Must read

Of course, expanding the EFSF to a size of 440 billion euros is just one small step in winding down the euro-zone debt crisis. Greece, Ireland and Portugal at the moment rely on aid from the European Union and International Monetary Fund to fund their governments.

“If all those guys blew up, you can pay back bank bondholders and things of that nature [with the EFSF], but that’s fighting last year’s war,” said Jay Bryson, global economist for Wells Fargo. The new concerns are contagion to Spain and Italy, both highly indebted countries with paltry growth rates where bond yields have surged.

The facility is nowhere near enough to handle Spain, let alone the roughly €2 trillion of obligations Italy faces.

Which means Europe’s policy makers may stick to their muddle-along approach.

“That’s the irony — out of fear of contagion, the leaders in Brussels and Frankfurt have continuously tried to minimize and sweep it under the rug,” said Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Now, in Frankel’s view, the authorities have lost credibility along with all or most of their ammunition.

In Greece, which even on its own is a problem, the government says it will run out of cash in the middle of October if it doesn’t get the next €8 billion in loan funds from the European Union and the IMF. But Athens admits it’s struggling to meet austerity demands.

“The Greeks are running out of cash, and there is no money in sight,” said Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics. “The Germans are not prepared to look the other way — that’s the deal breaker — and, as far as the IMF looking the other way, [that’s] impossible,” he said, alluding to the institution’s technical requirements.

If Greece stops paying, all sorts of problems start cropping up, for Germany in particular.

The European Central Bank would need more capital because of the roughly €100 billion in collateral in Greek paper it holds, not to mention the roughly €30 billion it’s purchased on the secondary market. The EFSF would start to call member countries to make good on the guarantees they have already made for the facility. In both cases, Germany foots 27% of the bill.
Plus, private-sector banks would be exposed in two ways: one, if they own Greek government debt directly, but also if they’ve underwritten protection on credit-default swaps. And even if an institution bought protection on Greek bonds, there’s the question of whether the counterparty could afford to pay out. Compounding the exposure issue would be the presence on the wrong side of a CDS or Greek bond trade of a bank’s hedge-fund clients.

“Suddenly the public-sector finances of Germany won’t look so hot,” said Weinberg. “And this will be repeated in varying degrees around Europe.”

And that has implications for U.S. lenders. Already, the three-month Libor interbank lending rate has creeped up by more than 10 basis points, or 0.1 percentage point, since the summer.

That doesn’t sound like much, certainly not in comparison to the roughly 200-basis-point spike when Lehman Brothers collapsed.

‘Everybody knows the cost to be paid, and [Germany has] the money.’

Mitchell Orenstein, Johns Hopkins University
“But that’s when the Fed is saying we’re going to be on hold basically forever,” said Bryson of Wells Fargo. “If Greece blows up, I don’t know if it would go up by [as much as the Lehman collapse], but I don’t know if I want to find out, either.”

And that’s why some expect Germany to get over its reluctance to assist Greece — not because of any grandiose pan-European sentiment but because of its own singular interest.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is in a no-win situation, according to Mitchell Orenstein, a professor at Johns Hopkins’s School of Advanced International Studies.

“To get re-elected she has to not be the one holding the bag. But if she doesn’t hold the bag, then she will go down in history as the worst European leader of all time and lose anyway,” he said. “Her strategy, intelligently, is to wait and push off as long as possible. I think that’s what markets don’t get.

“I just think, at end of day, when it comes close, everybody in Germany will vote for this,” he added. “Everybody knows the cost to be paid, and [Germany has] the money.”

Yet even if Germany does foot the bill, there’s the question of whether the struggling euro-zone states are willing to play along.

“The solution in the long term for these countries is to leave the euro zone and devalue,” McKeown said.

That’s easier said than done. European Union rules don’t have a mechanism to kick out a euro-zone member, much less to accommodate a voluntarily exit, leaving some to dub the currency bloc a “Hotel California” — e.g., you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. So the only way to quit might actually be to exit the EU altogether, going far beyond the status of such countries as Britain, Norway and Sweden that are members of the 27-nation grouping but don’t use the euro as their currencies.

Beyond forfeiting some of the trade and other benefits EU membership entails, the far more serious impact would be that the debt would still be present, just denominated in a foreign currency.

“The consequences could be catastrophic: The national deficit would double, banks would collapse, and the country would enter a recession period comparable to the one of a country in war,” said ex–Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou, back when he had the job.

The flip side, of course, is if you’re going to pay down your debt at a severely reduced rate, it hardly matters what currency it’s denominated in.

Still, the risk would be that citizens and companies would flock to non-euro-zone banks to keep the value of their savings. Capital controls would have to be in place,” McKeown said. It wouldn’t be too much of a leap to imagine martial law being imposed.

But what’s the alternative? “It’s either that or decades of austerity and falling real wages to improve their position,” McKeown said. “How ever you look at it, it’s quite possible it would be the lesser of two evils.”

Steve Goldstein is MarketWatch's Washington bureau chief.

www.marketwatch.com/story/...scenario-2011-09-28?Link=obinsite

Many contentious issues regarding the euro rescue mechanism have not yet been resolved. One of the most difficult is “leveraging” the EFSF to increase many times over the €440 billion that so far is the limit of its potential. Such a scheme is controversial — especially in Germany — but is probably inevitable, given the spreading of the euro malaise to Italy and Spain.

Overshadowing everything is Germany’s opposition to European Central Bank action over the past 16 months to purchase the bonds of weaker euro members on the secondary market, starting with Greece, Portugal and Ireland in May 2010 and extended in August 2011 to Italy and Spain.
Assuming that parliamentary ratification is completed among other EMU member states, the rescue fund will now be given new powers to extend borrowing on financial markets, buy bonds and recapitalize weak banks.

Assuming parliamentary procedures go through in the other relatively skeptical countries that have still to vote, the Netherlands and Slovakia, ECB bond purchases should end at the latest in mid-October as the onus for action on fiscal support is transferred to the EFSF.

