slapphead_otool

Hitler had no power until post 1927 - there is no "technical" about it. He was just one of hundreds of crackpots hanging around Germany at the time, just like there are hundreds hanging around the UK right now. They have no power. Hitler didn't have until after the post WW1 occupation ended.

Broad Shoulders

The Marshall Plan was essentially the platform for the EEC in many ways. Its original intention was to rebuild Europe and by doing so make it more stable. The EEC essentially cookie-cutted this plan and extended it further than just the funding that had expired by the early 50s.

Don't get me wrong here, I know that the fundamentals of the EEC were for economic reasons, however you can't deny that the simple strategy of economic wealth for all will always keep away political extremists (not economic ones) and their destabilisation attempts.

I don't have my old uni books as they are all back in Blighty in my parents' loft. However, off memory I seem to recall Herman Van Der We covering this off in one of his books on the post war economy. I seem to recall Noam Chomsky having a good book on the subject that touched on the side effects of the EEC relevant to what I am saying on here. However, if I were to be a betting man I would hazzard a guess at Chomsky not being one of your favourite authors?

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the EU of today in any way, as it is largely irrelevant to the original EEC of 1957.

slapphead_otool

Hitler had no power until post 1927 - there is no "technical" about it. He was just one of hundreds of crackpots hanging around Germany at the time, just like there are hundreds hanging around the UK right now. They have no power. Hitler didn't have any power until after the post WW1 occupation ended. Try reading Irvings book on the subject.

Broad Shoulders

So you're saying that political extremists cannot rise and gain political ascendancy when being watched over by foreign military presence? His whole putsch attempt was stuff of legend to the Germans once he was released. Had he not gone through the previous 3-4 years of political struggle and public rousing he would never have risen to power. To dismiss that and say that the only reason he rose to power was because Brits left in 1927 is a bit naive. If the Brits were that in control and able to throw their weight around so much do you think they would have just stood by and watched him rearm the country in the 30s? If you look at his popularity (in terms of votes) Hitler's major backing came straight after the financial meltdown in 1929. If his rise to power were simply due to the Brits leaving in 1927, don't you think that would have happened straight after? Instead, it happened when Germany was at its economical worst.

Political extremists are all the same, they are opportunists that prey on the public's disatisfaction in life and generally speaking the public are most disatisfied and likely to back a revolt when the economy is down. And so, to get back to my original point, by artificially creating economic wealth in areas prone to political destabilisation you are creating an environment of stability.

IvanM

Finally someone who knows what they are on about.

IvanM

Hitler rose to power by playing on people's primeval fears and prejudices built during an economic depression. Are you on about Irving the discredited denier?

roaringmouse

This is an interesting chart that indicates possible outcomes for what's going on at the moment.

Damson

Don't know if it's true but I've heard that the pension age in Greece is 50 (jammy buggers). There was also an economist on News at 10 who said that the Greeks were appalling at collecting taxes and it was extremely easy to avoid doing so. If this above is true, it's bl...y outrageous and they've gotten away with too much for too long. How has they been allowed to rack up such debt and no-one apparently notice until now?

Broad Shoulders

... in case you needed any further proof of this

A pretty good paper written by a student on this matter
http://web.mit.edu/polisci/people/gr...ibertyDEUX.pdf

"American diplomatic efforts towards building a European pole were focused on
supranational European integration. I treat two major integrative efforts here: the European
Defense Community (EDC) and the European Economic Community (EEC)."
....
As one American diplomat aptly described negative liberal cost concerns, “our policy in
essence has been based on the premise that if Europe is to be defended, the major part of such
defense must be borne by the Europeans. This can only be achieved if there is a strong and
united Europe. The heart of the problem of Europe's strength is the relationship between France
and Germany…if Europe remains weak and divided, the United States will be frittering away its
resources, which are not unlimited, in a program which has no real meaning.”
...
"Secretary of State Dulles encouraged
French Prime Minister Laniel. “They wanted to see the age-old leadership of the Western World
flower again under France.”
...
Though wary of public pressure after the EDC debacle, the administration was not shy
about privately urging the Europeans onward and promising the Europeans open cooperation at
the appropriate juncture. The logic of American support had not changed: the administration
consistently spoke in terms of building European strength to balance the Soviet Union,
mobilizing latent European resources, and taking the burden off of American taxpayers.

I think will suffice for the time being

slapphead_otool

Thats a post littered with "essentially"........

you are right about Chomsky though......

paddyo

Wow...I like that!!

Broad Shoulders

Read the first few pages of that essay and you will see how my "essentiallys" are essentially backed up

roaringmouse

A trader being honest, and looking forward to another recession.

Turban Explorer

I expect his firm has had some harsh words with him. It's perfectly true of course - why should traders hold any desire for markets to rise for the good of the nation. As CFDs provide us with whopping big downside potential what trader cares whether markets rise or fall - as long as the volatility is big and positions allow quick entry and exit. The only time I did actually baulk at the lack of morality/decency was on September 11th. That afternoon was one of our busiest days as dry cargo cost in freight (including fuel) derivatives went bonkers. Traders in New York could actually see the World Trade Centre collapse as they bought positions to cash in on the expected rise in the oil price.

Amazulu

He might also be not what he claims to be:
http://www.news.com.au/business/get-...-1226148440353

Independent Trader? What the hell is that?

I'm an 'independent trader' but the BBC haven't given me a gig.