IMF Tells Governments How to Subvert Public Resistance Against Elimination of Cash

April 5, 2017

(Norbert Haring) - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington has published a Working Paper on “de-cashing.” It gives advice to governments who want to abolish cash against the will of their citizenry. Move slowly, start with harmless seeming measures, is part of that advice.
 
In “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing”, IMF-Analyst Alexei Kireyev recommends in his conclusions:

Although some countries most likely will de-cash in a few years, going completely cashless should be phased in steps. The de-cashing process could build on the initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits, and further computerizing the financial system.

The private sector led de-cashing seems preferable to the public sector led decashing. The former seems almost entirely benign (e.g., more use of mobile phones to pay for coffee), but still needs policy adaptation. The latter seems more questionable, and people may have valid objections to it. De-cashing of either kind leaves both individuals and states more vulnerable to disruptions, ranging from power outages to hacks to cyberwarfare. In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash. A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks. The de-cashing process would acquire more traction if it were based on individual consumer choice and cost-benefits considerations.

Note, that the author is not talking about unreasonable objections and imagined disadvantages: He does count it among the advantages of de-cashing in the very next paragraph that personal savings are pushed into banks and he also does count total control of all aspects of financial life under the pros, as in the last sentence of the last quote below.

“As de-cashing gives incentives to economies’ agents to convert their currency in bank deposits, the deposit base of the banking system will increase, which can help reduce the lending rates and expand credit.”

And finally the advice to do it together:

Coordinated efforts on de-cashing could help enhance its positive effects and reduce potential costs. At least at the level of major countries and their currencies, the authorities could coordinate their de-cashing efforts. Such coordinated efforts are, in particular, important in the decisions to phase out large denomination bills for all major currencies, to use ceilings and other restrictions on cash transactions, and to introduce the reporting requirements for cash transactions or their taxation. For currency areas, a single decashing policy would be clearly preferable to a national one. Finally, consensus between the public and the private sector and outreach on the advantages and modalities of gradual decashing should be viewed as key preconditions for its success.

Ultimate Goal of the New World Order: "A Supranational Sovereignty of an Intellectual Elite and World Bankers"

Many of the people on earth today, especially those in charge of society, are materialists and atheists, consumed by fear, selfishness, violence, egotism, militarism, and greed, spiritually either deeply asleep or dead, destroying through negligence whole nations and even perhaps the planet we live on. A world where war is viewed as normal, where human beings knowingly and willingly torture other human beings to death then lie about it, where governments terrorize their own populations, where millions are deliberately subjected to addictive legal and illegal drugs, where the food supply is degraded for profit, where radiation is purposely introduced into the environment through devices like depleted uranium, where space is viewed as the ultimate high ground for weapons deployment, where assassination is official policy, where pandemics are declared to market dangerous vaccines, where trillions are lavished on financial institutions while families are denied adequate income, where initiative is smothered by taxes and regulations, where justice is bought and sold, where the laws favor mainly the rich, where the media put people to sleep with pablum and nonsense, and where the intellectuals justify the status quo is a world whose time is up. - Richard C. Cook, July 17, 2009

Is an International Financial Conspiracy Driving World Events?

By Richard C. Cook, Global Research
Originally Published on March 27, 2008

"They make a desolation and call it peace." -Tacitus

Was Alan Greenspan really as dumb as he looks in creating the late housing bubble that threatens to bring the entire Western debt-based economy crashing down?

Was something as easy to foresee as this really the trigger for a meltdown that could destroy the world’s financial system? Or was it done, perhaps, "accidentally on purpose"?

And if so, why?

Let’s turn to the U.S. personage that conspiracy theorists most often mention as being at the epicenter of whatever elite plan is reputed to exist. This would be David Rockefeller, the 92-year-old multibillionaire godfather of the world’s financial elite.

David Rockefeller at Harvard in 2006

The lengthy Wikipedia article on Rockefeller provides the following version of a celebrated statement he allegedly made in an opening speech at the Bilderberg conference in Baden-Baden, Germany, in June 1991:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war, but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in the past centuries."

This speech was made 17 years ago. It came at the beginning in the U.S. of the Bill Clinton administration. Rockefeller speaks of an "us." This "us," he says, has been having meetings for almost 40 years; if you add the 17 years since he gave the speech, it was 57 years ago—two full generations.

