Tag Archives: IMF

UN: Abandon Dollars, All Ye Who Enter NWO (Updated)

Posted on by

Update: (July 1): The alternative sites have just picked this up today July 1. See 321gold (via Press TV, Daily Reckoning)… Chuckle.  You get the scoop here…

One more call for replacement of the dollar with SDRs, which will be under central management at the BIS (Bank of International Settlements). My notes in italics.

Reuters, Tuesday, 29 Jun 2010

“A new United Nations report released on Tuesday calls for abandoning the U.S. dollar as the main global reserve currency, saying it has been unable to safeguard value. Continue reading →

Ron Paul: Governments Never Want Peace

Posted on by

Ron Paul:

“Meanwhile, it is rumored by the Financial Times, AFP and others that Greece may spend more than it saves from austerity measures on arms deals with Germany, France and the US as a potential condition of receiving bailout funds.

If true, it is certainly not unprecedented for the global military industrial complex to benefit from deals made by their friends in the central banking community. After all, war is the health of the state. The last thing big government proponents want is for peace to break out in the world.”

IMF Global Currency (SDR) Likely In Next Two Years

Posted on by

From Giordano Bruno at Neithcorp Press:

“Goldman’s involvement in the Greek snafu is assuredly not isolated.  Goldman deals with many countries and has likely pulled the same scam everywhere.  But why would a large international bank deliberately sabotage the economies of the countries it does business with?  Would this not ruin the banks as well in the long run?  Not if you consider the possibility that Goldman is destabilizing countries deliberately to help the IMF… Continue reading →

Where In The World Is Iraq’s Gold?

Posted on by

A thought occurred to me late at night. Do you remember these stories from the Iraq war?

WASHINGTON (CNN) –For the second time in a week, U.S. troops have discovered what appears to be a cache of gold bars hidden in a truck, which could be worth just less than a quarter of a billion dollars, according to a Pentagon official. Continue reading →

Michael Hudson On The Basic Problem Of the EU

Posted on by

From an interview of economist Michael Hudson at iTulip:

“EJ: Who wins the political battle shaping up here between the PIIGS and their creditors? Within the structure of the euro?

MH: I guess whoever has the most guns politically. The Greeks are out on the streets. The French are out on the streets. They’re not like Americans. They’re really protesting and the class war is back in business over there. Same thing in Ireland.

EJ: My French friends will tell me they’re barbarians over there. We’re very civilized here in the United States.

MH: That’s our problem, as Freud said in “Civilization and its Discontents.”

EJ: I remember reading that book in college. He explained the conflict between the demands of society for individuals to stifle the animalistic behavioral foundations of human nature. Is there a way to diffuse the conflict? A muddle-through option? The IMF has been in and out of the Greek rescue.

Debtor versus creditor nations split the EU

MH: The IMF cannot be part of the solution. It’s part of the problem. The EU basically is part of the problem because it’s pro-financial. So the whole way in which the European Union is structured, basically in a centralized way to be run by the financial lobbyists, obviously isn’t working. The EU isn’t really like the United States. It doesn’t really have it’s own parliament and systematic taxes. The Germans are saying today that in the old days, a century ago, if a problem like this came up in, say, Latin America, the United States would send in the marines. They’d occupy the custom’s houses and as these governments made most of their money on charging customs on imports and exports the marines would collect it and pay the creditors.

But now what are the creditors going to do today? Are, let’s say, the Germans going to take over in Greece? Who will act as the equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service to collect the money? The Germans would have to promote not a military dictatorship as the colonel powers did in the old days but a popular government that would tax the rich and the Germans aren’t going to do that. The European Union, the creditors, because they support the right wing not the left wing, are preventing these governments from collecting taxes progressively to balance the budget and pay the debts. That’s the problem: it’s a right-wing versus left-wing problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t really a left wing in Europe to make this case very well. The social democrats have more or less abandoned what used to be an economic policy at the outset. They are now concerned more with political and social issues than economic issues. So there isn’t really a party in Europe that is taking the side of progressive economic policies. They’ve left economics and finance, and debt and credit policy, to the right wing to discuss among each other rather than making it a left-wing topic like it used to be a hundred years ago.

EJ: Isn’t that something of a global phenomenon?

MH: Yes.

EJ: I don’t see it as being terribly different here in the US.

