Doesn’t seem to me ‘avoiding market turbulence’ is actually of any particular concern in the euro zone:

EU Leaders Urged to Set Timetable for Action (Again)

By Catherine Boyle

June 20 (CNBC) — Ahead of two key European policymaker meetings on the credit crisis Friday, politicians are yet again being urged to set out a clear timetable for action to avoid further market turbulence.

6 Responses

  1. all of this (not worrying about economic, political, social turmoil) makes sense only if there is some other hidden (maybe not so well) goal.
    If we ask the question – what is succeeding in all this European saga? The answer is clear: austerity.
    Maybe that was the goal all along? Austerity is good for grinding the poor, reducing government, reducing real consumption (oil!).

    On the other hand – it could be just a major incompetence, but then what will it take for that to reverse? If nothing reverses that – then it means that this condition is actually good for those who are in position to reverse it (but do not do it).

    If US also embraces austerity – then I think – it is quite clear that it itself was the goal.

    1. @Gary,

      I think some Europeans feel peripheral institutions are inefficient and extractive, and see progress in things like getting rid of Berlusconi. Market turbulence is a tool to put pressure for reform, so they embrace it.

      One could say the same thing about New Mexico in the United States; “California net transfers plenty of money to New Mexico, and supposedly gets California gets nuclear bombs in return, except that we’ve haven’t actually exploded a nuclear bomb in decades and it’s the government so for all we know they spend all their time playing solitaire.” Except that nobody says that because this is the USA.

      There’s no conspiracy, just a bunch of people who decided to use the same money but who fundamentally do not trust each other.

    2. @Gary, If a particular population is to be exploited, then, to avoid resistance, it’s best to stress some other population to provide an example of what can/could happen, if the target population doesn’t behave as desired. Imposing deprivation on a population whose behavior is of little consequence has the additional advantage that the deprived have no clue why they are being victimized. The strategy is kidnapping writ large.
      Indeed, the indirection keeps everyone, but the exploiters, from knowing what’s going on.
      “Austerity” is a synonym for deprivation, better sounding and even more depersonalized. Even though “deprivation of rights” is recognized as a justified punishment for crime, deprivator — i.e. a person who perpetrates the deprivation — isn’t in any dictionary I can find.
      If the economy doesn’t serve the interests of persons, perhaps that the whole enterprise has been depersonalized provides a clue.

  2. Monti Python speaks like Lenin. Selling Italian bonds to cut loses is branded “speculation”.

    “… Monti said that, without a successful outcome at the summit, “there would be progressively greater speculative attacks on individual countries, with harassment of the weaker countries”. The attacks would be focused not only on those who had failed to respect EU guidelines, but also on those like Italy, which he said had abided by the rules “but which carry with them from the past a high debt”.

    “You cannot do anything without rousing the masses to action. A plenary meeting of the Soviet must be called to decide on mass searches in Petrograd and the goods stations. To carry out these searches, each factory and company must form contingents, not on a voluntary basis: it must be the duty of everyone to take part in these searches under the threat of being deprived of his bread card. We can’t expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot. Moreover, bandits must be dealt with just as resolutely: they must be shot on the spot.”

  3. It would seem that the false attribution of agency is a defining characteristic of economic analysis. It may be inevitable when all behavior is indirect in the interest of immunizing those who actually act.
    The formal economy would seem to have incorporated and set a logical fallacy as the model of its behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *