rising sea levels: global conning

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story,

writes Christopher Booker.

Last Updated: 6:31PM GMT 28 Mar 2009

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'

darhendorf: torniamo agli anni 50,60 senza l'ottimismo

.
http://www.corriere.it/economia/09_marzo_31/dahrendorf_soluzioni_globali_crisi_taino_4a4b0888-1dbe-11de-84d3-00144f02aabc.shtml

«Avanzano le scelte dei singoli Stati, ma c'è un contenuto di nazionalismo economico»

«Il G20 fallirà, nessuna soluzione globale»

Il sociologo Ralf Dahrendorf: «Ridurremo i nostri standard
di vita del 20%, torneremo agli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta»

Dal nostro inviato Danilo Taino

COLONIA - Ralf Dahrendorf è sicuro che il vertice del G20 di Londra, il prossimo 2 aprile, fallirà. «Fallirà, non raggiungerà gli obiettivi che gli erano stati dati originariamente, cioè essere il momento decisivo per uscire dalla crisi e ridisegnare l'ordine economico internazionale - sostiene -. Per molti motivi, ma soprattutto perché quello che stiamo vivendo non è un Bretton Woods moment». Il sociologo forse più autorevole d'Europa - ma anche politico, politologo, filosofo, educatore e membro della Camera dei Lord britannica nonostante sia di origine tedesca - non ha praticamente parlato in pubblico della crisi mondiale. Lo fa con questa intervista.

Lord Dahrendorf, perché non siamo in un «momento Bretton Woods»?
«Quando Keynes entrò alla conferenza di Bretton Woods, nel 1944, credeva di andare a salvare la sterlina. In breve tempo si accorse che era morta, che il ruolo dominante era passato al dollaro e agli Stati Uniti. Ora, la situazione è diversa, questa è una fase confusa, dove non ci sono vincitori. E non sono nemmeno certo che l'America voglia caricarsi sulle spalle da sola il peso dell'uscita dalla crisi. Ma non è l'unica ragione per cui il vertice non sarà un successo».

Quali altre ragioni?
«Io stimo Barack Obama e Gordon Brown, ma in questo caso sbagliano. Ritengono che questa sia una crisi globale, mentre la possiamo definire mondiale ma non globale. Globale è il cambiamento climatico, che non può avere risposte nazionali. Ma la crisi riguarda sì tutti, cioè è mondiale, ma ha risposte nazionali, e queste contengono un nazionalismo economico. Io li vedo come globalisti, al contrario di Angela Merkel e Nicolas Sarkozy che sono mondialisti. Questa è l'origine del conflitto che sta alla radice del G20 del 2 aprile: è sbagliato credere che ci siano soluzioni globali».

Cosa intende per fallimento del vertice?
«Non ci sarà accordo su un pacchetto di stimolo "globale". Ci saranno dichiarazioni generiche sulle nuove regole da scrivere. Forse verrà un po' rafforzato il Fondo monetario internazionale. E si identificheranno alcuni capri espiatori, in particolare i paradisi fiscali. Niente di davvero importante, tanto che tutti sono impegnati ad abbassare le aspettative, il padrone di casa Brown in testa, dopo che le avevano alzate moltissimo».

Quali sono le conseguenze della crisi, nel lungo periodo?
«Alla fine tutti avremo ridotto gli standard di vita di almeno un 20%. Torneremo circa ai livelli precedenti a quelli di Ronald Reagan e Margaret Thatcher. Per alcuni aspetti, a un modo di vivere che somiglierà un po' agli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta, con molta più tecnologia ma senza l'ottimismo di quei decenni».

Anche quando inizierà la ripresa?
«La ripresa sarà lunga e lenta. E non basterà a servire gli interessi sul debito che nel frattempo gli Stati stanno accumulando. Ragione per cui sarà un periodo di tasse alte e alta inflazione. Niente di bello. Alcuni economisti parlano di "inflazione controllata", sostengono cioè che qualche anno di inflazione tra il 6 e il 10% basterà a ridimensionare i debiti pubblici. Il problema è che un'inflazione del genere sarà pagata soprattutto dai poveri e dai pensionati».

Visione nera.
«Se vogliamo metterle un po' di belletto, possiamo forse prevedere che la crisi porterà un cambio di attitudine, con più attenzione all'economia reale e un distacco dalla cultura del debito e dal capitalismo del debito. Il ricorso alle carte di credito sarà mitigato, sarà forse un clima più piacevole».

Cultura del debito?
«Sì, la cultura diffusa, ma molto diffusa, per la quale mettevi lì cinquanta euro e ti pareva normale che ti dessero un'automobile o una casa. Può non piacere a molti, che preferiscono dare ogni responsabilità ai banchieri e ai paradisi fiscali, ma credo che questa sia la ragione principale della crisi».

Prima responsabile non è dunque la deregulation degli anni di Reagan e Thatcher?
«Ci sono alcuni aspetti di quella deregulation che entrano tra le ragioni della crisi. Ma non andrei troppo avanti su questa strada. Perché alla base della crisi c'è soprattutto la cultura del debito e la bolla conseguente. Un mio conoscente mi raccontava l'altro giorno che ha uno chalet da vendere a Chamonix e che, all'improvviso, si è accorto che a nessuno al mondo serve uno chalet a Chamonix. Non più, perché il mondo sta riducendo di quel 20% le sue esigenze. Ma questo non c'entra niente con la signora Thatcher, la quale, di base vittoriana, aveva anzi orrore del debito».

Pericoli di violenza a causa della crisi?
«Non vedo un ritorno del terrorismo domestico. Ma c'è una grande rabbia diffusa, la voglia di trovare colpevoli. Per ora non ha sbocchi politici, è individuale, come abbiamo visto negli attacchi alle case di banchieri, o si incanala in manifestazioni di massa tradizionali come quelle delle tifoserie del calcio».

La democrazia potrebbe correre dei rischi?
«La democrazia direttamente no, anche se ci saranno spostamenti politici. Diverso è il discorso per la società aperta, perché la crisi non favorisce le libertà. Le scelte dei governi di nazionalizzare banche e forse anche certe industrie riducono le libertà. Non saranno tempi belli».

C'è chi dice che il vero potere non starà nel G20 ma nel G2, cioè Washington più Pechino.
«Forse, anche se non vedo fino in fondo come Stati Uniti e Cina, che non si piacciono, possano andare davvero d'accordo. Credo però che quasi certamente l'Europa non ci sarà alla guida del mondo: i leader europei vanno per strade diverse e soprattutto chiedono a Bruxelles di ridurre, allentare il mercato unico».

uk spin doc questions growth

.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2498508.0.leading_advisers_warning_to_ministers_the_problems_not_bankers_its_society.php

Leading adviser's warning to ministers: the problem's not bankers, it's society

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

G20 - A PLEA FOR CHANGE

THE ECONOMIC system is broken, and attempts by governments to fix it by kick-starting growth and consumerism are "delusional" and "pathological", the Westminster and Holyrood governments will be warned by their own advisers this week.

A ground-breaking report by the leading environmental advisers to First Minister Alex Salmond and Prime Minister Gordon Brown will deliver a damning verdict on capitalism and demand a radical shift to a fairer, more sustainable society.

The report has been compiled by the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), a group of 19 experts chaired by Jonathon Porritt which advises Salmond and Brown on environmental issues. Entitled Prosperity without Growth?, it is to be published tomorrow.
advertisement

The pursuit of economic growth, founded on the increasing consumption of material goods, has failed to bring social justice, prosperity or happiness, the report says.

"The narrow pursuit of growth represents a horrible distortion of the common good and of underlying human values," the report concludes. "The market was not undone by rogue individuals or the turning of a blind eye by incompetent regulators. It was undone by growth itself."

The report presents a fundamental challenge to the economic policies being pursued in London and Edinburgh, raising questions about some of the basic tenets of modern capitalism. We are living in an "age of irresponsibility", it says.

"Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries, but question it we must," says Tim Jackson, a professor at Surrey University and the SDC's leading economics expert.

"The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people's livelihoods."

According to the report, inequality is higher in industrialised nations than it was 20 years ago. The rich have got richer, but the poor have remained poor, with wealth only trickling to a "lucky few".

The environmental consequences have been "disastrous", the SDC says. In the last 25 years the global economy has doubled, leaving 60% of the world's natural ecosystems degraded and threatening "catastrophic" climate change.

The economy is "fundamentally broken", argues Jackson. "A return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilised society."

A society founded on the "relentless pursuit of novelty" undermines social well-being. "The economy itself is dependent on consumption growth for its very survival," the report says. Market economics have to be questioned and consumerism has to be reversed, the report urges.

It recommends 12 steps to a sustainable economy, such as tackling inequality, changing work patterns and respecting ecological limits.

In Scotland the SDC is urging ministers to invest in infrastructure that creates low-carbon communities. "Rather than build more roads for more cars, the government must make it easier to use rail and buses, cycle or walk," it says.

Jan Bebbington, the SDC's vice-chair and an accounting professor at St Andrews University, said: "The Scottish government must stop thinking the pursuit of economic growth, no matter how sustainable the growth is labelled, is going to make Scotland flourish almost as a matter of course."

But the Scottish Government stressed its purpose was "sustainable economic growth". A spokesman added: "To suggest we stop trying to grow our economy, when we can see the effects of the recession around Scotland, is completely wrong."

Sustainability was a "fundamental aspect" of economic policy, he argued. "That's why we have set out actions to create thousands of jobs in sustainable industries that harness Scotland's natural advantages."

The Confederation of British Industry in Scotland also gave the report's findings a cool reception. "The dismal picture portrayed by the SDC is not one we recognise," said CBI Scotland's David Lonsdale.

But Green MSP, Patrick Harvie said: "We have long argued for a vision of the economy which puts human values above shareholder value, and I'm delighted that the SDC is saying the same thing."

attali: un gouvernement mondial ou 300m de morts

.
http://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2009/03/26/la-crise-par-ou-la-sortie_1172903_0.html

Débat

La crise, par où la sortie ?

LE MONDE

26.03.09 13h22

Quel diagnostic portez-vous sur la crise économique mondiale que nous vivons aujourd'hui ? Quel sens revêt-elle pour notre société ?

Emmanuel Todd : Avant la crise, certains qualifiaient les Français de pessimistes. Aujourd'hui, vu ce que nous vivons, je crois que nous pouvons dire qu'ils sont réalistes. Le niveau de conscience de la population est d'ailleurs, selon moi, supérieur à celui de nos gouvernants. Qui peut ainsi encore croire que nous sommes confrontés à un simple problème financier ou de moralité ?

Aujourd'hui, la question centrale est celle de l'insuffisance globale de la demande, d'où tous ces discours autour des plans de relance. Ce point est désormais largement admis. En revanche, ce qui n'est pas encore admis - exception faite de quelques analystes plus en pointe -, c'est la cause de cette demande insuffisante qui n'est autre que le libre-échange.

Le libre-échange n'est pas une mauvaise chose en soi. Une partie de l'argumentation libre-échangiste est valable : réalisation d'économies d'échelle ; spécialisation des pays selon leurs compétences de production, etc. Mais l'extension démesurée du libre-échange a renvoyé le capitalisme à sa vieille tradition qui est celle d'une sorte de retard tendanciel de la demande par rapport à la croissance de la production.

Qu'est-ce qui se passe sous un régime de libre-échange ? Les entreprises, les unes après les autres, se positionnent non plus par rapport à une demande intérieure, à l'échelle nationale, mais par rapport à une demande de plus en plus perçue, dans la réalité mais aussi de manière un peu mythique, comme une demande extérieure.

Conséquence : les entreprises ne perçoivent plus les salaires distribués comme une contribution à la demande intérieure mais plutôt comme un coût qui les empêche d'être compétitives vis-à-vis de leurs concurrents mondiaux. Essayez d'imaginer ce qui se passe si toutes les entreprises, partout sur la planète, entrent dans une logique d'optimisation et de compression du coût salarial : vous arrivez à la situation actuelle ! Qui plus est, ce mécanisme est aggravé par l'arrivée de pays émergents, comme la Chine.

Cette ligne directrice permet de comprendre la crise actuelle. D'un côté, pour la majorité de la société, on assiste à un écrasement de la consommation, avec une montée des inégalités. De l'autre, un afflux d'argent au cerveau qui explique la spéculation financière. Tant que les gouvernants n'auront pas compris cela, nous ne nous en sortirons pas. C'est sympathique que le G20 se réunisse le 2 avril, à Londres, sauf qu'il va se réunir pour dire qu'il faut empêcher toute mesure protectionniste...

