A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 2nd, 2013, 08:36 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
ПЈö'Донован
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5
  #2  
Old May 2nd, 2013, 10:19 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 2, 2:36*pm, ПЈö'Донован wrote:
“While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) *puts it, ‘is bleeding out.’ Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5


Of all the zombie ideas that have been reanimated in the wake of the
global financial crisis, austerity is the most dangerous. austerity
created the disasters of the 1930s, and contributed to the descent of
the world into global war. European austerity policies have prevented
any recovery from the crisis of 2009, while rescuing and protecting
the banks and financial institutions that created the crisis. An
essential guide for anyone who wants to understand the current
depression.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera.../Political/?vi...

Austerity
The History of a Dangerous Idea
Mark Blyth

ISBN13: 9780199828302ISBN10: 019982830X Hardcover, 304 pages
Mar 2013, In Stock
Price:
$24.95 (02)

Governments today in both Europe and the United States have succeeded
in casting government spending as reckless wastefulness that has made
the economy worse. In contrast, they have advanced a policy of
draconian budget cuts--austerity--to solve the financial crisis. We
are told that we have all lived beyond our means and now need to
tighten our belts. This view conveniently forgets where all that debt
came from. Not from an orgy of government spending, but as the direct
result of bailing out, recapitalizing, and adding liquidity to the
broken banking system. Through these actions private debt was
rechristened as government debt while those responsible for generating
it walked away scot free, placing the blame on the state, and the
burden on the taxpayer.

That burden now takes the form of a global turn to austerity, the
policy of reducing domestic wages and prices to restore
competitiveness and balance the budget. The problem, according to
political economist Mark Blyth, is that austerity is a very dangerous
idea. First of all, it doesn't work. As the past four years and
countless historical examples from the last 100 years show, while it
makes sense for any one state to try and cut its way to growth, it
simply cannot work when all states try it simultaneously: all we do is
shrink the economy. In the worst case, austerity policies worsened the
Great Depression and created the conditions for seizures of power by
the forces responsible for the Second World War: the Nazis and the
Japanese military establishment. As Blyth amply demonstrates, the
arguments for austerity are tenuous and the evidence thin. Rather than
expanding growth and opportunity, the repeated revival of this dead
economic idea has almost always led to low growth along with increases
in wealth and income inequality. Austerity demolishes the conventional
wisdom, marshaling an army of facts to demand that we recognize
austerity for what it is, and what it costs us.
Features
• Tackles one of the most important topics in world
politics and
economics in clear, trenchant language
• One of the only accounts that successfully links
together the
political and economic aspects of the current crisis.
Reviews
"Austerity is an economic policy strategy, but is also an ideology and
an approach to economic management freighted with politics. In this
book Mark Blyth uncovers these successive strata. In doing so he
wields his spade in a way that shows no patience for fools and
foolishness." 
--Barry Eichengreen, George C. Pardee and Helen N.
Pardee Professor of Economics and Political Science University of
California, Berkeley
"Of all the zombie ideas that have been reanimated in the wake of the
global financial crisis, austerity is the most dangerous. Mark Blyth
shows how austerity created the disasters of the 1930s, and
contributed to the descent of the world into global war. He shows how
European austerity policies have prevented any recovery from the
crisis of 2009, while rescuing and protecting the banks and financial
institutions that created the crisis. An essential guide for anyone
who wants to understand the current depression." 
--John Quiggin,
author of author of Zombie Economics
"Most fascinating is the author's discussion of the historical
underpinnings of austerity, first formulated by Enlightenment thinkers
Locke, Hume and Adam Smith, around the (good) idea of parsimony and
the (bad) idea of debt. Ultimately, writes Blyth, austerity is a
'zombie economic idea because it has been disproven time and again,
but it just keeps coming.' A clear explanation of a complicated, and
severely flawed, idea." 
-- KIRKUS REVIEW
"Mark Blyth's fascinating analysis guides the reader through 'the
historical ideology which has classified debt as problematic.' In
doing so he outlines the relevance of century-old debates between the
advocates and opponents of laissez faire, and explains why, after a
brief reemergence in 2008-09, and despite the lack of evidence
supporting austerity, the world turned its back on Keynesian
policies." 
--Robert Skidelsky, author of Keynes: The Return of the
Master
"Among all the calamities spawned by the global financial crisis, none
was as easily avoidable as the idea that austerity policies were the
only way out. In this feisty book, noted political scientist Mark
Blyth covers new territory by recounting the intellectual history of
this failed idea and how it came to exert a hold on the imagination of
economists and politicians. It is an indication of the sorry state of
macroeconomics that it takes a political scientist to expose so
thoroughly one of the economics profession's most dangerous
delusions." 
--Dani Rodrik, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International
Political Economy, The John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University
"Essential reading... The economy is much too important to leave to
economists. We need to understand how ideas shape it, and Blyth's new
book provides an excellent starting point."--Washington Monthly
"An important polemic... valid and compelling."--Lawrence Summers,
Financial Times 

