Re. the French election

The first round of the 2017 French presidential election will be 23 April 2017. Should no candidate win a majority, a run-off election between the top two candidates will be on 7 May 2017.

As far as I know, Marine Le Pen is the only French candidate who has called for France to dump the euro.

To explain why this is important, we need a bit of background…

Many people mistakenly believe that all money in existence is created by banks as loans. When people get this error into their heads, they become unreachable, since they have found their “ultimate truth.” They become trapped in a bubble of their “brilliance.”

For the bubble-boobs, all government spending is actually government borrowing. They acknowledge that banks create loan money out of thin air by making ledger entries (i.e. by crediting accounts) but they refuse to acknowledge that monetarily sovereign (MS) governments do the same thing, and not as loans. MS governments, like banks, create their spending money out of thin air by making ledger entries (i.e. by crediting accounts).

What the bubble-boobs mistakenly think happens in the USA actually does happen in some of the euro-zone nations (i.e. those that use the euro). When those nations adopted the euro, they surrendered their monetary sovereignty to the bankers.

So let’s review all this again. Afterward I will return to Marine Le Pen…

There are three ways that money enters into an economy (any economy)…

[1] Government spending, in which a monetarily sovereign government creates its spending money out of thin air. This happens with the U.S. government, but it does not happen in euro-zone governments, since their politicians surrendered their monetary sovereignty to the bankers. Euro-zone governments cannot create their spending money out of thin air.

[2] Bank lending. Banks create loan money out of thin air, simply by crediting accounts. One of the purposes of austerity (i.e. reduced government spending on social programs that help average people) is to force average people to rely on bank loans, so that they become debt slaves.

[3] A foreign trade surplus. If your nation sells more goods and services to foreigners than it buys from foreigners, then your nation has money flowing in from foreigners.

When we plug this into the real world, we see that although the USA has the world’s biggest foreign trade deficit (by far) this is not a problem for the U.S. government, since the government creates dollars out of thin air, and since U.S. dollars are accepted worldwide. The only people who get hurt by the U.S. trade deficit are average workers whose jobs are sent overseas.

But what if your nation’s government is like a euro-nation’s government, and can no longer create its spending money out of thin air? In that case, your nation must get all its money from a foreign trade surplus. But what if your euro-zone nation has a foreign trade deficit? In that case your nation must borrow all its money from vampire bankers. Your nation’s debt load will keep climbing higher and higher, necessitating more and more austerity to pay the bankers. Your nation will become doomed to a debt-and-austerity death spiral that it can never escape from until it dumps the euro (or until it somehow develops a foreign trade surplus). Your politicians will be forced to impose more and more austerity on you, even if your politicians don’t want to. (But of course the politicians do want to, since politicians are on the bankers’ payroll.)

The purpose of austerity is to force the privatization of public goods, services, and assets, and to accelerate everything else that widens the gap between the rich and the rest.

The purpose of the euro is to make austerity mandatory and inescapable in euro-zone nations that have a foreign trade deficit.

If your euro-zone nation has a foreign trade surplus (like Germany), then its government does not need to borrow from the bankers, since euros flow in from abroad.

But if your euro-zone nation has a foreign trade deficit (like Greece) then you are screwed. All money in your nation must be borrowed from the bankers, who demand more and more blood as payment. The bankers create money out of thin air, and they lend it to your government. When you run out of blood to pay the bankers, the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt compensates the bankers. You remain in debt, but now you owe blood to the vampire ECB instead of the vampire bankers.  The ECB then orders the European Commission to demand that your nation adopt more austerity and privatization (always more) to pay the ECB. Meanwhile the corporate media outlets pretend that the parties who got bailed out were not the vampire bankers, but their victims — i.e. YOU.

France and Greece have foreign trade deficits, and they both use the euro as their currency, which means that neither government can create its spending money out of thin air. Therefore both nations must borrow all their money. This is not accidental. It was all planned by the bankers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

France’s foreign trade deficit is seen below. Since France uses the euro, every minute that France stays in the red zone (trade deficit zone) while continuing to use the euro is another minute that France goes deeper into debt to the bankers.


