The Self-destruction of Capitalism: The Greatest Battle of Our Times
Published in Ziare.com
(Romania) on 13 October 2011
by (link to original)
(Romania) on 13 October 2011
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Andreea Muntean.
Edited by Mark DeLucas
.
The various dimensions of the crisis affecting the West — economic, financial, budgetary, social — are more than well-known. However, when it comes to interpreting this crisis, as well as discussing how to avoid disaster, opinions vary.
The main reason for these divergent views is that the situation in which Europe finds itself is not the same as that of the United States. Also, in history, they are not even comparable.
Are we in the midst of a repetitive growth crisis, or is this the last phase of a global existential crisis, meant to change the rules of the international game? The solution is either to pump money and facilities into the system, in order to stimulate the economy at any cost or, on the contrary, to impose strict austerity measures, meant to reduce budget deficit and enormous sovereign debts.
In the United States, the Obama administration, as opposed to the Republicans, fiercely supports the first solution. However, the crisis across the ocean is not the same as the one in Europe. More than that, America is a federal country, with a strong central administration, remarkable linguistic unity, just one or two official languages, Spanish included*, and unquestionable national loyalties.
The United States has a colossal sovereign debt of $14 trillion, plus major budget imbalances that have been worsening continuously since the 1960s, when left-wing politics inspired by European ideologies managed to cross the Atlantic and reach the White House — wrapped in the smile of the charming John F. Kennedy.
But it’s still the United States that not only possesses the best war machine ever built, and a sophisticated global system of alliances and partnerships, but also an untouched and perfectly functional production, as well as technological and infrastructural bases.
There was never a time in history when a country in a similar situation went bankrupt or was executed by creditors. One way or another, the United States will overcome this crisis. Worst case scenario: The constitutional republic will have to make way for an empire which until now was never considered as such. Best case scenario: The U.S. will resolve its financial issues on other powers’ backs, who are bound to make serious and irreparable mistakes when calculating their external policy.
But in between the extremes, there are also a few intermediary scenarios. In other words, the U.S. benefits from a reasonable menu of options that keeps it safe from major survival issues.
Therefore, the Obama administration is somewhat justified in strongly promoting the stimulation of growth, even if it implies not only dollar printing and the artificial injection of these dollars into the economy, but also an increase in federal debt.
Since it is guaranteed by the federal government, as written on every bill, the U.S. dollar cannot collapse, no matter the devaluation. Also, the U.S. dollar is strong enough to take on any coming challenge, whether external or internal.
However, there is something that the multi-polarity fanatics are overlooking, and this is the fact that non-western powers, such as China, own huge sums of money in U.S. dollars and therefore have a direct and essential interest in maintaining the dollar’s role as the international trading and reserve currency. This is why, supported by Brazil, Russia is pushing the famous BRIC group, trying to replace the U.S. dollar as the international reference currency. Chinese and Indian officials smile politely and pretend not to understand.
The situation in Europe is far worse. After 2008, European leaders discovered that they are not facing a cyclic crisis of capitalism, but a moment of truth, when the price for all of the left wing’s stupidities, implemented starting in the 1960s, must to be paid.
In reality, the Western European economies are not that capitalist anymore, at least not according to the dictionary definition of capitalism (for example, nowadays China is considered to be more “capitalist” than France). Non-communist Europe’s glorious 30 years of economic growth (1945-1973) are not over because the Arabs raised the price of gasoline, but because the Western politicians introduced the welfare state. The oil crisis in 1973 was nothing more than the final blow to a capitalist system that was already internally weakened.
It was the democratic politicians who smothered economic growth. Under the continuous burden of bureaucratic regulations and the so-called “European Social Model,” Western European capitalism slowly turned into a wreck. Realizing that just 19 percent of France’s gross domestic product comes from the manufacturing industry, there’s no use in Sarkozy shaking his angry fist at European companies who are relocating their production lines to China, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.
Both industrialists and manufacturers prefer offering jobs in capitalist countries, rather than in socialist ones. Considering the fact that it was capitalism that got Europe out of dirt and poverty, Western politicians should be the first to acknowledge this. And nowadays Europe risks falling back into poverty and violence, all with the “help” of the socialism behind social and humanist slogans.
Since 1973, economic growth rates have been constantly flimsy. The illusion of growth was kept up until 2008, through the massive tolerance of extra-European immigration, which turned into cheap labor, prolonging the system’s agony.
As a result, immigration, immigrants and multiculturalism became main subjects for the internal policies of several Western-European countries, whose societies found themselves sitting on a time bomb and not knowing what to do.
Understanding the deadly danger lurking in European countries, European leaders, whether left- or right wing, all chose austerity in their attempt to reduce deficits and maintain control over sovereign debt. However, understanding the danger does not mean that the strategy will work.
The tens of millions of socially assisted people will not willingly accept being sent back to work after 40 years of living just fine with money borrowed from foreign governments. More than that, Western governments are going to be faced with major trouble sending these people back to work. The reason is that these governments are controlled by political, intellectual and media “elites,” who for the past 40 years have been condemning the state’s repressive and judicial functions, democratic or not, and have been praising the “right” of the lazy to be kept by those actually working.
That is not the only danger. For awhile now, Brussels’ bureaucracy has been sniffing the great opportunity of taking European integrity to the next level, which is something that, in times of prosperity and economic growth, European countries would never have gone for.
Under the pressures leading them straight into the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, and those of the banking system, led by ECB, leaders in Paris and Berlin are stumbling more and more after each meeting or summit.
In contrast to the United States, in Europe the worst-case scenario is also the most likely — an empire with no emperor, controlled by an efficient but impersonal bureaucracy, socialized, redistributive, anti-capitalist, anti-liberal, amoral and hostile to Judeo-Christian traditions. Avoiding this outcome is the great battle of our times.
