The World Bank Makes Recommedations To China

I have plans to do a more in depth post on the IMF and World Bank and how they promote socialism and state-dominated economies under the guise of free market language. In the mean time I will do a short post that illustrates, to an extent, this point. I readily admit that the stated goals of the IMF and World Bank do make it sound as if their policies are promoting free markets; but when you examine more closely their recommendations you can see that they do not advocate nor promote free markets but instead promote a state-controlled economic system where the state uses the market mechanism to advance its agendas and goals. Part of this is using state control in the form of market incentives, like carbon taxes, to promote sectors of the economy that the state deems worthy to be promoted . This is opposed to a free market system where the market is the entity determining which sectors will dominate. A perfect example that illustrates this point is the recent report by the World Bank that forecasts that the China will become the world largest economy before the year 2030 and make recommendations on how the Chinese should reform their economy:

China must relax its grip on industry and move towards a free-market economy, the World Bank said on Monday in a report that forecast the country would become the world's largest economy before 2030.[...]
An executive summary of the 400-plus page report, made public by Zoellick, had six broad recommendations for Beijing: strengthen a market-based economy, foster innovation, go "green", provide social security for all, improve the fiscal system and seek mutually beneficial relations with the world.

I know that "move towards a free-market" might take our breath away and make us go out and be cheer leaders for the World Bank. Just like saving the environment makes us want to support the environmental movement. But we have to look more closely at the issue. One thing that caught my eye was the "go green" statement. The world bank has bought in to the lie of man-made climate change: "Fifth, while China’s green development strategy is driven almost entirely by domestic considerations, it will make a significant contribution to tackling global climate change." As has been noted before, the green movement is not about saving the environment but is rather about advancing communism and socialism and that there is no man- made climate change. When you take a closer look at at the specifics of the World Bank's recommendations( around page 39), it appears that the belief in man-made climate change is being used to promote a government-led economic system and not a free market system:

A key goal of using market incentives is to harness the creativity and entrepreneurial energy of China’s private sector and state enterprises to protect the environment and turn China’s green industries into an important source of growth by making them world-class innovators and competitors. Market incentives are also the best way to foster efficiency, which, in the case of green development, goes beyond financial efficiency to include resource use efficiency and the reduction of environmental externalities. [...]

Instead, the government should consider market mechanisms such as taxes, fees, tradable permits, tradable quotas, and eco-labeling. In degraded ecosystems, rehabilitation is warranted, especially through expanded payments for ecological services in poor and ecologically important rural areas (for example, upriver watershedsor downriver flood plains).

There is no better place to begin than by ensuring that market prices of goods and services reflect the true cost of production and consumption to society. For example, the price of oil, water, coal, and other natural resources should include a tax to reflect the social and environmental costs incurred with their use. Complementary actions would involve removing direct and indirect subsidies, raising pollution taxes, and canceling export tax rebates for high-pollution, high emissions, and resource-intensive industries. (Indeed, export targets for these industries should also be curtailed, if not abolished altogether.)[...]

Given the global push on climate mitigation, the most effective way for China to establish itself as a global green technology leader is by implementing stringent and effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to internalize the cost of carbon emissions in the operating costs of enterprises. Stringent emissions reduction policies, achieved through such diverse market mechanisms as carbon trading, a carbon tax on fuels, technology standards, and regional carbon partnerships, can act as a powerful mobilizing force for innovation in green technologies. This, in turn, will help lower economic costs associated with improving the quality of the environment and help drive overall growth.[...]

To mobilize collective action on environmental protection and climate change, the
government needs to launch mass education campaigns to increase public awareness of these issues and the actions that individuals and households can take to contribute
toward the national effort. China can make emissions reduction and environmental protection a desirable lifestyle, thereby increasing market demand for green products. To do so, it could mobilize nongovernmental organizations, industry associations and the, media. It can also change consumer behavior by providing better information, through energy efficiency labeling for example.

