Angela Merkel positively has not been showing the savvy of a Bismarck: "Debt crisis: tensions mount as Angela Merkel attacks French economy - Telegraph"

Look, the huge, huge mistake that's being made here is that ceding power to Brussels must mean that Brussels has to be more neoliberal rather than socially democratic.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel desperately needs to channel Otto von Bismarck on the mixed economy: the welfare state and how it can be made to work vastly better than the Anglo-Saxon, laissez-faire capitalist model! She could do even better than Otto von Bismarck, but perhaps I'd be holding my breath until I die in the flesh before she would understand how and be able to convince others.

As tensions within the eurozone deepened on Friday, the German chancellor dismissed 'quick fixes' and refused to consider any discussion on pooling debt for eurobonds or Germany underwriting bank deposits in other eurozone countries. (Debt crisis: tensions mount as Angela Merkel attacks French economy - Telegraph.)

Consider:

Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[32] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialists—the Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of emigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist. Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile. {source: Wikipedia contributors, "Otto von Bismarck," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_von_Bismarck&oldid=497687870 (accessed June 17, 2012).}

Angela Merkel positively has not been showing the savvy of a Bismarck. She doesn't seem to be able to fathom that she is in the position of determining the "compromise" where Germany would still get exactly what it wants vis-a-vis productivity in all other EU countries. She simply needs to understand that Germany can "export" (by demand) Germany's productivity ethic and industrialism and without losing a single German job or German prosperity from German hard work, quite the contrary. If she were to do the right things right now, she could guarantee vastly improved living standards across the whole of Europe, obviously including Germany!

I'm pretty sure even Adolf Hitler would have been able to see it.

If Angela Merkel holds out with the Austrian School economists, she will have lost the biggest opportunity handed to her in her life. She will fail. If on the other hand, she comes to her senses and realizes that she has no choice but to compromise and lead, as Bismarck definitely would do were he in her shoes right now, she will succeed beyond her wildest imagination.

The way through is via the European equivalent of United States Notes, not eurobonds! They don't need bonds. They don't need more or any national or European debts. They can wipe out all such debts and be free of debt slavery to the bankers forever! Do it. Show that you have the brains.

Here's the exact wrong analysis and prescription: "Europe Will Splinter Regardless of Greek Election Outcome; "France Has At Most Three Months Before Markets Make Their Mark" says German Official," by Mish Shedlock.

Here's another one that never mentions United States Notes: "The Bang! Moment is Here," by John Mauldin.

Also see some of my other previous posts on this subject:

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.