Topic: Economic Devastation - page 51. (Read 504811 times)

My quoted part shows the essential. In the Warsaw ghetto there was a real shortage of weapons and ammunition, yet it was spent wisely. It is irrelevant if the number of rifles (and yes, hunting rifles work as sniper rifles) is 1, 10 or 100 million. It is anyway asymmetric warfare when civilian guns play any role.

If the number is only a few thousand, the armed resistance is more difficult. But you can manufacture more if needed. And unarmed resistance is also very potent.


Eastern Ukraine was completely ordinary guys until their "own" Kiev government (the puppets installed nominally by US, actually by banksters in a coup) started persecuting and killing them. Now they are holding very well against the aggression. I have no belief they are intrinsically more heroic than the rest of Europeans. Also Serbians were just ordinary guys before the NATO felt it was needed to destroy their cities in the heart of Europe!

You are writing sweeping generalizations which have no basis in anything except your ignorance! In Europe, my friends easily know more about military strategy and history than I, let alone you, do - despite being not the least militarist themselves. Any European country if isolated, can hold equally well as Serbia or Republic of Donbass. My prior claim that Europe as a whole can fend off NATO invasion is not that difficult to believe when you realize that each attempt against the smallest of the countries isolated, has failed.

I am not quitting the forum but this thread is done for a while.

Contrary to Wikipedia's claim of 30 guns per 100 people in Germany, the national registry only counts 5.5 million guns in a population of 81 million. Also only 1.4 million people have guns contrasted against apparently nearly 50% of the population in the USA. Also Germany's gun laws are very restrictive, so these are not predominately AR-15s that are necessary to fight in war environment, but rather useless handguns and almost useless sporting rifles.

I think you will find similarly is true of France, but better than Germany.

The number of guns in USA by some estimates exceeds 400 million. And USA Patriots have been stocking up on AR-15s and hollow point ammunition. They are even 3D printing/milling their own fully automatic lower part of the gun in some cases since you can construct such a gun legally I think.

I don't think core Europeans are into community militias (perhaps in eastern Ukraine) and preparing for a war against the government or an outsider Communist/Muslim invader. Americans actually prepare for that. There were some who were prepared if the "Japs" wanted to invade.

It seems to that Europeans instead want a political "solution". And combining their lofty socialist idealism with the desire for economically intractable/insoluble political "solution" is the usual recipe for "revolution gone amok", e.g. post-Wiemar Germany.

I hope I am wrong and Europeans fight to destroy the EU and strive for smaller governments, not bigger, loftier "solutions".

By sentence:


As such, this has not repelled successful US invasions to Japan and Europe, against committed defence. US High Seas fleet is sovereign.


And you did in WWI as well, nevertheless declared war.


War, in general, is rarely in the interest of the people. All major wars starting from Napoleon have been fomented, instigated and financed by zionists whose agenda does not equal happiness of people.


Europe is producing quite a lot of natural resources but since its population is almost double that of North America, and land area is smaller, the consumption situation is net negative.


Yes people smile at things they don't understand.

If you would read history, the general sentiment among US population as late as 1916 was to stay away from the war despite large sympathy to the German cause. Going to war allied with the British, the Archenemy since the war of independence, was a ridiculous idea. The Europeans have no reason to think of Russia as their Archenemy and even if they did, remember: one year. Hmm... ominous, what is the year we are living...  


Yes, that is correct. Modern NATO weapons systems are dependent on software upgrades from the US. The generals in Europe try to buy some such weapons to pay homage to the bankers whose front NATO is, while maintaining independent defence. The problem is that the weapons are only effective in shooting civilians from the air (main NATO activity since the fall of Soviet Union). They are disabled against the US. They are inferior to the Russians. Subduing a country if the attacker has high tech and inferior culture, does not work (see list of all NATO ground invasions and their results).

Also, no, you are incorrect. Civilian gun ownership in the US is about 250 million units, in France and Germany combined about 50 million. Per capita US is 2x higher but in absolute values, both are "enough" against an invader who is not welcome. Unlike in 1944, there is no popular support for increasing US/NATO presence anywhere in Europe, even jewmedia cannot hide it.

I just noticed all the popular youtube content I watch says the same things days after tptb announces something. I'ts not even funny anymore.

