The Future Economic Collapse Of Europe

[SuuT]

Not only will this generation see the collapse of the USA whenever America defaults on all of the loans from China, but we will also be around to witness the future collapse of Europe. On March 25th and 26th, the European Council met in Brussels to discuss possible measures that could be implemented to stifle the decline of the European economy. If the economic collapse in Greece spreads throughout the continent, then Europe could eventually go bankrupt.

The European Council has decided to wait until June before addressing the economic problems within the European Union. Therefore, this procrastination could possibly cost Europe dearly. If something happens within the next two months, then the economy of Europe could fall like a house of cards. You can check out what the European Council talked about on those two days right here.

Here is a quote from page two of the document that was released by the European Council: "If we do not act, Europe will lose ground." Yet, they are going to wait until June to act.

On page three, the European Council lists three things that they believe will bring about an economic turnaround throughout Europe. However, the three suggestions that they are going to implement in June are the very three things that will accelerate their collapse.

The first thing that the European Council plans to do is to bring unemployment under 25% throughout Europe. Europe's deficit is caused because they are paying unemployment insurance to over 1/4 of their entire continent! They plan to have more people work "through the integration of youth, older workers and lower skilled workers and the better integration of legal migrants;" How does Europe plan to have integration when Europe has never experienced racial and economic integration. For example, the USA experienced integration during the 1960's with the passing of the Civil Rights Act. In South Africa, apartheid was abolished in 1991 which lead to integration of the country. However, Europe has never experienced a civil rights movement of that type of magnitude to bring about integration. Depending upon a pipe dream will cause collapse.

The second part of the plan is to put aside at least 3% of Europe's GDP for improving research and development. Instead of using that 3% to lower Europe's trade deficit, they would rather choose to do research. By admitting that more research must be done, the European Union does not currently have a solution on stopping its economic collapse. Why spend so much money on research? Last year's estimated GDP for the European Union was $14.5 trillion. So, the European Union is willing to spend over $400 billion on research and development. As seen by the EU's funding of the Large Hadron Collider, that research will go to waste. Smashing electrons together does absolutely nothing to improve EU's economy. Also, where will the money come if the Collider leaks again and blows up half of Europe?

The third thing that they plan to do is to lower greenhouse gases by 20% of the 1990 level. For all of the countries in the European Union to meet that standard, corporations all throughout Europe will have to cut into their profits to update their facilities to reach that level. The less profit a company makes, the less its stock value will be. When the stock values go down, then there will be less investors in these companies. The decline in investors will then bring about the economic collapse of Europe. This same scenario could also happen in the USA if cap and trade legislation is passed in the future. So, sit back, relax, and grab some popcorn because you will be able to see an even bigger collapse on the horizon then the one that occurred in 2008.


Source (http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5556367-the-future-economic-collapse-of-europe)

[Wulfhere]

That sounds like American wishful thinking. They don't like the fact that the USA is slipping from its leadership in favour of China. To be frank, nor do I, but if America can't or won't accept the responsibility that comes with power, and keeps plunging the world into recessions through its insane worship of capitalism, other places will begin to do develop their own power bases.

[Psychonaut]

That sounds like American wishful thinking. They don't like the fact that the USA is slipping from its leadership in favour of China. To be frank, nor do I, but if America can't or won't accept the responsibility that comes with power, and keeps plunging the world into recessions through its insane worship of capitalism, other places will begin to do develop their own power bases.

Insane worship of capitalism? What else do you think has been responsible for China's recent economic success? If you were to graph the increase in capitalistic tendencies within the PRC's economy and compare it with a graph of their economic clout, the curves would be strikingly similar. If anything, the PRC's rise is a testament to just how quickly capitalism can begin to triumph over a strict command economy.

[SuuT]

That the economic collapse of European markets is something that any American would wishfully think for is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've heard in four or five days.

[Austin]

I'm not being an ass or anything but the U.S. media focuses more on weight loss and diet stories and what is planted in the White House vegetable garden than all its coverage of Europe.

Most Americans have no clue who Gordon Brown, Merkel, or Sarkozy even are. I know this because I occasionally ask people at my university, remember these are university students, and they have no clue at all, one insisted Merkel was a vacuum cleaner and that I was trying to fool him. Then again most university students in America don't vote in their own countries elections so it is no wonder they don't know your politicians.


OH ya our media did do a story on the UK Liberal candidate guy because apparently he is considered 'hot' and it had a story about how he is so easy on the eyes and all and showed pics of UK women adoring him, but it didn't really say anything about what he stood for or anything of depth. Had a bunch of pics of him though, what a poser fagg IMO.


