Thursday, May 13, 2010

¿APOCO Sí?




Después de dos años, el rey mandó a las ciudades de Judá
al Director de Impuestos, que llegó a Jerusalén con un poderoso ejército.
Este habló a la gente con palabras de paz para engañarlos.

1 MACABEOS 1:29.







"... si no les ofrece el espectáculo de anarquía y gobiernos ineptos y sin escrúpulos."

... intentaremos explicar problemas relacionados con el petróleo; problemas complicados, ya que su origen es de carácter científico y técnico, pero con repercusiones económicas, políticas y hasta sociales.

... Al crecer las sociedades y hacerse más complejas las relaciones entre los países, se empezó a tejer una verdadera red de compromisos políticos y complicaciones socio-económicas, aunque los aspectos tecnológicos siguieron relativamente simples.

...

_ ¿Por qué hacer las cosas derechas y sencillas si nos las podemos hacer torcidas y complicadas?

Hemos uncido al carro de la Historia a todos los pueblos, haciendo que países antaño modestamente felices se avergonzaran de serlo, según el viejo adagio de que los pueblos felices no tienen Historia.

...

En una alquimia inversa y escatológica (de los fines últimos), el petróleo nos ha colocado en el papel de aprendices de hechiceros, resaltando las obscuras y viscosas motivaciones viscerales que llevan al origen mismo de la vida y, paralelamente a los complejos mecanismos que permiten entrever al hombre la forma en que puede transformarse en un ser de luz y armonía.



... Lo que sí está en el horizonte inmediato es que se convierta en precioso, después de haberse prostituido, explotado, esparcido sin tasa ni medida. Lo que sí está sucediendo es que el abastecimiento de petróleo es precario, difícil, complicado, caro y vulnerable. Se trata pues, esencialmente, de un problema logístico, de abastecimiento y jerarquización de recursos.

... lo que tiene que invertirse son las premisas básicas que engendran la dinámica, la acción, el movimiento y, por ende, la generación energética.

_ ¿Que necesitamos energía y energéticos? Carente de sentido es discutirlo. Pero, ¿para qué? He aquí el quid de problema.

...

_ ¿Que la civilización sufrirá un "retroceso"? Cabe que demos contenido y significado al término: de hecho, ya está "retrocedida".

Lo esencial es que honestamente, con profundo sentido autocrítico, indaguemos en cuanto a nuestras motivaciones tan "humanas" y pasemos a instrumentar planteamientos y soluciones que vayan mucho más allá de los aspectos tecnológicos, cayendo así, francamente, en el ambiente ético, en el ontológico, en la razón de ser.

Si queremos disponer de más energéticos y por lo mismo de energía, hemos llegado al momento de que sepamos qué es lo que debe hacerse con ella.

Si es para seguir movilizando infantería de la retaguardia al frente, como hiciera Foch en Francia, gracias a la gasolina de la Standard Oil; o para que los Stukas alemanes pudieran alcanzar sus objetivos de bombardeo gracias a la gasolina sintética Fischer-Tropsch; o para que Rommel y Montgomery se pudiera dar cita en El-Alamein gracias a combustibles de la Shell-Royal Dutch; o para que el "pacífico jet-set" pueda seguir concurriendo a los casinos de Las Vegas; o para que . . ., para que . . .

. . .

Para encontrar el nuevo sendero que nos saque del extravío, de lo contingente, es condición necesaria y suficiente, como dicen los matemáticos, que seamos capaces de ver con claridad dentro de nosotros mismos, detectando, y estableciendo una jerarquía de valores en aras de nuestra supervivencia.

. . .

Ya José María Luis Mora, político mexicano de singular agudeza, percibió desde mediados del siglo pasado la persistente, compleja e irremediablemente problemática que vincularía a América Latina con el mundo anglosajón. Ante el caos que imperaba en el México de entonces, insistió en que una nación débil sólo puede aspirar a ser tratada de igual a igual por parte de los poderosos, si no les ofrece el espectáculo de anarquía y gobiernos ineptos y sin escrúpulos. Espectáculo que desgraciadamente el conjunto de países latinoamericanos ha persistido en seguir ofreciendo en el teatro mundial.



. . .

El conservador quiere mantener lo existente tal y como es, porque está bien situado en el mundo, porque se siente bien en su poltrona, porque la vida es buena para él; porque cualquier cambio no podría más que perjudicarlo. También es reaccionario, puesto que tiene la mirada fija en el pasado, quisiera detener el tiempo, quisiera que las aguas contaminadas del río remontaran a su manantial original en búsqueda de la pureza pérdida.



Desde su atalaya, contemplando vastos panoramas y oteando el horizonte, León XIII en su Rerum Novarum decía: "La solución se va a encontrar en el choque de las fuerzas en pugna, con la terminación de la era del mercader. El lucro dejará de ser el supremo resorte de toda acción y propósito. En otra forma, el hombre no sobrevivirá ..."

... Nos dirigimos pues a un público adulto, actual de conciencia planetaria, que no contempla el mundo únicamente desde estrechas fronteras e intereses puntuales y circunstanciales y que sólo se siente seguro ingiriendo slogans nacionalistas.


LANUZA, J.A. Petróleo: El Recurso más allá de la capacidad de negociación. Editorial Offset S.A. de C.V. 1986. México, D.F.



"... No Hurricane Warning, ...yet." .



¿Llueve o no llueve? ¿Voy o no voy? Güeno, por lo menos esta vez los forecasts traen una muy útil probabilidad asociada.

_ Why the sky is so grey, Marco? -me inquiere ayer la chinita. Is it because a hurricane is coming?