MH: Or in Australia. The Labor Parties all over the world. The most right-wing parties that you can see are the labor parties of Australia and New Zealand where they were leading the privatization sell-offs and leading the tax shift favoring the financial sector. And they didn’t even realize it! They’ve somehow “decoupled” financial analysis from the social analysis that characterizes social democratic and labor parties from their outset a hundred years ago.”

My Comment:

Hudson is always interesting to read, as long as you keep in mind his basic Marxist orientation. So he gets the details right, and then he goes on about the old demon “right-wing” in rhetoric that doesn’t make sense to me, and that even his own writing betrays.

“So Old Europe is quite culpable for having promoted a kind of neo-liberalism that was so right-wing as never to have been able to get a foothold at all either in Western Europe or in the United States. In Latvia there is a flat tax on labor of over 50% and less than a 1% tax on property.”

But right-wingers are the ones arguing the hardest to abolish taxes, especially in this country….

So, with the acknowledgment that I’m an alert student of economics who’s been reading/researching the economic crisis for a few years, but whose main training is in history and politics, let me note the puzzling discrepancies I find in the writing of a man whose knowledge and industry experience are said to be impeccable by even people who don’t agree with him:

1. Why does MH blame “right wingers,” when it was Austrians and right-wingers who were vehemently opposed to the bail-out and to TARP that saddled the country with the banks’ debts? Since when are social-democrats right-wingers?

2. Monetarism and monetary intervention are uniformly advocated by all economists, from the so-called left to the so-called right. Indeed, it’s only the extreme right (to the right of the statist Chicago school) that criticizes all monetary intervention.

3.  Why does Hudson argue against deflation? Deflation is the one thing that will ultimately put the economy back on track. All those overpriced houses would fall in price to within reach of the average citizen. Deflation might reduce wages but it will save pensioners and support savers (who have taken the brunt of the damage done by the boom).

4. A default by Greece would have helped the Euro, ultimately.

5. Why does Hudson think that inflating away a country’s debt is good for the working man or for pensioners or for small business? Inflation will whittle away at the currency, at savings, and at real income. None of which is good for ordinary people.

6. Hudson is right that Social Security and Medicare in the US are not entitlements, since people have all contributed to them. One solution to funding them is to dismantle the war machine. Convert all bases to peaceful uses. That requires no extra funding. Why is it that Hudson doesn’t raise that as an option?

7. Hudson claims that Latvian taxes are of a kind no Western nation would levy (50%) on labor. Really? Adding up all income taxes and sales taxes, taxes in the northern European countries are surely that high, and taxes in the US and UK are well on their way there.

8. Despite talking about “social culture” Hudson says nothing about whether the Eastern European countries have the same kind of business and social culture that have made the northern countries creditor countries. What are the rates of savings, of corruption, of business creation? What are the laws regarding property rights? What are the incentives, or lack thereof, for business?

Secy of IMF – Siddharth Tiwari

Posted on by

On November 21 an Indian was named Secretary of the IMF, according to Press Trust of India:

“With a proven track record in managing complex work programmes, Indian economist Siddharth Tiwari has been named as the Secretary of the IMF by its Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Tiwari, currently Director of the Office of Budget and Planning, is set to assume the position, which was held by Shailendra Anjaria before his retirement from the IMF earlier this year.

“Mr Tiwari has the experience and skills” to promote consensus building, which is a critical goal of the IMF Board and Management, Strauss-Kahn said in a statement.”

IMF Sells Gold to India (Updated)

Posted on by

Update 2 (Nov 3): The only other explanation I can think of is that the Indian government is privy to information indicating that the demise of the dollar is much closer at hand than is being given out..

Update 1:

OK. As you know, I’ve found this Indian purchase a bit puzzling.  I have a bunch of questions:

*Why didn’t the Indian government make a big purchase earlier this year, at $900, rather than now, at the top?

*What, if any, is the connection between this and the Fisk report a few weeks ago about the Gulf Arabs moving out of the dollar, which  a lot of people found odd, despite the reputation of the reporter? The report bumped up the price of gold.

Now, here’s Chuck Butler of Everbank, via The Daily Reckoning:

“I told you yesterday that I thought it would be a “wash” for the dollar and the gold price… But that was before I learned that the Reserve Bank of India paid for their $6.7 billion dollars worth of gold with… SDRs.”

(Note:Reuters reports that the sale was in dollars – which would be dollar negative).

What does this mean? That, over the whole past 15 -20 years of “globalization” while the US Govt. inflated its money and sold its treasuries and fake derivatives all over the world in return for real work and real savings, who were the buyers?

