The "New" Global Currency being pushed and pushed back?
« on: March 27, 2009, 11:18:15 AM »
It is being pushed by:
UN panel touts new global currency reserve system Mar 26 04:09 PM US/Eastern A UN panel of expert economists pressed Thursday for a new global currency reserve scheme to replace the volatile, dollar-based system and for coordinated steps by rich countries to stimulate their economies. "A new Global Reserve System -- what may be viewed as a greatly expanded SDR (Special Drawing Rights), with regular or cyclically adjusted emissions calibrated to the size of reserve accumulations, could contribute to global stability, economic strength and global equity," the panel said. As part of several recommendations to tackle the global financial crisis, the panel also noted recovery would require all developed countries, in the short term, to take "strong, coordinated and effective actions to stimulate their economies." And it stressed the need to "lay the basis for the long-run reforms that will be necessary if we are to have a more stable and more prosperous global economy and avoid future global crises." The commission, led by US economist Joseph Stiglitz, a frequent critic of globalization and unbridled free markets, is primarily aimed at finding solutions for developing countries. On the monetary front, Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel economics laureate, told a press conference here there was "a growing consensus that there are problems with the dollar reserve system. He noted that such a system was "relatively volatile, deflationary, unstable and (had) inequity associated with it." "Developing countries are lending the United States trillions dollars at almost zero interest rates when they have huge needs themselves," Stiglitz noted. "It's indicative of the nature of the problem. It's a net transfer, in a sense, to the United States, a form of foreign aid." This week, China's central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan suggested the dollar could be replaced as a reserve currency by an International Monetary Fund (IMF) basket comprising dollars, euros, sterling and yen, saying it would not be easily influenced by individual countries. But the UN panel warned that a two (or three) country reserve system "may be equally unstable." It said a new Global Reserve "is feasible, non-inflationary and could be easily implemented, including in ways which mitigate the difficulties caused by asymmetric adjustment between surplus and deficit countries." Stiglitz said his panel's experts were currently trying "to lay out the conceptual framework of how this might be done." The issue of the world currency reserve is expected to be raised at the April 2 summit of the G20 club of developed and emerging economies. On Wednesday IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said that talks on a new global reserve currency to replace the US dollar were "legitimate" and could take place "in the coming months." But US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner earlier defended the dollar as a key global reserve currency. "I think the dollar remains the world's standard reserve currency, I think that's likely to continue for a long period of time," he said. Among other recommendations, the Stiglitz panel proposed western aid to help developing nations out of the crisis, better market regulation, a reform of central bank practices and of international financial institutions, as well as the creation of a new structure such as a United Nations economic council. It specifically called for immediate, additional funding for developing countries "just to offset the imbalances and inequities created by the massive stimulus and bail-out measures introduced by advanced industrialized countries." It said the funds could come through the issuance of SDRs approved by the IMF board in 1997. SDRs are an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries and support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. They are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.18e9e5692442aa61d7510553b5ffc14e.8b1&show_article=1
And is being pushed by our owners (i mean China, sorry)
China calls for new reserve currencyBy Jamil Anderlini in Beijing Published: March 23 2009 12:16 China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.“The outbreak of the [current] crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Mr Zhou wrote.China has little choice but to hold the bulk of its $2,000bn of foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.To replace the current system, Mr Zhou suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.Today, the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organisations.China’s proposal would expand the basket of currencies forming the basis of SDR valuation to all major economies and set up a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies so they could be used in international trade and financial transactions.Countries would entrust a portion of their SDR reserves to the IMF to manage collectively on their behalf and SDRs would gradually replace existing reserve currencies.Mr Zhou said the proposal would require “extraordinary political vision and courage” and acknowledged a debt to John Maynard Keynes, who made a similar suggestion in the 1940s."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1"
