13 votes

The Big Picture..that nobody talks about.

It would appear, from recent discussion, that many are focused on those aspects, both econonic and political, that challenge the stability, security and economic growth of a nation. Many identify the symtoms, and search for the answers, but don't fully understand the disease.

The disease that eminated many decades ago, embraced in the 1960's by most developed western nations, that now could be considered terminal, if not addressed systematically.


When you understand the root cause, you come to understand the role of such issues as, that of oil, the petrodollar, interventionism, socialistic trends, the centralised banking system, the NWO and other issues that seemingly defy logic when viewed in isolation.

I'm going to re-post this from January 15th, 2012 as it clearly defines the role that Globalization has played in the over-all economic scheme of capitalistic greed and short-sighted, bad decision making.


Globalization: Its insidious agenda and diabolical consequences.

There are no prizes for realizing the world is rapidly approaching an exceptional moment in history as to what countries will be the most dominant forces in global affairs. At this point in time, the United States, in spite of its precipitous economic and sobering sociological upheaval – with the former element obviously exacerbating the latter – still has the largest economy as well as being the most powerful military contender on the planet.

With respect to the latter factor and, even allowing for the savage cuts Washington is making with military expenditure, it will remain so for at least another decade. Of course, there’s no shortage of seers advancing theories as to how China and India will soon usurp the US and become economic and military superpowers. And the empirical evidence to sustain such opinions and, indeed, America’s imminent demise, are validly compelling.

Unfortunately, these visionaries can’t comprehend or, perhaps, conveniently ignore to take into account negative facets, which clearly diminish their prognostications. But because there are so many intricately complex elements, connected with the contentious dramas confronting Western nations, it would require a great amount of space to proficiently analysis them all in detail. Hence, I will only be conveying morsels of opinions that are pertinent to the confluences, which engendered the mess we’re currently in.

Undoubtedly, a majority of people would assume, by utilizing palpable data that it’s a fait accompli for China and India to become the major economic and military powers by 2025. However, the reality about all this coming to pass, in the manner being projected won’t be as cut and dried as many now advocate. And this is principally so, because these seers fail to fathom and factor in the socio-cultural-political intricacies, pertinent to any of these countries. To epitomize how far off the mark these Think-Tank theorists can be is clearly demonstrated with how askew they’ve been with how the Arab Spring would turn out. Similarly and unfortunately, when these same clicks of intellectuals conjure up plans for economic development you can bet that they will invariably disregard the complexities of human-nature.

But before advancing grounds as to why the forecasts being made about the rise of China and India – in league with the West’s demise – won’t necessarily come to fruition as some might believe, it’s an absolute imperative to first of all highlight the exact process, which spawned this dastardly scenario to evolve. Because in all of the material I’ve ever scrutinized on this topic, with the very exception of one passage in an article by Karen Kissane, in the Sydney Morning Herald’s News Review, Jan 14-15, 2012, I have never once read anything by academics, politicians, journalists or economists pertaining to the causes. Ostensibly, what I’m referring to here is globalisation.

At this point I will now convey part of the pertinent text I’m referring to by Karen Kissane, in the article, ‘D-days for the Europe experiment’ is as follows: “The west launched globalisation as a way to open markets and increase competitiveness – and it did both. But what was perhaps not so well foreseen was the degree to which capital and manufacturing jobs would move to countries with cheap labour”.

Perhaps, most people would assume that globalization came to pass as a matter of course. However, this is not the case and, in fact, it was very much a contrived agenda and was first being seriously mooted back in the 1930’s – but WWII certainly put paid to that from taking place later than sooner. But using the time that the Lima Declaration was endorsed in 1975, irrefutably exhibits that globalization was well and truly being instituted from as early as 1950. And this is so, because it would have taken at least twenty years for the various players involved with bringing something of that magnitude to fruition to reach amicable levels of consensus on how best to enact affairs. Unfortunately, anyone who even suggests that there is anything untoward with the LD is immediately portrayed as being a kooky conspiratorialist. However, the reality is that the LD is the absolute root cause of the economic demise of Western nations.

So what then is the Lima Declaration and what was its goal? Quite simply, the Lima Declaration purported to be: “A plan of action calling for the redistribution of world industry so that Developing countries would have 25% of it by the year 2000” in order “to establish a fairer distribution of the world’s wealth”. Of course, all of that sounded very cosy and munificent. But the reality of the LD was, in fact, anything but a magnanimous act by Western societies and was actually an insidious technique, utilized by wealthy Western industrialists to justify dismantling their manufacturing businesses and transfer them to the Developing World. But its real purpose was to ruthlessly exploit the labour forces in Developing countries; in order to make greater profits. And to delude oneself it was anything other than that is ludicrous.

No doubt, the Captains of Industry [who really inaugurated the process of dismantling the West’s secondary industries] thought they could easily manipulate and seconder China into the global money-go-round. Unfortunately, this didn’t come to pass, because the Chinese have completely out manoeuvred theses fools and gazumped Western industrialists at their own game and demonstrates how stupid they were to imagine China wouldn’t keep-the-bat, once it became their turn. Succinctly, the Chinese acquired massive investments and hundreds of years of accrued technologies and data from the West, for merely ‘opening their borders’. In effect, what the Chinese accomplished here was an inverse Trojan Horse scenario. Whereby, they were completely awake to all the tricks at hand from the very onset and allowed all of the aforementioned aspects to flow into China for virtually no input or effort and have exponentially capitalized on that largess.