_ No, babe -I tell her in a patronising mood. There's no hurricane warning, yet.

_ So, why is so cloudy then? -she certainly is seeking for a straight answer.



_ Well, I got another explanation, but you might think I'm crazy if I let you know "my reasons" -le digo, mientras yo mismo evaluo (y desecho en el acto por el momento, porque la intensidad, la latitud y altitud (de acuerdo a la publicado), entre otros factores, parece que no son los adecuados para influenciar el clima planetario) lo que mi actividad cerebral está produciendo.







"... Pus, ¿'ónde andabas?".



La botana de la semana en este domicilio fiscal, ha sido la más reciente historia de uno de nuestros cuates, narco de clóset, según el diagnóstico de mi carnal. Este último me da detalles del suceso.

_ Ja, ja, ja. Nombre bato, que llega este güey y nos dice: "¿ya supiste lo que me pasó?". ¡Ah, chinga! ¿Porqué tendría que saberlo? -se contesta mentalmente my hermano.

Anyway, no es momento para perder la inercia del fantástico relato.



_ Pues que me dan el levantón, loco. Andaba en un encargo de ellos, y como no me reporté, pues que me llevan junto con unos paisas. Y luego, luego que me dan el calentón, loco -le cuenta a mi brody y a otro de nuestros compas también.

_ ¿Apoco sí? ¿A dónde te llevaron? -pregunta uno de sus interlocutores.

_ Aquí nomás cerca del puente, ahí tienen una casa de seguridad bien acondicionada. ¡Ah, sí!, te decía. Sin decir agua va, que me tiran de un madrazo y en el piso me agarraron a patines entre todos, yo namás me cubría la cara -les platica realmente excitado.

_ ¿Y los paisas con los que llevabas? -sigue la sesión de preguntas.

_ Alos, mandaron pa'l otro mundo a dos. A uno de ellos le dijeron: "¿Te quieres morir?", y moles que le dan un plomazo -afirma sin titubeo alguno.

_ No manches, chaaales. ¿Y nadie oyó? -pregunta extrañado nuestro compañero de oficina.

_ Nel, güey. Ya te dije que estaba bien construido, tenía protecciones contra ruido, loco. Es más, al otro que le dan con una fusca con silenciador, y ya cuando piró que se me recarga despacito en el hombro -y aprovecha entonces pa' rematar el relato. Después que me intentan meter miedo: "aquí te vas a quedar, compadre, viene tu licencia y la del IFE, pendejo."

_ 'Tá bien, a mí lo que ustedes quieran; pero nomás no se metan con mi familia y mis hijos -intenta, con un aplomo de último minuto, salvar su mancillada honra.

No porque sea más trinchón, sino simple y sencillamente porque soy más preguntón, a mi me toma dos preguntas enterarme de la narcoaventura.

_ ¡Qué onda, mi Tony! -me saluda nuestro protagonista (12 de Mayo, 2010, Ricardo Rocha conversó con Manlio Fabio Beltrones).

_ Nariz boleada, aquí nomás -esta vez mi desgano tiene como causa una pimpón gripe en pleno calorón, hágame el fabrón.

_ ¿Ya supiste de mi levantón, bato? -repite la fórmula pa' captar atención.

_ No, ¿pus 'ónde andabas y qué estabas haciendo, cabrón?

_ Errr, pues por aquí cerquita, loco. Nombre me pusieron una buena madrina porque no me reporté luego, luego -el hilo argumental es el mismo.

_ Oye, bato; ¿y tu cuñado? no te hizo el paro? -porque (se) ha corrido la voz que su pariente sí anda metido en el negocillo más rentable, Calderón, al servicio del narco) de esta frontera.

_ No, Tony. El anda en otras ondas -me contesta de mala gana. Bueno, carnal; me tengo que ir, porque tengo que recoger a los chiquillos de la escuela -y con ello regresa a un mundo más real.


Finalmente, ayer, otra de nuestras fuentes nos brinda nueva información que expone las inconsistencias del relato.


_ ¿Cuándo dices que pasó eso? -pregunta otro de nuestros cuates que "facilitan trámites" en la ciudad.

_ El jueves en la tarde, según -contesta dubitativo my brody.

_ No manches, yo ví a ese güey ese día y a la misma hora por 'onde andaba yo. Hasta me dijo que estaba ayudando a unos compas con una broncota, ya sabes como es -nos quita por fin parte de la venda de los ojos. Yo, a ese bato, le creo el 5%, y todavía le pienso mucho.

Ok, espero que con eso cerremos el caso.


PURA PSICOSIS




El caso que aún no hemos cerrado es el de saber cuál es "la ciudad más violenta" del noreste de México.


_ Nombre primo desde que esos locos empezaron con sus mamadas no he visto la mía -me dice mi pariente cuyo negocio va en franca picada.

_ ¿Apoco sí te ha ido tan mal, primo? - oso todavía preguntar.

_ Nomás pa' que te des una idea: estas últimas tres semanas se me fueron en Blanca Nieves. Y eso que ahora se juntó el día del niño, de la madre, del maestro, del estudiante y... nada -me dice desmotivado.

A mi primo se le ve un poco más sereno cuando compartimos la cena con otros parientes el pasado fin de semana.

_ Nombre tía, pura psicosis, la gente se cree todo lo que le digan -le reclama a nuestra educadora más veterana.

_ ¿Apoco me vas a decir que fue psicosis los que aparecieron colgados en el puente? -le devuelve nuestra tía.