China ‘Super Currency’ Call May Signal Dollar Concern March 25 (Bloomberg) -- China’s call for the creation of a new international reserve currency may signal its concern at the dollar’s weakness and ambitions for a leadership role at next week’s Group of 20 summit, economists said. Central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan this week urged the International Monetary Fund to expand the use of so-called Special Drawing Rights and move toward a “super-sovereign reserve currency.” The dollar weakened after the Federal Reserve said that it would buy Treasuries and the U.S. government outlined plans to buy illiquid bank assets. “China is concerned about the potential for a slide in the dollar as the U.S. attempts to stimulate its economy,” said Mark Williams, a London-based economist at Capital Economics Ltd. The “rare” sight of a Chinese official attempting to reframe an international debate may be “a sign of China becoming more engaged,” he said. ....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aoTbWSDDY19Y&refer=worldwide
And being pushed back by
March 26, 2009Bachmann bill would ban global currency @ 1:31 pm by Eric Zimmermann Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has introduced legislation that would "bar the dollar from being replace by any foreign currency." A statement from Bachmann's website:
Quote
“Yesterday, during a Financial Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Geithner if he would denounce efforts to move towards a global currency and he answered unequivocally that he would," said Bachmann. "And President Obama gave the nation the same assurances. But just a day later, Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know." On Monday, Geithner and Bernanke both rejected the idea of a global currency in Congressional testimony. But in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Geithner indicated he was open to the idea."
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/03/26/bachmann-bill-would-ban-global-currency/
ez repied
Reply #1 on: March 27, 2009, 11:40:40 AM »
Lets say for the sake of argument our government decides to go along with a global currency the UN lays out ... does this then transfer all our gold and silver reserves to the UN
ToolOfHis adds an article
Congresswoman: Hands off dollar! Wants ban on U.S. use of any foreign currency
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2009, 08:54:15 AM »
Congresswoman: Hands off dollar!Wants ban on U.S. use of any foreign currencyPosted: March 28, 200912:00 am Eastern© 2009 WorldNetDaily A member of Congress is warning the Obama administration to keep its hands off the U.S. dollar's status as the world's international currency. U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has introduced a resolution that would bar the U.S. from recognizing any other currency than the dollar as its reserve currency. Her action comes in response to suggestions from China, Russia and the United Nations that another currency be explored. Even U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has admitted he would be open to the idea, although he quickly backtracked when the stock market plunged on his announcement. "During a Financial Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Geithner if he would denounce efforts to move towards a global currency and he answered unequivocally that he would," Bachmann said. "And President Obama gave the nation the same assurances. But just a day later, Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know." Although Title 31, Sec. 5103 USC prohibits foreign currency from being recognized in the U.S., the president has the power to engage foreign governments in treaties, and the president is principally responsible for the interpretations and implementation of those treaties according to the Constitution, according to the congresswoman. As a result, legislation prohibiting the president and Treasury Department from issuing or agreeing that the U.S. will adopt an international currency would need to come in the form of a Constitutional Amendment differentiating a treaty used to implement an international currency in the U.S. from other types of treaty agreements, she said. "If we give up the dollar as our standard, and co-mingle the value of the dollar with the value of coinage in Zimbabwe, that dilutes our money supply. We lose control over our economy. And economic liberty is inextricably entwined with political liberty. Once you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom," Bachmann told the Glenn Beck program on the Fox News Channel today. Her proposal, H.J.R. 41, isn't complicated: It is titled: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the president from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States " Already with several dozen sponsors, it states: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:"It would add to the Constitution: The president may not enter into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.According to the Wall Street Journal, the latest voice to endorse an "alternative" to the dollar was the head of a U.N. expert panel discussing solutions to the financial crisis. Officials from both Russia and China have spoken out on the idea of a new global currency standard, and a U.N. panel published a report that said a new global reserve system would add to the world's "economic stability and equity." According to a report in the Financial Times, the subject could be on the table at the coming G20 summit of leading and emerging nations in London. Specifically, the U.N. said a new system could "counteract the risk of a rapid fall in the value of the major reserve currency, gutting hard-earned reserve funds."
