Re: Disastro o cospirazione? Discussione sulla crisi economica in corso

Inviato da  Descartes il 12/2/2009 17:16:12

La Gran Bretagna ammette che la crisi è la peggiore degli ultimi 100 anni, che durerà oltre 10 anni e che si tratta di un "evento sismico che cambierà lo scenario politico del mondo" come fece quella del '29. Il Telegraph riporta che un documento segreto di 17 pagine discusso dai ministri della finanza europei rivela che l'Europa ha un colossale buco di 16.3 Trilioni di sterline (24 Trilioni di dollari), e ci sono seri timori che un eventuale tantativo di bailout per colmare tale buco con aiuti di stato manderebbe in bancarotta Spagna, Grecia, Portogallo, Irlanda, Italia e Gran Bretagna.

Dal blog di Mish:

Worst Recession In 100 Years
Thursday, February 12, 2009

In the UK, Gordon Brown's closest ally says 'This is the worst recession for over 100 years'.

Ed Balls, the PM's closest ally, warns that downturn is ferocious and says impact will last 15 years.

In an extraordinary admission about the severity of the economic downturn, Ed Balls even predicted that its effects would still be felt 15 years from now. The Schools Secretary's comments carry added weight because he is a former chief economic adviser to the Treasury and regarded as one of the Prime Ministers's closest allies.

Mr Balls said yesterday: "The reality is that this is becoming the most serious global recession for, I'm sure, over 100 years, as it will turn out."

He warned that events worldwide were moving at a "speed, pace and ferocity which none of us have seen before" and banks were losing cash on a "scale that nobody believed possible".

The minister stunned his audience at a Labour conference in Yorkshire by forecasting that times could be tougher than in the depression of the 1930s, when male unemployment in some cities reached 70 per cent. He also appeared to hint that the recession could play into the hands of the far right.

"The economy is going to define our politics in this region and in Britain in the next year, the next five years, the next 10 and even the next 15 years," Mr Balls said. "These are seismic events that are going to change the political landscape. I think this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s, and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

Philip Hammond, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said Mr Balls's predictions were "a staggering and very worrying admission from a cabinet minister and Gordon Brown's closest ally in the Treasury over the past 10 years". He added: "We are being told that not only are we facing the worst recession in 100 years, but that it will last for over a decade – far longer than Treasury forecasts predict."
European bank bail-out could push EU into crisis

A Telegraph headline read "European banks may need 16.3 trillion bailout". A bail-out of the toxic assets held by European banks' could plunge the European Union into crisis, according to a confidential Brussels document:



European Banks May Need 16.3 Trillion Pound ($24 Trillion USD) Bailout, EC Document Warns
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Telegraph.co.uk - 11 Feb 2009

A secret 17-page paper discussed by finance ministers, including the Chancellor Alistair Darling on Tuesday, also warned that government attempts to buy up or underwrite such assets could plunge the European Union into a deeper crisis.

National leaders and EU officials share fears that a second bank bail-out in Europe will raise government borrowing at a time when investors - particularly those who lend money to European governments - have growing doubts over the ability of countries such as Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Britain to pay it back.

“Estimates of total expected asset write-downs suggest that the budgetary costs – actual and contingent - of asset relief could be very large both in absolute terms and relative to GDP in member states,” the EC document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, cautioned. “

"It is essential that government support through asset relief should not be on a scale that raises concern about over-indebtedness or financing problems.”
fonte: link


Nel frattempo un membro del CFR, William L. Hauser, avanza con decisione la proposta di reintrodurre in USA la leva obbligatoria:

Bring Back the Draft
By William L. Hauser , Jerome Slater
Posted February 2009

Why a return to mass conscription is the only way to win the war on terror.

In the ongoing struggle between radical Islamism and Western democracy, military intervention by the United States may again be judged necessary as a last resort against particularly dangerous states or organizations. Although presidential candidate Barack Obama made drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq the centerpiece of his national security agenda, so as to focus on the “real fight” in Afghanistan, President Obama will find that even with a complete withdrawal from Iraq, the United States’ current all-volunteer forces will be inadequate for accomplishing its worldwide national security goals. Regarding Afghanistan in particular, even the planned reinforcement of 20,000 to 30,000 troops will not begin to match the 1 to 10 troop-to-population ratio generally acknowledged to be necessary for success in counterinsurgency.

