DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Issues
*****************************************************
#Post#: 240--------------------------------------------------
Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: July 10, 2020, 8:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the Problem – Debt-Based Fiat Currency
[quote]Amidst the endless, brain-numbing talk between the
parties of the centre-left and those centre-right in any given
democratic country on the issues of privatisation, ‘leasing’
(which is just privatisation in disguise), taxes and interest
rates lies the inescapable existence of money. It is this object
to which virtually every single politician will base their
policies and arguments around as opposed to at – those who have
historically chosen the latter approach turn out like John F.
Kennedy or Gough Whitlam, assassinated or prematurely
disenfranchised. None who are ‘representatives’ in office dare
actually question this God-like tool of social power directly
when discussing the issues of poverty, the wealth gap or cuts to
public funding; or more specifically, the issues that money –
under its present mode of usage – cause.
The current central banking practice that encompasses virtually
all democratic nations of the world – and this includes
Australia – is based on the ‘concept’ (as if you could really
call something that is purposely flawed a concept, but for lack
of a better word …) of debt-based fiat currency. The official
name of this concept is immediately off-setting to perhaps
nine-out-of-ten people who hear it – no one really wants to know
why ‘debt’ and ‘currency’ are appearing together in a term that
is meant to imply wealth generation. Here this article will
explain the debt-based fiat currency monetary model for what it
really is – a government-approved, privatised, self-generating
debt system. This exceptionally oppressive financial paradigm is
responsible for every war which has involved the United States
(Banks) of America in the last one hundred years (and counting)
and is at the core root of why there is more slavery, social
injustice, moral depravity, political corruption and poverty in
the world today than ever before in the history of mankind.
The system is simple to understand. The central (or reserve)
bank of any democratic nation in the world today is a joint
private-government trust. In fact, the only role the government
plays is the official recognition of that said entity (e.g. the
Reserve Bank of Australia) as the legal provider of the money
supply. The actual running central bank is left solely to the
initiative of the private aspect of the partnership. And here is
how they do it …
The government decides that it needs to increase the national
money pool. In doing this, they (the government) establish a
contract with the central bank whereby treasury bonds
(meaningless pieces of paper) valued at ‘x’ amount are traded
with the central bank in exchange for an ‘x’ amount of legal
tender (money). However, the government bonds are only an
artificial means of goodwill, the central bank actually loans
the money to the government with interest attached – the
government is obliged by contract to pay back the money borrowed
plus interest. Since the central bank is the only source of more
money, the government can never generate the interest it needs
to pay without another loan from central bank, which again,
comes with more interest. Hence, the government and, by
extension, the nation as a whole, is constantly in debt to the
central bank (which if you haven’t figured out by now, is really
just a private loan sharking enterprise encompassing
international dimensions). Even if a said government was to tax
its citizens 100 per cent of their income, they still would not
be able to pay off the debt they owe to the central bank –
simply because the interest does not exist until the latter
prints an additional batch of money with more new interest
attached. This is how ‘debt’ and ‘currency’ go hand-in-hand
regarding the term ‘debt-based fiat currency’.[/quote]
HTML https://federsgenius.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/understanding-the-problem-debt-based-fiat-currency/
#Post#: 241--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: July 10, 2020, 8:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Solution – Labour-based Currency
[quote]Having established the fundamental problem of our current
economic system, we will now present the essential principles of
a viable solution – labour-based currency – and how this system
would be practically be implemented. If you have not read our
original essay, and don’t understand the problem of debt-based
finance, then I recommend you first read Part 1 – Understanding
the Problem.
Under a labour-backed fiat currency model, the money supply is
expanded via the government’s expenditures for the maintenance
and developing of a particular public projects, be it in the
form of social and emergency services (e.g. public
transportation, garbage disposal, welfare, ambulances, fire
control, police and all other typical government sector related
jobs) or state infrastructure (e.g. roads, energy plants, water
sanitation, government housing). What should be made clear is
that under a labour-backed currency production model all banking
– in both central and commercial capacities – is managed wholly
by the state as a non-profit organisation for the safeguarding
of the individual citizen’s monetary reserves, the provision of
interest-free loans and the regulation of the national money
supply. All costs regarding a given government-funded project
are calculated – namely essential building materials and
required human labour – and prices for the purchasing of needed
materials and workers are rationalised by the government (i.e.
the state dictates the value of certain materials, goods and
labour). The entire focus of the labour-backed fiscal model is
to base a given currency, unique to a single nation, on the
ability of the central government of that one nation to mobilise
its manpower and material resources for the production and
maintenance of essential infrastructures and services.