A growing body of opinion on the ECB’s 23-member decision-making governing council has been arguing that the central bank’s stature has been underlined by the bond purchasing moves, totalling €157 billion since May 2010.

Opposition has been led by German representatives on the council, along with more nuanced resistance from the Dutch and the Luxembourgers — all countries with large creditor positions.

The moves to broaden the EFSF’s size and scope come in the nick of time. The first tests of its new powers will probably come in the next few weeks. Speculation about a possible Greek debt default is intensifying, as the troika from the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the ECB reopen talks in Athens on Greece’s steps to accomplish budget targets for its next €8 billion portion from the country’s existing €110 billion rescue program.

If Greece defaults, euro governments know they must have the EFSF fully operational to cope with the danger of contagion. However, the EFSF headquarters in Luxembourg is still relatively under-staffed and has nothing like the full technical capacity to carry out the additional onerous duties that are being suddenly thrust upon it. There is awareness, too, that, even with a borrowing capacity up to the full €440 billion, the EFSF will be neither large nor flexible enough to counter a new bout of market speculation that could hit Italy or Spain.

This is why, in addition to intervening in the secondary markets to buy the bonds of hard-hit countries, the EFSF is expected to borrow from financial markets (against the collateral of the euro members’ bonds in its portfolio) to increase further its ammunition.

The ECB will not lend directly to the EFSF, as some analysts have suggested, because this would fall foul of German objections about monetizing problem countries’ debts. However the ECB does stand ready to provide liquidity to banks that lend to the EFSF — an indirect form of support.

Such leveraging will be subject to clear market discipline. Sovereign funds and other pools of capital in Asia — which have made clear their appetite for EFSF bonds in recent months — will only put up more money if they are convinced that the EFSF’s actions in supporting euro members in difficulties are economically sustainable. Otherwise, they would demand punitively high interest rates for their lending to the EFSF, seriously countering the underlying logic.

In addition, action by the EFSF in buying bonds from, and otherwise supporting, trouble-torn euro-member states will have to be decided on the basis of unanimity by EMU states — meaning that hard-line creditor countries such as Germany and the Netherlands will have much greater control over its lending behavior than they currently have over the ECB, where decisions are based on the principle of majority voting rather than unanimity. So there is a long road still to travel — and plenty of opportunity for potentially disastrous alarms and setbacks.

David Marsh is co-chairman of think-tank OMFIF and author of The Euro – The Battle for the New Global Currency (Yale University Press).

www.marketwatch.com/story/...-crisis-2011-10-03?link=MW_Nav_NV

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44748412/ns/business-world_business/

"Greece won't meet 2011-2012 deficit targets imposed by international lenders as part of the country's bailout, the Finance Ministry said Sunday. "
"The announcement reflects the government's frustration with tax collection, which they blame on tax inspectors' lax performance, and its fear that citizens, angry at seeing their wages shrink and, at the same time, having to pay an increasing amount of one-off taxes, would refuse to pay. "

Mehdi Herrati, the commander of the Tripoli Brigade, has threatened to resign his leadership twice in recent days during confrontational meetings with neighborhood militia leaders who feel excluded from decision making in the capital, according to Hashem Bishr, Mr. Herrati's deputy.

Mr Bishr, a longtime Islamist, is critical of the city's top military commander, the controversial Islamist Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who is facing a growing chorus of discontent, including from fellow senior Islamist commanders within his own ranks.
Mr. Belhaj fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and later became a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a militant group dedicated to overthrowing Col. Gadhafi. He was captured by the Central Intelligence Agency in Malaysia after the Sept. 11 attacks and eventually handed over to Col. Gadhafi's regime after being interrogated in Thailand and Hong Kong.

Critics are uncomfortable with Mr. Belhaj's television appearances and his exaggerated claims about his role in ousting Col. Gadhafi. which they fear smacks of political ambition. Others worry about his Islamist militant background.

Mr. Bishr says Mr. Belhaj hasn't given leaders from his home neighborhood of Suq al-Jumaa sufficient say in decision making.

The prominent Islamist leader from eastern Libya, Ismail Sallabi, said he too is skeptical of Mr. Belhaj because he seems to be pushing Eastern Libyan leaders aside.

Enlarge Image

Reuters
Libyans attend Friday prayers at Martyrs' Square in Tripoli. Frictions among the different factions in the alliance against Col. Moammar Gadhafi are threatening hopes to establish a unity government in Libya.

As criticisms of Mr. Belhaj have mounted in recent days, he has largely disappeared from public view. Neither he nor his aides responded to numerous requests for comment. A senior Tripoli commander close to Mr. Belhaj said he is working to address the concerns of local neighborhood militia leaders and hopes to announce the makeup of an expanded and more inclusive city military council within coming days.

Zintan's leadership is composed mostly of defected ex-military officers, whereas the Tripoli leadership is mainly newly minted militia leaders, many of whom have strong Islamist backgrounds.

Mistrust and tension has plagued the relationship between the two groups of fighters throughout the conflict and throughout Libya.
Tensions between the groups fighting against Col. Gadhafi became evident during the earlier days of the conflict. The assassination in July of General Abdel Fatah Younis, a top military commander killed hours after he was detained on orders from a rebel minister and a panel of judges, exposed rifts within the factions.

Libya's rebels disbanded the group's de facto cabinet soon after Mr Younis's death, but with the exception of a few isolated incidents, the leadership managed to quell anger and maintain order within the ranks until now.

With the alliance in command of most of Libya and the National Transitional Council in charge, frictions are flaring up again.

"Everybody is getting their knives out," said Mohammed Benrasali, a leader from Misrata and head of Tripoli's civilian stabilization team.

Most Zintan's leaders back Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jabril, who is deeply unpopular in the capital, and other parts of Libya, and is especially mistrusted by many of the country's Islamist leaders.

"The problems with the Zintanis is they are all uneducated, they drink, they drive around at night in muddy pickup trucks with guns, and they won't leave," said a commander in Tripoli.

A Western official in Libya said he believes the rivalry also has regional dimensions, with Qatar, the tiny Gulf emirate, throwing its weight by Tripoli's leadership, particularly Mr. Belhaj, while Qatar's Gulf rival, the United Arab Emirates, has backed the Zintan leadership.

The top commander of Zintan's forces in the capital, defected army colonel Mukhtar al-Akhdar, slammed his fist down on the table of his office at the city's international airport that remains closed, while the Tripoli-controlled military airport is running a full schedule of military and civilian flights.

"Tripoli is for whom?" he asked. "It's for all Libyans. It's our capital too. This is the essence of the matter."

Zintan's fighters played a storied role in the six-month conflict, fighting off a blistering weeks-long siege by pro-Gadhafi forces, and then driving those forces out of Western Libya and eventually opening the path into the capital.

Tripoli's fighters, by comparison, had it easy, in the eyes of Zintanis and many other Libyans, since the capital fell within just a few days amid light resistance.

Write to Charles Levinson at charles.levinson@wsj.com

Source

online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories

ich wusste schon vieles davon, aber diese Informationen haben mich zerschmetert.
Sind wir nur die Marioneten in einem verrückten Planspiel?
Lese selbst ;

"Einige der wichtigsten Nazis waren führende Persönlichkeiten in der Entwicklung der EU. Hermann Abs in den Vorständen der Deutschen Bank und 40 anderen NS-Firmen, darunter Rockefellers IG Farben mit einer Niederlassung in Auschwitz, war der Mann, der ein leistungsfähiges Business-Imperium nach dem Krieg schuf, das die Grundlage der EU erstellte. Er verteilte die Marshall-Hilfe unter den deutschen Firmen, und er war der wichtigste Berater Konrad Adenauers. Zur gleichen Zeit blühte Ludwig Erhard, Schützling von Ohlendorf, dem gehängten Kriegsverbrecher. Er erkannte, dass das Finanz-Imperium unter dem übernationalen Mantra gebaut werden würde. Dadurch würde das Wirtschaftswunder in der Lage sein, sich richtig zu entfalten. Deshalb war er auch hinter der Kohle und Stahl Union der europäischen Gemeinschaft — dem Beginn der EU.

So ist das 4. Reich der Nazis Wirklichkeit geworden? Ja, leider – und es wird die Europäische Union genannt – mit Nazi-Geldern aufgebaut.
Die EU ist mit den großen Konzernen eng verknüpft, zB durch den Europäischen Runden Tisch der Industriellen und hier – ebenso wie durch den Bilderberg Club. Diese Art der Regierung wurde von Mussolini als “Faschismus” bezeichnet. Die EU-Kommission ist nun eine flügge, ungewählte Dauerregierung eines EU Unions-Staats" ....

dort   euro-med.dk/?p=23899
und dort   euro-med.dk/?p=12013
-----------------------

Das ist meine letzte Eintragung. Ich habe einfach Angst und bin unendlich verzweifelt.

Source

www.economist.com/node/...;ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709




Doctoral degrees
The disposable academic
Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time



ON THE evening before All Saints' Day in 1517, Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg. In those days a thesis was simply a position one wanted to argue. Luther, an Augustinian friar, asserted that Christians could not buy their way to heaven. Today a doctoral thesis is both an idea and an account of a period of original research. Writing one is the aim of the hundreds of thousands of students who embark on a doctorate of philosophy (PhD) every year.
In most countries a PhD is a basic requirement for a career in academia. It is an introduction to the world of independent research—a kind of intellectual masterpiece, created by an apprentice in close collaboration with a supervisor. The requirements to complete one vary enormously between countries, universities and even subjects. Some students will first have to spend two years working on a master's degree or diploma. Some will receive a stipend; others will pay their own way. Some PhDs involve only research, some require classes and examinations and some require the student to teach undergraduates. A thesis can be dozens of pages in mathematics, or many hundreds in history. As a result, newly minted PhDs can be as young as their early 20s or world-weary forty-somethings.  


One thing many PhD students have in common is dissatisfaction. Some describe their work as “slave labour”. Seven-day weeks, ten-hour days, low pay and uncertain prospects are widespread. You know you are a graduate student, goes one quip, when your office is better decorated than your home and you have a favourite flavour of instant noodle. “It isn't graduate school itself that is discouraging,” says one student, who confesses to rather enjoying the hunt for free pizza. “What's discouraging is realising the end point has been yanked out of reach.”


Whining PhD students are nothing new, but there seem to be genuine problems with the system that produces research doctorates (the practical “professional doctorates” in fields such as law, business and medicine have a more obvious value). There is an oversupply of PhDs. Although a doctorate is designed as training for a job in academia, the number of PhD positions is unrelated to the number of job openings. Meanwhile, business leaders complain about shortages of high-level skills, suggesting PhDs are not teaching the right things. The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes.
Rich pickings
For most of history even a first degree at a university was the privilege of a rich few, and many academic staff did not hold doctorates. But as higher education expanded after the second world war, so did the expectation that lecturers would hold advanced degrees. American universities geared up first: by 1970 America was producing just under a third of the world's university students and half of its science and technology PhDs (at that time it had only 6% of the global population). Since then America's annual output of PhDs has doubled, to 64,000.
Other countries are catching up. Between 1998 and 2006 the number of doctorates handed out in all OECD countries grew by 40%, compared with 22% for America. PhD production sped up most dramatically in Mexico, Portugal, Italy and Slovakia. Even Japan, where the number of young people is shrinking, churned out about 46% more PhDs. Part of that growth reflects the expansion of university education outside America. Richard Freeman, a labour economist at Harvard University, says that by 2006 America was enrolling just 12% of the world's students.
But universities have discovered that PhD students are cheap, highly motivated and disposable labour. With more  

