflation, but on the other hand rising inflation seemed to call for Keynesian disinflation.


Sadly, the economists knew nothing about monetarism but they knew they could bullshit.

Clearly, the historians and economists were avoiding [at all costs] joining up the dots between Politics and Economics.

Sad but true.

Learning anything about Political Economy had to wait [for three years] until I enrolled in the university of life and started working in the City of London.

The university of life soon taught me that politics, economics and journalism specialised in Bread and Circuses.

“Bread and circuses” (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement.

In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered “palliative.”


Therefore, it’s a shock whenever an outbreak of honesty appears in the mainstream media.

US official apologises to EU counterparts for undiplomatic language

Victoria Nuland reportedly said ‘Fuck the EU’ speaking of Ukraine crisis, though department didn’t confirm it was her voice on tape.

Ed Pilkington – Thursday 6 February 2014 – The Guardian

My state of shock was re-established this week when the mainstream media reported upon another outbreak of honesty.

Yanis Varoufakis: ‘I’m the finance minister of a bankrupt country

Ahead of crunch talks with his German counterpart, Greece’s new ‘rock-star’ minister says he has already opened talks about a debt deal with the IMF

Mehreen Khan – 4 February 2015 – The Telegraph

What is even more shocking is the realisation that a professor of economics has finally joined up the dots between Politics and Economics.

This is what the crisis is doing to our Europe: A clueless political personnel, in denial of the systemic nature of the crisis, is pursuing policies akin to carpet-bombing the economy of proud European nations in order to save them.

Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain are beaten into a pulp to keep Italy and France in awe.

When I hear European officials, who habitually present these policies in the name of community, solidarity, efficiency, responsibility, worry about the loss of legitimacy of European institutions, I ask: Really?

In Europe we like to think of the European Economic Community, as an idea, an institutional blueprint, that was conjured up as a bulwark against totalitarianism.

Not true.

The first academic conference, with the full participation of government ministers and officials, to discuss, and I quote from the official program, “The formation of a European Economic Community”, took place in Berlin.

In 1942!

Under the auspices of Walther Funk, Hitler’s finance minister and president of the Reichbank.

A year later, another official, had this to say: “In my view a nation’s conception of its own freedom must be harmonised with present-day facts and simple questions of efficiency and purpose… Our only requirement of European states is that they be sincere and enthusiastic members of Europe.” “In fifty years Europeans will not be thinking in terms of separate countries.”

The official’s name?

Joseph Goebbels!

Moving from my European Union tales to a brief history of the European Union, let me begin by exploding two self-satisfying myths that Europeans hold dear.

First, that the European Union is founded on principles of free-market liberalism.

And, secondly, that it was a European design implemented by brave Europeanists.

It was neither.

The European Union began life as an American design conceived by the New Dealers and implemented in the context of the Cold War in order to stabilise Western Capitalism as part of America’s Global Plan, a Plan that included the Bretton Woods System of Fixed Exchange Rates.

From 1944 onwards, the New Dealers’ great fear was that the American economy would slip into another depression after 1949, as factories would lay off workers once the war economy was wound down.

With the dollar the only convertible currency, the new crisis would spread like a bushfire through the rest of the capitalist world at a time of rising Soviet influence and power.

Being the sole surplus nation globally, they understood that the only way of avoiding this calamity would be to recycle America’s surpluses to Europe and to Japan in order to create the demand that would keep their own factories producing all the gleaming new products, washing machines, cars, television sets that American industry would switch to.

Thus, the project of dollarising Europe began.

A most impressive hegemonic program that I only wish today’s Europe understood.

A program that demonstrates vividly the sharp difference between hegemony and authoritarianism.

And reminds us of how badly today’s Europe needs an hegemonic Germany.

Very early on, in 1946, the New Dealers also grasped that their Global Plan could not rest on the single pillar of the US economy and the dollar.

It required secondary pillars to underpin it.

They selected the yen and the DM for that role and set out to reinforce the industrial foundations on which these currencies sat.

So Germany and Japan, the recently defeated nations, were to become the regional powerhouses east and west of the American Goliath.

However, powerhouses need vital spaces; large markets around them capable of producing the demand for all the goodies that come off the production lines and which the German and the Japanese markets could simply never absorb.

So, the New Dealers had a pressing question to answer:
Where would demand come from for German and Japanese manufactures?

In the case of Germany, the answer was: the rest of Europe.

In the case of Japan the original idea was to turn China into Japan’s vital space.

This dazzling plan had two major hitches: Mao Ze Dong wrecked its basic ‘eastern’ tenet as his triumph meant that China would never become a hinterland for Japanese industry.

The United States responded to this problem by turning its own backyard into Japan’s vital space.

Meanwhile in Europe, the plan clashed with the French demand that German industry be dismantled.

Indeed, seven hundred German factories were destroyed by the allies as per an earlier agreement within Allied Command that 1700 German industrial plants be destroyed.

Another thousand were about to be wrecked.

That had to change, if the New Dealer’s plan were to have a chance.

To bring the French elites around to their idea of a German Powerhouse at the heart of a United Europe, the New Dealers offered Paris a simple deal: “Accept the notion of a re-industrialised Germany dominating a Northern and Central European heavy industry cross-border cartel. In return we guarantee to the graduates of your Grand Ecoles that they will be administering the new cartel’s institutions, and to your French bankers access to German surpluses with which to make Paris a major financial centre.”

The French had been made an offer they could not refuse.

With one exception: General Charles De Gaulle who opposed it tooth and nail, unable to accept that France would be embedded in an Anglo-Saxon Global Plan in which Germany would be the European powerhouse; a position that pushed him into the political wilderness from 1946 till the eruption of the Algerian War which he, uniquely, had a capacity to end.

Recapping, out of necessity and in a remarkable display of pragmatism, Washington embraced the idea that European Unity would be built upon a cartel of heavy industry, rather than on their cherished principle of competitive markets.

While of a democratic disposition themselves, the New Dealers went to bed with traditionalist Frenchmen like Jean Monnet who felt only disdain for their New Deal, who harboured a Platonic contempt for liberal democracy, and whose vision of a United Europe was beholden to the idea of some central European cartel administered by ‘technocrats’.

The process, once it began, was inexorable.

First a German dominated cartel of coal and steel emerged (the European Coal and Steel Community), with a cross-border French-dominated administration.

Once tariffs on coal and steel were removed, it was a natural next step to remove all tariffs (i.e. the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1957).

But to co-opt French farmers, a common agricultural policy was established (in 1962) the purpose of which was to secure the farmers’ consent to a free trade zone by handing over to them a chunk of the cartel’s monopoly profits.

This fledgling European Economic Community created large surpluses that fuelled post-war prosperity in a stable world environment where the fixed exchange rate regime known as Bretton Woods was constantly stabilized by the United States which took it upon themselves to recycle to Europe and to Asia almost 70% of their surpluses, while ruthlessly regulating all large cross-border financial flows.

A Golden Age of low unemployment, low inflation high growth followed throughout western capitalism.

It created the conditions in which the dream of Europe’s shared prosperity could materialise.

At the expense of treading on European sensibilities, it was an American triumph.

Alas, by the late 1960s it was dead in the water.


Because America lost its surpluses and could no longer stabilise the global system by recycling surpluses it no longer had.

Never too slow to accept reality, the United States announced the end of that era.

The calendar read: 15th August 1971.

The dollar was de-coupled from gold, from the yen and from Europe’s currencies.

John Connally, Richard Nixon’s Treasury Secretary, visited Europe to tell our gob smacked leaders: “The dollar is our currency but it is your problem”.

Europe had become unhinged!

Europe’s ‘unhinging’, circa 1971, was the reason that Giscard d’ Estaing and Helmut Schmidt ended up seeking solace at Charlemagne’s resting place, after their decision to embark upon monetary union in 1978.

Germany was buffeted by a DM rising against the dollar while Italy and other countries crucial for northern European exporters were pegging their currency to the devaluing dollar.

The post-war American design of a Europe rotating around the axis of a North-Central European heavy industry cartel was in peril.

A fixed exchange rate regime was imperative to keep it going.

Thus Europe set off on the road to creating its own Bretton Woods within the EU.

The European Monetary System was thus born.

It marked the first time that France and Germany were improvising, designing the next step of European integration without the active help of the Americans who, I submit to you, knew better.

What did they know better?

They knew that is impossible to stabilise a fixed exchange rate or common currency system without large-scale surplus recycling.

They understood that, unless there is federation and large scale recycling, it is impossible to combine (A) free trade, (B) free capital movement, and (C) monetary union.

That you can choose up to two of these features, any two, but never all three.

For instance, you can have free trade and free capital movements as long as exchange rates vary (e.g. NAFTA).

Or you can have free trade and fixed exchange rates with capital movements restricted (e.g. contemporary China vis-à-vis the Rest of the World).

Or you can have fixed exchange rates and free capital movement without free trade (a combination that never implemented).

American policy makers understood that, if you set up such a fixed exchange rate regime with free trade and free capital movements, but without a surplus recycling mechanism, you will end up with something like the 1920s Gold Standard.

Fixing exchange rates between disparate economic regions always brings benefits in the short term; even if it is unsustainable in the long run (i.e. in the absence of surplus recycling).

But these benefits resemble past invasions of Russia: a brisk beginning full of enthusiasm and hope, rapid progress that seems unstoppable, followed by a heart-wrenching slowdown as a Cruel Winter takes its toll, ending up with blood on the snow and infinite retributions thereafter.

Did Giscard and Schmidt not know this?

Did Mitterrand and Kohl wallow in ignorance?

Were Europeans merely unschooled to this very simple economic principle?

I have it on good authority that at least President Francois Mitterrand understood perfectly well all of the above.

And I am happy to assume that the others did too.

