Stop The New World Economic Order


This entry was posted in Economics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Alex
    Posted 3 March, 2009 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    “Markets are not to blame for this crisis” you say. “Politicians are”. Pleeze… Did politicians force banks to give a single individual a bad loan? Did they force credit-raters to reclassify BBB-securities into AAA-securities? Who lobbied for /ordered the Glass-Steagle Act to be abolished? Politicians or the corporate elite? The “power elite” aren’t the politicians, they’re just there to create the illusion that people have a choice. Elections cost money and the grass-root money just doesn’t keep flowing the way lobbyistmoney does. Why do you think your man Ron Paul got as little air time on national networks as he did, compared to corporate friendly politicians? (And R.Paul still got a 1000% more than other outsiders.) “Big Government” = “Big Business” in disguise. “Free markets” hasn’t existed in a loong time, if ever. Greed and lack of responsability is the problem, and nowhere is that more true than within the realm of heavy duty market actors. A sure recipy for disaster is to give those guys carte blanche. What we need is money to disappear from parlamentarism, and to have accountability in the market structure. Needless to say, we’re going in the opposite direction…

  2. Tom
    Posted 4 March, 2009 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Alex, consider that the free market is a much better regulator than any government agency. Of course greed and irresponsibility is the problem but we see that in politicians and the “regulators” more than anywhere else and it will always be that way! Do we trust “Consumer Reports” because they have a government watchdog or because they have proven themselves in the free market? Politicians may not have forced bad decisions directly but they enable bad decisions because they give a false sence of security.

  3. Posted 5 March, 2009 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    En du kanskje kjenner til, en tidliere journalist for Forbes, Benjamin Fulford, sier det slik:

    So-called Economics is a Rockefeller con-job

    The so-called science of economics is, to a large extent, a con-job created by the Rockefellers and their clan of robber barons. In reality it is a camouflaged system for extracting tribute payments from the masses. To understand this, think of the U.S. economy (and many other economies) as an ancient Babylonian or Egyptian kingdom. Replace control over the central bank with control over grain reserves and think of workers who are not in primary industries as slaves who receive their grain reserves from the god king. Then imagine the god king wants to spend as much money for his own glory and as little for his slaves as possible. The king decides to set everyone to the job of building a pyramid. So, he tells his subjects that the key to their happiness is something called Gross National Pyramid. The king wants his pyramid finished quickly so he decides that both males and females should be set to work on its construction. He also decreed that workers must work 10 or 12 hours a day instead of the previous 8. Furthermore, he orders rations cut for workers who do not meet their quota. To keep the workers from protesting, he restricts their access to information, forces them to attend thousands of hours of brainwashing sessions and uses a large portion of his grain reserves to hire an army of mercenaries to keep watch over the slaves. The news bulletins the masses are permitted to see announce that everybody is happier now because the pyramid is bigger and better than ever before and the aristocracy is leading ever more decadent lifestyles. Somehow, the masses know there is something wrong with the situation but they are not quite sure what it is because it has been so cleverly disguised. This essentially, is how the U.S. economy really works. Just remember that GNP really means Gross National Pyramid, not Product. The Rockefellers have forced middle-class incomes down and forced both men and women to work in order to finance some giant secret project. They have also artificially jacked up the price of oil and put people into debt in order to extract even more from everybody. Americans and Japaneese are being impoverished to finance their long-term goal is to enslave all of humanity. To make economics work for the people instead of for the robber barons, it is essential that the government shift its priority economic goal away from increasing GNP. A new standard should use mean income (the level at which half of all people are either above or below) and overall happiness as the goal of economic policy makers.

    1998-2005: Asia-Pacific Bureau Chief for Forbes Magazine. Quit in profound disgust over extensive corporate censorship and mingling of advertising and editorial at the magazine. If they dispute this, I invite them to sue me, any place, any time.

  4. Posted 5 March, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Ja. Dette er politisk skapt i samarbeid med de økonomiske king-pins, som har disse politikere på sin lønningsliste, som de har hatt siden 1913 med Woodrow Wilson.

    Husker du Elliot Spitzer ?

    Eliot Spitzer var guvernør i New York og ble avslørt som kjøper av seksuelle tjenester. Hva de fleste media ikke forteller de hjernevaskede, er at Elliot Spitzer avslørte i en artikkel hvordan mektige krefter konspirerte (Bush administrasjonen) i USA nettopp i å selge de råtne lån som Reidun snakker om. ‘Krisen’ er SKAPT !

    En mnd etter at han skrev artikkelen, ble han tatt ut. De gjemmer på slike saker for å ‘holde folk i bånd’. Om de mukker, så brukes slikt mot dem, – og de karrieremessig ødelegges.

    Også norsk media koste seg med denne saken, men disse “moralens voktere” passet seg godt for å gå dypere inn i bakgrunnen for at akkurat Spitzer ble tatt i all offentlighet. Det er en kjent sak at mange politikere i USA har sine seksuelle sidesprang og en bør tenke over hvorfor President George W. Bush ikke blir forfulgt all den tid det er en offentlig hemmelighet at en mannlig stripper frekventerte Det Hvite Hus mange ganger og overnattet der minst to ganger.

    Eliott Spitzer sitt innlegg i Washington Post som var foranledningen for hans ødelagte rykte og karriere:

    Se dette klippet for å forstå hvorfor Eliot Spitzer egentlig ble tatt og ødelagt politisk:

    Eller her, om den over ikke virker:

  5. Alex
    Posted 6 March, 2009 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    (1) “the free market is a much better regulator than any government agency.” If that were always the case Tom, we wouldn’t:
    (A) find ourselves in a global financial melt down situation, due to unfettered/”free” market actions taken by private institutions such as The “Federal” Reserve, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Northern Rock, Kaupthing et al.

    (B) need governments at all! The reason few people passed their teens advocate anarchism, is that we believe we need at the very least a Nighthawk State as regulator. If we have no state enforcerer of rules, we have no common rules of society, no civil rights and hence degenerate into feudalism (at best).

    (2)”Politicians may not have forced bad decisions directly but they enable bad decisions because they give a false sence of security.” Yes, politicians without a doubt share responsability, but their guilt lies in their negligance to implement laws that efectively hinders irresponsabilty. If we can agree on that – how would further reducing the enforcement powers of the regulator help?

    As long as individual politicians continue, for all practical purposes, to be dependent of Big Business – whose sole agenda is relatively short term profit for its own individual corporations, with little or no concern for consequences outside of that agenda – there won’t be any long lasting systematic change. And a system crisis needs a change in the system.

    Now, we see quisling governments transferring wealth of future taxpayers into the pockets of present day finance elite…

  6. Tom
    Posted 6 March, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    I propose that the federal reserve, AIG, and the others wouldn’t exist in a free economy. Most american’s buy their houses and invest in IRAs (for the most part american stocks) because our tax code and manipulated interest rates push us their. I can rent for $1000 per month or I can borrow at 5%, have a $1000 mortgage where the interest isn’t taxed. Or if I commit 15% of my income to the stock market for 30 years it won’t be taxed at 25% either. Most of us would rather save our cash in a bank at 2 or 3% over inflation and just keep working. Unfortunately the bankers and the politicians have designed a system where I must pursue high risk investments in the sectors they approve just to have a hope of beating inflation. This is not free.

    There are no ethics in politics, and my understanding of mankind, history, and personal experience is that there never will be. The bigger the gov’t the more corruption there will be. I really think it is naive to believe that regulations exist to help “the lttle guy.” I am much more comfortable and secure making my own decisions, aren’t you?

  7. Farmann
    Posted 7 March, 2009 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    That last comment of yours pinnes it down very well.

  8. Alex
    Posted 7 March, 2009 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but you guys need to free yourselves of your ideological blinders…

    “I really think it is naive to believe that regulations exist to help ‘the little guy.’” The question is, did “the little guy” do better in state-free societies? Eliminate the state and you eliminate the rule of law. That leaves you with the rule of brute force, where individuals and any kind of organisation live at the mercy of the dominant brutes. How “comfortable and secure” in their decison-making do you think individuals felt during feudalism?