 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking closer we see that during the last 12 months, France’s foreign trade deficit has averaged 2.28 billion euros per months for the last 12 months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since France uses the euro, the French government cannot create its spending money out of thin air. This means that during the last 12 months, France has gone an average of 2.28 billion euros further into debt to the bankers. Repeat: each month France’s debt load climbs higher by an average of 2.28 billion euros. (27.357billion euros / 12 months = 2.28 billion euros per month.)

This is disastrous, but the damage in France is not (yet) as obvious as is the damage in Greece, since the French economy is nine times larger than the Greek economy. But make no mistake, the economic hardship on average French people gets worse each day. Layoffs, privatization, unemployment, and the “reform” (i.e. destruction) of workers protection laws are all accelerating.

Now comes candidate Marine Le Penn who terrifies the bankers by saying she wants to dump the euro, and go back to using the French franc.

Is Marine Le Pen serious about dumping the euro? I don’t know, but at least she’s talking about it. Of course, if she tried it, the bankers would probably eliminate her. But one can dream.

Some people favor candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon, saying Melenchon is a true socialist. But if Melenchon became French President, then no matter how socialist and well-intentioned he may be, Melenchon would be absolutely forced to impose ever-more austerity and neoliberalism on France, because of the euro, combined with the French trade deficit.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Re. the French election

  1. “although the USA has the world’s biggest foreign trade deficit (by far) this is not a problem for the U.S. government, since the government creates dollars out of thin air.”

    The government creates no money. The Federal Reserve creates it and charges the government for it…

    Like

  2. No person is ever 100% right. I will read your blog, even though I might disagree with some of your interpretations or assessments. As I said previously, the only reason our government is able to create money out of thin air is the fact, that virtually the entire global economy is tied to the US dollar as the reserve currency. Once other nation states or other entities challenge this, all these bets are off. None of these other players will be able to challenge this scheme in the near future, but long-term, that’s another question. A slow disengagement would probably be helpful, but the real economy everywhere is being disregarded for short-term profits by all the big players now. For the time being, it is all about short term speculation – which is not sustainable in the long run for the planet. Am I in favor of more equal distribution of resources? Yes, of course. Am I in favor of global captitalism run amok – which is what neo-liberalism is – no, of course not. Any kind of system, regardless of what we call it, which depends on continued GROWTH, is doomed, because it will not work out from a long term ecological perspective. We, in our Western economies must reject the throw-away consumption levels which permeates our entire society, and others should be cautioned not to follow in our footsteps. The monetary independence is only one part of the equation, but environmental pollution is global, and cannot be entirely avoided by sovereignty of any nation state, let alone individual actors.
    I welcomed your comments at Scott’s blog for the most part, although, I don’t agree with either of you on every issue 100%. On a small scale, this is what happens, when talks freeze and no compromise is possible. Hence, we have warfare on a small scale and on a huge scale. Is it any wonder then, that people like me, are losing hope? I’ve been called a misantrope for the first time in my life…I’m not sure why, except that I do not always follow the positive spin present via human interactions? Nothing is ever black and white, there are never any easy answers to be found anywhere. That’s all I’m saying, and nothing more.

    Like

    1. Thanks for visiting and commenting. Some responses if I may…

      [1] “No person is ever 100% right.”

      Agreed. I will take this up in my next post.

      [2] “Any kind of system, regardless of what we call it, which depends on continued GROWTH, is doomed, because it will not work out from a long term ecological perspective.”

      That is true if by “growth” we mean monetary profits, or an ever-larger GDP. Such growth is a cancer that ultimately kills civilizations. However there are other kinds of growth that won’t doom us, such as spiritual growth. The opposite of spiritual growth is spiritual paralysis, which we see in Scott Creighton’s readers who think that global climate change is a “hoax,” and who think that problems with nuclear power are a “hoax.” Those readers live in tiny bubbles.

      [3] “The monetary independence is only one part of the equation, but environmental pollution is global, and cannot be entirely avoided by sovereignty of any nation state, let alone individual actors.”

