by Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research, October 3, 2009
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and Debt is Recovery
In light of the ever-present and unyieldingly persistent exclamations of ‘an end’ to the recession, a ‘solution’ to the crisis, and a ‘recovery’ of the economy; we must remember that we are being told this by the very same people and institutions which told us, in years past, that there was ‘nothing to worry about,’ that ‘the fundamentals are fine,’ and that there was ‘no danger’ of an economic crisis.
Why do we continue to believe the same people that have, in both statements and choices, been nothing but wrong? Who should we believe and turn to for more accurate information and analysis? Perhaps a useful source would be those at the epicenter of the crisis, in the heart of the shadowy world of central banking, at the global banking regulator, and the “most prestigious financial institution in the world,” which accurately predicted the crisis thus far: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS). This would be a good place to start.
The economic crisis is anything but over, the “solutions” have been akin to putting a band-aid on an amputated arm. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central bank to the world’s central banks, has warned and continues to warn against such misplaced hopes.
What is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)?
The BIS emerged from the Young Committee set up in 1929, which was created to handle the settlements of German reparations payments outlined in the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, President and CEO of General Electric, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, member of the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation and was Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. As the main American delegate to the conference on German reparations, he was also accompanied by J.P. Morgan, Jr.[1] What emerged was the Young Plan for German reparations payments.
The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as “a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Described as “a bank for central banks,” the BIS “is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.”[2]
The BIS was founded by “the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.” However, “Only central banks have voting power.”[3]
Central bank members have bi-monthly meetings at the BIS where they discuss a variety of issues. It should be noted that most “of the transactions carried out by the BIS on behalf of central banks require the utmost secrecy,”[4] which is likely why most people have not even heard of it. The BIS can offer central banks “confidentiality and secrecy which is higher than a triple-A rated bank.”[5]
The BIS was established “to remedy the decline of London as the world’s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.”[6] As Carroll Quigley explained:
[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.[7]
The BIS, is, without a doubt, the most important, powerful, and secretive financial institution in the world. It’s warnings should not be taken lightly, as it would be the one institution in the world that would be privy to such information more than any other.
Derivatives Crisis Ahead
In September of 2009, the BIS reported that, “The global market for derivatives rebounded to $426 trillion in the second quarter as risk appetite returned, but the system remains unstable and prone to crises.” The BIS quarterly report said that derivatives rose 16% “mostly due to a surge in futures and options contracts on three-month interest rates.” The Chief Economist of the BIS warned that the derivatives market poses “major systemic risks” in the international financial sector, and that, “The danger is that regulators will again fail to see that big institutions have taken far more exposure than they can handle in shock conditions.” The economist added that, “The use of derivatives by hedge funds and the like can create large, hidden exposures.”[8]
The day after the report by the BIS was published, the former Chief Economist of the BIS, William White, warned that, “The world has not tackled the problems at the heart of the economic downturn and is likely to slip back into recession,” and he further “warned that government actions to help the economy in the short run may be sowing the seeds for future crises.” He was quoted as warning of entering a double-dip recession, “Are we going into a W[-shaped recession]? Almost certainly. Are we going into an L? I would not be in the slightest bit surprised.” He added, “The only thing that would really surprise me is a rapid and sustainable recovery from the position we’re in.”
An article in the Financial Times explained that White’s comments are not to be taken lightly, as apart from heading the economic department at the BIS from 1995 to 2008, he had, “repeatedly warned of dangerous imbalances in the global financial system as far back as 2003 and – breaking a great taboo in central banking circles at the time – he dared to challenge Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, over his policy of persistent cheap money.”
The Financial Times continued:
Worldwide, central banks have pumped thousands of billions of dollars of new money into the financial system over the past two years in an effort to prevent a depression. Meanwhile, governments have gone to similar extremes, taking on vast sums of debt to prop up industries from banking to car making.
White warned that, “These measures may already be inflating a bubble in asset prices, from equities to commodities,” and that, “there was a small risk that inflation would get out of control over the medium term.” In a speech given in Hong Kong, White explained that, “the underlying problems in the global economy, such as unsustainable trade imbalances between the US, Europe and Asia, had not been resolved.”[9]
On September 20, 2009, the Financial Times reported that the BIS, “the head of the body that oversees global banking regulation,” while at the G20 meeting, “issued a stern warning that the world cannot afford to slip into a ‘complacent’ assumption that the financial sector has rebounded for good,” and that, “Jaime Caruana, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements and a former governor of Spain’s central bank, said the market rebound should not be misinterpreted.”[10]
This follows warnings from the BIS over the summer of 2009, regarding misplaced hope over the stimulus packages organized by various governments around the world. In late June, the BIS warned that, “fiscal stimulus packages may provide no more than a temporary boost to growth, and be followed by an extended period of economic stagnation.”