While these recommendations sound good--externalize costs, internalization cost, using market incentives, carbon tax, and etc.-- and even seem like they are promoting the free market, they do not promote the free market and they are not free market based. They instead advocate the state functioning as the mechanism which determines the economic sectors that are to be dominate and how scarce resources are to be utilized.

Communism has proven to be a failed economic system and those that advocate for the communist economic system are no longer advocating for the old version of communism with total state control over the economy, but instead are advocating for more of a fascist economic model where the state determines how scare resources are to be allocated for the purpose of advancing the goals and agenda of the state--usually social justice or environmental justice. It is yet to be seen if the Chinese government will actually listen to the advice of the World Bank, but the main point to take away from this is that the World Bank does not an advocate for free markets. The World Bank and the IMF that were created out of the Bretton Woods conference are evolving into a world central bank that will issue a single currency, just as its founder Keynes had envisioned. A world-socialist-economic system with international organizations like the IMF and World Bank functioning as a world central bank is being created before our eyes.

Update On The Direction America's Economy Is Headed

America's and the global economy is fast approaching a very transformative event. Here is a webpage with some good links that has some updates to show where America and the world is headed. I am done doing long posts on this topic. At this point, you either realize where the global economy is headed or you won't get it until events slap you and your family in the face. Now is the time to slowly prepare yourselves mentally and financially.

Candidate Gets Key Endorsement - Republican Nominee now a Lock

Some cutting, insightful comments from a prominent Republican who gives the key endorsement at the end of these quotes.
Via Hot Air:

“I’m just hoping that whatever is in the White House next year is a Republican. I can’t bear to watch what’s happened to our great country. Everybody’s got their head in the sand. Everybody in the industry is like, ‘Oh, Obama’s doing such a great job…’ I don’t think so. Not from what I see.

“Looking at the Republican candidates, I’ve got to tell you, I was floored the other day to see that Mitt Romney’s five boys have a $100 million trust fund. Where does a guy make that much money? So there’s some questions there. And watching Newt Gingrich, I was pretty excited for a while, but now he’s just gone back to being that person that everybody said he was – that angry little man. I still like him, but I don’t think I’d vote for him.

“Ron Paul… you know, I heard somebody say he was like insecticide – 98 percent of it’s inert gases, but it’s the two percent that’s left that will kill you. What that means is that he’ll make total sense for a while, and then he’ll say something so way out that it negates everything else. I like the guy because he knows how to excite the youth of America and fill them in on some things. But when he says that we’re like the Taliban… I’m sorry, Congressman Paul, but I’m nothing like the Taliban.

“Earlier in the election, I was completely oblivious as to who Rick Santorum was, but when the dude went home to be with his daughter when she was sick, that was very commendable. Also, just watching how he hasn’t gotten into doing these horrible, horrible attack ads like Mitt Romney’s done against Newt Gingrich, and then the volume at which Newt has gone back at Romney… You know, I think Santorum has some presidential qualities, and I’m hoping that if it does come down to it, we’ll see a Republican in the White House… and that it’s Rick Santorum.”

My friends, let me present you the prominent Republican and former heroin addict who made these statements:

Dave Mustaine, co-founder of Metallica and leader of Megadeth looks like an angry white male to me, which I guess most metal-heads are, so, his views can be discounted by the elites of our great nation.
And here is a video of Megadeth at their rip-roaring best.  Great drummer and Mustaine is a great guitarist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm175LWTka0

I am not going to argue here for Santorum.  Just to point out that prominent metal monsters are for Santorum.  Sorry Paulbots, but Dave echoes my view of Ron Paul.  All remaining Republican candidates have serious warts to go along with their good points.  I'll go along with whomever is nominated.   Dave just settled whom that will be.

The Slow Transformation Of America

(A short poorly put together post. ) I did not know that stuff like this was happening today.

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

Hotair has a piece on this also. This is the type of tyranny that democratic nations have to fear: like an overbearing and protective parent that suffocates their kids with too much love and concern. I am reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." And Alexis Tocqueville: "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other."