But now, apart from being able to whinge and wail about being duped by the Chinese, the perpetrators of this insane folly can’t do much at all about altering the situation. And this is so, because if they really began to play hard-ball, by imposing sanctions and trade tariffs, then China would just nationalize industries that Western investors have very significant stakes in. So, if they tried on that kind of action it would result with share holders ending up with zilch. Hence, they are humiliatingly obliged to accept their fates.

Meanwhile, the US and the Euro zone are forced to borrow billions from the Chinese, in order to purchase the very commodities that China produced: In other words, Western nations borrow money from the Chinese to purchase back the very goods that they’ve exported. Well, how crazy is that? But the greatest joke about it all is that, up until twenty five years ago, the nations now importing all these goods to consume, produced all of these things in their own countries! Kissane makes reference to this exact point with: “as billions of low-paid workers have been absorbed into the global economy and productivity had risen due to technology, jobs have stagnated in Europe. [These days] Asia makes, and is booming; Europe borrow in order to consume and is now going bust”.

Of course, there was a fabulously alluring and mesmerizing upside of globalisation for Western consumers. And it prevailed with making it possible to obtain everything from laptop computers to high definition TV’s, right through to footwear and clothing, for much less than they could have been manufactured for in a Western country.

However, the immense down side of globalisation – in order to have all of those marvellous commodities at bargain prices – is that, an estimated 60 million manufacturing jobs in the USA, Britain, France, Canada and a score of other developed nations had to be culled. Certainly, new spheres of employment evolved to absorb the next generation of workers. But those ‘new spheres’ such as IT, finance or even hospitality and service sectors [call centres] are now similarly being lost to the Emerging World. But none of the aforementioned categories produce tangible commodities which, of course, equates to real wealth. Tragically, over the past three decades, wealth generation in Western countries has been inextricably derived from speculative origins and for the good majority of people this has primarily transpired with real estate. However, to sustain the consumption-go-round it was crucial that easy-lines of credit were available for consumers to accomplish this. In effect, millions of people sustained affluent life styles by virtue of borrowing against their primary asset: their home.

Now, there’s absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with acquiring goods and services on credit. After all, if 99% of people had to save up enough cash to purchase furniture and white-goods – let alone buying a home – then economies would collapse; because the key component of a dynamic and healthy economy requires customers to consume goods and services. Therefore, debt/financing is completely necessary to make it function. But where the whole schedule encounters severe problems and, eventually comes undone, is when consumers over extend themselves and can’t meet repayment commitments. This, of course, primarily occurs when people are made redundant from jobs and their incomes take nosedives. But what greatly aggravated matters for so many people came to pass, because their properties lost, on average, 22% of their pre-GFC value. But be that as it may, those poor souls still weren’t compensated by owing financiers 22% less, because market-values were over priced. Hence, when these victims of the recession were forced to vacate their homes they also had no positive equity to draw upon to minimize their predicament.

Therefore, because real estate prices are – or have been – over valued by at least 20%, consequently means people had to divert that amount from their incomes into paying rent or mortgages for dwellings or businesses. Hence, people would have had a comparable amount more to spend on consumables – or save. And, therein, lays a very significant element of the West’s current economic woes. Quite simply, the illicit and illusory means of generating wealth from property speculation is the mega-crux of the issue. So, if people weren’t forced to shell out anything between to $200 to $500 a month in ‘excessive’ rents or mortgages – on what was/is clearly the greatest Ponzi-scheme of all time – would then mean they could have spent their money on a whole array of goods and services.

Ironically, in the very edition of the SMH’s News Review, in which Karen Kissane mentions the negative aspects of globalisation an article, ‘Silence like a cancer Grows’, by its US Correspondent, Anne Summers, appeared pertaining to how none of the Republican presidential hopefuls have spoken about “America’s growing housing crisis”. Even though “one in four American mortgage holders are [designated to be] ‘“underwater”’ owing more than their homes are worth”. Well, part of the reason for this is, because a significant number of any of their financial backers would be guilty of acquiring portions of their wealth from real estate investments.

So, if this would have happened it would have stimulated other sectors of the economy. With the end result being there’d be greater consumer demand and would have equated to millions of more people being employed in either production or service sectors. In turn, this would have spawned a multiplying effect accruing to several billion dollars over a period, which would have generated revenue for governments and, most significantly, less welfare recipients.

Regrettably, the very ilk of people [economists] who incessantly convey directions on what has to be now done, to assuage our financial woes are, in reality, the ‘very ilk of people’ who instigated the economic calamity we’re now in. Of course, just about all of those currently dispensing advice on how to deal with the present catastrophe had absolutely nothing directly to do with globalisation occurring. However, they would know only too well that, the plans that had being drawn up way back in the 1950’s, to “globalize markets” are, in fact, the sole cause of our present problems. Yet, when these contemporary oracles appear in the media espousing their wisdom on how to solve the present mess they neglect to tell us that, it was economists who created the problems we’re now experiencing in the first place.

As pointed out, the original plan was for the Developing World to “have 25% of world industry by 2000”. Well, as it came to pass, this was closer to 40% by 2002 and today it is nearly 70% – with China having over 65% of that figure. Hence, China is now a manufacturing colossus that, with the exceptions of motor vehicles and white goods, supplies the bulk of the world’s manufactured commodities. But where the Chinese have made matters inexcusably more ominous for competition exists, because they artificially keep the Yuan undervalued. Thereby, this piece of stealth makes it extremely difficult for foreign competitors to operate on a level playing field.

