Must Read From the Economist

South of Wall Street's picture

The Euro: Beware of Falling Masonry from the Economist

The prospect that one country might break its ties to the euro, voluntarily or not, would cause widespread bank runs in other weak economies. Depositors would rush to get their savings out of the country to pre-empt a forced conversion to a new, weaker currency. Governments would have to impose limits on bank withdrawals or close banks temporarily. Capital controls and even travel restrictions would be needed to stanch the bleeding of money from the economy. Such restrictions would slow the circulation of money around the economy, deepening the recession.

Sounds great.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Save the barking and the biting for your masters. Save your energy for using a hammer and nails. Put them to good use nailing some bankers and Wall Street parasites to union made crosses. Then, ask them "What would Jesus do?" THEN - say a prayer. Like Clint Eastwood said once "I tried patience once. And, I didn't like it."

Zero Govt's picture

we've seen the 'Justice' system, the Regulatory system and the political system sit on its fat over-paid arses for 4 years and whistle Dixie (do nothing) on massive blatant mortgage fraud

those systems have clear as crystal failed on every level from every angle on every promise... in fact all have shown nothing but complete contempt for justice and the health of society ...junk the rotten lot of them in the trash can

it's time for society to have its day of retribution/s

gasmiinder's picture

Do you have any clue what the National Socialist Workers Party is?  Or why it had that name?


The problem is that Fascism in its original form used extreme nationalism as its main "attractor" to the populace.  That aspect is usually considered right-wing; but is rare and getting rarer in modern political movements.  

There is however no question that the economic policies of fascism were complete government control of the corporations that dominated the economy as well as total government regulation of every aspect of economic life with a complete disregard for the rule of law or individual rights.  Substitute class warfare for nationalism and you have left-wing fascism and it IS the dominant strain of thought in those who call themselves "Progressives" today.

Slipmeanother's picture

The Economist editorial execs have been part of the Bilderberger meetings for the last few decades. They are a mothpiece of the TPTB

JoeSexPack's picture

Rothschilds have owned The Economist for decades. Wife is Board Member:

TomGa's picture

Falling masonry or Failing Masonry?  So the Freemasons aren't going to be able to establish a United States of Europe afterall?  /tinfoil off



Clowns on Acid's picture

Wow! Even the left wing facsists at the Economist are recognizing the "risk" of their past policies. Don't worry...their answer is to print via the IMF backstop, which is really the US taxpayer.

The Economist is so insightful and awesome...they know everything !

Flakmeister's picture

Wow.... "left-wing fascists", care to explain that section of the political spectrum??? Please elaborate and clarify. 

Have you ever read "The Economist"?

btdt's picture

With which part are you having trouble?









thomcat00's picture

Your math doesn't compute.

dickizinya's picture

substitute "totalitarian" for facist.

weinerdog43's picture

Please try to engage your tiny brain. 

Fascists = right wingers

Communists = left wingers


Joe Sixpack's picture

I think the right answer is none of the above, but Hitler was a fascist AND a National SOCIALIST.

Ace Ventura's picture

Actually, fascism and communism are both left wing ideologies, in that they both advocate for massive government intervention. The only basic difference is the fascist wants to merge business and government into a modern version of the nobility, whereas the communist simply wants that nobility to consist of only government heads. Either way, more power of government in all aspects of daily life.

The true right winger advocates for much less government. The purest form of right-winger is the anarchist.


Flakmeister's picture

This is the problem you get when you try to reduce the political spectrum to a line....

Sorry, fascism is a right wing up on the history (hint: fascism is older than you think)

If anything libertarianism and anarchy is absolute dead center, i.e. the state does not exist and does not favor private or public interests. The extremes of the spectrum dominated by right/left wing goverment intervention. i.e. totalitarianism.

While we are at it... came across this:

"Do you feel that none of the announced Republican Presidential Candidates are conservative per your understanding of the term?

I am attempting to understand what true conservatism means, compared with what is on display currently."

Greer: When the neoconservative movement burst on the American scene in the last years of the 20th century, some thinkers in the older and more, well, conservative ends of the American right noted with a good deal of disquiet that the "neocons" had very little in common with conservatism in any historically meaningful sense of that word. In the Anglo-American world, conservatism had its genesis in the writings of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), who argued for an organic concept of society, and saw social and political structures as phenomena evolving over time in response to the needs and possibilities of the real world. Burke objected, not to social change—he was a passionate supporter of the American Revolution, for instance—but to the notion, popular among revolutionary ideologues of his time (and of course since then as well), that it was possible to construct a perfect society according to somebody’s abstract plan, and existing social structures should therefore be overthrown so that this could be done.

