Lyndon LaRouche forecast the collapse of British Imperial System

[Len Colby]

Huh? You need to reread the OP and your girlfriend's subsequent posts.

[Steven Gaal]

_{Until United Kingdom gets untangled from current EU treaty commitments topic, on point. United Kingdom has agreed to follow most of these rules (though not a signatory).}

_{SEE CONTRARY BRITISH EXIT IDEAhttp://www.guardian....ionship-with-eu}

_{++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

_{++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

_{European Fiscal Compact}

http://en.wikipedia...._Fiscal_Compact

_{Fiscal Compact}

_{Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union}

_{Parties to the Fiscal Compact}

_{The Fiscal Compact^[3][4] (formally, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union; also referred to as TSCG or more plainly the Fiscal Stability Treaty^[5]), is an intergovernmental treaty introduced as a new stricter version of the previous Stability and Growth Pact, signed on 2 March 2012 by all member states of the European Union (EU), except the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom.^[1]}

_{The treaty entered into force on 1 January 2013 for the 16 states which completed ratification prior of this date.^[6] For subsequent ratifiers, it will enter into force on the first day of the month following the deposit of ratification instruments. Two non-euro member state expressed their intent to be bound by the fiscal provisions in the treaty (titles III and IV) upon ratification, while for the remaining non-eurozone states these provisions will only apply from the date the state adopts the euro.^[7]}

_{Ratifying member states are required to have enacted laws requiring their national budgets to be in balance or in surplus within the treaty's definition within one year after the Fiscal Compact enters into force for them. The laws must also provide for a self-correcting mechanism to prevent their breach. The treaty defines a balanced budget as a general budget deficit less than 3.0% of the gross domestic product (GDP), and a structural deficit of less than 1.0% of GDP if the debt level is below 60% -or else it shall be below 0.5% of GDP. The treaty also contains a direct copy of the "debt brake" criteria as outlined by the Stability and Growth Pact, where it is defined at which rate debt-to-GDP levels above 60% of GDP should decrease to a level below that limit.^[8]}

_{If the annual account or budget for any ratifying state is found not to comply with the deficit/debt criteria, the country will have to correct the issue within the timeline, nature and targeted size deemed necessary, as prescribed by the "common principles" published by the European Commission in June 2012.^[9] For states being found to breach the debt/deficit limits at the time when the treaty enters into force, a compliance with the criteria will still be evaluated as being reached, for as long as the state subsequently deliver gradual improvements at a size big enough to stay on a country specific predefined "adjustment path" - towards respecting the limits at a midterm horizon.^[7]}

_{Despite being an International treaty outside the EU legal framework, all treaty provisions function as an extension to existing EU regulations (utilizing the same reporting instruments and organisational structures already created within EU) in the three areas: Budget discipline (Stability and Growth Pact), Coordination of economic policies, and Governance within the EMU. The only exception is for the specific evaluation of the enacted "implementation laws" in each state, which is performed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.^[8] This contrasts with the EU treaties, which specifically exclude this jurisdiction. Each ratifying state may bring enforcement proceedings against any other ratifying state before the Court of Justice, if they do not fulfill their obligations under the Fiscal Compact to enact the required "implementation law" within one year after the treaty's entry into force. A state found in breach of this obligation will first be issued a warning, but can ultimately be fined up to 0.1% of its GDP if it fails to correct the issue.^[8]}

Edited February 7, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

LOL so a noted economics expert whose 'day job' is as a nurse to the terminally ill thinks the continuing economic problems in continental Europe will lead to "the collapse of British Imperial System", but can he cite any other noted economics experts who agree?

[Steven Gaal]

LOL so a noted economics expert whose 'day job' is as a nurse to the terminally ill thinks the continuing economic problems in continental Europe will lead to "the collapse of British Imperial System", but can he cite any other noted economics experts who agree? // END COLBY

======================================

YUP ITS ALL GOOD IN THE UK PER PROFESSOR COLBY

Global financial risks have increased, says IMF

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19888996

=======================================

U.K.’s sterling faces a long, painful slide

Commentary: Economy isn’t growing, and deficit isn’t shrinking

February 06, 2013|Matthew Lynn

LONDON (MarketWatch) — Just about every asset you can think of had a good January. Equities were up sharply, and commodities held their own. Even the battered euro was on the rise. There was one exception, however. The British pound.