With respect to the brasher of these two upstarts, China, there are aspects to seriously contemplate which seriously diminish popular assumptions about its current militaristic capabilities and, most significantly, what its near-term intentions actually are. With the most fundamental drawback against China starting a conflict is, because there is not one nation of any significance China could remotely depend upon to align with it. And although the Taiwanese have re-elected President Ma Ying-jeao, who ran on a platform of “mending and enhancing relationships with the motherland” the only nations, apart from North Korea, that China might have on their side, are a cabal of metastable tin-pot societies, in Africa or the central/south Pacific Ocean. Concerning, Taiwan’s, Ma Ying’s comment refereeing to China as “the motherland” should come as no surprise, because Chinese all over the world overwhelmingly consider themselves to always be Chinese first and foremost; even though they might be four or five generations removed [by immigration] from having been in China. As opposed to every other major immigrant group into the US, Canada and Australia, from Europe, who can now only be identified from whence they came, because of their surnames.
For instance, China has been insidiously nurturing political relationships with countries like Angola, Sierra Leone, The Sudan or Tonga for up to twenty years. But the best any of them could possibly do is offer facilities for China’s ships to dock in. So, because China is devoid of any formidable allies, means she would have to wage war wholly from within her own borders. But, because China needs to import 85% of its energy and mineral needs from countries, which are far removed from its borders means it’d be an impossibility to maintain supply lines.

Therefore, [assuming that conflicts were contained to conventional methods] it’s extremely unlikely that, Beijing could seriously entertain emulating what occurred on September 1st 1939 and try to occupy Vietnam or Burma. Sure, there have been a number of worrying skirmishes, which China has clearly provoked with their near neighbours over disputed territories and resources. However, when the dust has settled it’s apparent that they’re equivalent to school yard quarrels in which there’s basically been just a lot of macho talk, chest puffing and a few wild swings having being thrown. But there have been no broken bones or serious injuries.

Having said that, however, isn’t to suggest that China won’t attempt to seize an oil or gas field in the South China Sea within the next decade. But Chinese politicians know only too well that, if they took such an action it would render a response from a “coalition of the willing”, which would be too diabolical to ponder. Thus, for the time being at least, the likelihood of China being the initial aggressor is minuscule. And it’s abundantly obvious that, China is certainly content to plod along under the existing status quo. This is so, because it well and truly holds the upper hand with economic dominance. And the West is totally dependant upon China exporting its manufactured goods to sustain their own economies.

Therefore, if China engendered military conflicts at this point in time it would undermine all that they’ve accomplished with exporting their industrial products. Thus, they have no intention of starting any war for at least a decade, because it would have quite adverse affects upon them. Unfortunately, those who share the view I have expressed are silly enough to believe that, this will always be China’s policy. When, in fact, it’s just the tactic that China is more than happy to employ for the time being. But come 2025, China will be certainly throwing its weight around.

However, where the greatest threat to the security of Western nations actually exists, is not with China asserting itself militarily, but within the Chinese Diasporas to Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and, more recently Europe. An estimate of how many ethnic Chinese there are in the aforementioned countries is put at 25 million. And it’s an absolute certainty that, the vast majority of these ethnic Chinese immigrants will side with the motherland and form Fifth-Columns to organize against the host culture, when China does assert itself militarily. And the empirical evidence of such clearly denotes that, as Chinese communities grow in size then so, too, do they become more removed from mainstream culture. Furthermore, those 23 Chinese who immigrated to the US and managed to acquire positions in sensitive fields are now languishing in prisons for ceding information to their masters in Beijing.

A glaring and horrifying example of this can be found in Sydney, where more than a dozen suburbs of this city have been inundated with huge influxes of Asiatic immigrants over the past twenty years – with ethnic Chinese comprising about 70% of the total number of some 500,000 immigrants; with the most disturbing instance of this being within the City of Sydney’s main CBD itself. For here we can witness tens of thousands of very young Asiatic immigrants. Almost all of whom, it should be designated, grafted their way in to become Australian citizens, by rorting student visa programs. All up, about 40% of the entire downtown CBD has now been overrun by Asiatic immigrants. And if you venture through this precinct – which is contained within the 50 block area between Town Hall railway station along to Broadway – you will see that the vast majority of those you pass at any part of a day, are Asiatics under the age of thirty.
In respect of China’s economy becoming the ‘largest’ on earth is something that’s guaranteed to occur. Nevertheless that’s due, completely, to the size of its population and the natural process of increased rates of consumption. But what does it really mean for the West and by achieving such a status how debilitating will that be for other nations?

Well, the answer to the first question is that just because China’s GNP will rise to numerically exceed that of the US, doesn’t mean the incomes and standards of living for 80% of China’s population will markedly improve. Because, the reality is that the quality of life for the vast majority of China’s population will remain appreciably less than those of the US. However, in the same instance it’s just as true that, around 20% of America’s population by 2020 will have a lower standard of living to what they did in 2000. At this point I will make it perfectly clear that, the 20% I refer to will be a new and, separate group to the present 15% of America’s population, which is already poor.