They are already there, UK has quite a few Muslims from Pakistan and Somalia as former territories in the British empire.  Its not such a problem if people stay within their faith not the radical extremes
Eugenics is a strong belief by quite a few intelligent people, that killing off the perceived weak can only improve the average available to the general population, was not an idea defeated in war.  Unfortunately even a genetically perfect individual can be an idiot and a waste to society

The yankees are not, but the mohammeds are.. 

CoinCube, perhaps my elucidation wasn't entirely clear (perhaps because I wrote that at 1am my time and should have been sleeping instead).

My primary point was not whether collectivism is right or wrong, but that some millions of Americans have the attitude that individualism is superior to collectivism and that I know of no natively born European who has that attitude. Actually I know of one 30-something man from this forum who was I assume was born and lives in Sweden, and he seems to favor some individualistic themes but I doubt he would sacrifice his life with a gun in his cold dead hand for individualism. Also I know of bigtimespaghetti who is younger, immigrated to Europe from apparently a peripheral area, and who has some good logic regarding some individualistic rights but if I am not mistaken he also sympathizes with the social contract as well. These guys also appear to be influenced by what ever culture and environment they are in, but it might also be already ingrained if they tried to move to an environment of rugged individualism. I am not sure. But also consider these 2 guys to be exceptional and that is why they are my recent new friends. I know of another younger European who I don't know too well, except that he is very astute about crypto investing and what is going on in the crypto world, so I assume he may be very individualist focused in his philosophy of social organization, but I haven't really gotten to know that side of him well. So again I am open to learning about exceptions and how prevalent these exceptions are. I would love to know there are European brothers who are fighting for the ideals of individualism as some Americans are.

I also said America has many subsets of attitudes, but that a major fault line divides those that embrace collectivism from those who are staunchly individualistic. Most of the latter (including myself) favor collectivism only on the local community level (e.g. the white Sunday church on the hill where needy people can ask their pastor to help them find a sympathetic community member to offer them some work or helping hand). In short, there are some millions of Americans who absolutely hate the big government social contract. But Europeans embrace a consultation about the EU and nation-state social programs, whereas there are some few millions of Americans who abhor ObamaCare and any involvement of big government in daily life of the individual. And willing to hold their gun in their cold dead hand to defend this philosophy.

So I am claiming (not proven) an observation of a fundamental difference between some millions of Americans as compared to what I think I know about Europe. But if any European wants to offer himself as a counter-example, I love to know of him. Rpietila maybe but every time I think he is really hard core individualist, I get some doubt because he seems sometimes to think in terms of good and evil authority. Whereas, I think all authority is evil. In a local community style collectivism, there really isn't any overriding authority. It is a complex balance of reputations and interworkings that humans have innately worked out over the centuries, and we are prewired to deal with this local defacto style politics where isn't any election and people of positive actions naturally gain more trust in the community. This is entirely different from structures where there is voting, power is granted, etc.. These are always subject to the iron law about power vacuums in that the most corrupt will always rise to control them because power can only be sustained with the most power.

My philosophy is power is inherently corrupting. But my prior posts yesterday were not about arguing my philosophy is correct, but rather arguing about the differences between Europe and America in terms of the number of people who share my philosophy. Europeans appear to believe in PLANNED social organization. Some millions of Americans seem to believe in UNPLANNED social organization.

It is basically a decentralized versus centralized philosophical difference.


I am going to write some profound statements which I never before wrote in this thread or else where with such clarity of focus.

What I believe is that the level of power vacuum we get due to collectivism is driven entirely by what is most economically efficient. The level of power vacuum we've seen since the Athenian empire has been driven by two facts:

1. Agricultural Age required aggregation of capital in the form of land and the State to protect the land.

2. Industrial Age required the aggregation of capital to fund the large fixed capital investment of the factory.

Humans are hard-wired for tribal structure which has nothing to do with granting a power vacuum to a collective but rather a naturally annealed set of complex social interactions that form spontaneously. Smooth had recently pointed out that there may be genetic differences and some people may be innately programmed to prefer a collectivist philosophy. Perhaps this was an evolutionary adaption given the reality of the two epochs I enumerated. Note when I arrived in the Philippines in the early 1990s, they didn't have abundant nails in most places, and still very much tribal structured at the local baragay level. So there may be genetic differences, which is why I alluded to that many Americans have native American ancestry and this could plausibly influence their genetics on this issue but I know of no statistical or scientific evidence thereof.

