Malice thy name is central banks.

Mind you, the eCB has a clear mandate. Fioghting inflation and by that protecting currency stability. Only this, not more. But it now does business cycle polcies (no mandate to do that), illegal state financing (forbidden by Eurpopean treaties), it claims to get engaged in climate poltiics (no mandate for that), and it prepares the further wekaneing of freedom and private proerty by enforcing digiutal currency whicb i see as the by far biggets threat to our all freedom, wealth and wellbeing becasue it enables the state to tyrannise, persecute, suppress and gag unwanted opinion and their speakers unhindered. Is dictatorship what gets rolled out here by the EeU and ECB and the ecofascists and the left. They now paint a treasure map where people ahve to mark with little corsses where their belonging sare hidden and can be plundered. You cannot protect yourself against that because these thigns are of no value to you if the state prohibits everybody to accept these as bartering/trading objects or payment. And he can enforce that prohibition if the currency system is purely digital.

Only fools shrug their shoulders on this and say they do not care because they have little themselves.

The Ggerman L.V.Mises Institute writes this:

------------

The central banks create and manipulate the fiat currencies. This fact is well known and represents a great danger (already highlighted in various ways on the Mises platform) for investors, consumers and entrepreneurs. Negative interest rates and inflation as well as all associated undesirable developments make this destructive work of the central banks obvious.

Now one could assume that this would be the only - if hardly to be underestimated - risk that emanates from the central banks. But unfortunately this is not the case. The former President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi described the ECB's “liquidity offensive” in 2012 as “Big Bertha”, using the metaphor of a cannon that was developed to combat fortifications. And as if this “Big Bertha” hadn't been enough to put investors, consumers and entrepreneurs in trouble, the central banks are working - sometimes more and sometimes less obviously - on further financial policy “bombardment”, which one can use to refer to the word “offensive” ”And“ guns ”- could speak of a monetary“ Stalin organ ”, that is, a multiple rocket launcher that causes damage over a large area.

The monetary policy "missiles" are already on their way and it is unlikely that it will be possible to stop these fiscal policy "explosive devices" and the "impact" and the associated economic destruction. Nonetheless, it makes sense to look at the additional economic destruction potential of central banks in the hope that the worst can be avoided or "covered up".
The end of cash

On the one hand, not all money is the same. Fiat money influenced by central banks is not identical to money that has proven itself over the millennia (e.g. gold) or money that is created in competition between different private providers.

On the other hand, it also makes a difference with fiat money whether it is available in coins and notes or exclusively digitally. The fact that people are (still) sensitive here is shown by the choice of the headline for an interview on the digital euro on the website of the Bundesbank, which is integrated into the ECB's system: “Cash is freedom, and we don't give it up”.

In fact, as the public consultation document shows, preparations for the introduction of a digital euro are well advanced. It can be doubted that a digital euro would not mean the end of cash, as was heard in a speech by a member of the ECB Executive Board.

Restrictions on the use of cash, e.g. when buying gold, are already "familiar". The future proof of origin for cash transactions of 10,000 euros or more is also sensitive. But money is only becoming digital, not only transparent citizens are possible, but also barely imaginable restrictions on personal freedom. For example, a meat consumption budget could be specified. If this were exceeded when shopping (e.g. buying a few slices of cooked ham), the transaction would not be possible.

Political do's and don'ts of any kind can be easily implemented with exclusively digital money. The citizen could not prevent a monthly meltdown of savings, just as little as the restriction of the availability of money to only those goods and services that are politically wanted or specified.

It would also be possible to break political resistance. Uncomfortable contemporaries could easily turn off the money tap. The work of the ECB on the digital euro is therefore a danger that in its “explosive power” probably goes beyond the fiat money consequences.
Green Deal

The European Green Deal is also leaving its mark on the ECB. This can be read on their website (translation in the footnotes):

Climate change can affect price stability through extreme weather events and uncertainties related to the transition to a low-carbon economy. We at the ECB are committed to taking the impact of climate change into consideration in our monetary policy framework.

In this context, a link was also made with the Corona reconstruction fund.

With this self-authorization, the ECB is also expanding its mandate to include environmental issues. The ECB Action Plan addresses the issue in a number of ways. The targeted purchase of “green corporate bonds” inevitably leads to distortions of competition, market neutrality looks different. For the investor, this “political subsidization” changes the assessment of opportunities and risks in various markets.

But such central bank interventions also have consequences for consumers and entrepreneurs. This form of subsidizing certain industries and products leads to (indirectly disadvantaged) providers and their products disappearing. The entrepreneurs have little chance of asserting themselves against the power of the central banks. The consumer is confronted with less choice of products and providers, which opens up price leeway for them.

How far such effects go and deeply affect personal decisions is made clear by a thought experiment: The Green Deal, flanked by the central banks, has swept large cattle breeders out of the market (because of the climate effects). Artificial meat producers as an (allegedly) better alternative have benefited and are now dominating the market with products whose long-term effects on health are still unknown.

Whether this example is a large or a rather small financial policy “bomb” is left to the individual assessment. It should be remembered, however, that this is only one example of many effects that are actually possible and occurring when the central banks act in addition to other political interventions in connection with the Green Deal. This combined effect increases the "explosive power".