Moreover, as a result of the repetitive stresses of Afghanistan and Iraq, the human-resources quality of the U.S. military appears to be declining: recruitment and retention rates (by pre-Iraq standards) are slipping, forcing the armed services to lower their physical, educational, and psychological standards; to soften the rigors of initial training; and even to expand the moral waivers granted to some volunteers with criminal records. Generous inducements have also been needed to retain junior officers beyond the length-of-service payback requirements of their academy or ROTC educations. The economic downturn might help temporarily, but the problem cannot be resolved by continuing the present system. There will have to be a reinstitution, albeit in a significantly modified version, of universal military service -- a “draft.”

Our proposal is to combine a revived military draft with a broader public-service program as already practiced in some European states -- a “domestic Peace Corps.” Indeed, a crucial component of our proposal is that draftees be allowed to choose between military and nonmilitary service. A program structured along those lines would simultaneously increase the political appeal of conscription, defuse the opposition of those who disapprove of the use of military force, and serve such valuable national purposes as public health, public works, and the alleviation of shortages of teachers and social workers in disadvantaged regions of the country.

To be sure, an enlarged military can give rise to its own dangers, particularly an expansion of what some already consider excessive presidential power. It will be essential, therefore, that the creation of larger forces by means of conscription be accompanied by legal safeguards to prevent presidential unilateralism. First, Congress should use its constitutionally mandated role in decisions to go to war. Second, Congress should employ its appropriations powers -- “the power of the purse” -- to prohibit, limit, or end U.S. participation in unwise wars or military interventions by refusing to fund them. Third, to reduce political opposition to a revived draft as well as to provide another constraint against presidential unilateralism, a law establishing conscription should include a provision that draftees cannot be sent into combat without specific congressional authorization.


Of course, reinstating the draft will generate opposition from all parts of the political spectrum, on the left by civil libertarians and opponents of any use of force, in the center by classic libertarians and those who would regard conscription as an unfair “tax on youth,” and even by some on the political right, who (as noted earlier) would correctly perceive that the modified draft proposed here would inherently constrain presidential unilateralism. The professional military, traditionally conservative, might initially resist such fundamental change, though we are confident the professional military will come to value its significant advantages.

The benefits of universal national service, however, far outweigh these resolvable objections. Aside from the strictly military advantages -- larger and better-educated armed forces -- there would be a number of positive social consequences. Conscription will enable the forces to reflect the full spectrum of American pluralism, in terms of both socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic groups. It is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.

A draft could also increase responsibility on the part of political decision-makers. There would surely be a greater likelihood of sound foreign and military policies if the sons and daughters of the United States’ political and business elites also served in uniform -- as so many did in the past, but so few do today.

These arguments would constitute a strong case for reinstating the draft at any time. But at the moment, the United States simply has no other option. The U.S. mission in Afghanistan, crucial in the global fight against Islamist terrorism, simply cannot be accomplished with current force levels. Looking beyond Afghanistan toward the long-term struggle with radical Islamism, the United States is going to need larger standing forces of considerable quality, with the educational, cultural, linguistic, and technical skills needed for modern military operations in foreign lands.

In the event of new terrorist attacks on U.S. soil on the scale of 9/11, let alone the unimaginable consequences if American cities were struck by nuclear or biological weapons, the arguments against conscription would vanish overnight, and there would be a crash program to build up the armed forces, similar to the aftermath of attack on Pearl Harbor. The country would be in a far stronger position if it put these forces in place now, rather than waiting until a catastrophe occurred. Moreover, if the United States had such larger standing forces, they would provide a credible deterrent against states that currently support, tolerate, or ineffectively suppress terrorist groups. Indeed, the reinstatement of the draft is not an invitation for more war; it may be the best chance for peace.

William L. Hauser, a retired U.S. Army colonel, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.
Jerome Slater, a U.S. Navy veteran, is a university research scholar and retired professor of political science at the State University of New York, Buffalo.
fonte: link