Humans have (at least culturally and environmentally, if not also genetically but surely not homogeneous genetics) adapted to the economic reality of where the power naturally ended up in the power-law distribution of wealth and the critical importance of aggregating capital in those prior two epochs enumerated above. Both the capitalists and labor needed to serve this power vacuum of the collective in order for the economic system of redistribution (from labor to the capitalists but while buying off labor with debt and welfare) to avoid continuous war and chaos that would have been less economic.


And now we enter the Knowledge Age which will decentralize nearly everything.

What you or I believe is irrelevant. Nature will determine what is. Nature has moved to a new paradigm called the Knowledge Age. It is Just Time (for the change in epochs).

I know which economic gravy train I am boarding. You CoinCube seem to be more European in your philosophy and thus should share their fate if I am correct about the economic fundamentals.

The best future for big government socialism appears to be Asia where there is a low of level of government as a share of GDP and the immigrant demographics are very favorable, so the socialism can grow with lots of social promises and debt causing temporal growth to be stimulated and the liabilities failure thereof will come some decades hence. Asia might trend or bifurcate into more decentralization, I am not yet sure. I am in Philippines which is historically is a tribal and decentralized country with very low taxation and government spending as a share of GDP. But this appears to be under intense pressure to trend towards a big government model. I believe the decentralists will reap the huge economic gains regardless where they are physically residing.

I have no desire to create enemies with my statements. I am merely trying to understand where society is now and where it is going. Whether I am wrong or correct about the future, we shall find out. I wish for a world that is meritorious without power vacuums (Coasian barriers to maximum fitness). We know from our up thread discussions that nature finds a balance between completely undamped chaos and some organizational structure. I believe the Knowledge Age is a radical shift to more decentralization of power.

---

Edit: interestingly we can see Europeans will prefer to focus on reforming the State and repeat their pattern of revolutions which do nothing to eliminate the power vacuum and just install a new head of the same monster paradigm:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38109 (The Coming French Revolution of 2020?)

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38311 (Why We Are Doomed To Repeat History?)


Whereas Armstrong's model of the USA is it will break up into regions. I think this is because some Americans don't care what happens to the State or for reforming the State. They just want their individual place/peace:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/16967




http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/23356 (Will the USA Also Break-up Into Regions?)

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/17972


The above explains why Europe is much more likely to go into MADMAX again (Hitler) than the USA.

I disagree with Armstrong's point in the following blog post, because although Europe has different cultures, it has a common ingrained commitment to the social contract and reforming the State instead of individualism. Europeans want to have a perfect society even if they have varying cultural practices and languages. So Europe will descend into megadeath again.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33872

I would point out you appear to be undervaluing the benefits of collectivism. You have correctly highlighted how modern form collectivism is unsustainable, but you appear to jump from there to the conclusion that all form of collectivism, the social contract, and the concept of social fairness itself is undesirable. This jump appears logically flawed.

Humans are collectivist by nature. We have been hardwired this way by generations of natural selection. Each human interaction can viewed as a choice between cooperation, and defection. Cooperation involves a mutually beneficial exchange that improves the wellbeing of both participants. Defection is an interaction that benefits one party at the expense of another. Defection implies violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction.  

Society as a whole is better off if its members choose cooperation over defection. However, for an individual defection is sometimes the optimal choice. Defection comes in many forms but theft and rape are probably the most clear cut examples. Cooperation likewise comes in many forms and shades of gray exist.

Collectivism is the evolved response to limit defection. The desire to pool some resources for the greater good, establish basic governance and the creation a social contract arises naturally in response to the need to combat defection and maximize cooperation and group survival. Merely pointing out the admittedly significant flaws in the modern form of scaled up collectivism is not a compelling argument for a return to pure anarchism.

I have noted on several occasions that you associate pure individualism and anarchism with a return to nature.

 
However, you do not seem to accept that collectivism and a social contract are not only a part of nature but play a critical and natural role in limiting defection and maximizing cooperation in groups. A rejection of the social contract in particular leads to an acceptance of defection as “natural” and perhaps even leads to a glorification of violence and theft as natural and right as part of “evolutional fitness”. I have seen some signs of this line of thinking in your prior posts.


Now it is certainly true that modern collectivism in conjunction with fiat economics appears to be vulnerable to many new types of defection. Abuse of the welfare and disability system is a form of defection with the victim being the multitude of taxpayers. Fractional reserve lending is a much larger form of defection with the victims being those forced to conduct commerce in fiat economies. However, I believe the answer to these problems is not a call for the collapse of the collectivist order and a return to anarchic individualism but rather to develop solutions that limit these new forms of defection while allowing collectivism to continue in its proper role of promoting cooperation over defection.