Not only has "us" developed a "plan for the world," but the attempt to "develop" the plan has evidently been successful, at least in Rockefeller’s mind. The ultimate goal of "us" is to create "the supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers." This will lead, he says, toward a "world government which will never again know war."

Just as an intellectual exercise, let’s assume that David Rockefeller is as important and powerful a person as he seems to think he is. Let’s give the man some credit and assume that he and "us" have in fact succeeded to a degree. This would mean that the major decisions and events since Rockefeller gave the speech in 1991 have probably also been part of the plan or that they have at least represented its features and intent.

Therefore by examining these decisions and events we can determine whether in fact Rockefeller is being truthful in his assessment that the Utopia he has in mind is on its way or has at least come closer to being realized.

In no particular order, some of these decisions and events are as follows:

Multinational Corporations Run by the Ruling Elite Avoid U.S. Taxes on $2.3 Trillion in Profits by Stashing It Overseas

Enticed by highway money, U.S. Congress revisits corporate tax break

July 29, 2015

Reuters - The U.S. Congress is setting the stage for months of debate on a tax break for overseas corporate profits, a perennial proposal made over by being linked to another issue, funding for highway construction.

The tax-break-for-road-funding package has backers but also many critics in Washington. By the end of 2015, it could provide a short-term highway funding solution and have a long-lasting impact on corporate tax policy.

Or it could founder on the rocks of fiscal stalemate that for years have wrecked other proposals for overhauling the loophole-riddled U.S. tax code. Either way, the debate will underscore the power of combining two politically appealing ideas, even when they have little in common.

In legislation introduced in 2013, Democratic Representative John Delaney created a combination that he called good policy and "good politics," offering something to both political parties.

"In the case of the Democrats, it's infrastructure. In the case of the Republicans, it's figuring out a way to get that money back from overseas," he said, referring to the estimated $2.3 trillion in profits stashed overseas by multinationals.

Criticized as "Delaney's Delusion" by a tax watchdog group when he unveiled it, the idea of giving overseas profits a tax cut to help fund U.S. highways is opposed by many, including influential business interests.

But differing versions of it have won support from the likes of Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Representative Paul Ryan. Congressional minds have now been concentrated by the financial state of the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for half of U.S. highway and transit projects and is projected to go broke on Friday.

FUNDING HIGHWAYS

Republican leaders on Tuesday were prepared to pass a three-month highway funding extension to temporarily fund road and transit construction, while seeking a longer-term solution.

Lawmakers do not want to raise the gasoline tax, which has not gone up since 1993, so they are looking for other revenues.

Like some others, Delaney foresaw this problem when he first ran for a seat in Congress in 2012.

"It was pretty clear to me that infrastructure should be our top domestic economic priority. But trying to find a way to pay for it was the challenge," Delaney said in an interview.

As a businessman, he said, he was also aware of a tax code loophole, known as the deferral rule, that lets companies avoid the 35-percent income tax on active profits generated abroad as long as they are not brought into the country, or repatriated.

Many companies would like to bring those profits home. In 2004, promising a boost to the economy, multinationals won a tax break on repatriated profits. More than 800 firms repatriated $362 billion at just 5.25 percent in tax.

But studies showed the repatriated profits went largely for dividends and stock buybacks. This soured Congress on future tax holidays, while multinationals began stashing away more profits overseas, hoping another would follow.

Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department Operate Like a Vast Crime Syndicate

Guaranteed US Dollar Death Dynamics

July 2, 2015 

Jim_Willie_CB - The USDollar is on a collision course with imminent death.

It is utterly amazing that so many supposedly smart analysts and highly paid wealth managers cannot see the obvious path on which the USDollar treads, limps, and struts — proudly, dangerously, and abusively — suspended by numerous false cables and tethers.

The USDollar cannot be sustained in its current form or on its present course. The abuse of its management and stewardship will be told in history books (possibly with certain chapters scribed by the Jackass).

The aggressive defense of the USDollar includes criminal activity on a widespread scale never witnessed before. It is a veritable global money war, not so much a global financial crisis.

The system, centered upon the USDollar, is collapsing under its own insolvency and corrupt underpinnings amidst the din of war. The truth is almost nowhere to be seen.

