venerdì 4 giugno 2010

Wikipedia inattendibile anche sul signoraggio

Signoraggio.it:
Wikipedia inattendibile


4 giugno 2010

Perchè Wikipedia sulla questione SIGNORAGGIO non può essere considerata attendibile:

Sappiamo che i grandi network della rete, sopratutto quelli che dovrebbero divulgare le informazioni sono controllati dalle lobby di potere, nel caso specifico Wikipedia è controllata da una potente fondazione bancaria: "chi paga il pifferaio sceglie la musica".

Alla voce: "signoraggio", "signoraggio bancario", Wikipedia è infestata dagli stessi negazionisti del signoraggio: [leggi_articolo] che generano rimanendo anonimi, siti web e blog con contenuti colmi di palesi idiozie nel tentativo di negare la truffa del signoraggio. Infatti, se andiamo su Wikipedia alla voce signoraggio, l'utente che desidera informarsi ne esce stordito, senza essere riuscito a capire nulla, quindi lo scopo è allontanare le persone dall'interessarsi.

Inoltre, vengono diffamati gli studiosi e divulgatori della problematica etichettandoli in maniera che alla prima impressione l'utente venga indotto a credere che siano dei pazzi furiosi con idee politiche malsane.

Nella serata del 1 giugno 2010 il canale televisivo ITALIA1 ha messo in onda la trasmissione di approfondimento MISTERO, condotta da RAZ DEGAN, ha fatto luce sul SIGNORAGGIO, divulgando a livello nazionale la questione, immediatamente i negazionisti del signoraggio si sono scatenati in rabbiose repliche supportate da solenni scandalose colossali sciocchezze, tutte tese a dimostrare che quello che è stato affermato dagli autorevoli personaggi intervistati da Raz Degan siano dei ciarlatani, che non sanno di cosa parlano, per chi non ha visto la trasmissione può cliccare sul seguente link: VIDEO-MISTERO visionando tutta la parte che riguarda la questione.

Criminali al soldo delle lobby bancarie, ai quali vengono garantiti privilegi e lauti compensi per infestare la rete e infiltrarsi in ogni forum di discussione, per disturbare, insultare e generare grande confusione sempre per indurre l'utente ad abbandonare, sono nel gergo della rete i "FAKES TROLLS" non usano mai nome e cognome, come diversamente i sostenitori della verità sulla truffa del signoraggio usano, esponendo la propria identità per affermare il principio che: "se non si ha il coraggio di ciò che si dice, o non vale niente quello che si dice, o non vale niente la persona che lo dice".

Questi "criminali" quando non riescono a penetrare nelle discussioni, attivano con false identità siti e blog su spazi web gratuiti, inondando di articoli la rete con le ripetitive solenni idiozie, terminando con la diffamazione e l'ingiuria rivolta verso gli autorevoli studiosi divulgatori di questo criminale fenomeno economico che opprime le economie dei popoli.

Questo sito, http://www.signoraggio.it è continuamente sotto attacco informatico che i sistemi di protezione, dopo il primo maldestro attacco sono stati implementati, difendendo perfettamente i contenuti del server, ultimamente il sito www.signoraggio.info è stato craccato da degli hackers, hanno sotituito tutte le pagine del sito con demenziali proclami politici, possiamo immaginare chi sono i mandanti di tale attività criminale, ricordate i giga-byte di videoporno trovati nei computer dell'ente di controllo delle banche americane?
E' stato un pianificato attacco informatico, una chiara vendetta per screditare l'ente e le persone che vi lavorano, dopo che tale ente aveva messo sotto accusa per gravi irregolarità la Goldman Sachs la più potente banca d'affari del mondo, la stessa che controlla il governatore di Banca d'Italia, la stessa che ha pagato la campagna elettorale di Romano Prodi, video testimonianza:

Non ci rimane che riflettere sulla guerra a colpi di informazioni corrette e disinformazione generata dai potenti mandanti.

Art. del Citt. Sovr. Giovanni Sandi

http://www.signoraggio.it http://www.signoraggio.net

Gain in payrolls due to census 2010...


Chart of the Day Bookmark  and Share

Today, the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payrolls increased by 431,000 in May. It is worth noting that a large majority of last month's gain in payrolls was due to the hiring of temporary workers for the 2010 census. Today's chart provides some perspective on the US job market. Note how the number of jobs steadily increased from 1961 to 2001 (top chart). During the last economic recovery, however, job growth was unable to get back up to its long-term trend (first time since 1961). More recently, nonfarm payrolls have pulled away from its 40-year trend (1961-2001) by a record percentage (bottom chart). In fact, the number of US jobs is currently at level first reached in early 2000.


Notes:
- Where's the market headed? The answer may surprise you. Find out right now with the exclusive & Barron's recommended charts of Chart of the Day Plus.



Summer Streets Of Rage Predicted For Europe

Summer Streets Of Rage Predicted For Europe & U.S.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, June 3, 2010

Summer Streets Of Rage Predicted For Europe & U.S. 030610top2

Top historians, social and financial analysts, along with police bodies are all predicting that Europe and America are set to experience a summer of rage, with scenes mirroring the chaos we have seen unfold in Greece in reaction to draconian austerity measures now being imposed by governments in the west.

Although many predicted that last summer would be a period of social unrest, British historian Simon Schama notes that there is usually a lag between economic hardship and the subsequent social fury it engenders.

“Far be it for me to make a dicey situation dicier but you can’t smell the sulphur in the air right now and not think we might be on the threshold of an age of rage,” wrote Schama in his Financial Times column.

Schama forecasts that not just Europe but America too faces “a distinct possibility of a long hot summer of social umbrage,” making comparisons to how rich plutocrats bore the brunt of the common man’s rage during the French Revolution.

A Reuters report echoes similar fears, noting that the level of violence will take a backseat to the amount of coverage it receives on television, and that this will dictate how badly the turmoil affects markets.

“Insurers say they have seen a notable uptick in enquiries about political risk cover — which protects against expropriation, political violence and exchange controls — particularly for Portugal and Spain as they face stringent cuts,” states the report, adding that Britain will also be a flash point for riots due to the new government pushing through the most severe budget cuts since world war two.

Indeed, authorities are already preparing for the fallout if Britain begins to go the way of Greece, with the chairman of the Police Federation recently warning that the country is heading for scenes last witnessed during the economic and social turmoil of the late 1970’s.

“I have real fears we might go back to something like that … history tells us it happens again and again,” Paul McKeever told the federation’s annual conference in Bournemouth, adding that “distress on the streets” was a distinct possibility this summer.

As Chris Marsden outlines in his article, several other prominent voices in the media are also forecasting that tensions could boil over into the streets, particularly if the euro region disintegrates as a result of the collapse of the single currency.

A Deutsche Welle piece on May 26 cautioned that social unrest was “closer today than at any other time since this current financial crisis—the worst since 1929—began.”

The report cites US director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, who said that the riots could lead to “regime-threatening instability,” from which “the United States would not be immune.”

The report also names Portugal, Spain and Italy as being under threat from social discontent, and even goes so far as to claim that the unrest will end in war, quoting Marie-Hélène Caillol, the president of the European Laboratory of Political Anticipation think-tank.

Although analysts say that such discontent would be an organic reaction of the people in response to enforced financial hardship, unemployment and reduced living standards, one has to wonder whether the globalists who engineered the economic crisis are not lying in wait with their pre-ordained solution of world government once the situation gets really bad. There also exists the possibility that the crisis is now so deep that it is even out of their control, which means that no one can now predict the ultimate outcome of the mass social unrest set to hit the streets this summer.

giovedì 3 giugno 2010

Macelleria sociale ed evasione bancaria: perché Draghi doveva tacere

Macelleria sociale ed evasione bancaria: perché Draghi doveva tacere
di Marco Della Luna - 03/06/2010

Fonte: nuke.lia






Nella sua allocuzione del 31 Maggio 2010, Mario Draghi, Governatore della Banca d’Italia e candidato alla presidenza della BCE, ha definito l’evasione fiscale come “macelleria sociale”. Ma Draghi, come tutti i governatori di banche centrali, come tutti i gestori di banche di credito, è l’ultima persona al mondo legittimata a parlare di evasione e giudicare gli altri. Vediamo perché in cinque punti. Cinque punti di critica, ma anche di proposta per riforme eque ed efficaci da parte di ogni statista e di ogni ministro dell’economia che vogliano passare alla storia e non finire nell’affollato dimenticatoio dei burattini senza volto.



E’ nozione comune e incontestata che la liquidità (l’insieme di ciò che l’economia e la società usa come danaro, dalla cartamoneta al denaro elettronico) è creato dal sistema bancario, senza copertura aurea (abbandonata completamente dal 1971), quindi a costo zero. Si parte dalle banche centrali che creano dal nulla cartamoneta e attivi sui loro propri conti correnti, e li prestano a basso interesse alle banche di credito, che con essi comperano titoli del debito pubblico, portatori di interessi (che paghiamo noi con le tasse), emessi dai governi per finanziare il proprio deficit di bilancio.

E qui va fatto il primo rilievo: le banche centrali, quando creano (e poi usano per comperare titoli o erogare crediti remunerati) denaro o attivi dal nulla, aumentano il proprio patrimonio (cioè guadagnano) a costo zero, e su questo aumento non sono tassate, perché fanno figurare che esso sia compensato dall’uscita del denaro così creato. Ma siccome questo denaro è creato da loro a costo zero, la compensazione è fasulla, come riconoscono i manuali di economia politica, dal Krugman al Blanchard, e le tasse dovrebbero essere pagate, previa revisione dei bilanci e accertamento del reddito evaso. Quindi, poiché le banche centrali evadono o eludono massicciamente le tasse, i loro governatori non sono legittimati a giudicare in materia di evasione.

Proseguiamo. E’ pure nozione comune e non contestata, che le banche di credito, partendo dal denaro creato dalle banche centrali, lo moltiplicano nel seguente modo: esse mettono a riserva questi titoli presso la banca centrale, oppure prendono a prestito da essa i depositi che essa crea a costo zero, per poi depositarli presso di essa, sempre a riserva. Partendo da questa riserva, e applicando il moltiplicatore bancario, che normalmente è di dieci, esse erogano credito per un importo complessivo pari a dieci volte le riserve. Ossia, se hanno a riserva 10, possono erogare credito per 100, percependo interesse su 100, mentre pagano interessi solo su 10. Inoltre, i loro interessi attivi sono molto superiori a quelli passivi. Se pagano l’1% di interessi passivi alla banca centrale per le riserve, e si fanno pagare mediamente l’8% dai loro clienti, allora guadagnano, di interessi, (8 x 10 ) – 1 = 79. In realtà, però, la percentuale di riserva non è un limite alla creazione di liquidità, perché portano a riserva sia i depositi che ricevono, che i crediti corrispondenti ai “prestiti” che erogano (cioè, se ti prestano 10 si registrano a credito 10 di capitale più gli interessi a scadere). Il limite alla creazione di liquidità mediante la concessione di crediti è posto dalla capacità del sistema di richiedere e sostenere il credito, oppure da accordi di cartello tra le banche (Basilea I, II, III). Oggi la massa monetaria complessiva (M3) è costituita per il 92% da liquidità creata dalle banche di credito. E qui va fatto il secondo rilievo: le banche di credito, nel modo suddetto, creano a costo zero o minimo enormi quantità di liquidità – ossia incrementano i loro patrimoni. Su questi incrementi anch’esse, come la banca centrale, non pagano tasse, perché anch’esse, come la banca centrale, compensano contabilmente quegli incrementi patrimoniali facendo figurare pari uscite di capitale dal loro patrimonio, che però non avvengono, appunto perché la banca di credito non presta il denaro della raccolta, ma crea liquidità nello stesso atto di erogare il credito. Anche questa è elusione o evasione, e siccome molte banche centrali, come quella italiana, sono di proprietà di banchieri privati, che godono di questo doppio privilegio (aumentare la propria ricchezza a costo zero e senza pagare le tasse su tale aumento), i governatori di quelle banche centrali non sono legittimati a parlare di evasione.

Andiamo avanti. Il sistema bancario nel suo complesso realizza grandi profitti siccome crea a costo zero denaro con cui compera i titoli del debito pubblico emessi dallo Stato e gravati da interesse. Il sistema bancario, come abbiamo detto, usa i titoli di Stato come copertura e riserva frazionaria per emettere la cartamoneta, il denaro legale (8%), e il denaro creditizio (98%). I contribuenti devono pagare le tasse allo stato affinché lo Stato possa pagare gli interessi al sistema bancario. Ma, se lo Stato è in grado di emettere titoli a copertura e riserva del denaro legale e del denaro creditizio, allora è in grado di emettere in proprio anche il denaro legale e il denaro creditizio, anziché prenderlo in prestito pagando interessi e finendo per accumulare un debito pubblico enorme, che non riesce a ripagare, e che può mantenere solo imponendo tasse crescenti per pagare gli interessi passivi. In effetti, lo Stato italiano emetteva in proprio il biglietto da 500 Lire, ed emette tuttora in proprio le monetine metalliche. Altri Stati hanno emesso o emettono denaro senza prenderlo a prestito dalle banche. Alcuni sostengono che la politica sia demagogica e inaffidabile, e che quindi sia preferibile lasciare ai banchieri privati il potere e il monopolio di creare il denaro, di regolarne la quantità in circolazione e il tasso di interesse. Ma di fatto i banchieri usano questo potere nel loro interesse e per aumentare i propri profitti a spese della società e dei produttori di ricchezza (i banchieri non producono né beni né servizi; quindi la crescita dei loro patrimoni avviene a spese dei patrimoni e dei redditi degli altri, che li producono).

E con questo possiamo formulare il terzo rilievo: Draghi e i suoi colleghi non sono legittimati a parlare di evasione, perché buona parte delle tasse che lo Stato raccoglie vanno a pagare interessi sul debito pubblico in favore del sistema bancario. Debito pubblico e interessi passivi che esistono e crescono solo perché lo stato, senza alcuna ragione, ha donato al sistema bancario il potere sovrano e politico di creare dal nulla denaro, di regolarne la quantità disponibile all’economia, di fissarne il tasso di interesse, di incassare in proprio gli interessi.