Countries like India, where large parts of the middle-class stored its savings in dollars. Now those dollars are seen as so unsound that the IMF (which is the new locus of Anglo-European global domination) won’t accept them for payment of gold.

That means the Indian government has to give up its SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) in exchange.

Now the resurgent IMF is where the globalists are exerting their power and not in the G20 (which was supposed to augment the power of developing nations when it was established in 1999).

As I blogged earlier, the Financial Stability Board is the new regulatory agency that will coordinate with the IMF, but it includes the G20  and also Spain and the European Commission and is headed by ex-Goldmanite, Mario Draghi and it’s housed at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel. So that is a double hit to any representation India will have in the forum.

India sold gold at the bottom in the 1990s;  and is now buying it at the top nearly 20 years later – thus selling part of the gains of these past years. At least, so it seems to me. To me this smacks of neocolonialism.

And now, it becomes easier to understand why the center-liberal establishment media is interested in co-opting the anger against Goldman and channeling it into various subplots of the financial crisis (naked short selling, the bail-outs etc.etc).

I see this as an elaborate feint to divert world attention from the reprise of Anglo American and European colonization over the last two decades – accomplished, with a  “black” president in charge.

Here’s a piece on IMF sales of gold in 1999. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/imf-sells-gold-to-hep-debt-of-poorest-nations-1090154.html

Notice how similar the language is – they’re doing it to increase funding to the poorest countries, etc. etc.

In the news, Bloomberg reports:

“The International Monetary Fund sold 200 metric tons of gold to the Reserve Bank of India for about $6.7 billion, its first such sale in nine years.

The transaction, equivalent to 8 percent of global annual mine production, involved daily sales from Oct. 19-30 at market prices and is in the process of being settled, the IMF said in a statement yesterday. The average price to India, the biggest consumer, was about $1,045 an ounce, an IMF official said on a conference call. Gold for immediate delivery gained 0.2 percent.”

My Comment:

Interesting. The Indian government doesn’t buy gold at the bottom (2000) but now, when it’s at all time highs (shades of the British government selling gold at the bottom).
Now, the Indian central bank is reputed to be very savvy, as are Indian gold buyers. Most commentators expect gold to consolidate, if not correct, before pushing on. It would make sense for the Indian government to wait and buy it on dips.

This is a good move for the IMF. But for the Indian government, which managed to steer the banking system past the whirlpool of unwinding derivatives, I wonder if this move is astute.

Look at the peculiar facts, as reported in the New York TimesWall Street Journal)

“In the last one year, China has increased its gold holdings, by weight, by 75.69%, Russia by 18.78%, the Philippines by 18.50% and Mexico by 108.91%.
Compared with this, India’s central bank did not add anything to its gold reserves in the last one year, according to Bloomberg data.

(Lila: Why not? Why buy gold at record prices when the government was unwilling to buy when it was trading much lower, only this year?)

In fact, the share of gold in India’s total reserves has dwindled over the decade.

In March 1994, the share of gold in the total reserves of the country was 20.86%; by the end of June 2009, gold constituted only 3.7% of the total reserves.”

Even the IMF expressed surprise, as Breitbart.com notes:

“A senior IMF official said that the IMF was “lucky” in selling the 200 tonnes to India for roughly 1,045 dollars an ounce, compared with 850 dollars an ounce in April 2008.”

(Lila: In other words, over the whole period of globalization, India sold it’s gold and bought US treasury…dollars…just what the US government was desperate to get rid off, so it wouldn’t drive inflation at home…)

Again, India sold gold cheap and bought it back at its height. Does that sound like savvy behavior from a country renowned for well trained economists and smart gold buyers?

A former governor of the Indian central bank (Reserve Bank of India), Bimal Jalan, said it was to help the IMF meet its funding needs for loans to the poorest countries, for which it had looked to India and China.

As an aside, in an earlier post, I speculated that the report (by Robert Fisk, a very respected source) about Gulf Arabs moving out of the petrodollar – which was promptly denied – might have been a rumor circulated to bump up the price of gold to help IMF gold sales….maybe, I wasn’t so far off, after all.

I went back to an earlier post this year, in February, which quotes from a list in Richard Russell’s letter:
Note: The list looks inaccurate. I’ll go back and find why Russell’s numbers are so different from the World Gold Council figures below them). (Note: Russell is referring to tonnes of gold; the WGC figures are for dollar amounts. So the discrepancies we refer to at in the percentages).

