Very interesting report from the National Intelligence Council.

I got this report off of Glenn Beck dot com and I thought it was very interesting. I haven't read much of it but I will post a few interesting things I got from the very beginning. The report comes from the National Intelligence Council which according to its website is

Welcome to the website of the National Intelligence Council. The NIC is a center of strategic thinking within the US Government, reporting to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and providing the President and senior policymakers with analyses of foreign policy issues that have been reviewed and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community.

The report is titled "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World". The report is similar to the "Joint Operating Environment" report in the required reading section of the blog and it seems to restate some of the basic "predictions" present in the JOE report: "Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor, the United States’ relative strength—even in the military realm—will decline and US leverage will become more constrained."

The report also states the fact that wealth is being transferred from the West to the East, "The unprecedented shift in relative wealth and economic power roughly from West to East now under way will continue." This sounds like one of Obama's goals and maybe Obama can help make this a reality.

Another interesting thing is that the report seems to agree with the premise that anthropological climate change is a fact, "Climate change is likely to exacerbate resource scarcities, particularly water scarcities."

The next fifteen years will be marked by great changes,

More Change than Continuity The rapidly changing international order at a time of growing geopolitical challenges increases the likelihood of discontinuities, shocks, and surprises. No single outcome seems preordained: the Western model of economic liberalism, democracy, and secularism, for example, which many assumed to be inevitable, may lose its luster—at least in the medium term.

One of the "shocks" will come from the energy transition that will occur when the world shifts more away from traditional fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. The report notes that this has in the past lead to great advancements for civilization; but if there is a transition away from traditional sources of energy without any new reliable renewable sources that don't exist as of now, then this would be a regression for civilization, at least for the West. Just look at the goal of fighting climate change that entails the Western nations lowering its energy consumption while transferring its wealth to the developing nations.

On the recent financial crises and how it has strained current international governing entities, IMF, and the global economic structure which calls for major reforms in the international economic structure,

The crisis has increased calls for a new 'Bretton Woods' to better regulate the global economy. World leaders, however, will be challenged to renovate the IMF and devise a globally transparent and effective set of rules that apply to differing capitalisms and levels of financial institutional development. Failure to construct a new all-embracing architecture could lead countries to seek security through competitive monetary policies and new investment barriers, increasing the potential for market segmentation.[...] Despite recent inflows into dollar assets and the appreciation of the dollar, the dollar could lose its status as an unparalleled global reserve currency by
2025, and become a first among equals in a market basket of currencies. This may
force the US to consider more carefully how the conduct of its foreign policy
affects the dollar.

Regarding demographics and the aging population of the developed nations and the ensuing "pension boom",

The Pensioner Boom: Challenges of Aging Populations Population aging has brought today’s developed countries—with a few exceptions such as the US—to a demographic “tipping point.” Today, nearly 7 out of every 10 people in the developed world are in the traditional working years (ages 15 to 64)—a high-tide mark. This number has never before been so high and, according to experts, in all likelihood will never be so high again.

I don't have much time to read the whole thing and to do a well-put-together post. Overall, the report is interesting but it doesn't seem to say anything new and I don't really know what to make of it. But I think it is interesting to read and provides a look into the world of the future--although it is a prediction and nobody can accurately predict the future.

A Response to the Imaginistas

I've been wrestling with a response to the very good article and very good comments in the last post.  I still haven't come up with a response that's adequate, but I don't feel like working more, so I'll throw up what I got.  If you guys rip it to shreds, I'll just say, I could have written it a lot stronger...but I didn't, so there!

Anyway, have at it!

IMAGINE

Isn't that sweet?

Jeff's interesting previous post has gotten a lot of thoughtful comments from everybody. This is what this blog's all about! To greatly over-simplify their comments, Jeff seems to think World Government is inevitable and that it is not necessarily a good thing, Melkor seems to think World Government is inevitable and that it is a good thing. I've got my thoughts about whether it is good or bad, but it's the inevitability that I am taking exception to.

I've got to say, I think Melkor's ideal view is theoretically good, but when you put real people with real cultures and selfish motives (in other words, typical humans) in these positions of authority then the theoretically beneficial system becomes a ' what can it do for me and mine ' system. I think Melkor's IMF is the most perfect super-national actor, but that's one good actor among many bad actors, or maybe a better phrase would be 'one selfless actor among many selfish actors'.

The United States works as sort of a super-national system only because the many states that constitute it are (or were) basically one primarily English culture (those that were brought here forcibly, or immigrated from other cultures were absorbed into the culture until recently), with one language and one culture (more or less). When a place like Louisiana suffers a disaster, we have a sense of community and rally to its support, gladly supporting our government. Not because it makes economic sense for us to do so, but because they are kin. They are culturally our brothers. That is an important thing that both Melkor and Jeff seem to be ignoring in their praise (or at least idea of inevitability) of world management organizations. Same when a portion of the country is economically depressed. We are not terrbily upset that our tax dollars are spent helping to build up that area (even if, as RTP&GGrs, we think that the area should figure out how to pull itself up out of the mud). By contrast, the EU is made up of many countries and speak different languages and have varying cultures. It's no accident that Germany is highly efficient/prosperous/clean, while Greece is a 3rd-world backwater. The Europeans, or at least the elite of Europe see what the US has going for it and are trying to turn Europe into the same type of place. However, it is my opinion, that this won't truly be done until Europe is culturally as uniform as the United States. The German elite may want desperately to keep helping the Greeks live their lazy socialist welfare-state lifestyle in order to hold the EU together, but I predict that the typical German will not stand for this forever, unlike the way the West Germans have consistently stood and supported their slacker East German brethren. I predict Angela Merkel will pay at the ballot box whenever her party is up for elections next (though I'm not sure how dearly as she already is the European version of a conservative, and choosing the Social Democrats or Greens would only aggrevate the situation (uhm, but to parenthesize even further, Republicans and Bush were rightly slammed for their profligate spending and we sure showed them by electing Obama and Democrats into power, so who knows!)). Europeans from different countries do not view each other as brothers. They view each other as people to do business with who talk differently and act differently. Also, they each have their own army and cannot be brute-forced into cooperating if they really don't want to. That is another huge difference. If the Greeks say "fuck you" to the EU and continue their welfare-state ways, they may be penalized economically, but the EU cops (ha!) aren't going to march in and confiscate their businesses and property. If anything, the elites will bend over backwards to bail them out some more. If a Federal bailout were to happen in the case of a defaulting California, California would cooperate regarding the conditions or else.

Taking this to the next level we go to the UN where not much of anything works and it is basically the tyranny of the many leaches harrassing the few providers. It only exists at all because of the rich countries' magnanimous contributions (possibly liberal-elites' -misplaced- guilt about colonialism) and again, a desire of the elites of the rich countries to have this 'Imagine'-like one-world paradise. That the poor countries hold out their hands and take this magnanimity while at the same time spitting in the elites' faces is a source of both amusement and anger to me.  The Imaginistas in the US and Europe may be able to Imagine there are no borders, but the rest of the world will laugh at them and take their money and land.  The rest of the world cares very much.

The problem with the world-wide governing authorities is that cultures are different around the world. We don't have one people with similar interests, we have many people with divergent interests, all looking out for each group's own best interests.

Current events and reforms are leading us towards "Global governance".

I don't have much time to make any large or well done posts so I will just provide links and quotes. I have been keeping up with Glenn Beck's show and he is stating that everything is heading towards global governance.

Tonight, I'm going to show you where we are headed — attention liberal bloggers in basements everywhere: Please put down World of Warcraft 11 and sharpen your pencils — this all heads towards global governance.[...] So you have all of these countries going down in domino effect. We're starting to see now people are freaking out — wait a minute, wait a minute, what is happening in Europe? Apparently, their economies are all tied together. It's almost like we're all interdependent on each other. Here's the headline from Monday's Washington Post: 'One false move in Europe could set off global chain reaction.' OK, they've got part of it; there have already been about a hundred 'false moves,' but at least they are catching on that trouble is coming. I've been warning you about this and how Greece and other countries that fail will be pushed into a global framework. Well, the IMF is telling Greece, now that you've been bailed out, here's what you can and cannot spend. The IMF hasn't even bailed out Spain yet, but they are pressuring them for far-reaching and comprehensive reform of the country. Europe, I hope you enjoyed sovereignty while you had it.[ emphases mine]

America and the whole world are headed towards economic failure.

And according to Beck this Financial bill will give the government control over 60% of the U.S. economy. And he points to the fact that many of these reforms taking place won't be repealed. This financial bill gives a lot of new powers to the government and with combined with other recent reforms will give the government control over 60% of the economy.

We've got another major reform about to get jammed down our throats![...] The United Nations in their Human Development Report says: 'Governance is not government — it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations and companies.[...] We're making the same mistakes we make in the 1930s, except the first time we made these mistakes, the American people didn't know what progressives were really about and there was no global structure in place. When FDR died in office, we could still reverse many of the things he tried to do. But this time, we won't be able to, because your representatives won't have any control.[...] Again, I ask you to call your representative at the IMF and complain if you don't like that fact that America spent $50 billion in tax money to bail out Greece. Call your representative at the U.N. and say you won't vote for him next time. Contact the World Bank and let them know that you'll close your bank account with them if you have to.[emphases mine]

A global structure makes the current time different from that of the past.

These two links are interesting. Looking at current events with understanding of history, the nature of government, and human nature, directed me into agreeing with this point of view and it has been confirmed in the various books I have read over the past year and a half.

The current direction the world is heading--IF things don't change-- shows that decades down the road the world could united and under the thumb of some one world political system.

Things have only headed more towards this direction in the past year and made it less likely to not happen.

_The Bubble that Broke the World_

This is a really interesting article by the Mises Institute, a good website for further economic inquiry, that pertains to the recent topic being discussed. The article is about the lessons that are presented in the book The Bubble that Broke the World, another book to read. The book was written during the 1903's and talks about what caused the Great Depression. The author of the article states the solution to the problem: "There is only one long-term solution, and that is the reduction of government". The lessons of the past can be applied to today's situation.

How is the current financial situation different than that of ones in the past? The main difference is the cost of unfunded liabilities. It will be impossible for the government to fulfill all of its promises. I heard it stated on the Hannity special show about the movie Generation Zero that the government has promised more to current and future generations than the total value of America's assets. How will people react to the government being unable to meet their basic needs at a time when they are becoming increasingly dependent on the government, health care/social security, to meet these needs? The level of dependency of the people, the severity of the economy downturn, and the character of the people will determine this.