    “I propose that the federal reserve, AIG, and the others wouldn’t exist in a free economy.” (*Sigh*) Lest you’ll end up in the same utopian way of reasoning as communists (“We’ve never had ‘true’ communism, so the failures of empirical communism is irrelevant”), let’s stick to reality please: those organisations all developped as market creations.

    Concluding: OF COURSE GOVERNMENTS ARE CORRUPT! But who has corrupted our contemporary governments? Big Business! And whereas I definitively don’t want to see all powerful governments, I’m equally keen to avoid giving Big Business a license to do as they please. Power corrupts regardless of what form it comes in. Hence the splendid invention of checks and balances… (if you put them into actual use)

  9. Håvard
    Posted 8 March, 2009 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    I think both Tom and Alex are correct here. Too much government is bad and the same goes for to little. Too much and you have a parasite that slows down and eventually kills the host (community) it is feeding from. Too little and you sooner or later end up with anarchy or a bunch of warlords that compete for power while the public suffers. The latter has been and still is the norm in parts of the middle east and can be traced back all the way to the Persian empire.

    The special about the situation we have now is that we have humongous government working in the interest of extremely powerful finance and banking syndicates. This relationship has been there for a while, but media made it difficult for this relationship to get out of control. That was until the syndicates understood that by owning the media they also control it.

    So here we are then, ruled by finance and banking syndicates while we select our political puppets to front their interests. The good thing about this is that if you follow the smell of “money” and read a little history you can predict more or less what their next move will be. And as part of the calculation you always have to remind yourself that money has no real value, money is just a tool. The real value that these syndicates are interested in is ownership. They want to own everything, not only factories and TV channels. No, everything! Properties, water, power grids and even the human genome.

    One thing that seems a bit strange is why these syndicates would want to encourage big inefficient governments. But it actually makes sense. As I said, money is only a tool. And big governments putting people in debt is good. Big governments easily become corrupted and are easy to control by the use of money. And most important of all, if more than 50% of people work for the government it will be all but impossible to try and shrink the government because too many people would be afraid that their job would disappear.
    So in the end you have the self interest of the majority of people making them close their eyes, ears and mouths while they accept anything the syndicates want in fear of their own immediate future. Genius!

  10. Alex
    Posted 9 March, 2009 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    Håvard, you got most of it right. One point I’d like to emphasize though, is that the real value of Big Government to Big Business isn’t the work dependence of ordinary citizens (they’d be just as dependant on Big Business jobs), but the legitimacy corrupt governments give present order by “democratic” law-enforcement.
    And as you correctly point out, as long as people continue to trust etablishment media to represent reality in a fairly unbiased fashion (“the bail-outs are ‘necessary’, Patriot Act I & II were ‘necessary’”), they’ll continue to by the general illusion of perhaps imperfect but nevertheless actual democracy and benign “free” markets.

    “If we all join hands and go buy a new SUV, everything will be all right” (Bob McTeer, Dallas Fed

  11. Alex
    Posted 27 March, 2009 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Jo, jag känner till de positiva intentionerna i Eliot Spitzers försök att kämpa mot OCC. (Däremot anser jag att Spitzer satte krokben för sig själv genom sina vidlyftiga prostituionsvanor.) Och att ingenting egentligen förändrats sedan dess är dagens artikel i (( ett talande bevis för: Byt ut “Eliot Spitzer” mot “Andrew Cuomo” och “Bush” mot “Obama” så ser vi att den finasiella oligarkin drar i regelmakarnas trådar minst lika effektivt som någonsin förut. När ska folk vakna upp inför det faktum att Mr “Change” Obamas uppdrag från sina herrar är att BEVARA systemet, inte förändra det?

  12. Alex
    Posted 27 March, 2009 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Men snälla herr Johansen, den där Benjamin Fulford är ju en förvirrad individ som tappat kontakten med verkligeheten…