Nova Ordem Econômica e Política Mundial à Vista

George Soros tem a intenção de cooptar os países do terceiro mundo, apelando para a participação dos países em desenvolvimento como parte da solução. O controle do novo sistema, no entanto, permanecera nas mãos dos globalistas como ele e seus fantoches eleitos em cada país.

Business & Media Institute
Adaptação de Luis R. Miranda
23 Março, 2011

Em 08 de abril, um grupo financiado com 50 milhões de dólares de contas bancárias de George Soros organizou uma importante conferência econômica e a meta para este evento é “estabelecer novas normas internacionais” e “reforma do sistema monetário.” É tudo de acordo com um plano publicado em uma coluna de 04 de novembro de 2009, onde Soros disse que havia uma necessidade de “reordenar muita coisa no sistema financeiro”.

Globalista e bilionário George Soros

O evento de abril reunirá “mais de 200 acadêmicos, empresários, políticos e burocratas para repetir a famosa reunião de 1944 chamada de Bretton Woods, que ajudou a criar o Banco Mundial e o Fundo Monetário Internacional. Soros quer um “sistema multilateral” ou um novo sistema econômico em que os EUA não seja tão dominante. Esse lugar será ocupado pela China comunista.

Mais de dois terços dos oradores programados têm ligações directas a Soros. O bilionário que acredita que “o principal inimigo da sociedade aberta, creio eu, já não é o comunismo, mas a ameaça capitalista”. Isto não é surpreendente, já que Soros apoia uma regulamentação comum e disse que a China é o modelo em termos de controle monetário, econômico e populacional, entre outros.

Até agora, esta reunião global tem gerado menos publicidade do que um concurso de ortografia. Isso ocorre apesar de ter pelo menos quatro jornalistas na lista de oradores, incluindo um editor do Financial Times e os editores da Reuters e The Times. Considerando-se as advertências de Soros do que poderia acontecer sem um novo acordo, esta pouca divulgação deve ser um grande problema. Mas não é.

O que é um grande problema é que Soros está fazendo exatamente o que ele queria. O seu comentário de 2009, pressionou por uma “nova conferência de Bretton Woods, incluindo a criação da nova estrutura financeira pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial.” E ele tinha fixado as rodas em movimento. A ordem financeira mundial criada após a guerra, e através da qual os globalistas adquiriram tudo, foi a mesma que estabeleceu os EUA como o único super poder, e agora esta mesma diretriz quer ser usada para instalar a China como a cabeça do novo sistema globalista.

De fato, a América tem sido utilizada pelos globalistas para avançar suas agendas de conquista usando sua influência militar e econômica para promover a desregulamentação financeira que lhes permitiu controlar a sociedade global. A utilização de um sistema que no começo tinha tintes capitalistas, mas que nunca atingiu o seu potencial, tornou-se corporativista, baseado no controle corporativo dos governos que hoje perpetua a centralização do poder econômico, político e militar.

Apenas uma semana antes que este editorial ser publicado, Soros havia fundado o Instituto de Novo Pensamento Econômico (INET), em Nova York, o grupo anfitrião da conferência no Mount Washington Resort, o hotel que abrigou primeira reunião. A mais recente foi realizada na Universidade Central Européia em Budapeste. CEU recebeu 206 milhões de dólares de Soros em 2005 e tem 880 milhões a mais do seu fundo, de acordo com o The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Isto, também, é uma reunião de fantoches do Soros. INET terá personalidades como o ex-primeiro-ministro britânico, Gordon Brown, o ex-presidente do Fed, Paul Volcker e Soros, para produzir “um monte de idéias de alta qualidade.”

Apesar que INET diz que mais de 200 estarão presentes na conferência, apenas 79 oradores estão inscritos no seu site – e já se parece com uma convenção Soros. Vinte e dois são membros do INET e outros três tem bolsas de Soros. Dezenove outros empregados são listados como membros da operação Project Syndicate; segundo eles uma -”fonte preeminente do mundo dos comentários originais de opinião” que inclui 456 jornais de grande circulação em 150 países e é financiado pelo Open Society Institute propiedade do Soros. Isso é apenas o começo.

Entre os palestrantes estão:

* Volcker é presidente do conselheiro econômico do presidente Obama. Ele escreveu o prefácio para o um dos mais conhecidos livros de Soros, “A Alquimia das Finanças” e elogiou o Soros como “um especulador de sucesso” que escreveu “com visão e paixão” sobre as questões da globalização.

* O economista Jeffrey Sachs, diretor do Instituto da Terra e destinatário da caridade Soros. Sachs, recebeu 50 milhões de dólares do Soros para o Projeto do Milênio das Nações Unidas, que também dirige. Sachs é reconhecido internacionalmente por sua economia liberal. Em 2009, por exemplo, queixou-se dos impostos nos EUA, que segundo ele eram muito baixos, dizendo que os EUA “tinha que aumentar os impostos, sem dúvida. Este é um evento Soros, de cima para baixo. Mesmo Soros admite que suas ligações com o INET sao um problema, e diz, “há um conflito de interesse que eu reconheço plenamente.” Ele diz que fica de fora das operações. Isso é impossível. Todo o evento é financiado e explorado por ele.