_ No, pero tampoco era lo que ellos dijeron, ya habían inventado una historia que si eran Zetas, o que sé yo, y luego resultó otra cosa, ¿apoco, no? - lanza el dardo mi primo.

_ Pues, yo no sé. Pero mija me dice que ella trata de seguir su vida normal en Monterrey, y que sí sale por las noches, que tratan de salir a cenar a la calle de vez en cuando, y que no se pueden estar nomás encerrados -tercia otra de mis tías.

_ ¿Y mis otras primas también salen, tío? -trato de involucrar al único que ha permanecido callado hasta ahora.

_ Sí -dice sin estar completamente convencido. Ellas no han dicho otra cosa distinta, me imagino que continuan igual.

_ Pues, en la tele a cada rato sacan un montón de muertitos, de quién sabe dónde -interviene la patrona.

_ Por eso la gente no sale, tía. El otro día que vino la gorda esa a Tampico y se armó en la feria hubiera visto después... todo solo -mi primo insiste en convencerlas de seguir el ritmo normal de vida.

_ Mmm, pus 'tá chistoso, pero Matamoros está más tranquilo de lo que ustedes nos han dicho; será cuestión de percepción o será el sereno pero cada uno de nosotros piensa que la que se está cayendo es la ciudad en la que vive el otro -termino metiendo mi... cuchara.




... to be finished.






Seems that a pair of very basic questions are sufficient as a prevention on driving us crazy.

A ver pué:

Fuera de la consideración de si usté anda en sus días ligeros or under a shot of testosterone -or something in between, que podría ser el más mesurado justo medio-, ¿le falta algo a nuestra estrategia contra el narco? (yo pensé que era algo más etéreo like la delincuencia orgianizada, sorry, organizada), primos); 'tonz ¿pa' que meterle más dinero al Plan Mérida? En fin, allá ustedes y sus...


This week we've seen another episode of the "love to hate you" soap opera between two prominent members of the ruling party (güeno, ellos juran). Nevertheless, I got two doubts: Which one you owe much more fidelity: the party or your "reserved organisation", buddies? How much you estimate will be the increase in the polls among the electors?

Muchísimo más importante que todas nuestras presentes e insignificantes dudas existenciales es the XXI century Great Depression. Así que, quisiera preguntar(les): ¿De ´ónde chingaos va a salir el dinero pa´l nuevo rescate? ¿A quién se le ha de otorgar el copyright de la ideota de replicar el Fobaproa de Oeste a Este sin distingo alguno?



¿Seremos capaces de utilizar dos simples preguntas -de sentido común- pa' evitar que nos lleven al baile, camaradas? AL TIEMPO.




M@RChorerO

MATAmoros, TAMatando la vía electoral;

14/05/10 ¡Felíz día del teacher! No matter, they've cancelled all your celebrations in our state, according to my very reliable informers.



. . . ¿Éste es el último trago amargo antes de otra revolufia?



MIRACULOUS ENCORE:



QUEEN - THE MIRACLE - (TRADUCIDO AL ESPAÑOL)(1989)















http://marcosalas.blogspot.com/2010/05/apoco-si.html
http://creatividadsocialmentecomprometida.blogspot.com/2010/05/apoco-si.html

“I personally called Abbas and asked him not to quit” – Tzipi Livni

13 May, 2010, 11:22

In an interview with RT, Israeli opposition leader and former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni talked about Victory Day, proximity talks with Palestinians, and the future of her country.




Moscow Metro bombing organizers killed – FSB

13 May, 2010, 17:01

Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) says that it has identified the people responsible for the Moscow metro bombings.

The announcement on the March attacks was made by the head of the country's security service, who was speaking at a press conference in the city.



“We have identified all members of the group behind the blasts in the Moscow Metro, both the organizers and the bombers themselves. When we tried to detain three members of the group – one of them being the person who escorted the suicide bombers from Dagestan to Moscow, and then guided them to the Metro – we could not take them alive as they fought back, so we had to take them out,”
FSB director Aleksandr Bortnikov said.

Read more

Bortnikov added that material evidence and leads for this case have been obtained. After subsequent analysis has been carried out the investigation will advance further.

Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev reacted to the killings with no remorse whatsoever.

“Those who put up resistance need to be wiped out, and there is nothing to be sorry about,” Medvedev said.

Meanwhile Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliev said the police managed to thwart a terror attack in Moscow organized by an extremist group.

“They planned a high profile bomb attack with numerous casualties,” he told journalists.

The police had found a powerful home-made bomb with a timed fuse. Earlier reports mentioned that in April police arrested two students who were on their way to a Moscow park to test one of explosive devices they had made together at home. The minister didn’t specify whether the bombing he mentioned was planned by those two.






Sepa lo que es el capitalismo

Atilio A. Boron

Rebelión


El capitalismo tiene legiones de apologistas. Muchos lo hacen de buena fe, producto de su ignorancia y por el hecho de que, como decía Marx, el sistema es opaco y su naturaleza explotadora y predatoria no es evidente ante los ojos de mujeres y hombres. Otros lo defienden porque son sus grandes beneficiarios y amasan enormes fortunas gracias a sus injusticias e inequidades. Hay además otros ("gurúes" financieros, "opinólogos", "periodistas especializados", académicos "bienpensantes" y los diversos exponentes del "pensamiento único") que conocen perfectamente bien los costos sociales que en términos de degradación humana y medioambiental impone el sistema. Pero están muy bien pagados para engañar a la gente y prosiguen incansablemente con su labor. Ellos saben muy bien, aprendieron muy bien, que la "batalla de ideas" a la cual nos ha convocado Fidel es absolutamente estratégica para la preservación del sistema, y no cejan en su empeño.

