Featured Story

HNewsWire Logo top Menu

“The agencies of evil are combining their forces and consolidating. They are strengthening for the last great crisis. Great changes are soon to take place in our world, and the final movements will be rapid ones. The condition of things in the world shows that troublous times are right upon us.”…..

Global policy planners intend to deliver replacements for both dollar hegemony and fossil fuels. Plans may appear uncoordinated and in their early stages, but these issues are becoming increasingly linked.

A monetary reset incorporating state-sponsored cryptocurrencies will enable exchange controls to be introduced between nations by separating cross-border trade payments from domestic money circulation. The purpose will be to gain greater control over money and to direct its investment into green projects.

The OECD will build on current tax disclosures to make everyone’s income and capital known to governments and therefore readily taxable, money destined to kick-start economic growth. Under the guidance of supranational organisations, governments will redirect investment into green technology. The objective, particularly for Europeans, is to neutralise Russia’s increasing dominance of the global energy market by becoming carbon neutral by 2030.

But perhaps as Robert Burns put it, “the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley”. They are based on Keynesian fallacies, but cannot be ignored.

HNewsWire Logo top Menu

Introduction

There appear to be policy areas being driven by statist responses to events, encouraging global institutions to take on a coordinating role. It means deeper levels of centralized planning by unaccountable bureaucrats. Assuming their plans continue to gain credence, we could end up with a dystopian world where supranational bodies direct individual governments to conform. We are already on this road to perdition. The OECD has coordinated attempts by governments to restrict the freedom of their citizens to avoid taxes by forcing over a hundred jurisdictions to automatically supply information on the financial affairs of every citizen, irrespective of nationality and where they reside.

By doing so, it has removed the necessity for governments to moderate their tax demands for fear that individuals will move their money out of reach. Information on private affairs is now exchanged automatically by banks, lawyers, financial advisors, and accountants, without the individual’s knowledge. As a result of the introduction of the OECD’s common reporting standard, the organization claims that over $85bn of additional tax revenue has been raised. The intention is to raise more, much more.

This has been the OECD’s mission for some time, leading the way for other supranational organizations to carve out roles for themselves. Those that come to mind are the IMF, which with a green agenda intends to prioritize investment funding for alternatives to fossil fuels both directly and indirectly through the World Bank and the regional development banks. Subsidiary roles are likely to be played by other UN divisions, useful for binding emerging market nations to the plans.

Central banks acting in concert could have a new role of coordinating a monetary reset, which as we can deduce from Mark Carney’s speech at Jackson Hole in August is already being discussed. We shall start by looking at the state of current monetary policies, their failure, and the drive to replace them with something else, before addressing the energy question.

The monetary problem

There are two categories of folk who think everything to do with economics and money is not much to worry about; the disinterested public and the investment management community. Their livelihoods depend upon it. Another category, libertarians, Austrian economists, bitcoin fans, gold bugs and readers of and contributors to agglomerating sites such as ZeroHedge have views ranging from skeptical to downright catastrophic. Not known to many is another, the most important category, which is very worried indeed, and that is governments and their central banks.

These are the people quietly talking about a big-picture reset, those that know the post-Breton Woods fiat dollar system is no longer fit for purpose. They see escalating debt, interest rates failing to stimulate, and economic stagnation. They see a mismatch between international trade and the use of the dollar as a global settlement medium. They don’t talk about it much, to do so would frighten us, the lowly ruminants.

I was ruminating on this recently after Max Keiser, of the Keiser Report on RT, asked me what I thought of Mark Carney’s speech at Jackson Hole in August about a global monetary system to replace the dollar. I replied something about Carney about to retire, and presumably feeling slightly freer to express the concerns which he must share with his friends at the Bank for International Settlements, and various other monetary panjandrums who have observed the obvious: their cozy world of money-printing doesn’t work, is unlikely to ever work, and must be reformed to give them more control.

Since then my thoughts have turned to the reset problem in a broader sense. The assumption must be that time is available for such an event to be planned, or at least pre-planned as an insurance policy against monetary failure. In either event, it is putting the cart before the horse, because when a credit crisis hits it invariably takes the authorities by surprise, and it looks increasingly close in time. The priority will not then be monetary evolution but economic and financial rescue.

