Un Upside-Down World
Now, “mom” (which seems to be synonymous for the German character in the cabaret these days, but probably also in the Cabinet …) has to put pressure on the European Governments to save money. And she herself also wants to save. Since, however, the social and political systems in Europe – and the same is probably true for the entire world – broke free a long time ago, this will not be possible. We will end up with lip service and fake improvements.
Yet, everything could be managed in such a simple way.
The best way to learn to save is not to get any money.
So if someone is bankrupt, he should have to admit to it. And face the consequences.
Just as every normal citizen is expected to. After all, if you have declared bankruptcy, you have to face seven years of private bankruptcy, as well. Until recently, even the limitation to seven years as a chance for a new start did not exist. Instead, there was a good chance for a lifetime of bankruptcy, or else the paupers’ prison.
Well, your average citizen only has one life. At least, it is rather doubtful if there is an eternal life. As opposed to human beings, administrative systems die and later return.
History showed us again and again that death and resurrection are what normally happens. The ongoing phase of stability is the exception from the rule, it was always obviously something that was going to end sooner or later. Consequently, what we have to achieve is not stability of the “status quo” (because that cannot be done, anyway). Instead, we should try and do as little damage as possible during the transition phase from system A to system B.
It is the same as with continents: they move and the tension looks for a way out in the shape of explosive earth quakes. Politics should try to accompany the people during the transition time, control as much of it as possible and reduce the damage.
The maximum damage a change of the world can cause is total war, i.e. world war. We have been there. An inflation will do far less damage, especially if it is controlled and socially balanced, both on a huge scale (for the nations) and on a small scale (for the individual persons). In order to manage that, you need flexible systems and probably also flexible currencies that can better adapt to the pressure of historical change.
But what do the politicians do? They want to save an inadequate central and rigid system by opening the purse strings as far as they will open for countries that are obviously bankrupt (and within seconds). And then they get carried away by their timely collective activities so that common sense is laid to rest and thinking is forbidden.
And as a result, those countries that still do not look quite but in reality are just as bankrupt guarantee for those that are already obviously bankrupt. What we have is a club consisting of highly indebted members none of which has a real chance to ever pay its debts.
In this club, those members that still have a certain degree of reputation but are in reality similarly bankrupt stand surety for the already bankrupt members whose reputation has been damaged a long time ago. And whenever one of the guarantors joins the bankrupt ones (which is something that inevitably happens), the remaining guarantors guarantee for him, as well. Which is something that, naturally, will not be very beneficial for their position and reputation.
Since there is a finite number of members, the process will continue to the bitter end. Shortly before the end, one member will be the last who guarantees for all the others. And may the itch take the one who is last. Of course, it is complete nonsense to create this kind of system. Yet our politicians are currently building it up at great speed. And the only reason why they are doing it is to maintain a concept of the world that is damaged and totally outdated.
Why do the politicians not accept that they are defending a position that cannot be maintained? Why do they not, instead, decide to work towards controlling the once-again-necessary change in a socially acceptable way? Wouldn’t it be nice if the damage could be kept as low as possible?
Why does everybody talk dogmatically? Why do I first hear the growth credo, then the Euro credo and then the stability credo? Is it courage or wisdom that is absent? Or both?
Incidentally, if you force the state to save money by removing money, there is a new danger. In its infinite greed, it will try and take the money from its citizens. That is what always happened in the past.
However, it can only be done if the citizens put up with it. Why don’t we all remember that we are upright and autonomous democrats and act like self-confident citizens, instead of bending the knee before such nonsense as “there is no alternative”?
RMD
(Translated by EG)
P.S.
Well, my very private theory is that it does not make any difference, anyway, because, after all, we are talking about a virtual reality. Just like the data on my hard-drive are of a totally different nature than the daisies growing in my garden.
🙂 When all is over, I can even push them up.
Loading ...