eeyore replied
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2009, 10:08:04 AM »
Russia, China cooperate on new currency proposals:Russia and China are coordinating proposals on a new global currency that could replace the US dollar as a reserve currency to prevent a repeat of the global economic crisis, the Kremlin said on Monday. "We have received proposals from our colleagues in China, detailed proposals," President Dmitry Medvedev's top economic adviser Arkady Dvorkovich said. "Our positions are very similar. "We have similar positions on the development of the international financial architecture," he told reporters. Ahead of the Group of 20 summit in London later this week, the Kremlin has published a raft of proposals to overhaul the global economic order, including plans for a supra-national currency that could replace the US dollar. China has come forward with similar ideas. US President Barack Obama has said he does not see why the dollar should be replaced and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the summit would have more immediate issues to discuss. "So far, not everybody is ready for that," acknowledged Dvorkovich. "We will insist on that at all levels." Medvedev has said the international community should have a say when the world's richest countries make decisions with global implications, as in the US financial crisis, sparked by the collapse of the market for subprime or higher risk mortgages. Moscow also understood however, that many countries were not ready to undertake additional "political obligations," said Dvorkovich, expressing hope that major economies would at least be open to consultations on the subject. Dvorkovich said he hoped Russia and other major developing economies would also get an equal say and the attention they deserve during the G20 meeting. "We are hoping that our voice will be heard but I would like to stress that we do not have a desire to pit our voice against that of our partners," he said, referring to developing economies Brazil, India and China who join Russia in what is known collectively as 'BRIC.' "There will be no separate joint (BRIC) communique, nor should there be," Dvorkovich said. "This is the summit of the leaders of the G20 countries." Critics have suggested China and the United States, whose economies are closely intertwined, would likely steal the show by promoting their own agenda and turning the G20 forum into a 'G2' summit. Dvorkovich said the US and China would have ample time to discuss bilateral issues on the summit's sidelines Separately, Dvorkovich said Medvedev would meet Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on April 1, just before the summit. Medvedev was also scheduled to meet US President Barack Obama, China's Hu Jintao and Britain's Brown that day. [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.7e6cab4fec704a0fdd135ecdac00673b.9c1&show_article=1]A world currency moves nearer after Tim Geithner's slipUS Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner confessed on Wednesday that he had not read the plans by China's central bank governor for a "super-sovereign reserve currency" run by the International Monetary Fund, but nevertheless let slip that Washington was "open" to the idea. Whoops. By Ambrose Evans-PritchardThis is how matters quickly escalate in geo-finance. China's suggestion – backed by Russia, Brazil, and India, and clearly aimed at breaking US dollar hegemony – is making its way onto the agenda of the G20 Summit next week. 'Dollar-dämmerung' no longer looks so far-fetched. China's paper, by Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, is couched in understated language – more a 'thought experiment' than a declaration of monetary war. His ideas could be mistaken for the musings of an academic theorist. Nobody should be fooled by decorum. ....
