They're not gonna vote in favour of Brexit! - Bam!
They're not gonna vote in favour of Trump! - Bam!
They're not gonna vote in favour of Erdogan! - Bam!

And the nomenklatura is still either pretending to not know how much their policies have hurt the plebs, or they actually don't know, or they simply don't give a shit. No matter, result's the same.

France's up next weekend. The darling of the neoliberal elite, Macron, vs the nationalist Le Pen, with outsider chances for our boy Mélenchon.

Better strap in tight, we're in for a wild ride.

That path only leads to depression, my friend. If sexism and/or racism is the criteria, Berlusconi was in and out of office for 17 years. Victor Orban is in office right now. Marine Le Pen is a very real possibility next year. That's a lot of Trumpets if I may borrow Mark Blythe's term for it...

It's also a lot of people willing to overlook seemingly disqualifying characteristics. Which cuts to what truly fills me with sadness: just how pathetic of an alternative must the Left, of which I am a part, be providing these days if people prefer the right-wing alternative, no matter how ugly its face might be...

As depressing as it is, Trump might very well be the preferable outcome for people in the Maghreb. Clinton has been a major driver behind the clusterfuck that used to be Syria and Libya.

Also, if you browse through the economics commentaries outside the mainstream, you'll notice that the US-based crowd seems to be borrowing yet another word from German: Lumpenproletariat. Old Marx is back with a vengeance.

And if people like Clinton, Cameron, Hollande, Rajoy and Merkel piss on the Lumpenproletariat, you get your Farages, your le Pens, your Trumps, your Petrys. Treat the plebs like rats, and many will follow whatever rat-catcher comes along...

My comment was rather egocentric in nature. Few countries have the means to upset the balance of power within the EU and a (vote for) Brexit might just be the least horrific way of poking the EU. Next down the line would be a Le Pen-administration in France, which most people would rather avoid. Or some unforseen poltical kerfuffle in Italy.

Bad options, all of them. But austerity will lead to even worse outcomes, so German hegemony must be curbed and broken -- or the EU as a whole must be reduced to countries whose economies work the same parasitic way.

The best of all options, of course, would be political change in Germany, away from this anal fixation on austerity. But looking at our parliament, I see 630 seats, 566 of which belong to parties in support of austerity. So no, not gonna happen.

My hopes, as always, are on the French people. Recent actions have made me hopeful that they will once again come to our rescue.

Let's ignore for the moment what led to this current mess within the Eurozone. You point out, correctly, that Greece is too poor to service its debt. And yes, for the German government to do whatever is required to get back their loans is to be expected. However, Greece was incapable of servicing its debt five years ago. Yet the subsequent programs, all supported or even demanded by the German government, reduced Greece's ability to pay back at least portions of its debt. At the end of the day, goods and services are what it's all about. And by dismantling the Greek economy, nevermind the Greek society, they actively undermined what they publicly claimed to be working for: a self-reliant Greek economy, capable of financing the needs of Greece. And capable of paying back what is owed.

The question inescapably poses itself: was it done intentionally or are they blinded by ideology?

One doesn't have to be as far left as I am to see that it didn't work, doesn't work, and never could have worked. Even the likes of Krugman and Stiglitz are perfectly clear about it.

Varoufakis, as you note, has been just as clear about this at least since late 2010, when he published the first draft of his Modest Proposal with Stuart Holland. There was a very good discussion about it in Austin in 10/2013 under the topic "Can the Eurozone be saved?" Participants included Varoufakis, Tsipras, Flassbeck, Holland and Galbraith, amongst others. I submitted a short clip back then.

His argument that Germany won't see a dime when Greece is shoved off a cliff, as correct as it is, never had any bite to begin with. The German government, and large parts of parliament, are operating in a parallel universe, economically. Over here, mercantilism is the road to success. Monetarism works. Surplus good, deficit bad. Saving good, spending bad. Everyone should have a current account surplus.

It's horseshit by the gallons, and it's the official economic policy of the largest economy in the EU.

And we're not even getting into the political aspects of it. Throwing a member of the EU into debt bondage, suspending its democracy to please the gods of the market... that's a travesty and a half. Yet it's also inevitable if they insist on going down the road of neoliberalism.

Worst of all, Greece is just the canary in the coal mine, as Varoufakis likes to point out. Greece had plenty of issues before they joined the EZ, but when they chose to adapt the same currency as a much larger economy hell bent on competitiveness, which is the favorite euphemism for Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour policies, they were doomed to be crushed. The rest of the PIIGS are next in line, unless this whole mess explodes beforehand. Maybe Rajoy's Franco-esque repression techniques fail, maybe le Pen wins in 2017, who knows. Maybe Schäuble finds the 100k of bribes that he conveniently forgot about back in the '90s and chokes on them.