Keynesian economists, like Paul Krugman, argue that growing debt will not be a problem given that large government debts are not unprecedented. For example, Krugman argues that the United States ran large debts during the Second World War and was able to pay them off after the war ended. This Princeton professor and Nobel laureate also argues that, because the United States is one of many countries piling up debt, its public debt is justifiable and tenable.

Paul Krugman conveniently leaves out, or fails to apply, some key details. Regarding the Second World War, he notes that the debt was paid off largely because of a cut in government spending. He fails to account for the fact that the most dangerous factors behind the current debt are 'unfunded liabilities' — the future costs of welfare and social-insurance programs. As for those other countries building debt, they are also looking at political uncertainty and almost-certain economic collapse.[1]

To put things into perspective the current economic situation is not anything new in the course of history; although the circumstances are slightly different.

The current fiscal situation is not unprecedented. High public and private debt has been the bane of large governments for the entirety of written history. It is what Ludwig von Mises described as the 'crisis of interventionism.'

'Intervention aims at confiscating the 'surplus' of one part of the population and at giving it to the other part. Once this surplus is exhausted by total confiscation, a further continuation of this policy is impossible.'

Put in simpler terms, the crisis of interventionism is summed up by the adage, 'the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.'

The current financial situation is nothing knew, but these past and recent financial upheavals do led to a long term trend toward an increasing larger role of government in the private sector as indicated by history. This trend will only stop when, as stated in the last part above, that eventually these big government programs will collapse under their own weight. This is one of Bud-D's points about this topic. I question how much farther the statist system will progress before this happens.

What was to blame for the "worldwide economic collapse of the 1930s"? The interesting thing is that all points below are present today. The aspect of nations debt to each other in point one could come about in the future due to all of these sovereign debt crises and the fact that the governments of the world and IO's are reacting to this by continuing to extend credit, bailouts, when there is no actual credit. This will have the effect of building the world economy on a foundation of debt.

Garrett placed the blame for the worldwide economic collapse of the 1930s on the Federal Reserve System's program of extending credit to bail out its European friends. He branded the entire process a Ponzi scheme.

Garrett described the bubble as a product of three factors:

First, the idea that the panacea for debt is credit.…[Jeff, this is the prevaling opinion of today's governments.]

The burden of Europe's private debt to [the United States] now is greater than the burden of her war debt; and the war debt, with arrears of interest, is greater than it was the day the peace was signed.…[9]

Second, a social and political doctrine, now widely accepted, beginning with the premise that people are entitled to certain betterments of life. If they cannot immediately afford them, that is, if out of their own resources these betterments cannot be provided, nevertheless people are entitled to them, and credit must provide them.…

Third, the argument that prosperity is a product of credit, whereas from the beginning of economic thought it had been supposed that prosperity was from the increase and exchange of wealth, and credit was its product.[10]

In the current situation it will be America and most of the world as opposed to just Europe that will have to be bailed out, or have credit extended, to deal with the sovereign debt that the world is accumulating.

Some interesting points"

But the era of growing bureaucracy, of the welfare/warfare state, and of illusionary wealth cannot last forever.[...]

The West has undermined its own security by allowing its governments to quickly grow beyond the fiscal means of their people. The United States and Western Europe have built up a mountain of debt. Deficit spending as a counter cyclical fiscal policy is the least of the world's worries. The collapse of today's credit-based Ponzi scheme is mainly due to the multitude of social-insurance programs that are becoming far too costly to sustain. In other words, the crumbling keystone is not short-term expenditure but long-term debt.

Given the political unpopularity of cutting these untenable programs, it is unlikely that governments will purposefully reverse their growth.[11] There is a fast-growing addiction to credit. Western governments can be compared to drug addicts. While a drug addict can overdose, however, the government can remain high as long as credit continues to be supplied at an exponentially rising rate. But, as with any addict, the day the supply cuts short is the day that marks the beginning of a severe depression.

Credit almost ran dry back in the fall of 08. The government stepped in to prevent this from happening with TARP and all of these bailouts. As noted in my earlier post, this has according to Neil Barofsky--the special inspector general for the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP)--not solved the fundamental problems of the economy. I infer from Barofsky's statement that credit, or drug, will be cut short.

The author of the article states that,

For better or for worse, as Garet Garrett beautifully explains in The Bubble That Broke the World, the market corrects itself. The lengthening of the period of interventionism only increases the painfulness of the inevitable reallocation of resources.

This inevitable collapse is being delayed by the governments. And at the same time the governments are forcing people through economic circumstances to become more dependent on the governments for their basic needs. I question if the governments will allow the market to correct itself before this correction becomes extremely painful to the point that people will be in such dire economic situation that they will not be able to meet their basic needs; thus leading them to temporarily demand more government intervention to deal with the pain. This delaying is affecting the severity of the collapse and changing how people will react to it.

This article appears to point out and somewhat illustrates why another world-economic depression must occur. The author of the article states that inevitably this statist system will collapse. I agree with that, but I am asking how will the governments and people of the world, keeping in mind the culture and prevailing tides of thought of this people, react to this and how much farther the statist system will progress before this turning point occurs? If--almost when-- a world economic downturn/depression happens, how will globalization and international organizations affect or determine how this plays out?

