Hubris Defined: Sarkozy
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.


Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2010-05-12 08:25 by Karl Denninger
in International Ignore this thread
Hubris Defined: Sarkozy

We need a new definition for "Hubris" in the dictionary, and I nominate the words "Sarcozy" and "Trichet" for it.

We also need a new definition for "ball-less", and I nominate the word "Merkel."

But the real arrogance comes in this:

Officials from both euro and non-euro countries said Britain should not ask for help if it runs into trouble because it had not signed up to a 378 billion support fund.

French, Swedish and many Brussels officials have predicted that it is only a matter of time before Sterling is hit by the same market turbulence that came close to destroying the euro at the weekend.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, a former French Europe minister and the current chairman of France's financial services authority, yesterday predicted only "God would help" a rudderless Britain after it snubbed its euro zone neighbours.

Jean-Pierre needs to eat a big helping of STFU.

You've solved nothing with your "gun up the nose" games.

The Euro block has tried to put the onus for failed fiscal policies in the Mediterranean nations on those who didn't commit the sins!

This is of course what bullies do.  It is also a fine extension of the Bernanke/Geithner/Paulson/Obama strategy of sitting back smoking cigars while the banks rob the people, then when they can't finance their idiocy out come the weapons and up the nose they go, demanding an instantaneous transfer to the people with essentially no debate or deliberation as to who's responsible, how it happened, and who should bear the costs.

Britain is exactly right, incidentally.  And yes, Britain has fiscal problems and they need to solve them.  The "nanny state" nonsense must stop.  The concept of trying to hide economic contraction with government borrow-and spend, which the Euro zone has now writ large, is beyond ridiculous and is going to lead the Euro zone to either collapse or, if they try to cram a "one Europe Government" down the people's throats to formalize the transfer of wealth from those who produce to those who leech, war.

Fiscal restraint and reason never are popular among the political class.  There are some good reasons to run deficits, but 10% of GDP and beyond as a means of preventing banksters from having to recognize their own insolvency - which they created on their own - is not one of them.

There was and is no justification for the Euro Zone actions in fact or law.  That didn't bother Paulson, it didn't bother Geithner, it didn't bother Bernanke, it hasn't bothered Obama and it certainly hasn't bothered Merkel, Sarcozy or Trichet.

All of the above have catered to the people who intentionally and with malice aforethought have trashed our economic futures through the creation and trading of instruments they know full well are worth nothing, yet they maintain the fiction of "value" right up until threatened with literal collapse -then they threaten governments with collapsing them if they're not bailed out.

The fiscal policy of bailing out those who robbed the banks - the bankers themselves - is outrageous.  To expect people to stand for this only works so long as the people remain ignorant of the consequences, including a lower standard of living, much higher taxes, and a potential collapse of their currency and government!

Hiding these consequences has become the most important task of governments in Europe and here in the United States.  The concept of "capture" is well-known, but when governments become complicit and even a party to the outright looting that has taken place over the last decade, one must ask whether those governments continue to enjoy the consent of the governed - and if not, what the people are prepared to do about it.

The last time we tried to force a people to pay for the debts and hubris of someone else on a scale similar to this we got a dictator and World War out of it.  Those pursuing this path now should review their history lest we get to walk this road again with horrific consequences.

Sooner or later someone's going to say "screw you" in response. The question has become rather simple: will it will be the governments (good) or the people (potentially very, very bad.)