My explanation is that, while they did they understand how crucial large scale surplus recycling was to any monetary union, in their minds they presumed that surplus recycling can only be properly instituted in the context of a federal system.

But they also knew well that the very DNA of the EU was inimical to the idea of Federation.

Despite the flimsy foundations, the Eurozone was, all things considered, doing reasonable well.

Until 2008 that is.

How come?

The answer, yet again, is: Because of the United States of America!

You see, as the American authorities were dismantling the Bretton Woods system in 1971, they were adopting an audacious strategic move: instead of tackling the nation’s burgeoning twin deficits, America’s top policy makers decided to do the opposite: to boost deficits.

And who would pay for them?

The rest of the world!


By means of a permanent transfer of capital that rushed ceaselessly across the two great oceans to finance America’s deficits.

The deficits of the US economy, thus, operated for decades like a giant vacuum cleaner, absorbing other people’s surplus goods and surplus capital.

In turn, powered by America’s deficits, the world’s leading surplus economies, Germany, Japan and, later, China, kept churning out the goods that America absorbed.

Almost 70% of European profits were being transferred back to the United States, in the form of capital flows to Wall Street.

And what did Wall Street do with it?

It financed the rise of financialisation; a process which the French and German banks joined in enthusiastically.

This was the reason why Europe, despite having introduced an unsustainable Gold Standard in its midst, seemed to be prospering.

Through its expanding deficits, the United States was generating aggregate demand for European exports capable of stabilising an inherently unstable Eurozone.

Meanwhile, the flow of European, Japanese and Chinese profits into Wall Street were generating the production of toxic money that buoyed the French and German banks and allowed them to go on a lending spree in the European Periphery; a spree that ended up adding significantly to the German economy’s success at amassing large surpluses that allowed its corporations (including middle sized firms) to globalize and thus to spread their wings aggressively into Eastern Europe, the Americas and, of course, China.

Throughout the Eurozone, a conviction spread that a new Golden Era was in train.

Until 2008 when, following Wall Street’s collapse, America could no longer provide the European Union with the aggregate demand for its exports that had, until then, stabilised it.

Even worse, the Crash of 2008 produced a gargantuan credit crunch that saw liquidity disappear and, soon after, guaranteed the deep insolvency of French and German banks.

The rest is history.

Governments dutifully transferred from taxpayers to bankers whatever mountains of credit and capital were necessary to keep up the pretense that the banks were safe.

Nonetheless, these moves, while successful in keeping the ATMs going, could never disguise the brutal fact that the Eurozone’s architecture was simply incapable of sustaining the shockwaves of the 2008 global earthquake.

Since then our monetary union has been unraveling and the European Union’s denial of this systemic crisis threatens to bring the EU down.

EU officials regularly defend their position in a manner that is simultaneously Jesuit, Orthodox, Catholic and Calvinist: Jesuit in the sense that bureaucrats, like Mr Olli Rehn, habitually prove every proposition and its contrary depending on how events pan out.

Orthodox in that economic analyses are accepted only to the extent that they suit the purposes of Prophecy.

Catholic because of a presumption that debt must condemn whole nations to some institutional Purgatory in which collective suffering will deliver them from the sin of debt.

And Calvinist in the sense of excluding more and more Europeans from the Circle of the Select, until those left inside it would achieve salvation through Faith in the impossible idea of recovering via universal austerity.

The American institutionalist Clarence Ayers once wrote, as if he were referring to our EU officials, that: “They pay reality the compliment of imputing belief to ceremonial status, but they do so for the purpose of validating status, not for the purpose of achieving efficiency.”

It is tempting to say: To Hell with it.

This EU is not worth defending.

It was built on foundations that secured an unsustainable institution whose struggle for survival caused a dirty war against Europe’s soul and against its very people.

Be that as it may, this is a temptation that we must resist.

However deserved an antipathy to the existing EU, and to the Eurozone, may be, its dismantling will immerse Europe into a new, postmodern 1930s.

The argument that, in the long run, Europeans will emerge stronger and freer is not one that I am prepared to countenance.

At least not more so than the free-marketeers’ claim that in the long run markets achieve equilibrium.

For as John Maynard Keynes would retort, in the long run we shall all be dead.

Or, perhaps more in tune with the present EU, in the long run whole generations of Europeans will have been condemned to a life that is nasty, brutish and dominated by the Serpent’s offspring.

It is in the context of this assessment that I conclude that those of us who detest the present EU modus vivendi and who find the Eurozone’s architecture ludicrous have a moral duty to work tirelessly toward pushing Europe hard and steadfastly toward reforming itself.

Even if we feel that we shall fail.

Observing the European Union’s attempts to deal with the crisis is a bit like watching Othello – one wonders how our rulers can be so deluded.

The principle of the greatest austerity for the European economies suffering the greatest recessions would be quaint if it were not the ill wind that blows into the sails of misanthropy, racism, Nazism.

In an ironic historical twist, Nazism is now strong in a place that had fought it tooth and nail in the 1940s, in Greece, and almost absent in Germany.

The good news is that the Germans no longer fear the Germans.

Europe needs an hegemonic Germany.

A confident Germany that understands that the current Gross Denial of the crisis’ nature is costing Germans dearly.

That their taxes are being used to build new cleptocracies in the Periphery while the proportion of working poor Germans is skyrocketing.

And when the whole ‘thing’ unravels, there will be nothing but losers all over Europe and beyond.

It is in this sense that Europeans do have, still have, a powerful, common interest.

To confront the bureaucracies, the cartels, the cleptocrats who are preventing them from adapting the European Union to the post-2008 realities.

The Dirty War for Europe’s Integrity and Soul – 25 October 2013
Yanis Varoufakis – Thoughts for the post-2008 world

The complete outbreak of honesty by Yanis Varoufakis is a remarkable read for anyone interested in Political Economy since the Second World War.

Another remarkable outbreak of honesty came from David Stockman who concluded “the entire 20th Century was a giant mistake” caused by “a megalomaniacal madman”.

My humble thesis tonight is that the entire 20th Century was a giant mistake.

And that you can put the blame for this monumental error squarely on Thomas Woodrow Wilson – a megalomaniacal madman who was the very worst President in American history……..well, except for the last two.

His unforgiveable error was to put the United States into the Great War for utterly no good reason of national interest.

The European war posed not an iota of threat to the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE, or Worcester MA or Sacramento CA.

In that respect, Wilson’s putative defense of “freedom of the seas” and the rights of neutrals was an empty shibboleth; his call to make the world safe for democracy, a preposterous pipe dream.

Actually, his thinly veiled reason for plunging the US into the cauldron of the Great War was to obtain a seat at the peace conference table – so that he could remake the world in response to god’s calling.

But this was a world about which he was blatantly ignorant; a task for which he was temperamentally unsuited; and an utter chimera based on 14 points that were so abstractly devoid of substance as to constitute mental play dough.

Or, as his alter-ego and sycophant, Colonel House, put it: Intervention positioned Wilson to play “The noblest part that has ever come to the son of man”.

America thus plunged into Europe’s carnage, and forevermore shed its century-long Republican tradition of anti-militarism and non-intervention in the quarrels of the Old World.

Needless to say, there was absolutely nothing noble that came of Wilson’s intervention.

It led to a peace of vengeful victors, triumphant nationalists and avaricious imperialists – when the war would have otherwise ended in a bedraggled peace of mutually exhausted bankrupts and discredited war parties on both sides.

By so altering the course of history, Wilson’s war bankrupted Europe and midwifed 20th century totalitarianism in Russia and Germany.

These developments, in turn, eventually led to the Great Depression, the Welfare State and Keynesian economics, World War II, the holocaust, the Cold War, the permanent Warfare State and its military-industrial complex.

They also spawned Nixon’s 1971 destruction of sound money, Reagan’s failure to tame Big Government and Greenspan’s destructive cult of monetary central planning.

The Epochal Consequences Of Woodrow Wilson’s War – Remarks by David Stockman
Committee for the Republic – Washington DC January 20, 2015

Wilson induced a conservative Democratic Congress to pass a progressive legislative agenda, unparalleled until the New Deal in 1933.

This included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax. Child labor was temporarily curtailed by the Keating–Owen Act of 1916.

Wilson also averted a railroad strike and an ensuing economic crisis through passage of the Adamson Act, imposing an 8-hour workday for railroads.

At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Wilson maintained a policy of neutrality.

Narrowly re-elected in 1916 around the slogan “He kept us out of war”, Wilson’s second term was dominated by American entry into World War I.

That year he proclaimed June 14 as Flag Day in a patriotic speech that bore out the nation’s anti-German sentiment.

In April 1917, when Germany persisted with submarine warfare, Wilson asked Congress to declare war in order to make “the world safe for democracy.”


Students of Political Economy may also be interested in an outbreak of honesty penned by Henry George in 1884 which is frequently overlooked [or underplayed] by many mainstream historians and economists.

Henry George (September 2, 1839 – October 29, 1897) was an American writer, politician and political economist, who was the most influential proponent of the land value tax and the value capture of land/natural resource rents, an idea known at the time as ‘Single-Tax’.

His immensely popular writing is credited with sparking several reform movements of the Progressive Era and ultimately inspiring the broad economic philosophy often referred to today as Georgism, the main tenet of which is that people legitimately own value they fairly create, but that natural resources and common opportunities, most importantly the value of land, belongs equally to each person in a community.

His most famous work, Progress and Poverty (1879), sold millions of copies worldwide, probably more than any other American book before that time.

It is a treatise on inequality, the cyclic nature of industrialized economies, and the use of the land value tax as a remedy.


Preface to the Fourth Edition

In 1871, I first published these ideas in a pamphlet entitled Our Land and Land Policy.

Over time, I became even more convinced of their truth.

Seeing that many misconceptions blocked their recognition, a fuller explanation seemed necessary.

Still, it was impossible to answer all the questions as fully as they deserve.

I have tried to establish general principles, trusting readers to extend their application.

While this book may be best appreciated by those familiar with economics, no previous study is needed to understand its argument or to judge its conclusions.

I have relied upon facts of common knowledge and common observation, which readers can verify for themselves.

They can also decide whether the reasoning is valid.

I set out to discover why wages tend to a bare minimum despite increasing productive power.

The current theory of wages, I found, is based on a misconception [namely, that wages are paid from capital].

In truth, wages are produced by the labor for which they are paid.

Therefore, other things being equal, wages should increase with the number of laborers.

This immediately confronts the influential Malthusian doctrine that population tends to increase faster than subsistence.

Examination shows that this theory has no real support.

When brought to a decisive test, it is utterly disproved.

Since these theories cannot explain the connection between progress and poverty, the solution must lie in the three laws governing the distribution of wealth.

These laws should correlate with each other, yet economists fail to show this.

An examination of terminology reveals the confusion of thought that permits this discrepancy.

To work out these laws, I first take up the law of rent.

Although economists correctly understand this law, they fail to appreciate its implications.

For whatever determines the part of production that goes to landowners must necessarily determine what is left over for labor and capital.

Progress and Poverty – Henry George
Edited and abridged for modern readers by Bob Drake – Robert Schalkenbach Foundation

Progress and Poverty

Progress and Poverty – 1884 – Henry George

Gallery | This entry was posted in Books, Economics, History. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Political Economy

  1. oldbrew says:

    The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and its repeal rates a mention. Its purpose was to ‘to regulate or prohibit the combination of commercial and investment banking’.

    Once the banking rules were relaxed/removed it was all downhill to the big crash of 2008.


  2. PeterMG says:

    Much I agree with here. If you haven’t all ready listen this by David Stockman.

    I would also recommend the Great Deception as the best book on the EU, or more correctly the ONLY book on the history of the EU. Monetary Union has always been their aim but they have had to do it by stealth because given a vote the people of Europe would never have agreed to the Euro.

  3. malagabay says:

    Yanis Varoufakis underlined [in his article] the need for “surplus recycling” within Europe.

    American policy makers understood that, if you set up such a fixed exchange rate regime with free trade and free capital movements, but without a surplus recycling mechanism, you will end up with something like the 1920s Gold Standard.

    The Dirty War for Europe’s Integrity and Soul – 25 October 2013
    Yanis Varoufakis – Thoughts for the post-2008 world

    Understanding the scale of the problem is illustrated by Germany’s current account surplus.

    In 2014, Germany is poised to break the world record for largest current account surplus (again) at a whopping ~$285 billion, nearly double that of China and triple that of Saudi Arabia.

    Germany also boasts Europe’s lowest unemployment rate at 4.9%, which is half the Eurozone average and one fifth that of Greece.

    Both Germany’s current account surplus and low unemployment are enabled only by an artificially low currency which would be threatened with extinction should any Eurozone member opt – or be forced – to leave.

    As one German politician recently said, “Have you seen what happened to Switzerland?”

    How Dan Loeb Thinks The Greek Crisis Plays Out

    Germany’s surplus has actually grown, from $226 billion to $284 billion.

    Current Account Balance

    Europe’s rebalancing is not borne by Europe
    Sep 26th 2014, 21:41 by G.I. -| Washington, D.C – The Economist

    Germany exported more than 50 percent of its gross domestic product, and more than half of that went to the European free trade zone that was the heart of the EU project.

    Germany had developed production that far exceeded its domestic capacity for consumption. It had to have access to markets or face a severe economic crisis of its own.

    Greece Euro-zone Crisis, Ukraine – Germany Emerges
    10 Feb 2015 – STRATFOR

    In economics, a country’s current account is one of the two components of its balance of payments, the other being the capital account.

    The current account consists of the balance of trade, net primary income or factor income (earnings on foreign investments minus payments made to foreign investors) and net cash transfers that have taken place over a given period of time.


  4. oldbrew says:

    Yanis Varoufakis – what’s he up to these days…

    ‘If Greece is forced out of the euro zone, other countries will inevitably follow and the currency bloc will collapse, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said on Sunday, in comments which drew a rebuke from Italy.’


  5. malagabay says:

    David Stockman: Europe’s Greek Showdown: The Sum Of All Statist Errors

    Germany has managed to swim against the surging tide of EU public debt, lowering its leverage ratio from 80% to 76% of GDP in the last four years.

    Yet the overall debt ratio for the EU-19 has continued to soar – meaning that the rest of the EU drifts ever closer to fiscal disaster.

    At dead center of Greece’s $350 billion of debt is $210 billion owed to the Eurozone bailout mechanism. Germany’s share of that is 27% or roughly $57 billion.

    The real nightmare for Merkel’s government is that the next two largest countries in the capital key are on a fast track toward their own fiscal demise.

    So what puts a stiff spine into its insistence that Greece fulfill the letter of its MOU obligations is that if either France or Italy is called upon to cover losses, the whole bailout scheme will go up in smoke.

    Italy’s GDP is dead in the water and has been since 2007. Yet it has continued to run massive budget deficits – about $75 billion this year alone – so its debt to GDP ratio has gone nearly vertical.

    The undeniable fact is that Italy is borrowing heavily year after year to pay its interest, and is thereby impaling itself in a debt trap.

    Italy Government Debt to GDP

    Accordingly, the last thing they want to test is the capacity of Italian politicians to come up with even a tiny fraction of the approximate $37 billion of Greek debt they have guaranteed.

    France’s share of the Greek debt is approximately $42 billion.
    But like the case of Italy its economy is flatlining, having gained only 1% in real terms since its crisis peak.

    The truth is, the French state has been meandering toward economic stasis and fiscal bankruptcy for several decades under governments of the left and right.

    With the state now consuming nearly 60% of GDP, it cannot reasonably expect any measurable economic growth.

    France Government Debt to GDP

    Even the Dutch would be stranded high and dry in the event of a capital call – finance ministers Dijsselbloem’s lectures to Varoufakis about fiscal rectitude notwithstanding.

    Indeed, just how long would he and the current Dutch government remain in office after a capital call given the debt spiral already in motion?

    Netherlands Government Debt to GDP

    In short, the EU outside of Germany and rounding error states like Finland has passed the point of no return on the fiscal front.

    No government that has to raise it share of the default cost will survive.

    Germany will be left holding the entire bailout bag.

    And that serves them exactly right.

    At the end of the day, the statist road chosen by the Germans has become a dead end.

    And it was the German government that ultimately choose the route of money printing and bank bailouts because no other EU country had the financial resources and credibility to make it happen.

    The massive transfer of bank and speculator losses to the peripheral nations has inherently resulted in the destruction of democratic sovereignty in the bailed-out nations.

    And this extends far beyond the blatant usurpation that occurred when Brussels virtually deposed the elected governments of Italy and Greece during the heat of the crisis.

    So Syriza is right to say that the devastated citizens of Greece do not owe Deutsche Bank and the rest of the bankers and punters a dime for the Greek bonds that their earlier governments imprudently issued and which the traders and managers of these institutions foolishly bought.

    The fact that German government caused these debts to be transferred to their own taxpayers is Berlin’s problem, not Athens’.

    In short, Germany has no choice except to let Greece go and to allow the entire EU bailout state to unravel, and then to pay the piper for its statist follies.

    The alternative is an all-powerful superstate in Brussels and Frankfurt that will necessarily extinguish whatever remains of political democracy and capitalist prosperity in Europe.

    Stockman’s Corner
    Europe’s Greek Showdown: The Sum Of All Statist Errors
    David Stockman – 9 February2015

    And then there is James Quinn:

    The poster child for global disorder has been Greece.

    They were the catalyst for the EU debt crisis in 2009/2010.

    And they are currently the channel through which the molten ingredients of EU disintegration are flowing.

    The “solutions” implemented by the ECB and EU politicians to solve an insolvency crisis created by too much debt have been to introduce austerity on the average person, while issuing trillions in debt, and protecting bankers and billionaires at all costs.

    Europe does not have a liquidity problem.

    It has a solvency problem due to unpayable social promises, government corruption, mass unemployment in Southern Europe, and overleveraged sleazy bankers.

    Why anyone with an ounce of mathematical ability would think that driving your national debt to GDP ratio from 113% to 175% in the space of five years would solve a debt solvency dilemma, is beyond my comprehension.

    But if your true purpose was to keep your insolvent banks from going bankrupt, protecting the rich and powerful vested interests, and refusing to accept the consequences of your reckless lending, than the “solutions” make perfect sense.
    Greek Government Debt to GDP
    Fourth Turning Shadow of Crisis of Debt, Civic Decay & Global Disorder – James Quinn

  6. oldbrew says:

    ‘The fact that German government caused these debts to be transferred to their own taxpayers is Berlin’s problem, not Athens’.’

    Well, exactly so.

  7. malagabay says:

    From RT.com, Les-Crises.fr and LeFigaro.fr

    And cutting through all the spin, what remains, essentially, is what European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told Le Figaro a few days ago; it’s out of the question to suppress the Greek debt and, most of all, “there can be no democratic option against European treaties.”
    There it is, crystal clear: EU institutions work against democracy.

    From Minsk to Brussels, it’s all about Germany
    Pepe Escobar – 13 February 2015

    Vous n’êtes pas certain d’avoir compris ? « Dire que tout va changer parce qu’il y a un nouveau gouvernement à Athènes, c’est prendre ses désirs pour des réalités », ajoute encore Jean-Claude Juncker, qui lâche une phrase terrible, qui résume toutes les limites de la démocratie dans l’Union européenne :

    « Il ne peut y avoir de choix démocratique contre les traités européens. »

    Translation via http://www.freetranslation.com/

    You are not sure you have understood?
    “Say that everything is going to change because there is a new government in Athens, it is take its desires for realities”, adds yet Jean-Claude Juncker, who loose a terrible phrase, which summarizes all the limits of democracy in the European Union:

    There cannot be a democratic choice against the European treaties.”