By and large, Burke’s stance was the intellectual driving force behind Anglo-American conservatism from Burke’s own time until the late twentieth century, though of course—politics being what they are—it was no more exempt from being used as rhetorical camouflage for various crassly selfish projects than were the competing ideas on the other end of the political spectrum. Still, beginning in the 1920s, a radically different sense of what conservatism ought to be took shape on the fringes of the right wing in America and elsewhere, and moved slowly inward over the decades that followed. The rise to power of the neoconservatives in 2000 marked the completion of this trajectory.

This new version of conservatism stood in flat contradiction to Burke and the entire tradition descended from him. It postulated that a perfect society could indeed be brought into being, by following a set of ideological prescriptions set out by Ayn Rand and detailed by an assortment of economists, political scientists, and philosophers, of whom Leo Strauss was the most influential....

Flakmeister's picture

So, just what is an LWF?  How can the left be supportative of corporate interests? The term is oxymoron, dip shit...

pineyard's picture

And the comments above regarding The EURO coming ot of the mouth of THE CITY in London .. are spot on RIGHT !

I have been reading the Economist for 40 Years.. there was a time when You could trust THAT PUBLICATION. . This is NO LONGER THE CASE . They have some nice features .. and is a good read in between.. but TRUST THEM ... NO WAY.. They have a clear agenda !

pineyard's picture

Well the Economist is right .. the European Banks have lent out TOO MUCH MONEY

In fact approximately 4.4 TRILLION USD more than they have borrowed . ( Of this the US Banks owe 2.3 TRILLION USD...NET ..  to the European Banks ) .

So that Capital is due European Banks... IF they can get it paid back ... NOW .. when they need it.. a 1/4 of what is due would do fine ..for the moment !

Probably the same people who borrowed that Capital ..use it to speculate AGAINST the same European Banks ... is my guess !

One thing is sure .. there will be less Capital around to BORROW . SO .. what will happen with Interest Rates ?  UP UP UP .. n the sky is the limit !

No Mas's picture

Yawn.  Things are fine.  BTFD

falak pema's picture

Charybdis and Scylla according to the Oligarchs in their fatal construct :

Charybdis : Inflation and print to Infinity to save current fictitious ponzi empire. But it makes the downfall worse tomorrow.

Scylla : Deflation on collapse of financial ponzi empire. We start from scratch; those who are still alive.

So who wants to be Ulysses and risk going through narrow passage? You do it at your peril. Chances of survival : 0%.

Sounds like a great interactive, nerve racking game for Ipad. I gonna trademark it.


Bansters-in-my- feces's picture


You told me this is a "must read"

Fool me once,shame on you.,fool me twice.....well ,you know.

You lied.

Are you a banker or a politician...?

NotApplicable's picture

So, you'd rather not know what the Rothschilds are up to?

Must Read <> Endorsed Content

Madcow's picture

excellent forecast ... for something that has already happened. 

Hannibal's picture

Hmm, the "Economist"! I smell neo liberal propaganda.

chindit13's picture

I smell plagiarism of one of my posts from a month or so back, though I suppose one cannot copyright the obvious.

The Economist gets a bad rap here, and perhaps it is not what it once was, but they still contain, on occasion, some good articles.  Admittedly I like their Science section and the Obituary the best, but it is still a better read than most.

GoldBricker's picture

Admittedly I like their Science section and the Obituary the best, but it is still a better read than most.

Yes, the subjects that don't concern central banking. Lies can be well written, and truth can be poorly written. Form and content are orthogonal, independent from one another but working together.

thediacritic's picture

Tyler I'm not quite sure what else you think The Economist would say. It has always been ultra-Euro integration and is part owned/controlled by the ROTHSCHILDS - the kinpins beihnd the euro zone and the whole system which we rail against being in such a terminal mess.

Take everything the Economist says about a Euro break up with this in mind.

Also, I thought I should ask if you have any connection whatsoever, past or present, with the Rothschilds or their global liieutenants? 

Don't get me wrong - ZH is a great site and I concur with most of what you say and how you say it (though certainly not that a gold standard would solve anything, as most of the earths gold is held by the exact same corrupt money lenders who got us here in the first place).

Smiddywesson's picture

So they believe if they can whip the masses into a frenzy the people will demand the ECB become lender of last resort and all the MSM is pushing this tactic.

That's the method used with the TARP.  "Sign this now or we're all dead."

NotApplicable's picture

Why that's almost the very headline...

OECD: euro collapse would have 'highly devastating outcomes' worldwide

GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture


City of london/Rothchilds which own the magazine are making a  desperate gamble. . The Financial district of the world, the city of London is actually very exposed to Greece, Italy and all Europe.


If you notice in every article in the Economist they put in a "solution" that the only way for the crisis to be solved is for   ECB to become the lender of last resort. Over and over again.


The gamble they are takings is this: they are ratcheting up the fear in the hopes of channeling Anglea Merkel and Germany into allowing the ECB to become the next federal reserve.  They are out of other options.  So they believe if they can whip the masses into a frenzy the people will demand the ECB become lender of last resort and all the MSM is pushing this tactic.