As for ‘how debilitating will that be’ for the US – and even Western European nations, also – is a really perplexing conundrum. And this can only be satisfactorily explained by incorporating the answer to the other question. In a nutshell, the lowering of living standards for a very significant proportion of America’s population – as a direct and indirect consequence of the West dismantling and transferring its secondary industries to the Developing world, predominantly with China, since the late 1970’s – will not be taken stoically by those who are most adversely afflicted by the downturn. And this is clearly evidenced in the Occupy Wall Street and clone movements, which sprung up across the US in the latter months of 2011. But it’s really too difficult and contentious a situation to assert, with any confidence, where it all might end.
These assured changes in financial circumstances for many millions of people in the US, from being [aspiring] middle-class to welfare-dependant, are impossible to accurately assess how dramatically it will alter social cohesion. But it is a lay down knocktaker to be detrimental! And the reactions by the millions of people who have or, will become dispossessed and detached from the affluent and comfortable lifestyles that they once were part of, will certainly generate social mayhem and will resonate with a Grapes of Wrath scenario.

Of course, there are significant disparities between the times that Steinbeck wrote about and now. And this is primarily, because only a comparatively minuet number of Americans, prior to the Great Depression, would have ever experienced truly affluent lifestyles – which basically equates to having disposable incomes. Hence, the drop in quality of life would have been much easier to bear. And this situation would have been far easier to cope with, because it was buttressed by virtue of enduring religious ties and close knit community social infrastructures. But what makes it considerably different between the 1930’s and now, prevails in the fact that, over 50% of people between the ages of 30 to 55 do not reside within 700ks of where they grew up in. As a result, they have maintained only limited to casual contact with family and school day friends. Subsequently, their economic demise has not merely transformed them from being members of a prosperous middle-class to welfare recipients, but vanquishes them to social isolation.
For the time being, at least, there are safety-nets in place to soften landings. However, governments cannot possibly maintain indefinite lines of support for the less fortunate. And whilst the US has various alternatives and assets to help it struggle along, the same does not bear true for the governments of Spain, Italy or Portugal etc. Quite simply, none of them can possibly prolong the current condition of borrowing money to carry the growing contingent of their dispossessed citizens, because they do not have any avenues available to produce wealth to then be able to repay their debts.

As a result of this, hardly a week has gone by in the last 30 months in which, President Obama or someone from the government, doesn’t say: “We’re working hard to find ways to get people back to work”. Regrettably, unemployment figures have continued to hover over 9% for three years, which is bad enough in the short-term; but that figure is foreboding for an extended period. And I will reiterate that, a key part of the reason for high unemployment rates is due, to the US having haemorrhaged over 60% of its manufacturing sector jobs since 1980. But that, of course, is only an element of the equation and primarily accounts for people over the age of 40 with non-college and tertiary level educations.

But around a 25% of all America’s current throng of unemployed are people with tertiary level educations, whose annual incomes prior to this recession were at least $65K – and many of them earned over $100K. Hence, their falls from grace are far more difficult to cope with, as opposed to someone who was only being paid eight bucks an hour flipping meat patties, in Times Square. And it is this educated category of people who are of most concern to those sentinels administering the system, because they have the educational capacity to formulate new political organizations that are capable of undermining their hold on power. But that wouldn’t be a bad thing at all to occur, because America’s political compositions are so out of date, inept and incompetent that they really need to be purged of the parasitical and dead log elements – with K-STREET being an absolute instance of this. Lamentably, unlike in many other liberal Western democracies the avenues for the disgruntled to form new political parties in the US, is akin to Jason acquiring the Golden Fleece.

Apropos to the scenario of political discontent, which motivated people to mutiny against the system, has already transpired by virtue of the Tea Party. However, it’s obvious that Tea Party activists don’t want to form a ‘new’ political party to revamp the political landscape, because they are clearly extreme-adjuncts of the Republican Party and quite content to remain lobbyists. So, considering that Tea Party members are basically dyed-in-the-wool republicans, who fully embrace meritocratic ideologies that, made America the great society she rose to become, means their sympathies for the unemployed are, all the same, quite limited. And it’s safe to suggest that their enduring beliefs would be that, instead of these protestors [many of whom are victims of the GFC] Occupying Wall Street or blockading docks in Seattle, so ships can’t be loaded that they should be utilizing their time and efforts with being productive. But that, of course, is the Catch-22 situation, because if there were genuine opportunities available for them then there wouldn’t be people Occupying Wall Street, in the first place.

Unfortunately, the type of people that the Tea Party is riddled with are blinded to this reality and are incapable of comprehending that what’s initiated people to Occupy Wall St. to begin with is analogous to the encroaching sands of the desert in Namibia. In effect, whilst the high unemployment levels that America is presently experiencing aren’t their doing it is irresponsible for them to do nothing constructive to alleviate the situation. This is so, because the lack of employment opportunities for millions of people has far reaching and detrimental consequences and the economic and sociological decline we’re currently witnessing will ultimately affect everyone. For example, taxes will have to be raised to levy social security payments.

Of course, it’s easy for me to assert what I have done and I know it’s a gargantuan issue to confront. But the reality is that there’s nothing remotely in place or a light at the end of the tunnel for people to look forward to that, offers them hope and lessen their plights. And this condition is being made worse by virtue of the pig-headedness being shown by the Republicans in vetoing anything that Obama submits, which might set to improve matters.

As for India rising to compete with China in manufacturing is something that isn’t likely to happen! And this is primarily so, because India is far too internally fractured by graft, castes, cultures and religions to ever emulate what China has done. Fundamentally, India lacks the discipline and direction needed to imitate what China has achieved. Apropos to the distinct reason why China has accomplished the incredible feat it has with development is, because of centralized corruption – which can be defined as ‘State Capitalism’. Whereas in India, because there are as many financial maharajas in transit, as there are religions in India, means they will never ever get their act(s) together in mutual cooperation. Hence, it’s a total waste of time to even contemplate this prospect.