Last but not least, 208 billion Euros – that's the projected current account surplus of Germany this year. That's 208 billion Euros of debt foreign economies have to accumulate, so that the German public and private sector can run a combined surplus of €208b. That's the elephant in the room. Systematic undercutting of the inflation target through suppression of unit labour costs and a dysfunctional focus on exports.

In the current situation, "structural reforms" is used to subsume two entirely different sets of measures.

The first is meant to remove what you previously mentioned: corruption in all the shapes and forms it takes in Greece, from a (intentionally) broken tax system formed over decades of nepotism to a bankrupt national media in the hands of oligarchs. The institutions of the Greek state are precisely what you expect when a country has been run by four families (Papandreou, Samaras, Mitsotakis, Karamanlis) for basically five decades.

This kind of structural reform is part of Syriza's program. Like you said, it'll be hard work and they might very well fail. They'll have only weeks, maybe a few months to undo significant parts of what has grown over half a century. It's not fair, but that's what it is.

The second kind of "structural reform" is meant to increase competitiveness, generally speaking, and a reduction of the public sector. In case of Greece, this included the slashing of wages, pensions, benefits, public employment. The economic and social results are part of just about every article these days, so I won't mention them again. A Great Depression, as predicted.

That's the sort of "structural reforms" Syriza wants to undo. And it's the sort that is expected of Spain, Italy and France as well, which, if done, would probably throw the entire continent into a Great Depression.

I'd go so far as to call any demand to increase competitiveness to German levels madness. Germany gained its competitiveness by 15 years of beggar-thy-neighbour economics, undercutting the agreed upon target of ~2% inflation (read: 2% growth of unit labour costs) the entire time. France played by the rules, was on target the entire time, and is now expected to suffer for it. Only Greece was significantly above target, and are now slightly below target. That's only halfway, yet already more than any democratic country can take.

They could have spread the adjustment out over 20 years, with Germany running above average ULC growth, but decided to throw Greece (and to a lesser degree Spain) off a cliff instead.


So where are we now? Debt rose, GDP crashed, debt as percentage of GDP skyrocketed. That's a fail. Social situation is miserable, health care system basically collapsed, reducing Greece to North African standards. That's a fail.

Those are not reforms to allow Greece to function independently. Those are reforms to throw the Greek population into misery, with ever increasing likeliness of radical solutions (eg Golden Dawn, who are eagerly hoping for a failure of Syriza).

So yes, almost every nation in Europe needs reforms of one sort or another. But using austerity as a rod to beat discipline into supposedly sovereign nations is just about the shortest way imaginable to blow up the Eurozone. Inflicting this amount of pain on people against their will does not work in democratic countries, and the rise of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Féin, the SNP and the Greens as well as the surge of popularity for Front National and Golden Dawn are clear indicators that the current form of politics cannot be sustained.

Force austerity on France and Le Pen wins the election.

Meaningful reforms that are to increase Europe's "prosperity" would have the support of the people. And reforms are definatly needed, given that the Eurozone is in its fifth year of stagnation, with many countries suffering from both a recession and deflation. A European Union without increasing prosperity for the masses will not last long, I'm sure of it. And a European Union that intentionally causes Great Depressions wouldn't be worth having anyway.

Yet after everything is said and done, I believe you are still absolutely correct in saying that the pro-austerity states won't blink.

Which is what makes it interesting, really. Greece might be able to take a default. They run a primary surplus and most (90%+) of the funds went to foreign banks, the ECB and the IMF anyway, or were used to stabilize the banking system. The people got bugger all. But the Greek banking system would collapse without access to the European system.

Which raises the question: would the pro-austerity states risk a collapse of the Greek banking system and everything it entails? Spanish banks would follow in a heartbeat.

As for the morality of it (they elected those governments, they deserved it): I don't believe in collective punishment, especially not the kind that cripples an entire generation, which is what years of 50+% youth unemployment and a failing educational system does.

My own country, Germany, in particular gets no sympathy from me in this case. Parts of our system were intentionally reformed to channel funds into the market, knowing full well that there was nowhere near enough demand for credit to soak up the surplus savings, nowhere near enough reliable debtors to generate a reasonable return of investment without generating bubbles, be it real estate or financial. They were looking for debtors, and if all it took was turning a blind eye to the painfully obvious longterm problems it would create in Southern Europe, they were more than eager to play along.

Depends on your definition of revolution, I suppose.

Look at Europe for a minute.

- The Greeks see the rise of Golden Dawn, an openly fascist party.
- Marine Le Pen's FN, an extreme right wing nationalist party, is polling at #1 in France.
- Italy got rid of Berlusconi, which for them is about as close to a revolution as you can get without massive bloodshed.
- The society in the UK has gone so unimaginably lopsided that the Red Cross is handing out food packets for the first time since the end of World War 2.
- Let's not even talk about the Hungarian government and its atrocious track record over the last years.