Ex-economista do Banco Mundial, Joseph Stiglitz, um amigo de Soros que uma vez falou do desastre causado pelo Banco Mundial, é parte do evento.

INET não é sutil sobre suas metas para a conferência. Quando entrevistado, Robert Skidelsky, membro do conselho de INET, sobre a necessidade de uma nova Bretton Woods, em um vídeo recente, Skidelsky nao poupou comentários a favor disto. O slide de introdução para o vídeo fala sobre como a questão da moeda e da tensão entre os EUA e a China estão renovando as chamadas para uma reforma financeira global. ” Skidelsky pediu um novo acordo e disse no vídeo que o conflito entre os EUA e a China estava “no centro de qualquer acordo financeiro que possa ser negociado, que precisa ser negociado.”

Soros describiu no editorial em 2009 que o conflito entre os EUA e a China é “outra escolha difícil entre duas maneiras fundamentalmente diferentes de organização: capitalismo internacional e capitalismo de Estado (comunismo). Ele concluiu que “um novo sistema multilateral baseado em princípios mais sólidos deve ser inventado.” Conforme ele explicou, em 2010, “precisamos de um xerife global”.

Na versão 2000 do seu livro Open Society: Reforma do Capitalismo Global”, Soros escreveu sobre como as instituições de Bretton Woods” falharam dramaticamente ” durante a crise econômica no final de 1990. Quando pediu um novo Bretton Woods em 2009, queria “restaurar o Fundo Monetário Internacional, e à reestruturação das Nações Unidas para instar a China e outros países.

“A reorganização da ordem mundial se estende além do sistema financeiro e o envolvimento das Nações Unidas, especialmente os membros do Conselho de Segurança”, escreveu ele. “Esse processo deve ser iniciado por EUA, mas a China e outros países em desenvolvimento devem participar de forma igualitária.”
Soros destacou que este ponto tem que ser uma solução global, fazendo com que os Estados Unidos seja parte da lista. “Potências emergentes devem estar presentes na criação deste novo sistema para garantir que eles são contribuintes ativos.”

E isso é exatamente o tipo de detalhes que INET está publicando no seu site, com ênfase na “reconstrução da União Europeia e os emergentes da Europa Oriental, América Latina e Ásia. “Nestes planos, a China é preeminente, com personagens como um economista sênior do Banco Mundial em Pequim, o diretor da Academia Chinesa de Ciências Sociais, o principal conselheiro da Comissão Reguladora Bancária da China e do Director do Centro de Negócios Estrangeiros EUA-China. Todos eles defendem as velhas e conhecidas políticas globalistas que procuram que os países industrializados paguem novas iniciativas de gastos, especialmente nas áreas de energia sustentável, alterações climáticas, educação e alívio para os pobres.

* Um amigo de Soros, Joseph E. Stiglitz, antigo vice-presidente e economista-chefe do Banco Mundial e ganhador do Prêmio Nobel em Economia tem a mesma opinião que Soros. Ele criticou economistas de livre mercado, que ele chama de “fundamentalistas do mercado livre.” Naturalmente, Stiglitz faz parte do INET e é um contribuinte do Project Syndicate.

* O director executivo do INET Rob Johnson, um ex-presidente da Soros Fund Management, que faz parte do Conselho de Administração do Economic Policy Institute se queixou de que a intervenção do governo na crise fiscal não era suficiente e quis “reestruturação”, incluindo a aplicação “de cartas de demissão de altos executivos de todos os grandes bancos”.

Tudo isso é fácil de fazer quando você tem disponível o George Soros, que financia mais de 1.200 organizações. Só que nenhum destes grupos poderia organizar um evento como esse. Grupos como o MoveOn.org e o Center for American Progress não se tornaram proeminentes pela sua discreção. O mesmo acontece a nível mundial, onde Soros doou mais de 7.000 milhões de dólares para a Open Society Foundations – incluindo meios de comunicação que estão apenas a um telefonema de distância.

George Soros quer que China seja a nova superpotência. Depois de Bretton Woods e até hoje, globalistas como Soros usaram Estados Unidos como instrumento para controlar a sociedade global.

Por que é que estes meios controlados por Soros não publicaram informações sobre o evento? Afinal, Soros advertiu que tudo isso tem que acontecer, porque “a alternativa é assustadora.” O bilionário, que odeia George W. Bush disse que “a América é assustadora, porque uma superpotência em declínio político e econômico, mas que ainda mantém a supremacia militar é uma coisa perigosa.”

O império de Soros não diz nada sobre esta nova conferência de Bretton Woods, uma vez que não só é projetada para mudar as regras econômicas globais. Ela também é projetada para colocar a América em seu lugar, como parte de um mundo multilateral da maneira que Soros quiser. Ele escreveu que os EUA “Pode dirigir um esforço cooperativo para incluir os países desenvolvidos e em desenvolvimento e, assim, restaurar a liderança norte-americana de uma maneira aceitável.”