Of course, over the past twenty years there have been many millions of Indians who have and, will continue to, excel in specialized skills, such as IT and medicine and for them their standards of living have risen exponentially. But within the lower rungs of Indian society – well over 80% of the population – there is little evidence at all to suggest these people will reach similar echelons as has happened for a significant proportion of ‘working-class’ Chinese and become at least quite comfortable. Furthermore, for it to ever happen would necessitate China dismantling a segment of its own industrial sector and ceding it to India; which is a billion to one of ever taking place.

Finally, in can be unmistakably identified within Ernest Schumacher’s, ‘Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people really mattered’, that he, as an insider to the scheme, was warning us about the perils of globalisation – albeit, though, it wasn’t called as such when he penned his discourse. And whilst Small is Beautiful, certainly wasn’t intended to be offering absolute answers for economic problems it’s pertinent to highlight where Schumacher, in one of his essays, draws a comparison to India and Australia and asks: “What is the benefit for Australians, if they can buy a pair of jandals [thongs] for ten cents a pair, but no one has a job to be able to afford to obtain them”? He went on to say: “Thus, it’s obviously more economically viable for jandals to be manufactured in Australia and cost Australians $10 a pair and have low unemployment levels”.

Obviously, Schumacher’s view in this example is simplistic: But the gist of what he was expressing certainly isn’t! And that, of course, is that: What’s the point in something being dirt cheap, but because 40% of the population are unemployed they’re too poor to buy them?

January 15, 2012.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Globalisation all boils down

Globalisation all boils down to one thing...cheap, virtually slave labor. Why do the global corporations love China? Because they're cheap and easy. Why does the US government love to install communist dictators all over the world? To consolidate and eliminate the would be competition.

Socialist systems like China give no incentive for innovation. Why create or design a new product when the State (communist party) will ultimately benefit, not you...the individual?

When is the last time an individual from China came up with the next big thing? A man like Steve Jobs doesn't exist in China and never will so long as the Chinese Communist Party remains in power...which is probably why they're funded by Wall Street.

"Competition is sin."

What pisses me off the most is how competition is essentially eliminated, and wages are driven down, not up....by a corporate monopoly system that is rigged from the start.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Not one mention of the Rothschilds?

You outline the big po0rblem well enough, but to fail to mention the Rothschilds makes me wonder, do you knot understand, or are you not willing to name names? WHO began the push for globalization is a vital piece of information, so that those people may be stopped. Going with the generic "Captains of Industry" is a cop out. There are no "captains" other than those on the Rothschild team.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I think you might fail to

I think you might fail to grasp the basis of this concept of globalisation. The example is confined, in the main, to western nations that embraced this insidious concept willingly, particularly AU in the Asia Pacific region and EU.
The so called 'captains of industry' can be readily identified by looking toward those that fund the lobbyists, those that control the international corporations, corporate CEO's and industrial magnates.
Simply look at the Bilderburg Group to answer your questions.
Where does the funding eminate? the international banking cartel naturally.

It's not so much about who is behind the closed door as much as where does the buck stop, and that is clearly the politicians that implement these subversive agendas and the UN policy that drives them.
Look to history to seek the answers, then look to the present to predict the future.

Many have already suggested the the FED has caused the problem in the US, others the wages bubble and union intervention. Let me suggest that the means of implementation, or the cause attributed to the UN agenda is irrelevant, as the consequences are the same.
The production and jobs in America are moving offshore at an alarming rate, and the status quo is conspicuous in the absence of any action to curtail that trend. This is something that is going to have a dramatic impact on the domestic economy, and will not cease, let alone be turned around in the forseeable future.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

You might fail to grasp the scope of Rothschild influence.

Pretty much ALL talk of "redistribution of wealth" is to make the slaves equally poor - I assure you the Rothschilds will not be sharing their money with anyone. Indeed, this may be our saving grace. One day, the jackbooted thugs they keep on payroll will realize that the Rothschilds' set them up to take the brunt of our anger, and when that day comes.... Think it can't happen? It has already begun....

Have a look - wouldn't they look FABULOUS with a guillotine around their neck?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

No doubt

I've got no doubt your absolutely right, on both counts -:).
The tentacles of that reprehensible group are spread gobally, and conrol every aspect of international finance. Makes you wonder at the motivating force behind the manipulation and control, certainly can't be greed, so that leaves power. Either way global control, of every aspect of world affairs seems to be the goal, and I'm sure the US economy is the rosetta stone in that agenda. I'm not sure if it's some utopian vision of a global community, controlled by the power elite, to serve the interests of the power elite, or simply fascism on a global scale. Regardless, it certainly isn't going to be stopped by voting someone out of office..well assuming that's possible in the first place.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Lima Declaration 1975

I think some should do a little research on the (UN)Lima Declaration 1975.
Cause and Effect..
the cause may vary, but the effect remains the same.

The cause:

The effect:

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.


I think that this topic is mislabeled.

The Big Picture being talked about, by people, is counterfeit.

The Big Picture being described by the topic starter is the False Front version of reality.

Why speak in terms of THINGS being accountable for the actions of people?

Is that not such an obvious falsehood worthy of avoiding that failure to do so IS the Big Picture?



Your entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
This is the reality, the reality of the UN agenda of Globalisation.
Counterfeit FRN's are in deed a reality, artificially established interest rates, and currency manipulatiion. Is this something new?, the answer is definitely no.