All payments by the government to workers and collaborating
private enterprises (e.g. some materials [wood, concrete, wire,
etc …] to build infrastructure may need to be acquired from a
private source, which is fine) is made in the form of a receipt
that can be cashed in at the state-run national bank. What
should be remembered from all this is that the money supply can
only be expanded at the behest of the government’s ability to
provide jobs to those who do not own a business or work within
the private sector. The private sector will only ever be able to
utilise money that the public sector produced. Where private
enterprise fails to generate jobs, the government takes over.
This guarantees that a significant degree of a nation’s labour
pool remains in government hands for the maintenance of public
welfare and not for achieving the private interests of a
wealth-laden elite. A currency bound to this system also becomes
inflation-proof.
Regarding private enterprise in and on its own, the state still
plays a regulating role by encouraging more business to thrive
in areas where the generation of privately produced essential
goods and services (e.g. foodstuffs, clothing and hair salons)
is deemed to be insufficient and by discouraging business in
areas where there is deemed to be a surplus of unessential goods
and services (e.g. makeup, perfume, iPhones and entertainment
television). This prevents private enterprise from hijacking
government-standardised prices by means of either purposely
holding back on the production of certain essential goods and
services to force a rise in value or by fabricating over-demand
(namely through advertisement) for the selling of surplus
numbers of unessential goods.
Since all government services to a nation are monetarily
compensated by the government’s own means (i.e. the state
produces the money it needs to spend), income tax becomes
irrelevant, even for those working in the private sector. Since
the government also regulates private enterprises enough insofar
as how much they can produce and limiting them to a single facet
of goods or services production, company tax also becomes
unnecessary as a means to prevent unchecked expansionist urges
(as if company tax ever served to cap aggressive business
practices and wealth hoarding in the first place).
Under a labour-backed currency model, the government does not
own the economy; rather the government directs the economy.
Nonetheless certain key services for the maintenance of a modern
state must never be privatised in order to prevent the private
sector from eroding state authority over a population. This
includes essential services such as water sanitation, media,
postal delivery, electricity, public transportation, disaster
relief, armaments production, both reserve and commercial
banking, security and healthcare.
Accepting the reality that some nations lack the raw materials
and means for producing certain finished goods to become truly
self-sufficient, it becomes obvious that international trade is
still necessary. The solution to minimise exploitation during
such an exchange is to enforce – although never through an
international body – that trade between nations be conducted in
a fashion whereby the essential goods and/or resources of one
nation are exchanged only for the essential goods and/or
resources of another nation on terms reached by both trading
parties. Here, exploitation by one nation against another is
still, technically, possible, however never to the degree that
the international trade of a given ‘global’ currency by one
nation (as if people can eat or build houses out of a foreign
currency) in exchange for base goods or resources of another
nation allows for. Finally, labour must never be exported or
imported in order to prevent private corporate interests from
neglecting the available labour pool of their home nation in
pursuit of greater profit.
Because money creation is relevant to government efficiency in
hiring the citizens of a nation to play a pivotal role in
maintaining and building-up the existence of their state, a
given currency based on this model is freed from the hostile
control of international finance which insists that the currency
of one (x) nation is inferior to currency of another (y) nation
– either because X has less gold reserves (as if people can eat
or build houses out of gold) or simply because an established
power group simply says that X’s money is of less value (this
representing the so-called ‘modern’ system of ‘floating’
currencies) – and that the former is destined to be economically
exploited by the latter. It should be noted that the existence
of metal-based (historical) and debt-based (current) currencies
in the Western civilisational tradition have only served to
demonstrate how selfishly-orientated international banking
interests (and the multi-national, multi-faceted corporations
that collude with these interests) can hold entire populations
hostage in what has become an inherently rigged, global
resource-grabbing game.[/quote]
HTML https://federsgenius.wordpress.com/
#Post#: 1576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: October 16, 2020, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No One Understands Money, and It's Becoming a $14 Trillion
Problem
[quote]Financial literacy may have been your least favorite High
School class, but here is why it’s so important.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLdTM26i9bY
Most people do not understand money in this Jewish capitalist
system and it was intentionally designed that way.
Lack of understanding the problem is not the real issue, the
system is.