The US has 8,135 tonnes….64.4% of reserves

Germany — 3,412… …64.4% of reserves
IMF — 3,217… … …(1)
France — 2,508… … …58.7%
Italy — 2,451… … …61.9%
Switzerland — 1,040… …23.8%
Japan — 765.2… …1.9% …(a potential gold-buyer)
China — 600.0… …0.9% …(should be a big buyer)*

A reader notes that this number is too low. I assume it’s a number from before China started buying off market. Compare with list below.

Russia — 495. 9… …2.2% …(is a buyer)
Taiwan — 422.2… …3.6% …(should be a buyer)
India — 357.7… …3.0% …(should be a buyer)
UK — 310.3… … …14.5% …(sold most of its gold at the low price)
Saudi Arabia — 143.0… …11.4% (should buy gold)
South Africa — 124.4… …9.0%
Australia — 79.8… … …6.3%

From Richard Russell, The Dow Theory Letters.

So there you have it. Among countries, Italy, France, Germany, and the US have the most gold. Switzerland has a third of what they have. The UK, South Africa, Australia, and Saudi Arabia are next with about  1/5th – 1/10th as much. Russia and Japan have only a small percent in gold. China and India have even less. What do  most Asians have? Debt (treasuries and dollars) from the US. Neo-colonialism anyone?

Correction:

CNBC has the following completely different list of top gold holding countries compiled by tradermark via Seeking Alpha, posted October 13, 2009.

(Note: Data is based on the World Gold Council’s September 2009 report and is converted to US short tons at a rate of 1 T = 1.102311 US tons. All monetary estimates are calculated at the rate of 1oz gold = $1042 US).

United States $298.4 N/A
Germany $125.0 69.2%
International Monetary Fund $118.0 N/A
Italy $89.9 66.6%
France $89.7 70.6%
China $38.7 1.9%
Switzerland $38.2 29.1%
Japan $28.1 2.3%
Netherlands $22.5 59.6%
Russia $20.9 4.3%
European Central Bank $18.4 18.8%
Taiwan $15.5 3.9%
Portugal $14.0 90.9%
India $13.1 4.0%
Venezuela $13.1 36.1%

India’s Man at the IMF: Arvind Virmani

Posted on by

The global crisis has had the effect of making over the IMF and giving it renewed power.

Until recently, the Fund had lost its international reputation for  what was seen as mishandling of the debt crises in Argentina, Asia, and Russia in the 1990s.

Now, however, with a universal cry of “do something” going up, it’s the IMF to the rescue. The Fund has had its monies tripled, and is at the center of a new global regulatory regime, ostensibly working with the G20 (the Group of Twenty, a forum that includes the twenty countries with the greatest GDPs).

The idea is that the G20, which has room for countries like Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia, among others, will be more inclusive than forums limited to the developed nations. To check if this is actually the case, I’ve been looking at the structure and organization of the IMF and its affiliated groups, and will be posting what I find as I go along.

Exhibit A is India’s representative to the IMF. That’s Arvind Virmani, Chief Economic Advisor in the Ministry of Finance. Virmani, according to this article in the Indian Express, was educated at Harvard (PhD in Economics), was the Principal Adviser to the Planning Commission, and was also a contender for Vice President of the Reserve Bank of India. Before joining the government, he was a Senior Economist at the World Bank research department.

It’s always the case. The people who end up representing countries like India are all trained in the elite schools in the West, where the faculties are drawn from the US government, as well as the very corporations and international institutions that the representatives will interact with, and often be responsible for monitoring or regulating.

How independent can they be? And even if they’re personally ethical people, how easy will it be for them to even think outside the parameters set by the institutions in which they’ve trained and operated all their lives? Not easy at all. In fact, impossible.

Let’s see if we can trace some of the connections:

Virmani is an alum of Harvard.

It so happens that Larry Summers, current head economic adviser of President Obama, was the 27th President of Harvard (2001-2006).

Summers is said to have been behind Harvard’s investment in interest rate swaps that eventually lost the university over a billion dollars.

Before that, Summers was Chief Economist of the World Bank (1991-1993) – where Virmani worked before 1987- and then Undersecretary and Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, before becoming Secretary in 1999..

Summers’ long-time mentor is Robert Rubin, whom he succeeded at Treasury Secretary.

In the 1990s Summers was a leading advocate of the Washington consensus–the proposition that free financial markets, “free” trade and fiscal discipline would bring prosperity to the world.