An article in the Australian reported that, “The only international body to correctly predict the financial crisis … has warned the biggest risk is that governments might be forced by world bond investors to abandon their stimulus packages, and instead slash spending while lifting taxes and interest rates,” as the annual report of the BIS “has for the past three years been warning of the dangers of a repeat of the depression.” Further, “Its latest annual report warned that countries such as Australia faced the possibility of a run on the currency, which would force interest rates to rise.” The BIS warned that, “a temporary respite may make it more difficult for authorities to take the actions that are necessary, if unpopular, to restore the health of the financial system, and may thus ultimately prolong the period of slow growth.”
Further, “At the same time, government guarantees and asset insurance have exposed taxpayers to potentially large losses,” and explaining how fiscal packages posed significant risks, it said that, “There is a danger that fiscal policy-makers will exhaust their debt capacity before finishing the costly job of repairing the financial system,” and that, “There is the definite possibility that stimulus programs will drive up real interest rates and inflation expectations.” Inflation “would intensify as the downturn abated,” and the BIS “expressed doubt about the bank rescue package adopted in the US.”[11]
The BIS further warned of inflation, saying that, “The big and justifiable worry is that, before it can be reversed, the dramatic easing in monetary policy will translate into growth in the broader monetary and credit aggregates.” That will “lead to inflation that feeds inflation expectations or it may fuel yet another asset-price bubble, sowing the seeds of the next financial boom-bust cycle.”[12] With the latest report on the derivatives bubble being created, it has become painfully clear that this is exactly what has happened: the creation of another asset-price bubble. The problem with bubbles is that they burst.
The Financial Times reported that William White, former Chief Economist at the BIS, also “argued that after two years of government support for the financial system, we now have a set of banks that are even bigger – and more dangerous – than ever before,” which also, “has been argued by Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund,” who “says that the finance industry has in effect captured the US government,” and pointedly stated: “recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.”[13] [Emphasis added].
At the beginning of September 2009, central bankers met at the BIS, and it was reported that, “they had agreed on a package of measures to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the banking industry in the wake of the financial crisis,” and the chief of the European Central Bank was quoted as saying, “The agreements reached today among 27 major countries of the world are essential as they set the new standards for banking regulation and supervision at the global level.”[14]
Among the agreed measures, “lenders should raise the quality of their capital by including more stock,” and “Banks will also have to raise the amount and quality of the assets they keep in reserve and curb leverage.” One of the key decisions made at the Basel conference, which is named after the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, set up under the BIS, was that, “banks will need to raise the quality of their so-called Tier 1 capital base, which measures a bank’s ability to absorb sudden losses,” meaning that, “The majority of such reserves should be common shares and retained earnings and the holdings will be fully disclosed.”[15]
In mid-September, the BIS said that, “Central banks must coordinate global supervision of derivatives clearinghouses and consider offering them access to emergency funds to limit systemic risk.” In other words, “Regulators are pushing for much of the $592 trillion market in over-the-counter derivatives trades to be moved to clearinghouses which act as the buyer to every seller and seller to every buyer, reducing the risk to the financial system from defaults.” The report released by the BIS asked if clearing houses “should have access to central bank credit facilities and, if so, when?”[16]
A Coming Crisis
The derivatives market represents a massive threat to the stability of the global economy. However, it is one among many threats, all of which are related and intertwined; one will set off another. The big elephant in the room is the major financial bubble created from the bailouts and “stimulus” packages worldwide. This money has been used by major banks to consolidate the economy; buying up smaller banks and absorbing the real economy; productive industry. The money has also gone into speculation, feeding the derivatives bubble and leading to a rise in stock markets, a completely illusory and manufactured occurrence. The bailouts have, in effect, fed the derivatives bubble to dangerous new levels as well as inflating the stock market to an unsustainable position.
However, a massive threat looms in the cost of the bailouts and so-called “stimulus” packages. The economic crisis was created as a result of low interest rates and easy money: high-risk loans were being made, money was invested in anything and everything, the housing market inflated, the commercial real estate market inflated, derivatives trade soared to the hundreds of trillions per year, speculation ran rampant and dominated the global financial system. Hedge funds were the willing facilitators of the derivatives trade, and the large banks were the major participants and holders.
At the same time, governments spent money loosely, specifically the United States, paying for multi-trillion dollar wars and defense budgets, printing money out of thin air, courtesy of the global central banking system. All the money that was produced, in turn, produced debt. By 2007, the total debt – domestic, commercial and consumer debt – of the United States stood at a shocking $51 trillion.[17]
As if this debt burden was not enough, considering it would be impossible to ever pay back, the past two years has seen the most expansive and rapid debt expansion ever seen in world history – in the form of stimulus and bailout packages around the world. In July of 2009, it was reported that, “U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.”[18]
Bilderberg Plan in Action?
In May of 2009, I wrote an article covering the Bilderberg meeting of 2009, a highly secretive meeting of major elites from Europe and North America, who meet once a year behind closed doors. Bilderberg acts as an informal international think tank, and they do not release any information, so reports from the meetings are leaked and the sources cannot be verified. However, the information provided by Bilderberg trackers and journalists Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker have proven surprisingly accurate in the past.
