Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 3/23/2011 11:13:24 AM
DB: ...a provocative editorial claiming that the European Union still hasn't been able to come up with a financial or political formula to alleviate the stresses caused by the unfolding sovereign debt crisis of the EU's Southern PIGS.
BM: They haven't come up with one because there isn't one to be had. They cannot save both the bonds/banks and the currency. Choose one or the other.
DB: ...we are not averse to analyzing articles that provide "pushback" as regards these same themes. They can certainly illuminate the underlying dialogue and provide further insights. Rachman makes some good points about the EU's ongoing difficulties.
BM: Perhaps Rachman's role is to point out to the technocrats and the people where they are falling short, and just "get on with it."
DB: Rachman's verdict: "I am skeptical about the pledge that they will do 'whatever it takes' to save the euro. That may turn out to be the ultimate phantom giant."
BM: They can save the bonds/banks or save the Euro. They cannot do both. My guess is in the end they will save the currency, as it allows much more control. They can leave the bonds/banks to each separate country to deal with.
DB: Is Brussels willing to invade Germany?
BM: It is quite interesting; Germany went its separate way on the Libya vote. Go to sleep and rise again in about 30 years. Would you be terribly surprised to find Germany in an alliance with Russia and China (perhaps Australia as well)? Economically a wonderfully perfect fit for all parties. Militarily, also able to hold their own. Not so difficult to fathom, once the dollar loses it role of prominence.
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 3/23/2011 12:18:29 PMDB: If you buy off on the idea that the Anglosphere went to war twice with Germany because that was the culture that worried the City of London elites the most...
I think Germany did not just worry them the most, but the Germans (and Japanese) with the most productive middle-class, were the most valuable to co-opt under the control of the PE.
Neither the Germans nor Japanese would be easily subsumed if they remained as equal partners to the British, so they had to be forced to submit through violence.
Why did England turn its back on Japan after WWI? In the first war, they were allies, and rightly so (from an empire perspective). Japan watched over British interests in Asia. But perhaps as partners, Japan would not submit, so they needed to be turned into an enemy.
Why did Britain choose to fight against Germany instead of fighting against Russia? Stalin was the far bigger evil in the 1930s, having killed tens of millions of his own whereas Hitler maybe killed a couple of thousand of his own.
If Stalin was made the enemy (as Hitler appropriately and apparently felt Britain would do), the war would have gone MUCH easier for Britain. The Germans would have done all of the heavy lifting, with Britain only ensuring the sea lanes for trade.
But Britain chose to fight Hitler....
Japan and Germany, two of the most productive societies of the 20th century, could not be brought under the control of the PE by treaty or by compromise and diplomacy with Britain. They could only be brought under control by military domination. Thus Britain made two seemingly stupid decisions: 1) turning its back on Japan, and 2) fighting Germany instead of joining Germany.
With military victory, the elite received two of the most valuable middle-classes in the history of man to exploit, at the cost of shifting some power from London to Washington. An easy trade-off, as both governments were compromised.
Churchill, as the one man in the center of Britain's demise, is hailed as Britain's hero. He can only be called a hero if viewed from a level above the state (he was at the center of the destruction of Britain). He was a hero to someone or something higher than the British and the British people, because he did Britain no favors.
Who might that "someone" or "something" be? I will wait for an invitation to the staff meeting before I decide....