The Yankees are already in the UK with military bases, thats part of NATO and I dont think anyone wants that to change.  UK is in cyprus and Germany though less so since the wall fell.  I thought the reference was Russia invading Europe but its not going to do that as its no longer strong enough or likely to benefit.
   Drastic measures like this is unlikely on all sides, the devastation I foresee would be a natural phenomena as a consequence to the hollowing out of value in national debt and notes.   The alternate view is we stagnate like Japan has for over twenty years, I dont see that occurring worldwide and there should be more friction.   In a few countries now the population is in majority under thirty years old and it requires growth not just as a policy or ideal but to live.  So there is a force for change perfectly natural probably just a repeat in history is at that some point everything much change

never attribute to malice that which is adequately described by incompetence . 

...

rpietila

Your comment is the first I have ever seen discussing a US invasion of Europe.  There is no way that would/will ever happen.  As you point out, the continent is far away from US shores.  And, we trade with Europe, our tourists visit Europe and we buy German cars.  Why would we want to invade?  Europe doesn't even have any natural resources we would like to seize...

The thought of Russians coming to the aid of Europe during a US invasion, now THAT makes me smile. 

Nor does Europe have any guns we would like to seize, we have our own.

Have no fear Europe!  Have no fear Britain!  The Yankees are NOT coming!  Rest easy!

So if you are holding down three jobs and still can't afford to live, do Patriots still consider it is the fault of the poor working person; that they are to blame for not having a better paying job, that they don't have any right to survive with any degree of dignity? Sure, poor people can't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill if they want to have another kid while they're claiming; that is taking the piss. I agree we have to live within our means and not expect a free ride. But while there are indeed many lazy and unomotivated people who's poverty could be described as being self-inflicted due to indolence (I've lived in two seperate apartment blocks where perfectly able-bodied unemployed welfare claimants regularly partied into the night, keeping the worker neighbours up, who told anyone to f*** off with a dismissive swagger if they even made the most polite request to keep the noise down...and numerous other examples), I've also known other poor people who are in no way feckless, who are decent and extremely motivated yet are still held back by knock after knock (not having the time or money to retrain). Surely the onus can't simply and conveniently be put onto individuals who are ordinary, don't excel in one field or another, or may not have had the privileges of others; the social contacts, expensive schooling etc; that it is always their own fault they aren't wealthy and successful. It's not all down to merit and sink or swim. We can't all be entrepeneurs; somebody still has to do the work - for the moment at least.

The system is gamed and compromised whether it is Marxists at the helm or the crony-capitalists we are suffering now. Do you know of any totally unfettered truly free market capitalist country either now or in history? You could say that none of us has any entitlement to anything, sure, and I'd go along with that for the most part. We could just live a dog eat dog existance (if you're poor and without welfare then simply mug someone), but most of us require at least some degree of civilization so that we are not living a stressed life like a wild animal. I guess in Europe freedoms are traded for a measure of security. None of these ideologies work outside of a textbook long-term, not with real people, with all their attendant frailties.

( EDIT: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-16/capitalism-explained-2015-you-have-two-cows )

Marxists call me a capitalist, and vice versa.

By the way TPTB, are you officially out of retirement from the forum now?  
 

Excellent post.

The situation is not as grim as you present it, however. Not all politicians are evil, most are incompetent, but there are quite many who try to resist the federalization within the system.

For instance, unlike US, the European militaries are by and large in nationalist control. TPTB has tried to convert them to NATO armies whose equipment can be switched off from Pentagon if they turn against the puppetmasters, but this has not been completely achieved.

Finland has 0.9 million trained reserve (US trained reserve is 2.8 million). Finnish reservists are ordinary guys, I have undergone 9 months special forces reservist training myself. If even the US has problem making their troops mindless killing machines, with Finnish army it is a given that it will not be used to further TPTB goals. European generals have non-NATO coordination meetings, working behind the scenes to keep the situation as it is.

United States cannot invade Europe, despite all that you have conditioned yourself to believe. Heck, they have not been able to conquer and keep any place they have invaded since Hawaii.

Russia could invade Europe, but of course they have no reason to do it. In case of US invasion, Russia is called for help instead.