Isto é o que esta conferência quer: mudar a economia mundial e os EUA para serem “aceitáveis” para George Soros.

Nuevo Orden Económico y Político Mundial a la Vista

George Soros tiene la intención de cooptar a los países del tercer mundo, llamando a la participación de los países en desarrollo como parte de la solución. La dirección del nuevo sistema, sin embargo, seguirá en manos de los globalistas como él y sus títeres elegidos en cada país.

Business & Media Institute
Adaptación Luis R. Miranda
23 Marzo, 2011

El 8 de abril, un grupo financiado con $ 50 millones de las cuentas bancarias de George Soros llevará a cabo una importante conferencia económica y la meta de Soros para tal evento es “establecer nuevas normas internacionales” y “reformar el sistema monetario.” Es todo de acuerdo a un plan trazado en una columna del 04 de noviembre 2009, donde Soros indicó que había una necesidad de establecer “un gran acuerdo que reordenará el sistema financiero.”

George Soros

El evento de abril reunirá a “más de 200 académicos, empresarios, políticos y burócratas ‘para repetir la famosa reunión de 1944 de Bretton Woods, que ayudó a crear el Banco Mundial y el Fondo Monetario Internacional. Soros quiere un nuevo “sistema multilateral”, o un sistema económico en el que Estados Unidos no es tan dominante. Ese lugar será ocupado por China comunista.

Más de dos tercios de los oradores programados tienen vínculos directos con Soros. El multimillonario que cree que “el principal enemigo de la sociedad abierta, creo, ya no es el comunismo sino la amenaza capitalista” no quiere correr riesgos. Esto no es sorpresa, pues el mismo apoya reglamentaciones comunistas y ha dicho que China es el modelo a seguir en cuanto a políticas monetarias, económicas y de control poblacional, entre otras.

Hasta el momento, esta reunión mundial ha generado menos publicidad que un concurso de ortografía. Eso ocurre a pesar de que habrán al menos cuatro periodistas en la lista de oradores, entre ellos un jefe de redacción del Financial Times y los editores para Reuters y The Times. Teniendo en cuenta las advertencias de Soros de lo que podría ocurrir sin un acuerdo, éste debería ser un gran problema. Pero no lo es.

Lo qué es un gran problema es que Soros está haciendo exactamente lo que quería hacer. Su comentario de 2009 presionó para que “una nueva conferencia de Bretton Woods, como la que estableció la nueva estructura financiera post-Segunda Guerra Mundial.” Y él ya se había puesto las ruedas en movimiento. El orden financiero mundial creado después de la guerra, y a través del cual los globalistas se adueñron de todo y de todos, fue el que estableció a Estados Unidos como el único super poder, y ahora esta misma receta quiere ser usada para levantar a China como el nuevo porta banderas de los globalistas.

En efecto, Estados Unidos ha sido usado por los globalistas para avanzar sus agendas de conquista utilizando su nombre, poder militar e influencia económica para favorecer la desregulación financiera que les permitió obetener el control de la sociedad mundial. El uso de un sistema que al inicio tuvo tintes capitalistas pero que nunca alcanzó su potencial -pues se convirtió en corporatista-, o sea, un sistema basado en el control corporativo de los gobiernos, perpetúa hasta hoy la centralización del poder económico, político y militar.

Justo una semana antes de que ese editorial se publicó, Soros había fundado el Instituto para el Nuevo Pensamiento Económico (INET), en la ciudad de Nueva York, el grupo anfitrión de la conferencia que en el Resort Mount Washington, el mismo hotel que albergó la primera reunión. La conferencia más reciente de INET se celebró en la Universidad de Europa Central, en Budapest. CEU recibió 206 millones de dólares de Soros en 2005 y cuenta con $ 880 millones en su fondo, según The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Esto, también, es una reunión de partidarios de Soros. INET reunirá a personalidades como el ex primer ministro británico, Gordon Brown, el ex presidente de la Fed Paul Volcker y Soros, para producir “un montón de ideas de alta calidad.”

Aunque INET dice que más de 200 van a asistir a la conferencia, sólo 79 oradores figuran en su sitio – y ya se ve como una convención Soros. Veinte y dos se encuentran son miembros de INET y tres más están becados por Soros. Diecinueve figuran como colaboradores de otra operación de Soros – Project Syndicate, que se autodenomina como la “fuente preeminente del mundo de la original comentarios de opinión”. Este grupo incluye 456 principales periódicos en 150 países y es financiado por el Open Institute de la Sociedad Soros. Eso es sólo el comienzo.

Los oradores incluyen:

* Volcker es el presidente del Consejo Económico Asesor del presidente Obama. Él escribió el prólogo para el libro más conocido de Soros, ‘La alquimia de las finanzas “y elogió a Soros como” un especulador de gran éxito “que escribió” con visión y pasión “sobre los problemas de la globalización.