PhD students they can do more research, and in some countries more teaching, with less money. A graduate assistant at Yale might earn $20,000 a year for nine months of teaching. The average pay of full professors in America was $109,000 in 2009—higher than the average for judges and magistrates.
Indeed, the production of PhDs has far outstripped demand for university lecturers. In a recent book, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, an academic and a journalist, report that America produced more than 100,000 doctoral degrees between 2005 and 2009. In the same period there were just 16,000 new professorships. Using PhD students to do much of the undergraduate teaching cuts the number of full-time jobs. Even in Canada, where the output of PhD graduates has grown relatively modestly, universities conferred 4,800 doctorate degrees in 2007 but hired just 2,616 new full-time professors. Only a few fast-developing countries, such as Brazil and China, now seem short of PhDs.
A short course in supply and demand
In research the story is similar. PhD students and contract staff known as “postdocs”, described by one student as “the ugly underbelly of academia”, do much of the research these days. There is a glut of postdocs too. Dr Freeman concluded from pre-2000 data that if American faculty jobs in the life sciences were increasing at 5% a year, just 20% of students would land one. In Canada 80% of postdocs earn $38,600 or less per year before tax—the average salary of a construction worker. The rise of the postdoc has created another obstacle on the way to an academic post. In some areas five years as a postdoc is now a prerequisite for landing a secure full-time job.
These armies of low-paid PhD researchers and postdocs boost universities', and therefore countries', research capacity. Yet that is not always a good thing. Brilliant, well-trained minds can go to waste when fashions change. The post-Sputnik era drove the rapid growth in PhD physicists that came to an abrupt halt as the Vietnam war drained the science budget. Brian Schwartz, a professor of physics at the City University of New York, says that in the 1970s as many as 5,000 physicists had to find jobs in other areas.
In America the rise of PhD teachers' unions reflects the breakdown of an implicit contract between universities and PhD students: crummy pay now for a good academic job later. Student teachers in public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison formed unions as early as the 1960s, but the pace of unionisation has increased recently. Unions are now spreading to private universities; though Yale and Cornell, where university administrators and some faculty argue that PhD students who teach are not workers but apprentices, have resisted union drives. In 2002 New York University was the first private university to recognise a PhD teachers' union, but stopped negotiating with it three years later.
In some countries, such as Britain and America, poor pay and job prospects are reflected in the number of foreign-born PhD students. Dr Freeman estimates that in 1966 only 23% of science and engineering PhDs in America were awarded to students born outside the country. By 2006 that proportion had increased to 48%. Foreign students tend to tolerate poorer working conditions, and the supply of cheap, brilliant, foreign labour also keeps wages down.  



A PhD may offer no financial benefit over a master's degree. It can even reduce earnings


Proponents of the PhD argue that it is worthwhile even if it does not lead to permanent academic employment. Not every student embarks on a PhD wanting a university career and many move successfully into private-sector jobs in, for instance, industrial research. That is true; but drop-out rates suggest that many students become dispirited. In America only 57% of doctoral students will have a PhD ten years after their first date of enrolment. In the humanities, where most students pay for their own PhDs, the figure is 49%. Worse still, whereas in other subject areas students tend to jump ship in the early years, in the humanities they cling like limpets before eventually falling off. And these students started out as the academic cream of the nation. Research at one American university found that those who finish are no cleverer than those who do not. Poor supervision, bad job prospects or lack of money cause them to run out of steam.
Even graduates who find work outside universities may not fare all that well. PhD courses are so specialised that university careers offices struggle to assist graduates looking for jobs, and supervisors tend to have little interest in students who are leaving academia. One OECD study shows that five years after receiving their degrees, more than 60% of PhDs in Slovakia and more than 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany and Spain were still on temporary contracts. Many were postdocs. About one-third of Austria's PhD graduates take jobs unrelated to their degrees. In Germany 13% of all PhD graduates end up in lowly occupations. In the Netherlands the proportion is 21%.

A very slim premium


PhD graduates do at least earn more than those with a bachelor's degree. A study in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management by Bernard Casey shows that British men with a bachelor's degree earn 14% more than those who could have gone to university but chose not to. The earnings premium for a PhD is 26%. But the premium for a master's degree, which can be accomplished in as little as one year, is almost as high, at 23%. In some subjects the premium for a PhD vanishes entirely. PhDs in maths and computing, social sciences and languages earn no more than those with master's degrees. The premium for a PhD is actually smaller than for a master's degree in engineering and technology, architecture and education. Only in medicine, other sciences, and business and financial studies is it high enough to be worthwhile. Over all subjects, a PhD commands only a 3% premium over a master's degree.


Dr Schwartz, the New York physicist, says the skills learned in the course of a PhD can be readily acquired through much shorter courses. Thirty years ago, he says, Wall Street firms realised that some physicists could work out differential equations and recruited them to become “quants”, analysts and traders. Today several short courses offer the advanced maths useful for finance. “A PhD physicist with one course on differential equations is not competitive,” says Dr Schwartz.
Many students say they are pursuing their subject out of love, and that education is an end in itself. Some give little thought to where the qualification might lead. In one study of British PhD graduates, about a third admitted that they were doing their doctorate partly to go on being a student, or put off job hunting. Nearly half of engineering students admitted to this. Scientists can easily get stipends, and therefore drift into doing a PhD. But there are penalties, as well as benefits, to staying at university. Workers with “surplus schooling”—more education than a job requires—are likely to be less satisfied, less productive and more likely to say they are going to leave their jobs.
The interests of universities and tenured academics are misaligned with those of PhD students
Academics tend to regard asking whether a PhD is worthwhile as analogous to wondering whether there is too much art or culture in the world. They believe that knowledge spills from universities into society, making it more productive and healthier. That may well be true; but doing a PhD may still be a bad choice for an individual.
The interests of academics and universities on the one hand and PhD students on the other are not well aligned. The more bright students stay at universities, the better it is for academics. Postgraduate students bring in grants and beef up their supervisors' publication records. Academics pick bright undergraduate students and groom them as potential graduate students. It isn't in their interests to turn the smart kids away, at least at the beginning. One female student spoke of being told of glowing opportunities at the outset, but after seven years of hard slog she was fobbed off with a joke about finding a rich husband.
Monica Harris, a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, is a rare exception. She believes that too many PhDs are being produced, and has stopped admitting them. But such unilateral academic birth control is rare. One Ivy-League president, asked recently about PhD oversupply, said that if the top universities cut back others will step in to offer them instead.  