*Editor's note: English is the official language of the United States.
The main reason for these divergent views is that the situation in which Europe finds itself is not the same as that of the United States. Also, in history, they are not even comparable.
Are we in the midst of a repetitive growth crisis, or is this the last phase of a global existential crisis, meant to change the rules of the international game? The solution is either to pump money and facilities into the system, in order to stimulate the economy at any cost or, on the contrary, to impose strict austerity measures, meant to reduce budget deficit and enormous sovereign debts.
In the United States, the Obama administration, as opposed to the Republicans, fiercely supports the first solution. However, the crisis across the ocean is not the same as the one in Europe. More than that, America is a federal country, with a strong central administration, remarkable linguistic unity, just one or two official languages, Spanish included*, and unquestionable national loyalties.
The United States has a colossal sovereign debt of $14 trillion, plus major budget imbalances that have been worsening continuously since the 1960s, when left-wing politics inspired by European ideologies managed to cross the Atlantic and reach the White House — wrapped in the smile of the charming John F. Kennedy.
But it’s still the United States that not only possesses the best war machine ever built, and a sophisticated global system of alliances and partnerships, but also an untouched and perfectly functional production, as well as technological and infrastructural bases.
There was never a time in history when a country in a similar situation went bankrupt or was executed by creditors. One way or another, the United States will overcome this crisis. Worst case scenario: The constitutional republic will have to make way for an empire which until now was never considered as such. Best case scenario: The U.S. will resolve its financial issues on other powers’ backs, who are bound to make serious and irreparable mistakes when calculating their external policy.
But in between the extremes, there are also a few intermediary scenarios. In other words, the U.S. benefits from a reasonable menu of options that keeps it safe from major survival issues.
Therefore, the Obama administration is somewhat justified in strongly promoting the stimulation of growth, even if it implies not only dollar printing and the artificial injection of these dollars into the economy, but also an increase in federal debt.
Since it is guaranteed by the federal government, as written on every bill, the U.S. dollar cannot collapse, no matter the devaluation. Also, the U.S. dollar is strong enough to take on any coming challenge, whether external or internal.
However, there is something that the multi-polarity fanatics are overlooking, and this is the fact that non-western powers, such as China, own huge sums of money in U.S. dollars and therefore have a direct and essential interest in maintaining the dollar’s role as the international trading and reserve currency. This is why, supported by Brazil, Russia is pushing the famous BRIC group, trying to replace the U.S. dollar as the international reference currency. Chinese and Indian officials smile politely and pretend not to understand.
The situation in Europe is far worse. After 2008, European leaders discovered that they are not facing a cyclic crisis of capitalism, but a moment of truth, when the price for all of the left wing’s stupidities, implemented starting in the 1960s, must to be paid.
In reality, the Western European economies are not that capitalist anymore, at least not according to the dictionary definition of capitalism (for example, nowadays China is considered to be more “capitalist” than France). Non-communist Europe’s glorious 30 years of economic growth (1945-1973) are not over because the Arabs raised the price of gasoline, but because the Western politicians introduced the welfare state. The oil crisis in 1973 was nothing more than the final blow to a capitalist system that was already internally weakened.
It was the democratic politicians who smothered economic growth. Under the continuous burden of bureaucratic regulations and the so-called “European Social Model,” Western European capitalism slowly turned into a wreck. Realizing that just 19 percent of France’s gross domestic product comes from the manufacturing industry, there’s no use in Sarkozy shaking his angry fist at European companies who are relocating their production lines to China, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.
Both industrialists and manufacturers prefer offering jobs in capitalist countries, rather than in socialist ones. Considering the fact that it was capitalism that got Europe out of dirt and poverty, Western politicians should be the first to acknowledge this. And nowadays Europe risks falling back into poverty and violence, all with the “help” of the socialism behind social and humanist slogans.
Since 1973, economic growth rates have been constantly flimsy. The illusion of growth was kept up until 2008, through the massive tolerance of extra-European immigration, which turned into cheap labor, prolonging the system’s agony.
As a result, immigration, immigrants and multiculturalism became main subjects for the internal policies of several Western-European countries, whose societies found themselves sitting on a time bomb and not knowing what to do.
Understanding the deadly danger lurking in European countries, European leaders, whether left- or right wing, all chose austerity in their attempt to reduce deficits and maintain control over sovereign debt. However, understanding the danger does not mean that the strategy will work.
The tens of millions of socially assisted people will not willingly accept being sent back to work after 40 years of living just fine with money borrowed from foreign governments. More than that, Western governments are going to be faced with major trouble sending these people back to work. The reason is that these governments are controlled by political, intellectual and media “elites,” who for the past 40 years have been condemning the state’s repressive and judicial functions, democratic or not, and have been praising the “right” of the lazy to be kept by those actually working.
That is not the only danger. For awhile now, Brussels’ bureaucracy has been sniffing the great opportunity of taking European integrity to the next level, which is something that, in times of prosperity and economic growth, European countries would never have gone for.
Under the pressures leading them straight into the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, and those of the banking system, led by ECB, leaders in Paris and Berlin are stumbling more and more after each meeting or summit.
In contrast to the United States, in Europe the worst-case scenario is also the most likely — an empire with no emperor, controlled by an efficient but impersonal bureaucracy, socialized, redistributive, anti-capitalist, anti-liberal, amoral and hostile to Judeo-Christian traditions. Avoiding this outcome is the great battle of our times.
*Editor's note: English is the official language of the United States.
Previous article![]( "2012: Is Michelle Obama a Very Special Agent?")
Next article![]( "With Obama's Help")