      Agreed, but as a species we cannot develop more sustainable technologies as long as rich people steal all the money. And rich people will continue to steal as long as average people continue to believe that money is physical and limited. I encourage you to read my post “Where does money come from?”

      [4] “I welcomed your comments at Scott’s blog for the most part, although, I don’t agree with either of you on every issue 100%. On a small scale, this is what happens, when talks freeze and no compromise is possible.”

      This will be the topic of my next post.

      [5] “I’ve been called a misanthrope for the first time in my life…I’m not sure why, except that I do not always follow the positive spin present via human interactions?”

      Yes, I shook my head when I read that comment. Misanthrope? Clearly you are the exact opposite of a misanthrope. That comment was by “bluegreen” who is an immigrant from Mexico. It’s ironic that “bluegreen” visits Creighton’s blog, since Creighton is a white supremacist who hates immigrants. Creighton’s racism was the actual issue that finished him for me. I will discuss racism in my next post.

      Thanks against for commenting.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks for your reply so far. I’ll be checking out more of your blog as time goes on. As to [3], yes, this makes sense insofar as short term profits via completely rigged economies, is what leads to enviromental destruction. Unlike Scott, I do not believe that global warming is a hoax. The evidence is overwhelming in this regard. My only problem is how it’s being dealt with, namely via carbon credits, which does nothing to stem overall pollution globally. The Paris climate agreements are a joke. I also happen to disagree with James Hansen, who is still in favor of nuclear energy, as far as I know. Too much risk in terms of longterm storage for spent fuel rods, for one thing.
    As to Scott being a racist and white supremacist, I haven’t come across this on his blog. Anyway, this is not about Scott nor his blog at this point. Will have read more of your own blog, to see what your perspective is and possible solutions to our global problems.

    Like

    1. Ella: “Unlike Scott, I do not believe that global warming is a hoax. The evidence is overwhelming in this regard.”

      Overwhelming indeed. Creighton’s belief that climate change is a “hoax” is an example of what I call “cocoon logic.” Inside his little cocoon, he is God. Everything outside his cocoon he rejects.

      How does he justify his belief that climate change is a “hoax”? He doesn’t. I have yet to see anyone offer a convincing argument that climate change is a “hoax.” Even the Pentagon acknowledges that climate change is real. As the arctic ice recedes, the Pentagon is racing to set up new arctic bases to back up U.S. oil and gas companies. Even the oil companies have conceded that anthropogenic climate change is real.

      Ella: “My only problem is how it’s being dealt with, namely via carbon credits, which does nothing to stem overall pollution globally. The Paris climate agreements are a joke.”

      The carbon credits thing is a scam, but this does not mean that climate change is a “hoax.”

      Ella: “I also happen to disagree with James Hansen, who is still in favor of nuclear energy, as far as I know. Too much risk in terms of long-term storage for spent fuel rods, for one thing.”

      In Creighton’s dream-world, Fukishima and Chernobyl are no big deal. Endless tons of deadly nuclear waste are again no big deal. As for James Hansen, he’s a mixed bag, but I agree with Hansen more often than not. I myself do not support nuclear power.

      Ella: “As to Scott being a racist and white supremacist, I haven’t come across this on his blog.”

      He has droned on endlessly about how economic refugees are a “plot” to lower wages, as if neoliberals didn’t already have countless ways to lower wages. Like I said, he has never been outside the USA. He lives in a bubble, and therefore has no sympathy for immigrants. He’s a southerner from Florida.

      Ella: “Anyway, this is not about Scott nor his blog at this point. Will have read more of your own blog, to see what your perspective is and possible solutions to our global problems.”

      Please ask questions. Challenge me. Unlike Creighton’s blog, readers here get all the space they need.

      Like

      1. ‘refugees are a “plot” to lower wages’

        That’s part of it. But more important it is to destroy society’s cohesion, solidarity and empathy that are necessary condition for any society to be able to seek and implement solution to benefit the society. Ethnically and culturally diverse society is the easiest one to control against its own interests. The divide and rule principle always works. Replacing social and economic justice with identity politics is the best contemporary example of it. There is no question that in America for the owner class slavery is the gift that keeps on giving. If it was not for the slavery solidarity among Americans would not have been broken along the racial lines. Because of this fissure lots of things cannot be accomplished just like the Owners desire.