Jacques Attali : Comment expliquer la crise ? D'abord, il faut rappeler que la crise est l'état naturel du système vivant. L'information est imparfaite dans toute société. Paradoxalement, on pourrait dire que la crise est la manifestation de la liberté puisqu'il est impossible de prévoir le comportement des différents acteurs. Mais l'information n'est pas seulement insuffisante, elle est aussi asymétrique, c'est-à-dire que certains monopolisent tel ou tel savoir afin d'en être les seuls bénéficiaires.

D'où l'importance de la prévision qui permet, en principe, de compenser ce déficit et de déclencher, si nécessaire, l'intervention des pouvoirs publics. Ainsi, si dans tel ou tel pays, on constate une insuffisance de la demande, l'Etat peut tenter de la pallier. L'Etat reste un acteur central qu'Emmanuel Todd semble oublier un peu vite.

Malheureusement, aux Etats-Unis, là où la crise a éclaté, l'Etat n'a pas joué son rôle. Les classes moyennes américaines ont vu leur salaire baisser depuis trente ans mais les pouvoirs publics ne sont pas intervenus - à l'inverse des Européens - pour soutenir la demande intérieure, soit par des investissements ou l'instauration de transferts sociaux.

Les Etats-Unis ont choisi la voie de l'emprunt. L'emprunt, ce n'est pas l'argent qui monte à la tête d'un système mais c'est le mode américain de création d'une demande externe au marché. Et pour permettre aux Américains d'emprunter, de nombreux outils sophistiqués ont été créés qui ont permis de prêter sans aucun garde-fou, c'est-à-dire de transférer les risques au voisin.

Enfin - pour venir sur le terrain d'Emmanuel Todd - je crois que nous assistons surtout à une globalisation du marché sans globalisation de l'Etat de droit. Or chacun sait qu'un marché sans Etat de droit - et sans Etat tout court -, ne peut fonctionner. Le seul marché sans Etat de droit qui existe actuellement dans le monde, c'est la Somalie, une véritable catastrophe pour les populations. Aujourd'hui, nous sommes en train de nous diriger vers une Somalie planétaire !

Or pour certains, et je pense au monde anglo-saxon, la crise actuelle n'est qu'un épisode difficile à passer, la vague de croissance mondiale devant permettre la remise en ordre économique du monde. Wall Street continuera donc de dominer la Maison Blanche et la City, le 10 Downing Street (lieu de résidence du premier ministre britannique). C'est comme cela que le système fonctionne aujourd'hui et que la puissance anglo-saxonne est assurée.

Cette solution qui revient à ne rien faire et que le G20 du 2 avril, en effet une mascarade comme le dit Emmanuel Todd, va vouloir ratifier, est une fausse piste. Nous avons aujourd'hui besoin d'une gouvernance planétaire. Mais je pense que nous aborderons plus tard la question des solutions.

Jean Gadrey : La crise que nous vivons est systémique. Elle comporte plusieurs dimensions que les plans de relance devraient prendre en compte. Pour commencer, je crois que la question de l'asymétrie d'information évoquée par Jacques Attali est une abstraction spéculative. Elle n'explique ni la domination actuelle du dollar, ni celle de la puissance militaire américaine, ni la crise écologique.

Mon diagnostic est que nous vivons une crise sociale et, de plus en plus d'experts l'admettent, une crise des inégalités, de l'excès de richesse. C'est aussi un séisme financier et un tremblement de terre géopolitique. Nous en aurons la démonstration lors du prochain G20 lorsque le Fonds monétaire international (FMI) tentera d'intervenir et qu'une fois de plus la structure de son organisation (répartition des droits de vote entre pays développés et pays émergents) sera un frein. L'institution internationale doit absolument être réformée, si l'on veut s'en sortir.

Enfin, nous sommes face à une crise écologique très grave qui n'est pas du tout déconnectée de la crise économique et sociale actuelle. Il suffit d'évoquer les mouvements de yo-yo des cours des matières premières, du pic de l'offre de pétrole, etc. Le dumping écologique est l'une des dimensions du dumping fiscal et social dénoncé par Emmanuel Todd dans sa critique justifiée du libre-échange.

Nous allons, je crois, vers une crise des subprimes écologiques. Nous accumulons vis-à-vis de la nature des dettes pourries et la banque mondiale des ressources naturelles qui, pour l'instant, nous fait encore crédit, va nous faire payer durement ces dettes excessives. Il faut la recapitaliser d'urgence et les plans de relance actuels, qui ne sont pas suffisamment "verts", n'en prennent pas le chemin.

Erik Orsenna : Nous sommes dans l'ère du virtuel. Depuis trois ans, je suis membre du conseil d'administration de l'Ecole normale supérieure. J'y ai rencontré des mathématiciens qui vivent avec d'autres élèves de grandes écoles au sommet de l'abstraction, d'où ils peuvent créer du virtuel financier, avec des produits et des techniques extrêmement sophistiqués, comme la fameuse titrisation : on découpe les risques et comme ça personne ne sait où ils se trouvent.

En réalité, ce virtuel est au service du mensonge. En principe quand un ménage ne gagne pas beaucoup d'argent, il ne s'achète pas de maison. Ce qui ne satisfait guère les banquiers qui ne distribuent pas beaucoup de prêts. Du coup, c'est l'embrouille : on explique aux pauvres qu'ils peuvent quand même accéder à la propriété grâce à des prêts dont on ne vérifie pas les garanties, etc.

C'est le feuilleton des subprimes... La finance est devenue une Game Boy pour adultes et la finance est surtout devenue une fin en soi. La finance au service de l'économie, bien sûr, mais la finance au service de la finance, nous avons vu à quoi cela nous a menés. Autre grille de lecture qui me semble importante, celle du temps. Nous sommes dans l'ère de la satisfaction instantanée. Il y a une infantilisation des décideurs économiques qui veulent tout et tout de suite. Le long terme est le grand absent de toutes ces prises de décision. Voilà pourquoi, nous avons oublié l'écologie.

Dernier point que j'ai remarqué en parcourant par deux fois le monde, une fois pour le coton et une fois pour l'eau, c'est le développement des inégalités. La mondialisation a du bon, dans certains cas. J'ai vu au Brésil, en Inde et en Chine des centaines de millions de gens réussir à sortir de la misère absolue pour devenir pauvres puis constituer ensuite une classe moyenne. Mais ce n'est plus le cas actuellement.

Nous sommes bloqués. Et ce qui me frappe, c'est qu'à cette inégalité économique s'ajoute une inégalité climatique. Nous n'allons pas devoir affronter une crise globale de l'eau mais il y aura des crises locales qui vont frapper de nombreux territoires, parmi les plus pauvres. En réalité, nous vivons beaucoup de crises à la fois : crise de l'urbanisation démesurée, crise agricole... Les crises s'enchaînent et la plus grave n'est pas celle que nous vivons.

Mme Jouanno, ne craignez-vous pas que le séisme économique actuel passe par pertes et profits les exigences liées à la crise écologique que nous vivons aujourd'hui ?

Chantal Jouanno : La crise écologique actuelle c'est un réchauffement climatique qui peut atteindre - dans son scénario extrême - plus de 6 °C ! Nous vivons aujourd'hui une large crise de la biodiversité. En France, les abeilles disparaissent et on ne sait toujours pas comment l'expliquer précisément. Les problèmes de santé liés à l'environnement (pollution de l'air etc.) sont en train d'exploser. Qui pourrait dire que tout cela est anodin...

Pour apporter des réponses à tous ces défis, il faut, entre autres, changer de modèle de prise de décision. C'est ce que nous avons voulu tester avec le Grenelle de l'environnement où, au lieu d'avoir un plan gouvernemental élaboré dans des cabinets ministériels puis présenté au Parlement, nous avons préféré élaborer un système avec cinq collèges très équilibrés : les associations, les entreprises, les syndicats, les élus et l'Etat qui, pour une fois, est resté silencieux. Ce sont eux, ensuite, qui ont présenté le plan aux députés et aux sénateurs.

Concernant les actions à mener, et je ne définis pas autrement ma feuille de route, je vais appliquer les décisions du Grenelle de l'environnement. Elles sont ambitieuses puisqu'il s'agit d'un plan de 440 milliards d'euros d'investissement d'ici à 2020. Quand on me demande pourquoi j'ai été nommée, je réponds - et nous sommes loin du virtuel - que c'est pour faire ce boulot.

Le Grenelle de l'environnement est un premier plan de relance. Vient ensuite le deuxième volet gouvernemental qui, lui, se chiffre à 26 milliards d'euros. Des voix critiques s'élèvent pour dire qu'avec cet argent, nous allons essentiellement construire des routes. C'est inexact. Quelque 870 millions d'euros sont en effet consacrés aux infrastructures (ferroviaire, maritime...), la route ne représentant que 400 millions d'euros dont 200 millions liés aux questions d'entretien et de sécurité.

Au global, 20 % du deuxième plan de relance sont consacrés à l'accélération des dépenses pour l'écologie. Peu de pays dépassent ce pourcentage. La Corée, elle, affiche un plan nettement plus ambitieux avec 80 % des dépenses dédiées à l'écologie.

Emmanuel Todd : Le problème, aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas la disparition des abeilles, c'est la disparition des emplois !

Chantal Jouanno : Si l'on persiste à raisonner avec les anciennes recettes - l'offre et la demande - qui datent d'Adam Smith, puis de Keynes, je crains que nous n'allions au-devant de fortes difficultés. Notamment en termes d'emplois. A la prochaine crise, nous en perdrons encore plus...

Jean Gadrey : Si j'étais à la place d'Emmanuel Todd, j'utiliserais l'argument écologique à l'appui de ma thèse contre le libre-échange.

Toutes les personnes que je rencontre au sein des ONG dédiées à l'écologie constatent que le libre-échange d'aujourd'hui est un facteur d'aggravation de la dégradation de l'environnement. Le dumping social sur lequel insiste Emmanuel Todd est très important, certes, mais le dumping écologique l'est tout autant. Le protectionnisme ne doit pas obligatoirement passer par des barrières douanières ou tarifaires.

Pourquoi ne pas mettre plutôt en place une taxe transport, une taxe CO2, une taxe kilométrique ? Il est clair que faire parcourir 17 000 kilomètres en avion-cargo réfrigéré, au gigot néo-zélandais pour le vendre moins cher que le gigot local n'est pas un objectif écologiquement et socialement souhaitable. Après ces différents diagnostics posés, riches, intéressants, quelques fois contradictoires, il est temps de réfléchir aux solutions. Protectionnisme ? Gouvernement mondial ? L'Europe ou le planétaire ? Quels leviers faut-il actionner ?

Jacques Attali : Dans les semaines qui viennent, la principale question à régler est la crise financière. Le système bancaire et les compagnies d'assurance mondiaux sont en faillite. Il est donc urgent de mettre en place un système de régulation du système financier afin de rétablir la confiance.

Je pense ensuite qu'il faut réfléchir à un gouvernement mondial, bien évidemment démocratique. Cela doit être aussi une priorité. Dans les années 1930, un certain nombre de personnes avaient compris la nécessité de changer de système monétaire et le besoin d'un marché commun pour éviter la guerre qui s'annonçait. On a préféré faire la guerre et les réformes après. Je crains que la même erreur ne se reproduise. On fera d'abord les guerres - et il y aura 300 millions de morts -, puis les réformes et un gouvernement mondial.

Un gouvernement mondial n'est pas une utopie. Il existe déjà dans de nombreuses dimensions : vous prenez un avion, vous obéissez à un gouvernement mondial, celui de la sécurité aérienne. Il existe aussi une instance internationale pour le football. Dans le monde de la finance, vous avez la Banque des règlements internationaux (BRI) qui a le pouvoir - même si elle s'est trompée - de définir les règles de solvabilité du système bancaire mondial.

Reste la question de la crise écologique. La solution n'est pas dans le fait de réduire la production ou la croissance mais d'en transformer la nature. Il faut consommer moins d'énergie par quantité de production. Jouer sur le progrès technique et investir massivement vers les énergies renouvelables : solaire, éolien etc.

