Statement From G-20 Summit: one world government & one currency

Statement From G-20 Summit: one world government & one currency

solari.com

We will continue the move toward one world government and one world currency.

(visit the link for the full news article)

the G-20 communique (link)translated into layman terms

1. Now that the growth of debt and derivatives bubbles has stalled, we are committed to using governmental-central bank mechanisms to cover the positions of any of the large private financial institutions whose profits are at risk due to their management of these bubbles and who can use this opportunity to squeeze and acquire smaller rivals at low cost.

2. Our commitment to use derivatives and market interventions to shift investment from the real economy and commodities into a paper economy is firm. We will continue to use centralized governmental mechanisms to subsidize and manage this process.

3. All of the organizations and players who reaped a fortune engineering the debt and derivatives bubbles will be allowed to keep their winnings.

4. We will use this period of consolidation to further centralize the global financial system by enforcing greater centralization of the standards, practices and control of enforcement and regulatory bureaucracies. This increased governmental centralization will be presented as the “fix” for our “problems.”

5. We will continue the move toward one world government and one world currency.

6. We are prepared to use coordinated inflation of global money supplies and fiscal stimulus to protect our control and positions.

7. We are committed to the Slow Burn (see my blog post on this subject).

8. This process will continue to be managed to protect large insurance and risk positions.

9. The net result will be to continue to exercise growing control over the real economy by a handful of private families and institutions designed to protect and grow intergenerational wealth.

G-20 are silent on the military and covert action that will be required to make this stick. They are also silent on how they are going to manage this much inflation. For example, the most recent figures from the St. Louis Fed indicate that the aggregate monetary base is growing at an annualized rate of almost 800%.

Watch for a new focus on “green investing” as the trick in all of this will be how to create new productivity when the absence of real prices mean there is no market to provide the necessary signals and financial incentives.

solari.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The G20 didn't say anything like that.
You cant just take what someone says and interpret it into something else.
Go read the real one.
www.g20.org...
Basically it just says the same crap about the financial crisis as all politicians dribble on a daily basis.
And in fact it dwells alot on helping poorer nations who will be hit even harder by this.
The official statements from these meetings are always BS and just try to make the leaders look good.

So what are the chances that The One, President Elect Barack Obama is going to be the figure who leads the charge into this?

Regardless of who leads the charge, the formation of a world government will not be peaceful and will face opposition by many nations.

Maybe WW3 will be remembered not just as the Third World War, but as the First Global Civil War. That is if the Union wins.

Come to think of it the parallels with Lincoln may start to get real eerie. where as Lincoln helped create a strong centralized union in the US, maybe Obama will be the one to create a strong centralized union of the earth.

[edit on 20/11/08 by MikeboydUS]

I don't agree with a one-world government. But I do agree with the dissolution of the nation-state, which has been used for the past two to three-hundred years. Of course, the political system required would surely be complicated. The Romans tried to do it, but it seems the larger they got, the less able its leader, the Imperator, could handle the empire, even while employing a fairly equable representative system of Democracy. It was much too centralized. Any one-world government would have to be decentralized to a point where the power is equally distributed. It would not need to make global policies regarding law or culture; finance is the only area where a one-world government would be able to rightfully impose law. So the political question is in itself the largest and most complicated one to address before even approaching such a system. We don't need governance of law for the entire world, but governance of currency is another issue.

We would need a massive cultural paradigm shift. People just aren't ready to live with each other. It's a natural human tendency to segregate those that are able and those that are unable to supply one's own needs. We make distinctions to enhance our survival opportunity. We make connections again for the same purpose.

However, with an ever shrinking world, and increasing national self interest in areas such as economic policy, any such conflict will only precipitate into war, whether it be military or economic in nature; people will suffer. When Germany and Italy were the only nations in Europe not to have extensive colonial holdings in Africa and abroad, and when they were finally fed up with their low quality of life, they went to war and all that culminated in World War II.

A nation's interest to provide for its own citizens, especially a Democratic one (where providing those interests are rewarded with votes, and by extension, official power), is constantly disrupting the equilibrium of wealth and power that, in fact, people other than ourselves are probably more deserving of. Without nations, you would see a redistribution of wealth and power that is wholly incongruous with the national borders of those states. This would upset a lot of people. I won't lie. A lot of people will lose what they think they worked so hard to earn, when in fact none of it was deserved on their own accord. But this adjustment will lead the most powerful economic system ever established. And people that really want to succeed will, no matter where they are from.