In May, the information that leaked from the meetings regarded the main topic of conversation being, unsurprisingly, the economic crisis. The big question was to undertake “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty … or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”
Important to note, was that one major point on the agenda was to “continue to deceive millions of savers and investors who believe the hype about the supposed up-turn in the economy. They are about to be set up for massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead.”
Estulin reported on a leaked report he claimed to have received following the meeting, which reported that there were large disagreements among the participants, as “The hardliners are for dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression, but there are those who think that things have gone too far and that the fallout from the global economic cataclysm cannot be accurately calculated.” However, the consensus view was that the recession would get worse, and that recovery would be “relatively slow and protracted,” and to look for these terms in the press over the next weeks and months. Sure enough, these terms have appeared ad infinitum in the global media.
Estulin further reported, “that some leading European bankers faced with the specter of their own financial mortality are extremely concerned, calling this high wire act ‘unsustainable,’ and saying that US budget and trade deficits could result in the demise of the dollar.” One Bilderberger said that, “the banks themselves don’t know the answer to when (the bottom will be hit).” Everyone appeared to agree, “that the level of capital needed for the American banks may be considerably higher than the US government suggested through their recent stress tests.” Further, “someone from the IMF pointed out that its own study on historical recessions suggests that the US is only a third of the way through this current one; therefore economies expecting to recover with resurgence in demand from the US will have a long wait.” One attendee stated that, “Equity losses in 2008 were worse than those of 1929,” and that, “The next phase of the economic decline will also be worse than the ’30s, mostly because the US economy carries about $20 trillion of excess debt. Until that debt is eliminated, the idea of a healthy boom is a mirage.”[19]
Could the general perception of an economy in recovery be the manifestation of the Bilderberg plan in action? Well, to provide insight into attempting to answer that question, we must review who some of the key participants at the conference were.
Central Bankers
Many central bankers were present, as per usual. Among them, were the Governor of the National Bank of Greece, Governor of the Bank of Italy, President of the European Investment Bank; James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank; Nout Wellink, President of the Central Bank of the Netherlands and is on the board of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS); Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank was also present; the Vice Governor of the National Bank of Belgium; and a member of the Board of the Executive Directors of the Central Bank of Austria.
Finance Ministers and Media
Finance Ministers and officials also attended from many different countries. Among the countries with representatives present from the financial department were Finland, France, Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. There were also many representatives present from major media enterprises around the world. These include the publisher and editor of Der Standard in Austria; the Chairman and CEO of the Washington Post Company; the Editor-in-Chief of the Economist; the Deputy Editor of Die Zeit in Germany; the CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Le Nouvel Observateur in France; the Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator of the Financial Times; as well as the Business Correspondent and the Business Editor of the Economist. So, these are some of the major financial publications in the world present at this meeting. Naturally, they have a large influence on public perceptions of the economy.
Bankers
Also of importance to note is the attendance of private bankers at the meeting, for it is the major international banks that own the shares of the world’s central banks, which in turn, control the shares of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Among the banks and financial companies represented at the meeting were Deutsche Bank AG, ING, Lazard Freres & Co., Morgan Stanley International, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland, and of importance to note is David Rockefeller,[20] former Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan (now J.P. Morgan Chase), who can arguably be referred to as the current reigning ‘King of Capitalism.’
The Obama Administration
Heavy representation at the Bilderberg meeting also came from members of the Obama administration who are tasked with resolving the economic crisis. Among them were Timothy Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary and former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House’s National Economic Council, former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, former President of Harvard University, and former Chief Economist of the World Bank; Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve System and Chair of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; Robert Zoellick, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs and current President of the World Bank.[21]
Unconfirmed were reports of the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke being present. However, if the history and precedent of Bilderberg meetings is anything to go by, both the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are always present, so it would indeed be surprising if they were not present at the 2009 meeting. I contacted the New York Fed to ask if the President attended any organization or group meetings in Greece over the scheduled dates that Bilderberg met, and the response told me to ask the particular organization for a list of attendees. While not confirming his presence, they also did not deny it. However, it is still unverified.
Naturally, all of these key players to wield enough influence to alter public opinion and perception of the economic crisis. They also have the most to gain from it. However, whatever image they construct, it remains just that; an image. The illusion will tear apart soon enough, and the world will come to realize that the crisis we have gone through thus far is merely the introductory chapter to the economic crisis as it will be written in history books.
Conclusion
The warnings from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and its former Chief Economist, William White, must not be taken lightly. Both the warnings of the BIS and William White in the past have gone unheralded and have been proven accurate with time. Do not allow the media-driven hope of ‘economic recovery’ sideline the ‘economic reality.’ Though it can be depressing to acknowledge; it is a far greater thing to be aware of the ground on which you tread, even if it is strewn with dangers; than to be ignorant and run recklessly through a minefield. Ignorance is not bliss; ignorance is delayed catastrophe.