Erik Orsenna : Jacques Attali a raison : il reste encore beaucoup de cadavres dans les placards de la finance. Le nettoyage doit continuer. Il n'est pas seulement indigne de s'octroyer des stock-options, il faut aussi rétablir la confiance afin que les gens ne croient plus qu'on leur ment en permanence.

Bien sûr, il est nécessaire de modifier la nature des relais de croissance. Comme d'habitude, lorsqu'il y a une sorte d'abondance, on est bête. Je suis frappé de voir à quel point l'abondance de pétrole, exploitable et transportable, nous a aveuglés. Comment ne pas avoir pensé plutôt à utiliser l'énergie solaire ! Nous devons également définir de nouveaux modes de production agricole, moins consommateurs d'énergie. Enfin et d'abord, le coeur de l'affaire c'est l'investissement dans le savoir. A ce sujet, la crise de l'université française est un véritable désastre.

Poursuivons sur les solutions. Hervé Kempf, journaliste au Monde, spécialiste des questions d'environnement et auteur de "Pour sauver la planète, sortez du capitalisme" (Seuil, 152 pages, 14 euros), est présent dans la salle et va donc nous proposer les siennes...

Hervé Kempf : Nous ne sommes pas en crise. Nous sommes, pour reprendre le terme du grand économiste Karl Polanyi, dans une "grande transformation". L'humanité atteint un seuil qui, si nous le passions, nous empêcherait de retrouver l'équilibre des systèmes naturels. La crise écologique est dans la zone rouge.

Ce défi écologique doit être articulé avec la question sociale et politique. Point central : la question de la productivité. Celle-ci est en progression constante depuis le début du siècle. Or la productivité n'est pas seulement l'augmentation du travail humain, c'est aussi la capacité à transformer la nature, la matière et à faire progresser les richesses.

Mais l'augmentation de la richesse collective permise grâce à l'amélioration de la productivité a été captée par une seule partie de la société, par le biais de la spéculation financière. Nous sommes aujourd'hui dans l'obligation de nous attaquer à la question fondamentale des inégalités, en forte progression depuis une trentaine d'années.

Nous avons besoin de lien social, d'une autre agriculture, d'une autre politique de l'énergie, de santé, d'éducation, et moins besoin, au moins dans les pays riches, de téléphones portables, d'automobiles... Il nous faut réduire la consommation matérielle et la consommation d'énergie, c'est un enjeu essentiel au regard de la crise écologique que nous vivons.

Pourtant, le modèle culturel des pays riches continue de se projeter dans les pays émergents dont beaucoup des habitants aspirent à vivre comme les Californiens, les Londoniens, les Français... C'est courir à la catastrophe. Aujourd'hui, il est temps de poser la question de l'inégalité de manière claire, la réduire et instaurer une économie centrée sur le lien social avec un faible impact écologique et des créations d'emplois importantes dans les secteurs des énergies renouvelables.

Chantal Jouanno : La crise actuelle n'est pas née directement d'une crise écologique, mais il est clair que les crises écologiques amplifiées deviendront des crises en elles-mêmes. Il y a une piste que je souhaiterais évoquer qui est celle de la révision des indicateurs qui sont les nôtres. Aujourd'hui, nous mesurons l'efficacité de notre système par le PIB. Or tout le monde sait que celui-ci augmente s'il y a des accidents de voiture (frais engagés, réparation etc.). En revanche, si l'on détruit notre patrimoine, qu'il soit humain ou naturel, le PIB ne l'intègre pas.

Il faut aussi s'interroger sur notre consommation dont la culture est totalement globalisée. Partout dans le monde, vous avez les mêmes chaussettes et les mêmes stylos. C'est une culture dans laquelle nous nous complaisons, sans qu'elle réponde nécessairement à nos besoins. Pourquoi consommer toujours plus alors qu'on n'y prend pas forcément du plaisir ? Jamais le nombre de personnes dans le monde qui consomment des antidépresseurs n'a été aussi élevé...

Jean Gadrey : Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec vous Mme Jouanno : le monde doit se doter de repères du progrès. Et le PIB actuel ne reflète pas l'activité réelle. Je proposerai, en ce qui me concerne, trois priorités : faire en sorte que les banques redeviennent un service public de financement de l'économie. Mais attention : pour financer quoi ? Il faudra y réfléchir. Faut-il encore financer des productions à l'exportation qui n'est pas la solution à tous les problèmes, comme le montre la crise et comme l'a expliqué Emmanuel Todd.

Deuxième point central, sur lequel je rejoins Hervé Kempf : la réduction des inégalités. Le Prix Nobel d'économie Joseph Stiglitz - que je côtoie au sein de la Commission sur la mesure de la performance économique et du progrès social, instance chargée justement de réfléchir à l'élaboration de nouveaux indicateurs de richesse - explique régulièrement que les Etats-Unis ont été un modèle de croissance pour le monde entier pendant des années mais, qu'aujourd'hui, les Américains sont moins heureux qu'avant...

Enfin, et ce sera ma dernière remarque, nous avons beaucoup discuté ce soir des mesures possibles pour sortir de la crise, mais nous n'avons pas abordé une question au moins aussi importante, celle des acteurs sur lesquels pourraient s'appuyer ces initiatives : faut-il encore compter sur l'élite intellectuelle et politique ou les idées les plus originales ne sont-elles pas à chercher du côté de la société civile organisée au niveau mondiale...

Emmanuel Todd : Certes, nous sommes confrontés à toute une série de questions difficiles : la finance, l'écologie, mais il ne sera pas possible de régler tous les problèmes en une seule fois. Je crois que nous devons cibler en priorité nos actions et commencer par nous attaquer au libre-échange. J'en reviens donc à cette idée de protectionnisme européen. L'Europe me semble le bon espace pour débuter. Pour bien y réfléchir - car le problème, je ne le nie pas - est complexe, je recommanderai la fondation d'instituts de recherche avec des économistes, des industriels afin de définir les secteurs de production qui doivent être protégés, sur un mode, si possible coopératif entre grandes régions.

Propos recueillis par Marie-Béatrice Baudet
Article paru dans l'édition du 27.03.09

nasa report warns of castrophic solar storms

.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html?full=true&print=true

A fierce solar storm could lead to a global disaster on an unprecedented scale

Related editorial: We must heed the threat of solar storms

IT IS midnight on 22 September 2012 and the skies above Manhattan are filled with a flickering curtain of colourful light. Few New Yorkers have seen the aurora this far south but their fascination is short-lived. Within a few seconds, electric bulbs dim and flicker, then become unusually bright for a fleeting moment. Then all the lights in the state go out. Within 90 seconds, the entire eastern half of the US is without power.

A year later and millions of Americans are dead and the nation's infrastructure lies in tatters. The World Bank declares America a developing nation. Europe, Scandinavia, China and Japan are also struggling to recover from the same fateful event - a violent storm, 150 million kilometres away on the surface of the sun.

It sounds ridiculous. Surely the sun couldn't create so profound a disaster on Earth. Yet an extraordinary report funded by NASA and issued by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in January this year claims it could do just that.

Over the last few decades, western civilisations have busily sown the seeds of their own destruction. Our modern way of life, with its reliance on technology, has unwittingly exposed us to an extraordinary danger: plasma balls spewed from the surface of the sun could wipe out our power grids, with catastrophic consequences.

The projections of just how catastrophic make chilling reading. "We're moving closer and closer to the edge of a possible disaster," says Daniel Baker, a space weather expert based at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and chair of the NAS committee responsible for the report.

It is hard to conceive of the sun wiping out a large amount of our hard-earned progress. Nevertheless, it is possible. The surface of the sun is a roiling mass of plasma - charged high-energy particles - some of which escape the surface and travel through space as the solar wind. From time to time, that wind carries a billion-tonne glob of plasma, a fireball known as a coronal mass ejection (see "When hell comes to Earth"). If one should hit the Earth's magnetic shield, the result could be truly devastating.

The incursion of the plasma into our atmosphere causes rapid changes in the configuration of Earth's magnetic field which, in turn, induce currents in the long wires of the power grids. The grids were not built to handle this sort of direct current electricity. The greatest danger is at the step-up and step-down transformers used to convert power from its transport voltage to domestically useful voltage. The increased DC current creates strong magnetic fields that saturate a transformer's magnetic core. The result is runaway current in the transformer's copper wiring, which rapidly heats up and melts. This is exactly what happened in the Canadian province of Quebec in March 1989, and six million people spent 9 hours without electricity. But things could get much, much worse than that.
Worse than Katrina

The most serious space weather event in history happened in 1859. It is known as the Carrington event, after the British amateur astronomer Richard Carrington, who was the first to note its cause: "two patches of intensely bright and white light" emanating from a large group of sunspots. The Carrington event comprised eight days of severe space weather.

There were eyewitness accounts of stunning auroras, even at equatorial latitudes. The world's telegraph networks experienced severe disruptions, and Victorian magnetometers were driven off the scale.

Though a solar outburst could conceivably be more powerful, "we haven't found an example of anything worse than a Carrington event", says James Green, head of NASA's planetary division and an expert on the events of 1859. "From a scientific perspective, that would be the one that we'd want to survive." However, the prognosis from the NAS analysis is that, thanks to our technological prowess, many of us may not.

There are two problems to face. The first is the modern electricity grid, which is designed to operate at ever higher voltages over ever larger areas. Though this provides a more efficient way to run the electricity networks, minimising power losses and wastage through overproduction, it has made them much more vulnerable to space weather. The high-power grids act as particularly efficient antennas, channelling enormous direct currents into the power transformers.

The second problem is the grid's interdependence with the systems that support our lives: water and sewage treatment, supermarket delivery infrastructures, power station controls, financial markets and many others all rely on electricity. Put the two together, and it is clear that a repeat of the Carrington event could produce a catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen. "It's just the opposite of how we usually think of natural disasters," says John Kappenman, a power industry analyst with the Metatech Corporation of Goleta, California, and an advisor to the NAS committee that produced the report. "Usually the less developed regions of the world are most vulnerable, not the highly sophisticated technological regions."

According to the NAS report, a severe space weather event in the US could induce ground currents that would knock out 300 key transformers within about 90 seconds, cutting off the power for more than 130 million people (see map). From that moment, the clock is ticking for America.

First to go - immediately for some people - is drinkable water. Anyone living in a high-rise apartment, where water has to be pumped to reach them, would be cut off straight away. For the rest, drinking water will still come through the taps for maybe half a day. With no electricity to pump water from reservoirs, there is no more after that.

There is simply no electrically powered transport: no trains, underground or overground. Our just-in-time culture for delivery networks may represent the pinnacle of efficiency, but it means that supermarket shelves would empty very quickly - delivery trucks could only keep running until their tanks ran out of fuel, and there is no electricity to pump any more from the underground tanks at filling stations.

Back-up generators would run at pivotal sites - but only until their fuel ran out. For hospitals, that would mean about 72 hours of running a bare-bones, essential care only, service. After that, no more modern healthcare.

The truly shocking finding is that this whole situation would not improve for months, maybe years: melted transformer hubs cannot be repaired, only replaced. "From the surveys I've done, you might have a few spare transformers around, but installing a new one takes a well-trained crew a week or more," says Kappenman. "A major electrical utility might have one suitably trained crew, maybe two."

Within a month, then, the handful of spare transformers would be used up. The rest will have to be built to order, something that can take up to 12 months.

Even when some systems are capable of receiving power again, there is no guarantee there will be any to deliver. Almost all natural gas and fuel pipelines require electricity to operate. Coal-fired power stations usually keep reserves to last 30 days, but with no transport systems running to bring more fuel, there will be no electricity in the second month.
30 days of coal left

Nuclear power stations wouldn't fare much better. They are programmed to shut down in the event of serious grid problems and are not allowed to restart until the power grid is up and running.

With no power for heating, cooling or refrigeration systems, people could begin to die within days. There is immediate danger for those who rely on medication. Lose power to New Jersey, for instance, and you have lost a major centre of production of pharmaceuticals for the entire US. Perishable medications such as insulin will soon be in short supply. "In the US alone there are a million people with diabetes," Kappenman says. "Shut down production, distribution and storage and you put all those lives at risk in very short order."