More government policy that is leading to the takeover of the private sector and possibly an economic collapse.

(Things are a little slow so I will touch up this post on the economy. It should be enough to last for a while.) I read this bit of news last week and I thought that it was interesting because the Obama administration is expanding a policy that is similar to the one that caused the recession, " The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday." I also read this article today,

Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now basically a 'public policy instrument' of the government, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) suggested Tuesday.
Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, asserted that the companies, which were taken over by the U.S. in September 2008, have become an extension of the government's policy-making tools.
'Remember now that Fannie and Freddie have been converted," Frank said during an appearance on CNBC. "Part of the losses of Fannie and Freddie are that since the housing collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become a kind of public utility.'[...]'They're not what they used to be — that inappropriately hybrid, private stock company, public policy instrument," Frank said. "They have become the public utility that finances housing in America to a great extent. Part of the loss is a public policy decision that it would be worse to not have some support for the housing market.'

The housing mortgage industry has basically been taken over by the government and is being used as a way to carry out the public policy of reshaping our economic system. They are using the cover of social engineering that claims to be helping out the poor and minorities. All of this is happening before our eyes and is receiving little publicity or attention.

To see how the government is able to exert so much influence in the private sector, we need to look at how the government has been able to take over such a large part of our economy.The government created easy money which created an artificially high amount of credit by keeping interest rates artificially low.(Read the "House that Uncle Sam Built under the required reading.) This created a bubble by creating an artificially high demand for home construction, and this artificially inflated home prices. Too much capital was borrowed and too little of it was backing up hard assets. The government also forced the banks to loan out money to people that were obviously unable to repay these loans back; and as a result, banks then had a bunch of worthless loans or assets. The banks then took these worthless loans and packaged them into investment items, in an attempt to make an evil profit, which spread bad assets throughout the country and the world--everybody invested in worthless investments. The economy was build on a foundation made of sand. When delinquencies on these loans rose due to a slow down in the economy and the bank's capital assets dried up, the credit markets and banking system seized up. (Most businesses rely on credit to continue to operate.) The government caused this near economic collapse to happen. After this happened, the government came along and forced banks to take government money. This gave the government a foot in the door of the private sector. Now they are telling bank how much they can pay their CEO's. The government created a bubble and an economic recession. From the first article above, we can see that the government is going to pump an unlimited amount of money into the mortgage industry. So the government is forcing the Nation to put bad money into the economic system and build the foundation of our economy on a weak foundation. The government is backing up failure. Put the taxpayer in the place of the banks from the previous illustration. This policy is forcing the taxpayer to back up worthless loans. When these loans can not be paid back because homeowners become increasingly delinquent, which they are already, due to high unemployment or an overall bad economy; it will be the the taxpayer and the country at large that will fail. Who will be there to bail these last two out? Overall, capital--which America is running out of--is being taken by the government and being wasted on non productive purposes.

Also put nations in the place of the banks, and one can see a global economic problem.

Is Sovereign Debt the New Subprime?

That’s a question many on Wall Street are asking as 2009 comes to a close. Just as many subprime borrowers were unable to make their mortgage payments in 2007 and 2008, investors now fear certain nations will be unable to pay their debts in the year ahead. Rising mortgage defaults and credit card delinquencies put many banks on the brink of bankruptcy in 2008, sending the global economy into a tailspin. But sovereign debt defaults are potentially even more catastrophic as they can lead to geopolitical instability, societal unrest and even war. And there will also be economic ramifications for investors worldwide, putting America’s (and the globe’s) fragile recovery at great risk. To varying degrees, Greece, Spain, Ukraine, Austria, Latvia, Mexico are just a handful of the nations viewed at risk of defaulting. Meanwhile, Dubai only just avoided a similar fate thanks to a $10 billion bailout from their oil-rich neighbor Abu Dhabi.

The economies of the world are being built on a foundation of debt. Is this leading to a world-wide economic problem that would force a realignment of the world economy?

This move of backing up unlimited losses of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by the government will have this effect according to Joe Weisenthal,

The above actions would preserve and strengthen the government’s involvement and control over the country’s housing finance system and make it harder to reintroduce substantial private sector involvement later on. They would also continue distortions in the marketplace leading to who knows what unintended consequences. Finally these steps would do nothing to deleverage the housing finance system, a key step in returning it to any degree of normality.

I read this from the Hot Air blog titled "The New Housing Bubble?". The two links at the top of the page on the link above explains all of this fairly well, so I am not going to simply copy and paste it. The bottom line is that the same bad policies that led to the recession are being carried out on a much larger scale and the government has increased its manipulation and scope of influence in the private sector. It is amazing that policies that led to the greatest economic disturbance since the Great Depression--some say the seventies, I don't know the statistics--are not only being continued but are being implemented on a much larger scale. Of course this is all for the purpose of collapsing the system so that a new one can be created. One can easily see how the misguided government is creating the conditions for an economic collapse. This is a short piece. Another interesting article would be on how the economies of the world are in danger of being collapsed as indicated in the yahoo news article. If this happened, what kind of system would emerge?