* El economista Jeffrey Sachs, director del Instituto de la Tierra y el beneficiario efectivo de la caridad de Soros. Sachs, recibió 50 millones de dólares de Soros para el Proyecto del Milenio de las Naciones Unidas, que también dirige. Sachs es mundialmente conocido por su economía liberal. En 2009, por ejemplo, se quejó de que los impuestos en EE.UU. eran muy bajos, diciendo que los EE.UU. “tendrá que aumentar los impuestos sin lugar a dudas: Este es un evento Soros, de arriba a abajo. Incluso Soros admite que sus vínculos con el INET son un problema, y dice, “hay un conflicto de intereses que reconozco plenamente.” Dice que se queda fuera de las operaciones. Eso es imposible. Todo el evento es financiado y operado por el mismo.

El ex economista del Banco Mundial, Joseph Stiglitz, un amigo de Soros y que una vez habló de las catástrofes causadas por el Banco Mundial, hablará en el evento.

INET no es sutil acerca de sus objetivos para la conferencia. Al ser entrevistado, Robert Skidelsky, un miembro del consejo de INET, sobre “La Necesidad de un Nuevo Bretton Woods” en un video reciente, este no escatimó en afirmar en favor de la misma. La diapositiva de introducción al vídeo es subtitulada: “. ¿Cómo la emisión de moneda y la tensión entre los EE.UU. y China están renovando las llamadas para una reforma financiera global”. Skidelsky pidió un nuevo acuerdo y dijo en el video que el conflicto entre Estados Unidos y China estaba “en el centro de cualquier acuerdo monetario que puede ser negociado, que necesita ser negociado.”

Soros describe en el artículo de opinión del 2009 que el conflicto entre EEUU y China como “otra dura elección entre dos formas fundamentalmente diferentes de organización:. Capitalismo internacional y el capitalismo de Estado (Comunismo). Él llegó a la conclusión de que “un nuevo sistema multilateral basado en principios más sólidos debe ser inventado.” Como él mismo explicó en 2010, “necesitamos tener un alguacil mundial.”

En la versión 2000 de su libro “Sociedad Abierta: Reformando El capitalismo Mundial,” Soros escribió sobre cómo las instituciones de Bretton Woods “fallaron espectacularmente” durante la crisis económica de finales de 1990. Cuando llamó a un nuevo Bretton Woods en 2009, lo que quería era “reconstituir el Fondo Monetario Internacional”, y la reestructuración de las Naciones Unidas para impulsar a China y otros países.

“La reorganización del orden mundial tendrá que extenderse más allá del sistema financiero y la participación de las Naciones Unidas, especialmente de miembros del Consejo de Seguridad”, escribió. “Ese proceso debe ser iniciado por los EE.UU., pero China y otros países en desarrollo deben participar en igualdad.”

Soros hizo hincapié en ese punto, que esto tiene que ser una solución global, haciendo que Estados Unidos sea uno más. “Las potencias emergentes deben estar presentes en la creación de este nuevo sistema a fin de garantizar que sean colaboradores activos.”

Y ese es exactamente el tipo de evento sobre el que INET está publicando detalles en su sitio web, haciendo hincapié en “la reconstrucción que hoy debe realizarse en la Unión Europea, así como las economías emergentes de Europa del Este, América Latina y Asia.” En estos planes, China figura de manera preeminente, con personajes como un alto economista del Banco Mundial en Beijing, el director de la Academia China de Ciencias Sociales, el principal asesor de la Comisión Reguladora Bancaria de China y el Director del Centro de Relaciones EEUU-China. Quienes abogan viejas y conocidas políticas globalistas y que pretenden que los países industrializados paguen por nuevas iniciativas de gasto, especialmente en las áreas de energía sostenible, cambio climático, la educación y el alivio para los pobres.

* Un amigo de Soros; Joseph E. Stiglitz, ex vicepresidente y economista jefe del Banco Mundial y Premio Nobel en Economía tiene puntos de vista similares a Soros y ha criticado a los economistas de libre mercado a los que llama “fundamentalistas del libre mercado.” Naturalmente, Stiglitz es parte de la directiva de INET y un contribuyente a Project Syndicate.

* El Director Ejecutivo del INET Rob Johnson, un ex director general de Soros Fund Management, que está en el Consejo de Administración de la Fundación Soros -financiado por Instituto de Política Económica. Johnson se ha quejado de que la intervención del gobierno en la crisis fiscal no ha sido suficiente y que quería “reestructuración”, incluyendo la solicitud “de cartas de renuncia de los altos ejecutivos de todos los grandes bancos”.

Todo esto es fácil de hacer cuando se tiene al alcance de George Soros, que financia más de 1.200 organizaciones. Excepto que, cualquiera de estos grupos podría organizar un evento como este. Grupos como MoveOn.org o el Centro para el Progreso Americano no se tornaron prominentes por ser discretos. Lo mismo ocurre a nivel mundial, donde Soros ha donado más de 7 mil millones de dólares a la Open Society Foundations – incluyendo a muchos medios de comunicación que están solo a una llamada telefónica de distancia.