That point having been made, from the central bankers’ point of view, what is to be done? The obvious answer is to rig the game by changing the rules. As Keynes said, when the facts change, he changed. That way, they think they might dispose of the failing system and replace it with an updated one that suits their policy purposes better. With a bit of luck, declining confidence in the old will be replaced by a new paradigm, something that will allow them, all, politicians and central bankers, to claim success for saving the Western world from a potential monetary crisis.

The problem is they don’t know how to do it, and they don’t yet know what the new paradigm will be. There is no unity on the matter because for the Fed and the US Government it involves an unacceptable loss of monetary and political power. The Chinese, in partnership with the Russians, want to do away with the dollar, while the Europeans are leading themselves to a socialist dystopia at odds with Trump’s America, while being frightened of the Russian bear in the east.

This is why influencers like Carney can only hypothesize about a new monetary set-up involving a reduced role for the dollar. Central banks are exploring cryptocurrencies. It is reported that seven out of ten of them are researching the possibilities. That won’t save fiat currencies, but it might give central banks greater control over how their fiat currencies are used. Perhaps they think a state-issued cryptocurrency can replace unadorned fiat. But then that raises two issues: if the existing fiat is failing it is likely a new state-sponsored cryptocurrency risk having a credibility problem from the outset and even if the public does accept it, its future issue will have to be strictly limited and the cycle of bank credit properly addressed.

But get it right and markets could be tamed, the logic goes. And somehow, a global cryptocurrency-based monetary system for international trade could replace the failing post-Bretton Woods monetary system reserved on the US dollar. For policymakers, it is becoming an urgent question, as a reading of Carney’s Jackson Hole speech makes clear.

Specifically, in his speech, Carney identified the existence of a global liquidity trap nullifying interest rate policy with three elements: a global savings glut tied up in dollars, a reduction in the scale of sustainable cross border flows and “fattening of the left-hand tail and increasing the downside skew of likely economic outcomes”. This last element of gobbledegook appears to translate into an acknowledgment of the failure of current interest rate policy to stimulate economic recovery, which cannot be admitted in plain English.

Carney’s problem, besides the veiled admission of policy failure, is he ignores the fact that America needs increasing quantities of foreign dollar ownership to fund its escalating budget deficit, without which the dollar falls, and term interest rates will soar. If he and his cohort push policies intended to redeploy funds that are otherwise destined for the dollar and US Treasuries, they will face strong opposition from the US Treasury and are based on the dollar, the likely collapse of the whole fiat edifice.

As for a reduction in cross border flows, that is a function of falling cross-border trade, not money. The reason cross-border trade has collapsed is because of the US-Chinese trade spat and its knock-on effects. Even if we pass on the gobbledegook of his third point, it is difficult for an independent observer not to take Carney’s speech as indicative of desperation, ivory-tower economic error or both.

Being based on Keynesian macroeconomic beliefs, we can take the evidence of economic error for granted, particularly since these beliefs have consistently failed to deliver any credible solution. It is the element of desperation we must explore further. If Carney feels a sense of desperation (and his speech reeks of it) then his fellow central bankers will as well. But instead of just abandoning failed policies, a bridge is required towards a new set of policies, a monetary reset. And it will almost certainly involve a greater suppression of the role of markets and an increase in state control over money and how it is used.

For central bankers, there is a fear that the emergence of a competing private sector crypto-payments system, even linked to a basket of fiat currencies, will challenge national currencies. They would have to be pretty dopey not to see that Bitcoin, in particular, is educating the masses about the moral fraud behind the expansion of fiat money. The challenge will be to come up with a credible alternative, completely under the control of a few major central banks. But first, the purpose of a state-backed cryptocurrency must be settled.

For every nation other than America, evolution from the failing post-Breton Woods monetary system is about reducing the role of the dollar in trade settlement and freeing up capital needlessly tied up in dollars. Before the invention of cryptocurrencies, this would presumably have been achieved through a combination of an evolutionary process and increasing use of currency swaps to enhance liquidity, particularly in euros and renminbi, to replace the dominance of dollars in reserve balances.

The facilitation of foreign trade appears to be the role most likely to be destined for a state-issued cryptocurrency. Initial swap lines of state-sponsored cryptocurrencies would be proportionate to the trade between existing currency blocks. It could then be deployed for trade settlement, which would require it to be made available to commercial banks. We then have two currency versions: an existing fiat currency that circulates domestically and a separate blockchain-based currency reserved for international use. With an onshore and offshore version, there can be two interest rates suitably set for their applications, so long as arbitrage routes are severely restricted, with the offshore version trading at a premium.

Old hands in Britain will be familiar with the basic concept before Margaret Thatcher removed exchange controls. To monetary planners, there are several perceived benefits from such a scheme, particularly for the Eurozone. By separating trade settlement from domestic currency circulation, de facto currency controls are introduced, permitting access to the state cryptocurrency to non-domestic trading entities and banks, while denying its use in the domestic economy. Importantly, the expansion of bank credit would be retained for the domestic currency only, managed through a two-tier interest rate policy.

Any investment in foreign currencies would require the payment of the premium that applies to the crypto version of the currency. The prospects of an international run against a currency such as a euro would recede, as the existing liquidity for international trade is replaced by a centralized, highly managed, trade-related cryptocurrency.

For policymakers at the ECB, it must be a tempting solution if it can be made to work. It would give them greater monetary control overall, and they could attempt to stimulate the Eurozone economy by deploying deeper negative rates without the fear of a falling exchange rate.

From America’s point of view, these moves or anything like them will almost certainly be strongly resisted. They need foreigners to buy dollars to fund the budget deficit. And they are now experiencing the flaws of US isolationism and Trumpian trade policies, which are already leading to a contraction and potential reversal of foreign flows into US Treasuries.

China would be an interested observer of these developments. She has been planning to issue a cryptocurrency of her own, which could allow her to internationalize a crypto version of the renminbi more rapidly than it has managed with its existing renminbi. Russia has already ditched the dollar for geopolitical reasons and is trying to gain control over the energy market from a moribund OPEC.

To summarise, discontent with the post-Bretton Woods monetary system and the disproportionate role of the dollar are likely to be the reasons why so many central banks are looking at cryptocurrency solutions. But as stated earlier in this article, it assumes pre-planning, those best-laid schemes of mice and men, are not overtaken by events.

Crypto and gold

There can be little doubt that monetary policy is descending towards crisis, and a major bank failure could even occur in the next few months. If we find ourselves facing another Lehman moment, the priority will be to stabilize markets first, and then currencies as needed at a time of widespread negative interest rates and bond yields.

As insurance against such an event, the majority of central banks retain physical gold as part of their reserves. In Europe, Germany France and Italy hold significant quantities of gold which the monetary authorities at the ECB might, in theory, wish to deploy as the backing for a common cryptocurrency. But this is unlikely to be a preferred option because central banks always retain their gold reserves (leasing aside) and only use them for monetary purposes as a last resort.

To re-introduce gold backing would deny all credibility to neo-classical macroeconomic theory, which relies on achieving an inflation target consistent with maximizing employment. Given the need for a rapid expansion of global money supply as a policy response to the next credit crisis or to finance escalating government debt, the purchasing power of state-issued currencies will almost certainly decline while that of gold will rise.

A currency credibly linked to gold would therefore also rise, assuming it acts as a proper gold substitute. A gold standard fixed at the current rate of $1500 would be seen as strongly deflationary if gold goes any higher.

It is therefore probably true that no Western central bank would contemplate such a move in current economic conditions. If in time, credit and the systemic crisis threaten the destruction of unbacked state currencies, and the event causes conventional thinking in the central banking community to discard inflationism, that would be a different matter. But that is far from the current situation.

In any event, a far higher gold price would be required to fix fiat currencies sustainably to gold. Even China, which has been accumulating physical gold and encouraging its people to do so as well, is too hooked on monetary and credit expansion as the principal means of driving its economy to contemplate such a move for its own economy. However, the accumulation of gold reserves by many of China’s Asian trading partners suggests some sort of gold backing for a cross-border settlement medium is likely instead of delivering physical gold, and this is where China’s plans for a new state-sponsored cryptocurrency may eventually be heading.

The conflict over energy

As is the case with the global monetary system, global energy markets face enormous change with both the EU and supranational organizations, such as UNCTAD, the UN’s conference on trade and development, pushing a policy of dropping carbon fuels for green alternatives. Furthermore, the original agreement whereby Saudi Arabia agreed to sell its oil for dollars, giving US banks control over monetary surpluses from all OPEC’s oil sales, is no longer appropriate because the energy world has radically changed since that deal was struck in 1973.

That agreement has been the central plank to the dollar’s role as a reserve currency. Since 1973, the Soviet Union has collapsed and under President Putin, Russia has emerged as the largest exporter of oil and gas combined. Furthermore, as America’s victories in the Middle East are proving to be the only pyrrhic, Russia’s influence is spreading across the region, forming alliances with Iran, Turkey, and Syria. China is the region’s most important energy customer, and with its silk road projects is also increasing its influence on the region.

America’s response to these developments is lacking focus. It now has precious little real business in the region other than arms supplies, and under President, Trump America has become isolationist. Furthermore, Trump wished to disengage militarily from the region, while the intelligence and military establishment wanted to increase their commitments. The gaps in US policy have been quietly exploited by Russia and China to great effect.

The EU sees US leadership failing while the Russian beast to its east is getting stronger. The lessons of Russia wielding power over Ukraine by cutting off energy supplies have been noted: energy security is a long-term threat to the EU and Russia is on the verge of controlling Middle Eastern supplies as well. Furthermore, the lessons of China’s economic successes through non-democratic government control will also have been noted as something for European statists to emulate.

The EU’s response to the energy threat from Russia has been to adopt a radical green agenda without reservation. Despite about 98% of transport and logistics being delivered by diesel and gasoline, some member states in the EU are banning the sales of internal combustion engines as motive power from as soon as 2030. This accelerated path to zero emissions will require massive investment. Clearly this is being viewed as economically stimulative at a time of declining optimism over the general economic outlook.

These views are articulated in UNCTAD’s Trade and Development Report 2019, Financing a Global Green Deal[iii]. The authors argue that internationally coordinated action between governments pursuing reflationary monetary and fiscal policies while restricting international capital flows, will generate economic growth and capture the resources to finance the investment. The charts below are indicative of their thinking and are copied from Page 56 of the report.

This is one of several examples in the report. Here, it is argued that a combination of higher minimum wages and increasingly progressive rates of taxation to redistribute wealth to lower earners leads to greater economic growth, in this case by boosting the consumption of the masses at the expense of the few. It’s pure Keynesianism.

Similar arguments are made for increasing government spending on goods and services and increasing spending on welfare to further boost consumption. More extensive use of capital controls to restrict destabilizing investment flows and to make them available for green investment instead is recommended (pp. 125-129). Central banks are encouraged to direct quantitative easing in favor of green investment, and through regulation impose higher risk margins on bank exposure to fossil fuel-related investments and loans (pp. 153-156).

It amounts to an extension and escalation of failed inflationist policies, but the underlying point is it transfers free markets to statist management on a global scale not seen before. The ambition is for a few supranational organizations, not accountable to anybody, to act as an informal world government. It also accords fully with how central banks are likely to restructure their currencies

Welcome to Dystopia.

Conclusion

Failing monetary policies and the accelerated disposal of carbon-based in favor of carbon-neutral energy provide the foundations for a dystopian future. Together, they are excuses for yet greater inflationism and the rapid socialization of national economies and private capital.

Clearly, a number of supranational bodies expect to coordinate these policy areas above the heads of individual governments. A monetary reset will replace a failing dollar-based system, and failing economies will be boosted by state-directed green investment.

Given that a significant cyclical credit and systemic crisis is overdue, its occurrence will have a major effect on how matters actually proceed. People who value individual freedom and privacy, those horrified by Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, could find themselves wishing for an even more radical outcome: the complete destruction of the fiat currency system and of the whole statist command-and-control apparatus.

HNewsWire Logo top Menu

UN Official Admits: “Wealth Redistribution” Is the Goal

But the carbon cat is out of the bag: Some of Kim and Lagarde’s confreres have publicly admitted that their real goal has nothing to do with saving the environment and is totally aimed at redistributing the wealth of the planet — from the middle classes to the ruling classes. One of the most important confessions in this regard comes from Ottmar Edenhofer, who, from 2008 to 2015, was a co-chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III on “Mitigation of Climate Change.” He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the major tax-supported climate think tanks providing the World Bank with pseudo-scientific studies to justify confiscating the wealth of the planet in the name of saving nature.

During an interview in 2010 with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Here, in context, is what Edenhofer said:

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. [Emphasis added.]

What is the condensed takeaway of this confession? “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore.” Which is another way of saying that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, or AGW, is all about politics masquerading under a false label of science? As The New American has reported many times, thousands of top scientists have debunked the IPCC’s bogus claims that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a pollutant (it is an essential “gas of life”) or that it is causing global warming. We have also repeatedly cited the overwhelming evidence that contrary to the claims of the IPCC, World Bank, IMF, et al., there has been no measurable increase in average global temperatures now for more than 18 years.

There are many other admissions from Edenhofer’s EU and UN colleagues. Such as, for instance, German physicist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute, a lead author for the UN’s IPCC and a top science advisor to the European Union, the German government, and the World Bank. It was Schellnhuber who came up with the two-degree limit myth that has now become dogma among AGW alarmists. The World Bank has become one of the biggest promoters of this AGW falsehood. In an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel, Schellnhuber admitted it is politics, not science, that is driving his agenda. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” he told Der Spiegel. “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

Schellnhuber is a key architect of the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), which is held up as the model for the planet despite the fact that it has been rife with scandal and corruption, with billions of euros being milked from it by organized crime and even by financiers of al-Qaeda. And that does not include the much larger sums that have been skimmed off by the “legal” corporatist criminals who have special privileges to broker these non-palpable carbon credit commodities.

A 400-page report that Schellnhuber co-authored entitled World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability sheds important light on where these elitists intend to direct their decarbonization effort. Published in 2011 as a “Flagship Report” of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WGBU), of which Schellnhuber is the chair, the report refers to itself as a “master plan” for “The Great Transformation.”

According to World in Transition, “If the radical change into a low carbon society is to succeed,” the world “must leave the epoch of nation-states behind” and move toward more and more “global governance.” The new world state envisioned, according to the WBGU, will be a more “proactive state” and a more “enabling state,” unencumbered by old-fashioned notions of constitutional limitations and natural law.

Politically, says the WBGU, this transformation “requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts.”

Or, as Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate czarina, puts it, “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.” And, Figueres emphasizes, it is “centralized transformation,” leaving no doubt that the central planners intend to be in charge of directing every minutia in the move to the “Great Transformation.”

The world is buckling under great pressure. Earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, tornadoes, mass animals dying. These things are just a fraction of the destroying forces raging throughout our world. Nature isn’t the only thing going wrong in our world today. Everything else seems to be going horribly wrong too. War, terrorism, economic trouble, increase in sin and Godlessness. Confusion and strife reign everywhere in this world today. God is withdrawing His Spirit from the earth ready for the last days and Satan is gaining more and more control.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT THE PROBLEM!

According to the Pope, the church leaders and world leaders, climate change is the biggest problem facing this world, and if we don’t deal with it now and ‘save the planet’, then this world will be doomed. Well, for starters, if you look at our page THE CLUB OF ROME AND CLIMATE CHANGE, you will see that this climate agenda was invented to UNITE THE WORLD! But the real reason this world is languishing and dying is NOT because of pollution and so-called climate change, it is because of SIN. Look at what the Lord said through Isaiah:

Isaiah 24:4-6 …’The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.’

What is the reason the earth languishes and is ‘fading away’? Is it because of pollution, consumerism and climate change? No, not at all. It is because man has transgressed the law of God – SIN! Do you see this? We must have an understanding of this. The planet is not ‘doomed’ due to climate change. It is doomed due to SIN! Look at all the people who have jumped onto the climate change bandwagon, and yet they have NO conviction of SIN in their lives! Therefore the ‘curse’ will remain upon the earth and they will be able to do NOTHING to ‘save the planet’:

Hosea 4:1-3 …’ Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood. Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.’

The pope and religious leaders who are at the forefront of the climate change movement, telling the world that the earth is being destroyed because of pollution and consumerism are the very ones who have to lead the world into transgressing the law of God, and caused the world to worship a false god! There is ‘no truth, nor mercy, nor KNOWLEDGE OF GOD in the land’ because the Vatican and religious leaders have turned the world away from the truth of God.

What law of God is specifically being transgressed? God instituted at creation week a special day that He ‘blessed and sanctified’ to be KEPT as a holy day and day of rest. That day is the 7th day Sabbath (our Saturday today), which the LORD confirmed in the 4th commandment. But the Vatican and religious leaders have CHANGED God’s law and DECEIVED the world into keeping a day God never blessed or sanctified – the 1st day of the week (SUN-day). And they have also lead the people into worshipping a FALSE god – the trinity. A god that the Bible never speaks of.

The world is in such a mess these days that even non-religious people are starting to think about what is going on and what will become of all this. And what is the answer? Why are all these things happening in our day? The answer can only be found through a source that the majority of people have forgotten about … THE BIBLE! Source