The USGovt is demanding that allies support the global currency reserve, even though doing so guarantees a financial structure collapse and an economic breakdown. The safe haven is Gold & Silver, in the form of bars & coins, kept secure outside all nations that speak English, and outside nations that are closely allied with the USFed and USDept Treasury, which operate like a vast crime syndicate.

The current system is destined to failure. Time is running out.

The only assets to thrive in the coming climax will be precious metals, property containing commodity resources, and certain commercial property, surely farmlands, maybe some collectibles.

The year 2015 will not end with any basic resemblance to the beginning of 2015. The interior structures are fracturing, seizing, cracking, rupturing, and convulsing. The banking masters are having an increasingly difficult time to conceal the damage, corrosion, ruin, and breakdown.

Meanwhile the Chinese are wresting control of the Gold market. They will liberate when they feel like it and not a moment before.

2011 Flashback: Greece, a Dress Rehearsal for the Rest of the World

Greek lawmakers voted to speed the enactment of the country’s new austerity measures, clearing the way for foreign lenders to make available the next installment of aid needed to meet the government’s expenses through the summer. Among the new measures are cuts in spending on health and defense, tax increases on heating oil and the self-employed, and reductions in the number of public employees. They also call for the privatization of about $70 billion in state assets. At the last minute, the bill was altered to freeze the salaries of civil servants and to lower the ceiling below which income for individuals is not taxed; the minimum was reduced to $11,600 annually from $17,400, with more lenient treatment for people with children. - Greek Parliament Approves Implementation of Austerity Plan, New York Times, June 30, 2011

How the Greeks are Handling the Burden of Austerity Measures

July 17, 2011

Epoch Times - In a visit to the Grecian capital Sunday, U.S. secretary of State Hillary Clinton lauded the government for its tough austerity measures enacted to pay off a mountainous debt that pushed the nation to the brink of economic collapse.

Clinton said that the austerity measures, which are highly controversial among the Greek populace and some officials, are the “bitter medicine” necessary to help Greece regain economic stability.

Greece has implemented the austerity measures to meet the demands of the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, which jointly loaned the country 110 billion euros (US$155 billion). The measures, which include increased taxes, a 20 percent decrease in the minimum wage, large cuts to the social services, the selling of large pieces of land, and a privatization program to sell off large state-owned companies and ports, have left many earning less money and at risk of losing their jobs.

Over the past few months, Greeks have made their discontent over the measures known, staging near-daily protests in Athens that have frequently resulted in demonstrator clashes with police.

Several private and public sector employees recently shared with The Epoch Times how the budget cuts are affecting them and their families, and how they think the country should proceed to stabilize itself.

Special forces police officer, 24

[Under the austerity measures] I started getting 150 euro (US$212) less in salary [a month] plus other benefits I had from my work were reduced. Now with the new austerity measures and the rise of taxes, I will have less income.

Everyone [is to blame for this crisis]. Everyone who tries to evade taxes; everyone who tries to avoid the immigrant situation; immigrants don't help the country to earn an income, instead they cost the state more money. Everyone who gets a job in the public sector without passing exams, and those people who use their connections to get the job without being qualified.

Flashback to a 2011 Report on Greece, the Central Banking System, the Euro, and Big Government Debt

Americans can also learn from Europe. Borrowing and printing money to finance big government  policies makes the problems worse. And bailing out banks with tax money after the system fails isn’t just wrong, it’s self-destructive. Yet even as these facts are being acknowledged in Europe, the U.S. government is growing faster than ever before in history — financed by massive debt and out-of-control currency creation. While it’s almost unthinkable that America would end up like Greece or Portugal, on our current path, there are few long-term alternatives. Of course, there is one difference: When nobody will lend the United States any more money, and when running the printing presses leads to an inevitable currency crisis, a bailout for our own federal government will be impossible to find.

Lessons in Statism from the European Crisis

“By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” - John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919

By Alex Newman, Crisis Magazine
June 30, 2011

Europe is a mess. 

The ongoing economic crisis has sparked violent riots and growing turmoil, particularly in harder-hit nations like Greece, where demonstrators have taken to throwing home-made bombs at police. And the worst may be yet to come.

Analysts now say there is a real chance that the Greek government will default on its obligations. Former U.S. Federal Reserve boss Alan Greenspan recently said it looks like there’s no other way out for the beleaguered regime in Athens. Ratings agencies have already downgraded Greek bonds to “junk” status and are warning that they could go down even more.