Communist and Socialist are trying to save the planet.

This information is not new to us here. So I will make a short post with some entertaining videos. I got this video from the Hot Air blog and I downloaded it from Youtube.



I got this off of Rush Limbaugh dot com. Hugo Chavez made an interesting speech--minute seven is a good place to start--at the Copenhagen meetings where he generally attacked capitalism by stating that "capitalism is a ghost in the room". He received some applause for these remarks--Rush said it was a loud and long applause, but the one in the video was rather quiet and short. Chavez did give a shout-out to the young people outside of the meetings protesting. Probably not the people in the video above, but all of the other hippies. To sum up the theme of the Copenhagen meetings, Capitalism needs to go in order to save the environment--of course the saving the environment part is just a means to gain legitimacy for their goal of destroying capitalism, a new take on a relativitly old movement.

The remarks by Chavez illustrates one of the main problems with international meetings such as Copenhagen and international bodies such as the U.N.--they give equal time an and clout to these Communist dictators. If there is to be an international governing body that is conductive to free trade and overall freedom--which is necessary, these clowns need to be removed from these organizations or their influence needs to be completely sidelined in these organizations. This of course won't happen because two of the major players in the U.N. are Russia and China, and there can not be an IGB that leaves out over half of the world. These systems of tyranny will never be completely eliminated from the world--the free countries did not have the fortitude nor the means. There can not be a union of freedom or good and tyranny or evil. Tyranny and evil is the one that benefits from such a union. A union between freedom and tyranny is the how the current IGB is taking shape, so it will not turn out to be one that is good for Freedom. Overall, a good video that shows who the people are that are behind this global warming scam and a good illustration of what is wrong with the U.N. and these international meetings--the U.N. and these international meetings are a mixture of freedom and tyranny, and they are a means to disarm the West and to gain its compliance and support in the destruction of freedom.

"'2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis.'"

I don't really feel like posting a long post, since I won't be saying anything new. I found this off of the little out-there WND, but this quote and video comes from the new President of the EU. The video is three minutes long. He also states that, "'The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.'" Why do we need to globally manage a fake crises?

This statement fits perfectly into what Lord Monckton stated. This fits right into the previous post. I think this is interesting because it confirms the fact that the finical crises has changed the nature of the world order and it confirms that the global warming scare is being used to bring about some "global management" of the planet. From various sources I have read and heard, some form of a global government is slowly coming about. The economic crises and global warming are two of the tools that are being used to bring about this global government. When one looks at this from the perspective of the development of civilization, one can see that a global government or a globally connected world is the natural course of events for a civilization. The question is what form will this government take and will it be a beneficial thing? Considering that it is being brought about through deception, GW and the Economic crises that was the result of government action, this government does not look like it will be good for freedom; but will instead take the form that Tocqueville talked about--a mild, meek and savior/parental government. There won't be a complete one-world government anytime soon, but the framework or foundation for such a system is being slowly developed or brought about through deception so that it can be quickly set up in a short period of time when a world-wide crises presents itself--a global economic crises is a real possibility or some war.

An interesting point of view on the current finical crises.

I got this off of the Glen Beck show. This guy was on the Asian Squawk Box on CNBC. This guy basically said that the current finical crises is leading to a world global currency that will lead to a global realignment under a global world government and a new world order. This is what I was trying to say about the current global finical crises. I don't know the creditability of the guy; but from what I understand about the global finical crises, I would agree to some extent on what this guy says. There is no doubt that the current GFC is leading to some sort of global realignment. I won't make a big post. If one cares, they can watch the four minute video, minute one is a good place to start.

The decline of the U.S. dollar

The world knows and is admitting the fact that the U.S. dollar is rapidly being devalued. I have yet to hear about this from the major news outlets or from the U.S. government. This is another sign of the decline of America and the shifting of its power and influence in the world to developing countries. The U.N. has already called for the dollar to be replaced as the world's reserve currency. And now the world's largest bank is calling for a new global reserve currency. Investing websites have also acknowledged this fact, although this website does want to sell you something, and they have recommended investors invest a good amount of their money in foreign currencies--a smart thing to do because that is where most of the growth that will occur in the world will come from. The fact is that the U.S. dollar is being devalued along with America.

"One of the world's largest banks is bidding farewell to the U.S. dollar – just as the dollar faces intense scrutiny at today's G-20 summit and the United Nations announces it wants a new global reserve currency replacement. "The dollar looks awfully like sterling[highly devalued due to the debt Britain owed after that war] after the First World War,' David Bloom, HSBC currency chief, told London's Telegraph. The whole picture of risk-reward for emerging market currencies has changed. It is not so much that they have risen to our standards, it is that we have fallen to theirs. It used to be that sovereign risk was mainly an emerging market issue but the events of the last year have shown that this is no longer the case. Look at the U.K. – debt is racing up to 100 percent of GDP,' he said China and rising Asia can no longer continue holding down their currencies to boost exports because it's hurting their own economies, creating asset bubbles, the Telegraph reported. 'The policy headache was already becoming clear in the final phase of the global credit boom but the financial crisis temporarily masked the effect,' the report states. 'The pressures will return with a vengeance as these countries roar back to life, leaving the U.S. and other laggards of the old world far behind.'" Far behind.