A doctor must first properly identify and diagnose the problem before he can offer any sort of prescription as a solution. If the diagnosis is inaccurate, the prescription won’t work, and could in fact, make things worse. The global economy has a large cancer in it: it has been properly diagnosed by some, yet the prescription it was given was to cure a cough. The economic tumor has been identified; the question is: do we accept this and try to address it, or do we pretend that the cough prescription will cure it? What do you think gives a stronger chance of survival? Now try accepting the idea that ‘ignorance is bliss.’
As Gandhi said, “There is no god higher than truth.”
For an overview of the coming financial crises, see: „Entering the Greatest Depression in History: More Bubbles Waiting to Burst,“ Global Research, August 7, 2009.
Endnotes
[1] Time, HEROES: Man-of-the-Year. Time Magazine: Jan 6, 1930: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,738364-1,00.html
[2] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 2
[3] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 6
[4] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 148
[5] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 149
[6] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324-325
[7] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324
[8] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Derivatives still pose huge risk, says BIS. The Telegraph: September 13, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6184496/Derivatives-still-pose-huge-risk-says-BIS.html
[9] Robert Cookson and Sundeep Tucker, Economist warns of double-dip recession. The Financial Times: September 14, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6dd31f0-a133-11de-a88d-00144feabdc0.html
[10] Patrick Jenkins, BIS head worried by complacency. The Financial Times: September 20, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7a04972-a60c-11de-8c92-00144feabdc0.html
[11] David Uren. Bank for International Settlements warning over stimulus benefits. The Australian: June 30, 2009:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25710566-601,00.html
[12] Simone Meier, BIS Sees Risk Central Banks Will Raise Interest Rates Too Late. Bloomberg: June 29, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aOnSy9jXFKaY
[13] Robert Cookson and Victor Mallet, Societal soul-searching casts shadow over big banks. The Financial Times: September 18, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7721033c-a3ea-11de-9fed-00144feabdc0.html
[14] AFP, Top central banks agree to tougher bank regulation: BIS. AFP: September 6, 2009: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8G0ShkY-AdH3TNzKJEetGuScPiQ
[15] Simon Kennedy, Basel Group Agrees on Bank Standards to Avoid Repeat of Crisis. Bloomberg: September 7, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aETt8NZiLP38
[16] Abigail Moses, Central Banks Must Agree Global Clearing Supervision, BIS Says. Bloomberg: September 14, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5C6ARW_tSW0
[17] FIABIC, US home prices the most vital indicator for turnaround. FIABIC Asia Pacific: January 19, 2009: http://www.fiabci-asiapacific.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=133&Itemid=41
Alexander Green, The National Debt: The Biggest Threat to Your Financial Future. Investment U: August 25, 2008: http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html
John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, Financial Implosion and Stagnation. Global Research: May 20, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13692
[18] Dawn Kopecki and Catherine Dodge, U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion, Barofsky Says (Update3). Bloomberg: July 20, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM
[19] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy. Global Research: May 26, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va
[20] Maja Banck-Polderman, Official List of Participants for the 2009 Bilderberg Meeting. Public Intelligence: July 26, 2009: http://www.publicintelligence.net/official-list-of-participants-for-the-2009-bilderberg-meeting/
[21] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy. Global Research: May 26, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University
октобар 20, 2009 у 10:35 am |
Igor Lavrovski
ekonomista, direktor konsalting kompanije Kontako, predavač na univerzitetu Karlton u Kanadi, bio je angažovan kao konsultant američkog kongresa, radio za razne ruske kompanije i u centralnom aparatu partije Jedinstvena Rusija.
Skuplje od svog zlata sveta
Новая Газета
20.10.2009.
Što je dolar jači, to je kod nekih ljudi jača želja da ga sahrane. Kako to da je još uvek živ? „Stvar je u tome što je u samoj Americi još uvek nezamislivo da je raspad dolarskog sistema neizbežan“, zaverenički tvrdi Mihail Hazin. Tu je i Mihail Leontijev da nas umiri svojim saopštenjem kako je neminovni krah blizu: „Američka ekonomija je 1929. pretrpela kolosalne štete, ali se sačuvao svetski obračunski sistem i to ju je spaslo. Međutim, ovo što joj se danas događa, uništiće i taj preživeli obračunski sistem, i sve valutne sisteme u svetu vezane za američki dolar“. Gospodin Leontijev dalje savetuje: „Ako ćemo pravo, trebalo bi da se svet vrati na monetarni sistem zlatnog standarda. Uzgred, Amerikanci bi tu najbolje prošli, jer su njihove zlatne rezerve najveće – 8,5 hiljada tona. Naše su rezerve, na primer, 420 tona. To bi im pogodovalo, ali oni se nikada neće odlučiti za takvo rešenje, ne zato što je tehnički neizvodljivo, već zato što u tom slučaju više nema štampanja novca bez pokrića, nego se mora raditi i živeti pošteno“.
