George Soros wants to change the global economy.

If this has been covered already, close the thread

Unreported Soros even

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.

Soros and Obama want drilling

This story is from last Friday. Is it a coincidence that Obama backer George Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ offshore operations? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Sounds like another Soros power grab. on a side note, will this be a rival group to the builderbergs?? no.. i imagine ol' george is high up with them too.. prolly sits at home on his days off and plays with puppets

Soros - even the Jews hate him, lol.

reply to post by Kingbreaker


Have you seen this?



The knowledge that these people possess is phenomenal. Thermodorian ? Where 's Byrd ?

heh no kidding

The world would be working a lot better if Bretton Woods had stayed closer to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, and if the IMF and World Bank played the role originally intended for them - allowing nations to pursue 'developmentalist' economics before jumping into the global economy. Of course, if this happened, America would be far less dominant on the international scene.

A less dominant America also has shades of Keynes' central idea of a balance of trade...

Just sayin'.

reply to post by randyvs


Yes, and I respect intelligence also. By the way, Mr. Haass actually wrote me a hand written thank you letter
at one time. I was impressed that he would take the time to do so. I know there is a lot of flak here on ATS about
the CFR, but this fellow is alright in my book, and sharp as a tack.

Past Tense

More to come

Uncle George, did you forget me

reply to post by Someone336

I can agree with that to a certain extent.

John Maynard Keynes proposed that governments should maintain large surpluses in order to inject stability into the system when ever large crises were encountered. This would require governments to stay small and be extremely frugal.

The problem with that is when you use those large surpluses for corporate and social welfare you create a culture of dependence that eventually drags the whole system down. No surplus large enough to satiate the hunger for artificial comforts.

Couple that with a spendthrift government and you have the recipe for the disaster we see today.

reply to post by projectvxn
Corporate and social welfare? Try overblown military budget. Do we really need over a trillion bucks dumped into this beast annually? Ever since the 80's the Pentagon has enjoyed almost limitless cash, but yet people still think social welfare programs are dragging the country down.

reply to post by the owlbear





According to th 2010 fiscal budget Social Security was a larger percentage of the Federal Budget than was the DOD.

Does this mean that there aren't places to cut in the DOD? No. But I was discussing Keynes ideas. Not individual pieces of the budget.

I knew George Soros was a bad pony when he said that America needed stimulus not virtue. Who says something like that save for one who thinks himself ruler? Stimulus, indeed, Mr. Soros. Stimulus, indeed....

What an ass. I will be happy when they dismantle this twit and his fully operational death star.

If he were some dude from my neighborhood that was organizing an activist group to protest the state of banking, the feds would be all over his butt infiltrating his group, sabatoging him, and if he exposed any of the bankers, he even be declared an enemy combatant and sent to gitmo or left to rot in some prison for months BEFORE trial.

Oh but if it is a club of billionaires, go rub elbows with them and look up to them, and pour them a glass of water, will you?

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by randyvs

 

Yes, and I respect intelligence also. By the way, Mr. Haass actually wrote me a hand written thank you letter
at one time. I was impressed that he would take the time to do so. I know there is a lot of flak here on ATS about
the CFR, but this fellow is alright in my book, and sharp as a tack.

I would never accept a gift from the leader of an organization like CFR. Its like taking a slice of cake from a Nazi ss officer. Errrrh... no keep it.

Originally posted by hadriana
If he were some dude from my neighborhood that was organizing an activist group to protest the state of banking, the feds would be all over his butt infiltrating his group, sabatoging him, and if he exposed any of the bankers, he even be declared an enemy combatant and sent to gitmo or left to rot in some prison for months BEFORE trial.

Oh but if it is a club of billionaires, go rub elbows with them and look up to them, and pour them a glass of water, will you?

Thats why you would have to protest in ways that are very difficult to side track. Like having no real leader at all.

What Soros is aiming for is his concept of an "Open Society", which is rooted in the writings of Karl Popper, a staunch advocate of liberal democracies (if I may borrow terminology from Marx, liberal democracies merely are just another way of saying "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie", as the cost of political campaigning inevitably leads to a psuedo-political plutocracy), who developed the school of thought known as 'critical rationalism'.

Popper was also a founding member of the free-market Mont Pelerin Society, alongside Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman, an organization that claimed to be rooted in the ideals of the "Open Society". Popper defined the Open Society as a society where leaders can be overthrown without the violent orchestra that revolutions are commonly associated with.

We could see Soros following this template with his assistance in the non-violent 'Orange' and 'Rose' Revolutions in the Ukraine and Georgia. However, US agencies such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, government-leaning labor unions such as the AFL-CIO, and political organizations such as the Eurasia Institute have been also shown to be complicit in these regime changes, presumably under the banner of geo-politics.