A default, or whatever the government might try to call it, would make the bad situation worse. First, Greek banks — having been essentially coerced into buying loads of government debt — would all be wiped out and become insolvent. Analysts predict that the regime would have no alternative but to nationalize the entire banking sector and declare a “bank holiday.” Such a scenario would make the current clashes in the streets look moderate by comparison as furious depositors demanded their money.

The implications for world markets, and especially for the Euro, could be catastrophic. French and German banks are said to be among those heavily invested in Greek bonds.

Experts have been warning for more than a year that if Greece goes down, a domino effect might topple the whole region. The single currency could even collapse, and the economy of the European Union (EU) may go down with it, as banks and governments exposed to Greece’s government debt began to tumble.

Other indebted European governments — Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Italy, among others — might start defaulting on their own obligations. Even without the problems in Greece, more than a few governments in the region are precipitously close to the edge. A Greek default could be the push.

To avoid that scenario, the EU establishment has been working to paper over the problem by throwing taxpayer money at it. Thus far, it doesn’t seem to be working. The socialist regime in Greece is still devouring money like a black hole and effectively holding the region hostage.

The first Greek bailout last year, orchestrated by Euro-zone governments and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), totaled almost $150 billion. It was supposed to last for three years, but it wasn’t even close to enough. Greece is now begging for another handout, and it appears virtually certain that a second rescue package — estimated as high as $170 billion — will soon be on the way.

Even with the next round of bailouts, however, analysts say it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable default arrives and bond holders are forced to take a big cut. Indeed, the Greek government’s debts are growing faster than the economy is. If something doesn’t change, it will be impossible for Greek taxpayers to end the cycle without a default.

Greece, of course, is just one of many European countries grappling with staggering amounts of debt. And while the Greek tragedy may be dominating the financial headlines, the situation in several larger economies is equally grim.

Greece Forced to Sell Government Assets to Foreign Investors and Allow for Private Development of State-owned Property to Generate Cash to Pay Down Debt

Greece does about-face, pledges big privatization push

July 18, 2015

AP - Work was supposed to begin next year on a 7 billion euros ($7.6 billion) waterfront urban renewal project almost twice the size of New York's Central Park that could have poured nearly a billion euros into Greece's depleted coffers. The plans stalled late last year after the far-left Syriza party took power and promised to halt attempts at putting the private sector in control of state assets, both on ideological grounds and because leaders believe rampant corruption must be addressed before any sell-off.

Now, in an attempt to get a third European bailout and prevent the Greek economy from collapsing, the ruling party has done an about-face. It has pledged to fast-track the waterfront project, plus sell government assets and allow for private development of state-owned property, all to generate cash that will help reduce Greece's 320-billion-euro national debt and pay back money lent by European nations to prop up ailing banks.

Experts say the goal set by Greece's European counterparts for the country to raise 50 billion euros in privatizations and private use of state property is probably impossible — but that Greece must make a better effort than it has in the past.

"There can be absolutely no backpedaling or unwinding with the privatization effort," said Mujtaba Rahman, European director for the Eurasia Group political and business risk consulting firm. "This is about testing the government's appetite to liberalize the economy and move forward with pro-market reforms."

Big money assets that Greece could sell include state-owned stakes in Athens' new airport, energy company Hellenic Petroleum and electrical utility Public Power Corp., plus offshore oil or natural gas drilling parcels. Greece also has stock in banks valued at 7.5 billion euros, but the true value of the stake is unknown because the Athens stock market stopped trading at the end of June as the country descended into financial chaos.

The Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund, charged with matching state assets in deals with the private sector, also has parcels of land on beautiful islands available for long-term leases and a castle on the island of Corfu, plus buildings throughout Athens and across the country.

It was formed in 2011 following demands by Greece's creditors to embark on a privatization wave, but has collected only 3.5 billion euros so far. Efforts have been complicated by constantly changing laws for asset sales, court challenges, local opposition, financial upheaval that makes it difficult to value assets, and criticism that prices have dropped so much that assets aren't worth selling.

Proponents of privatization say it can help boost investment and the economy flourish by unleashing market forces. It was particularly popular in countries like the United Kingdom in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher sold state-owned assets including water and gas. Though privatizations have taken place elsewhere in Europe, they've been far less prevalent.

But over the past few years during Europe's debt crises, privatizing assets has been a key demand placed on countries being bailed out. Greece notably failed to meet initial targets.