So the first step is the implementation of a one-world currency. That will enhance the opportunity of all of Earth's citizens to achieve whatever they wish in life; it would basically bring the American dream to everyone.

I wouldn't worry about some authoritarian regime attempting at controlling all the world with this currency. There are so many conflicted interests on this planet that such a one-world government could not feasibly decide on common laws, or common constitutions, or impose ultimatums on the world's population. They just wouldn't physically have the power. The world would be divided into thousands of congressional districts, and they would deal with their laws and their cultural ambiguities separately. Government would deal with money, and public works programs that are too big and too risky for any private venture, such as highways, skyways, ferries, etc.

We only need a Commander-in-Chief because there is a little force called foreign interest. And when that collides with national interest, everyone tends to lose a little. It's game theory.

Remove that and we remove all the world's political problems. Then we can focus on things that really matter, such as space exploration, famine, disease, longevity, a cure to cancer... science and technology, which improves the quality of human life.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by cognoscente]

Well,
As mentioned above, this interpretation is completely false and full of lies.


Alas, I would that it were true, as I believe the only solution is one world currency.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


In an ideal world a one world currency might work, but this is not an ideal world and humans are not going to stop being human anytime soon.

We build a world government and it will fail, just like every other government.

The problem isn't the system.

The problem is the species. As long as humans are still human we are going to compete with and dominate other humans.

When people begin to realize this and focus on actuality rather than idealistic dreams, we as a species will make some progress, but I fear it seems to be human nature as well to blindly follow irrational ideals rather than face the truth of reality.

Yea I saw something UK wants to take total control, but Russia and China aren't going for it. I read this at redicecreations.com I'm going to go back and take another look.

I am compelled to provide an alternative interpretation of the document in question. The commentary that accompanies the text is my own opinion, and does not in any way mean I intend to challenge the OP or his or her stated position or interpretation.

Opening Statement

We, the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G-20, have a common goal of promoting employment, welfare and development in our countries.

I find this statement revealing in and of itself. The Finance Ministers and “Central Banks” have adopted an ownership posture. Of course, this could be construed as a reference to stewardship, but their day-to-day behavior belies that perception.

We are convinced that strong and sustained economic growth is necessary both at national and global level to achieve this end. We have therefore discussed the requirements for long-lasting growth on the basis of our own experience and believe that domestic policy needs to address three tasks:

The have talked about what is required in order to achieve long-lasting growth. And as a matter of their own 'personal' experiences (interesting that they would render their own suggestions as a 'requirement'). Herein is another example of the paradigm of their judgment as supra-national authority - this posture is similar to that of the CFR and other transnational organizations of intellectual elite. They are issuing a statement to be applied to the 'domestic' policies of sovereign nations. This is significant.

...establishing and maintaining monetary and financial stability; enhancing domestic and international competition; and empowering people to participate.

- "...establishing and maintaining monetary and financial stability"

Take a moment to consider how disingenuous such a statement is. The Central Bank structures as they are positioned across the globe are completely in control of this issue. They exist within their host nations as a monopoly; they are the sole authority and producers of the domestic currencies. As such, it has always been under their purview and stewardship. They inflate and stabilize currencies at their own whim. The context of this statement implies that nations themselves are in control - which is nothing less than a lie, and nothing more than blatantly incorrect.

- "...enhancing domestic and international competition"

The phrase includes the word 'enhance'. A favored term within those who fear to specify or delineate the context of the word. Domestic and international competition is another vaguery. Competition for what? Corporate supremacy, market domination, all the money on earth? Competition is measure by the object of success; they deftly fail to mention the goal.

- "...empowering people to participate."

What exactly do they mean.., 'the people' and what manner of 'participation' is their intention to promote? Personally, given the history of the financial industry as I understand it, and given the fact that we are discussing the 'advice' of what is essentially a global bank-cartel; I can only infer that they are referring to the 'empowerment' of the common producer of wealth (the citizen) to give them their money to invest and gamble in their stereotypical game of speculative chance. Once again, the optimist may be inclined to interpret this as a call for entrepreneurship; but my 'experience' in observing the model and paradigm of their control leads me to believe the former over the latter possibility..

Transparency and accountability within an internationally agreed framework of codes and standards remain key to ensuring sustained economic growth and stability at the global level.