    Jean-Claude Juncker - Le Figaro

    FIGAROVOX/OPINION – Pour Jean-Claude Juncker, «il ne peut y avoir de choix démocratique contre les traités européens déjà ratifiés».
    Coralie Delaume rappelle qu’il n’y a pas non plus de choix qui permette qu’un traité européen ne soit pas ratifié …

    Translation via http://www.freetranslation.com/

    FIGAROVOX/OPINION – For Jean-Claude Juncker, “there cannot be a democratic choice against the European treaties already ratified“.
    Coralie Delaume recalls that there is not more choice which will allow that a European treaty would not be ratified …

    Du traité constitutionnel à Syriza : l’Europe contre les peuples
    Coralie Delaume – 2 Feb 2015

  8. malagabay says:

    More observations by David Stockman

    We’re in the crack-up phase. I think there are four big characteristics of that which are going to shape the way the economy and the markets unfold as we go forward.

    You’re going to see increasing desperation and extreme central bank financial repression because they have gotten themselves painted so deep into the corner that they’re lost and desperate. Almost week by week, we have another central bank – this week, it was Sweden – lowering their money market rates into negative territory. The Swiss Bank is already there, the Denmark Bank is there, the ECB is there on the deposit rate, the Bank of Japan’s there.

    The second thing is increasing market disorder and volatility. In the last three months, the stock market has behaved like a drunken sailor. But it’s really just a bunch of robots and day traders that have traded chart points until somebody can figure out what is happening directionally in the world. It has nothing to do with information or incoming data about the real world.

    Investment is now coming home to roost. It will be driving a huge deflation of commodity and industrial prices worldwide. You can see that in iron ore, now barely holding $60 from a peak of $200. Obviously, it’s seen in the whole oil patch. Look at the Baltic Dry Index.

    And then, finally, clearly, demand has run smack up against peak debt — I think that’s the right word for it. We had a tremendous study come out in the last week or so from McKinsey, who do a pretty good job of trying to calculate, track and total up the amount of credit outstanding, public and private, in the world. We’re now at the $200 Trillion threshold. That’s up from only about $140 Trillion at the time of the crisis. So we’ve had a $60 Trillion expansion worldwide of debt just since 2008.

    David Stockman: The Global Economy Has Entered The Crack-Up Phase

  9. oldbrew says:

    Clock’s ticking for Greece…

    ‘Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has four options’

  10. PeterMG says:

    All this must be infuriating the Euro Group Leaders. How dare a democratically elected government challenge them over the terms of their bailout agreement? There will come a point, and it must be close, where Greece will decide that the punishment for default is no worse that continuing the austerity. At that point Germany will discover it has no surplus and it should have redistributed it much earlier when it would have cost them less.

    The whole EU and Euro project has been a lie, with National Politians not telling their constituencies just how much power they have been giving up. People are now fed up across Europe being dictated to by unelected apparatchiks and the movement to bring power back to national governments is growing. It is unfortunate that very few mainstream national parties get this and it is currently up to parties with either naive or extreme views that are carrying the torch. This will change in the next 10 years, unless of course it all implodes due to Greece.

  11. oldbrew says:

    So Greece is saying in effect: give us a break, which the Germans fear will mean having to water down everyone else’s so-called bailout, current and future (Greece now owes more than it did before the bailout), OR Greece will have to leave the Euro currency union, thus undermining its credibility (because no-one is ever supposed to leave), for which they will be sure to blame the Germans.

  12. PeterMG says:

    Many people across the UK, indeed perhaps a majority share these sentiments. Unfortunately UKIP as a Party in the UK don’t have a coherent plan for leaving the EU, and if we had a referendum tomorrow or in 2 months the status quo would win. This would happen as the pro-business and Political mainstream lobby have used jobs as the disinformation, and scaremongering pinch point. We have also just had a hatchet job done on UKIP by Chanel 4 which is partly the result of having no coherent plan. The EU has always been sold to the UK public by their Politians as an economic project, whereas the reality is it has always been a political project. Farage should say this every time he is interviewed even when the question is about football, but he completely misses this trick which makes me ultimately wonder if he is truly interested in anything other than what he currently has. Whilst some consider UKIP extreme I consider them in the naive category.

    What people need to realise that the EU project and the Euro in particular are for the benefit of the establishment and not in the interest of the peoples of any of the European countries. Greece will never be able to pay back its debt whilst under the Jackboot, and it’s only a matter of how much pain the country will put up with before the people totally revolt or the Army steps in. Imagine that, what would the Germans do if that happened? Would they be tempted to send the Panzers down the Aegean?