The rest of the article can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5051075/A-world-currency-moves-nearer-after-Tim-Geithners-slip.html
And in another thread along the same lines in the past week, 411man started a thread called
The Drive to Abolish National Currencies
« on: March 29, 2009, 10:46:23 PM »
March 29, 2009 The Drive to Abolish National CurrenciesBy John GriffingOver the past century, a vast movement to liberalize global capital markets has been underway, with the object of increasing capital mobility to the point where sudden shifts in capital flows could have untold consequences, causing exchange rate volatility, disrupting world trade, and creating an artificial need for a common currency. This was seen with the recent implosion of the US housing market and its profound impact on foreign stock exchanges. Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands all initiated bailouts comparable to our own. In effect, the present crisis was created forthe intended solution -- a global currency that would dissolve national sovereignty. This is no longer merely an academic question. World leaders are gathering on our soil next week to urge global investors to abandon the US dollar as the preferred reserve currency in favor of an internationally traded currency unit similar to the Euro. Americans must be ready, or what has already happened in Europe will happen here. But since Americans will not adopt a unitary medium of exchange on a whim, a real or perceived need for the switch is a necessary prerequisite; hence the push to liberalize capital markets by the same individuals promoting global financial integration. It was planned that uncontrolled capital flows would eradicate the influence over national exchange rate policy of even the most potent central banks, and clinch the case for a common monetary policy. In fact, such excuses for the surrender of national sovereignty are already being practiced by the financial elite. In the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship journal of internationalism, Benn Steil, the Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, advocated the end of "monetary nationalism". Steil contends that nationhood is "the source of much of today's instability." Like other academics, Steil sees national currency as a "symbol" of national sovereignty. In reality, it is one of the most important attributes of sovereignty. President of the European Central Bank Wim Duisenberg recently said that "monetary union" must go hand in hand with "political union."In a similar vein, Zanny Minton Beddoes, the Washington Correspondent for The Economist, declared: "Over the past five years, financial turmoil has shattered the semi-fixed exchange-rate regimes that much of the developing world once favored...in the face of massive capital outflows." Beddoes continued, saying, "Countries can either allow their currencies to float or...attempt a currency union. But the muddled middle ground, so popular in the years when capital was less mobile, has been wiped out by technological innovation and policy liberalization." Indeed, the real impetus toward an international monetary regime has been in the latter category: policy-driven liberalization. This is because technological innovation can't open markets. Only policy can do that. Bi-lateral Investment Treaties are perhaps the best example of policy-driven liberalization, as they consist of a pledge to remove preference on national investors, and treat foreign investors equally. Most Bi-lateral Investment Treaties have only been signed in the last decade, growing from nearly 100 in 1995 to over 2,500 Net International Investment Position (NIIP) now stands at -$2 trillion. This means that foreigners own our GDP, and then some. A good portion of the present crisis is the result of Fed metaphorical printing of worthless dollars to "monetize" our nation's federal debt. But creating money out of nothing creates inflation, which displaces jobs, causes bubbles, and makes our creditors' investments less secure. This vicious cycle has existed since the creation of the Federal Reserve and is one of the primary causes of the Great Depression, a fact acknowledged by Chairman Ben Bernanke himself. But the lesson didn't stick. Bernanke has presided over one of the largest money pushing schemes in history, rivaling post-WWI Germany. The last year for which data are available show the Fed printing money at an annual clip of 20 percent. Additionally, as part of President Obama's fiscal bailout, the Federal Reserve is printing $2 trillion in a single year. This is significant in the context of the current move by world leaders to abandon the US Dollar, since over 40 percent of all American stocks, bonds, and securities are owned by foreign investors. Most of the world is currently dependent on exports to the United States. To prop up the world's export dependency, the US must run deficits. The debts are then balanced by selling treasury bonds and other investments to the foreign dependents, mainly China, in an arrangement referred to by economic insiders as the "balance of financial terror." The system is currently stable, but if the trend continues, the nations that benefit from our spending binge may in the long run have more dollars than they want to hold. Eventually, this could result in a massive "flight" from dollar-denominated assets, known as the "doomsday scenario". We've already been warned by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who said, "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."In the eighties, former Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Robert Cooper proposed the creation of a "common currency for all the industrial democracies." Cooper mourned that "it