Para contrarrestar la proliferación de versiones idílicas acerca del capitalismo y de su capacidad para promover el bienestar general examinemos algunos datos obtenidos de documentos oficiales del sistema de Naciones Unidas. Esto es sumamente didáctico cuando se escucha, máxime en el contexto de la crisis actual, que la solución a los problemas del capitalismo se logra con más capitalismo; o que el G-20, el FMI, la Organización Mundial del Comercio y el Banco Mundial, arrepentidos de sus errores pasados, van a poder resolver los problemas que agobian a la humanidad. Todas estas instituciones son incorregibles e irreformables, y cualquier esperanza de cambio no es nada más que una ilusión. Siguen proponiendo lo mismo, sólo que con un discurso diferente y una estrategia de "relaciones públicas" diseñada para ocultar sus verdaderas intenciones. Quien tenga dudas mire lo que están proponiendo para "solucionar" la crisis en Grecia: ¡las mismas recetas que aplicaron y siguen aplicando en América Latina y África desde los años ochenta!

A continuación, algunos datos (con sus respectivas fuentes) recientemente sistematizados por CROP, el Programa Internacional de Estudios Comparativos sobre la Pobreza radicado en la Universidad de Bergen, Noruega. CROP está haciendo un gran esfuerzo para, desde una perspectiva crítica, combatir el discurso oficial sobre la pobreza elaborado desde hace más de treinta años por el Banco Mundial y reproducido incansablemente por los grandes medios de comunicación, autoridades gubernamentales, académicos y "expertos" varios.

Población mundial: 6.800 millones, de los cuales

* 1.020 millones son desnutridos crónicos (FAO, 2009)

* 2.000 millones no tienen acceso a medicamentos (www.fic.nih.gov)

* 884 millones no tienen acceso a agua potable (OMS/UNICEF 2008)

* 924 millones “sin techo” o en viviendas precarias (UN Habitat 2003)

* 1.600 millones no tienen electricidad (UN Habitat, “Urban Energy”)

* 2.500 millones sin sistemas de dreanajes o cloacas (OMS/UNICEF 2008)

* 774 millones de adultos son analfabetos (www.uis.unesco.org)

* 18 millones de muertes por año debido a la pobreza, la mayoría de niños menores de 5 años. (OMS)

* 218 millones de niños, entre 5 y 17 años, trabajan a menudo en condiciones de esclavitud y en tareas peligrosas o humillantes como soldados, prostitutas, sirvientes, en la agricultura, la construcción o en la industria textil (OIT: La eliminación del trabajo infantil: un objetivo a nuestro alcance, 2006)

* Entre 1988 y 2002, el 25% más pobre de la población mundial redujo su participación en el ingreso mundial desde el 1,16% al 0,92%, mientras que el opulento 10% más rico acrecentó sus fortunas pasando de disponer del 64,7 al 71,1% de la riqueza mundial . El enriquecimiento de unos pocos tiene como su reverso el empobrecimiento de muchos.

* Sólo ese 6,4 % de aumento de la riqueza de los más ricos sería suficiente para duplicar los ingresos del 70% de la población mundial, salvando innumerables vidas y reduciendo las penurias y sufrimientos de los más pobres. Entiéndase bien: tal cosa se lograría si tan sólo se pudiera redistribuir el enriquecimiento adicional producido entre 1988 y 2002 del 10% más rico de la población mundial, dejando intactas sus exorbitantes fortunas. Pero ni siquiera algo tan elemental como esto es aceptable para las clases dominantes del capitalismo mundial.

Conclusión: si no se combate la pobreza (¡ni se hable de erradicarla bajo el capitalismo!) es porque el sistema obedece a una lógica implacable centrada en la obtención del lucro, lo que concentra la riqueza y aumenta incesantemente la pobreza y la desigualdad económico-social.

Después de cinco siglos de existencia esto es lo que el capitalismo tiene para ofrecer. ¿Qué esperamos para cambiar al sistema? Si la humanidad tiene futuro, será claramente socialista. Con el capitalismo, en cambio, no habrá futuro para nadie. Ni para los ricos ni para los pobres. La sentencia de Friedrich Engels, y también de Rosa Luxemburgo: "socialismo o barbarie", es hoy más actual y vigente que nunca. Ninguna sociedad sobrevive cuando su impulso vital reside en la búsqueda incesante del lucro, y su motor es la ganancia. Más temprano que tarde provoca la desintegración de la vida social, la destrucción del medio ambiente, la decadencia política y una crisis moral. Todavía estamos a tiempo, pero ya no queda demasiado.

http://www.atilioboron.com

Rebelión ha publicado este artículo con el permiso del autor mediante una licencia de Creative Commons, respetando su libertad para publicarlo en otras fuentes.

rCR

EU in Crisis

A Nightmare for the European Dream

A commentary by Christoph Schwennicke

Europe is not in good shape these days.
Zoom
AP

Europe is not in good shape these days.

Political unity, a common currency, border-free travel and lasting peace. The European Union was to have become a kind of eternal utopia. Instead, no one has dared to further develop Europe since the days of Helmut Kohl. Now, the EU is looking decidedly mortal.

Making Europe immortal is a very old idea. After being struck by one of Eros's arrows, Zeus, the father of all Greek gods, fell madly in love with Europa, the daughter of the Phoenician king. When he later realized that his beloved was doomed to pursue the path of an ordinary mortal, he named a continent after her and proclaimed: "You shall be immortal, Europa, because the continent that has accepted your body shall bear your name for all time."

You shall be immortal, Europa? The current euro crisis reveals that it isn't quite as easy as Zeus implied.

"Oh, Europe," Hans Magnus Enzensberger sighed in the title of his book, published years ago, in which he summarized "perceptions," or fictitious reports, from seven different countries. Today, "Oh, Europe" are the words any true Europhile must be exclaiming with a sigh.

I am one of those people. I am one of those idealists who have always believed in the European idea and will continue to do so. It was and still is incredible how this continent has bundled together its economic, political and military forces, and that there is more that unites its countries than divides them.

Is it even possible to experience Europe? The absence of war for more than half a century, Europe's greatest achievement, is not an experience at all. As a result, those who were born after World War II take it for granted to a far greater extent than they should.

Finally, the Euro!

Indeed, I have experienced Europe. I experienced Europe when I spent a year studying in Metz, where I got to know French students in the university's German studies program. We searched for common ground and differences, and found both, and we talked and talked. And we understood each other. That's Europe.

Later on, I suffered in Great Britain, an island I love, but whose euro-phobia I cannot understand. Tony Blair's biggest political miscalculation wasn't the Iraq war. Instead, it was his campaign to finally and irreversibly lead Great Britain to Europe. I was furious when, years ago, I read a book by Bill Emmott, the former editor-in-chief of the Economist, whose vision for 2021 included a weak future for the EU and who declared the euro to be a temporary phenomenon.

My outraged comments are still written in the margins of my copy of the book, which is now seven years old. "What nonsense!" "We'll see about that!" "Outrageous!" I was sure that Emmott would soon regret what he had written, and I was firmly convinced that Great Britain, after witnessing years of the common currency's success, would eventually join the euro -- for utilitarian reasons, not out of passion.

I was relieved when the euro was physically introduced nine years ago and the "deutschmark patriotism" Jürgen Habermas had once observed did not turn into hatred of the new currency. Although people were deceived by all the talk of how nice it would now be to go on vacation without having to exchange money, a laughable, superficial argument for the fact that 11 pioneering countries within the European Union at the time were not only giving up their national currencies, but also a significant portion of their national sovereignty. Leading up to the introduction of the physical euro on Jan. 1, 2002, editorial staffs at every publication were preparing for major revolts. But they never materialized.

Bigger and Bigger

Since then, that is, since Helmut Kohl, no one has dared to develop Europe any further and to give up significant aspects of their sovereignty at the European level. After the common currency was introduced, the next logical step would have been to announce the goal of forming a joint military -- not as a utopia, a desire or a vision, but as a solid goal.

Instead, Europe has been disintegrating since Maastricht. The house grew bigger and bigger, while becoming more and more warped and wobbly at the same time. More and more additions were built, even though the foundation wasn't really designed to handle those additions.

As a result, politicians, in their desperation, resorted to declaring a two-speed Europe. Or, like Wolfgang Schäuble and Karl Lamers in 1994, creating an ambitious core Europe and assuming that the slower nations would eventually catch up.

It was a pathetic display, and it has long since become reality. The lack of borders represented by the name of a small Luxembourg wine-growing village, Schengen, only became reality in eight countries at first, with the euro dividing the EU into participants and non-participants. Europe, a potentially strong entity, has become a bureaucratic monster and a bad design. The new common foreign policy does nothing to change this. It doesn't give Europe the single telephone number Kissinger once wished it could have, but instead adds even more extensions to an already long list.

Downhill Ever Since

Exactly 10 years ago Joschka Fischer, probably the most ardent pro-European politician in Germany next to Helmut Kohl, tried to correct the situation in a speech on Europe's finality. The speech, which included multiple rhetorical twists and turns, is still worth reading today -- and is also a sad document of European history.

Fischer described a new treaty among nations, "the nuclear of a constitution for the federation," as an interim step prior to the completion of political union. On the basis of this underlying agreement, the federation could "create its own institutions, a government that should speak with one voice for the members of the group on as many issues as possible within the EU, a strong parliament and a directly elected president. This center of gravity would have to be the avant-garde, the locomotive for the completion of political integration, and already encompass all elements of the eventual federation."

As we know, this attempt -- the constitution -- failed. Things have been going downhill for Europe since then. Instead of creating a joint military, Europe must now be worried about keeping its common currency. Europe could end where it began: in Greece. Today, Bill Emmott's book reads like an early prophecy. Either Europe sees this existential crisis as a chance to correct the mistakes that were made for years, or this potential world power will go down in the history of empires as the first to fail before it even became one.

There are reasons to be very worried about Europe. It is as mortal as a Phoenician princess.



The World from Berlin

'Europe Must Lay a New Foundation for the Euro'

This crisis has made many forget the benefits of the euro, German  commentators argue.
Zoom
dpa

This crisis has made many forget the benefits of the euro, German commentators argue.

The European Commission wants euro-zone members to coordinate their budget policies with one another in order to avoid another crisis like the Greek one. German commentators welcome the proposal and argue that the many benefits of the euro currency union should not be forgotten.

The euro zone is broken. That, at least, is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the current crisis in the European monetary union. Only through a series of massive interventions, such as a €110 billion bailout for Greece and a €750 billion package to prop up the euro, has the European Union been able to stave off a Greek default and bring a certain amount of calm to financial markets. And it's still not clear if those measure will even be enough to prevent Greece -- and possibly other euro-zone members -- from facing further finacial crises.

Calls for a fundamental reform of euro zone rules have become louder in recent weeks. Critics say that the current Maastricht Treaty rules, which focus mainly on limiting budget deficits and national debts, do not go far enough. A monetary union requires closer economic and political union, critics say, otherwise differences between the member economies puts a strain on the single currency.