I admit I am no longer jjust worried in an abstract kind of menaing, or concerned, or engage din debate. I have started to feel really afraid and personally threatened due to latest exhcnages I had with a bank over the latest changes in legislation that the ECB has comanded (!) Germany to carry out and which mean real threatening problems for me and my completely legal financial behaviour.


It is clar before all our eyes: they build a dictatorship around us, with digital walls and fiscal whips, they enforce compliance with their convictions terror, and they make us al ever more helpfless and defenceless.

Compare: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...91&postcount=1
I am deeply, deeply worried, and yes, I have started to feel personally threatend, and being afraid. Very. Thats not just talking.

Its pure malice at work around us. Malice in disguise, but still: malice. Already today we are not as free anymore than we were five years ago. ten years, 20 years, at our youth. We did not notice maybe how it was taken from us, because of the long timeframe, but now that they have laid and solidified the fundaments, they are speeding up their charge against our freedom and our wealth. Its scaring.

^ just read Kling's "QualityLand" :03:

If you ever hear news about a continental blackout looming, grab an axe, and cut that powerline from your island to the onshore. And make sure your tanks with diesel or gasoline or whatever you use to run your generators always are filled up .

The workers who keep global supply chains moving are warning of a 'system collapse'.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/29/b...ers/index.html

It is the fifth biggest slump in post-war history: The automotive industry, still Germany's industrial key sector, is expecting 18 percent fewer new cars than last year. It thus falls back to the state of 1975.

It's *all* coming to a head. All of the terrible decisions made by "the smartest guys in the room" to benefit themselves and their buddies; all of the unnatural acts that the average blue collar worker could see was a bad economic decision, all of the "nobody has tried socialism the right way" stupidity - everything over the past 75 years is going to come to fruition.

As China's bad debt unfolds, so too will every other corrupt government tied to them. The saber-rattling in Taiwan is a distraction from Evergrande and the revelation that COVID has been in the wild since early 2019 (if not earlier than that) based upon a huge order by China for pcr tests in May 2019.

And it isn't like this is caused by one big bad decision.
It's death by 1000 cuts. Coming off the gold standard. Allowing banking and wall street to get mixed up in real estate. Trade treaties that benefit no one except their architects. Pandora Papers. Solyndra. And the list goes on...

If I understand the economical news from China.
It is not only Evergrande who is behind they payment, other real estate business in China are in economical problems.

Markus

Actually, several nations have (even the U.S. a mere eighty years back). :shucks:

Stefan Frank writes for AdG:


The energy crisis eats its way into the economy

Europe's energy crisis is drawing wider circles. On October 13th, Nyrstar, Europe's largest producer of fine zinc, announced that it would reduce production in its three European smelters by up to 50 percent in view of rising energy prices. "Significant increases in electricity prices in recent weeks and the cost burden of CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, which are passed on to industrial and household customers, make full utilization of the system no longer economically feasible," says a press release. Nyrstar explains that this is not because the company has shown too little ambition to reduce CO2 emissions:

"Nyrstar plants are fully electrified and the operations in the Netherlands and Belgium use electricity that is mostly generated from renewable energy sources, which means that they operate with very little or no CO2 emissions."

At the Nyrstar locations there are "also wind turbines and solar panels". Obviously, that was of little use. One day later, the global raw materials company and trader Glencore also cut zinc production in three of its European locations. Glencore justified the move with the sharp rise in electricity prices.

After the two announcements, the price of zinc on the commodity exchanges rose by more than 25 percent to a 14-year high. The Bloomberg news agency wrote of a "panic" in a market that had been "caught on the wrong foot". “China's electricity-related zinc supply problems were factored in. It wasn't Europe. "

The Economic Association Metals (WVMetalle) called on the European Commission to take "effective measures for energy-intensive industries":

"The currently high energy prices are a massive problem for the energy-intensive industry and also affect companies in the non-ferrous metal industry to a large extent."

The non-ferrous metal industry is in a "particularly precarious situation". “Energy prices and raw material supply bottlenecks, such as with magnesium, have the industry firmly in a stranglehold. Both of these have a significant impact on the raw materials market, ”says WVMetalle's managing director Franziska Erdle.

The wind power and solar industries are also affected

Eurometaux, the European association of the metal industry, warns in a letter to the EU commissioner for energy, Kadri Simson, that companies could move out of the EU due to the high electricity prices. The association also fears that "if electricity remains too expensive, it will weaken industrial electrification as a way of decarbonization and undermine the goals of the EU's Green Deal". Non-ferrous metals such as aluminum, copper, nickel, zinc and silicon are "at the front of the industries that are affected by the high electricity prices in Europe" because their production is more electricity-intensive than that of any other material, according to the association.

The recent price hikes for aluminum, copper and zinc are of a very different kind than those that were known from the past. Rising raw material prices are usually a sign of increasing demand in a robust economy. Raw material companies then react to this by increasing production. Then prices usually go down again, because the best remedy for high prices is high prices. Currently, however, the prices of copper wire or zinc bars are rising because the manufacturers can no longer operate the smelter profitably due to the high electricity prices. The price increases in mid-October were therefore not a symptom of rising demand, but a shrinking supply. Less is produced, and society as a whole becomes poorer as a result.

The industrial buyers of the metals are the first to notice this - but certainly not the last, because they will pass on rising prices to their customers. Ironically, this also affects the wind power and solar industries: Zinc, for example, is a protection against corrosion in wind power plants. The manufacturers of solar systems complain that modules are currently "expensive and hardly available" because the manufacturers, who usually come from China, are badly affected by the energy crisis. Industrial silicon, aluminum and soda - an important material for solar glass - have meanwhile "reached the highest price level in the past ten years", say industry circles.

