being wrong still doesn't stop erring ideologists - too bad

.. if at first ...

  .. you don't succeed ...

    .. keep trying 'more of the same?'

Preamble: "The sky is falling! Quick, do something!"

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Merkel, Sarkozy unveil tough eurozone plan
Updated December 06, 2011 13:29:45
  «The two leaders backed automatic sanctions against EU member states whose deficits go over 3 per cent of gross domestic product.
They also called for a "reinforced and harmonised golden rule" on deficits, which could oblige some states to enshrine the commitment to balance their public finances in their constitution or legislation.» 
[AusBC/'news']

Comment: Typical neoliberal rubbish, here "balance their public finances."

More:

  «"The goal that we have with the chancellor is for an agreement to have been negotiated and concluded between the 17 members of the eurozone in March, because we must move quickly," Mr Sarkozy said, warning of a "forced march to re-establish confidence in the euro and the eurozone".» 
[AusBC/'news,' ibid.]

Comment: Why the rush? To force action before others can think?

More:

  «With debt contagion threatening to spread throughout the eurozone, Italy kicked off a critical week by presenting a draconian package of cuts, taxes and pension reforms to parliament as Europe tries to pick up the pace to keep the euro alive.» 
[AusBC/'news,' ibid.]

Comment 1: Typical neoliberal rubbish, here "a draconian package of cuts, taxes and pension reforms" = IMF-type SAPs.

Comment 2: IMHO, "debt contagion" is a furphy; as the speculators cripple one country (bankrupted by soaring interest rates [hereafter shortened to %s], aggravated when not actually caused by short-selling, say), the speculators move on to the next. That's not 'contagion' but serial crime.

More:

  «Prime Minister Mario Monti warned that Italy risks a Greek-style "collapse" if it is not adopted, as financial markets cheered the proposals.» 
[AusBC/'news,' ibid.]

Comment: Who is more important here, financial markets or the people?

More:

  «It was hoped that the proposals would be seen as a credible guarantee that eurozone governments will at last bring their deficits under control and satisfy restive markets.» 
[AusBC/'news,' ibid.]

Comment 1: Is the correct description 'satisfy restive markets' OR 'ward off speculator attacks?'

Comment 2: This ('restive markets') is 'the crunch,' not the two others mentioned in the cited article; more on crunches below. Here is one more, a 'double' quote:

  «European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi has said he could then take action, and many hope the bank will intervene to protect European banks from a credit crunch and buy bonds to rein in soaring rates on government borrowing.
However, Mr Sarkozy said that Germany and France were "in complete agreement to say that eurobonds are in no case a solution to the crisis, in no case."
"How can we convince others to make the efforts we are making ourselves if we pool our debts as of now? None of this makes any sense," he said.» 
[AusBC/'news,' ibid.]

Comment 1: Note that Draghi and Merkozy do not agree. As well as 'the crunch,' we have 'the controversy' = they can't agree = another way of saying that there is *no* acceptable theory. This doesn't necessarily mean no theory at all - after all, 'neoliberalism' is theory - but few and none effectively ('officially') contest this - IMHO *erring* - theory. What we can see is neoliberalism failing in practice, just that nobody ('officially') acknowledges the failure. I write "('officially')" to distinguish 'what they say' (OR what they don't say) from observable reality.

Comment 2: Another key here is "soaring rates;" the EU *on purpose*, does not have a facility like the Aus' RBA, which may set the 'official' %. Nooo, they in the EU have to go to 'the market' to borrow, and 'the market' sets the % = out of all control, except 'the market,' which may be (massive understatement) polluted by speculators, all of whom wish to get rich soonest, so it's in the interest of 'the market' to extract the biggest profit, fastest. Get my drift, here? Hint: What of the people's interests?

Comment 3: This illustrates one of the problems with 'economic rationalism,' namely they always try and often succeed to *sound* rational. Best example: We (the people) have to balance our budgets, so why not countries? It is, of course, a fallacious argument, *proven* by the US deficit, currently 'reported' at ~15trio (but what of the ~13-16trio 'given' to the WallSt. banksters' bail-outs?) The US has *no* intention whatsoever, of *ever* paying their deficit off.

Comment 4: Next, try "TINA!" (Thatcher's "There is no alternative!") There was then, just as there is now, some alternative. Tip: IF hear "TINA!" THEN run the other way. Merkozy (as others) claim threatening debt-bombs, but they were deliberately constructed, 1st by (neoliberalism) cutting govt. income (typically cutting taxes off the rich 1%) and trying to cut services (typically off us, the other 99% *non-rich* rest), but coming up short - and so 2nd, going into debt. A 3rd is the 'nature of the beast,' namely that all $s/€s/whatevers are a) now fiat and b) issued ('printed') as debt (consider the BND, mentioned elsewhere. But quickly, IF a government bank issues *all* the money, THEN that government also collects *all* the % and is in a *much* better budget position, including delivering services = to the %, effectively 'for free!')

Comment 5: Not for nothing, does the expression 'bankster' exist. Since 15Aug'71, when Nixon dropped the gold-standard (some say: The US went broke), all $s(€s/whatevers) are fiat = arbitrarily printed. Even when some money was 'real' (= gold, say), 'leverage' was used by the banks, this being called 'fractional reserve banking.' In a nutshell, this enabled 'trading' banks to issue a multiple, say 10*, of the 'real' money they had on deposit at the central bank, then loaning that out at some % = 'earning' massive, *unearned* profits! As for banksters, 'trading' banks have a literal 'right' to print their own money = a rip-off, and *proof* of the expression 'bankster.'

Comment 6: The sky never falls on its own; there is no Q: "Did it fall or was it pushed," it is *always* pushed. In this case by neoliberalism, cutting taxes off the 1% and loading charges onto the 99% - who, because of another charming aspect of our (actually, not 'ours' but 'theirs' = corrupt economists', banksters', politicians' et al., aka the filthy swindlers') erring ideology - because of a reverse = down-side of neoliberalism, namely globalisation (off-shoring, down-sizing, part-timing, sub-contracting, lean-and-meaning, etc.), we the people are more than a bit 'down-income' = poorer, and so can't compensate for the fat-cats' tax-cuts. Result is rich richer, govts, as us, poorer.

Fazit; the really BIG Q: Where are the decent thinkers, the clever, compassionate & countervailing force, to bring these crims (corrupt economists, banksters, politicians et al.) to justice? Oh yeah, whilst bringing those brigands to justice, don't forget the liars in the almost universally corrupt & venal MSM, incl. big bits of the AusBC.