Reminder:
[quote]In the 20th century, Rothschild developed into a
pre-eminent global organisation, which enhanced its ability to
secure key advisory roles in some of the most important, complex
and recognizable mergers and acquisitions. In the 1980s,
Rothschild took a leading role in the international phenomenon
of privatization. The company was involved from the beginning
and developed a pioneering role which spread out to more than
thirty countries worldwide. In recent years, Rothschild advised
on nearly a thousand completed mergers and acquisitions with a
cumulative value in excess of US$1 trillion. Rothschild also
advised on some of the largest and most high-profile corporate
restructurings around the world.[16]
The price of gold was fixed for years, twice daily at 10:30 am
and 3:00 pm, in a small room at Rothschild's New Court
headquarters on St Swithin's Lane.[17] The world's main bullion
houses: Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Scotia-Mocatta and Société Générale
used the agreed rate as a price benchmark for gold products and
derivatives in the world's markets. The chairperson,
traditionally appointed by the Rothschild bank, sat in the
center, although the bank itself has largely withdrawn from
trading. The five members of the London Bullion Association:
Barclays Capital, Deutsche Bank, Scotiabank, HSBC and Société
Générale, now conduct their twice-daily meetings over the
telephone. The meetings were a tradition as great as the ringing
of the bell at the New York Stock Exchange until 2004.[18]
[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_%26_Co
Another reminder:
HTML https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M_GbNeUHwSA/UL4GW88Nc7I/AAAAAAAAZNo/tsZ4BcIFpBE/s1600/rothschild--marx--jpg.jpg
HTML http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/anthro.png
[quote]From the deluge is born a new world, while the Pharisees
whine about their miserable pennies! The liberation of humanity
from the curse of gold stands before us! — Dietrich
Eckart[/quote]
[quote]The basis of Jewish commercial policy is to make matters
incomprehensible for a normal brain. — Adolf Hitler[/quote]
To this day, how many people on this planet can accurately
describe what a derivative is, even though they caused the 2008
financial crash?
#Post#: 1611--------------------------------------------------
Africa lost $836bn from 'illicit capital flight' from 2000-2015
By: guest5 Date: October 18, 2020, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Africa lost $836bn from 'illicit capital flight' from 2000-2015
[quote]A new report from the United Nations says the continent
would be debt free if money hadn't left illegally. Much of the
loss is through corruption, tax evasion and mis-invoicing of
exports such as gold. The UN says the problem is robbing the
continent and its people of their future. But what can be done
to stop these practices?[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nhDphl5HzA
Colonial Era Map of Africa:
HTML http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/Colonial-Africa.jpg
#Post#: 1828--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: October 28, 2020, 1:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Billionaire Who Wanted To Die Broke Is Now Officially Broke
[quote]Charles “Chuck” Feeney, 89, who cofounded airport
retailer Duty Free Shoppers with Robert Miller in 1960, amassed
billions while living a life of monklike frugality. As a
philanthropist, he pioneered the idea of Giving While
Living—spending most of your fortune on big, hands-on charity
bets instead of funding a foundation upon death. Since you can't
take it with you—why not give it all away, have control of where
it goes and see the results with your own eyes?
Over the last four decades, Feeney has donated more than $8
billion to charities, universities and foundations worldwide
through his foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies. When I
first met him in 2012, he estimated he had set aside about $2
million for his and his wife's retirement. In other words, he's
given away 375,000% more money than his current net worth. And
he gave it away anonymously. While many wealthy philanthropists
enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney
went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Because of his
clandestine, globe-trotting philanthropy campaign, Forbes called
him the  James Bond of Philanthropy.
On September 14, 2020, Feeney completed his four-decade mission
and signed the documents to shutter the Atlantic Philanthropies.
The ceremony, which happened over Zoom with the Atlantic
Philanthropies’ board, included video messages from Bill Gates
and former California Gov. Jerry Brown. Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi sent an official letter from the U.S. Congress
thanking Feeney for his work.
At its height, the Atlantic Philanthropies had 300-plus
employees and ten global offices across seven time zones. The
specific closure date was set years ago as part of his long-term
plan to make high-risk, high-impact donations by setting a hard
deadline to give away all his money and close shop. The 2020
expiration date added urgency and discipline. It gave the
Atlantic Philanthropies the time to document its history,
reflect on wins and losses and create a strategy for other
institutions to follow. As Feeney told me in 2019: “Our giving
is based on the opportunities, not a plan to stay in business
for a long time.”  [/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IALt5Jil9JM
#Post#: 1898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: October 31, 2020, 1:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Surviving an Unlivable Wage | Full Documentary
[quote]"The restaurant industry has driven a significant amount
of economic growth since the Great Recession, but many
restaurant employees continue to end up hungry due to a
two-tiered wage system that allows tipped workers to be paid as
little as $2.13 an hour. CBSN Originals' Adam Yamaguchi travels
to Indiana to explore the impact of tipping as a primary source
of income for people in one of America’s fastest-growing
workforces.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbvNhQ4lYLE
How poor people survive in the USA | DW Documentary
[quote]Homelessness, hunger and shame: poverty is rampant in the
richest country in the world. Over 40 million people in the
United States live below the poverty line, twice as many as it
was fifty years ago. It can happen very quickly.
Many people in the United States fall through the social safety
net. In the structurally weak mining region of the Appalachians,
it has become almost normal for people to go shopping with food
stamps. And those who lose their home often have no choice but
to live in a car. There are so many homeless people in Los
Angeles that relief organizations have started to build small
wooden huts to provide them with a roof over their heads. The
number of homeless children has also risen dramatically,
reaching 1.5 million, three times more than during the Great
Depression the 1930s. A documentary about the fate of the poor
in the United States today.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDkALRz5Rk
#Post#: 2473--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: November 25, 2020, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The stock market is not the economy
[quote]But as we’ve said before and we’ll surely say again: The
stock market is not the economy.
“The stock market is a market where stocks, a type of investment
that represents ownership in a company are traded,” said Jessica
Schieder, a federal tax policy fellow at the Institute on
Taxation and Economic Policy.
“The stock market is where people make bets on what’s going to
happen in the economy.” [/quote]
HTML https://www.marketplace.org/2019/09/30/the-stock-market-is-not-the-economy/
Repeat After Me: The Markets Are Not the Economy
[quote]The two have been intertwined in the American psyche
since the 1929 stock crash and the onset of the Great
Depression. But stocks are not a reliable gauge of overall
economic health.[/quote]
[quote]The stock market looks increasingly divorced from
economic reality.
The United States is on the brink of the worst economic collapse
since the Hoover administration. Corporate profits have
crumpled. More than a million Americans have contracted the
coronavirus, and hundreds are dying each day. There is no
turnaround in sight.
Yet stocks keep climbing. Even as 20.5 million people lost their
jobs in April, the S&P 500 stock index logged its best month in
33 years. After a few weeks of wild swings, the market is down a
mere 9.3 percent this year and 13.5 percent from its peak — what
most investors would consider a correction. On Friday, after the
government released the staggering unemployment figures, the S&P
500 closed up 1.7 percent.[/quote]
HTML https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/business/stock-market-economy-coronavirus.html
#Post#: 2615--------------------------------------------------
Everything You Know About Global Order Is Wrong
By: guest5 Date: December 3, 2020, 12:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Everything You Know About Global Order Is Wrong
[quote]If Western elites understood how the postwar liberal
system was created, they’d think twice about asking for its
renewal.[/quote]
[quote]Klaus Schwab, impresario of the World Economic Forum,
released a manifesto in the run-up to 2019's annual meeting at
Davos, Switzerland, in which he called for a contemporary
equivalent to the postwar conferences that established the
liberal international order. “After the Second World War,
leaders from across the globe came together to design a new set
of institutional structures to enable the post-war world to
collaborate towards building a shared future,” he wrote. “The
world has changed, and as a matter of urgency, we must undertake
this process again.” Schwab went on to call for a new moment of
collective design for globalization’s alleged fourth iteration
(creatively labeled Globalization 4.0).
Schwab is not the first to make this kind of appeal. Since the
financial crisis, there have been repeated calls for a “new
Bretton Woods”—the conference in 1944 at which, in Schwab’s
words, “leaders from across the globe came together to design” a
financial system for the postwar era, establishing the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in the
process. It was the moment at which U.S. hegemony proved its
most comprehensive and enlightened by empowering
economist-statesmen, foremost among them John Maynard Keynes, to
lead the world out of the postwar ruins and the preceding
decades of crisis. Under Washington’s wise leadership, even
rancorous Europe moved toward peaceful and prosperous
integration.
This is a story with wide support in places like Davos. It’s
also one that deserves far more scrutiny. Its history of the
founding of the postwar order is wrong; more important, its
implicit theory about how international order emerges—through a
collective design effort by world leaders coming together to
reconcile their interests—is fundamentally mistaken. What
history actually suggests is that order tends to emerge not from
cooperation and deliberation but from a cruder calculus of power
and material constraints.