The beginning of a food crisis?

Agriculture is also a very energy-intensive industry. Yara, one of the world's largest fertilizer manufacturers, has cut its production in Europe by 40 percent because of the high natural gas prices. Natural gas is the starting product in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizers. Hydrogen is extracted from it, which then reacts with nitrogen from the air to form ammonia (Haber-Bosch process). At present, Yara can still import enough ammonia from its sites on other continents to Europe to keep fertilizer production going. But that cannot go on forever, warns CEO Svein Tore Holsether - in the end there may be hunger:

“It's important to get the message across that the current energy crisis could be the beginning of a food crisis. We must pay special attention to all those affected by higher utility and food prices, but for some it is a matter of survival. This is about scenarios of famine and food shortages. "

All over the world, farmers have to pay “significantly” higher prices for the nutrients they need because the production of fertilizers has become more expensive, according to Holsether. "That has immediate effects."

EU Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski confirms this: “Of course” there is a risk that rising energy prices will have an impact on food prices. According to Politico, the agriculture ministers of the 27 EU countries discussed a paper in early October in which the Polish government warns of “social unrest” as a result of rising natural gas prices.

Jais Valeur, the CEO of Danish Crown, the largest meat processing company in Europe, expects that the EU's climate policy will make beef a “luxury product like champagne” as it will never be “super climate friendly”. "It will be a luxury product that we treat ourselves to when we want to do something good for ourselves."


Von der Leyen: "Only dirty energies are more expensive"

Marie-Antoinette is credited with a statement that is supposed to show how removed she was from reality and the worries of the people: "If you have no bread, you should eat cake." She probably never said that. However, it is historically proven that Uschi von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, recently said that if natural gas becomes more and more expensive, wind and sun should be used instead:

"Energy prices are rising because the dirty energies coal, oil and gas in particular are becoming more expensive, while renewable energies, the clean ones, the good ones, have remained stable in prices and prices have fallen in recent years."

Von der Leyen intends to make her interpretation of the energy market the basis of EU policy. In an address given in English, she said that “renewables are the solution to rising electricity prices”. While “wholesale gas prices” “almost doubled compared to a year ago”, “the prices of renewable energies have remained constant. They have even fallen in recent years. ”That is why the“ European Green Deal ”is the solution:

“Every euro spent on renewables helps our planet and consumers alike. But it is also an investment in the resilience of our economies. That is why we have to accelerate our work on the European Green Deal in order to become more energy-independent. "

It is like a king who has ordered that tulips should be grown predominantly on the agricultural land of the kingdom. When the people then go hungry because there is a lack of grain, the king turns to the subjects and says: “The prices of grain have almost doubled compared to a year ago, while the prices of tulips keep falling. That is why we have to grow more tulips in order to become more independent of grain. ”Von Leyen's obsession with the idea that“ renewables ”should be expanded will do nothing but exacerbate the crisis. After all: In a tweet from October 22nd, Ursula von der Leyen wrote: "We also need a stable source, nuclear energy."

Perhaps the insight matures after all? In the UK, the government has announced the construction of new nuclear power plants in response to the energy crisis.

Coal is Germany's most important energy source

Governments in many countries around the world have underestimated the importance of reliable energy sources. Many have overestimated the ability of wind power and photovoltaics to deliver the electricity the world needs.

An example: Although it was beautifully sunny in Germany at 1 p.m. on October 18 and a lot of solar power was being produced, conventional power plants supplied two thirds of the electricity. The wind was largely out, once again the energetic energies could not be relied upon. This is not an outlier. As reported by the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), electricity generation from conventional energy increased by 20.9 percent in the first half of 2021 compared to the same period in the previous year and accounted for 56.0 percent of total electricity generation.

“Due to the lack of wind in spring, the most important energy source was coal, after wind power had been the most important energy source in the first half of 2020. ... With an increase of 35.5%, the electricity from coal-fired power plants recorded the highest increase compared to the same period of the previous year. Coal thus made up 27.1% of the total amount of electricity fed into the grid. In contrast, the feed-in from renewable energies fell by 11.7%. In particular, the electricity feed-in from wind power, with a decline of 21.0%, was significantly lower than in the first half of 2020. As a result, the share of the total amount of electricity fed in fell from 29.1% to 22.1%. "

It takes revenge that, with the elimination of nuclear energy, Germany no longer has a balanced electricity mix to spread supply and price risks. An increase in the price of natural gas now leads directly to an increase in the price of electricity. In addition, high electricity consumption in summer (when the air conditioning is hot) leads to insufficiently filled gas stores before the heating season in autumn and winter.

China: superpower in wind power and solar energy

The People's Republic of China has a different kind of command economy than in the EU. At the end of September, the government ordered the country's electricity companies to buy enough coal "at any price" to avoid blackouts. When the coal futures on the Zhengzhou futures exchange constantly climbed to new highs, they intervened again and announced in mid-October that they wanted to take action against “speculators” and bring prices back to a “reasonable level”. In response, coal companies have publicly vowed to cut their prices. The prices on the futures exchange dropped by over 30 percent in four days - but will that mean there will be more coal? The experience of 4,000 years of state price controls speak against it. Price caps - whether for wheat, rent or coal - always lead to a shortage of supply. However, at the same time, China's state economic control agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, ordered that disused mines be restarted. Now there is a race against winter.