Adesso vediamo il quarto punto. Il sistema bancario crea denaro usato dalla società – supponiamo 100 – interamente mediante operazioni di credito: crea il denaro legale scambiandolo contro titoli del debito pubblico (cioè facendo credito allo Stato); e crea il denaro creditizio erogando credito ai clienti che lo richiedono a prestito. A ciascuna unità monetaria creata corrisponde un’unità di debito capitale. Quindi, se il denaro complessivamente creato è 100, il debito capitale è pure 100. E, siccome il debito è gravato di interesse passivo, dopo un anno avremo che il denaro esistente è sempre 100, ma il debito è cresciuto a 110 (posto 10% il tasso finale di interesse). A questo punto si avvia un meccanismo la cui azione è, inizialmente, leggera, poco avvertibile, quindi esso viene accettato. Ma dopo 5 anni, avremo che il denaro esistente è 100 e il debito è 200. Oppure, se la società paga annualmente l’interesse, dopo 5 anni il denaro disponibile per l’economia è 50, e il debito è 100; quindi l’economia va in deflazione per effetto del calo di liquidità. In realtà, prima che ciò avvenga, la società, per poter servire il debito, ossia pagare gli interessi, prende a prestito ulteriore denaro, sui cui pagherà interessi in aggiunta a quelli che già paga. E così più e più volte. In tal modo però non risolverà il problema, ma soltanto lo differirà fino al punto in cui il reddito non sarà più sufficiente a pagare gli interessi e il patrimonio non sarà più sufficiente per ottenere nuovi prestiti. Una crescente quota dei redditi dovrà essere spesa per pagare gli interessi dei debiti pubblici e privati, e tasse destinate al servizio del debito pubblico. Il margine di profitto delle aziende si contrarrà sino ad azzerarsi, come sta già avvenendo in molti settori produttivi. Lo Stato, in particolare, per tirare avanti, cioè per pagare i crescenti interessi sul debito pubblico, dovrà continuamente aumentare la tassazione, tagliare i servizi e gli stipendi, vendere i propri beni. I banchieri, in tal modo, attraverso l’opera del governo, rastrellano tendenzialmente tutto il reddito, tutto il prodotto del lavoro e degli investimenti del corpo sociale.

Questo è il meccanismo del denaro-debito messo su e gestito dalla comunità bancaria mondiale, di cui fanno eminentemente parte le banche centrali. Ed è questa la quarta ragione per la quale Draghi non ha diritto di parlare di evasione fiscale.

Creando denaro-debito gravato di interessi, cioè creando più debito che liquidità, la comunità bancaria costringe la gente e le imprese, per sopravvivere, alla rincorsa disperata del profitto, alla lotta di tutti contro tutti, perché ciascuno, essendo il denaro disponibile meno di quello dovuto, per pagare gli interessi passivi che gli competono (sia come interessi diretti, sia come tasse), deve togliere denaro a qualcun altro ad ogni costo. Questo è il fattore che costringe gli uomini alla rincorsa del profitto per il profitto, alla sopraffazione, allo sfruttamento radicale. Che li disumanizza. Ma è anche il fattore che costringe ad evadere per sopravvivere, per conservare un reddito, per limitare i costi e non chiudere, licenziare, fallire. Si può dire, quindi, che molti evadono le imposte e i contributi sociali per poter pagare gli interessi alle banche. Per poter pagare gli stipendi ai lavoratori, sia pure in nero. Per poter pagare le materie prime. Per poter contenere i costi di produzione così da non finire fuori mercato e dover chiudere. Quindi questa evasione potrebbe esser considerata una legittima difesa per l’evasore, e un bene per la società, perchè la protegge contro una spoliazione mortale e le consente di sopravvivere. Ma, alla luce di quanto detto sul sistema monetario, va riconosciuta una realtà più profonda: l’evasione, il denaro evaso, è, in larga parte, denaro che non c’è, che il corpo sociale non ha, e che quindi non potrebbe dare allo Stato nemmeno volendo, nemmeno se volesse togliersi il sangue pur di fare il proprio “dovere”. Non potrebbe, proprio a causa del sistema monetario congegnato e diretto dalla comunità bancaria, del debito perpetuamente crescente che esso genera in automatico, aumentando inarrestabilmente il debito e gli interessi passivi rispetto alla liquidità, e portando altrettanto inesorabilmente alla recessione, ai fallimenti, ai licenziamenti, al commissariamento di interi paesi, a sacrifici tanto duri quanto non dovuti.

Se tutto questo non è “macelleria sociale”, e della più lucida e spietata, allora Draghi aveva il diritto di parlare come ha parlato e sottoscrivo pienamente ciò che ha detto.

Plunged in Chaos: Europe on the Eve of the Bilderberg Conference

Plunged in Chaos: Europe on the Eve of the Bilderberg Conference

http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/19527.jpg

Global Research, June 3, 2010


The Bilderberg group will convene in Sitges, Spain, a resort community 30 km from Barcelona, on June 4-7. As usual, the information is supplied by James Tucker and Daniel Estulin who revealed that this year the issues topping the agenda of the club's meeting will be the global recession and the approaches to provoking such economic breakdowns that can help justify the establishment of a full-scale world economic governance.

Intending to prolong the global economic downturn for at least another year, the Bilderberg group hopes to take advantage of the situation to set up a “global ministry of finance” as a part of the UN. Though the decision was actually made at the group's meeting in Greece last year, according to Tucker the plan was torpedoed by US and European “nationalists” (for the Bilderberg group, “nationalists” is a generic term for all nationally-oriented forces espousing national sovereignty and statehood).

All year since the last meeting, representatives of the global executive management have been convincing the public across the world to embrace a “new financial order”. The idea recurred in the statements made by N. Sarkozy, G. Brown, and the freshly elected European Council President H. Van Rompuy, but – against the backdrop of a relatively harmless phase of the crisis - the activity remained limited to psychological conditioning and no practical steps have been taken. As Jacques Attali wrote quite reasonably in his After the Crisis, Europe has no right to demand a reform of the global financial architecture as long as it can't organize the institutions that would meet its own needs.

The debt crisis in Greece that currently puts in jeopardy the entire European financial system provides a pretext for drastic measures, and both the crisis and the measures are vivid illustrations of the strategy that employs chaos to reorder the existing arrangements. The deliberately generated chaos is tightly controlled by financial institutions, major banks, and hedge funds and serves as an efficient mechanism of governance and social restructuring.

The financial attack against Greece promptly evolved into onslaught on Euro and – as it became clear – the developments correlated marginally with the structural shortcomings of the Greek economy. The intensity of the crisis that momentarily posed a threat to the economic and even political integrity of the EU cannot be explained solely by the appetites of faceless financial players. There had to be more serious reasons behind the situation, and to an extent the objectives pursued by those who shaped it can be understood from the statements made by G. Soros. He maintains that the EU owes its current difficulties to the European (especially German) politicians' reluctance to move on, that huge problems await Europe unless it starts developing, and that a kind of a European Monetary Fund helping fight budget deficit must be created. In other words, Europeans are forced to choose between the collapse of the Eurozone and governance centralization.

Jacques Attali laid out a specific centralization plan. It is suggested that the EU countries create their own institutions to monitor the activities of financial operators. It is also proposed that they should set up a European creditor of a new formation that – while not being linked to Europe's central and investment banks or governments - would guarantee assistance to viable local financial institutions, buy into their assets, and extend loans under specific terms. Attali further advocates the formation of a European ministry of finance that would immediately be empowered to hand out loans from the name of the EU, and the creation of a European Budget Fund with a mandate to oversee the budgets of the countries whose cumulative dept totals over 85% of the GDP. He warns that an even severer crisis should be expected otherwise.