I put “free” in quotes because what it really amounted to was managed trade, manipulated by the US government with carrots and sticks of sorts…from nuclear weaponry to aid to penalties to sabre rattling  

While Summers was pushing the Washington Consensus, his mentor Robert Rubin, a former Goldman co-chair, was US Treasury Secretary, where he was instrumental in blocking legislation to regulative the derivative market.

Rubin also pushed through the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act (keeping apart merchant banking and commercial banking), which enabled the consolidation of the banking industry.

Then, Rubin became the  director of Citigroup, one of the banks whose consolidation was made possible by that repeal. Citi shareholders have filed a lawsuit against Citi executives including Rubin charging that they sold shares at inflated prices, hiding the risks. Shareholders are said to have suffered losses over 70% since Rubin joined Citi.

Meanwhile, Rubin also has a Harvard connection, being a member of the executive governing board of the university, a position he landed a year after getting an honorary doctorate from Harvard.

Importantly, Virmani also shares his Harvard ties with current World Bank president, Robert Zoellick. Zoellick is also an alum of Goldman Sachs, a former US State and Treasury official, a Presidential assistant and US Trade Representative, and a double graduate of Harvard (JD and MPP).

Finally, the IMF position is known to be a sinecure for retiring Indian government economists, who can earn some hard currency for their retirement. 

Question: Even if Virmani were scrupulously honest himself (and he might be), how easy would it be for him to be able to stand up to policies carrying the imprimatur of some one like Rubin or Summers or Zoellick? Not easy at all. In fact, impossible…

China’s Gold Rush..

Posted on by

From Adrian Ash at Bullion Vault, via goldseek:

“The International Monetary Fund confirmed on Friday that it will sell 403 tonnes from its hoard to finance development projects in poorer countries, offering gold to central banks before considering steady, pre-announced open-market sales.
“China has no need at all to Buy Gold from the international markets,” counters Lila Lu, chief precious metals trader at Minsheng Bank Corp. in Beijing, speaking to Reuters.
“Because China is a large gold producer, it can source gold directly from its domestic makers, most of which are state-run enterprises.”
Off-market purchases direct from domestic Gold Mining firms enabled South Africa – then the world’s No.1 producer – to double its gold reserves during the late 1960s.
“Why should we use US Dollars to Buy Gold?” Lu added today. “We can use Yuan instead to purchase gold from domestic producers.”
Early Tuesday the state-owned China Investment Corp. announced taking a 15% stake in Singapore-listed commodities trading house Noble Group at a cost of $850 million.
Physical gold demand from private Chinese households rose 9% in the first half of this year, trade marketing-group the World Gold Council said today, announcing an “unprecedented” sales push across rural China.”

My Comment

There are several terribly important things going on in the capital markets and in international politics.

I’ll start with what most investors are probably watching anxiously – the teetering of the dollar at the lower end of the long term band of support (76-80), below which it plunged only a year ago. After showing some strength yesterday, the dollar is down again and gold is back up strongly over 1010. The reason seems to be the whispering in the markets that China will be buying IMF gold to supplement what are said to be meager reserves.

Rumors like these could be seen as a threat by the Chinese, for they expose China’s weakness in relation to other countries, especially those that possess better gold reserves. I suspect the comments by Lu are intended to diffuse that threat.

Another reason for dollar weakness is that the relative strengths of currencies are on the table at the G20 meeting, which is scheduled to take place in Thursday in Pittburgh, Pennsylvania and trade deficits are going to be considered – which is likely to be dollar negative.

The IMF sales are pretty interesting, although it’s hard to tell exactly what’s involved. It seems the gold will be sold to central banks (which ones?) and the proceeds will go to supplement and improve the financing now available to low-income countries (how?).

Question: Why should these professed good intentions be taken at face value, given all we know about the IMF?

At present, the IMF also allocates SDRs (or Special Drawing Rights) to each member country based on its contribution to the IMF (this is supposed to be a way to improve members’ liquidity in the international markets).

The SDR’s are based on a basket of currencies – currently, the US dollar, the euro, the sterling, and the yen – that can be traded for other currencies or used directly.

The IMF will use the gold sale proceeds to invest in other things. The interest from those investments will then benefit low-income countries. At least, that’s what I took away from my reading.

It all sounds suspiciously convoluted and opaque. My fear is that this is all an elaborate charade to leave some countries/institutions holding the “paper” bag, while real value is siphoned off by other countries/institutions.