The privatizations have met with varying degrees of resistance, with some arguing that stressed governments such as Greece's are selling assets at below-market prices. Opponents also say privatization reduces job security and transfers wealth to a rich elite.

Greece's development fund doesn't publicly disclose the estimated value of assets it has to offer, but the deal it negotiated for the waterfront renewal project would give Greece 950 million euros in return for a 99-year lease on the property. 

A Greek company with backing from Chinese and Arab investors would then build a huge park, a shopping center, a marina, 1,000 hotel rooms and a skyscraper apartment building on what's billed as Europe's largest undeveloped waterfront tract. Multimillion-euro yachts dock at a marina within the parcel that was built for the 2004 Olympics, but a crumbling, two-block-long building with a leaky roof bakes in the sun. It was built for athletes but never used after the games.

Nestlé is Taking Water From the Great Lakes and is Looking to Purchase Hoover Dam to Privatize the Water

Nestlé has made criminal deals with the government to take water from the Great Lakes at very little cost. This water is then used for bottled water or to be shipped to China. The U.S. Government is not morally fit to deal with this situation.



May 7, 2013 - Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck has stated that water is not a right, but an exploitable resource and commodity that should be leveraged for money. Nestlé's unabashed greed in regards to witholding water from people is well documented, and Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace discuss it in the video clip above from Buzzsaw.

We need to stop the exportation of water from the Great Lakes to China

December 19, 2010

Ann Arbor News Letter to the Editor - This letter is in regards to NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement). The president is now pushing for free trade with South Korea, which I am totally against.

Take a look at how things are working out with China. They export numerous cheap items to our country tainted with toxic and cancer causing substances. It seems almost every month the FDA is recalling this junk including many items made for children.

One of the most toxic was drywall which contained sulfuric acid. Wy would you put sulfuric acid in drywall? Many people were sickened from it. Every day our ports are filled with imports from China. How many of these items make it to the consumer without being tested for toxic substances? How many boats are loaded with exports to China from the United States? I dare say, very few. Many jobs have been lost due to this one-sided trading.

The only thing they do import from us, which needs to be stopped, is water. China is the biggest consumer of Nestlé, which sells several brands of bottled water from a plant based in northern Michigan. When John Engler was governor of Michigan in 2001, he made an agreement with bottle water giant Nestlé, allowing them to open a plant in Mecosta County. They have pumped more than a 1/2 million gallons of water a day, drying up streams and ponds that feed the Great Lakes.

I had no idea this was going on and always thought the Great Lakes were sacred. We need to get this stopped now by writing our governor, Congressmen and senators. I have had it up to here with NAFTA, and China. There is NOTHING free trade about this agreement.

Coca-Cola and Nestlé Are Sucking Us Dry Without Our Even Knowing

March 2, 2014

Fool.com - The droughts currently ravaging California, which will likely send food prices soaring down the road, have highlighted the importance of available freshwater supplies. As 17 communities in California are within 60 days of running out of drinking water, the ability of companies like Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO  ) Nestlé (NASDAQOTH: NSRGY  ) to effectively privatize water supplies feels awfully disconcerting. While the rains that just began to fall out West may bring some measure of relief, the fact remains that the world is coming up hard against a water crisis.

In thirsty regions of the world, Coca-Cola and Nestlé have repeatedly clashed with communities over the perception that the companies were commandeering scarce water supplies at the expense of small farmers and poor villages. While both companies have deployed aggressive water conservation campaigns, with an understanding that water is an essential input to their businesses, Nestlé and Coca-Cola have long faced accusations that they suck vulnerable communities dry in pursuit of their profit motives.

Greek Bailout Requires Dramatic Pension Cuts and Tax Increases and a Plan to Sell Off Virtually All of Its Assets With No Debt Relief

Greece gets its debt bailout — but at a stiff price

July 12, 2015

USA TODAY - European creditors agreed to rescue Greece from the brink of financial ruin early Monday, after the Greek government capitulated to the most onerous terms yet as the steep price for remaining in the 19-nation eurozone.

The complex agreement, reached after 17 hours of negotiations, requires Greece to quickly adopt dramatic pension cuts and tax increases, and plan to sell off virtually all of its assets to help reduce its enormous debts. It also offers no debt relief that Greece had hoped to receive.