The People's Republic of China is the world's largest manufacturer of photovoltaic and wind power systems and the largest producer of the electricity obtained from them. From an August 2020 report in the journal Nature:

“China is the world's most capable producer of wind energy, with a capacity more than twice that of the second largest generator, the United States. It also has around a third of the world's solar capacity and installed more systems last year than any other country. "

According to the National Energy Agency, “10.8 ​​gigawatts of new wind power capacity” was added in China in the first half of 2021 (the reader can decide for himself how trustworthy data come from communists is). The Olympic Winter Games, which will take place in Beijing and Zhangjiakou from February 4th to 20th, 2022, have been declared a "green game" by the Chinese government. All sports facilities are to be operated with "green" energy. Local public transport in both cities should be 85 percent electric, with natural gas, with fuel cells or with hybrid drives. The People's Republic of China has also embarked on the path of “renewables”. “But, woe, woe, woe! When I look to the end “: Toyota, Apple, companies in the textile industry and also the manufacturers of cardboard boxes warn of delivery problems due to the Chinese energy crisis. Do similar strategies in Europe and China lead to similar consequences in the end?

Resistance from Africa

Meanwhile, resistance to climate colonialism is growing on the African continent. "Africa cannot sacrifice its future prosperity for the sake of Western climate goals," writes Uganda's President Yoweri K. Museveni in a guest article for the Wall Street Journal. "The continent should balance its energy mix, not rush straight towards renewables - even if that will probably frustrate some of those who meet next week at the climate conference in Glasgow."

South Africa's energy minister Gwede Mantashe also warns of a “hurry to use renewable energy sources” at the expense of coal. This could have "harmful consequences", as the power outages in China, India and Great Britain showed.

“If we swing from one extreme to the other like a pendulum, we will find ourselves in the same position. We have to have a clear program. We have to manage the transition carefully, in an organized way. "

As reported by the Bloomberg news agency, Mantashe decided not to take part in a meeting with the US, EU, UK, France and Germany climate emissaries at the end of September (but in which the South African Environment Minister took part) and instead gave the closing speech at the Limpopo Conference for mining investments. In his speech, Mantashe demanded that South Africa's mining industry should become more attractive for foreign investment and also cited the Mpumalanga coal region as an example. In Mpumalanga a not inconsiderable part of the coal is mined, which ensures that billions of people in countries like China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh do not go out of light.

Around a billion people worldwide - most of them in Africa - have no electricity whatsoever. They sit in the dark at night or light up their huts with unhealthy and dangerous open fires, which can lead to chronic respiratory diseases, eye infections and severe burns. Meanwhile, the German climate protection activist Luisa Neubauer suggests that everyone should produce their own electricity. In an interview with a solar lobbyist, Neubauer said it was about

"That things are taken into their own hands, that you get started, that you use cooperative resources, that you generate your own energy, that you start with village communities and communities and solidarity communities to generate energy yourself, to initiate the climate change."

This “climate change” will be one “that enriches, strengthens people and societies, that not only protects the climate, but also brings with it a kind of prosperity or well-being.”

For Germany, she demands: "This legislative period has to be the most climate-friendly of all time, we don't know what a 1.5-degree government looks like, we will have to invent it, we will have to demand that for anything in the world."

So a 1.5 degree government wants to invent it so that we then have some kind of prosperity or prosperity. Aha. Why can't someone like Mr. Mantashe be Energy Minister in Germany or EU Commission President? That would be better than if people dominate the discourse who don't produce anything other than CO2 when they talk.



https://www.achgut.com/artikel/die_energiekrise_frisst_sich_in_die_wirtschaft

More and more people here in Denmark are getting positive towards Nuclear power.

Markus

Heartless cold reality tramples brutally on ideological opportunism.


Another Merkelian maximum-effect desaster: first destroying German nuclear power and engineering competence, rated to be amongst the globe's leading quality and security producers, and now u-turning again and having left germany depending on French nuclear power imports. Maximim losses for Germany, high profits for France, a shifting of the balance of power as well. Skrupelloses dummes Weibsstück.



Die Welt writes on Germany's apparent U-turn on nuclear power:


The subject was not on the agenda, but the advocates of nuclear power did not allow themselves to be dissuaded. At the emergency summit of the EU energy ministers, a show event at which the high energy prices should be publicized, the camp of the pro-nuclear countries spoke up anyway.

"Many delegations" have demanded that Brussels take a quick position on nuclear power, said the Slovenian Minister of Infrastructure Jernej Vrtovec on Tuesday afternoon after the meeting.

It is about a dispute that has been dividing the EU for months: is nuclear power a sustainable option in the fight against climate change? For the nuclear industry - above all the French - this determination determines the economic future. And for many countries it is about the energy mix for the coming decades.

The decision is part of the so-called taxonomy, a kind of green bible that is supposed to determine which investments are climate-friendly. In the years to come, the determination will have a major impact on where billions of investor money and EU funding will go - and where not.

And it will depend on how easily companies and states can finance new nuclear power plants, repositories and the infrastructure related to nuclear power.

No wonder that France has been vehemently advocating nuclear power in Brussels for years. Not only does the country's power supply depend largely on nuclear fission; the state also holds more than 80 percent of the highly indebted nuclear power plant operator EDF.