Help is not coming any time soon, either. If it is dark from the eastern seaboard to Chicago, some affected areas are hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away from anyone who might help. And those willing to help are likely to be ill-equipped to deal with the sheer scale of the disaster. "If a Carrington event happened now, it would be like a hurricane Katrina, but 10 times worse," says Paul Kintner, a plasma physicist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

In reality, it would be much worse than that. Hurricane Katrina's societal and economic impact has been measured at $81 billion to $125 billion. According to the NAS report, the impact of what it terms a "severe geomagnetic storm scenario" could be as high as $2 trillion. And that's just the first year after the storm. The NAS puts the recovery time at four to 10 years. It is questionable whether the US would ever bounce back.
4-10 years to recover

"I don't think the NAS report is scaremongering," says Mike Hapgood, who chairs the European Space Agency's space weather team. Green agrees. "Scientists are conservative by nature and this group is really thoughtful," he says. "This is a fair and balanced report."

Such nightmare scenarios are not restricted to North America. High latitude nations such as Sweden and Norway have been aware for a while that, while regular views of the aurora are pretty, they are also reminders of an ever-present threat to their electricity grids. However, the trend towards installing extremely high voltage grids means that lower latitude countries are also at risk. For example, China is on the way to implementing a 1000-kilovolt electrical grid, twice the voltage of the US grid. This would be a superb conduit for space weather-induced disaster because the grid's efficiency to act as an antenna rises as the voltage between the grid and the ground increases. "China is going to discover at some point that they have a problem," Kappenman says.

Neither is Europe sufficiently prepared. Responsibility for dealing with space weather issues is "very fragmented" in Europe, says Hapgood.

Europe's electricity grids, on the other hand, are highly interconnected and extremely vulnerable to cascading failures. In 2006, the routine switch-off of a small part of Germany's grid - to let a ship pass safely under high-voltage cables - caused a cascade power failure across western Europe. In France alone, five million people were left without electricity for two hours. "These systems are so complicated we don't fully understand the effects of twiddling at one place," Hapgood says. "Most of the time it's alright, but occasionally it will get you."

The good news is that, given enough warning, the utility companies can take precautions, such as adjusting voltages and loads, and restricting transfers of energy so that sudden spikes in current don't cause cascade failures. There is still more bad news, however. Our early warning system is becoming more unreliable by the day.

By far the most important indicator of incoming space weather is NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE). The probe, launched in 1997, has a solar orbit that keeps it directly between the sun and Earth. Its uninterrupted view of the sun means it gives us continuous reports on the direction and velocity of the solar wind and other streams of charged particles that flow past its sensors. ACE can provide between 15 and 45 minutes' warning of any incoming geomagnetic storms. The power companies need about 15 minutes to prepare their systems for a critical event, so that would seem passable.
15 minutes' warning

However, observations of the sun and magnetometer readings during the Carrington event shows that the coronal mass ejection was travelling so fast it took less than 15 minutes to get from where ACE is positioned to Earth. "It arrived faster than we can do anything," Hapgood says.

There is another problem. ACE is 11 years old, and operating well beyond its planned lifespan. The onboard detectors are not as sensitive as they used to be, and there is no telling when they will finally give up the ghost. Furthermore, its sensors become saturated in the event of a really powerful solar flare. "It was built to look at average conditions rather than extremes," Baker says.

He was part of a space weather commission that three years ago warned about the problems of relying on ACE. "It's been on my mind for a long time," he says. "To not have a spare, or a strategy to replace it if and when it should fail, is rather foolish."

There is no replacement for ACE due any time soon. Other solar observation satellites, such as the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) can provide some warning, but with less detailed information and - crucially - much later. "It's quite hard to assess what the impact of losing ACE will be," Hapgood says. "We will largely lose the early warning capability."

The world will, most probably, yawn at the prospect of a devastating solar storm until it happens. Kintner says his students show a "deep indifference" when he lectures on the impact of space weather. But if policy-makers show a similar indifference in the face of the latest NAS report, it could cost tens of millions of lives, Kappenman reckons. "It could conceivably be the worst natural disaster possible," he says.

The report outlines the worst case scenario for the US. The "perfect storm" is most likely on a spring or autumn night in a year of heightened solar activity - something like 2012. Around the equinoxes, the orientation of the Earth's field to the sun makes us particularly vulnerable to a plasma strike.

What's more, at these times of year, electricity demand is relatively low because no one needs too much heating or air conditioning. With only a handful of the US grid's power stations running, the system relies on computer algorithms shunting large amounts of power around the grid and this leaves the network highly vulnerable to sudden spikes.

If ACE has failed by then, or a plasma ball flies at us too fast for any warning from ACE to reach us, the consequences could be staggering. "A really large storm could be a planetary disaster," Kappenman says.

So what should be done? No one knows yet - the report is meant to spark that conversation. Baker is worried, though, that the odds are stacked against that conversation really getting started. As the NAS report notes, it is terribly difficult to inspire people to prepare for a potential crisis that has never happened before and may not happen for decades to come. "It takes a lot of effort to educate policy-makers, and that is especially true with these low-frequency events," he says.

We should learn the lessons of hurricane Katrina, though, and realise that "unlikely" doesn't mean "won't happen". Especially when the stakes are so high. The fact is, it could come in the next three or four years - and with devastating effects. "The Carrington event happened during a mediocre, ho-hum solar cycle," Kintner says. "It came out of nowhere, so we just don't know when something like that is going to happen again."

Related editorial: We must heed the threat of solar storms
Bibliography

1. Severe Space Weather Events - Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts (National Academies Press)

When hell comes to Earth

Severe space weather events often coincide with the appearance of sunspots, which are indicators of particularly intense magnetic fields at the sun's surface.

The chaotic motion of charged particles in the upper atmosphere of the sun creates magnetic fields that writhe, twist and turn, and occasionally snap and reconfigure themselves in what is known as a "reconnection". These reconnection events are violent, and can fling out billions of tonness of plasma in a "coronal mass ejection" (CME).

If flung towards the Earth, the plasma ball will accelerate as it travels through space and its intense magnetic field will soon interact with the planet's magnetic field, the magnetosphere. Depending on the relative orientation of the two fields, several things can happen. If the fields are oriented in the same direction, they slip round one another. In the worst case scenario, though, when the field of a particularly energetic CME opposes the Earth's field, things get much more dramatic. "The Earth can't cope with the plasma," says James Green, head of NASA's planetary division. "The CME just opens up the magnetosphere like a can-opener, and matter squirts in."

The sun's activity waxes and wanes every 11 years or so, with the appearance of sunspots following the same cycle. This period isn't consistent, however. Sometimes the interval between sunspot maxima is as short as nine years, other times as long as 14 years. At the moment the sun appears calm. "We're in the equivalent of an idyllic summer's day. The sun is quiet and benign, the quietest it has been for 100 years," says Mike Hapgood, who chairs the European Space Agency's space weather team, "but it could turn the other way." The next solar maximum is expected in 2012.

Michael Brooks's latest book is 13 Things That Don't Make Sense (Profile, 2008).

From issue 2700 of New Scientist magazine, page 31-35.

special g20 ft edition

http://ft2020.com/FT2020.pdf

$oro$: problem bigger than in the 1930s

From The Times

March 28, 2009

George Soros, the man who broke the Bank, sees a global meltdown

Alice Thomson and Rachel Sylvester

George Soros was 13 when the Nazis invaded his homeland of Hungary. As a Jew, he was forced to adopt a false identity and live separately from his parents in Budapest. Instead of being traumatised by the experience, though, he found the danger exhilarating. “It was high adventure,” he says, “like living through Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

Sixty-five years later, he still thrives on danger. He famously made $1 billion on Black Wednesday by shorting the pound, earning him the label of “the man who broke the Bank of England”. Last year, as the world tipped into financial chaos, Mr Soros pocketed another $1.1 billion by correctly predicting the downturn. “I’m an expert in crises,” he says.

The man who has a phobia about maths has made his name as the philosopher king of economics – his book The Crash of 2008, out in paper-back next week, has been a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. Since 1944 he has believed in what he calls “reflexivity” – the idea that people base their decisions on their own perception of a situation rather than on the reality.

He has applied this both to investment and to politics: his skill has been to predict moments of seismic change by identifying a disjunction between perception and reality.

When everyone else was convinced that the markets would automatically correct themselves, the 78-year-old “old fogey”, as he calls himself, was one of the few warning of recession. He put all his chips on “the Barack guy” early on when all around him were still gunning for Hillary Clinton. It’s almost as if he has been waiting for the Great Recession for the past ten years. When we ask whether he prefers booms or busts, he replies: “I have to admit that actually I flourish, I’m more stimulated by the bust.”

This recession, he explains, is a “once-in-a-lifetime event”, particularly in Britain. “This is a crisis unlike any other. It’s a total collapse of the financial system with tremendous implications for everyday life. On previous occasions when you had a crisis that was threatening the system the authorities intervened and did whatever was necessary to protect the system. This time they failed.”

The financial oracle does not know how long it will last. “That depends on how it’s handled. Allowing Lehman Brothers to fail was the game-changing event. That’s when the financial crisis went over the brink.” We could end up with a depression. “Unless we handle it well then I think we would. The size of the problem is actually bigger than in the 1930s.”

The problem in Britain, he believes, is in many ways worse than in America or Germany. “American memory is seared by the Depression, the German memory is seared by hyperinfla-tion but Britain has a pretty serious problem in many ways worse than America because the financial sector looms bigger and the overvaluation of real estate is bigger than in America.”

He is not worried that an auction of government bonds failed this week – “that was a blip”, he says. He would still buy British bonds – “it depends on the price” – but he agrees with Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, that debt is a real problem. It will, he says, put people off investing in Britain. “I think it will have an effect, yes. It is a matter of worry because effectively the hole in the banking system is replaced by increasing the national debt.” There has been some talk that Britain might have to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund. “It’s conceivable,” Mr Soros says. “You have a problem that the banking system is bigger than the economy . . . so for Britain to absorb it alone would really pile up the debt . . . if the banking system continued to collapse, it’s a possibility but it’s not a likelihood.”

He refuses to say whether sterling has yet hit its lowest point. Has he shorted the pound recently? “I had shorted it last year, but I’m not shorting the pound now.” Is the euro under threat? “There is stress in the euro because of the differential in the interest rate that the different countries have to pay,” he replies.

Mr Soros is critical of the tripartite regulatory system set up when the Bank of England gained independence. “I have a different view on how the market operates than the prevailing view. I believe that the authorities have the responsibility to forestall, to counter the mood of the markets . . . I think that the problem was that the Bank of England didn’t have the supervisory authority.”

He does not, however, blame Gordon Brown. “He underestimated the severity of the problem, but then so did most people. Part of the perceived role of a leader is to cheerlead, so you can’t really blame him for that.”

From the day he was born, Mr Soros says, he was attracted to crisis. “It precedes me. I inherited it from my father.” His father had lived through the Russian Revolution and every day after school he would take his son swimming and talk about his experiences. “I sucked it in that way. And then when I was not yet 14, the Germans occupied Hungary, and I would have been deported to Auschwitz if my father hadn’t arranged for false papers. So that was a pretty profound crisis. I had to assume a false identity and live a different life.” He was separated from his parents. “We met occasionally in the swimming pool. But imagine you are 14 years old, you like adventure, and you have a father who seems to understand the situation better than others. It’s very exciting.”

He feels a similar thrill in an economic crisis. “On the one hand there’s tremendous human suffering, which is very distressing. On the other hand, to be able to handle the situation is exhilarating.”

He has always been something of an outsider. He thinks that this makes it easier for him to see through conventional wisdom. “I have always understood how normal rules may not apply at all times,” he says. In recent years he has been arguing against “market fundamentalism” – “the accepted theory was that markets tend to equilibrium”. He believes that the credit crunch has proved him right. “It reminds me of the collapse of the Sovi-et system, events are always exceeding people’s understanding. The situation is out of control. There’s a shortage of time to adjust to the change. Change is accelerating.”

Like Warren Buffett, he thinks that the complex financial instruments used by the banks were economic weapons of mass destruction. If anything he expected the tipping point to come earlier. “Everybody who realised that this was unsustainable expected it to collapse much sooner,” he says. “It is so devastating exactly because it took so long.”

The urgent task now, he says, is to realise that the system that collapsed was flawed. “Therefore you can’t restore it. You have to reform it.” He worries that politicians have not yet accepted the need for fundamental change and that “a lot of bankers have their head in the sand”.