In the last month we actually did get to hear about Europe in our media because you guys had a volcano disturbance and that definitely warranted coverage being a volcano and all, but for instance our media will show nothing of your elections, your political candidates, your political parties, nothing, our media does not want us to know anything of any depth about European politics and its realities.

[Agrippa]

Insane worship of capitalism? What else do you think has been responsible for China's recent economic success? If you were to graph the increase in capitalistic tendencies within the PRC's economy and compare it with a graph of their economic clout, the curves would be strikingly similar. If anything, the PRC's rise is a testament to just how quickly capitalism can begin to triumph over a strict command economy.

The FED-system and modern Financial Capitalism is like a vampire, a parasite.

Yet a free market economy, with limits, is superior to "strict command economy" indeed.

If the Chinese wouldnt manipulate and command the market, they wouldnt be that well off, surely not! They manipulate the currency, they manipulate the market inside of their country and support all their corporations outside MASSIVELY.

The best economical model is:

- Get rid of the Financial parasites, make a fiat money system which IS NOT dept based, so that the people have not to pay interest rates FOR NOTHING to the banks and plutocracy.

- Command the economy by the state where its necessary, leave it up to the individual initiative where it seems to be favourable.

- Make rules which care for the group as a whole and social security and well being of the indivduals.

Let it run.

China had to start from a really bad starting point, we always have to consider it if looking at the failures and asocial tendencies of the system. Yet one thing is for sure, the US system is the worst, because in it nothing being done for the people by the state, but the state is just a mean of the plutocratic oligarchy, which owns and controls the whole money and credit system, can manipulate without any legitimation the own country and the rest of the world in the interests of this small, corrupted clique of the Plutocratic Oligarchy.

[tired]

I work with a Dutchman who tells me the only way to save europe is for all europe to join together into one country ,then kick out every non european and muslim

[The Lawspeaker]

I work with a Dutchman who tells me the only way to save europe is for all europe to join together into one country ,then kick out every non european and muslim
Become one country ? No effing way. But kick out all the immigrants and Muslims ? It would be a step in the right direction.
That Dutch colleague of yours didn't seem to have given it all a good thought. By launching a European superstate we will hand over all power in the hands of the corrupt bankster elite.

[Agrippa]

By launching a European superstate we will hand over all power in the hands of the corrupt bankster elite.

Not necessarily. And one state doesnt have to mean panmixture, no borders and regional ways, cultural and racial preservation etc., at least not necessarily.

The problem is rather that the Europeans won't be able to make it in a peaceful way, even in the face of a life threatening situation I'm afraid, nor that its necessary for a useful cooperation due to common interests.

The plutocrats however always tried to prevent a unified Continental Europe.

The British policy in the last centuries always was to ally up against the most powerful European nation which might have achieved a dominance.

Spain, France, Russia, Germany - every time one of those could have "made it" the Brits were the traditional "backstabbers".

Thats for a reason, the balance of power and the ability to use and abuse Continental conflicts, even financially, without being really threatened themselves on their island, protected by the fleet.

Now after WW2 the Americans jumped in and now the plutocrats had a security for their plans to make Europe what they wanted it to be. Thats the crucial point: They want no independent Europe dominated by one power or united, free of their financial spider web, but they want THEIR Paneurope, like Coudenhove-Kalergi said it:


The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today's races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice.

The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. [22]

Christianity, ethically prepared by the Jewish Essays (John), spiritually prepared by the Jewish Alexandrians (Philo), was regenerated Jewry. Insofar as Europe is Christian, it is in a spiritual sense Jewish, insofar as Europe is moral, it is Jewish.

Almost all of European ethics are rooted in Jewry. All protagonists for a religious or non religious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews of choice [Wahljuden] in a spiritual sense. Nietzsche is the only non Jew, the only European heathen moralist.

In the East the Chinese people are the ethical par excellence [..] - in the West it is the Jews.



From the European quantity-people, who only belief in numbers, the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and Jewry.

Separate from each other both of them stick to their belief in their higher mission, of their better blood, in the different ranks of the people.



In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future: in the feudal blood aristocracy, as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by the farm, in the Jewish spiritual aristocracy as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by money [capitalism].




Instead of destroying Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process.

No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe.



http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php

All can be read in Coudenhove-Kalergi, who was of Eurasian ancestry.

By the way, he got the "Karlspreis" from the European Union, for his merits for the European unification...

The text in the document goes (roughly):
"For his merits for the life long work for the formation of the United States of Europe..."


