"Europe : and if we had to do it again?"
OK but only with a constituent assembly disinterested and therefore raffled.
I suggest that we start with the first part , i.e details,
and I won't explain all the details,
I will insist on three or four points
among the ten that I think are really serious.
If there are some points that you want to deepen
in the list of the second document, the one that is a little sheaf,
which is called "Main grievances against Europeans institutions" that I handed out.
This document contains..
We'll talk about Europeans institutions a little more specifically.
When I said "these institutions are no good" I prove it.
At least, I believe that I prove it.
I grouped ten points that, I think, are really serious.
Each one of these points is an actual disaster, a major risk.
Something that should makes us think: "What is this?"
"Who wrote this text?"
On each of these points.
So we'll discuss about some of those.
I invite you to read them later. The texts that I talk about
are in the document. I put the articles at the back.
I'm not talking without proof. If you think I'm wrong,
because the texts didn't say what I interpreted,
I invite you to tell me. I want to know.
The first page is the ten points summary.
And after it's the involved articles with in [braquets] comments
where I am pointing out [look what is happening here] ;
or [be careful, watch out]. It's complicated
to understand how the authors of the European institutions
planned our powerlessness in an unnoticeable fashion.
We have to deal with that and concentrate.
It's worth it because we understand where there is a trap.
We understand it and we prove it.
Let's begin by the first one and it's something.
First one: Europeans institutions institutionalize massive unemployement
by institutionalisation. Without saying so of course.
It's not written in the European institutions:
"The European Central Bank has to ensure that unemployement reaches it's peak."
Obviously, if they did that, we would have revolted against them.
That's not the way european constituents express it.
They say : The European Central Bank,
1) will be independant from the people that you will elect.
This means that you can vote for left,
extreme left, right, extreme right or center.
You can vote what you want, it won't change anything.
The ECB even has the right not to receive
your members of the European Parliament.
They can leave them outside and say :
I don't want you to visit me.
1°) the ECB is totally independant of who you elect;
2°) Its unique mission is to fight against inflation.
We need to explain this because "to fight against inflation"
is a good way to present the thing, it's misleading.
Because all day, we hear in the medias that we need to fight against inflation
that all of that may bring more inflation, and they overexpose it
2,3 or 4 cases in human history which are actually remarkable,
and they have to be noticed, I don't say they shouldn't be,
but they overexpose it and say that
there is a great danger in the water system in 1720
of the Assignats during the revolution, of german hyper inflation in the 1920's
of Zimbabwe recently..
These are red rags that they wave at us, which are real risks
I don't say there is no risk of hyper inflation
if we create to much currency, I know that.
These red rags are waved at us in order to justify
an exclusive, prioritary and crazy fight against inflation.
It's crazy today to fight against inflation
while we have a massive unemployement
and there [currently] is no inflation.
It's criminal, they know that very well.
It's stupid to put in a constitution, it's more than stupid,
It's anti-social to put in a constitution
and even in a international constitution,
it's not even a constitution that you can change in France.
Even if all the french people did not want it,
we would have to leave the European Union to get out of this trap.
Because it's isn't up to us anymore but of 27 countries. 27 countries!
I don't know if you see how difficult it will be to do popular education,
so that all 400 millions Europeans understand that
when we fight against inflation, we pay it with massive unemployement.
So, I brought some books, I have to remember to tell you about these
as I go on. There is a good book to read which is called
"The fabulous destiny of the Philips' curve"
This was written by somebody who should have been here
Liem, who is an econonomist who writes really well and his book is very useful.
He recalls to our memory the work of an economist,
Philipps who showed [this] correlation.
He didn't show it in a theorical way,
but in an empirical way.
By looking at the numbers, the statistics over a century.
When you have inflation, there is no unemployement.
When we have unemployement, there is no inflation.
This is the short version, it's a little more complicated than that.
It took other economists to do the correlation
to end Philipps' work. To picture it, we know that,
empirically, we don't know why...
Well, we have some ideas, there are discussions on it...
but we know that empirically,
When you fight against inflation you pay it with unemployement.
When you fight against unemployement, you pay it with inflation.
So, when you fight against unemployement,
you don't have unemployement anymore.
If you loose your job
you'll find another one, there is no unemployement.
People will start making social statements.
