by Sylvester Connor

The Connor Post - Exclusive - June 1, 2016

Many words have been written about cultural issues around mass migration into the Eurozone. The debates, the arguments and the votes are in conflict over whether it’s virtuous or destructive for Germany to merge with Islam.

On one hand we have the Merkel crowd who say in essence, “We can afford it, it’s the right thing to do so let’s do it and hope the rest of the EU goes along with us.” On the other hand, the AfD and its congener parties in other nations say ”It’s cultural suicide.” But cultural suicide aside, little has been said as to whether it is in fact, financial suicide.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, precipitated by a massive overload of debt, worldwide debt has increased. A lot. There has been some deleveraging at the personal and business levels (this is called recession), but worldwide, national deficits have soared.

The only major country to successfully deleverage is Germany. Germany lost a fortune on bad loans, but still wound up with relatively little national debt and a massive trade surplus.

Germany did this not by eliminating its debt, but by exporting it through massive trade surpluses. So when Merkel says, "we can do it", the assumption is implicit that, we’re rich, we can afford it. But of course, she doesn’t mean the EU—she means Germany.

Germany’s wealth, if it is to be sustained, relies on the continued growth of debt in the US, China, the developing countries and the rest of the eurozone.

What possible sense would it make for the rest of the eurozone to import the developing nations, just because Germany thinks she can afford it? What economic sense does it make for Germany?

To be clear: the financial argument for mass migration is that these young Muslims will pay taxes for the pensions of aging Germans. That’s wishful thinking at best. The experience from Belgium to the US, is that the third world goes on welfare, and stays there, far more than not. Ann Coulter has described this situation in America, but of course the situation is the same in Europe.

The whole reason Germany has succeeded where every other country is drowning in debt is that they have a huge export surplus without having to borrow to do it. (China has a huge export surplus too, but its government debt is high enough to make the US, if not Japan, blush—or gasp.)

Germany will not fix its economy by importing taxpayers. Poor people don’t pay taxes, and you can’t make poor people wealthy so they can pay taxes by giving them money. Germany’s funding relies on demand for its exports.

That’s the whole problem behind the creeping crawling recession that lingers almost a decade after the real estate bust of 2007-08. Central banks lowered interest rates to zero, thinking lack of credit was the problem.

But too much credit was the problem. Everybody was overleveraged. They didn’t want to borrow more at any price.

There is no demand.

So central banks through the eurozone and beyond have spent like madman to make up the difference in credit demand. Something like curing a hangover with a stiff drink.

And Germany thinks she’s immune to all of this? All credit binges end, and when this one ends, Germany will no longer so easily say “we can do it” when the third world wants housing and jobs.

Does Germany think she is going to import demand for her products by importing the destitute? No one can believe this.

The nationalists are right: it makes no sense to destroy a culture out of perceived guilt for events no one alive was part of. Let us not forget, when it comes to importing the Third World:

We can’t afford it.

Follow Us on Twitter: or e-mail to: