Britain peoples and Anglo-saxsons
In a recent article titled “The World Versus the USA; Britain; Israel; and Germany (BIGS)” I wrote: [It seems more likely that the Third World War WW3 will be a triggered sooner than expected and at any time between the major financial capitals against the rest of the World or the other way around.]
To understand the bonds within the BIGS group (Britain; Israel; Germany; and the USA) we must understand three very relevant terms: 1- The Anglo-Saxons; 2- The Anglo-Saxon economy; And 3- The banking system (Why Israel is the major member in this axis? )
The term Anglo-Saxon is used by some historians to designate the Germanic tribes who invaded and settled the south and east of Britain beginning in the early 5th century and the period from their creation of the English nation up to the Norman conquest. The Anglo-Saxon era denotes the period of English history between about 550 and 1066. The term is also used for the language, now known as Old English, that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons and their descendants in England (and part of southeastern Scotland) between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century.
The Benedictine monk Bede, writing in the early 8th century, identified the English as the descendants of three Germanic tribes:
the Angles, who may have come from Angeln (in modern Germany): Bede wrote that their whole nation came to Britain, leaving their former land empty. The name England (Old English: Engla land or Ængla land) originates from this tribe;
the Saxons, from Lower Saxony (in modern Germany; German: Niedersachsen) and the Low Countries;
the Jutes, possibly from the Jutland peninsula (in modern Denmark; Danish: Jylland).
Their language, Old English, which derived from Ingvaeonic West Germanic dialects, transformed into Middle English from the 11th century. Old English was divided into four main dialects: West Saxon, Mercian, Northumbrian and Kentish.
An Anglo-Saxon economy or Anglo-Saxon capitalism (so called because it is supposedly practiced in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland ) is a capitalist macroeconomic model in which levels of regulation and taxes are low, and government provides relatively fewer services.
Proponents of the term Anglo-Saxon economy state that Anglo-Saxon economies are more “liberal” and free-market-oriented than other capitalist economies. However, those who disagree with the use of the term claim that the economies of the Anglosphere differ as much from each other as they do from continental European economies.
Differences between Anglo-Saxon economies are illustrated by taxation and the welfare state. The UK has a significantly higher level of taxation than the US. Moreover, the UK spends far more than the US on the welfare state as a percentage of GDP and also spends more than Spain, Portugal, or the Netherlands, all of which are in mainland Europe. This spending figure is however still considerably lower than that of France or Germany.
Most countries on continental Europe (such as France, Italy and Germany) possess a macroeconomic model called continental capitalism (also called Rhine or Rhenan capitalism). Yet some see Spain and also the newer members of the EU as (non-English-speaking) examples of “Anglo-Saxon” economies. The debate amongst economists as to which economic model is better, circles around perspectives involving poverty, job insecurity, social services, and inequality. Generally speaking, their advocates argue that more liberalised economies produce greater overall prosperity, while defenders of continental models counter that they produce lesser inequality and lesser poverty at the lowest margins.
The Banking System at the Root of the “EU” Crisis
Lydia Prieg, a senior finance researcher at the New Economics Foundation, wrote:
[ The eurozone crisis is once again dominating the headlines following the €100 billion bailout of Spain’s banking system over the weekend. The Spanish crisis perfectly illustrates not the financial irresponsibility of the feckless South – a popular misconception, particularly among the German public – but instead the inherent instability of a financial model, fractional reserve banking, which has been enthusiastically adopted around the globe.
Fractional reserve banking is a system in which the value of all the deposits and savings reportedly ‘held’ in a bank exceeds the value of all the cash actually held in that bank. This is because banks lend out more money than they have in their vaults — an activity that relies on the assumption that only a small percentage of the public will request their money back at any one time.
While many people are aware of fractional reserve banking, very few realise that it has a critical implication: banks can and do create new money. In fact, approximately 3% of the money in the UK economy is created by the Bank of England and the Royal Mint. The other 97% is created electronically by banks.
As the Deputy Governor of the Bank England puts it: “banks extend credit by creating money”. In other words, banks create new money when they lend, and the amount of money in our economy is therefore very strongly determined by banks’ lending decisions.