H e was cast as the villain when Britain was forced out of the exchange-rate mechanism. “I didn’t speculate against sterling to benefit the public. I did it to make money,” he says.

He tells us that he has psycho-somatic illnesses – backaches and pains – that tip him off to changes in the market. “It’s as if you’re a jungle animal, and you see another animal facing you. You have to make a decision: fight or flight? Your hair stands up and you growl and you decide, ‘Am I going to attack because I’m stronger or am I going to run away because otherwise he’s going to eat me?’ You are very tense. And that’s the tension that gives you the backache.”

The G20 summit in London next week is, he says, the last chance to avert disaster. “The odds would favour that it fails because there are such differences of opinion. It’s difficult enough to get it right in your own country let alone with 20 governments coming together, but if it’s a failure I think then the global financial and trading system falls apart.”

If the G20 is nothing but a talking shop then he thinks we are heading for meltdown. “That could push the world into depression. It’s really a make-or-break occasion. That’s why it’s so important.” The chances of a depression are, he says, “quite high” – even if that is averted, the recession will last a long time. “Look, we are not going back to where we came from. In that sense it’s going to last for ever.”

Life and times

Born Budapest, 1930. A Jew, he survived the Nazi occupation using a false identity. Fled communist Hungary for Britain in 1947
Education Worked as a railway porter and waiter to pay his way as a student at the London School of Economics, graduating in 1952

Career Took job with Singer and Friedlander in London before moving in 1956 to New York, where he worked as a trader and analyst. In 1970 he set up his own private investment company, the Quantum Fund. Made his fortune, on September 16, 1992, when he short-sold more than $10bn of sterling. Now chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute and said to be worth $11bn

Family Married and divorced twice and has five children

Quick fire

Budapest, London or New York?
Actually I'm very fond of London
English or Esperanto?
It used to be Esperanto, but now it's English. Bad English
Pound or dollar?
I really can't say
Chillies or chocolate?
Both
Boom or bust?
I have to admit that actually I flourish, I'm more stimulated by the bust

press & media

.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

http://www.esisc.org/

http://jiwk.janes.com/MicroSites/index.jsp?site=jiwk&pageindex=section_frontpage

http://www.totalintel.com/content/allarticles

http://www.analyst-network.com/news.php

http://droghe.aduc.it/

http://be.altermedia.info/

http://www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/index.php

http://www.rue89.com/

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/

http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/index.php

http://www.pereubu.be/

http://www.google.be/
.
http://it.notizie.yahoo.com/

http://news.google.com/news?ned=it

http://www.voltairenet.org/spip.php?page=resume&lang=fr

http://www.voltairenet.org/spip.php?page=resume&lang=en

http://www.rense.com/

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/newsblog/?show=week

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

http://bourse.lesechos.fr/bourse/international/indices_inter.jsp

http://www.corriere.it/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/

http://www.radicali.it/

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/

rdc: sarko recule devant l'intangibilite des frontieres

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/2/20090326/tts-sarkozy-kinshasa-pour-defendre-son-p-c1b2fc3_1.html?printer=1

Sarkozy à Kinshasa pour défendre son plan de paix pour la RD Congo

Jeudi 26 mars, 11h22

AFP Philippe ALFROY

Imprimer Le président Nicolas Sarkozy est venu défendre jeudi à Kinshasa ses propositions de paix, très controversées sur place, en vue d'un règlement du conflit qui ravage depuis des années l'est de la République démocratique du Congo (RDC).

A Kinshasa, Sarkozy salue la coopération entre la RDC et le Rwanda
Ségolène Royal: "Barack Obama est capable de mettre des règles là où Nicolas Sarkozy n'a pas eu de réponse"
Avant le FN, Sarkozy citait déjà Jaurès en exemple...
Plus d'articles sur : Nicolas Sarkozy
Première étape d'une mini-tournée qui le conduira jeudi au Congo voisin et vendredi au Niger, M. Sarkozy a été accueilli jeudi matin au Palais national par le président congolais Joseph Kabila, avec lequel il s'est rapidement retiré pour un entretien.

Avec son homologue d'abord puis, publiquement, devant le Parlement congolais, le chef de l'Etat français veut profiter de son séjour éclair sur la rive gauche du fleuve Congo pour lever les malentendus suscités par sa sortie sur la "coopération régionale" dans l'Afrique des Grands lacs.

Devant un parterre d'ambassadeurs étrangers, il avait esquissé en janvier une "nouvelle approche" de paix dans la région en suggérant sans détour un "partage" de "l'espace" et des abondantes "richesses" minières dont regorge "l'immense" Congo avec le "petit" Rwanda voisin.

Ces propos ont été peu goûtés à Kinshasa, qui y a vu une tentative de démembrement de son territoire.

Pour calmer le jeu, le président français a été contraint de rappeler dans la presse locale son attachement à "l'intangibilité des frontières" de l'ex-Zaïre et renoncé à son idée d'exploitation conjointe des ressources du Kivu sur le modèle européen.

"Il n'y a pas de plan français de paix, pas de plan de partage des richesses, ce n'était pas opportun", a tenu à insister la présidence française à la veille de la visite. "Le président veut simplement indiquer que, pour une paix durable, il faut accélérer la coopération régionale", a-t-on ajouté.

Nicolas Sarkozy devait ainsi détailler jeudi devant ses hôtes une série de "projets pratiques" en matière d'énergie ou de transports.

En plus de rassurer l'opinion, le chef de l'Etat français veut manifester à Kinshasa son soutien à Joseph Kabila, qui a su s'entendre avec Kigali pour lancer le 20 janvier une opération conjointe antre les armées rwandaise et congolaise pour pacifier l'est du pays.

Pour avoir critiqué cette opération, le président de l'Assemblée nationale congolaise Vital Kamerhe, membre de la majorité présidentielle, a été forcé de démissionner mercredi, à la veille de l'arrivée de M. Sarkozy.

"Le président Kabila a pris des risques en acceptant courageusement l'aide du Rwanda pour lutter contre les rebelles hutus", fait-on valoir dans l'entourage du président français, "il ne faut pas s'arrêter là et engager une véritable coopération régionale".

Pour ménager les susceptibilités locales, Paris a aussi démenti tout lien entre son soutien à la coopération Kinshasa-Kigali et un éventuel "marchandage" sur la route d'une réconciliation franco-rwandaise.

"On promettrait tout l'or de la RDC au Rwanda que ça n'y changerait rien, nos problèmes avec le Rwanda sont de nature judiciaire", dit-on à l'Elysée.

Le Rwanda du président tutsi Paul Kagame a rompu ses relations diplomatiques avec la France à la suite de l'enquête du juge français Jean-Louis Bruguière, qui l'accuse d'avoir fomenté l'attentat contre son prédécesseur hutu Juvenal Habyarimana, coup d'envoi du génocide qui a causé en 1994 plus de 800.000 morts essentiellement dans la minorité tutsie.

Plus terre à terre, Nicolas Sarkozy, escorté d'un groupe de patrons, veut aussi profiter de son passage à Kinshasa pour doper l'anecdotique présence économique tricolore dans le plus grand pays francophone du monde.

Après le déjeuner, il doit traverser le fleuve Congo pour une visite "d'amitié" à Brazzaville, allié traditionnel de Paris dans la région, avant de gagner vendredi le Niger.

bloodless revolution

.
http://www.arthurmag.com/2009/03/16/let-it-die-rushkoff-on-the-economy/


LET IT DIE

by Douglas Rushkoff

March 15, 2009

With any luck, the economy will never recover.

In a perfect world, the stock market would decline another 70 or 80 percent along with the shuttering of about that fraction of our nation’s banks. Yes, unemployment would rise as hundreds of thousands of formerly well-paid brokers and bankers lost their jobs; but at least they would no longer be extracting wealth at our expense. They would need to be fed, but that would be a lot cheaper than keeping them in the luxurious conditions they’re enjoying now. Even Bernie Madoff costs us less in jail than he does on Park Avenue.

Alas, I’m not being sarcastic. If you had spent the last decade, as I have, reviewing the way a centralized economic plan ravaged the real world over the past 500 years, you would appreciate the current financial meltdown for what it is: a comeuppance. This is the sound of the other shoe dropping; it’s what happens when the chickens come home to roost; it’s justice, equilibrium reasserting itself, and ultimately a good thing.

I started writing a book three years ago through which I hoped to help people see the artificial and ultimately dehumanizing landscape of corporatism on which we conduct so much of our lives. It’s not just that I saw the downturn coming—it’s that I feared it wouldn’t come quickly or clearly enough to help us wake up from the self-destructive fantasy of an eternally expanding economic frontier. The planet, and its people, were being taxed beyond their capacity to produce. Try arguing that to a banker whose livelihood is based on perpetuating that illusion, or to people whose retirement incomes depend on just one more generation falling for the scam. It’s like arguing to Brooklyn’s latest crop of brownstone buyers that they’ve invested in real estate at the very moment the whole market is about to tank. (I did; it wasn’t pretty.)

Now that the scheme we have mistaken for the real economy is collapsing under its own weight, however, it’s a whole lot easier to make these arguments. And, if anything, it’s even more important for us to come to grips with the fact that the system in peril is not a natural one, or even one that we should be attempting to revive and restore. The thing that is dying—the corporatized model of commerce—has not, nor has it ever been, supportive of the real economy. It wasn’t meant to be. And before we start lamenting its demise or, worse, spending good money after bad to resuscitate it, we had better understand what it was for, how it nearly sucked us all dry, and why we should put it out of our misery.

Chartered Corporations

Back in the good ol’ days—I mean as far back as the late middle ages—people just did business with each other. As traveling got easier and people got access to new resources and markets, a middle class of merchants and small businesspeople started to get wealthy. So wealthy that they threatened the power of the aristocracy. Monarchs needed to come up with a way to stabilize their own wealth before the free market unseated them.

They invented the corporate charter. By granting an exclusive charter, a king could give one of his friends in the merchant class monopoly control over a region or sector. In exchange, he’d get shares in the company. So the businessperson no longer had to worry about competition—his position at the top of the business hierarchy was locked in place, by law. And the monarch never had to worry about losing his authority; businesses with crown-guaranteed charters tend to support the crown.

But this changed the shape of business fundamentally. Instead of thriving on innovation and progress, corporate monopolies simply sought to extract wealth from the regions they controlled. They didn’t need to compete, anymore, so they just sucked resources from places and people. Meanwhile, people living and working in the real world lost the ability to generate value by or for themselves.

For example: In the 1700s, American colonists were allowed to grow corn but they weren’t allowed to do anything with it–except sell it at fixed prices to the British East India Trading Company, the corporation sanctioned by England to do business in the colonies. Colonists weren’t allowed to sell their cotton to each other or, worse, make clothes out of it. They were mandated, by law, to ship it back to England where clothes were fabricated by another chartered monopoly, then shipped back to America where they could be purchased. The American war for independence was less a revolt against England than a revolt against her chartered corporations.

The other big innovation of the early corporate era was monopoly currency. There used to be lots of different kinds of money. Local currencies, which helped regions reinvest in their own activities, and centralized currencies, for long distance transactions. Local currencies were earned into existence. A farmer would grow a bunch of grain, bring it to the grain store, and get receipts for how much grain he had deposited. The receipts could be used as money—even by people who didn’t need grain at that particular moment. Everyone knew what it was worth.

The interesting thing about local, grain-based currencies was that they lost value over time. The people at the grain store had to be paid, and a certain amount of grain was lost to rain or rodents. So every year, the money would be worth less. This encouraged people to spend it rather than save it. And they did. Late Middle Ages workers were paid more for less work time than at any point in history. Women were taller in England in that era than they are today—an indication of their relative health. People did preventative maintenance on their equipment, and invested in innovation. There was so much extra money looking for productive investment, that people built cathedrals. The great cathedrals of Europe were not paid for with money from the Vatican; they were local investments, made by small towns looking for ways to share their prosperity with future generations by creating tourist attractions.

Local currencies favored local transactions, and worked against the interests of large corporations working from far away. In order to secure their own position as well as that of their chartered monopolies, monarchs began to make local currencies illegal, and force locals to instead use “coin of the realm.” These centralized currencies worked the opposite way. They were not earned into existence, they were lent into existence by a central bank. This meant any money issued to a person or business had to be paid back to the central bank, with interest.