George Soros quiere nombrar a China Comunista como la nueva superpotencia, al igual que los globalistas como Soros 'crearon' a Estados Unidos después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

¿Por qué es que estos medios controlado por Soros no han publicado información sobre el evento? Después de todo Soros advirtió que todo esto tiene que suceder, porque “la alternativa es aterradora.” El multimillonario, que odia a George W. Bush dice que “Estados Unidos da miedo, porque una superpotencia en declive perdiendo tanto el predominio político y económico, pero que aún conserva la supremacía militar es una mezcla peligrosa.”

El imperio Soros no dice nada acerca de esta nueva conferencia de Bretton Woods, ya que no está solamente diseñada para cambiar las reglas económicas mundiales. También está diseñada para poner a Estados Unidos en su lugar -como parte de un mundo multilateral de la manera que quiere Soros. Él escribió que los EE.UU. “podría llevar a un esfuerzo cooperativo para involucrar a los países desarrollados y los países en desarrollo, y de tal modo restablecer el liderazgo estadounidense en una forma aceptable.”

De esto es de lo que trata esta conferencia: cambiar la economía mundial y a los Estados Unidos para que sean “aceptables” a George Soros.

Remaking the Entire Financial and Political Order

George Soros intends to co-opt the third world nations by calling for the participation of developing countries as part of the solution. The direction of the new system however, will still be in the hands of globalists like him and their elected puppets in every country.

Business & Media Institute
March 23, 2011

George Soros

On April 8, a group he’s funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros’s goal for such an event is to “establish new international rules” and “reform the currency system.” It’s all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.”

The event is bringing together “more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders’ to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Soros wants a new ‘multilateral system,” or an economic system where America isn’t so dominant.

More than two-thirds of the slated speakers have direct ties to Soros. The billionaire who thinks “the main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat” is taking no chances.

Thus far, this global gathering has generated less publicity than a spelling bee. And that’s with at least four journalists on the speakers list, including a managing editor for the Financial Times and editors for both Reuters and The Times. Given Soros’s warnings of what might happen without an agreement, this should be a big deal. But it’s not.

What is a big deal is that Soros is doing exactly what he wanted to do. His 2009 commentary pushed for “a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII international financial architecture.” And he had already set the wheels in motion.

Just a week before that op-ed was published, Soros had founded the New York City-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), the group hosting the conference set at the Mount Washington Resort, the very same hotel that hosted the first gathering. The most recent INET conference was held at Central European University, in Budapest. CEU received $206 million from Soros in 2005 and has $880 million in its endowment now, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

This, too, is a gathering of Soros supporters. INET is bringing together prominent people like former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Soros, to produce “a lot of high-quality, breakthrough thinking.”

While INET claims more than 200 will attend, only 79 speakers are listed on its site – and it already looks like a Soros convention. Twenty-two are on Soros-funded INET’s board and three more are INET grantees. Nineteen are listed as contributors for another Soros operation – Project Syndicate, which calls itself “the world’s pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries” reaching “456 leading newspapers in 150 countries.” It’s financed by Soros’s Open Society Institute. That’s just the beginning.

The speakers include:

  • Volcker is chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. He wrote the foreword for Soros’s best-known book, ‘The Alchemy of Finance’ and praised Soros as “an enormously successful speculator” who wrote “with insight and passion” about the problems of globalization.
  • Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the “U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor.”
  • Soros friend Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Stiglitz shares similar views to Soros and has criticized free-market economists whom he calls “free market fundamentalists.” Naturally, he’s on the INET board and is a contributor to Project Syndicate.
  • INET Executive Director Rob Johnson, a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, who is on the Board of Directors for the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute. Johnson has complained that government intervention in the fiscal crisis hasn’t been enough and wanted “restructuring,” including asking “for letters of resignation from the top executives of all the major banks.”

Former World Bank Economist, Joseph Stiglitz, a friend of Soros and who once spoke of the catastrophes caused by the World Bank, will speak at the event.

Have no doubt about it: This is a Soros event from top to bottom. Even Soros admits his ties to INET are a problem, saying, “there is a conflict there which I fully recognize.” He claims he stays out of operations. That’s impossible. The whole event is his operation.

INET isn’t subtle about its aims for the conference. Johnson interviewed fellow INET board member Robert Skidelsky about “The Need for a New Bretton Woods” in a recent video. The introductory slide to the video is subtitled: “How currency issues and tension between the US and China are renewing calls for a global financial overhaul.” Skidelsky called for a new agreement and said in the video that the conflict between the United States and China was “at the center of any monetary deal that may be struck, that needs to be struck.”

Soros described in the 2009 op-ed that U.S.-China conflict as “another stark choice between two fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and state capitalism.” He concluded that “a new multilateral system based on sounder principles must be invented.” As he explained it in 2010, “we need a global sheriff.”