If banks lend more, then the amount of money in the economy increases, which can lead to an economic boom. Conversely, if banks stop lending, then the rate at which new money enters the economy slows, and the economy may fall into a recession.
Banks also have direct control over which parts of the economy get this new money.
The great Eurobanking scam! Episode one zillion and one
This opinion was written by Maju at his blog on July 18, 2012
[More or less you know the story: European and global banksters get the money from all sources, fix the rates and conditions, and do not even have to run after all that because nobody is after them. Meanwhile the common citizens are being squeezed to the last drop of blood to pay for that scheme.
The Libor and the Euribor (the reference credit rates in the Anglosaxon and mainland European spheres respectively) have been tampered with for many years and there is nobody in jail for it, never mind resigning from their posts as bank heads… it’s almost not even in the news anymore.
The Hong-Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), a Scottish bank, is found guilty of systematical money-laundering and complicity with global drug-trafficking and what’s the penalty? A petty fine. Euronews calls it “a hefty fine” but it’s peanuts compared with the benefits already made. And what about the jail terms? If the petty drug seller down the street gets years of prison, the bank director who laundered his boss’ dirty money should get at least death by impalement, right? Nope. They don’t even go to court.
The latest is again being unreported: Greek banks are running a Ponzi scheme… but never mind, as Yannis Varoufakis puts it:
In a country where, supposedly, a new conservative, pro-European, ‘sensible’ government was freshly elected on a mandate of bolstering the nation’s credibility (at least in the eyes of Europe), this blatant attempt to bend the rules of bank recapitalisation (by means of a ponzi scheme where one bankrupt bank provides loans to another so that the latter’s ‘owners’ can inject the loans as capital into ‘their’ bank) went spectacularly unnoticed. Workers’ pay is reduced to sub-Saharan levels, hospitals are starved of chemo-drugs, ‘respected’ journalists lambast unionists who are trying to defend the starvation wages of unskilled labour but, when such a scandal directed at misleading the EBA, the ECB, the troika itself, is revealed, SILENCE. And as if that were not enough, the troika itself, the ECB, the EBA, whose will and directions are being usurped, also remain SILENT.
Nothing to see here: the whole financial system is bankrupt but if we ignore the matter it will go away… a thousand years from now… maybe.
Time to sharpen the pitchforks! ]
France rises above economics
Posted by Chris Mahoney on July 21, 2012
[The harsh realities of capitalist economics may matter elsewhere, but not in France. Those laws have been suspended because the socialists have a vision that goes beyond mere economics.
I can think of one reason why the French don’t understand capitalist economics: because it isn’t taught there. The academic discipline of postwar capitalist economics is anglosaxon, not French. In the anglosphere, we are taught about neoclassicism, Keynesianism, monetarism, the Chicago School, and the other attempts to explain the workings of a capitalist economy.
In a French university, “economics” consists of the socialist critique of capitalist economics*. The postwar French intelligentsia studied, not growth or the business cycle, but how to combine the best parts of capitalism and communism (voila: socialism!). If you go to a bookstore in Paris, you will find thousands of heavy volumes on the defects of capitalism; you won’t find one book that explains modern capitalist economics, except in translation.
When was the last time that a French economist won the Nobel prize? I can’t find any (unless you count expatriates). The Nobel prize in economics goes to the anglophone, not the francophone.
Today, the ruling political party in France is not capitalist, it is socialist. That’s not a blazing insight, but it might explain why France is distinctly uncomfortable with topics such as “competitiveness”, “real wage growth”, “structural rigidities”, “debt ratios”, and “fiscal discipline”. Those are foreign terms that are used to impose the anglosaxon world-view onto France.
I remember when I was a bank analyst in the 1980s, trying to explain credit ratios to European banks. They would deny their applicability to Europe because credit ratios are “American”. European banks couldn’t be understood using “American ratios”.
I see that today in France. There is a prevailing sentiment that capital markets are an alien concept and a part of the anglosaxon conspiracy. The markets are “harsh” and “unforgiving”, as if there were an another way for a country to borrow trillions of euros.
This much I do know: when France blows up, it will be blamed on capitalism, not socialism.]