The new loans would total up to $95 billion over three years and come on top of a record $240 billion the country already has received since 2010. Many details of the pact still must be ironed out and ratified by political leaders in Greece and European lender nations, such as Germany.

European Council President Donald Tusk said the deal was "unanimously reached" by all 19 countries that use the euro currency. Yet that unanimous vote masked bitter divisions during the marathon talks.

Hard-line nations, such as Germany and Finland, were prepared to oust Greece from the eurozone until it got its economic house in order, while more sympathetic nations, such as France and Italy, argued that another bailout was needed to preserve European unity.

In the end, a weary Tusk announced at an early morning news conference that Greece would now be able to "get back on track." European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said "the agreement was laborious." He added: "There is no Grexit" — a Greek exit from the eurozone.

IMF Wants Greece to Privatize State Assets by Selling Them to Foreign Interests

Don’t forget that the IMF report lambasts Greece for not selling off all of its state assets to private (foreign) interests in order to pay the Troika. This may constitute an attempt to force mass privatisation on the Syriza government, meaning that Greek people for the future will have very high costs of all utilities, travel, everything. I do not think that there will be an agreement after the referendum. This fight will go on and on until Syriza is forced out of government. Then the Troika will put Samaras in power with the sell-off of everything in Greece.  [Source]

Having lived through the experience of Ireland, where the government didn’t even bother to ask the people, they just said “Yes”, I can tell you that a “yes” vote is absolutely no guarantee for “a better future”, on the contrary. It is a guarantee for ever escalating debt, for a society without a future of its own, for young people without a chance of a future, a society where social justice is non-existent and written out of society by law. A “yes” vote guarantees one thing, and one thing only, permanent serfdom to the elite. Despite Ireland being portrayed as the poster boy of austerity, reality on the ground is one of increasing poverty, increasing division between “have’s” and “have nots”, legally facilitated corruption and tax evasion, and a government being “managed” by the powers that be. Greeks would do well to look at that reality and draw the only conclusion possible. Greeks would also do well to realise that modern fascism doesn’t wear a military uniform any longer, it has an anonymous face and wears a 3 piece suit, it symbol is €,$ or anything else representing finance and it is far more dangerous than anything we ever experienced before. [Source]



In the video above, on the island of Lesvos, refugees tried to raid a food truck. The incident took place when nearly 2,500 migrants hosted in the camp of Lesvos (Mytilene) municipality in Kara Tepe saw the catering truck approaching. They started to run for a plate with food. The reason for the panic is they feared they would go hungry without food since a rumor claiming that catering service for refugees had stopped on the island of Samos due to debts. Hundreds of refugees and undocumented migrants arrive daily to Greece from Turkey and the situation has gotten out of control. [Source]

Risk of Greece 'chaos' if no deal soon: French central bank head

July 8, 2015

AFP - Greece could descend into "chaos" unless a deal is found soon, the head of the French central bank, Christian Noyer, said on Wednesday.

"The Greek economy is on the edge of catastrophe. A deal absolutely must be found on Sunday because it will be too late after that and the consequences will be serious," he told French radio, adding that "there could be riots... and chaos in the country".

The EU's Economic Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said an agreement with Greece was possible but it was up to its government to make credible proposals to its fellow eurozone members.

"I think a solution must be found by Sunday and I believe it can be," he told France 2 TV, adding: "The ball is clearly in the Greek authorities' court."

European leaders have given Greece until Thursday to submit detailed reform plans and set a deadline of Sunday to reach a new bailout deal.

Greek Banks are Closed and the Government is Limiting the Amount of Money People Can Take Out of ATMs

The European Union is not for the people but for the few ruling elite and their corporate and banking overlords. Isn’t it time to Just Say No, if not to anything else then to being controlled by an unelected cabal of oligarchs whose only interest is making sure the wealthy get wealthier? Of course, taking a step back from the table, it is clear that a forced decision by Washington against the interests of its European allies – that is likely to engender more chaos and strengthen Greece’s ability to destabilize Europe – must have been done for ‘another reason’. Perhaps after all is said and done, the powers that be need chaos, need instability, need panic in order to ensure the public gratefully accept the all-in QE-fest that they want. [Source]

Greek banks are down to their final 500 million euros

 
(REUTERS/Stefanos Rapanis) People line up to withdraw cash from an ATM outside a National Bank branch in Iraklio on the island of Crete, Greece, June 28, 2015. 