On Wednesday, the European Commission presented a proposal for tighter rules to keep euro-zone members within strict debt and deficit limits and help prevent another crisis like the one in Greece. The Commission wants euro-zone governments to coordinate their budget policies with other members in advance, to prevent overspending. The proposal, which could mean autonomous nations have less control over their own economies, may see finance ministers discussing budget plans with other EU members before they present them to their own national parliaments.

"Coordination of fiscal policy has to be conducted in advance, in order to ensure that national budgets are consistent with the European dimension, that they don't put at risk the stability of the other member states," European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs Olli Rehn said in a statement.

The plan also calls for the creation of a permanent mechanism for providing financial assistance to cash-strapped euro-zone members. Such a mechanism could eventually replace the €750 billion package that EU finance ministers agreed on earlier this week, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said.

But before they can become law, the new rules must be approved by EU member states. The plan is likely to face opposition from France and Germany, who will not welcome the challenge to their national sovereignty.

Following the German Model

In an interview with the German magazine Die Zeit published Wednesday, Rehn also called for other euro-zone countries to adopt measures similar to Germany's so-called "debt brake." The debt brake or debt ceiling is a 2009 amendment to the German constitution which from 2011 will oblige Berlin to start balancing the budget so that by 2016, the deficit must not amount to more than 0.35 percent of GDP.

On Wednesday, Spain also announced a package of sweeping austerity measures, including a 5 percent cut to salaries in the private sector and reductions in pensions and regional government funding. The measures are part of plans to sort out Spanish finances amid fears the country's economy could be contaminated by the Greek crisis. Madrid wants to reduce the Spanish budget deficit from 11 percent of GDP to 6 percent in 2011. Other euro-zone members will report on their savings plans next Monday, the Financial Times Deutschland reports.

A rare note of optimism in the euro zone's future also sounded Wednesday, when the European Commission said that Estonia could join the single currency in 2011, provided it won the backing of the EU's other members. Rehn said Estonia's membership would send "a strong signal about the euro area."

On Wednesday, German commentators analyze the need for reform of the euro zone. They also stress that the many benefits of the common currency should not be forgotten amid the current hand-wringing.

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

"The old euro zone is dying. The process of founding the new euro zone is just beginning."

"The old euro zone was based on a fiction, namely that common monetary policy and the deficit rules of the Maastricht treaty would be enough to ensure that individual economies did not diverge too much. But after a few years of convergence, that was all over: The Greeks used cheap interest rates to inflate their public sector, while Spain bet everything on a real estate boom."

"The new euro zone, however, needs to be based on a better and more comprehensive set of rules than the old stability pact. Member states will have to give up some of their sovereignty as a result. Hence the move by European Commissioner Olli Rehn to force euro-zone members to grant other members a say in their budgetary planning is a good first step."

"The greatest danger now is that support for tougher rules will disappear if, in the medium term, the markets show signs of calming down again. But without comprehensive reform of the euro-zone rules, the next crisis will not be long in coming."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"In the medium and long term, it is a completely worthwhile goal to get the euro-zone members' budget deficits and public debt back to levels which are close to the Maastricht criteria. And clearly the EU needs new tools to do so -- that is one of the lessons of the current crisis. Rehn is therefore drawing the correct conclusions when he calls for the European Commission to have greater rights to intervene (in members' budgets) and when he calls for an EU-wide 'debt brake' in line with the German model."

"In the short term, however, the EU should be wary of selling tough austerity measures as the only real remedy to the crisis. In this respect, the euro zone is divided into two parts. Investors have limited confidence in the ability of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland to solve their debt problems on their own. In fact, they need to save now and reduce their budget deficits, in order to win back credibility."

"For the northern euro-zone members though -- most notably Germany and France -- there is no debt crisis waiting around the next corner. They should not, therefore, fall into a fearful cost-cutting panic spurred on by the financial markets. Instead, they should aim to return to within the Maastricht limits through moderate and realistic medium-term plans. Otherwise the EU runs the risk of stifling the economic recovery because of a decline in state spending. And without economic growth, it will be difficult for all the countries involved to reduce their deficits."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The problem with the euro zone is that the potential dangers of the single currency were clear from the start, while, to this day, its achievements have yet to be properly acknowledged. It's true that it is difficult to squeeze such different economies into the corset of a common currency. And what can go wrong in such a process is currently clear."

"The euro's benefits are much harder to ascertain at first glance. They are, however, immense. German companies no longer need to worry that products made by their competitors in France, Spain or Italy will suddenly become cheaper, simply because those countries have devalued their franc, peseta or lira. The euro, together with EU laws, allowed a real single market to be created, with measurable success. In the first 10 years of the euro, the euro-zone countries created on average 1 million new jobs each year -- five times more than the average in previous years."

"Anyone who wants to abolish the currency union -- - either deliberately or because there is no support for the euro-zone members under attack in the international financial markets -- would have to do without all these benefits. Anyone who neglects the monetary union renounces prosperity."

"The basic mistake was to ignore the fact that a common currency requires political unity. The price of that lack of unity is clear at the moment. (…) A strict corset of regulation must be introduced to ensure that euro-zone members stay the course (in the event of a crisis). Europe's major task over the next few years will be to lay a new foundation for the euro. Otherwise, the monetary union really will break apart."

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"There are many useful ideas in Olli Rehn's paper. The EU economic and monetary affairs commissioner would like to reawaken the original spirit of the Stability and Growth Pact to make it possible to intervene earlier in the budgetary policy of spendthrift countries as well as to increase the penalties for not sticking to the rules."

