Raúl Ilargi Meijer
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I know, sinny, but the example sort of works if you just stick to the idea that leeches were once considered a cure all.
I have never said anything pro-Putin, and the fact that multiple people now claim I have, tells me something. It’s cute.
polistra, Illich never gave up on schools altogether, but he very much did on existing ones. if they just leave kids alone to learn on their own accord what life requires, and only add to that what they have to offer on a voluntary basis, there’s nothing wrong with a school. the problem is the education system seeks a monopoly, schools become mandatory, and the curriculum is enforced from somewhere high up there. and basic skills are nowhere to be found.
I’m reading this piece, can’t remember where it came from. Very much worth your time for background on Greece. It’s from late 2014, so pre-Syriza election victory.
Misrule of the Few – How the Oligarchs Ruined Greece
Greece’s accession to the European Union, in 1981, was supposed to improve things. EU membership, however, did not weaken traditional Greek hierarchies; it strengthened them. [..] By bailing out Greece without demanding fundamental reforms, the ECB, the EC, and the IMF have only strengthened the status quo.
Even worse, the troika has lined the pockets of the very forces that brought about the economic collapse in the first place.
And Greece is not an isolated case. European bailout funds have had a similar effect throughout the smaller economies of the eurozone, including Ireland, Spain, and Portugal. Leaders in these countries, too, have spent European funds to maximize their short-term political advantage..
There”s only one way to go, even if it remains to be seen if it will be a ‘solution’: people must again grow their own food, as much as they can. They will have to anyway, as they lose purchasing power. Much better to start now.
David H. is waking up, and he knows it; good on him. As for property, the crux for Nicole and I has always been: don’t go into debt buying property. If you have the money, you ‘re sure you want to stay where you are, and you have a solid plan for the property, which can’t NOT include providing for your own basic needs, then go right ahead.
Huge numbers of Russians have family members in Ukraine. A small part of them have gone over to prevent these aunt and uncles and nieces and nephews from being annihilated by the likes of Yarosh. So yes, there are Russians in Ukraine. And Putin does not try to stop them from going. There are a lot of funds collected in Russia to support these Russian fighters. Some of that goes to weaponry. But the majority of rebel arms is still Russian arms confiscated from the Ukraine army. If Putin sent over official army units he would play right into the hands of NATO. That the US, EU, NATO have never offered any proof for the presence of these troops is all you need to know.
wroblon, if there were proof, it wouldn’t be limited to one or two photographs. that in itself is a dead give-away.
How do we support them? What helps?
Call – or write to – your Congress(wo)man, or someone like him/her in other countries, and tell them you don’t want Greece to be sacrificed in your name on the Troika altar. Tell them if they don’t stop US/EU aggression in Ukraine, you will never vote for them again. Better yet: launch a campaign to this effect, and get thousands of people to do the same.
Any video embedded in the comments section here should ideally be 560px wide. You can get the code through the Share->Embed->options of the video in question on YouTube.
sevenleagueboots,
Charles hasn’t been too strong lately, but that one sentence is certainly true, though in the end the US can’t win either.
XYZ, it’s from research I read maybe 10 years ago, by a female economist. Haven’t found it back. Maybe I should look harder. Or maybe you can help 😉
I find it strange that I don”t come across a lot more literature and research on the topic. The gist is very simple and easily understood: if the baker pays the butcher pays the carpenter pays the farmer pays the baker with the same money, and nothing is taken by people outside the community, everyone MUST get richer than when part of the money does vanish. That means, at some point, that you’re running to stand still. Or worse, as in today’s societies. That easy to grasp principle is more interesting to me than exact numbers, but let’s see if we can find more on this.
Take WalMart as an example. their costs are – broadly – purchases, transport, real estate and employees. A one-off profit on a building may – or may not – go to the community. That leaves only low-paid employees as ”beneficiaries” of the store’s turnover (plus a whiff of local veg – maybe-), while in many towns a substantial part of available money is spent there, that the store doesn’t spend back into the community. It’s how Sam Walton got rich. And you got poor. And how we got so many shitty jobs.
The Swiss Nat. Bank destroyed a “few hundred thousand jobs” – absurd. A strong currency is good for a nation.
In general sure. But when your neighbor’s currency plunges vs yours suddenly, it can take quite a bit of time to profit from that strong currency. There are already plenty stories of Swiss people starting to shop in Germany and Austria.
Daisy
No. I disagree with the idea that money can go but debt always stays.
I was talking about your debt, not debt in an abstract sense.
If the financial institutions go belly up, who is keeping track of this debt anymore?
Debt collectors. They”ll make sure you go belly up before the banks do.
with highly leveraged individuals and companies being wiped out en masse, the other side made a lot less than was lost. no zero sum here.
From a disgruntled reader:
Could I ask you to please help me with unsubscribing me from this newsletter?
I have been enjoying Raul’s and other’s posts for quite a while, but this nonsens you are now regularly publishing for your “friend” Euan Mearns just doesn’t make any sense. No way will I see one more ridiculous fossil fuel promoting posts of his in my mailbox.