And the government wants to continue expanding nuclear power. According to the French government, President Emmanuel Macron wants to present concrete plans for new nuclear power plants in the next few weeks. Up to six new pressurized water reactors are planned.

Many billions are involved: EDF has been building such a reactor at the Flamanville site in Normandy since 2007; the costs on the breakdown site have meanwhile increased almost sixfold to a good 19 billion euros.

So far, other EU countries have resolutely rejected nuclear power; Alongside Austria and Luxembourg, where Europe's most resolute nuclear power opponents are based, Germany was also one of the most committed opponents at the EU level.
advertisement

But probably not anymore. Chancellor Angela Merkel apparently gave in at the summit of heads of state and government last Thursday and Friday.

This is how observers interpret at least an announcement by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, at the press conference after the summit. The politician announced there and in a Twitter message that she would submit a proposal for the EU sustainability label, which also includes nuclear power and gas.

"We also need a stable source, nuclear energy, and of course, in transition, natural gas," she said. "That is why we will present our proposal for the taxonomy."

This decision came as a surprise to observers, as Financial Markets Commissioner Mairead McGuinness had only said last week that the authority might take time to make the far-reaching decision by next year.

Apparently Merkel and Macron made a deal at the summit. The commission has always made it very clear that the authority will only make a determination for the taxonomy if Germany and France are in agreement on the issue, French government circles told WELT. It was apparently so far at Merkel's farewell summit.
New members in the pro nuclear power camp

In fact, Germany was largely sidelined in the dispute. At the beginning of the debate, two years ago, the camps between supporters and opponents of nuclear power were still balanced. However, the new, stricter EU climate targets and the sharp increases in energy prices in recent months have evidently led some countries to rethink. The nuclear proponents are now in the majority.

At the European level, France was able to poke around a number of states that also rely on nuclear power for climate protection. Finland is part of the fact that France is currently building an EPR reactor, as well as Bulgaria, Poland, Croatia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic.

Ministers from these countries had published a pro-nuclear appeal in WELT. Recently, Sweden and the Netherlands, where new nuclear power plants are being considered, have apparently also switched to the pro-nuclear camp.

The high energy prices and the dependence of many countries on natural gas also apparently contributed to this. In Germany, too, natural gas is seen as an important energy supplier in the transition to climate-neutral energy sources. But France had always threatened to veto if the Commission declared natural gas to be sustainable, but not nuclear power.

Von der Leyen's declaration makes it clear what Germany and France have agreed on: nuclear power will be considered sustainable for many decades, natural gas at least for the coming years of transition. Austria and Luxembourg were extremely angry after von der Leyen's statement, it is said in Brussels.

Nuclear opponents reacted disappointed. "Merkel has given up her resistance to the greenwashing of nuclear power, I don't know why," says Sven Giegold, an influential member of the Greens in the European Parliament. “With this she gave von der Leyen the green light. If von der Leyen now says that she will include atomic energy and gas in the taxonomy, the member states can no longer prevent her from doing so. "

In fact, the change is recorded in a so-called delegated act. The Member States can only object to this with a qualified majority; In this case, however, it hardly appears to be achievable. Giegold started a petition in response. The central demand: "The EU proposal must not be submitted before the new federal government is in office."

Buckle up everyone we gonna crash


Press Release

PDF
November 03, 2021

Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement

For release at 2:00 p.m. EDT

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newse...y20211103a.htm

Finanz und Wirtschaft comments today:

-----------------
France has no coal, no gas, no oil - so no choice: That may be, in short, the Cartesian logic behind Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France will build new nuclear power plants. In any case, it is a clever move with a view to the presidential election in five months' time. Macron has not yet officially announced his candidacy, but there is no doubt that he is aiming for a second term and that he has a good chance of being re-elected.

His current move signals to the people that security of supply is a top priority and that it will be tackled; at the same time, Macron shows where he sees the ideal route to decarbonisation. This «Paris Gambit», to stay in chess jargon, is Gaullism pure et major, and this alone proves that Macron is up to date like hardly any other statesman in Europe (at best Boris Johnson, who admittedly also relies on nuclear power; do not be fooled by his flaunted frivolity).

In his declaration on the energy strategy, Macron said in no uncertain terms that independence and sovereignty were at stake: France definitely does not want to take the risk of being vitally dependent on imports of electricity. This is exactly in line with the nuclear policy that Charles de Gaulle initiated in liberated France as early as 1945 - the thunder of the Second World War, especially the two explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki - still echoed. After that, research was carried out in the nuclear sector, largely with a view to civilian use, but not much was done in the Fourth Republic in terms of industry or even more militarily.

After his long “traversée du desert”, the twelve years away from power, de Gaulle returned in 1958 and established the Fifth Republic, which was focused on the president, to suit his taste. It immediately revived France's hitherto half-hearted nuclear policy, primarily with a view to military use: the Soviets tested their first nuclear missile in 1949, and the British in 1952. France stood there naked, so to speak, depending in an emergency on the benevolence of the unloved Anglo-Saxons.

De Gaulle's political guiding star was gone from the start, when he decided in 1940 for the resistance in exile in London instead of the collaboration in Vichy, until the end of France's independence and honor; As old-fashioned as it may sound today, it was so successful. Thanks to de Gaulle's determination, France, the loser of the war, miraculously made it to the table of victorious powers and as a veto power in the United Nations Security Council.