Moram da se usprotivim ovom autoru i redaktoru poznatog TV priloga „Ipak“ („Однако“), i reći da se u ovom slučaju ne radi o poštenju, već o prostoj računskoj radnji. Ako se ove impozantne američke zlatne zalihe pomnože sa tekućom cenom zlata na svetskom tržištu, može se nategnuti suma od svega 286 milijardi dolara. Uporedimo rezultat ove proste računske radnje sa sumom od 14.300 milijardi dolara očekivanog Bruto Društvenog Proizvoda SAD za ovu godinu i biće nam jasno da nas ideje gospodina Leontijeva nikuda neće odvesti. Samo za isplatu welfare nezaposlenima u Americi ne bi bile dovoljne ni ukupne svetske rezerve zlata. Svetska ekonomija je već odavno prerasla i praktične i teoretske pretpostavke za uvođenje zlatnog standarda u monetarni sistem, i govoriti o tako nečemu je isto toliko besmisleno kao i zalagati se za ponovno uvođenje školjki u platni promet Polinezije.
Mnogo je prostije saglasiti se sa prvim zamenikom predsednika Centralne banke Rusije, Genadijem Melikjanom, koji priznaje da bi bilo pogrešno žuriti na „sahranu dolara“ i da „svaka trezvena koncepcija podrazumeva da ne treba menjati dolar ni za šta drugo.“ Ovakvu koncepciju priznaje velika većina eksperata za finansijska pitanja u celom svetu.
Arkadij Dvorkovič takođe smatra da pad kursa dolara za nekoliko kopejki ni u kom slučaju ne nagoveštava sveopšti „krah obračunskog sistema.“ Po njegovom mišljenju, za sada se sva kolebanja uklapaju u normalni interval. On kaže da „dinamiku promena kursa treba pratiti i analizirati ne u intervalu od nekoliko nedelja, već od najmanje nekoliko meseci.“
A ja bih dodao da je još bolje ako se taj interval proširi na posmatranje perioda od nekoliko godina. I šta ćemo tada videti? Videćemo da su, budući da je kurs rublje čvrsto vezan za kurs dolara, konjukturna kolebanja relativno mala. Maksimalna odstupanja od linije trenda ne prelaze 20 procenata, a sam trend je blago uzlazni. To znači da rublja, rain or shine, u poslednjih tri godine polako postaje sve jeftinija u odnosu na dolar.
Ako se uzmu analogni podaci za par evro – dolar, videće se da tu nema nikakvog trenda, to jest, odnos među njima se ne menja. To zapravo znači da je evro u stvari isto što i dolar, samo što je drugačije obojen. A ako i dolazi do nekog razilaženja, ono nikada nije veće od razilaženja u trajektoriji tegljača i šlepa kojeg taj tegljač vuče.
I kao u klasičnom detektivskom romanu, postavimo pitanje: kome ide u korist da pravi svu tu histeriju prilikom skokova ili padova kurseva valuta? Svako ko je barem jednom bio u menjačnici zna odgovor na ovo pitanje, pa ću samo konstatovati da i prilikom kretanja kursa naviše, kada svi žele da se „ratosiljaju dolara“, i prilikom kretanja naniže, kada „raste sumlja u stabilnost rublje“, banke su te koje skidaju kajmak. Energetičari se već decenijama trude, i još im nije uspelo, da izgrade elektičnu centralu koja bi efikasno pretvarala besplatnu plimu i oseku u kilovat-časove energije, ali bankari su još odavno napravili ovaj perpetuum mobile. Oni sami organizuju plime i oseke, a potom, takođe oni sami, zgrću zlatni nanos koji im ove plime i oseke ispiraju iz džepova plašljivih građana.
Ako niste bankar, bolje da tu igru i ne započinjete, jer ćete sigurno izgubiti. Njihova dodatna prednost je još i u tome što, kada na novčanom tržištu cena/kurs neke jedinice pada, istovremeno i neizbežno cena/kurs neke druge jedinice počinje da raste. Zato, da bi se minimalizovao gubitak, treba ravnomerno pokriti sve jedinice, što bankari redovno i čine. Tako ispada da, ako ste svoju ušteđevinu u januaru 2007. ravnomerno podelili na evro i dolar, onda (do danas) niste ništa zaradili, ali zato niste ništa ni izgubili. Ako ste pak sve to vreme imali samo rublje, a ništa niste držali u dolarima, inflacija je pojela deo vaših rubalja. Taj polako klizeći trend rublje u odnosu na dolar u potpunosti se može pripisati inflaciji u Rusiji, koja je bila brža i proždrljivija od one u Americi.
Kada čitate u novinama o špekulacijama na temu moguće zamene dolara kao obračunske jedinice u trgovini naftom, i da je to izazvalo nagli pad kursa dolara, ne žurite u menjačnicu. Dogodilo se zapravo da je tih dana kurs dolara postepeno (ne naglo) malo pao u odnosu na ostale valute.