is highly doubtful whether the American public...could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes" should have a vote on US monetary policy. During the Clinton years, Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence H. Summers got in on the act. Summers contended that the US should emphasize "integration and public action" by "reducing national sovereignty", listing monetary union as one example. In other words, centuries' worth of hard-won independence should be surrendered because a theory of questionable validity dictates it. Summers is now one of President Obama's chief economic advisors. Former Trade Representative and current President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick believes that the present situation requires "concerted global action now, not just to deal with the crisis but to put in place new architecture, new norms and new oversight to ensure that this crisis never happens again." According to Zoellick, the problem "has been a manmade catastrophe and responses to overcome it lie in all our hands." The common currency movement is gaining momentum. China's central bank chief yesterday posted an essay on the People's Bank of China website arguing for an end to "credit-based national currencies". Chairman Alan Greenspan is urging OPEC nations, large holders of American debt, to abandon the Dollar for a regional currency. Behind many a political solution is a manufactured crisis. The engineered capital crisis is no different. In short, our nation's financial elites know all too well that globalization, liberalization, and integration are merely the tools being used to facilitate the consolidation of all political and economic power in the hands of an unaccountable world conglomerate, whose designs are not yet visible. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._national.html
Ozarks_1 replied
"...Most of the world is currently dependent on exports to the United States. To prop up the world's export dependency, the US must run deficits." http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._national.html
What a superbly twisted way of phrasing things to make the US spending look good!It would be far more accurate to say that the US is import dependent due to the pampered American consumer's insatiable demand for everything from fresh lettuce and tomatoes in mid-January to the latest in electronic toys ... the most stuff for the least money.
230gr replied
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2009, 06:49:07 PM »
Americans have heard so often that they need fresh vegetables year round that they think they really do. A few generations ago, we survived quite nicely with out fresh vegetables in the winter or exotic fruits at all.
So what do you think, join us in the forum and you can voice your opinion, so your voice can be heard
http://frc4u.org/phpbb/index.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5051075/A-world-currency-moves-nearer-after-Tim-Geithners-slip.html
And in another thread along the same lines in the past week, 411man started a thread called
The Drive to Abolish National Currencies
« on: March 29, 2009, 10:46:23 PM »
March 29, 2009 The Drive to Abolish National CurrenciesBy John GriffingOver the past century, a vast movement to liberalize global capital markets has been underway, with the object of increasing capital mobility to the point where sudden shifts in capital flows could have untold consequences, causing exchange rate volatility, disrupting world trade, and creating an artificial need for a common currency. This was seen with the recent implosion of the US housing market and its profound impact on foreign stock exchanges. Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands all initiated bailouts comparable to our own. In effect, the present crisis was created forthe intended solution -- a global currency that would dissolve national sovereignty. This is no longer merely an academic question. World leaders are gathering on our soil next week to urge global investors to abandon the US dollar as the preferred reserve currency in favor of an internationally traded currency unit similar to the Euro. Americans must be ready, or what has already happened in Europe will happen here. But since Americans will not adopt a unitary medium of exchange on a whim, a real or perceived need for the switch is a necessary prerequisite; hence the push to liberalize capital markets by the same individuals promoting global financial integration. It was planned that uncontrolled capital flows would eradicate the influence over national exchange rate policy of even the most potent central banks, and clinch the case for a common monetary policy. In fact, such excuses for the surrender of national sovereignty are already being practiced by the financial elite. In the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship journal of internationalism, Benn Steil, the Director of International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, advocated the end of "monetary nationalism". Steil contends that nationhood is "the source of much of today's instability." Like other academics, Steil sees national currency as a "symbol" of national sovereignty. In reality, it is one of the most important attributes of sovereignty. President of the European Central Bank Wim Duisenberg recently said that "monetary union" must go hand in hand with "political union."In a similar vein, Zanny Minton Beddoes, the Washington Correspondent for The Economist, declared: "Over the past five years, financial turmoil has shattered the semi-fixed exchange-rate regimes that much of the developing world once favored...in the face of massive capital outflows." Beddoes continued, saying, "Countries can either allow their currencies