"Craig Smith, president and CEO of Swiss America Trading Corporation, a national investment firm specializing in U.S. gold and silver coins, has been [warning about the decline of the dollar for many years. 'It is now happening before our eyes]," Smith said. "The dollar is getting ready to get hammered, and there is no way for the Fed to stop it.'" I would add that it appears that the Fed's and the government's policies have led to the decline of the U.S. dollar.

I could do another article on America's decline of influence and power on the world stage and the fact that China and developing countries are rising at the expense of America's prosperity. Globalization is becoming more pronounced. The dollar has been on the decline for some time now; but with recent economic conditions, this development has sped up and has become more pronounced. What does this mean for the average person? I think it is interesting because it shows a slow shift of where the power and influence on the world stage will be. If you have your money invested, a good portion should be put in foreign markets and one might like having their money held in a stronger currency or metals. I don't know how this particular development completely fits in to the overall picture of world affairs. I would like to know how this fits into the purposeful attempts of the government through cap and trade and the Environmental movement to transfer the wealth around the world. America's currency along with the whole nation is on the decline while the world as a whole is on the rise.

Is America making the same mistakes that led to a world wide economic depression and is the dollar no longer the premier global currency.

(Many of my post are repeating themselves.) According to a new pamphlet published by the institute for economic affairs--the answer is yes, "Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan." (You can read the full document here.) I guess the fact that the study is endorsed by a Nobel Laureate makes this a credible statement. It goes on to say that, "His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says." Although the country is headed down this path, I don't think things will get that bad. premier

Government spending money to solve the economic situation will hurt the economy in the long run. "In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years." There is no doubt that the current economic policies are designed to purposely hurt the economy for the purpose of remaking it and America.

The current economic policies being carried out are comparable to what FDR did, and his policies hurt the economy and delayed economic recovery. "The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows." If one reads _The forgotten Man_, by Amity Shlaes, one can see how the policies of Hoover and FDR hurt the economy and how the Great Depression was directly caused and exacerbated by government policies. As a result of the economic troubles of that time; the government increased its size and influence in the free market, much like the government is doing now.

The report states how the current economic policies will lead to a bleak economic future. "The prognosis is catastrophic if[IF] projected government policies are not cut back. According to the White House's own estimates, the federal budget deficit in 2009 will be $1.6 trillion, approximately 11.2pc of the overall economy, the highest on record since the end of the Second World War. In 2019, the national debt will represent 76.5pc of the US national economy, the highest proportion since just after the Second World War. In such circumstances, the international reserve status of the US dollar will not survive. As it fades, so interest rates on government securities will rise and the real burden of servicing the debt will increase. In such circumstances, the US economy will teeter on the edge of a black hole." This level of debt will have negative effects on the economy. China and Russia have already called for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar. China, a communist country, has expressed concerns, to the point of laughing at our Treasury Secretary, over the value and safety of their investments in U.S. dollars due to the U.S. printing and spending huge sums of money. These two countries are not the only ones calling for the dollar to be replaced.

In response to countries running up huge deficits, the UN is now calling for a new global currency to replace the dollar." The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world's monetary system since the Second World War." The article states that this call is in response to "the potential of countries running large deficits and would help stability." This is an interesting effect of the current global economic situation--a more unified global economy, an increase in the powers of international regulatory bodies, and America's decline of its influence on the world stage. The dollar's days are numbered. A new shift is taking place, I don't have any better words to state this better. Maybe somebody with knowledge of foreign affairs would know more about this.

This all could not be true. The current mild economic crises led to people choosing the current government. If there is some huge economic trouble in the future, how would people react? I like "Doctor Dooms'" take on the current economic situation. "Pessimism porn". Anyways, more of the same.

The erosion of American law and sovereignty by the Supreme Court.

I read an interesting article about how American sovereignty is being eroded by Supreme Court Judges who are looking to international law, transnational law, when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The article raises some questions about Sotomayor's beliefs when it comes to this due to her past statements on this issue: "Yet at least one sitting Supreme Court justice says American jurists should look to foreign precedent. And President Barack Obama’s first nominee to sit on the high court, Sonia Sotomayor, seems a bit unclear on that point, too. Just two years ago a book titled “The International Judge” featured an introduction she penned. “The question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution,” she wrote, is “worth posing.”

The artilce also questions Ruth Ginsberg beliefs on this: "the Supreme Court Judge Ruth Ginsberg is open to considering foreign law when interpreting the American Constitution and and its laws: "Earlier this year Justice Ruth Ginsberg told a panel at Ohio State University that our Supreme Court ought to pay more attention to the laws and policies of other countries. “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others,”.

Harold Koh believes in transnationalism and free republic dot com notes that he believes "U.S. law should be based on foreign precedent, and even Shariah law could find a home here." He also serves in President Obama's cabinet as Legal Advisor to the the State Department. His beliefs are worth noting due to the fact he could be a future Supreme Court Judge and he is in a current position of power, not a lot.

This illustrates the fact that American sovereignty is being eroded in the name of the international community and the international law, and it illustrates the general direction the world is headed by showing how the world is becoming more interconnected and how individual nations' sovereignty are being given up in the name of internationalism. It is worth noting the "great tides of thought and appetite that run unseen deeply below the surface of society." What do you take away from these facts?