These are some pretty drastic changes, and rarely for the better.

yeah kick out all the immigrants! then the next day, Pprt and Le Pen can wash ALL THE FUCKING DISHES.

Le Pen represent the opinion of a good number of Europeans. He was an elected offical and headed a major political party. Democracy must be respected and his points have their place in an open discussion.

As a Norwegian, you should be particularly alarmed about the demographic shift: http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

>> ^Fade:
The fact of the matter is he is right about the people of Europe disagreeing with what the ruling elite is trying to do.

That may be so, and I am even inclined to agree. But that doesn't mean that Le Pen is a suitable spokesman for the people. The European Union is in desperate need of reformation, and the Lisbon Treaty was a part of that. I believe the treaty was a bad piece of work and was rushed through too fast without proper debate. But a lot of the ideas in it were good, at least much better than what Le Pen is proposing. See Farhad's references for what we would get more of with Le Pen in charge.

>> ^Pprt:
He talks here of Dhimmitude and bending to terrorists. To claim that Islam has nothing to do with the present and future of Europe is pure ignorance.


I don't claim that. I claim that the content of this video is not sufficient to put it in the Islam channel. He talks of terrorism in general, among them the FARC guerilla, not specifically about islamic terrorism. The main body of the video is about European politics, not Islam as such. Thus the removal. I don't know about the other videos you mention, as I haven't seen them, but when I see a video that doesn't belong in a channel, I remove it. Now it was this one. Nothing personal. If you insist so hard that it belongs in Islam, we can * discuss it. I believe there is precedence for my decision; see i.e. the video that got CP420 banned.

>> ^Pprt:
Everyone is booing because he's ruffling feathers by holding an unpopular opinion towards immigration.

No, they're not. They are booing because he holds despicable opinions, and that is why they are unpopular. Sometimes opinions are unpopular for a reason, and the "ruffling of feathers" you speak so fondly of is nothing more than sensationalism.

But the reaction from the delegates here is not the correct one. Instead of laughing at him, which only makes them seem uppity, they should ignore him and get on with some real policy making instead of the innuendo that has gripped the EU the last couple of years. This right-wing bordering on fascism conspiracy theorist lives in the past, and doesn't deserve more attention.


And this video has nothing to with islam, other than the fact that some of the immigrants might be muslim. Read the channel description. It doesn't belong in humanitarian either, as Le Pen's plans does nothing to alleviate suffering, only to create a protectionist xenophobic Europe.

*nochannel *worldaffairs *politics *news

Fuck Le Pen.

He hates immigrates, gays, abortionists.

That's why no one is listening and everyone is booing.

Immigration is the price of globalization, if Europeans didn't want so much immigration maybe they would think twice about taking policies that directly damage economies of developing nations. See CAP policy and how it affected agricultural based economies, see WTO regulations between Europe and Developing nations.

But shit it's Pprt posting so why am I not surprised.

I feel sorry for Moore -- his heart is in the right place, but he alienates a large portion of his potential supporters by his style of interviews and overall approach.

As a college student, I enjoyed Roger & Me, but only as a comedy. As I've grown older, Moore's films -- as documentaries -- are laughably unfair; he holds so much contempt for his subjects that he can't help but make it personal. Instead of getting out of the way and letting the topic speak for itself, he resorts to blindsiding interviewees, overlaying contrasting footage during interviews, and pulling outrageous publicity stunts. Can we really expect any truth from a referee who's already chosen a side?

All Moore's films are entertaining (as long as you're not being made fun of in the documentary), but it's not very truthful reporting. Honestly, I'm amazed more Americans can't see that. But fringe elements like Moore (and Hitler and Le Pen, and Nader and Perot) usually become popular when the mainstream news isn't reporting the hot button topics with unflinching honesty.

Just thought I should add this from Wikipedia:

"She is also one of the most celebrated supporters of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing Front National political party, with which her husband is associated. With the publication of her 2003 book, A Scream in the Silence, the reclusive Bardot has come under considerable fire for anti-Muslim, and anti-gay comments. In May 2003, The MRAP announced that it would sue Bardot for her published views. Another organisation, The "Ligue des Droits de l'Homme" (League of Human Rights), announced that it was considering similar legal proceedings.

Bardot, in a letter to a French gay magazine, wrote in her defense, "Apart from my husband—who maybe will cross over one day as well—I am entirely surrounded by homos. For years they have been my support, my friends, my adopted children, my confidants".

On June 10, 2004 Bardot was convicted by a French court of "inciting racial hatred" and fined 5,000 €, which was the fourth such conviction/fine she has faced from French courts. Bardot's previous comments that led to convictions included ones encouraging civilian massacres in Algeria. The courts cited passages where Bardot referred to the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam", her descriptions of France's Muslim community, the largest in Europe. In the book she also referred to homosexuals as "fairground freaks" and she condemns the presence of women in government."