After Globalisation - Return of Fascism & War
by imposing economic sanctions on um countries that we regard as potential enemies or actual enemies. And that has hastened the break up of the global system and has made it much more difficult to reach agreement cooperation between the big powers on the future of the system how it should go. It breaks up WTO. It breaks up the Swift system. It imposes um protection. I mean you know you have to protect your your your your supply routes and you mustn't give technology to your potential enemies. So it distorts the whole system of comparative advantage on which free trade rests as an economic system.
[. . .]
we are living in a multipolar world and we've got to learn the habits of cooperation in order to survive it.
[. . .]
America couldn't go on providing all these services the services of a strong dollar to the rest of the world when the dollar was steadily weakening because of the um because of the growing input for surplus
[. . .]
how do you get an economic government of the world which is not hegemonic when you don't have a world government? And Keynes had an answer to this and I think it's a brilliant answer which was his international clearing union which was a proposal he made in 1941, for a basically a world bank clearing bank in which nations would hold their balances from trade and which would prevent any country from running a permanent trade surplus or a permanent trade deficit, because they would be subject to penalties if they did so. So the idea was to achieve balanced trade every year and that was rejected by the United States because the United States had most of the world's dollars I mean most of the world's gold I should say at that time, so it didn't want any curb on its ability to use its surpluses for its own advantage. So that proposal was sunk. But that's, if you want a non-nationalist way out of the present crisis, it seems to me that would be one very important step to develop a new version of Maynard Keynes's's international clearer union. Interestingly enough, the Chinese showed some interest in this in 2009, but at that time the Americans weren't interested. They was still the mighty dollar.
[. . .]
in Britain there is russophobia. It's called russophobia is the correct description of it. And it's very very strong and doesn't attend to any other arguments. It makes no attempt to see the Russian point of view on any of the issues which we have are in conflict. It it leads directly to war. It's based on the idea that that Britain must rearm in order to be able to fight and win a war against Russia. Those are the very words of the strategic defence review. Now, of course, it then adds if we are able to win, then we won't have to because that'll be sufficient to terror. But it's ominous that we want to put ourselves in a position now to be able to fight and win a war against the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world. What are these people talking about?
European Union is turning into delicacist what you say or sort of wararmongering organization, without an army or without the possibility of waging war on any reasonable scale and so on. About the obsession with war and continuing a war that's already lost. And in my view or in my most recent view, this has to do with the fact that the European Union has as a project is completely dead.
- Book: La Défaite de l'Occident
The first option is voluntary bilateral contributions. Funding by member states would be considered a non-repayable grant incorporated into each nation’s budget. Ursula said that payments must amount to “at least” €90 billion by 2027, again assuming that all of this will end in 2026.
The EU is offering a second option that states member states will simply carry joint debt in legally binding, irrevocable guarantees to borrow. Brussels claims that a nation could opt-out but that would result in other members increasing their contributions. It is highly unlikely that the union would allow this to happen without severe punishments. The interest payment promise is laughable since Ukraine could never repay, and Russia will certainly not be footing the bill.
Brussels sees nations like Belgium and Hungary as a threat to its centralized power. Von der Leyen suggested removing the unanimity rule in order to impose sanctions on Russia without a consensus. She also recommended that Belgium withdraw from its 36-year bilateral investment treaty with Russia.
The third option is a reparations loan that would use frozen Russian assets. Central securities depository Euroclear currently holds 185 billion euros from the Russian Central Bank, and an additional 25 billion euros is held in commercial banks across the EU. This option is a violation of international law. “As this option would be a financially and legally innovative solution, it cannot be discounted that there are potential knock-on effects, including for financial markets,” von der Leyen admitted. “A concerted effort by the Union, and possibly international partners, to counteract such perception (of confiscation) would need to be made.”
www.armstrongeconomics.com - EU Directs Hundreds of BILLIONS to Ukraine in Latest Plan