...Anerkennung seiner Lebensarbeit für die Gestaltwerdung der Vereinigten Staaten von Europa.

http://www.karlspreis.de/preistraeger/1950/vita.html

These "Paneuropeans" are similar to an entrance for state-intelligence hackers into a security program, just for the plutocracy.

Not Europe, not even an Union is the problem, but its structures, premises, ideas and goals. The "European" Union in its current form is the wet dream of the plutocrats, unless the Europeans did something to anger them...

The problem is not the idea of a united Europe or a European Union, the problem lies in the Capitalist and "plural society" approach which finally dates back to what Coudenhove-Kalergi already predicted.

Europe is now in its final stage of transformation into the new homeland of the plutocracy, with Capitalist slaves and an "Eurasian-Negroid" mixed race of individuals, which won't unite against their slave masters as a natural group of people would, but being lost in Capitalist-consumption oriented "Pseudo-Individualism".

I dont know whats the best solution for Europe if getting rid of those, but a united approach at least of some of the nations would be highly preferable, because otherwise, they will just use brute force and have an easy time, like they did in the Napoleonic, Crimean, 1st and 2nd World Wars.

[Albion]

Spain, France, Russia, Germany - every time one of those could have "made it" the Brits were the traditional "backstabbers".

Oh thanks! :(

Spain - did "make it", but lost it because they couldn't hold an empire.
France - "made it" but went to war against basically everybody and treaded and other countries toes a bit too much.
Russia - Did "make it", but wanted to nick British India. What are you suggesting? That we should have let them?
Germany - Too Eurocentric, Europe unlike other countries was (and still is to some extent) full of countries which can put up one hell of a fight against it.
Also Europe is fragmented so it would be hard for Germany in the past to dominate it, however with the EU it does somewhat dominate in the economy today.



Well I can't actually remember Britain and Spain as ever being allies, they've always seemed pretty tense with each other.
France we alllied with after Prussia and latter Germany became all-powerful and a threat, Russia we allied with because of the threat of the axis.
But in the first place we allied with Prussia / Germany because we were two countries which had a lot in common (protestant, monarchy, trade, etc.).

We only switched sides when Prussia / Germay started to become a threat, we didn't stab anyone in the back, we just became closer to France and Russia in terms of alliances.

And as for Russia, we all know why we left them on their own, because they turned commie and against us.

-----

The argument could also be focussed on Germay, what of Germany's fellow Germanic countries which it invaded and occupied? Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark?.
Couldn't it be said Germany stabbed them in the back?
After all, the Dutch before the world wars used to lookup to the Germans and its even written in the national anthem that they were proud of being from the "Duitsch".
I think Germany's the one only backstabber here. :rolleyes2:

Now lets leave this to rest, every European nation has something against the others and we shouldn't let it get in the way. :rolleyes:

[Agrippa]

Well I can't actually remember Britain and Spain as ever being allies, they've always seemed pretty tense with each other.

Well, Napoleonic Wars?

First not, but then...

I mean the British helped the Guerilla, you might know that.

Just look for the Peninsular War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War

Also you seem not to understand what I mean. The British Empire functioned as the headquarters of the Plutocracy from the founding of the Bank of England to the formation of the FED-system in the USA 1913, then being the secondary place to be, for some important families and decision making processes still the No. 1.

If Britain would have fought AGAINST that Plutocracy, I'd say, well, national interests, bad things happen, we would have done the same probably, but as things are, they just protected those which now made THEIR Plutocratic European Union!

I dont blame the English people for everything, because like the German people now, they are just manipulated slaves, but Great Britain as a political power just against at various occasions in a very problematic way.

I mean I dont like the idea of a Napoleonic Europe too much, but even then I ask myself what would have happened if he conquered Britain? Would the plutocracy got away and even abuse the new structures?

I mean the Rothschilds f.e. invested on all sides, were on all sides - but ey, you probably know how the money flew to Iberia from Britain?

Guess what, its even in the Ns. Rothschild movie, the French Rothschilds brought it to Spain, while at the same time getting the debts of France in this war. But it was always clear who they prefer, in the end.


The Rothschild family gambles heavily on the eventual defeat of Napoleon. Their loans are all to his enemies (surprisingly Napoleon allows Jacob, operating from Paris, to raise money for the exiled Bourbons). Their network of contacts enables them to move money around Europe even in wartime conditions. A famous example, but only one of many, is Nathan's transfer of large sums of money from London to Portugal to pay the British troops in the Peninsular War.