        In 1993 Czechs and Slovaks (Just like Swedes and Norwegian 90 or so years earlier) decided to go their own ways. There is not much difference between them. Most foreigners can’t tell the difference between their cultures, languages. There are way too similar. But apparently the difference were sufficient for them so they decided to go their own ways. Now they are faced with pressure from Brussels to accept refugees from Africa and Middle East and naturally they do resist. Would you call them racists, xenophobes? What would you tell them and how would you convince them to not be against accepting refugees? If they accepted some but put the upper limit, to say 0.5% of population over 30 years would you call them racists or xenophobes?

        I grew up in ethnical monochromatic society in Europe. I knew I had a white skin color but it was just a statement of fact straight form physics or optics. This was not a part of my identity. After coming to the US I was told I was White and that was supposed to mean something that never had any meaning to me. The reality of multi-ethnic society hit me in the face and I lost innocence. This concept of race still is not part of my identity because I was old enough when I came here. I pray Czechs and Slovaks can enjoy their innocence in this respect a bit longer and I cry that Swedes and Norwegians (to a lesser degree) were forced to lose theirs. Cloning dysfunctional America model of society in Sweden and plans to do it everywhere I consider a ultimately bad (because irreversible) thing that will benefit only the Owners because it will make our abilities to resist them much lower.

        I do not know what is Scott’s position on race but I do not believe that he is a racists. Certainly not wanting refugees or immigrants does not make him a racists. He is old die hard leftist, don’t you see it? He is a rare case of a leftist who also believes in lost of conspiracies that usually right-wing nuts believe in. At the same time because of being leftist he will not touch the history of WWII. The main stream orthodox version is a gospel for him.

        Like

        1. Thanks for commenting.

          UTU: Driving down wages is part of it. But more important it is to destroy society’s cohesion, solidarity and empathy that are necessary condition for any society to be able to seek and implement solution to benefit the society. Ethnically and culturally diverse society is the easiest one to control against its own interests. The divide and rule principle always works. Replacing social and economic justice with identity politics is the best contemporary example of it. There is no question that in America for the owner class slavery is the gift that keeps on giving. If it was not for the slavery solidarity among Americans would not have been broken along the racial lines. Because of this fissure lots of things cannot be accomplished just like the owners desire.

          You’re talking about the loss of community and the fragmentation of society. I blame our owners for this, but I blame average people just as much. Average people don’t care about each other. They don’t talk to their next door neighbor. They place flowers at a shooting site when there’s a shooting, but they don’t care about people when they’re alive. Community breakdown is the cause of immigrants, not the result. The people we should hate are not immigrants, but the neoliberals here and abroad who spread scams like NAFTA, which wipe out jobs in foreign lands, and cause desperate people to come here in a bid to survive. For me, immigrants are refugees from economic war. Let us not hate the refugees, but the people who cause refugees; i.e. the perpetrators neoliberalism and economic war worldwide.

          UTU: In 1993 Czechs and Slovaks (Just like Swedes and Norwegian 90 or so years earlier) decided to go their own ways. There is not much difference between them. Most foreigners can’t tell the difference between their cultures, languages. There are way too similar. But apparently the difference were sufficient for them so they decided to go their own ways. Now they are faced with pressure from Brussels to accept refugees from Africa and Middle East and naturally they do resist. Would you call them racists, xenophobes? What would you tell them and how would you convince them to not be against accepting refugees? If they accepted some but put the upper limit, to say 0.5% of population over 30 years would you call them racists or xenophobes?

          If people don’t like refugees, then they should stop supporting government policies that create refugees, such as imperialistic war. Every time the Empire attacks another country, it creates a new influx of refugees. Europe would face far fewer refugees if the Empire had never made imperialistic war on Africa and the Middle East. Let us hate warmongers and imperialists, not their victims.