"splendid new book". Martin Wolf, Financial Times
Product Details
304 pages; 5-1/2 x 8-1/2; ISBN13: 978-0-19-982830-2ISBN10:
0-19-982830-
X
About the Author(s)
Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown
University. He is the author of Great Transformations: Economic Ideas
and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century.
  #3  
Old May 2nd, 2013, 11:53 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
BIG BIRD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.


"??'???????" wrote in message
...
While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5


won't be long before they recognize what the conservative tactics do, and they
switch to socialism and go after them rich *******s with
torches and pitchforks,


  #4  
Old May 3rd, 2013, 01:33 AM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 2, 5:53*pm, "BIG BIRD" wrote:
"??ö'???????" wrote in message

...
“While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) *puts it, ‘is bleeding out.’ Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5

won't be long before they recognize what the conservative tactics do, and they
switch to socialism and go after them rich *******s with
torches and pitchforks,


could be. lets remember, the world saw the new deal for what it was,
and many countries not only embraced it, and emulated it, but even
expanded on it. this is what happens with education. and the results
were staggering. in america we went form a country ruled by wealthy
parasites with a very small middle class of around 15%, to a almost
all middle class population, other countries did even better.
that is why you see "THE CONSERVATIVES" desperate attack on schools,
"THE CONSERVATIVES" embrace fascism, and of course as the fascists
say, give me the schools, i will get the country. but it might not be
so easy these days. keynes spectacular achievement in economics, means
that in the modern world, demand for goods and services is wage
driven, and so far not one "CRANK CONSERVATIVE" has found a way around
that. so taking away today may not be so easy as time passes, and will
effect the wealthy parasites that "THE CONSERVATIVES" so feverishly
serve.
the youth of the world seem to despise "CONSERVATISM", and in the
u.k., they say ding dong the witch is dead))


no wonder the worlds youth despise "CONSERVATISM" the Anglo-American
model, with a migration from manufacturing to finance and a big bet
placed on unfettering private sector titans, Young Britons (and young
Americans as well) have a lifetime of part time hustling for low pay
to look forward to. As one London fellow put it to me, “being born
next to the Baltic is like winning life’s lottery.”
The second model has been the Northern European one (by which I
include Germany and Holland), with a big bet placed on the wisdom of
massive long term investments in human capital by government. And
taxes high enough to pay for that human capital bet.
It is looking like the Norse/Teutonic instincts were better. Both
models have their problems, but in terms of business competitiveness,
health, and most importantly in terms of measured human happiness and
confidence in tomorrow, the Thatcher model has brought only tidings of
woe.


yea, she is so loved, even by that left wing bastion forbes. lets be
polite about a monster that destroyed her country.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfi...the-iron-lady/


Eamonn Fingleton, Contributor
My beat is East Asia - and history's biggest industrial revolution

4/14/2013 @ 10:46AM |93,734 views
Thatcher's Last Wish: Another Clunker From The Iron Lady
The news today is that a group of supporters of Margaret Thatcher are
pushing a plan to build a museum and library as a permanent memorial
to her. It is clear that the plan, which would establish a first in
British politics, has been long in the making and that it not only had
Thatcher’s approval but she herself largely instigated the idea. This
is another clunker from the Iron Lady – a final terrible idea from a
woman who, pace all current hagiography, will *be remembered as one of
the worst political leaders in modern British history.
Let’s be clear first on the larger politics. As someone who served as
a Fleet Street commentator in the late 1970s, I fully recognize that
she made progress on some issues, not least trade union dominance of
the economy. But her predecessor Jim Callaghan would undoubtedly have
continued to focus on these same issues had he been reelected and he
would have dealt with them in a perhaps more effective, and certainly
less divisive, way.

The voters who elected Thatcher in 1979 were motivated powerfully by
humiliation at the UK economy’s constant loss of position in global
competition since the early 1950s. So how did Thatcher do in reversing
the trend and what in particular did she do to improve the UK’s trade
position? The eulogizers are quiet on the subject. Advisedly so. *The
fact is that under Thatcherism the UK’s trade position went from the
merely weak to the totally disastrous. The UK ran a current account
surplus of 0.6 percent of GDP in 1978, the last full year before
Thatcher came to office. As of 1989, the last full year before she was
ousted by her own party in May of 1990, the current account DEFICIT
had reached an appalling 3.9 percent of GDP. In the meantime Thatcher
presided over a savage program to destroy the UK’s core exporting
industries and, with wholesale financial deregulation, laid the
groundwork for *the catastrophic financial bubbles of more recent
times. She was smitten by the *erroneous notion that *advanced nations
should leave “rust bucket” industries behind and move to a
postindustrial model. Not a view shared by Germany, which has now long
eclipsed the UK as Europe’s premier economy. It is not shared either
in any of the most successful economies of East Asia (though they are
delighted if the English-speaking world continues to believe in
postindustrialism). *I have consistently attacked the
postindustrialist fallacy since the 1980s and indeed I devoted a whole
book to in 1999 (In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not
the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity).
As for the Thatcher museum and library, this is a characteristically
egotistical Thatcherite project at odds with British tradition. *The
British after all put a high value on modesty — or at least the
appearance of it — and even the most capable of them have
traditionally left it to others to sing their praises.
The fear now is that she has established a precedent that *future
British political leaders will feel compelled to follow, and in so
doing will render politics in London as dysfunctionally money-ridden
as politics in Washington already is.
Thatcher apparently was much impressed with the Reagan Presidential
Library. But why? Such memorials typically involve pandering to
wealthy donors and transnational corporations — and the pandering
typically begins long before the honoree leaves office. Not the least
of the problems is that many of the corporations involved have at best
no loyalty to the nation and some are indeed foreign and almost by
definition have a clear conflict of interest.
What we know for sure is that the Reagan library was made possible in
large measure by *General Electric. Although it is not yet apparent to
most Americans, General Electric has played a starring role in the
enfeeblement of the United States. A key charge is that GE has led
corporate America in the torching of America’s once peerless
industrial base on the funeral pyre of globalism.* It has done this
principally by transferring many of America’s most advanced production
technologies, including aerospace technologies, to foreign production
partners. These partners, located mainly in East Asia, have undertaken
to low-ball their prices and have thereby boosted GE’s quarterly
earnings, but at the cost of hollowing out the American industrial
base. You may not have seen much written about this subject in recent
years but the trend is acutely apparent in U.S. trade figures. With
its industrial base almost gone, America has consistently in recent
years run a current account deficit of 4 to 6 percent of GDP – the
weakest trade performance of any major nation in history. The
geopolitical consequences could hardly be more disastrous as the
United States has come increasingly to depend on funding from such
creditor nations as*China and Japan. It is not an exaggeration to say
that America’s role now has been reduced to borrowing *from China to
save the world from China.
The concept of presidential libraries is actually quite modern. The
first was built by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was a relatively
modest affair and, more important, he had the decency to do it with
his own money. *In recent decades succeeding presidents have vied with
one another for the title of largest and most impressive presidential
library. For the record the title now seems to be held by Bill
Clinton.
As Winston Churchill once said, “The price of greatness is
responsibility.” Would Churchill be better regarded today had he run
around drumming up support for a memorial to himself?*For that that
matter, would George Washington?