They will ask for better wages.
because if they don't get higher pay, they just have to find another job.
It's not the only link.
The link between inflation and unemployement is multi-factorial
but it's an easy to understand and powerful reason.
When there is no unemployement, the employees ask higher wages.
And the employers can't do otherwise
because there is less labor supply on the market,
they can't do otherwise than accept these pay increases.
As these wage increases are costs, they affect the prices and create inflation.
It makes sense.
And in the other way, when you let the unemployement skyrocket,
when you let 10% [of unemployment] in France, and I don't say 10% randomly.
And now I musn't use swear words...
These awful persons fixed the unemployement marker at 9 or 10%
so that people stop asking for higher wages.
In Japan, they are more docile, it doesn't take as much..
This index is called the NAIRU. It's a minimum unemployement level
so people stop asking for higher wages.
In Japan they are so disciplined that 1% is enough.
Do you see the level of cynicism of our rulers,
and of "our economists"?
The NAIRU, it's official. It's not a complotist theory, it's a doctrine.
There is an unemployement level, calculated to avoid the inflation!
Thoses people don't want to reduce unemployement,
they want to reduce inflation.
By the way, they institutionalize it, they write it in the constitution.
They write: The Central Bank shall be independant,
so you can vote whatever you want,
it will not change anything to this situation,
and it's only mission is to fight against inflation.
This of course in exchange of unemployement.
So to sum up this first topic is that the European institutions
comdemn us durably, voluntarily to a massive unemployement.
Just this topic is enough ground to say "we have to get out of here."
Who wrote this text? Whom for this text was written?
Another word about inflation..
one consequence of the luck I had in 2005,
was meeting some well known people, researchers and
I became friend, in the last part of his life, with Maurice Allais
Our only economic nobel price, I spent hundreds of hours chatting with him,
it was fabulous, I had the feeling of discussing with Keynes,
Maurice Allais who was a free minded economist, a self-taught,
a scientist who learn economy by himself,
by reading the best, by reading Juglar, Fisher, Keynes...
all these great thinkers, Smith , Ricardo,
He wasn't deformed by university,
I will talk more about that when we will talk about the currency
because he viputerates the Bank money creation,
he condemned the money creation by private banks, he said
"it's illness, we get poorer with this system"
I will talk about this later, this book of Maurice Allais, about money creation.
But i wanted to talk to you about it beacause of the inflation.
Maurice Allais wrote a book about indexation,
by defending the idea of indexation, he says :
it's true that inflation makes wrong the economical reports, it's like cheating
A lot of people gets poorer without reason,
gets richer without reason because of the inflation,
people who don't pay back what they have to
because they pay back with "monkey money",
there is one solution to this fool game
which is in the inflation, as long as it remains reasonable
it doesn't have to be an hyper inflation,
but we know how to do it, it's the indexation.
during the "30's glorious" we experimented indexation : the salaries sliding scale ,
if there is 10% of inflation this year your wage is increased by 10%
you lost nothing.
The indexation is very important.
It's socialist people who removed indexation,
it was socialists who removed the salaries sliding scale.
It's a social disaster...
So a little bit of inflation and indexation, those who work
and the little and medium companies have nothing to fear from inflation
with indexation. A moderated inflation, not an hyperinflation.
Those who work and
the little and medium companies have nothing to fear from inflation.
Those who can fear the inflation are those who have cash money
because if they invest their money, they have
an interest which compensate inflation.
Those who have a lot of cash , have some interests, but who are they?
They're noone. They are a few, this is not us,
so european politic which consists in protecting.. against inflation
as if it was a major society choice that we absolutely had
to make, in exchange for massive unemployement.
As if massive unemployement wasn't important.
As if massive unemployement was..
and there is a strong chance that it's integrated in their calculations
that the massive unemployement is a good way to obtain people docility..
If there is a lot of unemployement.. it's an old trick,
Marx talked about it before, with the reserve army, we know it already.
Unemployement makes workers docile.
There is not just Marx, it's the logic, everybody can understand that.
So there is a society choice between inflation and unemployement,
Those who wrote the Europan institutions made the society choice
that it needed unemployement and no inflation, it's the first point
So in the next pages , there are the articles ,
which describe the ECB independance, which describe the unique mission
on inflation.
To follow : Video 3 on 6 The EU forbids money creation to the states