So far this year sterling (US:GBPUSD) has been the second worst performer of the world’s 10 major currencies. It is second only to the yen — and the new Japanese government has launched an all-out effort to lower its currency.

A temporary blip? Don’t bank on it. In fact, 2013 will be the year when the weakness of the U.K. economy will be painfully exposed — and that means sterling (US:GBPEUR) will be sliding for a long time to come.

During 2012, the U.K. managed to escape serious scrutiny by global investors. Despite the terrible news coming out of the British economy, no one was paying much attention. The crisis in the euro zone and the drama over the U.S. fiscal cliff meant the markets had bigger stories to follow.

When a couple of houses in the street are burning down, the fact that another one has a leaky roof doesn’t get anyone very excited. Now that both fires have been extinguished — for now at least — attention is turning more and more to the U.K

The picture is not a pretty one. Here’s why.

First, the U.K.’s deficit came in at a massive 8.3% of gross domestic product in 2012, and shows little sign of coming under control. The third recession in the last five years explains some of that, but not much. Most economists estimate the U.K. is running a structural deficit of around 6% of GDP, meaning it would be still be there even if the economy was doing well.

Over in bankrupt Greece, the deficit in the year that just finished was only 6.8% of GDP. In Spain, which may well be forced to seek a bailout in the next few months, the deficit is running at 7.4% of GDP. Everyone is criticizing the French for their deficit, but it is just 5.7% of GDP. In other words, the U.K. is running a bigger deficit than any of the crisis-struck euro-zone countries.

And like France, Britain has not begun to seriously question its massive public spending. State spending in the U.K. had ballooned to 45% of GDP, among the highest levels in Europe apart from France, and a big chunk of that is now permanently paid for with borrowing rather than raised through taxes.

A big deficit is manageable when the economy is growing. If spending is held steady and the country gets richer, then the deficit gradually melts away. But if the economy stops growing — and that seems to be the position the U.K. has got into — then it just balloons out of control. Not convinced? Just ask the Italians or the Japanese — total debt as a percentage of GDP has zoomed past 100% in Italy and 200% in Japan.

Next, the U.K.’s Triple-A credit rating is not long for this world.

[Len Colby]

Yawn, false dichotomy and straw man (you're the forum's logical fallacy 'king') since there is a large middle ground between “ITS [sic] ALL GOOD” and being close to economic “collapse” and “financial debacle.” La Douche's prediction Santander was on the verge of collapse were also pretty clearly off the mark.

[Steven Gaal]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/9858106/Its-Britain-that-is-in-need-of-overseas-aid.html

It’s Britain that is in need of overseas aid

Don’t stop at the Bank of England – most of our institutions could do with a foreign touch

..... The Britain Mr Carney will rediscover, on returning to live here for the first time since his Oxford days in the Eighties, is one in which almost every institution and cornerstone of public life is compromised, loathed or riven by crisis. In a 24-hour whirlwind tour through scandal and failure,

[Len Colby]

You still haven't presented evidence that the UK is on the verge of economic collapse or is doing significantly worse than other developed economies. The UK's unemployment rate is the same as when LaDouche was his prediction.

[Steven Gaal]

UK unemployment rate falls to 7.7% but wages stagnate below inflation

Number of people in work reached a record level in the three months to last November, but wages rises stalled as employers kept a lid on pay packets

http://www.guardian....yment-rate-fell

############################### BUT ITS A LITTLE BIT OF YE'OLD HOAX

If the UK is in Recession, How Come Employment is Increasing So Rapidly?

Tony Dolphin

Senior Economist and Associate Director for Economic Policy, IPPR

=========================

The latest employment figures, published today, do little to resolve the conundrum over the UK's unusual combination of strong employment growth and no economic growth.

Over the last year, real GDP has fallen by 0.5%, while employment has increased by 510,000 (and private sector employment by 824,000).

The conundrum is not quite as great as the raw data suggest. For a start, GDP in the latest quarter was affected by the extra bank holiday for the Queen's jubilee. Without that, real GDP would probably have been roughly unchanged over the last year. And private sector employment growth was boosted by 196,000 thanks to the reclassification of FE and 6th form colleges; underlying private sector jobs growth was 'only' 628,000.

The puzzle diminishes further when we dig into the details of the employment data. Over half the increase in employment over the last year is accounted for by the self-employed, unpaid family members and people on government work schemes. The number of employees over this period has increased by 241,000. Furthermore, while the number of part-time employees increased by 195,000, the number of full-time employees was up by just 46,000.

Many of the newly self-employed may be earning very little: perhaps they have despaired of finding employment as an employee and so are trying self-employment as a last resort. Part-time workers obviously earn less than full-time workers. And for those in full-time employment, average earnings increased by just 1.7% over the last year - below the rate of inflation. The buoyant employment numbers may mask a much gloomier picture for household incomes; and it is incomes not employment that drive demand and growth in the economy.

Strong employment growth has been accompanied by falls in unemployment in recent months. These are welcome, though the total is still over 2.5 million - down 50,000 on a year ago but up 73,000 over the last two years. There is also a lot of 'hidden unemployment' in the UK: over 1.4 million part-time workers who say that are willing to work full-time; 649,000 temporary workers who would prefer full-time work; and probably a significant number of self-employed people who would prefer to be in employment.

The labour market is therefore far less buoyant than implied by the overall figures for private sector employment.

OOOOOHHHH ! the Devil in the details eh ?? (Gaal)

Edited February 11, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

Despite your use of extra large type nothing in your post contradicts the notion the UK economy occupies the 'large middle ground between “ITS [sic] ALL GOOD” and being close to economic “collapse” and “financial debacle.”' Even if the UK is a little worse of than in 2010 the difference doesn't seem to great. I know it's hard for LaDouche cultists like your girlfriend and you to accept but he was wrong.

[Steven Gaal]

Despite your use of extra large type nothing in your post contradicts the notion the UK economy occupies the 'large middle ground between “ITS [sic] ALL GOOD” and being close to economic “collapse” and “financial debacle.” // end Colby

====================

STRAW MAN : ITS ABOUT THE DECLINE OF THE BRITISH IMPERIAL SYSTEM ( UK'S IMPORTANCE) and not ECONOMIC COLLASPE.

Britain must learn to decline gracefully

Politicians may be too nervous to address Britain's increasing irrelevance on the world stage, but they must

http://www.guardian....ina-rise-policy

=========================

Some people forget to read the thread title

Lyndon LaRouche forecast the collapse of British Imperial System

Edited February 12, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

Despite your use of extra large type nothing in your post contradicts the notion the UK economy occupies the 'large middle ground between “ITS [sic] ALL GOOD” and being close to economic “collapse” and “financial debacle.” // end Colby

====================

STRAW MAN : ITS ABOUT THE DECLINE OF THE BRITISH IMPERIAL SYSTEM ( UK'S IMPORTANCE) and not ECONOMIC COLLASPE.

Britain must learn to decline gracefully

Politicians may be too nervous to address Britain's increasing irrelevance on the world stage, but they must

http://www.guardian....ina-rise-policy

=========================

Some people forget to read the thread title

Lyndon LaRouche forecast the collapse of British Imperial System

Despite your use of extra large type nothing in your post contradicts the notion the UK economy occupies the 'large middle ground between “ITS [sic] ALL GOOD” and being close to economic “collapse” and “financial debacle.” // end Colby

====================

STRAW MAN : ITS ABOUT THE DECLINE OF THE BRITISH IMPERIAL SYSTEM ( UK'S IMPORTANCE) and not ECONOMIC COLLASPE.