Under the US pressure, A. Merkel finally consented to tough measures (purportedly, Sarkozy even threatened that France would revert to national currency in case she held her own), and early last May EU finance and economy ministers signed an agreement on the mechanisms of budgetary stabilization in the Euro zone, which envisaged the establishment of a Euro 60b safety pillow fund to urgently rescue countries battling with their public finances and the allocation of Euro 440b in guaranteed loans. The IMF also pledged Euro 250b in the case of need. The money is meant for sovereign debt bailouts in the Eurozone, a mission which – for the first time in its entire history – the European central bank will also undertake. Steps facilitating financial transactions were announced by central banks across the world including the US Federal Reserve which will urgently inject US dollars into the European Central Bank as well as into British and Swiss banks.

The above can be regarded as the first phase of progress towards centralized European monetary administration. It is unclear so far how exactly the “grand architects” see the world financial governance and what role they plan to give to existing financial institutions like the IMF. The options on the table range from building totally new institutions to – as, for example, suggested by Attali – using the IMF as an authorized supranational regulation center run by a G-24 board.

Importantly, once again we are witnessing the creation of mechanisms of centralized supranational control over national economies, and the crisis acts as a catalyst for a guided fast transition to tighter integration within the EU, which is necessary to build a close-knit Western bloc.

The plan imposed on Europe by elite financial circles implies countering the indebtedness problem with the help of new borrowings, which will exacerbate rather than remedy the budget problem. According to Eurostat data, in 2010 the Eurozone sovereign debt will grow from 77.7% to 83.6% of the GDP. Moreover, it is widely held in the expert community that the indebtedness figures for Greece, Portugal, and a number of other EU countries are unrealistically low and do not reflect the actual proportions of the problem.

Experts from Lombard Odier, a Swiss bank, estimate the bulk of Greek bad debt at 875% of its GDP, which means that to meet its obligations the country would have to invest – without any foreseeable returns – an amount exceeding its GDP by a factor of 8.75. The situations in Poland and Slovenia are even more alarming – in their cases the debt to GDP ratio is 15 and 11 respectively. The corresponding average over the Eurozone is 4.34, and in the US – 5.

Leaving structural problems untouched, the mitigation measures are paving the way for the supranational institutions advocated by mondialist Attali. On May 21, the EU finance ministers adopted at a meeting chaired by European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet and European Council President H. Van Rompuy the German plan of much greater budgetary coordination including penalties for states that break the EU budgetary rules. The sanctions will include suspending the voting rights of repeat offenders, withholding the funding for infrastructural development, etc. It was also proposed to subject national budgets to EU screening prior to their being debated in national legislatures. A report will be prepared by June 17 – notably, the date of the EU summit – outlining a common Eurozone policy. Other, yet more ambitious projects like full control over Eurozone national budgets by a triumvirate comprising the European Commission, the European central bank, and the Euro Group are also discussed.

The downsides of the rescue packages are the worst part of the problem. Invoking the threat of financial collapse, the EU countries serially introduced extremely unpopular austerity regimes with salary and pension freezes for state employees, welfare cuts, increased retirement ages, etc. Greece was the first but not the only country affected.

The German government plans to cut spending by Euro 10b annually in 2011-2016. France abolished the annual pension for low-income families. Under the IMF pressure, Spain is launching a comprehensive reform including pension indexing freeze, pay reductions and employment cuts in the state sector, the abolition of payments to support families with recently born children, etc. Great Britain, Italy, and others are following the lead.

The consequences of the measures are hard to gauge considering that Europe is already facing serious poverty and unemployment problems (the unemployment has reached 10% of the economically active population and continues to grow, and at least 80 mln people are currently below the poverty line).

Most likely, the shadow world government - the Bilderberg group – will administer to the public the doze of social problems carefully calculated to enable the elites “to offload troubled assets”, retain control over the situation, and divert protests from the actual sources of problems that trigger them.

From Russia's perspective, the conclusion is obvious: any deepening of its integration into the “free” Europe strengthens the financial and informational control over Russia exercised by the global elites seeking to strip it of the status of an independent geopolitical player.

Olga Chetverikova, Ph.D. in History, is Assistant Professor at Moscow State Institute of Intentional Relations of the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation.

Bilderberg Group Unmasked in EU Parliament (video)

RussiaToday June 03, 2010 — Full transcript and details of Daniel Estulin's speech in the European Parliament at http://www.danielestulin.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/europarl

Bombshell: Estulin unmasks Bilderberg Group in EU Parliament 1/3 (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmhiGy2VPmc&feature=related

Bombshell: Estulin unmasks Bilderberg Group in EU Parliament 2/3 (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cP49b2u6uI&feature=related

Bombshell: Estulin unmasks Bilderberg Group in EU Parliament 3/3 (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki8gXV88wng&feature=player_embedded

ECB rift over bond buys adds to euro pressure

ECB rift over bond buys adds to euro pressure

Germans said to fret secret French bailout

By William L. Watts, MarketWatch

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- The European Central Bank's decision to purchase distressed government bonds issued by peripheral euro-zone governments has helped soothe credit markets, but aren't doing much to buoy up the beleaguered euro.

An apparent rift between top ECB officials, which has even featured German media accusations of a French-led "conspiracy" aimed at shoring up French banks, hasn't helped, economists said.

A report in the German magazine Der Spiegel over the weekend said the ECB's purchases of Greek bonds, despite the fact Athens has already received money from a 110 billion euro ($134.4 billion) European Union rescue fund, had led German central bankers to suspect a French plot.

Technicals suggest euro to drop below $1.20

The push into fresh 2010 lows below 1.2143 in EUR/USD represents an effective 17% drop for the beleaguered euro since setting its 2010 high at 1.4580 in January, but there's scope for further downside to the 1.2000 level and the 1.1721 target.

After all, the report said, the move gives French banks an opportunity to unload Greek bonds, while German banks must sit on their hands after promising German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble they would hold Greek debt until 2013.

"The main issue in the public debate is why Greek bonds are being bought although the aid program for Greece has long since been passed and first funds have been transferred," said Ulrich Leuchtmann, head of currency strategy at Commerzbank in Frankfurt.

"The purchase of Portuguese or Irish securities on the other hand makes much more sense, as the general rescue fund for euro-zone countries has been agreed but not set up yet."

If German central bankers suspect a conspiracy, they haven't expressed it publicly.

German Bundesbank President Axel Weber on Monday did make it clear he's not a fan of the policy, arguing for a strict cap on purchases. Weber, seen as a potential successor to Trichet, warned that the program carries "substantial stability risks."

That puts him at odds with ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet, who has used a series of interviews in an effort to overcome qualms the bond purchases could spark inflationary pressures.

Trichet has argued that the moves fall short of creating new money through quantitative easing and that the ECB remains focused on maintaining price stability.

Bond purchases have totaled at least €35.5 billion over the first three weeks of the program, according to ECB figures, which don't offer a regional breakdown of the purchases.

"We do not participate in speculation abut possible conspiracies in the purchase of Greek bonds," Leuchtmann said, adding that it is "a lack of transparency" that inevitably leads to such suspicions.

"Even though the ECB publishes data on how many bonds have been purchased it does not state what securities these are," he said. "Also the issue of how long these purchases will continue remains unclear. As a result, the question of what would happen on the bond markets if the ECB would stop the purchases is putting pressure on the euro."

The euro /quotes/comstock/21o!x:seurusd (CUR_EURUSD 1.2193, -0.0054, -0.4409%) slipped to a new four-year low of $1.2110 versus the dollar on Tuesday before rebounding as risk appetite revived. Analysts say a failure to hold support around the $1.2120 level in the near term would be likely to open up a test of the $1.20 level.