          UTU: I grew up in ethnical monochromatic society in Europe. I knew I had a white skin color but it was just a statement of fact straight form physics or optics. This was not a part of my identity. After coming to the US I was told I was White and that was supposed to mean something that never had any meaning to me. The reality of multi-ethnic society hit me in the face and I lost innocence. This concept of race still is not part of my identity because I was old enough when I came here. I pray Czechs and Slovaks can enjoy their innocence in this respect a bit longer and I cry that Swedes and Norwegians (to a lesser degree) were forced to lose theirs. Cloning dysfunctional America model of society in Sweden and plans to do it everywhere I consider a ultimately bad (because irreversible) thing that will benefit only the owners because it will make our abilities to resist them much lower.

          If we were to remove all non-whites from society, I doubt it would increase our resistance to our owners. Too many average people love war, and hate all things “socialist.” Too many people have been programmed to worship a “free market” that is controlled by monopolies.

          UTU: I do not know what is Scott’s position on race, but I do not believe that he is a racists. Certainly not wanting refugees or immigrants does not make him a racists. He is old die hard leftist, don’t you see it? He is a rare case of a leftist who also believes in lot of conspiracies that usually right-wing nuts believe in.

          If you don’t know Creighton’s attitude about race, then you cannot know whether or not he is a racist. I say that Creighton is a racist because (in the case of immigrants) he is too eager to blame the victims of neoliberalism, rather than the perpetrators. I myself was a racist for many years against Blacks, because I grew up as a white person in a predominantly Black part of my city. They were always attacking me. I did not soften until I became older and I gained a wider experience of the world. I learned that after WW II there had been a mass migration of Blacks to the western USA (just as there had been a mass migration northward after the U.S. Civil War). Southern Blacks moved north and west in an attempt to better their opportunities, but they ended up facing the same old oppression. Their disappointment turned to bitterness, and then to hostility. I just happened to be an easy white the target for them to vent their hostility. These days I don’t blame them at all. In order to understand things like this, I had to get some experience of the world. I get the strong impression that Creighton has had little or no exposure to the world.

          UTU: At the same time because of being leftist he will not touch the history of WWII. The main stream orthodox version is a gospel for him.

          Anyone (like Creighton) who supports the lies of the right-wing neoliberal Empire is not a true leftist. This was my whole point. Creighton righteously defends the “main stream orthodox version” (as you call it) which is an integral part of today’s neoliberal propaganda. He knows nothing about WW II. He says that Prescott Bush “financed” the National Socialists. (Some people say the Jews “financed” the National Socialists.) This is childish. If your party gets complete control over a nation’s finances, then you have no need for outside “financers.”
          Whenever he speaks of WWII he becomes a fool.

          Thanks for commenting.

          Like

    2. “I do not believe that global warming is a hoax”

      Whether hoax or true still it is a scam. What is the purpose of pumping up this men of the climate change. Cui bono? Most of us can figure out the benefits of this operation. For whom? You have already recognized what are the carbon credits for. On the other hand most of us cannot make rational decision on the basis of the available (pro and con) evidence that (1) climate change is happening, (2) climate change is not natural but man made, (3) what is the rate of the climate change and what are the ramification of it in 10, 50, 100 years, (4) can it be averted by some kind of actions.

      Here is a good short lecture by professor of physics (Nobel Prize) who presents several points why he is skeptical about the climate change. He certainly knows more than I or probably you. He just tries to figure out what should be his position but apparently he cannot because he has doubts.

      Like

      1. UTU: Whether or not global warming is real, it is still a scam.

        If anthropogenic climate change is real, then it is not a hoax. How then can it be a scam? Can the earth’s weather be a scam? I need further clarification.

        UTU: What is the purpose of pumping up this men of the climate change. Cui bono? Most of us can figure out the benefits of this operation. For whom? You have already recognized what are the carbon credits for. On the other hand most of us cannot make rational decision on the basis of the available (pro and con) evidence that (1) climate change is happening, (2) climate change is not natural but man made, (3) what is the rate of the climate change and what are the ramification of it in 10, 50, 100 years, (4) can it be averted by some kind of actions.