Noble pursuits
Many of the drawbacks of doing a PhD are well known. Your correspondent was aware of them over a decade ago while she slogged through a largely pointless PhD in theoretical ecology. As Europeans try to harmonise higher education, some institutions are pushing the more structured learning that comes with an American PhD.
The organisations that pay for research have realised that many PhDs find it tough to transfer their skills into the job market. Writing lab reports, giving academic presentations and conducting six-month literature reviews can be surprisingly unhelpful in a world where technical knowledge has to be assimilated quickly and presented simply to a wide audience. Some universities are now offering their PhD students training in soft skills such as communication and teamwork that may be useful in the labour market. In Britain a four-year NewRoutePhD claims to develop just such skills in graduates.
Measurements and incentives might be changed, too. Some university departments and academics regard numbers of PhD graduates as an indicator of success and compete to produce more. For the students, a measure of how quickly those students get a permanent job, and what they earn, would be more useful. Where penalties are levied on academics who allow PhDs to overrun, the number of students who complete rises abruptly, suggesting that students were previously allowed to fester.
Many of those who embark on a PhD are the smartest in their class and will have been the best at everything they have done. They will have amassed awards and prizes. As this year's new crop of graduate students bounce into their research, few will be willing to accept that the system they are entering could be designed for the benefit of others, that even hard work and brilliance may well not be enough to succeed, and that they would be better off doing something else. They might use their research skills to look harder at the lot of the disposable academic. Someone should write a thesis about that.

diese Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte als das von allen Völkern und
Nationen zu erreichende gemeinsame Ideal, damit jeder einzelne und alle Organe der
Gesellschaft sich diese Erklärung stets gegenwärtig halten und sich bemühen, durch
Unterricht und Erziehung die Achtung vor diesen Rechten und Freiheiten zu fördern und
durch fortschreitende nationale und internationale Maßnahmen ihre allgemeine und
tatsächliche Anerkennung und Einhaltung durch die Bevölkerung der Mitgliedstaaten selbst
A/RES/217 A (III)
2
wie auch durch die Bevölkerung der ihrer Hoheitsgewalt unterstehenden Gebiete zu
gewährleisten.
Artikel 1
Alle Menschen sind frei und gleich an Würde und Rechten geboren. Sie sind mit Vernunft
und Gewissen begabt und sollen einander im Geiste der Brüderlichkeit begegnen.
Artikel 2
Jeder hat Anspruch auf alle in dieser Erklärung verkündeten Rechte und Freiheiten, ohne
irgendeinen Unterschied, etwa nach Rasse, Hautfarbe, Geschlecht, Sprache, Religion,
politischer oder sonstiger Anschauung, nationaler oder sozialer Herkunft, Vermögen,
Geburt oder sonstigem Stand.
Des weiteren darf kein Unterschied gemacht werden auf Grund der politischen, rechtlichen
oder internationalen Stellung des Landes oder Gebietes, dem eine Person angehört,
gleichgültig ob dieses unabhängig ist, unter Treuhandschaft steht, keine Selbstregierung
besitzt oder sonst in seiner Souveränität eingeschränkt ist.
Artikel 3
Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben, Freiheit und Sicherheit der Person.
Artikel 4
Niemand darf in Sklaverei oder Leibeigenschaft gehalten werden; Sklaverei und
Sklavenhandel in allen ihren Formen sind verboten.
Artikel 5
Niemand darf der Folter oder grausamer, unmenschlicher oder erniedrigender Behandlung
oder Strafe unterworfen werden.
Artikel 6
Jeder hat das Recht, überall als rechtsfähig anerkannt zu werden.
Artikel 7
Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich und haben ohne Unterschied Anspruch auf
gleichen Schutz durch das Gesetz. Alle haben Anspruch auf gleichen Schutz gegen jede
Diskriminierung, die gegen diese Erklärung verstößt, und gegen jede Aufhetzung zu einer
derartigen Diskriminierung.
Artikel 8
Jeder hat Anspruch auf einen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf bei den zuständigen innerstaatlichen
Gerichten gegen Handlungen, durch die seine ihm nach der Verfassung oder nach dem
Gesetz zustehenden Grundrechte verletzt werden.
A/RES/217 A (III)
3
Artikel 9
Niemand darf willkürlich festgenommen, in Haft gehalten oder des Landes verwiesen
werden.
Artikel 10
Jeder hat bei der Feststellung seiner Rechte und Pflichten sowie bei einer gegen ihn
erhobenen strafrechtlichen Beschuldigung in voller Gleichheit Anspruch auf ein gerechtes
und öffentliches Verfahren vor einem unabhängigen und unparteiischen Gericht.
Artikel 11
1. Jeder, der einer strafbaren Handlung beschuldigt wird, hat das Recht, als unschuldig zu
gelten, solange seine Schuld nicht in einem öffentlichen Verfahren, in dem er alle für seine
Verteidigung notwendigen Garantien gehabt hat, gemäß dem Gesetz nachgewiesen ist.
2. Niemand darf wegen einer Handlung oder Unterlassung verurteilt werden, die zur Zeit
ihrer Begehung nach innerstaatlichem oder internationalem Recht nicht strafbar war.
Ebenso darf keine schwerere Strafe als die zum Zeitpunkt der Begehung der strafbaren
Handlung angedrohte Strafe verhängt werden.
Artikel 12
Niemand darf willkürlichen Eingriffen in sein Privatleben, seine Familie, seine Wohnung
und seinen Schriftverkehr oder Beeinträchtigungen seiner Ehre und seines Rufes ausgesetzt
werden. Jeder hat Anspruch auf rechtlichen Schutz gegen solche Eingriffe oder
Beeinträchtigungen.
Artikel 13
1. Jeder hat das Recht, sich innerhalb eines Staates frei zu bewegen und seinen
Aufenthaltsort frei zu wählen.
2. Jeder hat das Recht, jedes Land, einschließlich seines eigenen, zu verlassen und in sein
Land zurückzukehren.
Artikel 14
1. Jeder hat das Recht, in anderen Ländern vor Verfolgung Asyl zu suchen und zu genießen.
2. Dieses Recht kann nicht in Anspruch genommen werden im Falle einer Strafverfolgung,
die tatsächlich auf Grund von Verbrechen nichtpolitischer Art oder auf Grund von
Handlungen erfolgt, die gegen die Ziele und Grundsätze der Vereinten Nationen verstoßen.
Artikel 15
1. Jeder hat das Recht auf eine Staatsangehörigkeit.
2. Niemandem darf seine Staatsangehörigkeit willkürlich entzogen noch das Recht versagt
werden, seine Staatsangehörigkeit zu wechseln.
A/RES/217 A (III)
4
Artikel 16
1. Heiratsfähige Männer und Frauen haben ohne jede Beschränkung auf Grund der Rasse,
der Staatsangehörigkeit oder der Religion das Recht, zu heiraten und eine Familie zu
gründen. Sie haben bei der Eheschließung, während der Ehe und bei deren Auflösung
gleiche Rechte.
2. Eine Ehe darf nur bei freier und uneingeschränkter Willenseinigung der künftigen
Ehegatten geschlossen werden.
3. Die Familie ist die natürliche Grundeinheit der Gesellschaft und hat Anspruch auf Schutz
durch Gesellschaft und Staat.
Artikel 17
1. Jeder hat das Recht, sowohl allein als auch in Gemeinschaft mit anderen Eigentum
innezuhaben.
2. Niemand darf willkürlich seines Eigentums beraubt werden.
Artikel 18
Jeder hat das Recht auf Gedanken-, Gewissens- und Religionsfreiheit; dieses Recht schließt
die Freiheit ein, seine Religion oder seine Weltanschauung zu wechseln, sowie die Freiheit,
seine Religion oder seine Weltanschauung allein oder in Gemeinschaft mit anderen,
öffentlich oder privat durch Lehre, Ausübung, Gottesdienst und Kulthandlungen zu
bekennen.
Artikel 19
Jeder hat das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit und freie Meinungsäußerung; dieses Recht
schließt die Freiheit ein, Meinungen ungehindert anzuhängen sowie über Medien jeder Art
und ohne Rücksicht auf Grenzen Informationen und Gedankengut zu suchen, zu empfangen
und zu verbreiten.
Artikel 20
1. Alle Menschen haben das Recht, sich friedlich zu versammeln und zu Vereinigungen
zusammenzuschließen.
2. Niemand darf gezwungen werden, einer Vereinigung anzugehören.
Artikel 21
1. Jeder hat das Recht, an der Gestaltung der öffentlichen Angelegenheiten seines Landes
unmittelbar oder durch frei gewählte Vertreter mitzuwirken.
2. Jeder hat das Recht auf gleichen Zugang zu öffentlichen Ämtern in seinem Lande.
3. Der Wille des Volkes bildet die Grundlage für die Autorität der öffentlichen Gewalt;
dieser Wille muß durch regelmäßige, unverfälschte, allgemeine und gleiche Wahlen mit
geheimer Stimmabgabe oder einem gleichwertigen freien Wahlverfahren zum Ausdruck
kommen.
A/RES/217 A (III)
5
Artikel 22
Jeder hat als Mitglied der Gesellschaft das Recht auf soziale Sicherheit und Anspruch
darauf, durch innerstaatliche Maßnahmen und internationale Zusammenarbeit sowie unter
Berücksichtigung der Organisation und der Mittel jedes Staates in den Genuß der
wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und kulturellen Rechte zu gelangen, die für seine Würde und die
freie Entwicklung seiner Persönlichkeit unentbehrlich sind.
Artikel 23
1. Jeder hat das Recht auf Arbeit, auf freie Berufswahl, auf gerechte und befriedigende
Arbeitsbedingungen sowie auf Schutz vor Arbeitslosigkeit.
2. Jeder, ohne Unterschied, hat das Recht auf gleichen Lohn für gleiche Arbeit.
3. Jeder, der arbeitet, hat das Recht auf gerechte und befriedigende Entlohnung, die ihm und
seiner Familie eine der menschlichen Würde entsprechende Existenz sichert, gegebenenfalls
ergänzt durch andere soziale Schutzmaßnahmen.
4. Jeder hat das Recht, zum Schutze seiner Interessen Gewerkschaften zu bilden und
solchen beizutreten.
Artikel 24
Jeder hat das Recht auf Erholung und Freizeit und insbesondere auf eine vernünftige
Begrenzung der Arbeitszeit und regelmäßigen bezahlten Urlaub.
Artikel 25
1. Jeder hat das Recht auf einen Lebensstandard, der seine und seiner Familie Gesundheit
und Wohl gewährleistet, einschließlich Nahrung, Kleidung, Wohnung, ärztliche Versorgung
und notwendige soziale Leistungen, sowie das Recht auf Sicherheit im Falle von
Arbeitslosigkeit, Krankheit, Invalidität oder Verwitwung, im Alter sowie bei anderweitigem
Verlust seiner Unterhaltsmittel durch unverschuldete Umstände.
2. Mütter und Kinder haben Anspruch auf besondere Fürsorge und Unterstützung. Alle
Kinder, eheliche wie außereheliche, genießen den gleichen sozialen Schutz.
Artikel 26
1. Jeder hat das Recht auf Bildung. Die Bildung ist unentgeltlich, zum mindesten der
Grundschulunterricht und die grundlegende Bildung. Der Grundschulunterricht ist
obligatorisch. Fach- und Berufsschulunterricht müssen allgemein verfügbar gemacht
werden, und der Hochschulunterricht muß allen gleichermaßen entsprechend ihren
Fähigkeiten offenstehen.
2. Die Bildung muß auf die volle Entfaltung der menschlichen Persönlichkeit und auf die
Stärkung der Achtung vor den Menschenrechten und Grundfreiheiten gerichtet sein. Sie
muß zu Verständnis, Toleranz und Freundschaft zwischen allen Nationen und allen
rassischen oder religiösen Gruppen beitragen und der Tätigkeit der Vereinten Nationen für
die Wahrung des Friedens förderlich sein.
A/RES/217 A (III)
6
3. Die Eltern haben ein vorrangiges Recht, die Art der Bildung zu wählen, die ihren Kindern
zuteil werden soll.
Artikel 27
1. Jeder hat das Recht, am kulturellen Leben der Gemeinschaft frei teilzunehmen, sich an
den Künsten zu erfreuen und am wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt und dessen
Errungenschaften teilzuhaben.
2. Jeder hat das Recht auf Schutz der geistigen und materiellen Interessen, die ihm als
Urheber von Werken der Wissenschaft, Literatur oder Kunst erwachsen.
Artikel 28
Jeder hat Anspruch auf eine soziale und internationale Ordnung, in der die in dieser
Erklärung verkündeten Rechte und Freiheiten voll verwirklicht werden können.
Artikel 29
1. Jeder hat Pflichten gegenüber der Gemeinschaft, in der allein die freie und volle
Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit möglich ist.
2. Jeder ist bei der Ausübung seiner Rechte und Freiheiten nur den Beschränkungen
unterworfen, die das Gesetz ausschließlich zu dem Zweck vorsieht, die Anerkennung und
Achtung der Rechte und Freiheiten anderer zu sichern und den gerechten Anforderungen
der Moral, der öffentlichen Ordnung und des allgemeinen Wohles in einer demokratischen
Gesellschaft zu genügen.
3. Diese Rechte und Freiheiten dürfen in keinem Fall im Widerspruch zu den Zielen und
Grundsätzen der Vereinten Nationen ausgeübt werden.
Artikel 30
Keine Bestimmung dieser Erklärung darf dahin ausgelegt werden, daß sie für einen Staat,
eine Gruppe oder eine Person irgendein Recht begründet, eine Tätigkeit auszuüben oder
eine Handlung zu begehen, welche die Beseitigung der in dieser Erklärung verkündeten
Rechte und Freiheiten zum Ziel hat.