    By the way here is a coherent plan, continuously evolving and an indication of the level of work necessary to leave the EU

    http://www.eureferendum.com/Default.aspx and click on Flexit. Now 375 pages.

  13. Pingback: Michael Hudson: Killing The Host | MalagaBay

  14. Russell morris says:

    May The Natural Economic Order by Silvio Gesell , be The Great Conclusion.

  15. Martin Sieff says:

    Very interesting analysis on this I received just today:
    The Bear’s Lair: An Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of Failure
    By Martin Hutchinson
    February 12, 2018

    (this column was published on the True Blue Will Never Stain blog, http://www.tbwns.com)

    Theresa May’s negotiations for Britain’s exit from the European Union are not going well. Time and again, she has been forced to back down, notably over an outrageous EU demand for 40 billion pounds of exit money. Since that demand, negotiations have grown no easier, as the EU has attempted to impose further outrageous conditions, such as a veto over Britain’s trade treaties. There is a historical precedent for this: the late Saxon King Ethelred’s feeble and unsuccessful attempts to buy off Danish invaders with large gifts. Ms. May, starting merely as “Appeaser Teresa,” has become Ethel the Unready.

    To return to the current century, Britain’s Brexit negotiating strategy has been uncomfortably reminiscent of Ethelred’s. It began with the EU demanding a gigantic bribe, making threatening noises while doing so more or less in the manner of Sweyn Forkbeard. The non-Ethelred strategy in face of this would have been to refuse to discuss any cash payments until the other terms of British exit had been sorted out. Instead, an utterly ludicrous figure was agreed, without any EU concessions in return. It is not true that such feeble negotiating has never been seen since Ethelred’s time; the negotiators who gave away Britain’s fishing rights while begging to be allowed into the EU were equally inept. Still, the transaction has an altogether Ethelredian air to it.
    – – –
    Martin Hutchinson is the author of “Great Conservatives” (Academica Press, 2005) — details can be found on the Web site http://www.greatconservatives.com and co-author with Professor Kevin Dowd of “Alchemists of Loss” (Wiley – 2010). Both now available on Amazon.com, Great Conservatives only in a Kindle edition, Alchemists of Loss in both Kindle and print editions.

  16. Motivation of the masses requires distraction and greed. While they compete for a small pool of wealth, much greater wealth is made available for some by the illusion of debt creation. The debt is foist upon the masses, making them fearful and competitive with each other. Those who mcontrol the flow of debt to the masses control governments.

    This has persisted for centuries. They know that eventually, the demand for debt to buy “investments” and then sell at a profit, will wane and disappear. They prepare by directing their assets into land and commodities, particularly those needed by the masses. After asset prices crash, the asssets most likely to appreciate first can be bought up, restarting the debt cycle again. Germany knows the Stock Exchange is a part of the debt cycle.

    You fail to mention that Germany did away with poverty and unemployment in the 1930s, by replacing debt creation with direct printing of money. Had they waited to attack Poland, they might have been able to take the USSR. The whole point of WWII was to destroy the non debt economy of the USSR. It failed and the USA had to “save” as much of Europe as possible by war with Germany. Note that Germany declared war on the USA! It knew by Sept 1941 that it faced 35,000 AFVs in USSR.

    Japan had left the League and was another object of WWII.

    Has Japan surrendered the Pu yet? Do they need another tsunami? As usual, USA will get another country to attack Japan …. But is the tsunami weapon more of a threat to the USA?

  17. Yry says:


    . Under Soviet rule, each of these countries was left quiet with its
    own stockpile of gold (and silver metal) as this proved more advantageous
    to the Soviet nomenklatura in terms of access to hard foreign currencies.

    Russia had lost most of its qualified manpower and management through
    emigration, imprisonment in Siberia and countless massacres.

    Letting eastern countries have exportable productions and have the
    authorization of importing certain goods also implied that these international
    transactions had to be backed up by precious metals (PM) in these days.
    The Soviets would then take their cuts of the hard-earned foreign currencies.

    The deal was “We, Soviets, let you keep your gold as long as you, eastern countries,
    come up with the hard currencies.”

    Come 1989…

    Viktor Louis, Gorbatchev and others lose control of the USSR.
    Ultra-rapacious West steps in to gain total control of this continent
    via drunkard president Yeltsin who in the (very) last second realizes
    his country is also being swindled of 7 billion dollars and eventually
    names Vladimir Putin as his successor in 1994 to clean this mess.
    (Putin had Safra killed in Monaco…)

    Meanwhile, not to be left out, the then European Community (not yet the EU)
    is engaging into arm-twisting eastern countries telling each:
    “Look young folks, we’ll help you develop infrastructures, businesses and
    what not PROVIDED you entrust your gold reserves to our European Community
    (read: to our Central Bank, ECB).”
    In other words, sovereign GOLD was the ticket to become a member of the Community.

    . So the questions are:





    Try anyone?


Leave a Reply

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.