the undeniable beginning of the end ... (EU, world)

 .. this exact (triple)moment - 13:13 local time; as 1st, the eml 'popped' into my in-tray and 2nd, my reaction on previewing it - ending with 3rd, glancing at the clock, marks the now undeniable beginning of the end for the EU:

(Sorry - but not too sorry, updated [1], [2] & [3].)

«Greece requests EU/IMF aid package activation
Posted April 23, 2010 21:00:00
Greek prime minister George Papandreou has asked for the activation of a EU/IMF aid package aimed at pulling the Euro zone member out of a debt crisis.
Tags: economic-trends, world-politics, greece»
[AusBC/justin]

Delivering Greece up to the IMF means that the "Washington Consensus" and associated filthy neo-liberal economics (see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man") - may now proceed to decimate the EU, starting with Greece, then through the rest of the PIIGS, and finally ending, of course, with Germany, after all the more -> less hopeless cases go. Actually, 'decimate' is too mild, try 'totally destroy.'

It's not as if the EU couldn't do it alone - of course they could. But calling in the IMF means *SAP* - if you don't know what it means then try this, perhaps:
  «Through conditionalities, Structural Adjustment Programs generally implement "free market" programs and policy. These programs include internal changes (notably privatization and deregulation) as well as external ones, especially the reduction of trade barriers. Countries which fail to enact these programs may be subject to severe fiscal discipline. Critics argue that financial threats to poor countries amount to blackmail; that poor nations have no choice but to comply.» 
[wiki/Structural adjustment]

I expect that Greece, as almost everywhere else, has already had its fill of the 'standard' neo-liberal processes - i.e. reduced taxes (mostly on - actually, again of course, *off* the rich), smaller government, privatise the utilities/state enterprises, in other words having had economic havoc wreaked upon them. One would think that there'd be no more to squeeze - but let's watch.

Merkel knows that this marks both her & the EU's sell-out to the US (all is now lost), but her reactions vis-à-vis Afghanistan these past weeks - and/but worse, vis-à-vis her own 'electors' - show us exactly whose side she's on - tip: not the people's. Ho-hum, and what else is new? - Only yet another traitor, another anti-democratic, justice-denying tyrant.

Neo-liberalism is seen to have failed, yet it is still being pursued. Q: Why? We see it currently active in both Qld & NSW - via Labor - shame! Supposedly, the people's friends! (What, exactly, is wrong with Labor?) - But neo-liberalism has always been thus, i.e. bipartisan. The people didn't choose neo-liberalism - but may have been, most likely were, seduced by "Lower Taxes!" (Still, oh so cynically, on offer.) Of course, "smaller government" meant/means fewer services and/or eventual higher prices (in *direct* contradiction to the promises) - but few *electors* thought about that - until too late. Not just BTW, bipartisan is anti-democratic.

The only question now to be asked is Q: Why? The fat-cats were already getting the lion's share, way back in the 70s. But it wasn't enough; they had to ruin the entire world to get a few miserable shekels more. Again, why? And worse, how did the really clever ones let this happen? It has been a slow-motion train-wreck (detested Ameri-speak - spit!) - happening right before our eyes, 35+ miserable years long. Again, where are the clever ones, those with a) functioning brains and b) good morals?

-=*=-

[1] Update, 16:51.

There's a funny thing happened here (recently, and more slow-motion); further, I don't recall seeing it written about - or at least not much by others, if at all. (Me? Unique? - Ve-e-ery unique - haw!)

I mentioned this to a mate - now looong and faaar away: "I don't understand it. They're deliberately (meanly, despicably) depressing our incomes - but they actually need us as customers, to buy their production - how's that gunna work?" (This thought is not new; H.Ford knew about it - ergo, his 'declared' policy was to pay a 'living wage.')

A contemporary 'counter' (to 'explain' lower 'home' country wages - *not* from my mate) - was one of the more wicked fallacies of globalisation, namely: "Well yes; people will get a lower % of 'the cake,' but because the cake is getting bigger, you'll actually get more - so shuddup!" (Not a word-for-word quote from any particular ideologue - but pretty damn-close to one I recall having had pitched against me.)

But, as almost everything else coming from the 'erring ideologists;' wrong, wrong, wrong!

Note carefully: On the whole, off-shored production goes/went to low-income workers who, by definition AND others' intent have little to no *surplus* income; ergo, they cannot buy much if any of what they produce. That the 'home' workers, now less- or un-employed also obviously have much less income (if any) - means that the aggregate market for goods is shrinking. Note also, it's not as if lower prices can sell more; without (surplus) income, people can't buy non-essentials at any price. The best a lot can do, is just not to starve. At a rough guess (based on observation, natch), this process is unstoppable - without stopping the wicked exploiters.

Fazit: Incomes are falling fast, and any *surplus* income faster (add in the GFC swindle = lost savings); on the one hand in the 'home' countries, and on the other in the 'sweat-shops' both, it is a tightening, downward-spiral. The only 'new' money is a) merely being 'printed,' and b) going almost exclusively to those already obscenely rich - who, being long so disgustingly over-sated, can't even approach buying the balance of production.

Q: Who will? A: No one; too few disposable $s.

As the cartoons used to end: "That's all, folks."

-=*=-

Finally, Q: "Please, Sir, may I have some more?" A: "No!"

There is no, there can no longer be, any MORE!  The fat-cats are now fighting only over 'market share' - of an ever diminishing 'pie.' (Not even to mention the horrid US & Zs murdering wars-for-spoil, resource-depletion, peak oil - or the excess-CO2 caused climate catastrophe.)

Q: How is any of this progress? A: Into gaol with the whole filthy lot!

-=*=-

[2] Update, 20:20.

Basically, just three(3) questions, what/who is behind this mass-idiocy, and why?

1. *WHY* are so many countries falling into deficit?

Is it a) too much spending (an *eternal* problem), or b) too little tax - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the 'new' neo-liberalism?

2. *WHO* has so much money, that they can lend to all these countries?

Surely, a) it *CAN'T* be the US - they're more broke than anyone else? Or b) is it *nevertheless* the US, freely (and madly) 'printing' money? (Tip: Crooked Wall St. financier/gambler/crooks are separate from the otherwise broke-US. Also, the US 'Fed' is *not* a US govt. agent.)

What- and who-ever, all 'money' is now *fiat* - but not just; money is 'conjured' into existence, these days *literally* by a single computer-keystroke. Yet it *all* attracts interest; one way or another, interest that we the people are expected to pay. (Pass all costs on to the customer.)

3. To *WHOM* is this interest owed, and *WHY* should they get it?

-=*=-

[3] Update, 20:45.

Finally, as at any crime-scene, we have to ask: cui bono?

In plain text, who stands to benefit by bankrupting the EU? And also, a little in the background at the moment, who stands to benefit by bankrupting Iceland, Russia, lots of the old East-European states? And what's gong to happen, after all these countries actually are driven broke? Will the creditors move in, and re-possess the lot?

Again, exactly who stands to benefit?