"All that sounds good, but on the whole, it misses the real problem. Over the past two months, the EU and the euro-zone members have demonstrated two things with deplorable clarity: First, they act too slowly during a crisis, and secondly, they are quick to throw all their principles overboard in an emergency. Bearing those things in mind, it is hard to see how a minor reform of the stability pact, whose rules countries have always ignored anyway, will better protect Europe against future crises."

"The deciding factor lies elsewhere: Europe must quickly make it clear to the rest of the world, and especially to the alleged speculators, that it can enforce the reforms, requirements and penalties which already exist."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"According to recent surveys, more than half of all Germans want the mark back. That is a dangerous wish, because since its introduction the unloved euro has risen to become the second global reserve currency, next to the dollar. China alone is believed to have accumulated no less than €0.5 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. A deep fall in the value of the euro, or even the collapse of the common currency, would have dangerous and unpredictable consequences for the entire global economy -- and especially for the export-driven German economy."

"Europe must find a way to get Greece's reckless creditors on board. Speculative financial excesses need to be contained using political means; they should also be made unattractive through a transaction tax. Additionally, Europe needs to have a common economic policy, something that is a necessary complement to the single currency. That would include an alignment of tax rates in order to stabilize budgets, measures to reduce inequality between rich and poor and a mechanism to harmonize the different wages, prices and productivity in different countries."

-- David Gordon Smith



SPIEGEL Interview with Economist Nouriel Roubini

'We Will Have Even More Crises in the Future'

Banking centers like Frankfurt must submit to fundamental reforms,  says Nouriel Roubini.
Zoom
dpa

Banking centers like Frankfurt must submit to fundamental reforms, says Nouriel Roubini.

First came the real estate crisis. Then the financial system melted down. And now, skyrocketing public debt is threatening entire countries. Star economist Nouriel Roubini tells SPIEGEL that more crises will come and go before world leaders agree on true reform. He says breaking up huge banks would be a good place to start.

SPIEGEL: Professor Roubini, you have a cameo role in the upcoming sequel of the movie "Wall Street." Who are you playing?

Roubini: I'm playing myself. But it's just a small role. There is a scene right after Lehman has collapsed where I'm being interviewed as "Dr. Doom," worrying about the global financial system.

SPIEGEL: We understand you also acted as a consultant for Oliver Stone, the director of the movie?

Roubini: I was not a formal consultant, I just helped him with some advice. We met on a couple of occasions and he asked me about the financial crisis. He also came to a social event with clients of my firm; he wanted to meet hedge fund managers. I came rather accidentally to my role in the movie as "Dr. Doom."

SPIEGEL: You got your nickname, of course, because you were predicting the financial crisis at a time when many other economists were still full of optimism. Are you still pessimistic about the future of the global economy?

Roubini: First of all, I'm not a perma-bear. I am not always negative about the future. Rather, I want to assess the situation correctly. But if I look at the economic picture of the world now, I still see plenty of dark clouds.

SPIEGEL: According to the International Monetary Fund, economic activity is picking up again with forecasts of 4 percent growth this year. Isn't this cause for Dr. Doom to surrender to Dr. Boom?

Roubini: I'm a realist. I can only see a few bright spots in some countries like China, India or Brazil. But the rest? The US economic recovery has been anemic, Japan looks comatose, and Europe is facing a double dip. The Continent is vulnerable to falling back into recession. Even before the Greek shock, the outlook was rather moderate, but now euro zone growth is closer to zero.

SPIEGEL: What do you think about the dangers presented by Greece?*

Roubini: Today the markets are very worried about Greece, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. Increasingly, bond market vigilantes have woken up in places like the UK and Ireland. Even the US and Japan will have problems because of their huge budget deficits. Maybe not this year, but they will eventually. In the US, states like California, Nevada, Arizona, New York and Florida have immense fiscal problems. The growing budget deficits and the huge government debts are really what worry me most.

SPIEGEL: Is it really the right thing to do for the IMF and the EU to help out Greece with €110 billion?

Roubini: That is only kicking the can down the road for a year. I am afraid that Greece, more likely than not ,isn't just illiquid, but insolvent. And providing an insolvent country with money and forcing it to make painful cuts isn't going to do it. Even if taxes are raised and spending is cut, Greece won't necessarily become more competitive. On the contrary, output might fall, unemployment might rise and market share will be lost. We need a plan B.

SPIEGEL: What should that plan B look like?

Roubini: It is necessary to start with a pre-emptive debt restructuring. We have to find an orderly solution for debtors and creditors. And we also need to work out fiscal adjustments for other euro zone countries like Portugal or Spain.

SPIEGEL: Do you think the German government would agree to that? German banks would have to come up with billions once again.

Roubini: Indeed, more than €300 billion of Greece's public debt is held by non-residents, mostly financial institutions from Germany, France and Switzerland. They will have to forego a part of that. Too much time has already been lost by ignoring the Greek crisis. Without such a plan B, if Greece collapses in a disorderly way then the domino effect hitting Spain, Portugal and other parts of the euro zone could be very rapid and dangerous. Eventually, this could lead to a destruction of the monetary union.

SPIEGEL: Did German Chancellor Angela Merkel make things worse by not reacting fast enough to the crisis?

Roubini: Yes, the EU wasted several precious months in designing a support package for Greece in part because of German political resistance to such a package. Domestic German politics and growing skepticism about European monetary union led to a delayed policy response that damaged the efforts to contain the Greek crisis and prevent it from infecting other parts of the euro zone.