In the 2000 version of his book “Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism,” Soros wrote how the Bretton Woods institutions “failed spectacularly” during the economic crisis of the late 1990s. When he called for a new Bretton Woods in 2009, he wanted it to “reconstitute the International Monetary Fund,” and while he’s at it, restructure the United Nations, too, boosting China and other countries at our expense.

“Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially membership of the Security Council,’ he wrote. ‘That process needs to be initiated by the US, but China and other developing countries ought to participate as equals.”

Soros emphasized that point, that this needs to be a global solution, making America one among many. “The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters.”

And that’s exactly the kind of event INET is delivering, with the event website emphasizing “today’s reconstruction must engage the larger European Union, as well as the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia.” China figures prominently, including a senior economist for the World Bank in Beijing, the director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the chief adviser for the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations.

George Soros intends to lift Comunist China as the new World's Superpower, just as globalists like Soros 'created' The United States after WWII.

This is all easy to do when you have the reach of George Soros who funds more than 1,200 organizations. Except, any one of those 1,200 would shout such an event from the highest mountain. Groups like MoveOn.org or the Center for American Progress didn’t make their names being quiet. The same holds true globally, where Soros has given more than $7 billion to Open Society Foundations – including many media-savvy organizations just a phone call away. Why hasn’t the Soros network spread the word?

Especially since Soros warns, all this needs to happen because “the alternative is frightening.” The Bush-hating billionaire says America is scary “because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix.”

The Soros empire is silent about this new Bretton Woods conference because it isn’t just designed to change global economic rules. It also is designed to put America in its place – part of a multilateral world the way Soros wants it. He wrote that the U.S. “could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the developing world, thereby reestablishing American leadership in an acceptable form.”

That’s what this conference is all about – changing the global economy and the United States to make them “acceptable” to George Soros.

“Unregulated Greed has Destroyed the Capitalist System”

Paul Craig Roberts

I write about major problems: the collapsing US economy, wars based on lies and deception, the police state based on “the war on terror” and other fabrications such as those orchestrated by corrupt police and prosecutors, who boost their performance reports by convicting the innocent, and so on. America is a very distressing place. The fact that so many Americans are taken in by the lies told by “their” government makes America all the more depressing.

Often, however, it is small annoyances that waste Americans’ time and drive up blood pressures. One of the worst things that ever happened to Americans was the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly. As Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in 1981, if 150 percent of my time and energy had not been required to cure stagflation in the face of opposition from Wall Street and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, I might have been able to prevent the destruction of the best communications service in the world, and one that was very inexpensive to customers.

The assistant attorney general in charge of the “anti-trust case” against AT&T called me to ask if Treasury had an interest in how the case was resolved. I went to Treasury Secretary Don Regan and told him that although my conservative and libertarian friends thought that the breakup of At&T was a great idea, their opinion was based entirely in ideology and that the practical effect would not be good for widows and orphans who had a blue chip stock to see them through life or for communications customers as deregulated communications would give the multiple communications corporations different interests than those of the customers. Under the regulated regime, AT&T was allowed a reasonable rate of return on its investment, and to stay out of trouble with regulators AT&T provided excellent and inexpensive service.

Secretary Regan reminded me of my memo to him detailing that Treasury was going to have a hard time getting President Reagan’s economic program, directed at curing the stagflation that had wrecked President Carter’s presidency, out of the Reagan administration. The budget director, David Stockman, and his chief economist, Larry Kudlow, had lined up against it following the wishes of Wall Street, and the White House Chief of Staff James Baker and his deputy Richard Darman were representatives of VP George H.W. Bush and did not want s substantial Reagan success that would again threaten the Republican Establishment’s hold over the party. Baker and Darman wanted to be sure that George H. W. Bush, and not Jack Kemp, succeeded Ronald Reagan, and that required a muted Reagan success that they could claim as theirs for moderating an “extremist” program.

I told Secretary Regan that if I had another deputy assistant secretary, I could reach a reasonable conclusion whether the breakup of AT&T was sensible. He replied that he was sure that was the case, but that once I had three deputies the headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times, Business Week, Newsweek, and so on, would be: “Supply-sider builds empire at Treasury.” He said it would sink me and that without me he could not get the President’s economic program out of the President’s administration. “Which do you want to do,” he asked, “save AT&T or cure stagflation?”

Curing stagflation gave America twenty more years. Ironically, the good times started to erode when Reagan’s other goal was accomplished and the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990. “The end of history” resulted in India and China opening their labor markets to American capitalists, who began producing offshore with foreign labor the products that they sold to Americans. The labor costs savings pushed up corporate profits, shareholders’ returns, and managerial bonuses. But it deprived Americans of middle class incomes and wrecked the balance of trade. The US income distribution and the trade deficit worsened.

Many progressives blame the worsening income distribution on the Reagan tax rate reductions, but the real cause is the offshoring of manufacturing, industrial, and professional service jobs, such as software engineering.