        I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real. I can see it personally. In every place I have ever lived, I have seen the local climate change over time. However, climate change is one thing. How we deal with it is another thing. People see scams (such as “carbon trading”) and they erroneously decide that if the response to climate change is a scam, then climate change is itself a scam — i.e. climate change is not real. I think this is faulty logic.

        UTU: Here is a good short lecture by professor of physics (Nobel Prize) who presents several points why he is skeptical about the climate change. He certainly knows more than I or probably you. He just tries to figure out what should be his position but apparently he cannot because he has doubts.

        I will watch it.

        Like

  4. “I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real. I can see it personally. In every place I have ever lived”

    No single person can see a climate change. Climate change is about less than 1 degree increase of Global Annual Average Temperature over 100 years. That what they try to measure. If you lived 100 years in 1000 different places you could at best get some insight into what was going on in 1000 places for 36 days (1year/10) at different times. Sorry, but your personal experience cannot be used to draw any conclusion about what happened to GLOBAL TEMP averaged over 1 year in time period of 100 years. You are fooling yourself and then end up confabulating. The magnitude (very small comparing with natural weather variations) and the geographical scale (very large – whole globe) makes it very difficult phenomenon to measure.

    “If anthropogenic climate change is real, then it is not a hoax. How then can it be a scam? Can the earth’s weather be a scam? ” – Scam artist can act on truth or lie. What is the purpose of the sam? What does the scam artist wants to achieve? How does he want to change your thinking and actions? Ask these questions first. Earths weather is what it is but opening millions and billions on studying it and then on persuading us that something is happening what we cannot see often using disingenuous (and unscientific) arguments is something else.

    Like

    1. UTU: No single person can see a climate change. Climate change is about less than 1 degree increase of Global Annual Average Temperature over 100 years. That what they try to measure. If you lived 100 years in 1000 different places you could at best get some insight into what was going on in 1000 places for 36 days (1year/10) at different times. Sorry, but your personal experience cannot be used to draw any conclusion about what happened to GLOBAL TEMP averaged over 1 year in time period of 100 years. You are fooling yourself and then end up confabulating. The magnitude (very small comparing with natural weather variations) and the geographical scale (very large – whole globe) makes it very difficult phenomenon to measure.

      So climate change is not the same thing as a change in climate. Even though some places have a lot more rain and flooding than they used to have, and other places have far less rain, this is not “change.” Some places are much hotter than they used to be. This is not “change.”

      UTU: Scam artists can act on truth or lie.

      So is climate change the truth, or is it a lie? If you say it is a lie, then we live in two different bubbles, which means we won’t agree. But if it’s the truth, then climate change is a separate issue from how we respond to it. Scam responses to climate change do not necessarily mean there is no climate change.

      UTU: What is the purpose of the scam? What does the scam artist wants to achieve? How does he want to change your thinking and actions? Ask these questions first.

      Is climate change the truth, or is it a lie? It seems to me that this is the first question we should ask.

      UTU: Earth’s weather is what it is but opening millions and billions on studying it and then on persuading us that something is happening what we cannot see often using disingenuous (and unscientific) arguments is something else.

      So if a drought causes a famine that kills millions, we should ignore it, since anything we say about it will be disingenuous and unscientific? I need more convincing before I agree with that.

      If you say that climate change is not real, then we will never agree, for we live in two different universes. However it seems to me that here are many other topics where we do agree.

      Like

  5. “So is climate change the truth, or is it a lie?” – I do not know and you do not know. The bubbles you are talking about are created by beliefs not facts. But you might be right that the climate change is the truth but not because that you know but only because that you believe what you have been told.

    Like

        1. Yes. By the way, I trust you are not another Creighton. He cannot tolerate anyone questioning him. Even if a person agrees with him on 99% of things, Creighton will obsess on the 1% where there is not agreement. If you still don’t agree with him, he bans you. Oh well.

          But you’re right, though. No one’s commenting here. Shall I delete this blog? What do you think? Seriously.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s