183. Plenarsitzung
10. Dezember 1948

www.globalresearch.ca/us-economy-in-deflation-and-slump/5434087

....
On February 4, office supply retailer Staples announced plans to buy its rival Office Depot, which would result in the closure of up to a thousand stores and tens of thousands of layoffs. The next day, electronics retailer RadioShack filed for bankruptcy, saying it plans to close up to 3,500 stores.

Mass layoffs have also been announced at online marketplace eBay, credit card company American Express, the oilfield services companies Schlumberger and Baker Hughes, as well as the retailers J.C. Penney and Macy’s.
...

Short the DOW !  

kein "Must read", denn wir wissen ja.

Ein "Must read" ist fast immer keiner.  

Das hier ist kein "Must read", aber evtl. lohnt ja ein Klick: http://www.ariva.de/forum/Luegenpresse-625-516766

Three options being considered by the Pentagon are the placement of anti-missile defenses in Europe aimed at shooting Russian missiles out of the sky; a “counterforce” option that would involve pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes on Russia military sites; and finally, “countervailing strike capabilities,” involving the pre-emptive deployment of nuclear missiles against targets inside Russia.

The AP states: “The options go so far as one implied—but not stated explicitly—that would improve the ability of US nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory.” In other words, the US is actively preparing nuclear war against Russia.

Robert Scher, one of Carter’s nuclear policy aides, told Congress in April that the deployment of “counterforce” measures would mean “we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia.”

According to other Pentagon officials, this option would entail the deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles throughout Europe.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joe Skewers told AP, “All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation.”

The criminality and recklessness of the foreign policy of Washington and its NATO allies is staggering. A pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russian forces, many of them near populated areas, could claim millions of lives in seconds and lead to a nuclear war that would obliterate humanity. Even assuming that the US officials threatening Russia do not actually want such an outcome, however, and that they are only trying to intimidate Moscow, there is a sinister objective logic to such threats.

Nuclear warmongering by US officials immensely heightens the danger of all-out war erupting accidentally, amid escalating military tensions and strategic uncertainty. NATO forces are deploying for military exercises all around Russia, from the Arctic and Baltic Seas to Eastern Europe and the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Regional militaries are all on hair-trigger alerts.

US officials threatening Russia cannot know how the Kremlin will react to such threats. With Moscow concerned about the danger of a sudden NATO strike, Russia is ever more likely to respond to perceived signs of NATO military action by launching its missiles, fearing that otherwise the missiles will be destroyed on the ground. The danger of miscalculations and miscommunications leading to all-out war is immensely heightened.

The statements of Scher and Carter confirm warnings made last year by the WSWS, that NATO’s decision to back a fascist-led putsch in Kiev in February, and to blame Russia without any evidence for shooting down flight MH17, posed the risk of war. “Are you ready for war—including possibly nuclear war—between the United States, Europe, and Russia? That is the question that everyone should be asking him- or herself in light of the developments since the destruction of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17,” the WSWS wrote .

In March, Putin stated that he had placed Russian forces, including its nuclear forces, on alert in the aftermath of the Kiev putsch, fearing a NATO attack on Russia. Now the threat of war arising from US policy has been confirmed directly by statements of the US military.

These threats have developed largely behind the backs of the world working class. Workers in the United States, Europe and worldwide have time and again shown their hostility to US wars in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Yet nearly 15 years after these wars began, the world stands on the brink of an even bloodier and more devastating conflict, and the media and ruling elites the world over are hiding the risk of nuclear war.

US President Barack Obama is expected to escalate pressure on Russia at the G7 summit this weekend, pressing European leaders to maintain economic sanctions put in place in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea last year. The latest outbreak in violence in Ukraine this week, which the US blames on Russia, is to serve as a pretext for continuing the sanctions.

Speaking to Parliament on Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko warned of a “colossal threat of the resumption of large-scale hostilities by Russian and terrorist forces.” He claimed without proof that 9,000 Russian soldiers are deployed in rebel-held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, in eastern Ukraine.

