“A green economy implies the decoupling of resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth… These investments, both public and private, provide the mechanism for the reconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for the adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes.” [p. 2]
Sustainable consumption? Reconfiguring businesses, infrastructure and institutions? What do these words mean? They do not mean merely reshuffling the existing order, but rather replacing it with a completely new economic system, one that has never before been seen or used in the history of the world.
This paper will demonstrate that the current crisis of capitalism is being used to implement a radical new economic system that will completely supplant it. This is not some new idea created in the bowels of the United Nations: It is a revitalized implementation of Technocracy that was thoroughly repudiated by the American public in 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression.
The Technocrats have resurfaced, and they do not intend to fail a second time. Whether or not they succeed this time will depend upon the intended servants of Technocracy, the citizens of the world.
Indeed, the dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. It is Technocracy.
GLENN BECK: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona . She writes an open letter to our nation’s leadership: “I am a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel anypolitical party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. Instead, we are burdened with Congressional Dukes and Duchesses who think they know better than the citizens they are supposed to represent.
There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut-job am I? Well, these briefly are the views and issues for which I seekrepresentation: One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels.. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution.
P.S., I’m not a racist. This is not to be confused withlegal immigration. Two, the STIMULUS bill. I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you No, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal. Three: Czars. I want the circumvention of our constitutional checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution, and honor it. Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There are many conflicting opinions and it is too soon for this radical legislation. Quit throwing our nation into politically-correct quicksand. Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision that will burden me, my children, and grandchildren. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night without even reading it. Slow down! Fix only what is broken — we have the best health care system in the world — and test any new program in one or two states first.
Securities held outright: $1,967 billion (an increase of $60.9 billion MoM, resulting from $56 billion increase in MBS and $5 nillion in Agency Debt), or a huge $53.6 billion increase sequentially. The fed is now 95% complete with its purchases of MBS, and 96% complete with purchases of Agencies. The Fed has completed $167.2 billion of its $175 billion agency debt purchase program through February 17. The Fed’s MBS total is now $1.188 trillion, and by the end of the first quarter of 2010, the Fed will have purchased $1.25 trillion.
Net borrowings: $127 billion. The monetary base increased by $50 billion in the past fortnight to $2.06 trillion. The ratio of total assetsto Monetary Base remained constant at 1.08x, elevated from the historical ratio of 1.00x.
Float, liquidity swaps, Maiden Lane and other assets: $194 billion. The CPFF program was at $7.7 billion. FX liquidity swaps are now non-existent.
Fed: we need to shrink our balance sheet, but how? – The Federal Open Market Committee released the minutes of the Jan 26-27 session on Wednesday. The meeting minutes revealed disagreement — or at the very least, debate — over the nature and timing of any moves to reduce the size of the Federal Reserve balance sheet. …staff noted that the Committee might want to address both the eventual size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and its composition. Policymakers were unanimous in the view that it will be appropriate to shrink the supply of reserve balances and the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet substantially over time. Moreover, they agreed that it will eventually be appropriate for the System Open Market Account to return to holding only securities issued by the U.S. Treasury, as it did before the financial crisis. Several thought the Federal Reserve should hold, eventually, a portfolio composed largely of shorter-term Treasury securities…
Bernanke on the Fed’s balance sheet- (charts) Federal Reserve ChairBen Bernanke last week released a statement of how the Fed intends to manage its bloated balance sheet over the next few years. Here I offer my interpretation of what his plan involves. Bernanke drew a distinction between three different categories of assets that the Federal Reserve has held on its balance sheet. The first involve extension of short-term emergency credit to financial institutions: This lending came in the form of a wide variety of new facilities, which summed to almost $1.6 trillion by the end of 2008, but are now almost entirely wound down or phased out, as Bernanke observed:
It is still a tiny minority who understand that central banking is a collectivist institution that is completely hostile to liberty. It is, by definition, an instrument of theft that purports to stabilize economic conditions for the collective by controlling the supply of moneyand credit. The fact that its only means to do so is to steal from savers to finance well-connected borrowers is a seldom-mentioned detail. That people only use the central bank’s currency because they are forced to do so by legal tender laws is spoken of even less. In this late stage of the Age of Government, the rights to liberty and property are expendable as our rulers “get the work of the American people done.”
Hopefully, the question of whether there should be a Federal Reserve will be on the table soon. However, once one concedes the existence of the Fed, there is a further question to ask: Can it do what it purports to do?
On Friday, an average Americanspent the entire day with the federal government without ever leaving his home. No, there was no knock on his door by some plain-clothes Gestapo. Neither was he treated to one of those infamous “no-knock raids” where a small army of thugs with various acronyms spelled out on their backs burst into the homes of the innocent and terrorize whomever happens to cross their paths. Nothing so dramatic happened that day. However, the long arm of the federal government made itself equally palpable nonetheless.
Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) — European Union finance ministers are uniting to oppose President Barack Obama’s proposal to limit banks’ size and risk-taking, saying his plan may run counter to EU policy, according to a draft document.
Awwwwww….
So let’s see, Brussels thinks that it’s perfectly ok for banks to:
Engage in trading against their client’s interests.
Create tricky derivatives that, at their core, exist only because someone is shorting a given asset – yet the offering prospectus for those buying said instrument does not say “this instrument only exists because a highly-sophisticated investor wanted a means to bet that what you’re buying will implode.” Note that this is exactly the opposite of a traditional IPO or Debt Offering in which the premise is that the asset underlying the security is good. That is, these banks are selling securities that if the intent of the creator is realized, will be worthless. How can this be legal?
Have and maintain a financial system that, according to Jamie Dimon himself, has a crisis every five to seven years. Really Jamie? How come we didn’t have one for fifty years – from the 1930s, when Glass-Steagall was passed, until the 1980s? Might that have something to do with the progressive dismantling (and outright circumvention) of thatlaw?
Have entire nations in your so-called “union” that appear to have intentionally cooked the books for the purpose of entry into the EU, and who appear to have solicited major banks (including Goldman) to help them cheat on their accounting in order to do so. Oh, and you still (thus far anyway) appear to be willing to allow Goldman (and these others banks) to continue to do business there as well, despite their obvious involvement.
How about this? How about if you keep all those tricky derivatives, banks that screw their customers (on purpose!) and a financial system that threatens to blow the entire economy to bits every five years.
And how about if we, The United States, erect a giant middle finger in your direction, and instead reinstate Glass-Steagall and then mandate that any firm that does business with or in the United States honor and obey our laws, with the penalty for failing to do so being prison time for the offenders – all of them, including those very same pinstripe-suited bankers.
I’m sure we can find wider pinstriped suits that will fit them.
WASHINGTON—Democrats, stung by criticism of their $787 billion economic-stimulus plan, are targeting Republicans who have attacked the program and then lobbied to get money for their districts.
More than a dozen Republican lawmakers supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service, in letters obtained by The Wall Street Journal through the Freedom of Information Act.
Lawmakers routinely send letters in support of federal funding for projects in their constituencies; some Republican lawmakers have deliberately avoided sending requests for stimulus dollars because of their opposition to the bill.
"Someone recently said that credit
was the life blood of the economy.
This happens to be a lie.
Hard work, production, and the creation
of products that are needed and wanted
by others—these are the true life blood
of an economy."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=20a16097-d138-462e-a144-95aa0fda57cb)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=78c8f87a-08cb-4733-9430-6ca4ac948af7)