What does that do to an economy? It bankrupts it. Think of it this way: A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from? Some other business that has borrowed 1000 from the bank. For one business to pay back what it owes, another must go bankrupt. That, or borrow yet another 1000, and so on.

An economy based on an interest-bearing centralized currency must grow to survive, and this means extracting more, producing more and consuming more. Interest-bearing currency favors the redistribution of wealth from the periphery (the people) to the center (the corporations and their owners). Just sitting on money—capital—is the most assured way of increasing wealth. By the very mechanics of the system, the rich get richer on an absolute and relative basis.

The biggest wealth generator of all was banking itself. By lending money at interest to people and businesses who had no other way to conduct transactions or make investments, banks put themselves at the center of the extraction equation. The longer the economy survived, the more money would have to be borrowed, and the more interest earned by the bank.

Financial Meltdown

Which is pretty much how things have worked over the past 500 years to today. So what went wrong? Nothing. The system worked exactly as it was supposed to. The problem was that after America’s post WWII expansion, there was really no longer any real growth area in the economy from which to extract wealth. We were producing and consuming about as much as we could. Almost no commercial activity was occurring outside the corporate system. There was no room left to grow. Sure, outsourcing, lay-offs, and technology created some efficiencies, but wars, rising costs of health care, and exchange rates essentially offset any gains.

Making matters worse, all that capital that the wealthy had accumulated needed markets—even fake markets—in which to be invested. There was a ton of money out there—just nowhere to put it. Nothing on which to speculate.

The dot.com boom seemed to offer the promise of a new market, but it fizzled almost as quickly as it rose. So speculators turned instead to real assets, like corn, oil, even real estate. They started investing speculatively on the things that real people need to stay alive. What real people didn’t understand was that there is no way to compete against speculators. Speculators aren’t buying homes in which to live—they are buying houses to flip. Speculators aren’t buying corn to eat or oil to burn, but bushels to hoard and tankers to park off shore until prices rise. The fact that the speculative economy for cash and commodities accounts for over 95% of economic transactions, while people actually using money and consuming commodities constitute less than 5% tells us something important. Real supply and demand have almost nothing to do with prices. We do not live in an economy, we live in a Ponzi scheme.

Luckily for us, the banks, and the speculators depending on them, made a bad wager: they bet on our continuing capacity to provide a reality on which to base their highly leveraged schemes. We just couldn’t do it. They put us between a rock and a hard place. With George W’s help, they sold us on the notion of home ownership as a prerequisite to the American dream. And they created a number of loan products which made it look as if we could actually afford over-priced homes. The banking industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying for laws making bankruptcy difficult or impossible for average people to accomplish—while simultaneously selling average people loans that they would never be able to pay back.

The banks didn’t really care, anyway, since they never meant to keep these loans. They simply provided the cash to mortgage companies, who then packaged the loans. In return for putting up the original cash, the banks also won the right to underwrite the sale of those mortgage packages to investors—investors like pension funds, retirement funds, or you and me. Get it? The banks get all the interest, but we put up all the money. Our retirement accounts and pension funds invest in the very mortgages that we can’t pay back. The bank collects any interest, playing both sides of the equation but responsible for neither.

And when the whole scheme begins to break down, what do we do? We try to bail out the very banks that created the mess, under the premise that we need these banks in order for business to come back, since only banks can lend the capital required for businesses to flourish.

Yes, It is Wrong

President Obama may be smarter than most of us, but he’s still attempting to rescue the very institutions that robbed us in the first place. He’s not a socialist, as conservatives may be arguing, but he is a corporatist. Using future tax dollars to fund government job programs is one thing. Using future tax dollars to give banks more money to lend out at interest is robbing from the poor to pay the rich to rob from the poor.

As painful as it might be to watch, and as irritating as it might be to those with shrinking retirement savings, the collapse of the centralized corporate economy is ultimately a good thing. It makes room for a real economy to rise up in its place. And while it may be temporarily uncomfortable for the rich, and even temporarily devastating for the poor, it may be the fastest and least violent way to dismantle a system set in place for the benefit of 14th Century monarchs who have long since left this earth.

If the corporate supermarket chain’s debt structure renders it incapable of stocking its shelves this spring, this may be the wake-up call that consumers need to finally subscribe to a Community Supported Agriculture farmer. If the former associate fund analyst at Lehman realizes that he is unable to get a job not just because his industry is contracting but because his work day creates no real value for anyone at all, he will be forced to learn how to do something that does. If an urban elite parent realizes he can no longer pay private school tuition for his kids, maybe he’ll consider donating to public school the time he would have spent earning that tuition.

In short, the less we are able to depend on business-as-usual to provide for our basic needs, the more we will be forced to provide them for ourselves and one another. Sometimes we’ll do this for free, because we like each other, or live in the same community. Sometimes we’ll exchange services or favors. Sometimes we’ll use one of the alternative, local currencies coming into use across the country as Central bank-issued currencies become too hard to get without a corporate job.

Deprived of centralized banks and corporations, we’ll be forced to do things again. And in the process, we’ll find out that these institutions were not our benefactors at all. They were never meant to be. They were invented to mediate transactions between people, and extract the value that would have passed between us. Far from making commerce or industry more efficient, they served to turn the real world into a set of speculative assets, and real people into debtors.

The current financial crisis is the best opportunity we have had in a very long time for a bloodless revolution against the faceless fascism under which we have been living, unaware, for much too long. Let us seize the day.

(UPDATE: “Hack Money, Hack Banking” by Douglas Rushkoff, the March 20 follow-up to “Let It Die,” is available here.)

Longtime Arthur columnist Douglas Rushkoff has just finished his life’s work, “Life Inc: How the world became a corporation and how to take it back,” to be published June 2, 2009 by Random House. (Pre-order info: Amazon). His live talk radio show, Media Squat Radio, airs Mondays 7-8pm EDT on WFMU. Streams at www.wfmu.org and iTunes.

Previous Rushkoff columns on the economy:
“No Money Down” (Arthur No. 31/Oct 2008)
“Riding Out the Credit Crisis” (Arthur No. 29/May 2008)

agences de notation: incapables de voir un elephant dans le couloir

texte en français et anglais

extrait:

(...)Et les relais disponibles sont nombreux. Tout d'abord, on trouve une agence de notation, en l'occurrence Moodys (6), qui comme ses congénères, est d'une part au service intégral de Wall Street, et d'autre part incapable de voir un éléphant dans un couloir (ils ont juste raté les subprimes, les CDS, Bear Stearn, Lehman Brothers, AIG, ….). Mais, mystérieusement, la presse financière continue à relayer leurs opinions, appliquant sûrement un principe plein d'humanité consistant à penser qu'un jour par simple hasard statistique ils finiront pas évaluer quelque chose correctement. Dans notre cas, l'écho fut unanime : Moodys avait identifié bien à l'avance une énorme « bombe » cachée dans l'arrière-cour de la zone Euro (car c'est bien de l'Euro qu'il s'agit ici) … qui ne manquerait pas de dévaster le système financier européen. (...)

in source:
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-33-est-disponible!-Tensions-transatlantiques-croissantes-a-la-veille-du-G20-Exemple-d-une-tentative-de_a2936.html

GEAB N°33 est disponible! Tensions transatlantiques croissantes à la veille du G20 : Exemple d'une tentative de déstabilisation du système bancaire de l'UE et de l'Euro par Wall Street et la City

- Communiqué public GEAB N°33 (15 mars 2009) -

GEAB N°33 est disponible! Tensions transatlantiques croissantes à la veille du G20 : Exemple d'une tentative de déstabilisation du système bancaire de l'UE et de l'Euro par Wall Street et la City
Pour LEAP/E2020, les alternatives offertes aux dirigeants du G20 qui se réuniront à Londres le 2 Avril prochain sont au nombre de deux : reconstruire un nouveau système monétaire international qui permette un nouveau jeu global intégrant équitablement tous les principaux acteurs mondiaux et réduire la crise à une durée de trois à cinq ans ; ou bien tenter de faire durer le système actuel et plonger le monde dès la fin 2009 dans une crise tragique de plus d'une décennie.

Dans ce GEAB N°33, nous décrivons ainsi les deux grandes lignes d'avenir qui resteront ouvertes jusqu'à l'été 2009. Au-delà de cette période, notre équipe considère en effet que l'option « crise courte » sera obsolète et que le monde s'engagera sur le chemin de la phase de dislocation géopolitique mondiale de la crise (1), et de la crise profonde de plus d'une décennie.

D'ailleurs, face à l'urgence, LEAP/E2020 publiera le 24 Mars prochain à l'échelle mondiale une lettre ouverte aux dirigeants du G20, modeste contribution de notre équipe pour tenter d'éviter une crise longue et tragique.

La situation s'avère d'autant plus inquiétante que des tensions croissantes se font jour à la veille du sommet du 2 Avril, qui voient émerger les menaces à peine voilées de certains dirigeants et des opérations de manipulation des opinions publiques par d'autres leaders du G20.

Nous revenons plus en détail sur ces éléments dans le GEAB N°33 dans lequel par ailleurs l'équipe de LEAP/E2020 a décidé de se livrer à un exercice utile pour tous ceux (y compris aux Etats-Unis d'où proviennent plus de 20% des lecteurs de LEAP/E2020) qu'exaspèrent l'illusion entretenue par les principaux médias occidentaux sur l'état du pilier américain de notre système actuel : anticiper l'état socio-économique des Etats-Unis d'ici un an, au Printemps 2010. Les tendances lourdes nous paraissent en effet être déjà suffisamment affirmées pour qu'une telle anticipation ait du sens. Un exercice du même ordre sera bien entendu effectué pour l'Union européenne, la Russie et la Chine dans les prochains numéros de GEAB.

Graphique synthétique de l'évolution du sentiment d'inquiétude collective aux Etats-Unis (en bleu : sentiment d'un risque de crise grave ; en vert : sentiment de pouvoir d'achat; en rose : inquiétude sur l'emploi) - Source : Chart of Doom, 02/2009
Graphique synthétique de l'évolution du sentiment d'inquiétude collective aux Etats-Unis (en bleu : sentiment d'un risque de crise grave ; en vert : sentiment de pouvoir d'achat; en rose : inquiétude sur l'emploi) - Source : Chart of Doom, 02/2009
Dans un même souci de fiabilité des informations, l'équipe de LEAP/E2020, qui dès Décembre 2007, dans le GEAB N°20, avait mis en garde contre le risque immobilier en Europe centrale et orientale, a décidé d'analyser dans ce communiqué public du GEAB N°33 la réalité de la soi-disant « bombe bancaire est-européenne » qui a envahi les médias depuis environ un mois.

Si ce sujet nous paraît pertinent c'est qu'il représente selon nous une tentative délibérée de la part de Wall Street et de la City (2) de faire croire à une fracture de l'UE et d'instiller l'idée d'un risque « mortel » pesant sur la zone Euro, en relayant sans discontinuer de fausses informations sur le « risque bancaire venu d'Europe de l'Est » et en tentant de stigmatiser une zone Euro « frileuse » face aux mesures « volontaristes » américaines ou britanniques. L'un des objectifs est également de tenter de détourner l'attention internationale de l'aggravation des problèmes financiers à New-York et Londres, tout en affaiblissant la position européenne à la veille du sommet du G20.

L'idée est brillante : reprendre un thème déjà bien connu des opinions publiques, assurant ainsi une adhésion facile au nouveau contenu ; y intégrer une ou deux analogies frappantes pour assurer une large reprise dans les médias et sur l'Internet (faites « crise bancaire europe est » sur Google, le résultat est éloquent) ; puis utiliser le concours de quelques hommes et organisations liges influentes toujours disponibles pour un mensonge supplémentaire. Avec un tel cocktail, il est même possible de faire croire pour un temps que la guerre en Irak est un succès, que la crise des subprime n'affectera pas la sphère financière, que la crise financière n'affectera pas l'économie réelle, que la crise n'est pas vraiment grave, et que si elle est grave, tout est en fait sous contrôle !

Alors en ce qui nous concerne ici, le thème déjà bien connu, c'est la « séparation entre la « Vieille Europe » et la « Nouvelle Europe », entre une Europe riche et égoïste et une Europe pauvre et pleine d'espoir. De Rumsfeld pour l'Irak au Royaume-Uni pour l'élargissement, c'est une antienne qui a nous a été répétée sans discontinuité pendant dix ans par tous les médias anglo-saxons et affidés, et dont en particulier certains médias britanniques se sont faits une spécialité (3).