“Ukraine’s military should be ready for a new offensive by the enemy, as well as a full-scale invasion along the entire border with the Russian Federation,” Poroshenko said. “We must be really prepared for this.” He said the Ukrainian army had at least 50,000 soldiers stationed in the east, prepared to defend the country.

Poroshenko’s remarks came a day after renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine between Kiev forces and Russian-backed separatists resulted in dozens of casualties. This week’s fighting marked the largest breach to date of the cease-fire signed in February.

Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday that Russia believed the previous day’s hostilities had been provoked by Kiev to influence upcoming discussions at the G7 summit this weekend and the EU summit in Brussels at the end of the month. “These provocative actions are organized by Ukraine’s military forces, and we are concerned with that,” he stated.

Each side blamed the other for initiating fighting in Marinka, approximately nine miles west of the rebel stronghold of Donetsk. Yuriy Biryukov, an adviser to Poroshenko, reported on Thursday that five Ukrainian soldiers had been killed in the fighting, and another 39 wounded. Eduard Basurin, deputy defense minister and spokesman for the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), told Interfax that 16 rebel fighters and five civilians had been killed.

Ukrainian forces also fired artillery at the rebel-held city of Donetsk on Wednesday. Shells landed in the southwest districts of Kirovsky and Petrovsky, killing 6 people and wounding at least 90 others. The city’s Sokol market was severely damaged, with several rows of shops burned to the ground.

Responding to Wednesday’s developments, members of the fascistic Right Sector militia have been called to mobilize for battle. Andrey Stempitsky, commander of the militia’s paramilitary battalion, posted a message on Facebook calling on those who went home during the cease-fire to “return to their combat units.” He warned that the Right Sector would “wage war, ignoring the truce devotees.”

Even if some “permanent solution” could be crafted for Greece, that would only solve a very small fraction of the overall problem that we are facing.  The nations of the world have never been in this much debt before, and it gets worse with each passing day.

According to a new report from the Jubilee Debt Campaign, there are currently 24 countries in the world that are facing a full-blown debt crisis…

■ Armenia

■ Belize

■ Costa Rica

■ Croatia

■ Cyprus

■ Dominican Republic

■ El Salvador

■ The Gambia

■ Greece

■ Grenada

■ Ireland

■ Jamaica

■ Lebanon

■ Macedonia

■ Marshall Islands

■ Montenegro

■ Portugal

■ Spain

■ Sri Lanka

■ St Vincent and the Grenadines

■ Tunisia

■ Ukraine

■ Sudan

■ Zimbabwe

And there are another 14 nations that are right on the verge of one…

■ Bhutan

■ Cape Verde

■ Dominica

■ Ethiopia

■ Ghana

■ Laos

■ Mauritania

■ Mongolia

■ Mozambique

■ Samoa

■ Sao Tome e Principe

■ Senegal

■ Tanzania

■ Uganda

So what should be done about this?

Should we have the “wealthy” countries bail all of them out?

Well, the truth is that the “wealthy” countries are some of the biggest debt offenders of all.  Just consider the United States.  Our national debt has more than doubled since 2007, and at this point it has gotten so large that it is mathematically impossible to pay it off.

Europe is in similar shape.  Members of the eurozone are trying to cobble together a “bailout package” for Greece, but the truth is that most of them will soon need bailouts too…

All of those countries will come knocking asking for help at some point. The fact is that their Debt to GDP levels have soared since the EU nearly collapsed in 2012.

Spain’s Debt to GDP has risen from 69% to 98%. Italy’s Debt to GDP has risen from 116% to 132%. France’s has risen from 85% to 95%.

In addition to Spain, Italy and France, let us not forget Belgium (106 percent debt to GDP), Ireland (109 debt to GDP) and Portugal (130 debt to GDP).

Once all of these dominoes start falling, the consequences for our massively overleveraged global financial system will be absolutely catastrophic…

Spain has over $1.0 trillion in debt outstanding… and Italy has €2.6 trillion. These bonds are backstopping tens of trillions of Euros’ worth of derivatives trades. A haircut or debt forgiveness for them would trigger systemic failure in Europe.

EU banks as a whole are leveraged at 26-to-1. At these leverage levels, even a 4% drop in asset prices wipes out ALL of your capital. And any haircut of Greek, Spanish, Italian and French debt would be a lot more than 4%.

Things in Asia look quite ominous as well.

According to Bloomberg, debt levels in China have risen to levels never recorded before…

While China’s economic expansion beat analysts’ forecasts in the second quarter, the country’s debt levels increased at an even faster pace.

Outstanding loans for companies and households stood at a record207 percent of gross domestic product at the end of June, up from125 percent in 2008, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

And remember, that doesn’t even include government debt.  When you throw all forms of debt into the mix, the overall debt to GDP number for China is rapidly approaching 300 percent.

In Japan, things are even worse.  The government debt to GDP ratio in Japan is now up to an astounding 230 percent.  That number has gotten so high that it is hard to believe that it could possibly be true.  At some point an implosion is coming in Japan which is going to shock the world.

Of course the same thing could be said about the entire planet.  Yes, national governments and central banks have been attempting to kick the can down the road for as long as possible, but everyone knows that this is not going to end well.

And when things do really start falling apart, it will be unlike anything that we have ever seen before.  Just consider what Egon von Greyerz recently told King World News…

Eric, there are now more problem areas in the world, rather than stable situations. No major nation in the West can repay its debts. The same is true for Japan and most of the emerging markets. Europe is a failed experiment for socialism and deficit spending. China is a massive bubble, in terms of its stock markets, property markets and shadow banking system. Japan is also a basket case and the U.S. is the most indebted country in the world and has lived above its means for over 50 years.

So we will see twin $200 trillion debt and $1.5 quadrillion derivatives implosions. That will lead to the most historic wealth destruction ever in global stock, with bond and property markets declining at least 75 – 95 percent. World trade will also contract dramatically and we will see massive hardship across the globe.

So what do you think is coming, and how bad will things ultimately get once this global debt crisis finally spins totally out of control?

Copyright © Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse, 2015