Bretton Woods may have been a conference of experts and
officials, but it was first and foremost a gathering of a
wartime alliance engaged in the massive mobilization effort of
total war. The conference met in July 1944 in the weeks
following D-Day and the final Soviet breakthrough on the Eastern
Front. As a wartime rather than a postwar meeting, disagreements
were minimized. Though the conference was about the future order
of the international economy and though the aim of the talks was
to link national economies back together, the building blocks
were centralized, state-controlled war economies. The Bretton
Woods negotiators were government officials, not businessmen or
bankers. As they had done since the collapse of the global
financial system in the early 1930s, central bankers played
second fiddle to treasury officials. The Americans who were
bankrolling the Allied war effort called the shots.
The basic monetary vision of Bretton Woods was to create order
by establishing fully convertible currencies at fixed exchange
rates, with the dollar pegged to gold. But the tough conditions
of the Bretton Woods monetary architecture set by the United
States proved far too demanding for war-weakened European
economies. When Britain, the least damaged economy in Europe,
tried to implement free convertibility of pounds into dollars,
its attempt collapsed at the first hurdle in 1947; the social
democratic Labour Party government in London quickly moved to
stop the subsequent drain of precious dollars by reimposing
exchange controls and tightening import quotas. Meanwhile, the
grand design for a free trade order embodied by the Havana
Charter and the International Trade Organization fell afoul of
the U.S. Congress and was thus stopped in its tracks. The
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was its cumbersome
and slow-moving replacement.
The talk of a connection between the present and the Bretton
Woods moment is legitimated perhaps above all by the claimed
continuity of the IMF and the World Bank, which were duly set up
in December 1945. But beyond institutional titles, this supposed
continuity is largely false. Within a year of the founding of
its key institutions, almost the entire global agenda of Bretton
Woods was put on ice. Already in 1946 the Soviet Union absented
itself from the formation of the IMF and the World Bank.
With the Cold War paralyzing the U.N. institutions that had
originally been intended to frame Bretton Woods, what emerged
under U.S. hegemony was a far narrower postwar order centered on
the North Atlantic. The Marshall Plan of 1948 was not so much a
complement to Bretton Woods as an acknowledgement of its
failure. For true liberals in both the United States and Europe,
who hankered after the golden age of globalization in the late
19th century, the resulting Cold War economic order was a
profound disappointment. The U.S. Treasury and the first
generation of neoliberals in Europe fretted against the U.S.
State Department and its interventionist economic tendencies.
Mavericks such as the young Milton Friedman—true advocates of
free markets in the way we take for granted today—demanded a
bonfire of all regulations. They insisted that rather than
exchange rates being fixed, currencies should be allowed to
float with their value defined by competitive markets. In the
1950s, Friedman could be dismissed as eccentric.
The reality of the liberal order that supposedly came into
existence in the postwar moment was the more or less haphazard
continuation of wartime controls. It would take until 1958
before the Bretton Woods vision was finally implemented. Even
then it was not a “liberal” order by the standard of the gilded
age of the 19th century or in the sense that Davos understands
it today. International mobility of capital for anything other
than long-term investment was strictly limited. Liberalization
of trade also made slow progress. The gradual abolition of
exchange controls went hand in hand with the lifting of trade
quotas. Only when these more elementary limitations on foreign
trade were removed did tariff negotiations become relevant.
GATT’s lumbering deliberations did not begin making major
inroads until the Kennedy round of the 1960s, 20 years after the
end of the war. And rising global trade was a mixed blessing.
Huge German and Japanese trade surpluses put pressure on the
Bretton Woods exchange rate system. This was compounded in the
1960s by the connivance of U.S. Treasury and U.K. authorities in
enabling Wall Street to sidestep financial repression and launch
the unregulated eurodollar market, based in bank accounts in
London.
By the late 1960s, barely more than 10 years old, Bretton Woods
was already in terminal trouble. And when confronted with
demands for deflation, U.S. President Richard Nixon reverted to
economic nationalism. Between 1971 and 1973, he unhitched the
dollar from gold and abandoned any effort to defend the exchange
rate, sending the dollar plunging and helping to restore
something closer to trade balance. If our own world has a
historic birthplace, it was not in 1945 but in the early 1970s
with the advent of fiat money and floating exchange rates. The
unpalatable truth is that our world was born not out of wise
collective agreement but out of chaos, unleashed by America’s
unilateral refusal any longer to underwrite the global monetary
order.