July 2, 2015

Business Insider - Greek banks are down to their last 500 million euros. 

Writing in The Telegraph on Thursday, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard cites the head of the Hellenic Chambers of Commerce, who told The Telegraph that, "We are reliably informed that the cash reserves of the banks are down to €500m. Anybody who thinks they are going to open again on Tuesday is day-dreaming. The cash would not last an hour."

Greek banks are currently closed, and the government has implemented capital controls limiting the amount of money people can take out of ATMs. 

Banks are set to remain closed through at least next Monday. Currently, the European Central Bank has capped the amount of liquidity available to Greek banks through the ECB's emergency lending program. While Greece has worked to cap outflows in the interim, it seems reserves are running dry. 

On Sunday, Greece is set to vote on a bailout referendum on whether to accept the latest terms proposed by Greece's European creditors. A "Yes" vote would see Greece likely accept a bailout program similar to what was last discussed before Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called a surprise referendum last Friday. 

A "No" vote would see Greece go back to the drawing board, with some arguing this could put Greece on the path to leaving the euro, as it would likely be forced to default on its 3.5 billion euro debt payment due to the ECB on July 20. 

On Thursday, Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis said he would quit if the Greek people vote "Yes" to accept bailout measures proposed by its creditors. Varoufakis also said that he would rather "cut his arm off" than accept bailout terms that did not include Greece's creditors taking a haircut — or less than 100 cents on the dollar.

The IMF, however, may have given Varoufakis some cover on Thursday, writing in a report that it expects Greece will need to restructure its debt and that some if may need to be written off. But there is an irony in the IMF admitting one of Varoufakis' major demands — that Greece's creditors take a haircut — because if the referendum doesn't go his way, Varoufakis won't be there to negotiate.

As we get closer to the Greek referendum, it is becoming clearer that neither Varoufakis nor Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras is likely to be in office much longer if the result of the Greek referendum is a "Yes" to accept new bailout terms — even if these revised terms are closer to what they had been seeking in negotiations anyway.

In his piece on Thursday, Evans-Pritchard also details some of the struggles facing Greek companies that are having difficulty importing supplies and could close factories unless the situation turns around soon.

The referendum is widely seen, both inside and outside of Greece, as effectively a vote on Greece's future in the euro. Greece's leaders, of course, have denied that.

As we head to the weekend and Sunday's referendum, the latest polls show that it is currently "too close to call."

United States and Japan Decline to Join China-led International Bank

Framework for China-led international bank signed

June 29, 2015

AFP - Countries from five continents formally signed up to the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at a ceremony on Monday, officials said, as Beijing steps up its global diplomatic and economic role.

Australia was the first country to sign the articles of association creating the AIIB's legal framework in the Great Hall of the People, an AFP journalist saw, followed by 49 other founding members.

Seven more are expected to do so by the end of the year.

The bank will have a share capital of $100 billion, with $20 billion paid in initially, the document showed.

The bank "will provide new opportunities for our businesses and also promote sustainable growth in Asia", said Singapore's senior minister for finance and transport Josephine Teo, who represented the city-state.

The AIIB has been viewed by some as a rival to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, and the United States and Japan -- the world's largest and third-largest economies, respectively -- have notably declined to join.

Beijing will be by far the largest shareholder at about 30 percent, the articles of association posted on the website of China's finance ministry showed. India is the second biggest at 8.4 percent with Russia third on 6.5 percent.

The voting structure gives smaller members a slightly disproportionately larger voice, and a statement accompanying the articles said China will have 26 percent of the votes.

The share is not enough to give Beijing a formal veto over the bank's decision-making, but it will still have an outsized say.

Among non-Asian participants, Germany is the largest shareholder with 4.5 percent, followed by France with 3.4 percent and Brazil on 3.2 percent.

The AIIB is expected to go into operation later this year and its headquarters will be in Beijing, despite calls from Indonesia that it be based in Jakarta, further cementing China's prominence in the institution.

But all financial terms in the agreement are in US dollars, rather than China's currency, the renminbi, and the bank's working language will be English.

- Transparency concerns -

Only 50 of the 57 countries that have applied for founding membership signed up in Beijing on Monday, and the finance ministry said the remainder -- Denmark, Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Poland, South Africa and Thailand -- have yet to ratify the necessary agreements.