None of us in the Reagan administration foresaw jobs offshoring as the consequence of Soviet collapse. We had no idea that by bringing down the Soviet Union we would be bringing down America. During the Reagan years India was socialist and would not allow foreign corporations, had they been interested, to touch their labor force. China was communist and no foreign capital could enter the country.

However, once the Soviet Union was gone from the earth, the remaining socialist and communist regimes decided to go with the winners. They opened to Western corporations and sucked jobs out of the developed West.

But this is a different story. To get back to deregulation, nothing has worked for the consumer since deregulation. Deregulation permitted corporations to impose their costs of operation on customers without having to send them a bill. For example, corporations use voice recognition technology to keep customers from salaried customer representatives. I remember when a customer with a problem could call a utility company or bank and have the problem immediately corrected.

No more. There was an error in my phone bill today, which I had corrected without result on two previous occasions. As everyone knows by now, it takes 10-15 minutes, usually, to get a live person who can actually fix the problem. After listening to sales pitches for 12 minutes, I got a live person. Once the problem was understood, it was pronounced to be an upper level problem out of his hands. I waited another 10 minutes while he tried to reach a superior who had the code to fix the problem that the phone company had produced in my account. The entire time I listened to product advertisements.

How many times has this happened to you?

Whoever invented these artificial voice capabilities is the enemy of mankind. Whomever a customer calls–utilities, credit card companies, banks, whatever, the customer gets a voice machine. Some voice machines never tell the customer how to get a live person who can, on occasion, actually fix the problem.

In my opinion, the strategy behind the endless delays is to cause the customers to give up, slam the telephone down and play the higher incorrect bill as it is cheaper in time and frustration to correcting the problem and being billed in the correct amount. These ripoffs of the customer are produced by Wall Street pressures for higher earnings.

The frustrations, of course, multiply when one reaches an offshored service somewhere in the Third World. The incentive is to hang up and to pay the excessive bill so that phone, internet, or credit card services are not cut off

Had Don Regan and I known that the high speed Internet was in our future and that American corporations would use it to destroy the jobs traditionally filled by US university graduates, possibly we would have decided to save the regulated telephone monopoly and to deliver the economy over to stagflation.

The reason is that sooner or later something would have been done about stagflation, but nothing whatsoever has been done about offshoring. Saving the economy from offshoring would have been a greater achievement than saving the economy from stagflation. However, in my time stagflation, not offshoring, was the problem.

I regret that I did not have a crystal ball.

Deregulation proponents will say that the breakup of AT&T gave us cell phones and broadband, as if foreign regulated communication companies and state monopolies do not provide cell phone service or high speed Internet connections. I can remember attending corporate board meetings years ago at which the European members had digital cell phones with which they could call most anywhere on earth, while we Americans with our analogue cell phones could hardly connect down the street.

What deregulation did was to permit Wall Street to push the deregulated industries– phone service, airlines, trucking, and later Wall Street itself– to focus on profits and not on service. Profits were increased by curtailing service, by pushing up prices and by Wall Street creating fraudulent financial instruments, which the banksters used America’s reputation to market to the gullible at home and abroad.

Consider air travel. Admit it, if you are my age you hate it. The deterioration in service over my lifetime is phenomenal. Studies in favor of airline deregulation focused on short flights between A and B and concluded that small airlines serving high density areas were more efficient because they were not regulated. What was left out of the analysis is that regulated airlines served low density areas and permitted free stopovers. For example, if one was flying from the US to Athens, Greece, the traveler could stopover in London, Paris, and Rome without additional charges. Moreover, passengers were fed hot meals even in tourist class. In those halcyon days, it was even possible to travel more comfortably in tourist class than in first class, because flights were not scheduled in keeping with full capacity. Several rows of seats might be unoccupied. It was possible to push up the arm rests on three or four center aisle seats, lay down and go to sleep.

Perhaps the best benefit of regulated air travel for passengers was that airlines had spare airliners. If one airplane had mechanical problems that could not be fixed within a reasonable time, a standby airliner was rolled out to enable passengers to meet their connections and designations. With deregulation, customer service is not important. The bottom line has eliminated spare airliners.

With deregulated airlines, Wall Street calls the tune. If your flight has a mechanical problem, you are stuck where you are unless you have some sort of privileged status that can bump passengers from later fully booked flights. “Studies” that focus only on discounted ticket price omit major costs of deregulation and thereby wrongly conclude that deregulation has benefited the consumer.

When trucking was regulated, truckers would stop to provide roadside assistant to stranded travelers. Today, with deregulated trucking, every minute counts toward the bottom line. Not only do truckers no longer stop to aid stranded travelers, they travel at excessive speeds that endanger automobile drivers. Trucks have expanded in size, weight and speed. Trucks raise the stress level on interstate highway drivers and destroy, at taxpayers expense, the roads on which they travel.

Conservatives and especially libertarians romanticize “free market unregulated capitalism.” They regard it as the best of all economic orders. However, with deregulated capitalism, every decision is a bottom-line decision that screws everyone except the shareholders and management.