In order to show the weight necessary to maintain this status, from the point of view of the general, and objectively plausible, it was essential to arm France with nuclear weapons. National security and independence, influence as a great power and international respect - these big goals needed the little atoms.

After all, France had a long tradition in nuclear research: Henri Becquerel and the Curie family - Marie and Pierre Curie, their daughter Irène Joliot-Curie and her husband Frédéric Joliot-Curie - were all Nobel Prize winners in physics and chemistry, respectively. Before the outbreak of World War II, France had also begun to clarify the military potential of nuclear fission. The French explorers were active in Montreal during the war; the Americans did not allow them to participate in the Manhattan project in Los Alamos.

At that time, de Gaulle's directives were quickly put into practice. The first test was carried out in the Algerian desert at the beginning of 1960. «Hourra pour la France! Depuis ce matin, elle est plus forte et plus fière », de Gaulle congratulated his Defense Minister Pierre Messmer. During the Cold War, which threatened to get hot in those years, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, France now had a "force de dissuasion" at its disposal, frightening enough to deter the Soviet leadership from gambling games in Western Europe. From 1959 de Gaulle withdrew France's troops step by step from the military command structure of NATO. The republic no longer relied on the American nuclear umbrella; it had its own.

There was also progress in the civilian sector; In 1963, the first French nuclear power plant fed electricity into the grid. Today France operates 56 reactors at 18 locations. The last kiln so far went online in 1999; The Flamanville nuclear power plant has been under construction since 2007, which is obviously not making any headway and is becoming more and more expensive (quasi a Berlin Airport 2.0 on the Norman coast). France's electricity consumption has long been geared towards nuclear power from head to toe: 70% of the electricity comes from nuclear generation.

Replacing these enormous capacities - only the USA and China have larger ones - with wind and solar energy alone is more science fiction than science. In Switzerland, by the way, the share of nuclear power is still around a third. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that after the Kaiseraugst project was abandoned in 1988, the Swiss energy companies bought substantial subscription rights from Électricité de France. One bon mot is right: Kaiseraugst was built in France.

Macron's reactor renaissance ultimately follows de Gaulle's highest maxim of securing national freedom of action, updated with a European perspective, but the Élysée will always reserve the last word. States don't have friends, they have interests - this frosty formula of the legendary “grand Charles” still applies in Paris, only garnished with an “inclusive” (isn't that what they say today?) EU commitment.

When and where and with what output the new series of nuclear power plants will go online is still open, but if the project works to some extent, the country will probably cope with the foreseeable electricity shortage in Europe better than, namely, Germany, by far its most important neighbor . The Merkel government, which is now gradually dwindling, hastily announced its exit in 2011 after the reactor accident in Fukushima. The dubious German turn away from nuclear production, stupidly just at the same time as the actually correct exit from coal-fired power generation, followed, as the only other country, Switzerland (Belgium fluctuates). Where else Bern acts more soberly than Berlin.

It will not be necessary to explain to Emmanuel Macron that an electricity croesus France will win over an electricity beggar Germany at Postur. From the point of view of Switzerland, where word got around now, very late, that electricity is becoming increasingly scarce, under these circumstances it might be worth considering buying the French Rafale fighter plane instead of an American jet; why not a diplomatic bargain with an electricity clause? Of course, it would be even more reassuring to expand our own generation, massively, and without blinkers when it comes to nuclear power.
-------------------
https://www.fuw.ch/article/macrons-r...gaulles-geist/

Rainer Zitelmann, author of "Die 10 Irrtümer der Antikapitalisten", writes for NZZ:

Yesterday I had an interview of several hours with a journalist from a large daily newspaper about my book "The 10 errors of the anti-capitalists", which will be published soon. His first question was whether I might not be fighting the battles of past decades, since by now it was clear to almost everyone that capitalism was superior to the planned economy.

I thought that the topic was more topical today than ever before and was confirmed today when I read that the EU Commission under Ursula von der Leyen is now coming up with the next idea after the "taxonomy" debate on sustainability. If the first part was about distinguishing between sustainable and non-sustainable forms of energy production, now it is about distinguishing between socially useful and socially useless companies.

The Brussels classifications are then supposed to steer investors' money in the "right" direction. This means that if politicians and civil servants feel that a company is not paying all its employees the "right" wage, it can be classified as anti-social. If politicians feel that the board's salary is too high compared to the average employee, that is another indication of antisocial behavior. If politicians and civil servants believe that the rents charged by a real estate company should be lower, again there is a risk that the company will be classified as antisocial.

Dr. Rainer Zitelmann holds a doctorate in history and sociology. He has written and edited 25 books, including "Capitalism is not the problem, but the solution" and his new book: "The 10 errors of the anti-capitalists". As an entrepreneur he built up a fortune of millions. He is a member of the FDP.
The benefit of a company for society as a whole is to be evaluated, i.e. whether the company serves the so-called common good or not. In the case of some companies (e.g., cigarette manufacturers), this is denied from the outset; in the case of other companies, classification systems are created and the question of whether they are useful or not is not decided on the market, but in political discussion groups. The Greens and the SPD have already expressed their enthusiasm for this idea.

I think lobbyists will also be enthusiastic, because they now have a whole new field of activity: they have to convince politicians why their company is "socially useful" after all.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with a market economy. It is typical of systems with a state-planned economy that politicians determine how money is distributed in an economy, what should and should not be produced - and in what quantity it should be produced. In a market economy, companies decide - and whether a company is useful or not is determined every day by consumers with their decisions.

Therefore, there is nothing more democratic than capitalism. For a long time, the Albrecht brothers were the richest Germans in Germany. Why? Because they had a good idea with the Aldi discounters, namely how to offer good quality products at a low price. Millions and millions of customers have made the company big and its founders rich with their purchasing decisions.

Biontech was financed by private investors to the tune of more than one billion euros - and they had to endure twelve years of losses, during which they accumulated more than 400 million euros in losses. Government grants initially played little role compared to the more than one billion in funding - the government saw research funding for mRNA research as too risky.

Only when the mRNA technology was mature and it was a matter of setting everything in motion so that the vaccines could be produced in sufficient quantities did government funds of 375 million euros flow.

What does this have to do with the topic? Friedrich's August von Hayek, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, described the "presumption of knowledge" as the central error of all socialists. State planned economies have failed time and again because they were based on the conviction that politicians and civil servants know better what is good for people than companies and consumers.

The planned economy is celebrating its resurrection in Brussels. What is "socially beneficial" and what is "socially harmful" is again determined by politicians, not by the despised market. There have been at least 24 socialist experiments in the last 100 years - but all of them, without any exception, have failed. But with the distance from failed socialism, the thinking that guided all these experiments is celebrating a resurgence. Today it is no longer called "socialism", but e.g. "fleet targets" (politicians in Brussels determine which cars should be produced) - or "social taxonomy".

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


He who thinks the DDR (GDR) is dead and over, is wrong. It lives and is more prosper than ever.

https://www.ortneronline.at/die-infl...um-zu-bleiben/


Inflation, come to stay

(ANDREAS TÖGEL ) By now, it is not only consumers who have noticed that they are currently confronted with strong price inflation affecting all essential expenditures. Mainstream economists are also coming to the realization that inflation of 5.1 percent is a veritable problem (as reported by "Exxpress"). What is surprising, at best, is that it has taken so long for Ms. Reinhardt and her colleagues - unlike the representatives of the "Austrian School" who have been criticizing the reckless monetary policy for years - to smell a rat.

What is original about Carmen Reinhardt's criticism of central banks' policies is the accusation that they did not "react" to inflation in time. How were they supposed to "react"? After all, by unrestrainedly inflating the money supply, they were and are the originators of inflation. If they had not given in to the demands of politicians for years to constantly pump new liquidity into the system, the problem would never have arisen. For it is not greedy entrepreneurs, as left-wing Senator Elisabeth Warren of Massachusetts claims, or adverse natural events that are to blame for inflation, but monopolistic money producers who issue legal tender in any quantity desired by governments. For decades, the money supply worldwide has been growing much faster than the production of goods.

The father of the "economic miracle" in post-war Germany, Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard, had this to say about it: "Inflation does not come upon us as a curse or as a tragic fate; it is always caused by reckless or even criminal policies."

Senator Warren contends that corporations cause inflation because they raise their prices as they see fit to increase their profits. Rarely has a claim been made that is clouded by so little economic understanding. For even leaving aside the fact that competition never sleeps, even the largest multinational corporations would, in the event of arbitrary price increases and all other things being equal (i.e., with an unchanged money supply), be left sitting on large parts of their production, because they would then lack the money to purchase them. Even Koko the gorilla would have understood that Mrs. Warren is attacking the wrong addressees.

Debtors whose liabilities are devalued are the beneficiaries of inflationary monetary policy. Who are the biggest debtors? Not companies or private households, but governments. And who determines - directly or indirectly - the monetary policy course of the central banks? In the case of the USA, England, China or Japan, the respective government. In the case of the EU, the Commission and the EU Parliament. This is proof in the sense of Ludwig Erhard: Politics has a hand in the cradle of inflation.

Two quotes from the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, put it in a nutshell: "The United States can pay off all its debts because it can always print money to do so. So there is no likelihood of nonpayment." The alchemists' dream has thus come true: the central banks may not create gold, but at least they create money out of nothing. From the time before Greenspan headed the FED comes the following wisdom: "Without the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from inflationary withdrawal. There is no safe store of value."

Meanwhile, it is not only consumers who have noticed that they are currently facing powerful price inflation affecting all essential expenditures. Mainstream economists are also coming to the realization that inflation of 5.1 percent is a veritable problem (Exxpress reported). What is surprising, at best, is that it has taken so long for Ms. Reinhardt and her colleagues - unlike the representatives of the "Austrian School" who have been criticizing the reckless monetary policy for years - to smell a rat.

What is original about Carmen Reinhardt's criticism of central banks' policies is the accusation that they did not "react" to inflation in time. How were they supposed to "react"? After all, by unrestrainedly inflating the money supply, they were and are the originators of inflation. If they had not given in to the demands of politicians for years to constantly pump new liquidity into the system, the problem would never have arisen. For it is not greedy entrepreneurs, as left-wing Senator Elisabeth Warren of Massachusetts claims, or adverse natural events that are to blame for inflation, but monopolistic money producers who issue legal tender in any quantity desired by governments. For decades, the world's money supply has been growing much faster than goods production.


The father of the "economic miracle" in postwar Germany, Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard, had this to say about it: "Inflation does not come upon us as a curse or a tragic fate; it is always caused by reckless or even criminal policies."