But if it doesn't happen (and I hope it doesn't) they just accelerated the collapse and it's finally a day of reckoning for the city of london.

Chief KnocAHoma's picture


This is all starting to remind me of an old hunting story:

This local guy goes out in the woods one cold afternoon trying to kill some quail for dinner. Unfortunately he runs into a very aggressive bear. The bear attacks and takes the hunter's gun, snaps it over his knee then bends the hunter over a log and screws him in the ass.

Well the hunter is upset and decides to kill the bear so he goes to his local gun shop, buys a new weapon then heads back to the woods. Again, the bear attacks, breaks the gun and rapes the hunter.

Determined, the hunter goes back into town, buys yet another gun and heads back to the woods.

And once again the bear attacks and breaks the gun. He bends the hunter over a log and just as he is about to rape the hunter again he whispers into the man's ear, "You're not really here for the hunting... are you?"

Fed and Central Banks = bear

Scared humans afraid to let the system fail = the hunter

Gun = gold and silver money

disabledvet's picture

we do have a connection. we dooooo....he, he, he, he, he, he

Georgesblog's picture

Tuesday, Nov. 29th, 2011 - The good news about the financial crisis is that the players are in too deep, to back out now. They don't have the luxury of revisionist history on previous bank panics. This is their deal. They made it, and they will do and say things that will pin them to it. They've been told repeatedly, for decades, that the paper fiat currency would eventually run it's course and fail. They can pretend that it's life cycle is a matter of legislation. They can pretend that it can be properly managed and controlled.  The fact remains that physical resources, real things, will bounce fiat currency around, like a ping-pong ball. The lie that paper currency is money is coming to an end.

Freddie's picture

But but The Economist loved and still loves the muslim.

CH1's picture

Nah, they don't like them at all, they just want to keep them happy so the oil flows freely. So, they kneel down and kiss their feet in public.

If the oil ever stops, or becomes unnecessary, their tune will change in a moment.

It's a Euro-weenie thing.

Thomas Jefferson's picture

A lesson from Argentina.

When the currency devaluations occurred existing debt was readjusted equal to the devaluation.

So for those with mortgages and student loans guess what?  You are f_cked.

Instead of a $100,000 loan you will be paying off a $150,000 loan assuming a classic 2:1 devaluation.


GoldBricker's picture

Maybe you are thinking of monetary 'reforms', like happened in France in the 1950s, Mexico (1980s?), etc. where you turn in, say, 100 old units for 1 new unit.

akak's picture

That is simply not true --- nothing of the sort ever happened during that particular crisis. 

In fact, I know of NO such scenario ever occurring after ANY currency depreciation or collapse.

Gold Dog's picture

The French did it. Sacre fuckin bleu!

akak's picture

Exactly when and how?

Thomas Jefferson's picture

Go ask someone that lived there.  Send an email to Ferfal.  That comes straight from the horses mouth.

Quintus's picture

It directly contradicts Gonzalo Lira's account who lived through the Argentinian crisis and has written extensively about it.

equity_momo's picture

If thats true It would not surprise me. There is no way the bankster cabal will allow the plebs such an easy way out. there are gonna be a lot of upset savers one way or other next year. Asset price deflation cycle will be punctured with intermittment bouts of fiat savings rape one way or other. Bank wipeouts and mf global redux a plenty.

akak's picture

Then you have either misunderstood something relating to the Argentine currency crisis of 2001-2002, or else you are lying.  There has never been such a re-valuation of debt during a hyperinflation or currency collapse --- and it is ludicrous to even suggest such a thing, as it would be mathematically, as well as practically and politically, impossible.

Sean7k's picture

Weimar republic 1920-23. See, "When Money Dies". Loans were re-valued as the currency loss value. In fact, everything was re-valued on a daily basis. I would imagine the same would happen here if a hyper episode occurred. 

entropos's picture

"However, at a personal level, what about the millions of Argentineans who had dollar mortgages? Initially everyone with a mortgage panicked as the currency fell. They saw their mortgage repayments still in dollars but their pay in the new devalued peso. But then the government just cancelled all dollar mortgages and turned them into peso mortgages. So who paid? The foreign banks . The foreign banks who had made a fortune in Argentina lending in the boom, (sound familiar?) lost out."

I'm having a hard time finding anything that says what specifically what happened with Argentinian mortgages, but what I have found indicates that the mortgages weren't re-valued. 


Thomas Jefferson's picture

Why do you think so many people lost their homes in Argentina?  Its because they revalued the debt.  In addition, those with savings in US dollars had them forcibly converted to the devalued pesos of which only a certain amount could be withdrawn per week. 

These bankers aren't playing games son.  Its time to grow up.

LowProfile's picture

Cite sources or be relegated to the bullshit pile.