When I received this information from a knowledgeable source, I was first afraid that I have been given a secret to keep concerning the military shadow governance in Europe (I don't keep secrets). I was assured that the information is public, and all the parties mentioned in the text know it very well. The Deep State matters are deep. Focusing on one actor (TPTB) alone is prudent only when no other actors exist, otherwise it is folly.

I believe this is totally by design in order to force a crisis that leads to European federalization and consolidation of the debts across national boundaries in order to remove State sovereignty from Europe. And Europeans are in no position whatsoever to resist this because they don't even have the mindset that governance is bad and the guns to retain individual sovereignty.

Russia can slice through Europe like a hot knife through warm butter, which can be the pretext for Brussels/NATO to take greater control in a military emergency.

You know the elite never waste a good crisis. And they are good at manufacturing crises.

Ok maybe there is a difference that will have an effect.
Yes all people are taxed, overtaxed.   I'd like to see a no tax or flat tax system setup somewhere reasonably as a demonstration for good commerce not just exploited as a counterparty to the larger dollar dominated world we all live in

The biggest asset that banks hold now is government debt like they used to hold mortgage and sub prime debt as their core assets and it was a disaster.   The problem was the core value altered drastically which left all those banks vastly under funded.   In the far east they didnt buy this type of debt, only secondary problems there I believe
So now what happens when Greek or other countries sovereign debt is drastically altered in value in a similar way.   Every bank reform has the grand idea of making them hold larger amounts of government debt, a nice backup to large national fiscal deficits.    Its another failure in the making, the stock market is not actually a cause more like the scales on which the problem will be weighed.  

Ultimately stocks always go up when national currencies run into trouble, YEN Euro and Dollar all were devalued greatly in the last decade and prior and that will continue.  Zimbabwe stocks went up, its economy got worse.   Its ironic that if banks relied on stocks markets they would be better off then now relying on fixed government debt of countries spending too much, bad working practices restricting commerce so stalling or choking tax income (so it appears to me)

Ditto in the USA and you even can get an Earned Income Credit and other tax rebates for taxes you never paid if you have a couple of dependent kids, so you get paid roughly $4000 from the government for not paying any taxes. I told you many Americans are in love with the bribes in the welfare system.

But all poor people are taxed with gasoline taxes, sales and VAT taxes, cigarette and alcohol taxes, etc..

And the poor are "taxed" by debt and 20% interest rates on credit cards.

Look there is no way to remove the fact that government will never take care of anyone. The only purpose of government is a racket to steal for the powerful. That is way an anarchy minded American thinks. Whereas, a European would not want a chaotic outcome. They'd want some reasoned society. Americans are "don't tread on me". No other predominant consideration, just "don't tread on me". It is not a theoretical, rather it is "I have a gun and you are not going to tread on me, except via my cold dead hand".

We don't pity poor people in the USA as much. I mean we will help out individual cases of genuine hardship on a community level, but the Patriots have the attitude that poor people create their own poverty by being lazy and unmotivated by the welfare system.

But not all Americans are liberty focused. So I am saying there is a very big split in the society. This will come out as civil war soon...

...

tptb wrote:

"Also because when Greece defaults, so do all the banks of Europe."

Yes, banks are so highly leveraged, and bank managers are so greedy to extract every last penny (or euro cent too) that the banks are very vulnerable to defaults.  Even a small country like Greece puts the banking system in danger.  Why else would Europe so strenuously work to find a "solution", even if only a Band-Aid?

Banks are also very vulnerable to a variety of other risks such as a stock market decline.  US banks are vulnerable to European banks failing as well as vice-versa.

It didnt have to be that way that all banks will default from Greece.  Losses would have occured, amalgamation between banks.  As most of the banks were German, Merkel then took action with her Government and we misdirected power towards what was private debt afaik.  

Thats Germany dominating europe and being helped by political allies.  Not all of Europe backs that idea.    