Also the military is being infected with political correctness of the type that enable the Fort Hood Islamic terrorist to exist in the ranks of the military:

The school where bomb technicians from all branches of the U.S. military learn their craft has been ordered to remove the unofficial motto "Initial Success or Total Failure" from its classroom walls.

Rear Adm. Michael Tillotson told school leaders this month that the motto could be viewed as disrespectful to the hundreds of Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians who have died in the line of duty.

"The motto itself holds potential insensitivities and implies that our fallen and wounded EOD Warriors have somehow failed," Tillotson, who is based in Norfolk, Va., said in a memo to the Florida school.

"Throughout history many EOD techs from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, other U.S. government and civilian agencies, as well as foreign partners have lost their lives or been wounded in the line of duty. To imply that they failed is insensitive and disrespectful. We owe our fallen warriors and their families honor and dignity for their heroic service," the admiral said in a prepared statement.

Like the word "fair", "insensitive" is a code word that is symptomatic of the decline of America. (I personally hate the word "fair" very much.)

While these news stories might not seem like a big deal, they show the slow and creeping transformation of America. This transformation is happening so slowly that it is hard to notice.

Obamneycare And Religious Freedom

The government is trying to force Catholic institutions to go against their religious beliefs by making them provide contraceptives and birth control to their employees. I am not aware of all of the details of this issue, but from what I have heard from several commentators it seems to be a power grab by the government and an infringement of religious liberties. I have not heard any good arguments in favor of it. I don't see what the problem is with birth control--quite frankly a lot more people need to use it. Mark Steyn draws a parallel between this issue and the main reason that the first European settlers came to America:

The church model the young American state wished to separate from was that of the British monarch, who remains to this day supreme governor of the Church of England. This convenient arrangement dates from the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The title of the law gives you the general upshot, but, just in case you’re a bit slow on the uptake, the text proclaims “the King’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England.”[...]

Welcome to Obamacare.[...]

The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius, and many others believe in one-size-fits-all national government — uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment — and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.

Obama has walked back from requiring that religious employers provide birth control by stating that the insurance companies must provide it. Rush Limbaugh seems to think that this not really walking back or caving in and relates this issue with the broader lost of freedom in America:

The Associated Press has learned. The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception." And we're supposed to applaud this? We're supposed to think that we have emerged with a big victory here? Obama can mandate that we buy insurance, and now Obama can mandate what insurance companies must offer -- and after mandating what insurance companies must offer, then Obama can mandate what insurance companies can charge for it? [...]

Since when...? I'm gonna ask this again: Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty and then claims the power to make compromises on that issue? This is how, folks, we lose our liberty. This is how we lose the Constitution. The suggestion that Obama has the power to alter that which he doesn't have the power to do in the first place, is simply unacceptable. The first thing he does he doesn't have the power to do. He doesn't have, constitutionally, the power to mandate that religious organizations provide -- free of charge or otherwise -- any abortion-related service with which they disagree. He doesn't have the authority. Then to supposedly correct it, he then engages in more authority that he doesn't have![..]

From violating religious rights where there is no power permitted to do so, to mandating the purchase of products, to now mandating insurance companies sell certain products at a price that's also mandated, from czars, to denying the right to travel, it's all here. We're living in a country that's becoming unrecognizable!

If the government is the entity that is providing people's health care and controlling 1/6 of the U.S. economy, then the government has every right to have all of these mandates that violates people's and religious institution's most fundamental rights. This is the slow creeping danger to people's fundamental freedoms in Obamneycare. People can't have the government provide everything for them and have freedom at the same time. The sad thing is that the Republican party is flirting with nominating a candidate who implemented a version of Obamacare that actually had a similar mandate for religious institutions. America's leaders ,to include Republican leaders, are selling the American people into slavery and bondage to the state. People need to wake up and get informed, especially republicans that are voting for Romney in the primaries. But as history shows people won't wake up until it is too late, I am reminded of the condition of the German people after being seduced into following a charismatic leader that resulted in loosing WW II and having tens of thousands of their women raped by Russian soldiers and their cities destroyed.