I’ll leave you to decide who the winners and the losers will be….

Meanwhile, this is only my suspicion. I’ll need to go and do some more digging. But I’m putting my suspicions out here to fuel some leg work in the blogosphere.

Here’s a link to some relevant information on gold market manipulation at the website of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA), the leading activist group on gold price manipulation.

Especially read through the events surrounding the sale of Britain’s gold by then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Unlike other countries, UK gold sales are under the authority of the politicians. Brown sold British gold at a price lower than the market price at the time. The timing was extremely suspicious and followed on Robert Rubin’s unsuccessful attempts to get the IMF to sell its gold. The ostensible reason was to “help poor countries” – the same reason being given now. But the actual reason was a simpler one and one I’ve discussed a number of times. It was to keep the gold price low to support the dollar, disguise the rate of monetary debasement, and pump up the stock market. That in turn helped the derivative market, which Rubin and Greenspan had also helped to keep out of regulation. This was in the late 1990s….

Now, a decade later, the IMF hasn’t been weakened by the revelations of its sins. Instead, it’s been strengthened. And now, again, the IMF is selling gold – and again, the excuse is “helping the poor.”

Anne Williamson on the IMF’s Role in the Mexican Crisis

Posted on by

An expert on the neo-liberal rape of Russia, as well as on international finance in general, Anne Williamson testified before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, on Sept. 21, 1999.  The testimony is well worth reading through today. It shows how precisely the situation in the 1990s during the various financial crises parallels the crisis today in the US. Even the actors are the same  – from Harvard to the IMF to Goldman Sachs.

This is why I’ve consistently argued against any policy prescribed by this government. Anything suggested by such a corrupt group of actors should be suspect.  There’s no point criticizing a Summers or a Geithner or a Paulson alone, when those who oppose them also accept the underlying premises of their arguments; they merely split the difference over a solution that is in essence no different. That is, their “differences” are essentially cosmetic.

I had the privilege of talking at length to Anne and found that her own experiences with the media and publishers were much like mine, only worse. The reasons for that are obvious.  Ask for reform of the IMF or of the World Bank or of the Fed and you will get a sympathetic ear. Ask for the abolition of these institutions and you have questioned the entire system and the credibility of the functionaries and apparatchiks who run it. That’s unforgivable.

“Some governments — especially those with an election on the horizon — actually want to devalue since national exporters, their goods now being cheaper, sell more goods. Global lenders like the IMF are also fond of devaluations because a rising national income from bargain exports leave plenty in the national kitty for principal and interest payments to them. (Global direct investors — the “good guys” — fear devaluations, because their profits calculated in a devalued domestic currency buy fewer dollars for repatriation.)

But when exchange rates depreciate rapidly the specter of capital flowing out of a country appears. Foreigners and residents put their savings elsewhere. The currency goes into free fall, its value plummets, more investors flee and at the end of the cycle, interest rates skyrocket. This is exactly what happened in Asia in 1997, in Russia in 1998 and will soon happen in both Brazil and China.

Yet to curse the speculators is useless; since the 1972 collapse of Bretton Woods that broke the international link between the dollar and gold, the fear of the syndrome described above is the only remaining bit of discipline in the international system. How much better, the globalists reason, if there were to be one central bank and one fiat currency for everyone so that then national leaderships (and the financial oligarchies they sustain) could inflate and rob their own populations in unison, thereby perpetually enserfing all the world’s people….”

And on the role of the IMF:

“In mid-July 1994 — at the very moment dollar-based Mexican tesobonos were being oversold to prosperous clients of Goldman Sachs and other U.S. investment banks, which, in turn, would lead to the 1995 Mexican bailout and the introduction of moral hazard into the world’s financial system — Michel Camdessus told a press conference that he intended to press for the creation of a new IMF facility to give members resources with which to defend themselves against speculative attacks in financial markets.

In other words, long before bailouts of entire countries became routine Camdessus wanted a new loan program to feed the last disciplinarians in the world’s financial system — currency speculators — so that national governments might become even more unaccountable to their citizens. At the time, The Economist slammed the proposal, saying it was “absurd and almost certainly unworkable,” since Camdessus “bizarrely” was assuming the IMF would know more about economic fundamentals than the markets. And that assumption, The Economist noted, was the very assumption which had been the undoing of the USSR’s centrally planned empire. But Camdessus’ 1994 plan is the very one the U.S. President proposed just this week!”

Read the rest of her testimony here.