I agree with what you are saying mostly, that top down power is an unstable system and centralised funds are misused, inefficient and wasted almost.   Capitalism is a bottom up power distribution, the capital with people just like votes are with people in a democracy and you cant force everyone to agree with you.   Hence where bribing and misdirection comes in

I dont really believe that, I just didnt fully expand what I'd prefer.   Im just saying it'd be a great improvement if we concentrated less on taxing people for simple work they do to live and support a family.   Large business and public listed companies, thats harder to defend but yes on the extreme end I'd prefer business to be as free as possible and taxes to be as low as possible.   No force should be used against a working profitable operation and often threats are made by government, leveraging its power to its advantage and to fund itself and mostly this can be seen as corrupt.   However I'd rather we start with people individually being free, it is possible for a large business to dominate a market and bad practise to occur even if at present its government doing most of the harm

When Trump said some people should pay no taxes that shouldnt be some revolutionary headline grabber, it should be that we all recognise common sense being spoken (I dont even like the guy but I'm glad someone famous said it).  In a very simple way, rather then enforce minimum wages and more regulation on business with badly directed 'rights' we should just ensure people who are already poor are not being taxed.   Government wants to track everyone though, its paranoid we are all secretly rich
One point I'll make is that this is already partly true in UK, there are no income taxes below $15,500   which is very low money but at least its something.    Its not too optimistic to believe some parts of Europe will go this way not communism, thats a cliché and it doesnt work and most realise that

The Swiss have to store their bullets in government warehouses thus their guns are useless for being individually sovereign against their very corrupt government. Sorry I had already researched that. Even Finland isn't a gun haven any more.


Yup you just demonstrated this ideological distinction between Europeans and the liberty-minded Americans. What you stated is Marxism. You said that if you only earn enough to pay your basic subsistence expenses, then you don't have to share but otherwise you must live in a commune and be forcibly separated from your profitable production. I know for a fact that all tax is gamed by those who can control the power vacuum of democracy. Honest governance can't exist. Thus Communists always end up in totalitarian hell. Liberty-focused Americans knows this, but Europeans are entirely blind to it.

That you are crowded has nothing to do with the fact that if you reward failure and penalize success, then you get failure. And if you do it by having a collective pot of tax and power, then you get to add megadeath every time to the failure busts.


If you think Europe is any less bribed, hahaha.

Socialists build a strawman of hate on capitalism, but the fact is that if you don't have collective pot of tax and power, then there is no such thing to corrupt.

Corporations have always gained their leverage by using government enforced monopolies. Take away the government and the corporations are eaten away by the more nimble smaller capitalists. This is especially more true in the Knowledge Age where high economies of scale for fixed capital investment in factories is no longer economically important going forward.


It matters because it shows (the test model case for) how Europe will devolve by forcing federalism from the top-down from Brussels and Germany.

Also because when Greece defaults, so do all the banks of Europe.

I cant comment on every nation but some have guns, Swiss are maybe the most liberal

They are probably the most self governed also, I think they rule by state not so national with local taxes.

Not sure about social contract but as a European I'd argue anyone should be allowed to live tax free on a self sustained basis without becoming criminalised.   If you want to live in a forest and provide for yourself ok, its just thats not modern life and Europe is mostly far too crowded so that resources must be shared.   So maybe you can write a book and pay no taxes for this simple act but if you want to publish it nationally then the publisher should be taxed and the sale of the book in shops would be taxable, general large business activity but nobody should be going to jail on a personal basis for simply living and doing work.  Thats my idealist take, a contract to government would be do no harm and pay for what you use otherwise be free.  When a company is taxed, it removes some income available from all employees, we dont have to be chasing individuals nearly so much as they are already within that taxed situation

USA is bribed as is everywhere, the natural state is capitalism not that is it demanded but because it reflects what people do anyway.  A study of economics is not to change what is true but to know what exists regardless of laws and rules

Greece doesnt matter, its a fly on the windshield.   The only reason it matters is how it obstructs or influences peoples view of the much larger picture that is wider europe.   They are just a pawn in the game and they play it as such.   A proper system would just hold debts against creditors, its nothing to do with any of the rest of us and its destructive to waste our time and resources occupying world commerce with squabbles and demands.  If money does anything its to direct attention correctly to what is most productive; you know all this is a failure in conclusion when we do the opposite, occupied with stagnant government incompetence

Im not sure that is a radical thought as we'd just be copying the Washington DC model then ?    Not every part of the EU is under the thumb as you think, it does vary.  Not all have Euro.   The splinter idea I like and I'd like believe it could be true that in failure some will find greater success away from the previously non working governance.  If it happens in USA it will also happen in europe that some states benefit though believing they are worse off without Brussels, longer term it'll be more obvious

I am european and this is 100% true. Especially the part about guns, its been engrained into my mind that they are bad and they should be forbidden to everyone