This seems like a fantasy statement to me. First of all the 'internationally agreed framework' is ANYTHING BUT transparent. In fact, the United States has recently seen just how 'impossible' it is to get a straight answer to any questions regarding the disposition of monies or the decision to inflate or deflate currency. Globally, it is even less accessible to the people. Banks have engaged in secret agendas since their inception. And those who stand to gain from that obscurity of purpose and action want it to remain that way.

We agreed on the following key elements that will guide our domestic economic policies in the future.

Interesting and somewhat inflammatory if you ask me. 'Our domestic policies' seems to imply that the people of each sovereign nation will submit to their judgment. The meeting of non-elected officials and bank elites is leading to the imposition of policy by this body on the entire planet. Is that what we 'signed up for?'

In implementing these elements, microeconomic aspects must be given due consideration.

Ever hear of the phrase 'I hate my boss because he micromanages everything I do.'? Their policies will extend into the day-to-day mainstream 'main street' fiscal activity. They will be 'managed' at the scale of local regionalities. Yet who defines these regions? They do. Beware this 'consideration' as it will lead to sudden clamping down on overly-successful sectors of business - especially if they threaten the viability of another business in another area. A paranoid example would be I invent a vehicle that doesn't need tires and is so popular that the synthetic rubber and chemical industries around the world could collapse. Will they "shut down" my business? Will they tax my vehicle into oblivion? My local economy would be thriving with jobs and support revenue..., but only at the 'micro' level. They have set their goal as to 'deal with that'? Questions, questions.

As these principles are interlinked, they must be implemented consistently, with due regard to possible trade-offs and complementarities, because many single elements have the potential of blocking the positive effects of others.

That's funny..., wasn't that the point of competition? This is a finite world where they have the ability to produce infinite currency; I think there's is the problem in this equation, not the producers.

While appropriate and credible policies are the basis for economic growth, they need to be backed by high-quality institutions, including ethical standards in corporate governance.

So, appropriate and credible policies and ethical standards in corporate governance is dependent on the institution's quality? That is an interesting, if somewhat incongruent position, considering that the attribute should be the definition of a high quality institution and not independent of the judgment.

Policymakers should build institutions in parallel with engaging in reforms and also ensure that institutions stay consistent with the requirements of a changing environment.

Let's be direct, they are referring to global parliaments, senates, councils, and congresses. All - ostensibly - duly empowered through consent of the governed. This charge, as it were, is a vacuous pontification. And references to the environment 'changing' is as disingenuous as neglecting to admit up front that it's their monetary policy that causes the problems.

It's as if to say, when they (for whatever whim or reason) change the monetary policy in a country or region, we must pretend that it is a 'natural' and 'uncontrollable' aspect of the economy and must alter our course or actions to suit them. Bad karma.

However, given the diversity of institutional settings and the success of different economic strategies among G-20 countries, there is no single template for strong long-term growth.

Perhaps the problem isn't in fact that there are differing approaches in the pursuit of economic stability and prosperity..., perhaps the problem is that the 'control' of the economy by a G20 or any other cabal of intellectuals is untenable and leads to more problems than it solves. Some horse cannot be broken; usually it's the one's who value their freedom more than their life.... sound familiar?

Policies need to be shaped to the special circumstances in individual countries.

Of course there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution to this matter. Yet they believe and are trying to convince the world that THEY are the solution. It's a common position for the 'problem' to take. Especially when theirs profit and power involved.

Efforts along these lines will unfold their full potential in a favourable international environment, in particular in the context of a robust and effective international financial and trade architecture which supports countries in the adoption of these principles.

All of this gibber-jabber relates to the paradigm of 'we control everything'. I feel much less confident that these people have ANY NOTION of what it is like to be SUBJECT to their controls.

I will proceed with the remainder of the 3-page document should the readership here express interest....





[edit on 20-11-2008 by Maxmars]

So the info about G20 meeting's are public but when its a G8 meeting they hide like cockroach's figured fricking neo cons.

Ok I came back went to redicecreations.com I came up with this one but is different, talks about China other countries not inline with plan. Says like China putting money back into country like Rosevelt's New Deal back 30s I believe. Anyhow if any one wants to check this one out.

www.rense.com/general84/secr.htm

[edit on 20-11-2008 by googolplex]

[edit on 20-11-2008 by googolplex]

[edit on 20-11-2008 by googolplex]

One world government, bank, police, currency, etc? What's next a one world stock market? Oh, they already have it.

While I would agree a one world...whatever isn't such a bad idea on paper, the problem is, I've seen what some humans are capable of.