POSTSCRIPT
As of this writing , this blog has already generated more than 170
comments, not all of them friendly….
I am the first to acknowledge that Margaret Thatcher’s legacy, in
common with that of most other human beings, is a mixed bag. Some of
the things she did were good but the further you are from the UK –and
the less you know about British politics — the more likely you are to
take a favorable view. Even David Cameron, the current Prime Minister
and central casting’s idea of a traditional British Conservative, is
not a Thatcherite. Hardly anyone else is either. The fact is that she
was ousted by her own senior colleagues, and they had good reason to
rise up against her.
Many readers of my commentary seem to think she played a vital role in
winning the Cold War. This gives no credit to the Soviets, who had
long known their system was not working. She and Ronald Reagan were
pushing on an open door. If Jim Callaghan and Jimmy Carter had been in
charge in 1989, the outcome in the East Bloc would have been the same.
Thatcher’s rhetoric may have been particularly shrill but what
demolished the Berlin Wall was a sober realization in Moscow that the
dogma-driven societies it had created were totally dysfunctional.
The point that concerns me most — and I happen to have the benefit of
*a special understanding of the facts — is that the British economy is
almost as hollowed out as the American one.*Remarkably virtually none
of *my critics has made any reference to this point. Just like the
United States, the UK must constantly borrow abroad — principally from
China and Japan. In an earlier era, British leaders would have
considered this an appalling fate. In a future era, when the East
Asians finally stop propping up the pound (they have good strategic
reasons for doing so for a few more years), it will be obvious to
everyone that Thatcher’s trade policy was catastrophic.
My larger point stands: it is at best unseemly for political leaders
to go around canvassing support for their memorials.
Below are three reader comments which I believe deserve wider
circulation. Unsurprisingly they happen to be favorable to my point of
view. But if my critics have a cogent argument against my thesis, they
have yet to make it.
From logic001 [9/4+ Member: logic001]
75.48.104.187 
Submitted on
2013/04/14 at 3:10 pm
The article is correct on the major points.
Since the 1980′s I’ve witnessed up close and personally the paths
taken by two very different models for Western Civilization. One is
the Anglo-American model, with a migration from manufacturing to
finance and a big bet placed on unfettering private sector titans.
2
The second model has been the Northern European one (by which I
include Germany and Holland), with a big bet placed on the wisdom of
massive long term investments in human capital by government. And
taxes high enough to pay for that human capital bet.
It is looking like the Norse/Teutonic instincts were better. Both
models have their problems, but in terms of business competitiveness,
health, and most importantly in terms of measured human happiness and
confidence in tomorrow, the Thatcher model has brought only tidings of
woe.
This is most apparent over the course of decades. In the 1980s, the
life and dreams of a young man in the U.K. were broadly on par with
those of a young man in West Germany or Sweden. Today, it is not even
close. Young Britons (and young Americans as well) have a lifetime of
part time hustling for low pay to look forward to. As one London
fellow put it to me, “being born next to the Baltic is like winning
life’s lottery.”

That is Thatcher’s legacy.
From gladpick Marks [1/0+ Member: gladpick]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another one of those typical bleeding heart 'compassionate'LeftWingWhacko fanatics arrested for death threats against top Republicancongressional leader Tis PJ Odonovan Europe 4 March 30th, 2010 04:25 PM
Government hand-outs that undermine the economy. Sovereign debt and politics inability to stop the bleeding. ODONOVAN, Himself Europe 12 March 14th, 2010 08:13 PM
Wash and Fold services in Paris and London? poldy Europe 2 April 27th, 2006 09:56 PM
Cruise Website focused on Port Info Mike Travel Marketplace 0 September 19th, 2003 05:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.