Cap and Trade legislation and a "global governement and a global goverance"

I read an interesting article about cap and trade that pointed out one of the ways the global warming scam is being used for other purposes than affecting the climate. Al Gore said about cap and trade, "But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements,".

French President states about climate change: "At the Climate Depot website, writers recalled that French President Jacques Chirac in 2000 confirmed that the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol – to which the U.S. has not subscribed – is 'the first component of an authentic global governance.'

"He said, 'For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance. From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace."

"A genuine instrument of global governance." Man-made climate change is not real. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this fact of reality, but most people don't know this. This allows the people in government to use climate change to further their own purposes. What does implementing the means to combat this lead to? Climate change is being used as a rallying point and a means to unite the world to achieve the globalist agenda of the politicians(listen to the part where Obama starts speaking). This is an important effect of combating climate change and one of the goals that it is being used for--a global government and a global governance. The climate change crises is a means to achieve the goal of the politicians. This was interesting to me because it points out one of the main goals of the fake climate change crises and points out the general direction the world is heading. In my mind, this is worth noting. Why do they have to try and hide what their real intentions are by using a manufactured crises to achieve their goal? Maybe they know what they want to achieve is not popular and needs to be brought about through a means that can garner the support of people.

Is the World reaching a boiling point of some sort?

Toejamm made an interesting observation in the form of a question, so I would like to state my opinion about the matter. I like to put things into perspective. If you were living a thousand years in the past, you would notice that people were more likely than not saying that the end of the world is near and they would be saying how horrible things are. Mankind has been believing that the world has been coming to an end and the current situation in the world, especially their own world, is bad or getting worse.

I would think those people living during the decline and the fall of the Roman empire, or any other empire or nation, believed that the world was coming to an end. And from the prospective of those people the world was coming to an end; it was just their little slice of the world.

I think that men saying the end of the world is coming to an end or is near is their way of putting changes that are constantly occurring whether the changes are political, economic, climate, or the change of the current state of affairs of their nation or land in perspective. There is some truth to the statement, and all throughout human history the world has been changing and nations have fallen and the little slices of people's universe have come to an end.

Maybe it seems like our slice of the world is coming to an end with the current state of affairs. I have not lived for a long time, so I have a rather short,narrow perspective on the current state of affairs as compared to the historical picture. The human life is too short to really comprehend or notice the changes that are occurring in the world over the course of history, and too few people devote their life to the study of history, nor do they have any effect on the direction of the world. Most people are swept up in the tide of change. John T Flynn states: "Human societies come under the influence of great tides of thought and appetite that run unseen deeply below the surface of society. After a while these powerful streams of opinion and desire move the whole social mass along with them without the individuals in the mass being aware of the direction in which they are going. Up to a certain point it is possible to resist these controlling tides and to reverse them, but a time comes when they are so strong that society loses its power of decision over the direction in which it is going." I believe that the tide that is coming is some dictatorial rule--not the brutal Hitler or Stalin rule but the soft, mild, and parental dictatorship-- of some sort engulfing the whole world. One that the whole world will willingly and eagerly bring about and submit itself to.

The current state of affairs could be no different than what has happened throughout history. But the current state of affairs are different from those of the past ; much like the past, from that point of history, state of affairs have been different from that past . The current state of affairs are very unique from those of the past. Technology has advanced at such a rapid paste throughout the past 110 years and is continuing to expand at amazing rates exponentially. For example, the rate of computer processing power. Look at the JOE 2008 report. No doubt the world ten years from now could be very different than what it is today from due to the rate of change occurring in technology. The question is if mankind can keep up with those changes?

Nuclear technology is a deadly and new weapon that changes the nature of war and the how nations relate to each other. No longer is it likely for major warring states to have an all out battle. Now warring or competing nations will try to take each other over through peace, diplomacy, collaboration, and infiltrating each others political structure to bring about change from within their opposing state. This is a catalyst to bring about the need for world wide collaboration and unity. A fundamental change in how nations relate to each other. Look at how China is building itself up by linking its economy with America's and their constant hacking of the pentagon's defense systems, and one should note the previous attempts of the communist to take America over from within. To deny that this happened is to gloss over historical facts. Today the communist and socialist fall under the liberalism banner. Six time presidential candidate for the socialist ticket stated that: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." So in effect the socialist have been successful in their attempt to take over America by taking control of a major political party and implementing most of their ideals. Notice that they brought this about by appearing to be something different than what they are. Disguised.

From reading the JOE 2008 report you can ascertain that the world is very volatile and there is a lot of potential for conflict and for trouble spots around the world to erupt into major situations, and that these eruptions can easily impact the world as a whole. Globalization is another factor that makes the current sate of affairs different from the past. Globalization is a fact of life-- it is here to stay. The world is now interconnected and more dependent on each individual nation. What happens in one little part of the world could easily effect the whole world and warrant action by the whole world. The world is becoming one, more united, and more interdependent. This affects the current state of affairs by the fact that an event or societal change or a collapse of one nation, especially a major world player, has potential to effect the whole world by becoming, in effect, a world wide situation; whereas in the past these events would be relatively isolated to a particular region of the world. The changes that are occurring in one part of the world will effect the whole world and warrant a united action on the part of the world, so the fate and direction of the world as a whole is more united. Listen to the various speeches of the most powerful man, for the time being, in the world, Barack Obama, to get a general feel for the direction of the world-- globalization, the need for the world to work together and unite behind a common cause, terrorism, climate change, health care crises, and economic crises etc. There is still a lot of tension in the world that would prevent a truly united one world government to occur without a major event happening to force this to come about but the general direction of the world is headed towards that one world rule.