Removing the gold standard, floating the dollar? this was part of the gobalist agenda in AU. De-valuation of the dollar, on an on-going basis, simply to make export of primary produce competive on world markets, at a huge cost to the nation. Does this make sense?. Paying to sell your produce, and increasing the cost of your imports by doing so, while accruing a huge trade deficit. No, currency manipulation is not new.
No 'things' are not accountable, the actions of some are accountable, for the circumstances others are forced into.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Double Think?

"Your entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
This is the reality, the reality of the UN agenda of Globalisation."

There is no such thing as a UN agenda. People have agendas.

If you refuse to call what individual people do by the accurate word for the actual acts done, such as CRIME, then who benefits from your willful refusal to uncover the truth?

You now claim that what I am telling you is an opinion, so that you can "respectfully" disagree? There is no respect in that, if there was then the respect could be measured.

You are parroting the lies that cover up the crimes done by actual people who actually breath, they have addresses, they put on pants, one leg at time, or who knows, one of them may jump into both legs at once, but they are people, not things.

You do that, and no amount of false respect of nebulous "disagreement" changes the fact that YOU hold things to account for the actions of people.

"Is this something new?, the answer is definitely no"

Now you create a Man of Straw, someone that you invent, someone who speaks, and someone who has the viewpoint you place in their heads, and you place a stupid viewpoint in the head of your Man of Straw, and they you call your Man of Straw the person you are shooting down, with your lies, and since your stupid Man of Straw, with the Stupid ideas you put in his (or her) head, is so God awful stupid, you can easily defeat your Man of Straw, because the ideas you put in the heady of your Man of Straw are stupid ideas.

What does that have to do with anything shown to you to be true?

"Removing the gold standard, floating the dollar? this was part of the gobalist agenda in AU."

Name names or admit you are claiming that a THING is accountable, or a "process" is accountable, which is false. You are false, this Topic is false, this is more of the same falsehood that covers up the crimes committed by actual people with names.

"De-valuation of the dollar, on an on-going basis, simply to make export of primary produce competive on world markets, at a huge cost to the nation."

Now you claim that this THING you call a nation is paying a cost?

People are working, they create more power during the day than there was at the start of the day, and other people steal that power. Those who produce the power stolen have names. They are people. Those who steal the power have names, more people.

Actual people.

Why cover up those crimes with your double speaking duplicitous falsehoods?

Who benefits from your continued willful support of these crimes?

"Does this make sense?"

Yes, you are aiding the criminals by adding more lies, from your account on this forum, from your mind, through your actions, covering up the crimes committed by actual people upon actual people, so why do you continue doing that, and why are you now lying to me with your Man of Straw nonsense?

"Paying to sell your produce, and increasing the cost of your imports by doing so, while accruing a huge trade deficit."

Who is suffering a "trade deficit"?

What the hell are you talking about, did you earn a degree is lies?

"No, currency manipulation is not new."

What did you make your Man of Straw say to you? What was it that your Man of Straw said, to inspire you to publish that matter of fact statement?

"No, currency manipulation is not new."

Who do you think you are speaking to? Why did you publish that sentence? Have you propped yourself up as authority over my thoughts too?

Do you actually believe your lies, as you fabricate this Man of Straw that appears to be names a familiar name to an actual person. Who is the person, the actual person, who inspired you to write that sentence?


"No, currency manipulation is not new."

Who are you schooling now?

"No 'things' are not accountable, the actions of some are accountable, for the circumstances others are forced into."

Those who steal the power keep meticulous records, so now what are you teaching your Man of Straw?

Do you often argue with the other half of your personality?



I'll disregard your attack on my person, and my 'motives' and simply suggest you do some reading on modern political history. I'm sure you will find all the names you seek, of the misguided (or manipulated) political figures, that supported and implemented the UN Lima Declaration of 1975.

Your preoccupation with 'things' is somewhat perplexing, as I fail to see the relevance. When a proposal has majority political support, it becomes a 'thing' (your words), 'an agenda', and should you really believe the UN (collectively) does not have 'agendas', you are sadly misguided. The specifics of who, what and when are easily researched, but opten times take back place to the why, and subsequent ramifications.

I won't respond to any of your comments, as they seem more than a little confused, other than to say this:
A virus is a 'thing' and when it kills people, the cause of death is attributed to the virus..or 'thing'.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Colectivists think alike or lie alike?

"should you really believe the UN (collectively) does not have 'agendas', you are sadly misguided."

The pathology goes deep, and perhaps the infected people are sad about their own duplicity, and perhaps the natural human response, once infected, is to project or transfer their own sadness about themselves, and sadness about what they are doing, onto other people.

As to the Character Assassination of some nebulous Man of Straw named Josf, who is not causing the infected collectivist rb25de sadness, the confessions of this infection, this duplicity, continue in each response authored by the collectivist.

The UN does not "have" agendas, and that sadness, if it actually exists, in that person who claims to now "know" about someone somewhere who is "sadly misguided", could prove something somehow if it were true.

Criminals have an agenda.

What it is?

Criminals want to injure innocent victims.

It may be a good idea to know that much, before propping yourself up as an authority over your own inner demons, before you begin to project those inner demons out onto other people, because the practice of "knowing it all" when you are infected is pathetic, and as you realize how pathetic you are, you may, if that is what you are doing, you may feel sadness.

If, on the other hand, a person is merely finding innocent people, targeting them, and they planning on injuring them, by resorting to deception, then that is the definition of a criminal, and all anyone has to do to find the criminal is to follow the currency authored by the criminal back to the source of the criminal, fraudulent, currency.

I ask any reader, anywhere, to consider an idea when reading the material that is published by the author of the material, and the idea is to ask yourself if the author of the material has accurately identified the full measure of the subject and has communicated an effective viewpoint concerning that subject matter.

In this case, it seems to me, that the subject matter (not the counterfeit version) is a very small group of people who are gaining all the power on Earth, and hat small group of people can now steal enough power to BUY another World War.

That small group of people, who can be accurately called Legal Criminals, can be called by many False Names, which are False Fronts, such as "Wall Street, "The Dollar Hegemony", "Washington D.C.", "The International Monetary Fund", "The World Bank", "The UN", "Goldman Sachs", "Halliburton", "The Federal Reserve", "The Internal Revenue Service", "Homeland Security", or any THING, and NAME, that covers up their crimes best, and if the old name does not work well NOW, then they move to a new NAME, soon enough.

Like this:



They BUY World Wars.

People who have enough power to write themselves a check for as much money as everyone else combined, and then spend that money, BUY World Wars, and they do so because that is the tried and true method by which the few people with that Legal Crime POWER keep that Legal Crime Power.

It is the same thing, on the highest level, as The Business Cycle spoken of by Ron Paul.

Know better.

The cost of not knowing better is too high.

If you are polarized, by these counterfeiters, to focus your attention on THINGS, instead of on Common Law, Common Sense, methods of holding PEOPLE to account for the things that PEOPLE do, then what are you polarized to actually be doing in any case whatsoever?

You finally arrive at the THING that you are holding to account, and you find an empty bag that says something along the lines of SUCKER.

Good luck playing that game, even if you win, your piece of the action, joining in on the "fun" for "profit", as "we", all of us collectivists that "we" are, BUY our new World War, making a killing off of it, "us" merry bunch of souls all "collectivized" and polarized into this CURRENT agenda.

War is good for your economy, you will get your lower gas prices, you will spread your democracy, and be paid handsomely for a time.

Judgment day will come too.

Good like then, too.

May God have mercy on your soul.

"A virus is a 'thing' and when it kills people, the cause of death is attributed to the virus..or 'thing'."

The virus here is not ambiguous, it is not mysterious, it is "colectivism" as confessed by the words of the confessor, who may be lying willfully, or may be lying because the infected person is infected with that specific LIE.

How does the LIE manifest itself when the infected person (or the liar) spreads the infection?

Here is an example (among many):

"should you really believe the UN (collectively) does not have 'agendas', you are sadly misguided."

Why the liars, or the parrots, the dupes, the fools, the infected, either/or, either willful liar, or victims of it, when they are confronted with the facts, what can be expected from them - without prejudice?


Presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty?

Anyone, at any time, can find in themselves the necessary POWER to defeat the infection, but that possibility ASSUMES that the person is an innocent victim who has been infected, and NOT a willful inventor of more lies.

What is the point of this counterfeit TOPIC?

If anyone does, finally, figure out how the criminals, right here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), have taken over government, then there are a few actionable goals that can POINTEDLY defeat those criminals as such:

End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home

Do so by a certain date on the Calender.

How about July 5th, 2013?

Meanwhile: this counterfeit stuff works for YOU?


End the Fed.

You have applied much effort to explain your global perspective. Rather shy on references. Dependent on the exchange rate of two national currencies. Thanks just the same. Here are a few things you may consider to flavor your global perspective.

Learn about monopoly, in lands where they are outlawed. Run by outlaws.

Learn about how the numbers you use may be manipulated by just one of many corporations. How is it the Forex ® determines that the US is rich & China is poor? Oh, the market. Who competes with Forex?

Who competes with the Fed in the US? Who competes w/ the Central Bank of China in China? What must it be like to awake one morning to find the paper-money folks use daily in trade, is revalued... adjusted by currency players that decide one currency shall go up, whilst another down. What if your measure is not Dollar nor Yuan? Not any money at all? Which nation is producing the most? Which delivers the most to market? Which profits the most? Which benefits the most?

What if your measures included weight, purity, function & benefit?

To be fair to the living, try doing calculations in any extinct paper currency.

Not gold nor silver. That may be too shocking.

    Sorry. I did not have time to write a short reply, so I wrote a long one instead.


Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

You missed the cause by looking at the results

wage and cost inflation in the US is a driver for even needing to look abroad for cheaper places for manufacturing. Our inflation in wages and costs can be laid directly on the FED for debasing our currency. Our wages are in a massive bubble compared to where they would be under sound money. That bubble is popping due to globalization. But make no mistake, globalization is due to the inflation in this country. And I would be neglegent to not include the regulatory and tax environment as pieces to the globalization pie.

Bottom line, the FED and federal government has made it too expensive to operate here. And companies with the need and ability to offshore have done so to maximize profitability.


it's simply the division of labor as modified by imbalances caused by violations of property rights (funny money and bad laws). People will always buy the best product at the lowest cost, that includes labor. When you skew the pricing, some things are artificially low and some artificially high. Global trade under a global fiat currency will have massively distorted markets and the only way to keep it together is more and more intervention and violence as the system becomes more and more unstable and unworkable. Governments who publicly decide to leave this "order" end up occupied or their leaders are dragged through the streets by "rebels".

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

So much good..interspersed with unclarified...

and assumptive bad.

Like this...

"Of course, it’s easy for me to assert what I have done and I know it’s a gargantuan issue to confront. But the reality is that there’s nothing remotely in place or a light at the end of the tunnel for people to look forward to that, offers them hope and lessen their plights."

Grammatically jumbled but good, and correct as to the nature of what is approaching down the tracks...tracks existing upon a very narrow trestle...one without hand holds.