In America today there is no longer a connection between profits and the welfare of the people. Unregulated greed has destroyed the capitalist system, which now distributes excessive rewards to the few at the expense of the many.

If Marx and Lenin were alive today, the extraordinary greed with which Wall Street has infected capitalism would provide Marx and Lenin with a better case than they had in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The 2000-Page Power Grab any Dictator Dreams About

In the words of the very same legislators who created the new financial bill, ‘No one will know until this is actually in place how it works’…, said Christopher Dodd, democrat from Connecticut.  The new bill gives sweeping powers to the president, whoever it is, to determine what is done with many aspects of American citizen’s lives.  “…it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” added Dodd.

WSJ

After more than 20 hours of continuous wrangling, Congressional Democrats and White House officials reached agreement on the

Lawmaker Christopher Dodd (D), next to senator Richard Shelby.

final shape of legislation that would transform financial regulation, avoiding last-minute defections among New York lawmakers that had threatened to upend the bill.

After months of uncertainty about how the U.S. would craft new rules, the agreement offers the clearest picture since the financial crisis of how markets and the government will interact for decades to come. The common thread: large financial companies are facing a tougher leash.

he bill is expected to have enough support to become law. Both chambers plan to vote next week. The margin in the House and Senate will likely be close because most Republicans are expected to oppose the measure.

If the bill passes, President Barack Obama is expected to sign the package into law by July 4. Thursday’s agreement also gives the president leverage going into a weekend summit of world leaders in Canada, where he will prod other nations to rewrite their rules.

“This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a chief architect of the compromise.

In two important ways, the agreement is tougher on the banking industry than officials in the Treasury Department anticipated when they first drafted their version of the bill 12 months ago.

Lawmakers agreed to a provision known as the “Volcker” rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with their own funds. To win support from Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.), Democrats agreed to allow financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds.

The move could require some big banks to spin off divisions, known as proprietary-trading desks, which make bets with the firms’ money.

The bill also includes a provision, authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark), which would limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives. This provision almost derailed the bill following vehement objections from New York Democrats. Ms. Lincoln worked out a deal in the early hours of Friday morning that would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk.

Banks, however, would have to set up separately capitalized affiliates to trade derivatives in areas lawmakers perceived as riskier, including metals, energy swaps, and agriculture commodities, among other things.

A panel of 43 lawmakers spent two weeks reconciling differences between a bill that passed the House in December and the Senate in May. They concluded their negotiations along party lines at a little after 5 a.m. ET in a Capitol Hill conference room marked by tension, levity and exhaustion. Senior administration officials, including Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin, arrived late in the afternoon to try and quell the feud between the New York delegation and Ms. Lincoln.

Major components of the bill, including the derivatives provisions, were negotiated in the hallway of the Dirksen Senate Office Building as the clock neared midnight. At one point, after hearing of an offer from Senate Democrats, Rep. Melissa Bean (D., Ill.) exclaimed: “Are you flipping kidding me? Are you flipping kidding me?”

Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit.

“My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) said of the nearly 2,000-page bill.

The deal comes as the banking industry is still struggling to regain its footing. Hundreds of banks have been dragged down by bad loans and investments. The violent restructuring of the U.S. banking sector two years ago has left just a few companies controlling a vast amount of the deposits, assets and financial plumbing of the country.

Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal. And the banking sector in parts of Europe remains fragile.

The legislation would redraw how money flows through the U.S. economy, from the way people borrow money to the way banks structure complicated products like derivatives. It could touch every person who has a bank account or uses a credit card.

It would erect a new consumer-protection regulator within the Federal Reserve, give the government new powers to break up failing companies and assign a council of regulators to monitor risks to the financial system. It would also set up strict new rules on big banks, limiting their risk and increasing the costs.

The legislation gives the Securities and Exchange Commission new powers to regulate Wall Street and monitor hedge funds, increasing the agency’s access to funding. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would also have new powers under the bill, which would try and force most derivatives to face more scrutiny from regulators and other market participants.

To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. The assessment is designed to eventually pay down a part of the national debt.

The broad contours had been set for weeks and mostly mirror a proposal the White House has pushed since last summer. But the last few days represented a mad dash of political maneuvering to iron out final details.

Negotiations went into Friday morning, with New York Democrats and White House officials meeting to address the bill’s potential impact on New York, which relies on the financial industry for employment and tax revenue.

To win broader support, Democrats softened the bill’s impact on community banks, auto dealers, and small payday lenders and check cashers.

From the beginning, lawmakers opted against a dramatic reshaping of the country’s financial architecture. Instead, they moved to create new layers of regulation to prevent companies from taking on too much risk.

For example, regulators decided not to order a sweeping consolidation of the regulatory agencies policing finance. They also decided not to bust up large financial companies, despite pressure from liberal groups.

But they did create a process for seizing and dismantling faltering companies, tools the government lacked in 2008 during the seemingly chaotic events surrounding Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group Inc.

Democrats are banking on stronger government regulators to constrain risk in the financial system and prevent a future banking crisis—or at least blunt its impact.