By the end of the war the Rothschild family has a vast reputation among the allies, and a close involvement in the government finances of many nations.


http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?gtrack=pthc&ParagraphID=kah

That was the time the Rothschilds became the No. one plutocratic clan in Europe, they made their huge fortune with the Napoleonic wars.

So my problem simply is, that the role of Great Britain is a quite clear one: The primary arm of the Plutocrats in Europe and the British Empire a huge plutocratic adventure to a large degree.

If you dont like that, what I hope you don't, try to free Britain and the world, we can't change the past anyway.

[Albion]

Ah, so your on about the cabal that rules us, I just presumed you were labeling our people.
The rulers of Britain, America and some other European countries are pretty well connected and intertwined as you say, whether they run things behind the scenes though I don't know.

[antonio]

Become one country ? No effing way. But kick out all the immigrants and Muslims ? It would be a step in the right direction.
That Dutch colleague of yours didn't seem to have given it all a good thought. By launching a European superstate we will hand over all power in the hands of the corrupt bankster elite.

Well, being decenes of less powerful states does not seem to being prevented it for happening: see Greece-Goldman&Sachs catastrofic affair to elude EU debt limits. Unfortunatelly we're getting to a point that only way up is trusting Brussel-sprouts leaders. So, Heaven help us! :rolleyes2:

[Agrippa]

Well, being decenes of less powerful states does not seem to being prevented it for happening: see Greece-Goldman&Sachs catastrofic affair to elude EU debt limits. Unfortunatelly we're getting to a point that only way up is trusting Brussel-sprouts leaders. So, Heaven help us! :rolleyes2:

Time to change the horses like Americans might say - or not, dunno :cool:

I'm not sure whether we need an Union for our people's future, I'm just sure we need ANOTHER one and other people in charge than this corrupted and dependent scumbags.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The article makes a lot of good points, but is off on some areas:

An American default on foreign debt owed to China and others would not cause an 'economic collapse'. In fact, it might be the only thing which could save the American economy. The debt service payments would be wiped off the books. The US government would be forced to balance the budget by either tax hikes (still political unpopular enough be unlikely for now), cutting spending (which would be good), or printing money via the federal reserve, which would cause inflation. Inflation wouldn't be that bad, and would help out the people in debt.

The main negative effect would be that the Chinese might likely react by allowing their currency to rise, thus causing an increase in consumer goods, most of which are made in China. This would level off though, and the US would rebuild some of its manufacturing industry, and is already a food exporter.

Also, 'integration' won't help the unemployment problem. How does adding more people to the workforce help, when there are already enough jobs to go around? Integration didn't really help the economy in the US south, it was boosted by the invention of the air conditioner combined with companies moving operations south to avoid the higher taxes and regulation and pro-union laws in the northern states, as well as no longer a necessity to locate near power sources (textile industry grew in New England due to location near water power, and the steel industry in Ohio and Pennsylvania due to location near coal mines).

[ikki]

its the economic collapse of the west, too lofty towers of promises built on other peoples monies, without taking a single look at how to create more of the wealth. It wasnt socialism that created the wealth, military, trade and technological supremacy of the western man back in the shift towards the 1700s.

An era that is fast coming to a close. Soon we will have to learn how to fear eastern supremacy, eastern hegemony. Its an era of mongol overlords..
This shouldnt be possible, considering their overall slow ability to absorb technology.. it is only possible if the west has entered a dark age.
One that has probly been going on for atleast 60 years.. if not 80+

This means that nearly everything done in the last 3 generations has been a terrible mistake. All those things have to be unlearned, and society rebuilt from scratch. I wonder if this is possible without mongol overlords with their boots on our necks and telling us to lick the ground.... and doing so in awe of their utter supremacy.

So a whole lot more humiliation is on the way before there is any chance for improvement.

[Agrippa]

This means that nearly everything done in the last 3 generations has been a terrible mistake.

I don't think, if we look at things more carefully, a lot of things went wrong, but a drastic correction is REALLY necessary in some fields. Unfortunately, its hard to do those corrections, because there is a lot of resistance due to indoctrination of the masses and some structures we have, as well as a lack of deeper understanding.

We shouldnt make the mistake to jump in some fields from one end to the other, because thats most of the time wrong with some exceptions.

In the last 3 generations a lot of positive things happened, most are however rather related to the techno-civilisation and otherwise a more civilised behaviour, yet politically and economically more and more things went wrong indeed.

But like we say in German: Nicht das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten (dont throw out the baby with the bath water).

[SwordoftheVistula]

The technological improvements are good, but society wise things have been going bad for a century. Even some recent small 'improvements' like 'drug decriminalization'-stuff was all legal everywhere 100 years ago.