to float or...attempt a currency union. But the muddled middle ground, so popular in the years when capital was less mobile, has been wiped out by technological innovation and policy liberalization." Indeed, the real impetus toward an international monetary regime has been in the latter category: policy-driven liberalization. This is because technological innovation can't open markets. Only policy can do that. Bi-lateral Investment Treaties are perhaps the best example of policy-driven liberalization, as they consist of a pledge to remove preference on national investors, and treat foreign investors equally. Most Bi-lateral Investment Treaties have only been signed in the last decade, growing from nearly 100 in 1995 to over 2,500 Net International Investment Position (NIIP) now stands at -$2 trillion. This means that foreigners own our GDP, and then some. A good portion of the present crisis is the result of Fed metaphorical printing of worthless dollars to "monetize" our nation's federal debt. But creating money out of nothing creates inflation, which displaces jobs, causes bubbles, and makes our creditors' investments less secure. This vicious cycle has existed since the creation of the Federal Reserve and is one of the primary causes of the Great Depression, a fact acknowledged by Chairman Ben Bernanke himself. But the lesson didn't stick. Bernanke has presided over one of the largest money pushing schemes in history, rivaling post-WWI Germany. The last year for which data are available show the Fed printing money at an annual clip of 20 percent. Additionally, as part of President Obama's fiscal bailout, the Federal Reserve is printing $2 trillion in a single year. This is significant in the context of the current move by world leaders to abandon the US Dollar, since over 40 percent of all American stocks, bonds, and securities are owned by foreign investors. Most of the world is currently dependent on exports to the United States. To prop up the world's export dependency, the US must run deficits. The debts are then balanced by selling treasury bonds and other investments to the foreign dependents, mainly China, in an arrangement referred to by economic insiders as the "balance of financial terror." The system is currently stable, but if the trend continues, the nations that benefit from our spending binge may in the long run have more dollars than they want to hold. Eventually, this could result in a massive "flight" from dollar-denominated assets, known as the "doomsday scenario". We've already been warned by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who said, "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."In the eighties, former Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Robert Cooper proposed the creation of a "common currency for all the industrial democracies." Cooper mourned that "it is highly doubtful whether the American public...could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes" should have a vote on US monetary policy. During the Clinton years, Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence H. Summers got in on the act. Summers contended that the US should emphasize "integration and public action" by "reducing national sovereignty", listing monetary union as one example. In other words, centuries' worth of hard-won independence should be surrendered because a theory of questionable validity dictates it. Summers is now one of President Obama's chief economic advisors. Former Trade Representative and current President of the World Bank Robert Zoellick believes that the present situation requires "concerted global action now, not just to deal with the crisis but to put in place new architecture, new norms and new oversight to ensure that this crisis never happens again." According to Zoellick, the problem "has been a manmade catastrophe and responses to overcome it lie in all our hands." The common currency movement is gaining momentum. China's central bank chief yesterday posted an essay on the People's Bank of China website arguing for an end to "credit-based national currencies". Chairman Alan Greenspan is urging OPEC nations, large holders of American debt, to abandon the Dollar for a regional currency. Behind many a political solution is a manufactured crisis. The engineered capital crisis is no different. In short, our nation's financial elites know all too well that globalization, liberalization, and integration are merely the tools being used to facilitate the consolidation of all political and economic power in the hands of an unaccountable world conglomerate, whose designs are not yet visible. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._national.html
Ozarks_1 replied
"...Most of the world is currently dependent on exports to the United States. To prop up the world's export dependency, the US must run deficits." http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._national.html
What a superbly twisted way of phrasing things to make the US spending look good!It would be far more accurate to say that the US is import dependent due to the pampered American consumer's insatiable demand for everything from fresh lettuce and tomatoes in mid-January to the latest in electronic toys ... the most stuff for the least money.
230gr replied
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2009, 06:49:07 PM »
Americans have heard so often that they need fresh vegetables year round that they think they really do. A few generations ago, we survived quite nicely with out fresh vegetables in the winter or exotic fruits at all.
So what do you think, join us in the forum and you can voice your opinion, so your voice can be heard
http://frc4u.org/phpbb/index.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment