Gold & the New World Order
I believe the discipline of Economics has a fatal flaw - it assumes a degree of rationality of which our specie is devoid. It also assumes you can reason with power - you cannot. Finally, and fatally, it has failed to integrate globalization into any of its fundamental schools of thought.
All the rational argument in the world will not convince those in power (by wealth, social position or politics) to act rationally because 1. it would not be in their interest to do so 2. because that minority, elite, rich, powerful, many sociopaths and/or - already know the rational positions of the various schools, and they have made it their business to circumvent them or bend them to serve their own purposes, and 3. they hold the rest of us in complete and utter contempt - expressed in private often using terminology that is shocking, demeaning and exasperating to the listener.
It is counter-intuitive to assume that they can be convinced to abandon privilege and adhere to any of the optional disciplines en masse in their decision-making. They look for ways to skirt rules, laws and regulations without it costing them too much (even in terms other than financial).
In recent times this has involved hiring Ph.Ds in Math, Economists and a few MBAs who majored in Finance (those who accused the rest of us of shovelling clouds at B-School) to devise these new "creative" products - you know the list - sub-prime, CDOs, CSOs, MBSs, and now carbon credits - anything to achieve what economists and others interpret only in financial terms, failing to notice the elephant in the living room.
The mess we find ourselves in at the moment is grounded in finance but that is a means to an end. The end is the intertwining of monetary, political and, if necessary, military and police power (including private security agencies).
Our governments seem in agreement, especially with the most creative, read corrupt financial machinations, and while people of a conspiratorial bent, might assume that they have been bought and paid for, and while in some cases this may be true, it is an unfortunate over-simplification to let that stand as the sole tenet of the argument.
It is undeniably true that the recent recession was the result of what can only be deemed corruption. Ignorance, or feigned ignorance, by those in the most powerful positions in the western world should not satisfy anyone with regard to their culpability. Ignorance is no excuse in law. And a few short decades ago, ignorance would not have saved such people from the consequences of their actions or failure to act for the greater good.
The rather bizarre notions by which our unruly children - commerce and politics - have been conducting themselves, thanks mostly to the University of Chicago (Rockefeller High) and bogus Nobels, has fascinated some of us to the point that an interesting case study or a good mystery novel might. How could any educated manager or politician believe that business was to be run in the sole interest of the shareholder (when the managers are the major shareholders) and that the focus should be sort-term when all experience in modern corporate history was to the contrary. GE, P & G, Johnson and Johnson and similar enterprises have been around a long time for a reason, several reasons actually.
If I need to tell you what they are, stop reading. There is no hope for you, and quite possible little or none for the rest of us.
That governments and theoretically international (really U.S.) entities like the UN, World Bank, IMF, BIS, etc have not seem fit to eliminate the financial hokus pokus between double dips implies many politicians and judiciaries have been bought; that someone has put the fear of god into them; or that they are fellow ideologues (functionaries) not bright enough to know that they are not really members of the A Team and are disposable in due course.
Another major difficulty I have is that most of the Schools of Economics, including von Mises Austrian School, are based in a period when nations and perhaps a few empires were in power, and therefore had to be kept functional, within certain limits. The various theories were more or less adequate to that purpose, if one were to be able to convince oneself that the flaws of each approach wee acceptable under given circumstances.
If we are stuck with economists, it is time that they came up with a modern theory to deal with the harsh realities of globalization. Any government or any empire, no matter how great their hegemony, can only extend informal power beyond its sovereign borders. That is where their ability - even if they wished to be socially responsible - to apply law, regulation or policy ends....at their borders.
There are now very few capitalists extant, beyond those in the quickly-fading real economy. We now have corporatists, and this implies much more than a semantic difference. A rich and powerful elite has just successfully engineered the largest transfer of wealth to the top 2-3% of Western Society in history. If there is any extra wealth in the hands of those in the middle, business or individual, they will be coaxed back into the markets (stocks/bonds) or they will be sold on the idea that carbon taxes, turned onto another "creative" investment that is "Triple A," or, alternatively, encouraged to take on more debt; and the last remaining semblance of wealth in the middle of out three-tier system (capitalism) will be mopped up.
I don't believe this is necessarily a mass conspiracy, although there certainly has been collusion. And there has been a coup d'état in the West - using money and technology - to engineer the recent recession. There will be a second "dip", if deemed necessary.
What has happened of late has taken place because it could - as Clinton said of his young page. It has been an inter-generational dream for several centuries, but the technology to facilitate its fruition simply did not exist. War could not do the trick. But then along can Bill Gates and a phalanx of young people who created and refined an evolutionionary/revolutionary technology of immense potential for good or evil.
As this technology evolved to global proportions, bring wondrous benefits to mankind around the globe, the Internet in particular was a tipping point at which it caught the attention and has allowed an elite (a small, not necessarily more brilliant sector of society) to play "out of bounds," using a new rule book, the book of no rules.
Banks and global corporations play out their centuries old dreams of minority world political, monetary and technological dominance in cyberspace - money is electronic - it can be transferred around the globe in a nano second. And money is power.
Economists (and many others) are simply behind the curve in this regard. There is no government or branch of government, including the law and the regulators, even were they so inclined, able to cope with people and entities who function beyond their jurisdictions. Those that theoretically exist - the UN, IMF, World Bank, BIS, etc are powerless within a global context.
In addition, by using outmoded economic theory, one is inclined to consider symptoms, i.e. given aspects of macroeconomic reality we have never had before in history.
Corporatism and the political power it can buy or seize by force (including cyber force) is in very few and often unknown hands. Economists still discuss Keynes, Friedman and Von Mises, plus all variations on their central thesis, as if these antiquated ideas held any relevance to a global reality in which all the rules have changed or been eliminated and where money and social position is an even more direct road to power because troublesome politicians and the law have been eliminated from the equation.
The world is not ruled by governments, democratic or otherwise. It is now ruled by the captains of globalization using cyber technology and the manipulation of money and markets to push politicians aside and assume almost absolute power unto themselves. Some politicians (few) seem aware and are concerned; other are bought, along with media, or are oblivious to the fact that they are now merely tolerated.
Some politicians and policy analysts, then, have partly grasped that economists is global, but they remain unwilling to sacrifice sovereignty in order to cope with the new reality. As long as corporations and those who control them function globally while governments or empires try to retain local or sovereign political power, corporatists win the power struggle by default.
They control governments. Governments exercise no real authority over them. Those in government and it agencies, including the courts, who have not been bought, can easily be frightened into compliance - carrot or stick. Either way, government power is now a myth, particularly in the Western democracies, diminished almost to the point of irrelevancy.
Would that the term, New World Order, were not so "loaded'' with connotations of conspiracy. Otherwise, it could be quite useful. Let's look at globalized commerce:
At this point I could proceed through a whole checklist of items, issues and nostrums which I see aired nightly on TV's Cable Channels and daily in major newspapers. I have, I confess, at some point been forced to tune it all out. There have been moments of despair.
To use a very blunt analogy, if a friend shows me a new laser weapon, capable of eliminating a living target, and I accidentally or deliberately kill him, do I shoot him again in exactly the same way hoping to restore him to life? Is that not what we are doing in financial services?
The "mechanics" as I refer to them who brought us recession, including those at a certain bank in NY which has moved its computers into the NYSE, so as to front run incoming orders, think they are doing "God's Work", shouldn't that brings out the people with the one armed jacket. A tiny, relatively powerless group of idiots called "The Family" gets worldwide exposure for trying to sidle up to politicians. They aren't any smarter than economists who argue strategy from the last war, seemingly unaware that there is a new war taking place --- or are some of them, dare I say, paid to distract, organ-grinder's moneys, who think themselves among the elite because of have been once invited to Bilderberg or given a trumped-up Nobel prize.
Let me be clear here - what we have is a confluence of influence and events. Tax exempt "think tanks" by invitation are a great recruiting tool by the elite. Former Presidents Carter and Clinton and our current Prime Minister Harper - think about it - who brought them to the dance to use Brian Mulroney's old expression. Remember him, Reagan's old pal. Now Obama? How did these small bit players suddenly emerge onto the national stage; who funded their campaigns; and why have or will they all leave office as wealthy men.
Pre cyber-power, those questions were easier to answer. The public knew they ran with a certain pack before they were elected. We are all big boys and girls here, so there is nothing new in that. It has only been since U-Tube that I realized (I hope I'm not alone) where the more unlikely among this group were anointed. They were brought to these meetings to see if they had the right stuff, and would co-operate after election. When the time arrived to spring the financial trap, they recruited an innocent into the White House and a true blue believer into the PM's Residence on Sussex Drive.
All either had to do was stay out of the way. Obama, being such an academic, has his head so far in the clouds that they could simply stand him in a corner; and Harper has kept the Parliament tied up in distractions and adjournments to the point that there is no government standing watch, deliberately so. And like the U.S., our media is corporate.
I'm sure the elite, as they call themselves was orgasmic.
There will be no middle class in North
America; and we will at some point be joined in and economic
and eventual political alliance, just as we now see occurring
in Europe. Just as the EU was a regional experiment, and this
week they will see if Greece will surrender its national sovereignty
to Brussels - linking financial services and political power,
in which case the rest of Club Med will have to follow.
Which brings me to Gold. We know that during this transitional period, the wealthy are taking or trying to take physical possession of bullion (bars) in London and NY. We know they have been bribed - given cash in lieu or in addition to bullion in storage to remain silent about how much bullion is there. We also know that some Arab states have moved their bullion to the Vaults in Dubai while China (Taiwan) has moved theirs to vaults near the new airport on the Island. Now we know that there is too much paper gold in circulation if our figures are accurate (above ground).
But an interesting question has been raised recently about whether there might be more gold that originally thought above ground - whether it be Nazi Gold in Swiss Banks of Japanese Gold taken during their per and during WWII escapades all over Asia - especially the Philippines.
Economists and Gold bugs have marvelled for years at how a cartel could keep the price of gold deflated at their convenience. If there had been gold laundered thought London, where 95% is in a pool, it would have been terribly easy to simply release this onto the markets - if there were a surplus very few knew existed. I don't particularly care which army or which government eventually ended up with the plundered goodies, the fact is, that they had a control mechanism, par excellence.
It would have taken considerably more intelligence than I think most of them could claim to have managed the market without a "float" for want of a better term. Yes they could always bribe the elite, using cash and an appeal to their loyalty to the top 2-3% of the population to which they claim affiliation. And with constant inflation in fiat currency, such individuals would have had no difficulty finding a use for the cash.
Last night on the news, I heard one economist pronounce that were we to return to a gold standard, the price of gold would have to be astronomical. I would like to see Shadow Government Statistics assess that claim.
There have also been rumours in recent weeks about the U.S. inflating out of debt, and introducing a new currency with gold backing. This is much more likely if there is surplus gold. Fort Knox has not been audited in over 50 years, and while it is tempting to think they have something to hide, they may or may not. And as unlikely as it would seem, the same is true in London.
If either scenario proved to be the case, i.e. more or less bullion that we thought, due to plunder, what would be the impact in terms of the grand strategy - assuming the corporatists remain in control using cyber technology - and whenever necessary, conventional totalitarian methods to keep things the way they like them?
Anyone who thinks I have been watching too much U-Tube by the way should spend less that $20 and buy a copy of Rockefeller's Memoirs - something in the order of 500 pages. He had the confidence just a few short years ago to lay out his plan for the New World Order, but his makes his pragmatism clear. He understand that there can be consensus about where they want to be, but not necessarily in how they get there, and find that acceptable.
He also sees the potential for all things non-democratic, but, having nothing but contempt for the people we elect, he asks, could an elite do any worse. In a way this goes back to Plato's Republic where a groomed elite runs a society, except in the end, they want it to be the world. And as anyone who has taken Introductory Philosophy will know, there is a case to be made for it. My concern, as I mentioned at the beginning, is tat I doubt we as a specie have evolved sufficiently to successfully implement such a system.
We have not done a great job historically at managing conventional corporations, countries or empires. To be arrogant enough to think we are ready to assume the mantle of managing globally - both financially and politically - is a little too much for me to wrap my head around.
And yet, the technology is here, the corporate entities - banks and other corporations are here. There is a terrible gap in our economic and ethical foundation to allow us to assume such responsibility, so it would seem we have little choice. Ready or not, we must come to grips with a new reality.
In a way, it is like nuclear weaponry. It's creators knew it might take us beyond the limits of acquired wisdom. We would have the ability to destroy the planet. Well, I would suggest that globalization and its twin Corporatism has a similar capacity, as we witnessed recently. And like Chernobyl, we may not be out of the woods yet.
A total economic crash could literally send us back to the dark ages. We have the US, EU and China competing to command. Their visions of the New World order are quite different. Were either economy or currency to crash without the option of support from other Central Banks, things could turn nasty rather quickly. Similarly, if there is more gold, and we can have a gold standard of some sort, there will always be the temptation for one or the other to make a grab for the laurel wreath.
One wild card is the Pentagon. It has obviously take additional prerogatives from the President. Past General have been fired for disagreeing with the White House publicly, and yet top military officers have consistently gone further than MacArthur without consequence. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex, just as some of the nation's founding fathers warned about banks and fiat money.
In China the military has urged a response to the US being more supportive of Taiwan. And while Obama has consistently stated a withdrawal date from the Middle East, his generals publicly disagree. Historically, this has always resulted in firings. Knowing about the drug running that occurred in Viet Nam, I cannot help but wonder how much of the reluctance of the generals to withdraw is based on drug money - and whether that money is going to private accounts or to support black-ops around the world.
So here were are . We have seen gold try to break through $1100 USDX this week and not quite do it. Economists have provided the most ridiculous arguments to explain the situation - all based in out of date economic theory of one school or another.
The question must be - what is the future
of gold given globalization? Did the bribes given the rich imply
there was a shortage because of leveraging (paper gold in all
its forms) or that there was more and that had to be kept secret
as it would be used to support a new currency USD or global at
some point based on a gold standard? I confess, I think the elites
would want a gold backed currency because it would keep them
in control financially and, therefore, politically.
My best guess - there is more gold than we think - and we will soon see a gold-backed currency. What that means is an substantial increase in the price of gold, but not a monstrous one. The currency will be new; the average person will be confused - as when we switched to metric. And government will be in the back seat as the elites run the world using cyber technology. That can be done ethically or requite totalitarian measures, depending on how smart our elites truly are. Fingers crossed.