Senator Warren contends that corporations cause inflation because they raise their prices as they see fit to increase their profits. Rarely has a claim been made that is clouded by so little economic understanding. For even leaving aside the fact that competition never sleeps, even the largest multinational corporations would, in the event of arbitrary price increases and all other things being equal (i.e., with an unchanged money supply), be left sitting on large parts of their production, because they would then lack the money to purchase them. Even Koko the gorilla would have understood that Mrs. Warren is attacking the wrong addressees.

Debtors whose liabilities are devalued are the beneficiaries of inflationary monetary policy. Who are the biggest debtors? Not companies or private households, but governments. And who determines - directly or indirectly - the monetary policy course of the central banks? In the case of the USA, England, China or Japan, the respective government. In the case of the EU, the Commission and the EU Parliament. This is proof in the sense of Ludwig Erhard: Politics has a hand in the cradle of inflation.

Two quotes from the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, put it in a nutshell: "The United States can pay off all its debts because it can always print money to do so. So there is no likelihood of nonpayment." The alchemists' dream has thus come true: the central banks may not create gold, but at least they create money out of nothing. From the time before Greenspan headed the FED comes the following wisdom: "Without the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from inflationary withdrawal. There is no safe store of value."

Since 1971, when the last peg of the U.S. dollar to gold was ended, the money supply has increased tremendously on both sides of the Atlantic. However, many contemporaries today are no longer aware that a larger money supply does not lead to greater prosperity. Around the world, the understanding of the value of "real money" seems to have been lost. The grandparents of the baby boomers were still able to describe first-hand to their descendants the hyperinflation they experienced 100 years ago: Monetary assets were destroyed, the middle class was ruined and the way was paved for political totalitarianism. Apparently, no one is interested in that anymore. An expansionary monetary policy cannot be pursued in the long run without negative consequences. This was evident 100 years ago and it is no different today. The first world war was financed with the printing press - with disastrous consequences. Today, against all economic reason, a war is being financed by the printing press - the "Green Deal". The sad consequences will not be missed. Conclusion: Inflation has come to stay.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)






Also: https://mises.org/wire/growing-pile-...tion-here-stay


Grim. Very. I am still stunned that peopel are not afraid, ignore it, are not scared. They have all reason to be. I am worried. Extremely so. My life will get ruined not by a war, climate warming, pandemics or or lack of political wokeness, but by inflation. I dont get it that people do not see it and carry on as if nothing happens and keep on voting the criminals having caused and further causing this, and not revolting against them but even electing them. I dont get it, its completely beyond me.



Die dümmsten Kälber wählen sich ihre Schlachter selber - and lächeln dabei. Maybe they assume its just about getting photographed.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...about-to-burst

Revealed:
Credit Suisse leak unmasks criminals, fraudsters and corrupt politicians

https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...pt-politicians

Markus

ECB confirms it has found its first functional neuron ever.

The ECB experts say one of them stumbled with his feet over a war somewhere, and fell to the ground and dropped his face deep into the dirt on the floor - and there it was, laid out before his eyes, a single one neuron between all the many dirty sandcorns and dust partciles, and the first ever found in the ECB.

The emergency investigation taskforce of the ECB is already engaged, trying to find out who of the ECB staffers needs one more desperately than the others. Doctors said the neuron is unique and precious, and thus should only be transplanted into the most worthy candidate. Lagarde already said she feels "complete" and were sure she does not need one. But network theoreticists expressed some doubt on her thesis.

https://beta.dw.com/en/ecb-to-accele...ion/a-61085258

https://www.andreas-unterberger.at/2...bst-beschdigt/


How Europe in the middle of a war damages itself further



The EU has studied the textbook "How to find the absolute worst time to implement a measure that is bad at any time" very carefully. Only this can explain which project has been presented by the EU Commission now, of all times, when Europe's economy is already suffering a huge shock due to the Ukraine war and the sanctions.

Certainly, the EU and its members are innocent of the war. And although the EU has been very cautious about the sanctions, just so as not to harm itself, there are clear consequences: A severe dent for the GDP, explosion of quite a few commodity prices, crash of stock exchange prices, fueling of inflation. All these consequences of war are unavoidable for the EU states.

Totally avoidable, on the other hand, would be the nonsense that the Commission is now planning with the Supply Chain Act. This project will deal an additional heavy blow to the economy, further fuel inflation and drive companies out of Europe. Yet the EU is not backing down from the project - despite its contemporaneity with the consequences of war.

Clearly, Brussels, once home to an economic community, has become the center of an anti-economic community.

For even in normal times, the Supply Chain Act, pursued with great tenacity by the unions and the Greens, would be a shot in its own knee. It creates gigantic bureaucracy. It will force all medium-sized and larger companies to buy in at high cost. They are supposed to monitor and enforce compliance with many social and environmental standards among their upstream, upstream, upstream (etc.) producers, or they will be severely penalized. All competition outside the EU is not subject to this cost-driving regime. It can therefore take market share from European companies if they do not leave the EU themselves.

Of course, a world would be nicer where no low wages are paid, no children work, and everyone has long vacations. But the EU forgets that many third world countries only earn money because their wages are low. It forgets that all this also existed in our country until the 20th century. If Europe wants to prohibit this in Asia and Africa, it will act like the imperialist colonial powers once did and take away jobs and income from the Third World.

So well-intentioned can also mean quite bad in good times.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)