A sada da se zapitamo, mogu li mongolski tugriki, ako ih prihvatimo kao obračunsku jedinicu u trgovini naftom, dovesti do „kraha dolara“? Odgovor, mada istinit, zazvučaće kao da je iz nekog vica: mogu, ali ne u trgovini naftom. I zašto baš tugriki? Šta mislite, gde se nalazi trećina ukupnih evropskih investicija u inostranstvu? Tačno, u SAD. A trećina američkih? Naravno, u Evropi. Evropska ekonomija je tako tesno vezana za američku da samostalna uloga evra, kao alternative dolaru, postaje beskonačno malo verovatna. Ovome još treba dodati i činjenicu da složena i mnogostrana kontrola emisije evra praktično onemogućuje ovu valutu da operativno reaguje na tekuće promene stanja na svetskom finansijskom tržištu. A drugih valuta, koje bi se po univerzalnim mogućnostima cirkulacije mogle meriti sa dolarom, u svetu prosto nema.
Svoju fantastičnu želju da rublja postane svetska rezervna valuta nedavno je izrazio Ugo Čaves, i tome dodao: „ A možda i juan, i bolivar. Zašto da ne?“ U to, da su rublja, juan i bolivar iz iste korpe valuta, apsolutno nema sumnje. Lideri Rusije i Kine su takođe već davali izjave o neophodnosti stvaranja nove međunarodne rezervne valute, koja bi zamenila američki dolar. Želje i jednih i drugih su sasvim razumljive, jer vavilonske kule nagomilane dolarske likvidnosti, u slučaju da se ne nađe zajednički jezik s njihovim emitentom (SAD), prete da se sruše. Međutim, u stvarnosti, nikakvog dijaloga još uvek nema. Zasad se čuje samo monolog, i to na američkoj verziji engleskog jezika.
Sjedinjene Američke Države su dugo i uporno bavile izgradnjom svog finansijskog monopola. Isisavanje zlata iz Evrope u Fort Noks i sticanje statusa emitenta univerzalne međunarodne likvidnosti, posledice su dva svetska rata koji su tokom XX veka protutnjali planetom. Do sedamdesetih godina je još uvek bio sačuvan zlatni standard, odnosno obaveza isplate zlatnog ekvivalenta donosiocu, i dolar se nije mogao emitovati neograničeno. 1973 godine, Amerika se oslobodila zlatnih lanaca i prestala da menja dolar za zlato.
Padom Berlinskog zida, pala je i poslednja brana podignuta od strane učesnica dugogodišnjeg hladnog rata i to je omogućilo potpunu svetsku ekspanziju dolara. Da svet danas već ima Svetsku centralnu emisionu banku, i da su to Federalne rezerve (Federal Reserve System) SAD, postala je činjenica koja se ne može poricati. Nadati se tome, da će se SAD dobrovoljno odreći ove unikalne prednosti za koju su se borile tokom poslednjih sto godina, može samo neizlečivi optimista kao što je Ugo Čaves.
Naravno, moguć je pokušaj konstrukcije nove svetske valute. U SSSR-u je, na primer, bilo nekoliko pokušaja smišljanja veštačkih novčanih jedinica, kao što su transferabilne rublje ili valutni sertifikati, ali one, kao uostalom ni sama rublja, nikada nisu mogle sa sebe otresti naziv „vrbov klin“, kao slikoviti opis svoje pouzdanosti. Vrlo je verovatno da će i nova međunarodna valuta, ako joj se slučajno i posreći da je stvore, nositi u sebi taj „drveni“ kvalitet.
Istovremeno, u svetu već postoji izvanredna valuta koja odlično može da odgovori zadatku uravnoteženja američkog dolara, i to nije ni juan, niti je to evro, pa čak ni ruska rublja, već sam taj dolar, ali dolar koji poseduju neamerikanci.
Neamerički posednici kontrolišu dolarsku aktivu u ukupnom iznosu od oko 20 triliona dolara i taj ogromni novac, ako se koordinirano rasporedi i upotrebi u svrhu kontrole, može da uravnoteži emisione aktivnosti Federalnih rezervi i da postane ravnopravni partner SAD u korišćenju dolara kao realne svetske valute.
Svojevremeno su zemlje izvoznice nafte osnovale OPEK i tako uredile tržište nafte. Ako krupni posednici dolara budu u stanju da se na sličan način objedine, oni će u znatnoj meri moći da urede svetski finansijski sistem i snize opšti nivo finansijskih rizika. Ali, ko je taj koji to može da organizuje? Nije valjda Barak Obama? Koliko se sećam, on nije dobio Nobelovu nagradu za ekonomiju.
Prevod sa ruskog Haim Moreno
http://www.pescanik.net/content/view/3840/1096/
децембар 6, 2009 у 12:47 pm |
децембар 6, 2009 у 1:11 pm |
http://info.publicintelligence.net/bilderberg-members-2009-press-release.pdf
децембар 6, 2009 у 1:26 pm |
“The very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”
President John F. Kennedy Speaking to the American Newspaper Association
April 27, 1961
децембар 6, 2009 у 7:34 pm |
Is America Losing Its Mojo?
Innovation is as American as baseball and apple pie. But some traditions can’t be trademarked.
FAREED ZAKARIA
By most measures, America remains the world leader in technological achievement. Consider the 2009 Nobel Prizes: of the 13 people honored, nine were American. Once you take out the economics, literature, and peace prizes, the United States, with 5 percent of the world’s population, still won close to 70 percent of the awards. Even amid a terrible recession, the country still dominates the fields of information technology, life sciences, and nanotechnology, all key industries of the future. The World Economic Forum routinely cites America as having the most competitive economy on the planet (though this year it was narrowly overtaken by Switzerland). When decision makers are asked to rank countries on innovation, the United States always comes first by a large margin.
Americans like to think there is something about their culture that’s especially conducive to innovation—the open geography and frontier spirit; a flexible economy with limited interference by government; the Protestant work ethic; an immigrant workforce, constantly renewed by the next generation of talent from around the world. Other countries can perhaps emulate some of these traits, but none can replicate the creative cocktail that is America.
That might be true today. But could it be that American achievements reflect the past more than predicting the future? It’s important to remember that many of the metrics that place the United States so far ahead are actually lagging indicators. Nobel Prizes tend to be given to scientists in their 70s, toward the end of their productive lives. What’s happening among scientists in their 30s? Who’s making the discoveries today that will receive Nobel Prizes four decades from now?
I’d always viewed the rankings that routinely show America on top as authoritative. But they may be misleading. Most traditional competitiveness studies use polls—of CEOs, scientists, investors—as a key part of their measurements. The World Economic Forum report, for example, relies upon surveys for almost two thirds of its data. But two studies of global innovation have been released this year, both comprehensive, and both relying entirely on government statistics and other hard data: one produced by the Boston Consulting Group, the other by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. In both, the United States does considerably worse, coming in eighth in the BCG study and sixth in the ITIF one.
Like a star that still looks bright in the farthest reaches of the universe but has burned out at the core, America’s reputation is stronger than the hard data warrant. For example, the World Economic Forum surveys say America is the globe’s top recipient of venture capital and third-biggest spender on corporate research, but the actual data put it fifth in both categories. Most striking, the ITIF rankings show that, in recent years, the United States has made the least progress of the 39 countries analyzed in improving its innovation capacity and internal competitiveness. The measures are standard, ranging from government research spending, where the United States does well, to the corporate tax rate, where it does extremely poorly.
Part of the slippage is due to the fact that other countries—from Singapore and South Korea to Canada and Sweden—are actively changing their laws and systems to make themselves more competitive. The United States didn’t raise its corporate tax rate; others lowered theirs. But the United States is falling far behind in one key resource: human capital. Whether measured by the percentage of kids with high-school diplomas or performance on standardized tests, America is not producing the kinds of workers needed in a knowledge-based economy. Let’s be clear. Even properly measured, the United States does well. But the halo is fading. The wide gap between the United States and the rest of the world is closing.
In some ways America’s once dominant position was an aberration. The country’s technological triumphs rested on three tidal waves that all began in the late 1930s. The first was the wave of destruction that wrecked virtually every other country, and certainly every other economic competitor, during World War II. Germany, France, and Britain were devastated, their cities laid to waste, their industries in ruins, their universities boarded up. Coupled with World War I and the Great Depression, the effects of this „30-year war“ went well beyond physical destruction. Political, economic, and social systems were overwhelmed by angry workers, populists, fascists, and communists. The result: by the late 1940s, most of Europe was still rationing food, rebuilding its cities, bridges, and roads, and coming to terms with new political systems. The United States was in a very different position, and in the realms of technology and economics did not really have a serious rival for a generation.
The second tidal wave, related to the first, was the generation of immigrants who left Europe and populated American universities, research centers, and think tanks. You cannot exaggerate the dividends this paid to the United States. In the 1930s Germany was the world’s leading nation in scientific research, much of it done by German Jews. Despite immigration restrictions, 100,000 Jews entered the United States in the 1930s. By the 1950s, the American research and technology system—universities, centers, companies—had become a magnet for enterprising, scientifically minded people around the world. When immigration restrictions were relaxed in 1965, there began another great wave of immigration, and this time bright Indians and Chinese, often scientifically trained, made their way to America.
The third tidal wave was massive government funding. Beginning in the Great Depression but accelerating dramatically during World War II, the federal government began showering money on research and development, and channeled most of it through universities—a brilliant innovation that has endured as an American model. After World War II, the Cold War drove this funding to new highs, so that by the 1950s, the United States was spending 3 percent of GDP on R&D, which amounted to a majority of the total spending on science on the planet.
Government funding of basic research has been astonishingly productive. Over the past five decades it has led to the development of the Internet, lasers, global positioning satellites, magnetic resonance imaging, DNA sequencing, and hundreds of other technologies. Even when government was not the inventor, it was often the facilitator. One example: semiconductors. As a study by the Breakthrough Institute notes, after the microchip was invented in 1958 by an engineer at Texas Instruments, „the federal government bought virtually every microchip firms could produce.“ This was particularly true of the Air Force, which needed chips to guide the new Minuteman II missiles, and NASA, which required advanced chips for the on-board guidance computers on its Saturn rockets. „NASA bought so many [microchips] that manufacturers were able to achieve huge improvements in the production process—so much so, in fact, that the price of the Apollo microchip fell from $1,000 per unit to between $20 and $30 per unit in the span of a couple years.“
Over the past two decades, the three great waves that carried America to the heights of innovation have started to ebb. Obviously, the rest of the world is not in ruins—quite the contrary. Other countries are growing rapidly and hoping to rise up the value chain. China has declared that 60 percent of its GDP will be related to science and technology within two decades. More pertinent right now is Europe, which is peaceful, prosperous, and productive. The continent’s unity might be limited in the geopolitical realm, but European nations have come together to spend lavishly on signature scientific projects. Consider the Large Hadron Collider, primarily a European enterprise, which cost more than $5 billion. It is the successor to the U.S.-based Superconducting Super Collider, which was shut down in the early 1990s by the House of Representatives after 14 miles of tunnel had been constructed at a cost of $2 billion.
And then there is the challenge from Asia. The numbers are small, but the trend is clear. Pharmaceutical research—dominated by America today—is succumbing to the same dynamics that drove T-shirt manufacturing and electronics production overseas. „In 2006, 5.5 percent of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India, and 8.4 percent named one or more located in China,“ according to a report by the Kauffman Foundation. This was a fourfold increase from 1995, and corresponds to a surge in drug demand in emerging markets—from 13 percent of global industry sales growth in 2001 to 27 percent in 2006.
With the end of the Cold War, Americans stopped worrying about the Soviet threat and, as a result, R&D funding for applied science plummeted, dropping 40 percent in the 1990s. It has picked up since then, but the government’s share of overall R&D spending remains near its all-time low. And while corporations still spend on R&D, they do not fund the kind of basic research that leads to breakthroughs.
America’s decline is most evident in the one realm of high technology where the U.S. government has, until recently, seemed most uninterested: energy. The three most important areas where current technology could yield big results are solar, wind, and battery production (the latter because the energy has to be stored somewhere). According to the investment bank Lazard Frères, the world’s largest wind-turbine manufacturer (by revenue) is a U.S. company: General Electric. But the other nine companies among the top 10 are scattered around the world, including Germany (Nordex), Denmark (Vestas), India (Suzlon), and Spain (Acciona).
The situation in solar is similar: U.S. companies take up two slots on the top-10 list (First Solar at No. 2, and SunPower at No. 7), but Japan and China both occupy three slots. What’s more, Gary Pisano and Willy Shih, professors at Harvard Business School, argue that although the United States still produces about 14 percent of the world’s photovoltaic cells, „it no longer is a significant player in crystalline silicon-based solar panels, the prevailing technology.“
Eight of the world’s top 10 battery manufacturers are headquartered in Japan. Only one—Johnson Controls—is based in the United States. (China’s BYD is the other.) The lithium-ion battery in the much-touted Chevy Volt will be manufactured in South Korea. The next evolution in battery technology is large-scale storage—the kind that would hold the electricity generated by solar or wind power so it can be put to use at night or when the wind’s not blowing. The leader in this area is also a Japanese company, NGK Insulators, which makes highly efficient sodium-sulfur („molten salt“) batteries.
The rise of the rest also undercuts the other great advantage that the United States has had: being a magnet for the best and the brightest from around the world. While there is no good way to measure this yet, it would seem obvious that as opportunities increase in China, India, and other developing countries, fewer scientists will want to or need to uproot themselves from their country and culture in order to make a better living. In the early 1980s about 75 percent of all the graduates of the Indian Institutes of Technology ended up in the United States. In recent years fewer than 10 percent have been America-bound.
American culture is open and innovative. But it was powerfully shaped and enhanced by a series of government policies. Silicon Valley did not arise in a vacuum. It grew in the 1950s in a state that had created the world’s best public-education system (from kindergarten through Ph.D. programs), a superb infrastructure, and a business-friendly environment that attracted defense and engineering industries. Today California builds prisons, but not college campuses. In 1976 it spent 18 percent of its budget on education; that figure now is about 10 percent. The state is permanently bankrupt, saved only by massive, continual borrowing. Are these the foundations for future scientific achievement?
We cannot stop the world from rising and doing better at innovation, nor should we want to do so: the rise of the rest is a powerful, positive phenomenon for everyone. But America must adapt to it, not watch quietly as a spectator.
For the past three decades, funding for science research has slipped, the education system has continued to decline, and immigration policy has become less and less rational. Tax and regulatory policies have been made with more thought to domestic special interests than America’s long-term competition.
We have hoped it would all work out, and for a while it did. The seed capital from past decades was strong enough to carry us for decades. We got talent from abroad to mask the erosion at home. We used financial engineering to substitute for the real thing. We borrowed to the hilt and sold each other our homes in an ascending spiral that made us all feel rich. And we kicked all the real problems we face down the road, hoping that someone else would solve them. This too has become part of American culture, a culture that desperately needs to change if we are to preserve American innovation and rekindle the real American Dream.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/222836/page/1