Steve, Tony, I think the logic of going to war is clear. There are a lot of people in power who depend on oil revenues to stay in power. Blame games are easily invented. They will have to do something. Moreover, the US will be glad to of service when it comes to divide and rule policies, certainly in Russia’s backyard, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan. I don’t know all the intricacies in all these countries, or which one is most likely to get involved in a proxy war, but as oil prices keep going down, the pressure increases. And yes, Steve, Turkmenistan devalued its currency vs the dollar. Belarus did the same, Kazachstan is expected to follow suit soon. It’s all about the falling ruble, obviously.
Koso, don’t have time to watch a 25 min video right now, but the decline in money velocity points to one thing only: deflation. Which is velocity times money/credit supply. Ergo: People don’t spend. Prices go down. Jobs are lost. Prices go down further. More jobs are lost. Rinse and repeat. Deflation is a bitch. And the declining velocity of money is her sign that she”s arrived. Nothing a central bank can do. If people either don’t feel like spending, or simply don’t have anything to spend (a case overlooked by economists, strange as it may seem), central banks push on a string. Everything’s developing just the way we said it would all along. Nothing to be proud of, just lots to worry about. People are going to get hurt.
jona,
I do mention Naomi just about every chance I get, have done for years. Big fan of the Shock Doctrine.
slatzman,
The commentariat has already expressed it: there is no proof whatsoever that any of us are aware of which confirms any story about MH17. Entire nations have formed opinions on endlessly repeated empty propaganda, and I find that saddening. We should be better people than that.
Wildsilver, no idea what in the above makes you think I don’t know Century of the Self. I know it quite well, and have talked about Bernays many times. I can’t make it much clearer without mentioning him by name then this:
That propaganda as a strategic and political instrument has been refined to a huge extent over the past 70-odd years since Goebbels first picked up on Freud’s lessons on how to influence the unconscious mind, and the ‘mass-mind’, as a way to ‘steer’ an entire people, not just as a means to make them buy detergent.
Thanks for your kind words.
Rapala, complex story with many factors playing in. I glances through John’s piece, and I’m for instance not sure I like his harking back to 2000 for a euro valuation, I think things have changed too much to still run with that. What I think will be important in boosting the USD is emerging markets, from which dollars will find their way home. I don’t think the US will like it, or at least not the full extent of it, but what can they do?
Lucid, at least for now they can’t do much of anything. They don’t know how bad it’s going to get, and therefore not how much this will affect Big Oil and Wall Street, which will always be first in line before the shale patch when it comes to bail-outs. Energy credit, especially junk bonds, has been withdrawn at a very rapid clip, and the Fed is very much behind the curve at this point, deer and headlights and all.
GO2, jjhman et al, no confusion on the usefulness of economic growth vs population growth, but we haven’t had any of the former other than the borrowed hence virtual kind for along time. You can’t buy growth, let alone with money borrowed from your kids. And in that light it would be wise to at least have the discussion of what to do in the absence of growth, instead of exclusively pretending we must, will and can find our way back growth. We haven’t grown in ages, and it matters little whether you link that back to the 60’s or early 80s – there are arguments for both -. That in all these years no-one has been permitted to even ask the simple question, other than Bartlett from a pure physics point of view, is as ridiculous as persecuting people for claiming the earth is round.
CJ, I do.
Huck, that was disappointing. Ignoring me plus calling me more dangerous than anyone else when it comes to finance is not a respectful combo.
Variable, the Greeks didn’t build for unstable demand or anything like that. And they were never an export nation. They had what they had, which was less than the ”rich” world, but they were fine with it. Then they – or rather their corrupt leaders – made one fatal mistake: they joined the EU and then the eurozone. Now they had to become Germany or suffer. Note that the euro was introduced just 25 years (thereabouts) after the Greeks, and the Spanish and Portuguese, came out of harsh dictatorships. They never had a chance. And now the companies set up to cater just to their own people are going bankrupt, if they haven’t already.
Variable, I’m pretty sure I don’t understand the question implied here:
“What you describe but don’t understand is deflation. It starts with a drop in spending, caused by lower or no wages, saving or simply the demise of confidence. It doesn’t start with overcapacity. It starts with people losing their jobs.”
I could be wrong, but I completely thought it was a drop in consumption (i.e. due to people’s unwillingness or inability to spend more and/or take on additional debt) that leads to deflation, and that in turn causes lower wages, less jobs and the demise of confidence?
Far as I can see, you say the same thing I do. I was reacting to Mr. Lynn’s assertion that overcapacity is the problem. But what caused the overcapacity is not that the Greeks built huge and disproportional plants, it’s that people can no longer afford to buy the products the plants produce. For instance, somewhat simplified, because the plants laid them off. So it’s not like if they’d only reduce their capacity, the problem would be solved, because overcapacity was never the problem from the start.
Huck, that’s at least the second time you bring up a 4-year old video of Nicole as a reaction to my articles. I’m not going to say ‘is that all you got?’, but if you can find that back, you’ll have no problem digging up one of the many instances where I wrote that indeed, we misjudged people’s willingness to let their money and that of their kids be used to prop up a zombie system. So what’s the point? You want to argue Canadian housing is not going to crash?