Then, you throw this tidbit into the mix...as if a light had been briefly discerned in the darkness...only to be extinguished by "those darn Republicans".

"And this condition is being made worse by virtue of the pig-headedness being shown by the Republicans in vetoing anything that Obama submits, which might set to improve matters."

Besides this being contrary to most of your assertions in this piece, this is pure fallacy to anyone with half a brain who is free of the duopoly's deceptions, and certainly to most readers here...as we are quite typically aware of the decidedly bipartisan nature of our rapists.

This is also both unclear and assumptive as it implies the existence of something that "should not have been vetoed" as it somehow would have provided an offshoot to the dark tracks you describe. This is a statement that is not only pure bullshit...it is one that only feeds one into the red/blue battle zone wherein 50% of your readers will likely fall off the "same page".

Facts work. Emotional hot-buttons don't...unless you were simply trying to preach to YOUR choir. You were doing fine by mixing red and blue into a foibalistic self-serving Royal Purple. You should have staid there.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Multiple, embedded falacies

"...because the key component of a dynamic and healthy economy requires customers to consume goods and services. Therefore, debt/financing is completely necessary to make it function."

This is complete rubbish. Nice the way you embedded the rubbish, though. So your essay may be nonsense but it deserves brownie points for being excellent propaganda for the Pig Men.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

In reality

In a healthy economy, with stable employment, increased disposable income, and high comsumer demand, financing expensive consumer goods is a reality, and inherently there is nothing wrong with that, in order to increase ones standard of living. Provided the consumer is capable of assessing and meeting the contractual obligations.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.


Thanks for handling my sarcasm graciously! This is a very different statement than the initial:

"...because the key component of a dynamic and healthy economy requires customers to consume goods and services. Therefore, debt/financing is completely necessary to make it function."

My challenges on the initial statement, btw, would be:

(1) The key component of a dynamic an healthy economy is SAVINGS, not consumption. Consumption destroys savings. A certain amount of consumption is necessary or one can't produce efficiently (e.g., you starve to death) but the hallmark of rapidly growing wealth in an economy is that production of value is higher -- ideally far higher -- than consumption of value. Why? Because in the bigger picture, investment needs to come from the pool of real savings.

(2) Using debt to consume is like feeding yourself by drinking your own blood. It's about that stupid and absolutely that self-immolating.

Debt (leverage) CAN be used, sometimes, to grow wealth if you find an opportunity to invest where the production of value AFTER repaying interest is positive. However, the debt also adds risk - so you run the real risk that what could have been a value producing investment goes insolvent due to the debt and you probably have a destruction of value/wealth. And what happens when the "savings" being borrowed isn't real savings but is conjured from 'thin air'? In that case, I suspect, no growth in the real economy as a whole is possible.

I will defer to a trained Austrian here, but I have run numbers from before and after the establishment of the Fed and what seems clear enough to me is that the funny money added huge booms and busts did not increase real growth of GDP over the longer terms. Indeed, it appears to have STOLEN real GDP from the economy as a whole and transferred it in large quantities into the pockets of the PigMen. If you look at the average growth in GDP in the decades before the Fed it was considerably greater than the average growth after the Fed -- and GDP is a very deceptive way to measure real growth of wealth in the economy because it counts waste and government growth (worse than waste) and consumption as somehow "good" when they are, in fact, destructive to wealth and savings.

Here's a question for you: What is wealth?

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28


Wealth is a very subjective term, and is context dependent. In economic terms would most probably refer to the accumulation of resources and commodities of defined, tangible value. The term could as well be applied to the state of self-sufficiency, both individually and collectively. The accumulation of assets in the form fiat bank notes, subject to manipulation, inflation and de-valuation, need not apply.

A nation generates 'wealth' through the process of industralisation, production and growth, which reflects high employment, economic stability and disposable income; this equates to high consumer demand, comsumer confidence, investment and increased GNP.
Natural resources also play a role, but because they are not infinite, they are not sustainable.

Systematically take away production, and you are soon left with re-distribution of preveiling domestic wealth, speculation, currency manipulation, and inflation. At some point, 'selling off the farm' ensues, usually in the form of privatisation.

Oh, and savings are a by-product of a healthy, stable economy. There is absolutely no reason why savings and financing cannot co-exist in a well planned economic strategy. It is where the economy begins to falter that the scales begin to tip.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

This Is Where You Lost Me

"Now, there’s absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with acquiring goods and services on credit."

Sounds like banker propaganda to me. Furthermore, from a materialistic standpoint it defies logic (unless of course you are a banker).

Sorry, but I'm not buying your ALL HAIL THE ECONOMY logic. Take away thieves, bankers, and politicians, and the economy is always PERFECT, regardless of what speed it may be traveling at.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

The provision of credit

The provision of credit, in itself, is not detrimental to a healthy economy. In fact it is utilised, in many ways, by small/medium business, and consumers alike, where it is controlled, and not over-extended to the point of becoming counter-productive.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Spot on Anaylasis

It does track from history that the future will be as you suggest, but, I wonder if a human factor actually could disrupt that chain of events?
The "Paulbots" (I say that lovingly) might suggest that there is another path. :)

Just open the box and see


Are good things.

Spellcheck too...

Just sayin'

Good Info

Yet, I think it is not about profits/markets anymore in the classical sense of the word. It is about control.

The more poor, the easier to control...otherwise the circumstances would be more dire imo.

3rd world status for the world.

China and India will put a huge strain on resources.