There is no doubt in my mind that if America doesn't change course--Big IF, America will become a centrally planned country ruled by a select few. There is a very real threat of America having an economic collapse, IF America doesn't change course. Look at my other posts. The world's economies are very interconnected, look at how the current economic crises started in America then spread throughout the whole world and cause a world wide economic recession. If America's economy were to collapse that would cause a chain reaction throughout the whole world and warrant a united action by the whole world. The economies of the world are being built on a foundation of debt, and to understand where this is leading you must understand what deficit spending is and the end result of it. Current events are an illustration of the fact of globalization; and that coupled with the changes taking place in the world shows one where the world is heading. The current economic conditions could eventually turn into a catalyst that would force the world to unite for a common purpose and bring about some new world order or rule.

The current state of the vast majority of people is interesting. Ayn Rand stated that: "Culturally, we are approaching the point where anyone can take over, provide his doctrines are sufficiently irrational." The people of today are ready to follow and be ruled over by some "rock star." Look at how people blindly followed President Obama with a god like reverence and how people emotionally fall in love with pop stars. All throughout the various books I have read there has been a theme that runs throughout all of them, and that theme--the fact that their point is not to prove this particular point makes it more compelling to me-- is that from the perspective of various authors the world or a single nation in the past eighty or so years has been approaching a point of decline or standing on an edge of a cliff about to fall into some form of socialism/communism/fascism or some form of world wide dictatorship. The parental dictatorship. Not some Hitler bringing death and destruction, but through peace and under the guise of taking care of you and saving you from some disaster. Not the end of the world apocalypse version of anarchy and roaming bands of marauders and utter ruin. Nor the world being consumed in fire and brimstone. But the world existing much as it does today only that it will be ruled by some one world political system that people willingly submit themselves to. It is conceivable that if the world is provided with a catalyst people would be willing to submit themselves to some one world rule. Look at how America reacted to a relatively mild economic crises-- they chose a bigger government to solve this problem and are giving up a lot of their freedoms in the process.

The themes throughout movies and pop culture are another indicator of the direction that America and the world is heading and is helping to prepare the minds of people for some one world rule--usually one man saving the world from a worldwide disaster by uniting the world. People are so eager to hero worship some person. Look at the plane pilot who landed in the New York river or how eagerly people label servicemen heroes not for going beyond the call of duty but for only doing their duty--the term now has no meaning. I believe the current state of people that is reflected in movies and pop culture is another proof of the fact that people will follow one man or one political group if a catalysis presents itself.

Religion is also helping to prepare the people of the world to accept some form of one world rule. Most religions are looking for a return of some deity that will set up some paradise here on earth or take them away to that paradise. Most people are waiting in hope for a deity to appear. What if the state or some government equates itself as this world savor and usher in of the paradise and people equate and incorporate this with their religious views? The leaders of Iran believe that their deity will return soon but first Israel and the west needs to be destroyed. Communism and socialism have already tried to create this utopia in the past.

There is an attempt to destroy the foundation of our society through the education system, economic realm, pop culture, religion and the education system and rebuild it into some form of a united world ruled by some one political group. Read Toohey's speech in chapter 14 in 'part 4' of _the Fountainhead_ to learn the methods of subjugating a people to a political system. You will find that these methods are being implemented by the political systems of the world and President Obama's speeches, min 12 is good place to start, are very similar to Toohey's.

Overall, the state of the people is at the point where it is very possible for one political group or some new world order to take over the world by having people willingly submit themselves to this rule provided there is some major catalyst such as a world wide economic crises or some unique threat to the whole world or this is possible to happen over the natural course of history without a major catalyst to push the world to that point. The current direction the world is heading--IF things don't change-- shows that decades down the road the world could united and under the thumb of some one world political system. It will be brought about by peace and appearing to be something other than what it is. I don't think this is necessarily some big scheme but just the natural evolution of human affairs playing itself out, not some big "uu and awe amazing out of this world conspiracy theory". Most of mankind is and has lived under some kind of brutal rule by a small group of men. The global, united nature of the world today will just lead to this rule being a world wide situation although in a much more mild form.

Is the world coming to an end? Not anymore so than it has in the past. Mankind is still here and will be for a very long time in my opinion. What will the world be like that mankind of the future will be living in? Not some death camp but maybe similar/milder to the world of _1984_ like Tocqueville talked about. One where we will still have lots of freedoms but with some big brother watching over us. Most people are unconcerned with the tides that carry us to our future and will be blindly swept away to wherever it will take us. I hope to be one that is aware of that tide that is rolling beneath the waves, possibly to hit land and manifest itself, and the direction it will lead us. Hopefully I am over stating the tide. An interesting extreme take on the current events that might make one see things differently. Some constructive criticism would be helpful. Anyways, a fun and interesting take on things, although overstated.