Thread: the New World financial Order

Some two decades ago, it was decided by the global financial elites that the framework for the global economy shall consist of:



1) A global derivative-based financial system, controlled by the US Federal Reserve Bank and its associate global banks in the developed countries.



2) The re-location from the West to the East in the production of goods, principally to China and India to “feed� the developed economies.



The entire system was built on a simple principle, that of a FED-controlled global reserve currency which will be the engine for growth for the global economy. It is essentially an imperialist economic principle.



Once we grasp this fundamental truth, Bernanke’s boast that the “US can produce as many US dollars as it wishes at no cost� takes on a different dimension.



I have talked to so many economists and when asked what is the crux of the present financial problem, they all respond in unison, “it is the global imbalances... the West consumes too much while the East saves too much and consumes not enough�. This is exemplified by the huge US trade deficits on the one part and China’s massive surpluses on the other.



Incredible wisdom and almost everyone echoes this mantra. The recent concluded APEC Summit was no different. This mantra was repeated as well as the call for freer trade between trading nations.



This is a grand hoax. All the current leaders on the world’s stage are corrupted to the rotten core and as such have no interest to call a spade a spade and expose the inherent contradictions within the existing financial system.



The call for a multi-polar world is meaningless when the entire global financial system is based on the unipolar US dollar reserve currency. This is the inherent contradiction within the present system and the problems associated with it cannot be resolved by another global reserve currency based on the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights as advocated by some countries. It was stillborn, the very moment it was conceived!



The leaders of China, Japan and the oil producing countries of the Middle East are all cursing and pissing about the current situation, but they don’t have the courage of their convictions to spell it out to their countrymen that they have been conned by the financial spin masters from the Fed acting on the instructions from Goldman Sachs.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16218



Strong words, eh? I remember reaching that same conclusion: "inherent self-contradictions". This is what I've been trying to bring to your (collective) attention by pointing out that our METRICS are all screwed up, and that in turn is destroying our economic models. Everything we "measure", is national in nature (GDP and so on), while the real deal, is multi-national and "out of scope" with respect to the things we measure. Therefore, our "measurements" are largely useless! And yet, they still form the basis for our economic and monetary policy!



But wait, there's more:

When the survival of the system is dependent on the availability of credit (i.e. accumulating more debts) it is only a matter of time before both the debtor and creditor come to the inevitable conclusion that the debt will never be paid. And unless the creditor is willing to write off the debt, resorting to drastic means to collect the outstanding debt is inevitable.



It would be naïve to think that the US would quietly allow itself to be foreclosed! When we reach that stage, war will be inevitable.



The Prelude to the End Game



The US economy will be spiraling out of control in the coming months and will reach critical point by the end of the 1st quarter 2010 and implode by the 2nd quarter.

Hey, I remember saying that too! "The way countries usually get out of something like that, is by starting a war"! So, this guy's view dovetails with mine - and, the way things are going right now, the BEST way to try to save this country, is by finding some kind of excuse to go to war, and they have to do it before the economy melts down! And, when will that be?



Well, this guy conjectures "by the end of the 1st quarter 2010, and implode by the 2nd quarter". Why does he say that? Well, there are reasons. What he's really talking about, is the second leg of the depression - the second hump of the "W", as it were.



GlobalResearch is usually pretty good. They're anti-globalist, but their stuff usually has a pretty good element of truth in it. This guy Matt Chang, is pretty smart, he's written a lot of stuff, most of it is pretty well researched. Here's a list: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...thorName=Chang



And, there's also this little piece of context: http://www.tacomapjh.org/petrodollartheories.htm



"Petro-dollars". That's what this is all about. The only way to buy oil in this world, is with US DOLLARS. Even the oil trade between China and Iran, occurs in US dollars. They tried to start a non-dollar bourse, just a few months ago, but it hasn't taken off very well. People are "Locked In" to the dollar, and it's really the only reason why any country would still want to hold US dollars in reserve. If that ever goes away, our economy would be in BIG trouble.



This explains a lot of stuff - a LOT. Including why Bushie invaded Iraq (or at least, decided to stay there after the 5th day, when he proclaimed "mission accomplished").

Gee.. i wonder what can save the Dollar?????



maybe........ http://mosheh.org/Currency.html



gee.. I wonder what can save the global system?????????



maybe... http://mosheh.org/Message-for-Bankers.html





gee... I wonder if anyone truly cares?

[quote name='Mosheh Thezion' date='24 November 2009 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1259043477' post='66288']

Gee.. i wonder what can save the Dollar?????



maybe........ http://mosheh.org/Currency.html



gee.. I wonder what can save the global system?????????



maybe... http://mosheh.org/Message-for-Bankers.html





gee... I wonder if anyone truly cares?

[/quote]



"see other thread"



This is a tough game, Mosheh. There's layers behind the layers, some visible, some hidden.



Here, I'll give you some food for research - question: "what exactly happens to your tax dollars" - and the second follow-up question is, once you understand that, "what happens when a new baby is born in the United States"? You know where I'm headed with this, right? But I don't ask for generalities, I ask for SPECIFICS. Tell me exactly what the mechanism is, whereby the fedgov gets that money, and where does it go once they've got it? It's interesting stuff, and you won't be able to find the answer on the internet (or if you do, you're better at 'net research than I am). I had to ask an economics guy at UCLA, and he "barely" knew, then I had to go back to my old alma mater and ask a few folks there, and they filled in a little more of the picture... that kinda thing.



Here's another thing for you to consider: Sun Tzu says, "Don't control the thing - control the person who controls the thing". And he tells us why he thinks that's a good idea - it's more efficient to have a single point of control, and it's also less expensive to maintain, and people are easier to manipulate than fields of grain. So, like, if we're talking about the Fed, that's kinda what's going on. The Fed, is "owned" by public corporations, but who "controls" those corporations is more the de-facto equation. There's only about 200 people in the whole world, who "control" the big publicly owned banks. Ownership on paper, looks very different from ownership in practice. "Single points of control", right?

Well, Bernanke's in trouble, it seems.

Congress is losing its patience with the Fed



Lawmakers on both sides question power, handling of Wall Street bailouts



The Associated Press

updated 1:01 p.m. CT, Sun., Nov . 22, 2009



WASHINGTON - Suddenly the Federal Reserve is everybody's punching bag.



Strip the Fed of its bank regulation powers, some in Congress are demanding. Get probing audits of its behind-the-scenes operations, others say.



The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is always fair game for criticism and second-guessing, usually over interest rate actions. But this year the criticism is much broader as Congress responds to widespread public anger that the Fed bailed out Wall Street but not ordinary Americans, and with unemployment in double digits.



Former Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin Jr. famously said that the central bank's job was to yank away the punchbowl just when everybody is starting to party. And while Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has signaled the Fed will keep interest rates low for now, a round of higher rates inevitably will come.



The Fed finds itself both the punchbowl keeper and the punching bag. Imagine the outcry when it does begin to crank up rates — perhaps just ahead of next year's midterm elections.



Fireworks seem likely at Senate confirmation hearings early next month on President Barack Obama's nomination of Bernanke to a second four-year term as chairman.



Many economists and Fed watchers say congressional efforts to rein in the Fed's powers could interfere with the central bank's ability to help guide the fragile economy to recovery. (Hello? Is that what the Fed is supposed to be doing?)



The Fed's very independence and its unique ability among U.S. institutions to create money out of thin air enabled it to act quickly to stabilize the nation's financial system after it froze up last September after the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers investment house, Fed backers say.



"It might have been the Fed's finest moment when it had to jump into the market," said David M. Jones, a former Fed economist and president of DMJ Advisors, a Denver-based consulting firm. "We still have to wait to see how effective the Fed is in its exit strategy and whether it can keep inflation in check. But this badgering by Congress, even if there is populist sentiment, is inappropriate."



The Fed's aggressive intervention also set the stage for the current criticism. Many lawmakers question whether the Fed's money machine has mainly benefited financial markets and not the broader economy. Lawmakers are also peeved that the central bank acted without congressional involvement when it brokered the 2008 sale of failed investment bank Bear Stearns and engineered the rescue of insurer American International Group.



Bernanke, first appointed by President George W. Bush, has worked closely with both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in confronting the worst financial crisis in decades. Geithner also has gotten his share of congressional wrath, mainly for his administering of the $700 billion bank bailout fund.



"In the past, the Federal Reserve was held in very high esteem," said Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian-leaning Republican who twice ran for president and remains a darling of skeptics of Washington. Now, it's "the source of our problem," suggests Paul, author of the best-seller "End the Fed."



Usually an outlier, Paul suddenly has found an army of at least 307 House colleagues and 30 senators marching behind his legislation to subject the Fed to intense scrutiny by Congress' Government Accountability Office. The House Financial Services Committee endorsed Paul's approach 43-26 last week over objections from its chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. (See? Told ya! Barney Frank is on the tar-and-feathers list.)



The bill would authorize Congress to audit not only the Fed's lending programs but its basic decisions to set monetary policy by raising or lowering interest rates. Paul has been introducing a version every year since the early 1980s, but this is the first time it has garnered any serious attention.



Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who will preside over Bernanke's confirmation hearings, has proposed legislation that would strip the Fed of its bank-regulation authority and give the Senate a role in selecting the 12 regional Federal Reserve bank presidents.



Dodd says his measure would return the Fed to its core mission of setting monetary policy, claiming it proved itself "an abysmal failure" by not cracking down on risky lending practices that led to the financial meltdown.



Dodd is in an extremely tight battle for re-election, even though he has served in Congress for 35 years.



"I don't think it ever hurts to have a member of Congress stand up and denounce the Fed. There is a lot of anger out there, and this is basically a therapeutic gesture," said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.



Still, Baker said, it probably isn't wise to tamper with the formula that makes the Fed "very much an anomaly in American government. It's independent, it has to be. You don't want the Fed to be under the control of the president. And it kind of sits out there — not in the executive branch, not in the legislative branch, not in the judicial branch. Sort of its own little element in the separation-of-powers constellation."



While the Fed is subject to some congressional oversight, its decisions don't have to be ratified by the president or Congress. Fed officials are not paid with money appropriated by Congress.



Should Bernanke be worried?



"Not only should be worried, he's clearly ratcheted up his game in terms of his communications with Congress," said Norman Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.



Ornstein said the Fed bashing this time is different from before, with "a broader base of support. And it's coming from people who in the past would not have hit the Fed. There's a lot of populist anger out there — on the left, in the center and on the right. And politicians are responsive to that."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34093776...s-us_business/