Britain must learn to decline gracefully

Politicians may be too nervous to address Britain's increasing irrelevance on the world stage, but they must

http://www.guardian....ina-rise-policy

=========================

Some people forget to read the thread title

Lyndon LaRouche forecast the collapse of British Imperial System

I guess your guru, your girlfriend and you didn't get the memo but the British Empire essentially died shortly after WWII when it lost most of it colonies and breathed its last gasp in 1997 with the return of Hong Kong, since then all it's retained are few scattered islands not likely to seek independence anytime soon. But LaDouche's peon never used the word 'empire' and only used a variant (imperial) once, he (?) quoted his (?) messiah as saying "The truth is, that it is the British System that is collapsing, far more rapidly than most people wish to believe. People must realize that the power of the British-led bloc is crashing, and that the clearest sign of this collapse is the unraveling of the Inter-Alpha banking group, led by Banco Santander." Yet just over three year later Santander is still returning multi-billion Euro profits and the UK is doing about the same and no worse than the rest of western Europe. The Douche has strange obessing with Inter-Alpha apparently believing it is a Rothschild lead “an instrument of genocide” that threatens the planet.

[Steven Gaal]

1. Im not a Lyndon LaRouche follower ,though you insist unto rudeness I am.
   
2. Im the lady's friend NOT her boyfriend.
   
3. British system is a term to describe interlocking Banking families/old monied Royality which are only in a small way jewish.
   
4. The term 'Rothschild' was not in the article or link so I think you are fighting old battles.
   

Edited February 13, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

1. Im not a Lyndon LaRouche follower ,though you insist unto rudeness I am.

Ironic you'd accuse someone else or rudeness, ironic as well that after defending his absurd claims in 9 posts on this thread you claim not to be a follower; 'the lad doth protest too much'. In numerous other posts in other threads you've demonstrated a worldview very similar to his.

2. Im the lady's friend NOT her boyfriend.

OK

3. British system is a term to describe interlocking Banking families/old monied Royality which are only in a small way jewish.

OK if you sayso, no evidence this “system” is any closer to collapse than 3 years ago. I said nothing about Jews.

4. The term 'Rothschild' was not in the article or link so I think you are fighting old battles.

But the term “Inter-Alpha banking group” was and if Google it you'll that it's yet another of LaDouche's obsessions, in fact he's one of the few people who talks about it. He claims it is lead by the famous family and uses the terminology I ascribed to him to describe it. You seem obsessed with the family as well mentioning them about 100 times in 40 posts, you even claim they and the Brits. were behind the JFK assassination; yet another convergence of your views and LaDouche's

[Steven Gaal]

I have problems with DOPE INC. and have said so repeatedly. NOT A Lyndon LaRouche follower ,thought I am prompted to say so to the point of rudeness.

====================================================

UPDATE BANK PLUS RELATED ARTCLE (FRIDAY ENGLAND DEBT DOWNGRADED BY GRADING SERVICES ,its on the net)

==================

Another Real Estate Giant Collapses in Spain

Feb. 20, 2013 (EIRNS)--The Spanish real estate giant Reyal Urbis

said yesterday that it had filed for insolvency after failing to

renegotiate debt of EU3.6 billion ($4.7 billion), after several

months of negotiations. The company's creditors include leading

banks like Santander, BBVA, Banco Popular, Bankia, and also

SAREB, a "bad bank" created by the government to absorb toxic

real estate assets from Spanish lenders.

Reyal Urbis's insolvency is Spain's second-biggest after

Martinsa Fadesa, which failed to pay almost EU7.2 billion ($9.6

billion) in debt in 2008, leaving behind thousands of unfinished

real estate projects. At the end of 2012, the Reyal Urbis,

specialized in the development of first homes, had no less than 8

million square meters of land for property development, news

wires report.