As the tensions built up in the 1960s exploded, foreign exchange
instability contributed to a historically unprecedented surge in
inflation across the Western world. We now know that this era of
inflationary instability would be concluded by the market
revolution and what Ben Bernanke dubbed the “great moderation.”
But once again hindsight should not blind us to the depth of the
crisis and uncertainty prevailing at the time. The first
attempts to restore order were not by way of the market
revolution but by the means of corporatism—direct negotiations
among governments, trade unions, and employers with a view of
limiting the vicious spiral of prices and wages. This promised a
direct control of inflation by way of price setting. But its
effect was to stoke an ever-greater politicization of the
economy. With left-wing social theorists diagnosing a crisis of
capitalist democracy, the trilateral commission warned of
democratic ungovernability.
What broke the deadlock was not some inclusive conference of
stakeholders. The stakeholders in the 1970s were obstreperous
trade unions, and that kind of consultation was precisely the
bad habit that the neoliberal revolutionaries set out to break.
The solution, as U.S. Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker’s
recent memoirs make embarrassingly clear, was blunt force
wielded by the Fed. Volcker’s unilateral interest rate hike, the
sharp revaluation of the dollar, deindustrialization, and the
crash of surging unemployment dealt a death blow to organized
labor and tamed inflationary pressure. The Volcker shock
established so-called independent central bankers as the true
arbiters of the new dispensation.
They put paid to what Margaret Thatcher referred to as the
“enemy within.” But the global victory of the liberal order
required a more far-reaching struggle. The world of the market
revolution of the 1980s was still divided between communism and
capitalism, between first, second, and third worlds. The
overcoming of those divisions was a matter of power politics
first and foremost, negotiation second. The United States and
its allies in Europe raised the pressure on the Soviet Union,
and after a period of spectacularly heightened tension, Mikhail
Gorbachev chose to de-escalate, unwittingly precipitating the
union’s collapse.
The truth is that the postwar moment that the Davos crowd truly
hankers after is not that of 1945 but the aftermath of the Cold
War, the moment of Western triumph. It was finally in 1995 that
the Bretton Woods vision of a comprehensive world trade
organization was realized. A sanitized version of this moment
would describe it as a third triumph of enlightened technocracy.
After Bretton Woods and the defeat of inflation, this was the
age of the Washington Consensus. But as in those previous
moments, its underpinnings were power politics: at home the
humbling of organized labor, abroad the collapse of Soviet
challenge and the decision by the Beijing regime to embark on
the incorporation of China into the world economy.
Since 2008, that new order has come under threat from its own
internal dysfunction, oppositional domestic politics, and the
geopolitical power shift engendered by truly widespread
convergent growth. The crisis goes deep. It is not surprising
that there should be calls for a new institutional design. But
we should be careful what we wish for. If history is anything to
go by, that new order will not emerge from an enlightened act of
collective leadership. Ideas and leadership matter. But to think
that they by themselves found international order is to put the
cart before the horse. What will resolve the current tension is
a power grab by a new stakeholder determined to have its way.
And the central question of the current moment is whether the
West is ready for that. If not, we should get comfortable with
the new disorder.[/quote]
HTML https://getpocket.com/explore/item/everything-you-know-about-global-order-is-wrong?utm_source=pocket-newtab
HTML https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
Carroll Quigley happens to be an American historian. What is
wrong with these people? Can't look at Hitler's economics, that
would be "anti-Semitism" of course.... ;D
HTML https://www.quotationof.com/images/political-decisions-quotes-3.jpg<br
/>
#Post#: 2699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: December 6, 2020, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's talk about how the stock market isn't the economy....
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DeGZ_M-yg
#Post#: 2700--------------------------------------------------
Re: Monetary Wealth
By: guest5 Date: December 6, 2020, 1:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your Guide to the Great Monetary Reset
[quote]Do you know what it means when the Managing Director of
the IMF warns of a "new Bretton Woods moment?" How about when
the head of the BIS revels in the total surveillance power that
digital currencies will afford the central bankers? Well, you're
about to. Don't miss this info-packed edition of The Corbett
Report podcast where James peels back the layers of the great
currency reset onion and uncovers the New World (Monetary)
Order.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGQBR2NOeE
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page