PARIS — The head of the International Monetary Fund said the world economy was in danger and urged Europeans to speak with one voice on a debt crisis that has rattled the global financial system.
“The world economy is in a dangerous situation,” she told France’s Journal du Dimanche in an interview published on Sunday.
The debt crisis, which continues into 2012 after a European Union summit on December 9 only temporarily calmed markets, “is a crisis of confidence in public debt and in the solidity of the financial system,” she said.
That’s because it’s a public fraud, and you’re a big part of it.
Lagarde added: “National parliaments grumble at using public money or the guarantee of their state to support other countries. Protectionism is in the debate, and everyone for themselves is winning ground.”
“Protectionism”? It is hardly “protectionism” to refuse to spend your hard-earned money to bail out the profligacy of some other nation. That’s called prudence and the right to make that decision is called sovereignty.
Of course the IMF doesn’t believe in either. But Lagarde ought to pay attention to her history; she is French after all. And I do seem to remember that at one time in French history there was a wee revolt among the people who got damned tired of aristocrats deeding themselves effectively unlimited funds from the productive for their own puerile ends and the fiscal profligacy of the state.
What came next Christine? Do you recall your history classes? I seem to recall that things didn’t work out quite as anyone planned, and that the best laid plans for an alleged Constitutional Republic instead devolved into mass executions and violent revolution — well, maybe more than one of them, if you get into the technical. From the standpoint of the aristocracy as well as the common man this outcome could be reasonably considered a failure, yet it all came from one root — a refusal to heed the fundamental reality that a government cannot spend more than it is able to tax. This over-reach, which has arisen continually through the ages, almost-always results in the destruction of the government involved, and more frequently than one would like mass bloodshed and loss of civil order comes with it.
There seems to be this quaint notion that today we are immune from such foolishness. Of course we are not; the “aristocracy” is now the banksters, who have through their schemes and frauds ripped off literal millions of people. It is not just dodgy mortgages and similar trickery in the pedestrian manner; this behavior rises to high crimes and misdemeanors. Jefferson County Alabama anyone? How about Greece, which was “helped” to produce outright fraudulent statements of account on a national level, with the ill-gotten profits, of course, retained by those very same banksters.
There is no reason for the nations that have been abused by these tactics to “cooperate” in the saving of those who embarked on such foolishness, nor should one penny be allocated to those nations and their governments that have given protected status to and refused to prosecute the fraudulent edifices upon which this pyramid of schemes has been built.
Indeed, the wiser choice is to force those institutions, whether public, private, or quasi-governmental, to eat their own cooking, and to withdraw any alleged “protection” from both civil and personal criminal liability for their acts.
I would cite Christine’s pronouncements as a latter-day version of “Let them eat cake!”, but there is question as to the provenance of that alleged statement. Therefore, I will simply observe that aristocratic privilege through the ages is one that tends toward abuse, and that in both the case of the French and America, those abuses eventually gave rise to upheaval, convulsion and great harm.
One would think that being French Lagarde would have a respect for the lessons of history and not be inclined to risk a repetition. But then again, history also teaches us that aristocracy by any name never outgrows the unwise arrogance that is its inevitable companion.