My information on this subject is probably as skewed as the article itself - both Stewart Bailey and me have some vested interest in it; However, in my case it's European Union and our common future, and in his case very probably some gold-heavy funds.
example:"...as before the end of the decade EMU will expand to include countries such as Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, even Montenegro". Throwing Poland (to join EU in 2004), Bulgaria, Romania (possibly becoming serious candidates before the end of decade) and Montenegro (becoming a candidate not earlier than 3004) into the same pot, is complete nonsense.
I could go on picking bits and pieces...the scenario about poor national states being stripped naked to get shafted by the differences in the local economies is changing the cause for the effect. It IS a risk, but it was a carefully weighted decision - what's the risks and what's the possible rewards. The idea of one big(ger) market (goods, capital, workforce) with a number of barriers down, makes good sense, to me at least. At least I dont have to drive to Denmark to buy my next Volkswagen cheaper (g).
The article is full of armaggedon language, so the most probable result is the reader gets scared shitless and ready to buy into what the 2nd part will suggest. I just wonder what that could be...
dj |