William L. Watts is a reporter for MarketWatch in London.

Why a 'new euro' could be the saviour of the European dream

Why a 'new euro' could be the saviour of the European dream

Once unthinkable, the possible demise of the euro is now very much up for debate.

By Richard Woolnough
Published: 9:00PM BST 02 Jun 2010

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01596/eurozone4_1596483c.jpg
The Euro sculpture is seen in front of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, central Germany Photo: AP

Well, among market participants – the politicians will not countenance it, despite the tectonic shifts in the eurozone and the profound strains on the single currency.

Put simply, the authorities' view is that the euro must be retained – not only for the survival of governments and financial institutions, but also to keep intact the dream of a United States of Europe. So central is the currency to the ideal of the single economic bloc – an economy to compete with the US and Asia's emerging titans – that the notion the euro could fail is a great unmentionable in these circles.

In the view of market participants, however, this could go one of two ways: either there will be stability led by vigorous state intervention, or there will be huge chaos and uncertainty. Unlike the authorities, the markets publicly recognise the possibility of a negative outcome and have factored it in to the price of assets. With the authorities stating that the scenario cannot occur, it sets up a battle between governments and capitalists. Recent initiatives to reduce speculative activities are just an early salvo in this war.

But even if the official view is that the euro cannot fail, surely it is inconceivable that the politicians and policy-makers have not given any thought to what might need to happen should it collapse. So what secret thoughts might they be having? How would they cope with the unthinkable?

If the euro ceases to be the financial system would be faced with financial calamity. The means of exchange would be questionable and, in extremis, the euro would become a worthless piece of paper. In addition, all existing legal contracts in bonds and derivatives would be denominated in a dead currency. Left unchecked, this collapse would probably destroy European capital markets and severely damage economies, with global carnage close behind.

First, the authorities would have to create new national currencies as a means of exchange. To solve existing euro contracts issues, you would need a one-for-one successor to the euro, so let's call it the "neuro". We've been here before: the ECU was turned into the euro in the same way. This successor currency would then be legal tender in all European countries. But the big question is who would stand behind this supranational currency?

At present, the euro is the pooled responsibility of member states issued through the auspices of the European Central Bank. To maintain continuity, the neuro would have to be based on this same pool of responsibility. Again, there is precedent: the eurozone has had such a pooled currency before: the ECU was a basket of currencies.

Next, policy-makers would have to determine what the neuro should look like. If it was a basket primarily based on a new Deutschemark, then it would be a hard currency: savers would be very pleased while borrowers would be distraught. If it were a basket full of perceived weaker currencies, savers would be left poorer and borrowers would be relieved. A tough decision.

So how might they justify the national currency weights behind the neuro? They could weight it by GDP; attempt to create a neuro that is equivalent in value to an outside barometer of value like the US dollar; or base the weights on the old ECU. However it was done, at least the markets would have a continuity of contracts.

The consequences of the introduction of a neuro – on a date well-telegraphed in advance – would be far-reaching. Central banks could then set their own interest rates, print their own currency and influence exchange rates. Hopefully, they would all work together for the good of the eurozone. It could well be perceived as a radical and effective way of providing a middle way, so reducing the risk of financial Armageddon. This type of pre-emptive action would also extend the life of the euro and buy breathing time for the authorities. If it is announced as an emergency exit policy – to be implemented only if required – it could even save the single currency.

At the moment, this may sound like anathema to believers in the euro dream, but it may well be the fact that Europe is not yet ready for a single currency. If so, the authorities should recognise the fact and halt – albeit temporarily – on their journey to achieving their ultimate goal. After all, the progress to monetary union has had setbacks in the past, and even ardent euro supporters should have a plan B if things go wrong. The neuro might be a significant part of the solution.

  • Richard Woolnough is M&G Optimal Income Fund Manager

News stories related to the World Bank and IMF

A selection of news stories related to the World Bank and IMF, brought to you by the Bretton Woods Project:

IMF ED: SDRs could be used as eurozone crisis response
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48865020100527
Reuters, 28 May 2010

Romania to cut wages despite strike threat
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FUIH480.htm
Businessweek, 26 May 2010

Leading Indicators Indicate a Lagging Economy

Leading Indicators Indicate a Lagging Economy

leadimage

06/02/10 Tampa, Florida – The Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index for the US declined 0.1% in April, which was not too bad, especially since it followed a 1.3% gain in March, which is not to mention a 0.4% rise in February.

This is, being that it is the Leading Economic Index and is supposed to forecast the future six to nine months out, not very good news, although the Coincident Index (a measure of current economic conditions) was up a paltry 0.3% in April, following a negligible 0.1 percent increase in March, and a 0.1% increase in February, which kind of zero each other out.

The Conference Board’s Lagging Index is the one that keeps me interested, as this is where inflations and burdens lurk, and which increased 0.1% in April, following a 0.1% increase in March, and a 0.2% rise in February, which is in a kind of continual upward pattern, as far as I can tell just by looking at three numbers and doing no more work than that.

Bill Bonner here at The Daily Reckoning is apparently unimpressed with my lazy, lackadaisical ways of looking at data, and asks, “Has the bear market/Great Correction resumed – as we said it would? Or is this just more ‘noise’ – with no particular meaning?”

Of course, always trying to impress Mr. Bonner, I jump up and say, “Yes! You are exactly right, Mr. Bonner, sir, no matter which way the market goes! If it goes down, inflation makes the losses worse, and if the market goes up, then inflation and taxes will negate any illusory nominal gains! It’s all a part of what I have said all this time, you see, about how the Federal Reserve is creating too, too much money, for too, too long, so that the federal government can deficit-spend the too, too much money, basically borrowing and spending us into bankruptcy and a future full of angry, angry people, one of them being me, not only about this pure monetary insanity of the Federal Reserve, but about how some of that money goes to government goons spying on me and shooting strange energy beams into my head with some kind of ray gun so that I will, I assume, be silenced, censored from informing people of the inherent insanity of the Federal Reserve in conducting monetary policy as opposed to adhering to the Constitution and requiring that only gold shall be money! They’re coming to get me, and they’re coming to get you, too, Mr. Bonner!”

I looked at him. He looked at me. The silence was, as they say, deafening, although way off in the distance I thought I heard wolves howling and banshees wailing, just as you would expect from the collapse of the dollar and the reordering of the world’s economic system.

So I said, “I hear banshees and wolves, probably werewolves! Listen!”

It was all perfectly clear to me that the government is evil and insane, which explains why they let the Federal Reserve create more and more fiat money, inflating the money supply which will make inflation in prices go up, which is The Thing To Be Feared (TTTBF) in economics, instead of insisting that money be only of silver and gold, as per The Constitution, and how that means that we should march on Washington DC, throw them all out of office, and install me, The Marvelous Mogambo (TMM), to rule as a living god whose every wish is a command.

Mr. Bonner is apparently not so sure, and, instead, humorously demurs, and says, “We don’t know. But we intend to be in cash and gold when we find out.”

I couldn’t, of course, argue with that, and have myself many times said, “Buy gold when your government is acting irresponsibly by allowing the satanic Federal Reserve to create So Freaking Much Money (SFMM) that ruinous inflation in consumer prices is guaranteed!”

And, as the previous paragraph so richly attests, I just did again! Whee! This investing stuff is easy!

The Mogambo Guru
for The Daily Reckoning

Warren Buffett’s Defense Of Financial Predators

Warren Buffett’s Defense Of Financial Predators

Buffett is already defending Moody’s with statements that appear to be reasonable, but are in fact completely incoherent. Here’s what he says about the top brass at bailed out banks:

“When society has to step in to save institutions . . . the CEO should go away broke.”

So far, so good. But what about the CEO of Moody’s and other rating agencies who fueled the bubble, sabotaged investors, but were clever enough to design a business model that was insulated from the housing fallout? For the CEOs of rating agencies, Buffett suddenly has sympathy:

“The entire American public eventually was caught up in a belief that housing prices could not fall dramatically . . . I believed it . . . that’s the nature of bubbles, they become mass delusions . . . . They made a mistake that virtually everybody in the country made.”

In short, Buffett wants us to come down on the top bankers, but not the CEOs of a rating agencies. And it just so happens that Buffett is the largest shareholder in Moody’s, one of the top rating agencies.

This is a total contradiction. Why have sympathy for the poor rating agency execs but not the bank execs, if everybody is operating under the same delusion? Sure, the government didn’t bailout rating agencies, but the bank bailouts were fueled in part by actions committed by rating agencies, who slapped top ratings on garbage subprime mortgage securities that banks bought. If rating agencies contributed significantly to the need for vast, socially destructive bailouts– and there is no question that they did– their executives should be held accountable for that social fallout.

Buffett’s argument seems to be that, since Moody’s managed to profit from its own social sabotage, it should be immune from public or regulatory scrutiny. If anything, the fact that Moody’s can profit from socially destructive activity should be an irrefutable argument in favor of discharging its management team and regulating the business. In other lines of business, people who profit from socially destructive activity are called criminals (think: stealing an old lady’s purse).

One rather amazing aspect of Moody’s business is their economic research wing. They bought a company run by economist Mark Zandi, who is a very credible economist who, although usually an adviser to Republicans, does serious and respectable research. Like most economists, Zandi is frequently wrong, but he doesn’t do nonsense corporate talking points or nonsense fake-research to bolster particular corporations or sectors. But while Zandi was making a very credible case that the U.S. housing market was in trouble, another wing of Moody’s business was slapping top ratings on housing securities. Either they didn’t believe their own economic research– in which case, they shouldn’t have been putting it out– or they didn’t believe in their ratings. Whichever way Moody’s screwed up, their management cannot be seen as anything but corrupt predators.

In other words, management ignored the advice of their own economic research, and ignored it for several years, and made a killing on it. Rating agency profits are not tied to the performance of their ratings– they’re tied to up-front fees they get for making the rating. Those fees are paid not by investors who use the ratings, but by the banks who issue the securities.

That ability to score huge profits regardless of the performance of their own ratings is exactly why Buffett wants to protect the current Moody’s management and the current regulatory structure. Moody’s team has been very good at securing big profits for the company’s shareholders, while sending society off a cliff. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has introduced a bill that would end the conflict of interest between bankers and rating agencies. If that conflict of interest is ended, Buffett’s profit machine would be severely impacted. Moody’s would have to actually be good at what it does in order to make big bucks.

Zach Carter is AlterNet's economics editor. His work has appeared in The Nation, Mother Jones, The American Prospect and Salon.

CENTRALIZING POWER: THE TYRANTS' AGENDA - 3

CENTRALIZING POWER: THE TYRANTS' AGENDA

PART 3

http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/Images/Timothy_Baldwin_com_hdr.jpg

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
June 3, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

In Part 2 of this article, I established that attempting to restore freedom within the current system and union is ineffectual. Freedom’s studier should know the circumstances in which the American colonies seceded from Great Britain in comparison to the circumstances of the States’ plight today. The results should lead concerned persons to conclude that the people of the States have long lived in submission beyond what the founders deemed in conformity to our duty to man and God. America’s comfort, unprincipled character and unwillingness to pledge our lives, fortunes and sacred honor have, in part, created the infatuation to “restore freedom” within the debauched system of the federal government. To restore freedom, the people must act outside the system, just as America’s founding generation did.

Attorney Jonathon Edmond wrote an article entitled, A Blueprint For Resurrecting Our Republic, which accurately and diplomatically describes the reasons why, in fact, the people of the States are living in slavery to the federal government and which illustrates that federal bureaucracy operates as the rule of law and not the consent of the governed. Indeed, the title of his article, and ones like it, acknowledges that the Republic has been destroyed. Why else would it need to be “resurrected” if it were not dead? Why else would freedom need to be restored or reclaimed if it were not destroyed?

Erroneously, however, Edmund concludes that the answer to this destruction is voting into federal office new politicians, as if even the best carpenters can use rotten wood, rusty nails and disintegrated foundations to rebuild a lasting empire. Not only does this proven-failed solution not comport to the sense and seriousness of our times, but also it does not comport to the manner in which freedom was secured in the first place in the American states. Additionally, it makes a lot of unfounded assumptions concerning the assurances of freedom in the future, the ability of all of American society to be governed under one general government system, the effectiveness of new politicians in the federal government and the timeliness in which freedom can be restored.

Out of the list of six crucially-fundamental encroachments which Edmond enumerates, the one which should protrude out of the subconscious of our minds and out of the roots of our spirit is number 3 on his list, “No Taxation Without Representation,” where Edmond states:

“Because almost all laws are created by unelected heads of bureaucratic agencies, WE ARE TAXED BUT ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE CREATION OF ALMOST ALL FEDERAL LAWS THAT GOVERN US. That taxation without representation violates a primary precept on which the government is based, i.e., that the people are sovereign and that just governments are based on the consent of the governed.” (emphasis added)

Edmond states correctly. Yet, that one could acknowledge this tyrannical encroachment (perpetrated for generations) and still advocate that freedom’s restoration will, can and should be realized through this same illegitimate system reflects a very conflicting understanding. Never forget: “taxation without representation” was the same ominous shadow cast upon the colonies by their mother-country’s tyranny, for which reason the American colonies prepared and executed their resistance to and independence from Great Britain. Let us recall the events clearly for our modern application.

By around the mid-1700s, thirteen colonies had been established under certain authority from the monarch of Great Britain, wherein the people of those colonies formed and created their own local forms of government under their own internal constitutions. However, they were considered the loyal subjects of Great Britain’s government (considered to be the best and freest in the world under their constitution at that time) albeit under its ultimate sovereign authority regarding the political, legal and commercial affairs of the individual colonies.

For all practical purposes, the colonies and Great Britain enjoyed an amiable relationship, until January 1765, when Great Britain passed the infamous Stamp Act, which taxed certain revenue from the colonies. This tax was passed by their Congress, called Parliament, in Great Britain. Parliament acted under the constitutional authority of the British constitution, just as the monarch executed the laws under his constitutional authority.

As the natural response required, the colonies opposed the tax. Yet, “many considered submission in the present state of the colonies unavoidable; and that this was the opinion of Doctor [Benjamin] Franklin himself…The idea of resistance, by force, was no where glanced at in the most distant manner.” [1]

In 1765, the colony of Virginia’s House of Burgesses met to address and petition the concern of the stamp act tax. The men present were of the most virtuous patriotism, spirit and manner. Many of them included America’s founding fathers: Peyton Randolph, Richard Bland, Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe and Richard Henry Lee, who in particular “understood thoroughly the constitution both of the mother-country and her colonies.” [2]

Even still, during that particular assembly, while they considered the stamp act to be unconstitutional and against their natural rights, there was little fortitude to do anything more than to pass resolutions merely stating their constitutional and natural rights as a body-politic and freemen.[3] These colonial resolutions essentially expressed (1) the nature of their settlement of the colonies, (2) the right of the people to tax themselves, (3) the right to govern themselves in their own internal police, and (4) any attempts to regulate and tax the colonies without their consent reduces them to slaves and destroys the British constitution.[4] Even then, these resolutions passed only by a very small majority in Virginia, and did “little more than reaffirm principles advanced…the preceding years.” [5]

After the response of the colonies to the stamp act, Great Britain repealed it, not out of fear but out of strategy. However, “the joy of the Americans, on the repeal of the stamp act, was very short-lived.”[6] Great Britain enacted another tax on the colonies to support the British military which were quartered in the colonies and which were intended to be sent there.

Perhaps even more politically significant, Great Britain continued to assert its “supreme law of the land” constitutional authority over the colonies in every particular regardless of the distinction between internal and external polity and regardless of any laws passed by the colonies to the contrary. To the British government, it was the colonists’ constitutional duty to submit to their lawful authority. Many in the colony agreed--to their prolonging detriment.

I will continue this article in Part 4.

Footnotes:

1, William Wirt, The Life and Character of Patrick Henry, (New York, NY, Derby & Jackson, 1857; reprint by Home School Legal Defense Assoc., Purceville, VA, 1998), 61.
2, Ibid., 67
3, Said resolutions were similar to the tenth amendment resolutions which have been passed by a large number of States in the U.S. recently
4, Ibid., 75
5, Ibid., 76, 77
6, Ibid., 95

mercoledì 2 giugno 2010

Euro : Il y a une limite à la tyrannie !

Euro : Il y a une limite à la tyrannie !
par Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Présidente du Büso

La grève de masse qui s’étend aux Etats-Unis contre la politique d’un gouvernement Obama au service de Londres et de Wall Street, qu’a-t-elle de commun avec la colère des contribuables allemands contre le diktat de l’UE et le plan de sauvetage prévu de 750 milliards d’euros, et avec l’âpre débat qui se répand en Europe sur l’échec de l’euro ? Le dénominateur commun est une prise de conscience grandissante, la population reconnaissant que la coupe est pleine, que les politiques obéissent aux ordres d’intérêts financiers qui ont dépassé toutes les bornes et que les citoyens peuvent et doivent défendre leurs propres intérêts.

Cette grève de masse qui a éclaté l’été dernier, face à la réforme de la santé imposée par Obama et au renflouement de Wall Street, est entrée dans une nouvelle phase. (…) Aux élections de novembre prochain, les membres sortants du Congrès ont peu de chance de se faire réélire, quel que soit leur parti. L’administration Obama a perdu la confiance des citoyens et le déversement du pétrole dans le golfe du Mexique, jour après jour, fait monter d’autant la colère.

En Europe, comme prévu, la crise frappe désormais l’Espagne et, en raison de l’inceste bancaire avec la Grande-Bretagne, nous assistons à un processus similaire contre les mesures d’austérité, considérées à juste titre par la population comme profondément injustes car touchant avant tout les moins fortunés, tandis que les Ackermann [directeur de la Deutsche Bank] engrangent 25% de bénéfices, et même davantage. En Grèce, Espagne, Italie, Irlande et au Portugal, les syndicats appellent à des actions de grève et les syndicats grecs ont raison de dire que ces mesures d’austérité représentent les plus graves atteintes aux droits de l’homme depuis la dictature des colonels.

Qu’en est-il des partis représentés au Bundestag ? Bien que le Financial Times, dès le 29 avril, le Bild-Zeitung le 30, puis toute une flopée de médias début mai aient fait savoir que l’un des plus gros bénéficiaires du méga-plan de sauvetage serait le milliardaire grec Spiro Latsis, dont la banque EFG détient environ 60 milliards d’euros d’obligations grecques, à la fois d’Etat et privées, le Bundestag et le Bundesrat [deuxième chambre] ont allègrement accepté de charger le fardeau de 150 milliards d’euros sur le dos des contribuables allemands. Pourtant, peu avant la fin de l’année dernière, l’EFG-Eurobank avait transféré son siège de Genève à Luxembourg, allégeant du coup la Suisse de 60 milliards d’euros de dettes bancaires grecques et facilitant l’accès de l’Eurobank aux fonds de renflouement de l’UE, le Luxembourg, paradis fiscal de Juncker, faisant partie de l’Union européenne.

Rappelons les ennuis que le président de la Commission, José Manuel Barroso, a eus en 2005 en raison d’un éventuel conflit d’intérêt pour avoir passé à plusieurs reprises ses vacances sur le yacht de Spiro Latsis. Ce même Barroso a exercé de fortes pressions sur la chancelière lors du dernier sommet de l’UE, pour qu’elle abandonne sa résistance au renflouement. Autre invité présent sur le yacht, le prince Charles d’Angleterre, dont le père, le prince Philip, est cousin du roi Constantin de Grèce, qui vit à Londres depuis la proclamation de la république et qui est le parrain du prince William.

En échange de quelques menus services, Constantin a bénéficié du soutien financier de Latsis, sans doute pas un gros fardeau pour un homme qui, d’après le magazine Forbes, peut se vanter de plus de onze milliards de dollars de fortune personnelle et figure en soixantième position de la liste des hommes les plus riches au monde. Latsis a ses entrées dans le cercle intime d’aristocrates, d’oligarques financiers et de profiteurs ayant ruiné des milliards de gens.

Le Traité de Lisbonne déjà violé

Le scandale vient de ce que tous ces faits avaient été exposés par les médias avant le vote sur la « Loi de l’union monétaire et de la stabilité financière », c’est-à-dire le mécanisme de transfert des responsabilités. Les députés pouvaient donc savoir qu’en fin de compte, ils finançaient avec l’argent public le système bancaire contrôlé depuis Londres.

A peine six mois après son entrée en vigueur, le Traité de Lisbonne ne vaut même plus le papier sur lequel il a été – avec bien du retard – imprimé. La transformation de l’UE en union du transfert de richesses et de l’inflation a tout simplement été adoptée à la va-vite. Et déjà, l’économiste de Citigroup, Willem Buiter, estime que ces 750 milliards sont trop peu, qu’il en faudrait plutôt 2000 milliards. Bienvenue, donc, dans la république de Weimar de 1923 !

Côté français, au contraire, on frôle le délire en se cramponnant à une zone euro en voie d’implosion rapide. Le secrétaire d’Etat français aux Affaires européennes, Pierre Lellouche, s’est même réjoui dans une interview au Financial Times qu’avec l’adoption du plan de sauvetage, les dirigeants européens aient violé la clause de « non renflouement » du Traité de Lisbonne. Ce plan constitue, selon lui, une « transposition » à la zone euro du principe de l’article 5 de l’OTAN sur la défense collective. Quand un membre est attaqué, les autres sont obligés de le défendre. « De facto, dit Lellouche, nous avons modifié le traité de Lisbonne. »

Les juges de la Cour constitutionnelle allemande ne manqueront pas d’apprécier son évaluation. C’est quand même incroyable ! Comme l’écrivait Die Presse de Vienne, un coup d’Etat s’est produit et le Bundestag s’est contenté de le faire passer. Si le Parti de gauche l’a rejeté, ce n’est pas pour des raisons fondamentales, mais uniquement parce que le plan impose trop de sacrifices à la population grecque.

Lorsque le gouvernement allemand a pris une mesure d’auto-défense minimale, en interdisant les ventes à découvert d’obligations d’Etat et de CDS (swaps de défaillance contre crédit), la City of London s’est indignée, y voyant un danger pour sa seule « industrie », les hedge funds. Quant au président Obama, il a expédié en Europe son ministre des Finances Tim Geithner (qui a par ailleurs des démêlées avec la justice américaine), dans le seul but de convaincre le gouvernement allemand de ne pas mettre l’interdiction des ventes à découvert à nu et d’autres mesures de régulation à l’ordre du jour du prochain sommet du G20.

Le retour au mark se prépare

Entre-temps, un vif débat a éclaté dans les médias allemands sur le retour au mark allemand, qui ne poserait pas autant de problèmes que ça. Ainsi, le plus important hebdomadaire d’affaires, le Wirtschaftswoche, écrivait dans son dernier numéro : « Ce qui semblait, il y a quelques semaines encore, une fantaisie téméraire, passe, du moins à long terme, dans le domaine du possible. Plus l’UEM se mute en union des dettes, des transferts de richesse et d’inflation, plus les Allemands remplissent les caisses de ce club, plus la pression interne sur le gouvernement de Berlin devrait augmenter dans le sens d’une sortie de l’euro-club. Ceci provoquerait de gros bouleversements politiques dans l’UE, mais du point de vue technique, une sortie est tout à fait faisable. »

Le Wirschaftswoche lâche alors le secret de polichinelle : en attendant l’impression des nouvelles coupures de marks, on pourrait simplement utiliser les billets d’euros imprimés en Allemagne, qui comportent un X devant le numéro de série. Autrement dit, ce que le Mouvement des droits civiques Solidarité propose depuis longtemps !

La grève de masse aux Etats-Unis, dans plusieurs pays européens et ailleurs dans le monde incarne la principale dynamique de la situation stratégique actuelle. Il ne s’agit pas d’un mot d’ordre lancé dans la nature, mais du processus décrit par Rosa Luxembourg, qui se développe lorsque la population perd confiance en ses représentants, élus ou désignés.

Tous ne comprennent sans doute pas tous les aspects de la crise systémique à laquelle nous sommes confrontés, mais il se passe quelque chose de plus décisif encore, ce que le poète Percy Bysshe Shelley évoquait dans le dernier paragraphe de sa Défense de la poésie : en période de profond bouleversement, les gens développent la capacité de « communiquer et de recevoir les idées intenses et passionnées sur l’homme et la nature ».

Même ceux qui, en temps « normal », se laissent berner par les hommes politiques et les médias, se rendent soudainement compte qu’un seul critère vaut, à savoir si l’ordre existant leur permet de vivre une vie accomplie, dans la dignité humaine. Le sentiment formulé par Friedrich Schiller dans le « serment de Rütli » de Guillaume Tell, se répand alors :

« Non, il y a une limite à la tyrannie.
Lorsque l’opprimé ne peut plus trouver justice nulle part,
lorsque le fardeau devient insupportable,
il élève, le cœur confiant, ses mains vers le ciel
et il en fait descendre ses droits éternels qui sont suspendus là-haut,
inaliénables et indestructibles comme les étoiles elles-mêmes. »

Dutch cleaners win nine week strike

Dutch cleaners win nine week strike


Dutch cleaners campaigned for six months for higher wages and went on strike for another nine weeks. It was the longest strike since 1933 and they won - ‘bread and roses’.


The cleaning sector was fully privatized at the end of the nineties. Since then competition has been driving wages down and work pressure up. In the summer of 2009 cleaners, of whom most come from a migrant background, launched a campaign for higher wages, better working conditions and more respect from management. In times of austerity and a government drive for a wage freeze for public workers, this campaign raised the stakes of industrial conflict. If the cleaners could get a raise – why couldn’t other workers? The campaign turned into a model for multicultural resistance against the cut-backs.

Let me take you back a month ago, somewhere in Amsterdam: It was crowded in the room, more than a hundred strikers from several Amsterdam office buildings sat together in their weekly meeting; it seemed chaotic, people going for coffee or a quick smoke, several different languages were being spoken at the same time, English, Turkish, Arabic and of course Dutch. But it wasn’t chaotic, it was excitement, tension and translation.

Abdelilah, a young migrant on strike, had just told everybody that he had been fired for being on strike, the company letter went from hand to hand. Only recently arrived in the Netherlands, when asked to go on strike, he didn’t hesitate, “in Morocco I used to do the same”.

Mohamed, a strike leader from government agency UWV, stood up. He reminded everybody about this fact and about the resolution that had been passed by all cleaners on strike in the Netherlands. An injury to one, is an injury to all. “We made this agreement, now we must live up to it, we must all go to his workplace, and demand his reinstatement. It could be you next time”, he said as he looked his fellow strikers in the eye. Turkish women applauded while Mohamed raised his hands. “In the past weeks we have grown our army of strikers from thirty to more than a hundred, we can make every building in this area of Amsterdam go on strike, so we for sure can save Abdelilah’s job. We must contact our brothers and sisters in other cities about this as soon as possible.” As a union organizer, that was the signal to take my phone and make the call.

So it happened, later that week five hundred strikers from all over the Netherlands, marched to the headquarters of right wing newspaper De Telegraaf, Abdelilah’s former workplace. As they had done a dozen times before during the strike, they occupied the lobby after train cleaners from Groningen broke through security lines to hold the doors open.

Swarming the building, they demanded freedom of speech and organisation for cleaners, something a newspaper should value. The cleaners presented a front page for the next day to a De Telegraaf spokesperson which said they should support the cleaners. The boss of the cleaning company was summoned to the office, as a delegation of cleaners was appointed to do the negotiation. Two hours later, Abdelilah had a new contract. The news of the victory spread amongst the strikers while they were already busy occupying another lobby. Hundreds of cleaners had just proven how precarity can be overcome. A valuable lesson for everyone, not least for the employer.

In the end it took the cleaners six months of actions and nine weeks of strike to win a new national labour contract, the longest strike in the Netherlands since 1933. They won a 3.5 percent wage increase, job education, Dutch lessons and benefits for union members. But above all, they fought for recognition and respect. “What do we want? Respect! When do we want it? Now” was and is their chant. Everybody in the Netherlands now acknowledges the cleaners; they gained massive public support and positive media coverage. They showed the Netherlands that when nobody takes responsibility people become numbers on a budget, creating dynamics that constantly put pressure on their already low working conditions; that is the cost of outsourcing.

In their strike many different backgrounds and ethnicities came together and held each other close. They occupied Utrecht Central Station for six days and nights, singing, dancing, demonstrating, eating and sleeping there. Taking the roof of one of the cleaning companies’ headquarters, linking arms during a sit in at the airport defying security and police forces, presenting the drawings of their children to the queen. They overcame the employers’ tactics of despair; their willingness to fight seemed endless.

For now the cleaners have won a strike for a total workforce of the 150,000 cleaners with only 1,500 active strikers, which shows how much more can be gained with further struggle and unionization. What’s most important however, is the influence of the strike on other sectors. Straight after the victory of the cleaners the garbage collectors of Utrecht and Amsterdam went on an indefinite strike, which ended after one and a half weeks in a pay rise of 1.5 percent for 200,000 municipality workers, breaking the wage freeze of the government. It proves that you only stand a chance if you fight, an important lesson for the coming struggle over the massive cuts.

Willem Dekker is an organizer for the Dutch cleaners’ union.