SPIEGEL: Was monetary union a mistake?

Roubini: I wouldn't go that far. But it might have been a mistake to allow so many countries in so early. A smaller core of countries that are economically more homogenous, fiscally more sound and committed to structural reforms would have made for a more successful monetary union. The trouble is, once they are in there is no exit without causing a lot of damage.

SPIEGEL: Today, it's a debt crisis. Before that it was a banking crisis. And before that a real estate crisis. Must we get used to constantly being hit by new crises?

Roubini: I am afraid so. In my new book, I show that crises are part of capitalism's DNA. They are not the exception but rather the rule. Many elements vital to capitalism, like innovation and risk taking, also trigger frequent collapse. And what we just went through could get much worse in the future.

SPIEGEL: You make it sound as though crises were inevitable.

Roubini: They are not inevitable. But if you look at history, you will see patterns repeated -- such as excessively loose monetary policy, leveraged vulnerabilities and weak regulation. And we will see them again. Probably we will have even more crises in the future.


Part 2: 'We Have to Starve the Beast'

SPIEGEL: Is there a script for crises?

Roubini: No crisis is identical but many of them are similar. There is a stage of boom and bubble before the bust and the crash. People will see the value of certain assets like homes or equity go up, then they will use these assets as a collateral for borrowing too much and therefore you have a build-up of leverage in the financial system. And then, once the bubble goes bust, the value of the assets falls and people are stuck with all this debt they can't repay.

SPIEGEL: But how do you recognize a bubble?

Roubini: It's difficult. I get suspicious when people say, this time it's different and this innovation is going to radically change the way we live and work and it is going to lead to long-term massive increase in actual wealth. During the tech bubble there were people writing books with titles like "Dow at 36,000."

SPIEGEL: Currently a lot of money is going into commodities like oil and copper. Is that our next bubble?

Roubini: Possibly. To me it looks like some of it is not due to demand but liquidity chasing commodity. It is one of my major concerns right now: We decided to save the global economy by flooding the world with a massive amount of liquidity. Now we risk making the same mistake as during the last cycle.

SPIEGEL: But what would have been the alternative to stimulus programs and the intervention of the central banks? Leaving it to the markets could have driven the world into a depression.

Roubini: That's true. But we have to be careful not to go down that road for too long. Otherwise we risk creating zombie banks and companies that are kept alive artificially. Also, look what is going on with the banking industry. We started with a too-big-to-fail problem, and part of the policy response to the crisis has been even more financial consolidation. JP Morgan took over Bear Stearns and Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch. What we have now is financial institutions that are even bigger. Those institutions, even more then before, know if they do something dangerous, something reckless, they will be bailed out again.

SPIEGEL: Should the institutions that are too big too fail be broken up?

Roubini: Why not? We have to starve the beast. The official policy approach has been, let's create a resolution regime for an orderly wind down. My concern is: How do you, in an orderly fashion, close down a globally operating financial institution like Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley in the heat of the next crisis? It is too risky, and in the end it would be: Let's bail them out again.

SPIEGEL: But how do you determine who is too big to fail?

Roubini: If I had to think about the parameters that define a systemic important institution, certainly the size of assets and liabilities as a share of the financial system and the GDP are relevant. Certainly the amount of leverage and liabilities not only on, but also off the balance sheet are important. And how crucial that institution is in the clearing and payment system is also important. At the end of the day, it is not too hard to figure out which ones they are.

SPIEGEL: US President Barack Obama has introduced plans for financial reform, including the so-called Volcker rule and other regulations to limit the size of banks. Is more drastic regulation needed?

Roubini: It's a good start, but I am thinking in a more radical direction. The financial supermarket model obviously has not worked. An institution where you have, all in one place, commercial banking, investment banking, hedge funds, insurance and lots of other financial services becomes too complex to manage. No CEO can effectively monitor that. So, this all needs too be broken up into pieces. If you have many different institutions which do different types of financial services, none of them will be systemically important.

SPIEGEL: Almost 100 years ago, the US government broke up Standard Oil -- and the world ended up with pieces that became bigger than the original.

Roubini: What I am proposing goes back to Glass-Steagall Act types of restrictions between commercial and investment banking, regulations that already existed until about 10 years ago. They worked well.

SPIEGEL: What additional financial reforms do you consider indispensable?

Roubini: The derivative markets have to become more transparent, and securitization has to be more strictly regulated. Financial institutions need to change their compensation systems in a way that they don't lose sight of long-term interests. And the rating agencies need to be forced to change their business model so conflicts of interest are no longer an issue.

SPIEGEL: Unfortunately, it seems rather utopic right now for very far-reaching reforms to be pushed through.

Roubini: I don't expect that my views are going to be implemented during this crisis. We might have to wait until the next one, until more radical proposals will be considered. My worry is that if we don't create a system where these crises occur less frequently, then the backlash we have seen in recent times against market oriented economies, against reforms, against globalization, against free trade, could become more severe the next time around. The lesson is actually if another crisis were to occur down the line, it's going to be even more virulent then the last one, even more damaging and costly for any measure you want to look at, income, jobs, wealth, fiscal costs. We just can not afford that.

SPIEGEL: Your reform proposals are derived from the current crisis. Will they also work for avoiding any kind of future financial crisis?

Roubini: We can not make crises disappear entirely. But if we can make them less frequent, less virulent, that will already be a success.

Editor's. Note: This interview was conducted before the European Union and the International Monetary Fund agreed on a €750 billion package to shore up the euro in the early hours of Monday morning.

Interview conducted by Thomas Schulz and Alexander Jung