Shares in the company closed at 12 cents on Monday, a drop

of almost 90% from the EU9 at which its shares were traded in

June 2008. The company is valued at EU36 million. [RAP]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Bank of England can’t just go on doing down the pound

Devaluation has now become an end in itself at the Bank of England – but it’s no panacea and we risk a lost decade like Japan

http://www.telegraph...-the-pound.html

==================================

Ratings Downgrade Highlights Dismal UK Economy

The Moody's downgrade is no surprise, but the Chancellor's problem is that no one knows how to revive the stuttering economy.

SKYNEWS FEB 23

First things first, Britain's loss of its AAA status is definitely more of a political than an economic blow for the Chancellor.

For better or for worse, he tied his reputation to the performance of Britain's credit rating back in the run-up to the 2010 election. He inserted an explicit pledge that he would safeguard Britain's credit rating in the manifesto that year.

Not to mention the simple fact that this is the first time since these ratings were first given to the UK in 1978 that Britain has lost its top-tier status. The Winter of Discontent, the miners' strikes, Black Wednesday, a number of housing slumps: none of these merited Britain losing its AAA status.

The fact that this current crisis is deemed more damaging is a major reputational blow - even allowing for the fact that, in many senses, Britain's problems started under the Labour Government.

These days a rating downgrade is no longer the instant financial blow it once was.

Whereas previously credit ratings tended to be hardwired into the system (for instance, certain central banks used to accept or refuse collateral based solely on its credit rating), that's no longer the case.

Moreover, this downgrade is about the least unexpected decision in recent economic history. Britain had been on negative outlook with Moody's for a year (along with the other two major ratings agencies), and rumours had been floating around for weeks that a downgrade was imminent.

However, even if a downgrade no longer triggers automatic financial oblivion, it nonetheless serves as a reminder of this country's dismal economic prospects.

The Moody's statement was quite specific on this: the primary reason for the downgrade is that the economy simply isn't growing (and shows little sign of growing) at the rate one would have hoped for. As a result, the amount of income generated by British companies and individuals (and hence tax collected for the Treasury) is disappointing.

That, in the end, is why the deficit is likely to be higher this year than last. And this is one problem no one in authority - whether that's the Chancellor, his opposite number, the Bank of England or others - seems to have a decent answer for. Every single Budget since Alistair Darling has been concerned with one simple question: where's the growth coming from?

The most disturbing element of the Moody's downgrade is what it says about this quandary. That doesn't imply a sudden lurch in Britain's creditworthiness. In fact, Moody's have, importantly, changed the outlook on Britain's rating back from "negative" to "stable". S&P didn't do this with the US when it downgraded it.

But it does reinforce the big fear - that Britain could be facing a long period of Japan-style stagnation, as it tries to work off its enormous debt load. Which means a lower pound, and which means suspicions of more quantitative easing from the Bank of England, as it tries to find the magic solution to revive this stuttering economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7UcvBLd06wA

###################o0o######################

Never to be slaves (gee guess they never thought about Bankers & debt slavery ??)

Edited February 23, 2013 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

I have problems with DOPE INC. and have said so repeatedly. NOT A Lyndon LaRouche follower ,thought I am prompted to say so to the point of rudeness.

Oh really, you “ have said so repeatedly”. You've only done so once in all your EF posts:

I have had many arguments with LaRouche people over his ideas and DOPE INC which I feel has a number of errors. I do agree with DOPE Inc in that there was a deeper story regarding Lansky and China heroin. ( See my Interview with William Weston) Where I do give credit to LaRouche is in Gladio , for they held the torch of truth to this bloody affair years and years before 911.

Compare that too your dozen or so posts defending loony Lyndon's theories just in this thread, 'the laddy doth protest too much'. Though perhaps not a cultist follower like your buddy you are obviously quite ideologically aliened with LaDouche.

====================================================

UPDATE BANK PLUS RELATED ARTCLE (FRIDAY ENGLAND DEBT DOWNGRADED BY GRADING SERVICES ,its on the net)

[...]

As for the rest of your post, yes the UK is not doing very but neither are any of the other “advanced” Western economies .As for Santander despite being down from its peak in late January its share price is above what is was for most of 2012.

http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/BNC-stock-chart-technical-analysis