PDA

View Full Version : Dem's plans to take down the US!



pooltchr
03-24-2011, 07:27 AM
For anyone who doesn't know, Mr Soros is the source of funding that keeps the Democrats running. So what is he up to?

Why Are the Media Ignoring Plans By George Soros to Remake the Entire Global Economy?

By Dan Gainor

Published March 23, 2011

Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start – and no one seems to have noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The speakers include:
• Volcker who is chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. He wrote the forward for Soros’s best-known book, “The Alchemy of Finance” and praised Soros as “an enormously successful speculator” who wrote “with insight and passion” about the problems of globalization.

• Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the “U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor.”

• Soros friend Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Stiglitz shares similar views to Soros and has criticized free-market economists whom he calls “free market fundamentalists.” Naturally, he’s on the INET board and is a contributor to Project Syndicate.

• INET Executive Director Rob Johnson, a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, who is on the Board of Directors for the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute. Johnson has complained that government intervention in the fiscal crisis hasn’t been enough and wanted “restructuring,” including asking “for letters of resignation from the top executives of all the major banks.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. He wrote that the U.S. “could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the developing world, thereby reestablishing American leadership in an acceptable form.”

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

-- Iris Somberg contributed to this commentary.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum. He can also be contacted on FaceBook and Twitter as dangainor.

Steve

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 07:29 AM
In his own words, Soros outlines his plans.

Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009
No alternative to a new world architecture

By GEORGE SOROS
NEW YORK — Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, the world faces another stark choice between two fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and state capitalism.

The former, represented by the United States, has broken down, and the latter, represented by China, is on the rise. Following the path of least resistance will lead to the gradual disintegration of the international financial system. A new multilateral system based on sounder principles must be invented.

While international cooperation on regulatory reform is difficult to achieve on a piecemeal basis, it may be attainable in a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.

A new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the international financial architecture after World War II, is needed to establish new international rules, including treatment of financial institutions considered too big to fail and the role of capital controls. It would also have to reconstitute the International Monetary Fund to reflect better the prevailing pecking order among states and to revise its methods of operation.

In addition, a new Bretton Woods would have to reform the currency system. The postwar order, which made the U.S. more equal than others, produced dangerous imbalances. The dollar no longer enjoys the trust and confidence that it once did, yet no other currency can take its place.

The U.S. ought not to shy away from wider use of IMF Special Drawing Rights. Because SDRs are denominated in several national currencies, no single currency would enjoy an unfair advantage.

The range of currencies included in the SDRs would have to be widened even if some of the newly added currencies, including the renminbi, are not fully convertible. This would let the international community press China to abandon its exchange-rate peg to the dollar and be the best way to reduce international imbalances. The dollar could still remain the preferred reserve currency, provided it is prudently managed.

One great advantage of SDRs is that they permit the international creation of money, which is particularly useful at times as now. The money could be directed to where it is most needed. A mechanism that allows rich countries that don't need additional reserves to transfer their allocations to those that do is readily available, using the IMF's gold reserves.

Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially Security Council membership. That process needs to be initiated by the U.S., but China and other developing countries ought to participate as equals. They are reluctant members of Bretton Woods institutions, dominated by countries no longer dominant economically. The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.

The system cannot survive in its present form, and the U.S. has more to lose by not being in the forefront of reforming it. The U.S. is still in a position to lead the world, but without farsighted leadership, its relative position is likely to continue to erode. It can no longer impose its will on others, as George W. Bush's administration sought to do, but it could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the developing world, thereby re-establishing American leadership in an acceptable form.

The alternative is frightening, because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix.

We used to be reassured by the generalization that democratic countries seek peace. After the Bush presidency, that rule no longer holds, if it ever did. In fact, democracy is in deep trouble in America. The financial crisis has inflicted hardship on a population that does not like to face harsh reality.

President Barack Obama has deployed the "confidence multiplier" and claims to have contained the recession. But if there is a "double dip" recession, Americans will become susceptible to all kinds of fear-mongering and populist demagogy. If Obama fails, the next administration will be sorely tempted to create some diversion from troubles at home.

Obama has the right vision. He believes in international cooperation, rather than the might-is-right philosophy of the Bush-Cheney era.

The emergence of the Group of 20 as the primary forum of international cooperation and the peer-review process agreed in Pittsburgh are steps in the right direction. What is lacking is a general recognition that the system is broken and needs to be reinvented.

The financial system did not collapse altogether. The Obama administration made a conscious decision to revive banks with hidden subsidies rather than to recapitalize them on a compulsory basis. Those institutions that survived will hold a stronger market position than ever, and they will resist a systematic overhaul. Occupied with many pressing problems, Obama is unlikely to give reinvention of the international financial system his full attention.

China's leadership needs to be even more farsighted than Obama's. China is replacing the American consumer as the motor of the world economy. Since it is a smaller motor, the world economy will grow slower, but China's influence will rise very fast.

For the time being, the Chinese public is willing to subordinate its individual freedom to political stability and economic advancement. But that may not continue indefinitely — and the rest of the world will never subordinate its freedom to the prosperity of the Chinese state.

As China becomes a world leader, it must transform itself into a more open society that the rest of the world is willing to accept as a world leader. Military power relations being what they are, China has no alternative to peaceful, harmonious development. Indeed, the future of the world depends on it.
----------------
George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute. His most recent book is "The Crash of 2008." © 2009 Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org)

Steve

LWW
03-24-2011, 08:07 AM
Aren't an awful lot of those speakers on Gee's pig list?

Fear not, however, as if dear leader says that it's good she will swear that it is good ... while concurrently swearing that it's bad.

LWW
03-24-2011, 08:10 AM
This seems to fit well here ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fTh0xyZ1FRQ/TOAUaNVXYdI/AAAAAAAAGeM/LIMRtCLO3Cs/s1600/Soros-and-puppet-Obama1.jpg

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 04:59 PM
I'm surprised that none of our left leaning friends have anything to say on this topic, although some of this may be above their level of economic understanding, that usually doesn't stop them from speaking up.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 05:32 PM
I don't see any big Democrats in this mix, and I don't see how this 'takes down' the US. So I find the take you add by your topic title to be quite inaccurate.

Do you think the LAST international currency accommodation created at the Brenton Woods conference 'took down' the US?

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 05:49 PM
What do you think will happen if the dollar is no longer the standard for global currency exchange?

It is that one simple fact that allows us to be so far in debt, and continue to print money to cover our expenses. Take away that ability, and suddenly we are just like Greece.

Do you think Soros will be loaning the US money then?

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What do you think will happen if the dollar is no longer the standard for global currency exchange?

It is that one simple fact that allows us to be so far in debt, and continue to print money to cover our expenses. Take away that ability, and suddenly we are just like Greece.

Do you think Soros will be loaning the US money then?

Steve </div></div>

The USD is not NOW the standard for global currency exchange. That was the Bretton Woods standard, and Nixon tore up that agreement when he closed the gold convertibility window. What we have now is floating values of all currencies to each other, convertible to each other at whatever the floating rate is, with the dominant role of the USD being the international RESERVE currency, and in terms of which oil is priced.

Sure, changing the current system is scary, but it is inevitable from our own decades-long fiscal and monetary policy. Trying to roll back the clock to pre-'72 or whenever is a non-starter, and trying to keep things the way they are now is impossible.

Credit Soros with the foresight to realize that an orderly and planned transition will be far easier to handle than the uncontrolled collapse of this system with nothing in place to replace its functions.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 07:01 PM
And just to be sure, you don't think that Soros is planning to benefit financially from his plan....he is only looking out for the best interest of the country.

Right???


Steve

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 08:44 PM
And just to be sure, you don't think that Soros is planning to benefit financially from his plan....he is only looking out for the best interest of the country.

Right???

A guy like that could easily sit back and profit greatly from this system's inevitable collapse, just as his own collapsing of many things (the Bank of England and the pound sterling, the Thailand bhat currency, several other SE Asian countries' currencies, collapsing Eastern European communist economies, etc.), made him a ton of money.

He may think that operating instead in a more stable international monetary system's environment would be more profitable still, or may prefer it even though that might be less profitable. Hard to say.