Les analogies sont ici au nombre de deux : l'Europe de l'Est, c'est « la crise des subprime de l'UE » (sous-entendu, chacun a forcément une crise de subprime chez soi (4)); et une crise en Europe de l'Est aura le même effet terrible que la Crise asiatique de 1997 (sûrement parce que tout ça se passe à l'Est (5)).

Et les relais disponibles sont nombreux. Tout d'abord, on trouve une agence de notation, en l'occurrence Moodys (6), qui comme ses congénères, est d'une part au service intégral de Wall Street, et d'autre part incapable de voir un éléphant dans un couloir (ils ont juste raté les subprimes, les CDS, Bear Stearn, Lehman Brothers, AIG, ….). Mais, mystérieusement, la presse financière continue à relayer leurs opinions, appliquant sûrement un principe plein d'humanité consistant à penser qu'un jour par simple hasard statistique ils finiront pas évaluer quelque chose correctement. Dans notre cas, l'écho fut unanime : Moodys avait identifié bien à l'avance une énorme « bombe » cachée dans l'arrière-cour de la zone Euro (car c'est bien de l'Euro qu'il s'agit ici) … qui ne manquerait pas de dévaster le système financier européen.

Ensuite, pour crédibiliser la chose, on utilise quelques médias viscéralement anti-Euro (comme le Telegraph par exemple, qui par ailleurs produit pourtant de très bonnes analyses sur la crise, mais que la chute de la Livre et de l'économie britannique a tendance à aveugler ces temps-ci en ce qui concerne la zone Euro) et on diffuse une information qu'on supprime ensuite (car elle est inexacte) pour lui donner le sel de l'interdit, du secret (7) qui dévoilerait un « tsunami financier » mondial en préparation notamment du fait des engagements des banques de la Vieille Europe dans le secteur financier de la Nouvelle Europe (8). On remue tout cela chaque jour via les principaux médias financiers américains et britanniques, sachant que les autres suivront par habitude. Et avec l'UE c'est tellement facile puisqu'il lui faut toujours un long moment pour comprendre et encore plus de temps pour réagir, avec l'inévitable dissension qui permet de
faire rebondir la manipulation. Cette fois-ci, c'est le Premier Ministre hongrois, Ferenc Gyurcsany, qui joue le rôle du « pauvre petit nouvel Européen martyr ». Pour mémoire, les Hongrois tentent en vain de se débarrasser de lui depuis qu'il a involontairement avoué il y a 2 ans avoir menti à son peuple pour se faire réélire, en confirmant dans la foulée qu'il avait endetté son pays au-delà de toute limite raisonnable. Et c'est lui qui annonce des chiffres délirants pour un plan de sauvetage du système financier de l'Europe de l'Est, mettant à nouveau en position de « méchants » ou d' « inconscients » les vieux Européens. Le refus de ces derniers est mis en exergue par l'ensemble de la presse américaine et britannique, concluant bien entendu à l'inévitable échec de la solidarité européenne, … et minorant (ou oubliant même parfois) le fait que ce sont les Polonais ou les Tchèques qui ont été les plus virulents contre
les exigences aberrantes du Premier Ministre hongrois (9). La tentative d'affaiblir la zone Euro et l'UE par l'Est peut donc se poursuivre. Il faut attendre les déclarations répétées des dirigeants de la zone Euro, l'annonce d'un plan de soutien financier substantiel (au regard des risques réels) et les communiqués musclés des dirigeants politiques et des banquiers centraux de la région pour que cette manipulation commence à perdre un peu de sa vigueur. Mais elle n'a toujours pas disparu, car le parallèle est maintenu dans les médias mentionnés entre crise des subprime et crise de l'immobilier en Europe de l'Est; comme si la Hongrie équivalait à la Californie, ou la Lettonie à la Floride.

Car là est bien le noeud du problème : la taille a de l'importance en matière économique et financière, et ce n'est pas la queue qui fait bouger le chien, comme certains voudraient visiblement le faire croire.

Si dès Décembre 2007, à un moment où nos « experts actuels en crise d'Europe de l'Est » n'avaient pas la moindre idée du problème, LEAP/E2020 avait souligné le risque immobilier important pesant sur les pays européens concernés (Lettonie, Hongrie, Roumanie,...) et bien entendu leurs créditeurs (Autriche, suisse en particulier), il était tout aussi évident pour notre équipe que c'était un problème très limité aux pays concernés. Il y a bien des problèmes à venir pour ces opérateurs et ces pays, mais ils ne sont pas plus grave que la moyenne des problèmes du système financier mondial ; et sans aucune mesure avec les problèmes des places financières de New-York, Londres ou de Suisse. Rappelons-nous que la banque la plus citée comme « détonateur » de cette « bombe est-européenne », à savoir la banque autrichienne Raiffeisen, a réalisé un profit en hausse de 17% en 2008 ; une performance au-delà des espoirs les plus fous
de la plupart des banques américaines ou britanniques comme le fait remarquer fort justement William Gamble, l'un des rares analystes s'être intéressé à la réalité de la situation (10).

PIB de l'Union Européenne, de la zone Euro et des Etats-Membres - Source : Eurostat, 2008
PIB de l'Union Européenne, de la zone Euro et des Etats-Membres - Source : Eurostat, 2008
Pour ceux qui connaissent mal la géographie de l'UE, le titre « la Hongrie en banqueroute » ou « la Lettonie en banqueroute » peut paraître tout-à-fait comparable à « la Californie en banqueroute ». Pour ceux qui perdent leur travail à cause de ces faillites, c'est en effet un problème identique. Mais en terme d'impact plus large, il n'y a aucun rapport entre les deux. Ainsi, la Californie, durement frappée par la crise des subprimes, est l'état le plus peuplé et le plus riche des Etats-Unis alors que la Lettonie est un pays pauvre avec une population égale à moins de 1% de celle de l'UE (contre 12% de la population US pour la Californie (11)). Le PIB de la Hongrie représente à peine 1,1% du PIB de la zone Euro (pour la Lettonie ce chiffre est de 0,2%) (12) : soit une proportion comparable à celle de l'Oklahoma (1% du PIB des Etats-Unis (13)), pas à celle de la Floride. On est donc loin d'une Europe de l'Est porteuse d'une crise des
subprime à l'européenne. L'ensemble des nouveaux Etats membres de l'UE pèse moins de 10% du PIB de l'UE (et parmi ceux-là, les plus riches ou les plus gros comme la Tchéquie ou la Pologne ne sont quasiment pas affectés). La somme en jeu, pour le système financier européen, se situe dans le pire des cas autour de 100 Milliards EUR (130 milliards USD) (14), soit une somme très modique à l'échelle du système financier de l'UE (15). D'ailleurs, l'UE a pris la tête d'un consortium injectant déjà près de 25 Milliards € (soit 20% du scénario le plus grave) pour stabiliser la situation (16), dont la récente baisse du Franc suisse diminue encore la gravité.

Et, last but not least, en Europe de l'Est, l'immobilier récent gardera une valeur importante (même si plus faible qu'en 2007/2008) car, après 50 ans de communisme, il y a une pénurie d'immeubles modernes. Alors qu'aux Etats-Unis, les maisons construites pendant le boum immobilier de ces dernières années sont des constructions en surnombre, d'une qualité très variable et qui déjà sont en train de se dégrader dans les états les plus touchés. Il y a là une vraie destruction de richesse pour les propriétaires, l'économie, les créditeurs et les banques.

La complexité de cette crise impose d'être très vigilant pour identifier les tendances et les facteurs qui sont réellement porteurs de graves dangers et ne pas se laisser abuser par les rumeurs ou les fausses informations.

Nous espérons donc que cette explication détaillée permettra non seulement de tordre le cou au mensonge orchestré autour de la soi-disant « bombe financière » d'Europe de l'Est (17) ; et qu'elle servira d'exemple pour permettre à chacun de « briser les apparences » et d'aller chercher « derrière le miroir » des médias financiers dominants les éléments factuels qui seuls permettent de se faire une idée précise.

Si le sommet du G20 de Londres ne parvient pas à éviter l'entrée dans la phase de dislocation géopolitique mondiale, ces opérations de manipulation et de déstabilisation vont se multiplier, chaque bloc cherchant à discréditer son adversaire, comme dans tout jeu à somme nulle (18) : ce qu'il perd, je le gagne.

----------
Notes:

(1) Voir GEAB N°32

(2) Relayés par tout ce que ces deux places comptent de médias et experts financiers, dont la plupart n'avait même pas idée du problème immobilier/financier de certains pays d'Europe de l'Est quand LEAP/E2020 l'analysait en décembre 2007.

(3) Nulle surprise donc à ce que Marketwatch reprenne dans un article sur le sujet les accusations à leur propos de la Banque Centrale tchèque. Source : Marketwatch, 09/03/2009.

(4) Ce qui est pourtant faux. Aucun autre pays, à part les Etats-Unis et le Royaume-Uni ne connaît une telle convergence de facteurs catastrophiques.

(5) Alors que les pays d'Europe centrale et orientale touchés (Hongrie, pays baltes, Bulgarie, Roumanie) sont totalement marginaux dans l'économie mondiale, les pays d'Asie du Sud-Est étaient des acteurs-clés de la globalisation des années 1990.

(6) Source : Reuters, 17/02/2009

(7) Et qui fait que même les sites avisés sont incertains sur l'attitude à avoir vis-à-vis de cette « information », entretenant donc la crédibilité de l' «information »., comme par exemple c'est le cas de Gary North, le 19/02/2009, sur le site LewRockwell.com.

(8) Source : Telegraph, 15/02/2009

(9) Source: EasyBourse, 01/03/2009

(10) Source : SeekingAlpha, 26/02/2009

(11) Source : Statistiques 2007, US Census Bureau.

(12) Source : Statistiques 2008, Eurostat. Et les pays baltes sont « couvés » par les pays scandinaves, en particulier par la Suède qui prend grand soin à éviter une spirale incontrôlable dans la région. Source : International Herald Tribune, 12/03/2009

(13) Source : Statistiques 2008, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.

(14) Source : Baltic Course, 05/03/2009

(15) Et ridicule au regard des centaines de milliards que n'arrêtent pas d'injecter dans leurs banques de manière répétée les gouvernements américain et britannique.

(16) Source : Banque Européenne d'Investissement, 27/02/2009

(17) Et nous ne nous attardons pas ici sur l'amalgame fait avec l'Ukraine (amalgame auquel Nouriel Roubini, pourtant généralement plus avisé, a également prêté son concours – source : Forbes, 26/02/2009), qui non seulement n'appartient pas à l'UE, mais en plus est un pion de Washington et Londres depuis la « révolution orange ». L'actuel effondrement de l'Ukraine, s'il peut poser problème à l'UE comme tout facteur d'instabilité à ses frontières, illustre surtout l' « effondrement du Mur Dollar » au détriment des positions américaines car c'est la Russie qui va y retrouver son influence. Au moment où à Wall Street et à la City, les grandes banques s'effondrent ou sont nationalisées, on a vraiment assisté avec cette manipulation à faire cacher la forêt américano-britannique par l'arbre est-européen. Certains s'y sont certainement laissé prendre en toute honnêteté d'ailleurs car l'histoire était si crédible : « "si non è
vero è bello" » comme disent les Italiens.

(18) Ce que deviendra le monde à partir de la fin 2009 si un nouveau jeu n'est pas lancé d'ici l'été prochain.

Dimanche 15 Mars 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
extrait:

(...)

Suspects are not missing. In the first place, a rating agency - in this case Moodys (6), which, like the rest of them, first of all, is completely devoted to Wall Street, and then is incapable of seeing "an elephant in a corridor" (they missed the subprimes, the CDS, Bear Stearn, Lehman Brothers, AIG, ….). But, for some mysterious reason, the financial media keeps on repeating their opinions, probably generously applying the principle that they could be right some day purely out of statistical chance. In this case, Moody's prediction has been largely echoed: they saw a major « bomb » in the backyard of the Eurozone (as of course, it is the Euro we are talking about here)… about to devastate the European financial system.

(...)

in: http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-33-is-available!-Growing-Transatlantic-tensions-on-the-eve-of-the-G20-summit-An-illustration-of-Wall-Street-s-and_a2940.html

GEAB N°33 is available! Growing Transatlantic tensions on the eve of the G20 summit: An illustration of Wall Street's and the City's attempt to destabilize the EU banking system and the Euro

- Public announcement (March 16, 2009) -

GEAB N°33 is available! Growing Transatlantic tensions on the eve of the G20 summit: An illustration of Wall Street's and the City's attempt to destabilize the EU banking system and the Euro
According to LEAP/E2020, there are only two options left for the G20 leaders who gather next April 2nd in London: either they rebuild a new international monetary system, creating the conditions for a new global system that involves all the main global players, and reducing the crisis to a maximum of 3 to 5 years; or they strive to prolong the current system, thrusting the world into a decade long tragic crisis starting at the end of 2009.

In this 33rd edition of the GEAB, we wish to describe the two ways forward that remain open until summer 2009. Beyond that, our team estimates that the "short-term crisis" option will be obsolete and that the world will be on the path towards global geopolitical dislocation (1), and a deep and decade-long crisis.

For this reason, due to the urgency, LEAP/E2020 has decided to publish next March 24th on a global scale an open letter to all the leaders of the G20. This will be our team's attempt to divert the system from the long and tragic crisis option.

The situation appears all the more worrying in that tensions are growing on the eve of the April 2nd summit. Indeed a number of thinly disguised threats on the part of some G20 leaders, as well as various attempts to manipulate public opinion on the part of others are to be observed.

We shall come back in detail on these aspects in this GEAB N°33 where the LEAP/E2020 team has also decided to engage in an exercise intended for all those (including the US where 20 percent of LEAP/E2020's readers come from) who are exasperated by the illusion fed by Western media about the state of the US as a cornerstone of our current system: anticipating the social and economic state of the United States in one year from now, in Spring 2010. Strong trends are already visible enough to enable this kind of forecast. Of course, a similar exercise will be conducted about the European Union, Russia and China in the following editions of the GEAB.

Synthetic graphic of US collective sentiment (in blue: sense of impending doom; in green: purchasing power sentiment; in pink: job concerns) - Source : Chart of Doom, 02/2009
Synthetic graphic of US collective sentiment (in blue: sense of impending doom; in green: purchasing power sentiment; in pink: job concerns) - Source : Chart of Doom, 02/2009
In line with their concern for reliable information, the LEAP/E2020 team (which warned about housing risks in Central and eastern Europe as early as December 2007 in GEAB N°20 decided to study carefully in the present public announcement the reality of this so-called "Eastern European banking bomb" which has invaded the media in the last month.

If we found this a relevant theme, it is because it represents in our opinion a deliberate attempt on the part of Wall Street and the City (2) to make the world believe in some rupture within the EU and to instil the idea that some « deadly » risk is weighing on the Eurozone, by endlessly conveying phony news on a "banking risk coming from Eastern Europe" and by stigmatizing a "cold-feeted" Eurozone as opposed to the "voluntarist" actions initiated by the Americans and the Bristish. One aim is also to divert the attention from the increasing financial problems encountered in New York and London, and to weaken the Europe position on the eve of the G20 summit.

The idea is brilliant: pick up a current and "in the news" theme to ensure interest, add one or two striking analogies to guarantee that the media and internet are eager to circulate the information; then call on a few devoted men and organisations, always available to tell one more lie. With this kind of a cocktail, you can even make people believe for a while that the war in Iraq is a great success, that the subprime crisis will not affect the financial sector, that the financial crisis will not affect real economy, that the crisis is not really severe, and that, if it is, everything is under control!

In the present case, the theme is a classic; it is about the separation between the « Old Europe » and the « New Europe », between a rich and selfish Europe and a poor and hopeful Europe. From Rumsfeld on Iraq to the United Kingdom on EU enlargement, this is a common theme repeated endlessly over the past ten years by the Anglo-Saxon and related media, and on which some British media in particular have become specialists (3).

As to the analogies, there are two: Eastern Europe is the "subprime crisis" of the EU (understand: of course, everyone has its own subprime crisis (4)); and, a crisis in Eastern Europe will have the same terrible effect as the 1997 Asia crisis (probably because both are Eastward (5)).

Suspects are not missing. In the first place, a rating agency - in this case Moodys (6), which, like the rest of them, first of all, is completely devoted to Wall Street, and then is incapable of seeing "an elephant in a corridor" (they missed the subprimes, the CDS, Bear Stearn, Lehman Brothers, AIG, ….). But, for some mysterious reason, the financial media keeps on repeating their opinions, probably generously applying the principle that they could be right some day purely out of statistical chance. In this case, Moody's prediction has been largely echoed: they saw a major « bomb » in the backyard of the Eurozone (as of course, it is the Euro we are talking about here)… about to devastate the European financial system.

Then, to make the idea more credible, you select some virulently anti-Euro media (such as the UK's Telegraph, for instance, which, despite the fact that they also produce some very accurate analyses of the crisis, are currently blinded as regards the Eurozone by the collapse of the British economy and Pound Sterling) and you circulate a news item that you soon retract (because it is inaccurate) so that it gains credibility by virtue of its retraction, of the secret (7) revealing some unfolding "financial tsunami" due to Old European banks' liabilities within the New European financial sector (8). Continue the story each day in the main US and UK financial media, knowing the others will follow out of habit (it is so easy as regards the EU, slow as it is to understand and even slower to react, with the inevitable dissent that makes it possible for the manipulation to gain momentum). This time, Hungarian Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, is the one
playing the role of the « poor little new European martyr ». For the record, the Hungarians have vainly been trying to get rid of him ever since he involuntarily admitted two years ago that he lied to his citizens in order to be reelected, and confirmed in the same breath that he indebted his country beyond any reasonable limit. Now, he is the one announcing crazy figures for a bailout plan of the Eastern European financial system, giving the Old Europeans the role of the « bad » or « cold » guys. The latter's refusal is pinpointed by the entire US and UK press, coming to the natural conclusion that European solidarity has failed,… and understating (or completely forgetting) the fact that the Polish and the Czechs were the most virulent against the absurd claims of Hungarian Prime Minister (9). The attempt to weaken the EU and Eurozone from the East could have gone on further until the Eurozone leaders decided to make a number of strong
statements and announced a substantial financial support plan (compared to the real risk), and political leaders and central bankers of the regions resorted to publishing tough press releases so that finally the manipulation began to lose momentum. But it has not disappeared yet, and the analogy between the subprime crisis and the housing crisis in Eastern Europe remains vivid in the mind of the media; as if Hungary was equivalent to California, or Latvia to Florida.

Ths is indeed the core of the problem: in economy and finance, size matters… and the tail never wags the dog, contrary to what some people would like us to believe.

As early as December 2007, at a time when our « current experts of the Eastern European crisis » showed no awareness whatsoever of the problem, LEAP/E2020 highlighted the fact that a considerable housing risk weighed on these European countries (Latvia, Hungary, Romania,…) and on their creditors (Austria and Switzerland in particular). However they always found obvious that these problems were limited to the concerned countries. There are indeed problems ahead for these countries and those commercially and financially involved with them, but these problems are no more serious than the average problems encountered by the global financial system; and they certainly do not compare with the problems faced by the financial markets of New York, London or Switzerland. Let us remind ourselves that the bank most often cited as being the "detonator" of this "Eastern-European bomb", i.e. the Austrian bank Raiffeisen, increased its profits 17 percent in
2008; a result beyond the wildest dreams of most US and UK banks today, as William Gamble noted, one of the rare analysts who studied what the story was really about (10).

GDP of the European Union, Eurozone and Member-States - Source: Eurostat, 2008
GDP of the European Union, Eurozone and Member-States - Source: Eurostat, 2008
For those who are not familiar with EU geography, a headline like « Hungary in bankruptcy » or « Latvia defaults on its debt » can compare to one like « California goes bankrupt ». For those who lose their jobs as a consequence, the problem is indeed similar. However, in terms of impact on a larger-scale, they have nothing in common. California, severely affected by the subprime crisis, is the most populated and richest state of the United States, while Latvia is a poor country with a population corresponding to 1 percent of the EU population (versus California's 12 percent of the US population (11)). Hungary's GDP represents less than 1.1 percent of the Eurozone's GDP (in the case of Latvia, this figure is 0.2 percent) (12), that is to say the equivalent of Oklahoma (1% of US GDP (13)) rather than Florida. Eastern Europe is far from being able to bring problems of a similar magnitude to the subprime crisis. All the new Member-States put
together comprise less than 10 percent of the EU GDP (among them, the biggest and richest ones, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, are hardly affected at all). As a worst-case scenario, the amounts at stake for the European financial system, are around EUR 100-billion (USD 130-billion) (14), that is to say a very modest sum on the scale of the EU financial system (15). In fact, the EU has taken the lead of a consortium which has already injected EUR 25-billion (i.e. 20 percent of the worst-case scenario) to stabilize the situation (16), and whose severity has already been diminished by the recent fall in value of the Swiss Franc.

Last but not least, the value of new houses in Eastern Europe will not fall dramatically (even if the value will be less than in 2007/08) because, after 50 years of communism, there is a shortage of modern buildings. In the US on the contrary, an excessive number of houses were built during the last housing bubble, of variable quality and already depreciating in value in the most affected states. There, there is a real destruction of wealth for landowners, creditors, banks and the economy altogether.

The complexity of the ongoing crisis requires being extremely vigilant in identifying the trends and factors conveying real serious dangers, instead of being sidetracked by rumors and phony news.

We hope that this detailed explanation will contribute to debunk the lie orchestrated around a so-called « Eastern European financial bomb » (17) ; and that it will provide an illustration enabling each and everyone to see through first appearances, seek true facts hiding "behind the mirror" presented by mainstream media, and make up their own mind.

If the G20 Summit fails to prevent the world entering into the phase of geopolitical dislocation, similar operations of manipulation and destabilization will increase in number, each regional block trying to discredit their opponent, like any zero-sum game (18) : a player gains the other players lose.

----------
Notes:

(1) See GEAB N°32

(2) Circulated by everything that counts among financial media and experts, most of whom did not have the faintest idea of a housing/financial problem coming in some Eastern European countries when, in December 2007, LEAP/E2020 described the risk.

(3) No wonder then that Marketwatch mentions in an article on this subject the accusations made against it by the Czech Republic's central bank. Source: Marketwatch, 03/09/2009.

(4) Which of course is wrong: no other country than the US and the UK presents such a convergence of disasters.

(5) Knowing that the Central and Eastern European countries hit (Hungary, the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania) are completely marginal in the global economy, contrary to South-East Asian countries, key-players of globalisation in the 1990s.

(6) Source: Reuters, 02/17/2009

(7) Due to which, even the most informed websites hesitate to give an opinion on that story, thus giving it more credit. See Gary North, 19/02/2009, on LewRockwell.com.

(8) Source: Telegraph, 02/15/2009

(9) Source: EasyBourse, 03/01/2009

(10) Source: SeekingAlpha, 02/26/2009

(11) Source: 2007 Statistics, US Census Bureau.

(12) Source: 2008 Statistics, Eurostat. The Baltic States are overprotected by Scandinavian countries, Sweden in particular who is very careful that an uncontrollable spiral does not begin in the region. Source: International Herald Tribune, 03/12/2009

(13) Source: 2008 Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.

(14) Source: Baltic Course, 03/05/2009

(15) A ridiculously small sum compared to the hundreds of billions repeatedly injected by the US and UK governments into their banking system.

(16) Source: European Investment Bank, 02/27/2009

(17) We prefer not to waste our time with the confusion about Ukraine (a confusion that even Nouriel Roubini, usually better informed, contributed to foster – Source: Forbes, 02/26/2009), not only a country which does not even belong to the EU, but clearly a pawn on Washington's and London's chess board since the "orange revolution". The unfolding collapse of the Ukraine, if it can indeed create problems for the EU as can any instability on its frontier, mostly illustrates the collapse of the "dollar wall" at the expense of US positions and in favour of Russia's regained influence in that country. At the precise moment when in Wall Street and the City, large banks collapse or are being nationalized, this recent manipulation is an attempt to hide the Anglo-Saxon forest behind the Eastern-European tree. Some people have honestly been fooled, the story was so credible: « si non è vero è bello », as the Italians say.

(18) What the world will become from the end of 2009 onward, if a new system is not initiated next summer.

Lundi 16 Mars 2009