Washington sought to dissuade its allies from taking part but European countries including Britain, France and Germany have rushed to sign up as they seek to bolster ties with the world's second-largest economy.

There are some concerns over transparency of the lender, which will fund infrastructure in Asia, as well as worries that Beijing will use it to push its own geopolitical and economic interests as a rising power.

The articles of association promise the bank will "be guided by sound banking principles in its operations" and "ensure that each of its operations complies with the Bank’s operational and financial policies, including without limitation, policies addressing environmental and social impacts".

But equally vague statements in the past have done little to soothe critics.

Supporters say fears over undue Chinese influence are overblown, and that the participation by more than 50 countries will dilute Beijing's power.

The articles of association specify that the bank's president must come from the Asian region and will serve a maximum of two consecutive five-year terms.

In Tokyo, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said: "We hope the AIIB will play a role as a financial institution that contributes to Asia's development while meeting standards of international institutions, including for its governance.

"We'd like to watch it closely, including its actual operations."

Related: 

The Church Will Be 'Raptured' at Armageddon

Ireland Privatizes Its Municipal Water Systems

The Irish Government is slavering at the mouth at the prospect of a nice juicy fire sale of public assets. Under the NewERA plan, on September 29, 2011, the government announced details of "a new fund that will use the National Pension Reserve Fund to spur investment." According to the report: "In addition to the money transferred from the pension reserve fund into the new strategic fund, the Government will also look for matching commercial funding from private industry. A strategic bank is expected to follow, but not immediately."

New Left-wing Greek Prime Minister Vows to Reverse Austerity Programs and Speak Outs in Support of Palestinians

Greek radical left wins election, threatening market turmoil

January 25, 2015

AP- A radical left-wing party vowing to end Greece's painful austerity program won a historic victory in Sunday's parliamentary elections, setting the stage for a showdown with the country's international creditors that could shake the eurozone.

Flashback: UN and IMF Push for Global Financial Transaction Tax and Carbon Tax to Finance World Government

Globalists Push World Transaction Tax At UN Summit

Final move for world government and destruction of middle class begins

September 19, 2010

Prison Planet.com - Globalists representing 60 nations will meet at the UN this coming week to push a tax on world financial transactions in the name of solving poverty and climate change, formally launching a massive program to bankrupt the middle class and enrich the coffers of global government.

“Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes,” reports CNS News.

As Ira Stoll, editor of FutureCapitalism.com, points out, new taxes always start off small so as to not be resisted by the people forced to pay them, and are then always gradually increased.

“When people suggest taxes, they always start out ‘small,” said Stoll.

“But once the door is opened to the idea of ‘global taxes,’ you can bet they won’t end small. Never mind all the issues about whether development aid actually helps poor countries or just winds up empowering corrupt local dictators and their cronies.”

The call for a global transaction tax arrives in the aftermath of a leaked UN blueprint which outlined how elitists plan to re-brand global warming in an effort to dismantle the middle class by instituting a “global redistribution of wealth” via carbon taxes.

Rich Countries (or Their Populations Anyway) Will Have Their Standards of Living Reduced Significantly Under Carbon Taxing Schemes

The Climate Protection Act of 2013 (S.332) and its companion bill, the Sustainable Energy Act (S.329), introduced by Sanders and Boxer on February 14, 2013, are currently before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bills will pave the way for a new carbon tax and cap and trade scheme.

S. 332: "A bill to address climate disruptions, reduce carbon pollution, enhance the use of clean energy, and promote resilience in the infrastructure of the United States, and for other purposes."

S.329: "S. 329. A bill to eliminate certain fuel subsidies and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain energy tax incentives."

Opening a packed Capitol Hill press briefing, Sanders inveighed against partisan squabbling which he insisted must yield before the ineluctable laws of physics. Earlier scientific projections were wrong, Sanders said, “the crisis facing our planet is much more serious than they previously believed.” Sanders and Boxer conveyed alarming warnings of “global climate disruption” from a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee briefing on Wednesday. The panel of four scientists had concluded that without aggressive action, the earth will warm by 8 degrees Fahrenheit within a century, with consequences including 3 – 6 feet of sea level rise, more frequent and forceful damaging storms, drought, extreme crop loss and submerging of coastal cities.

Reporters immediately questioned how the two bills could move forward. Boxer said she has just begun seeking co-sponsors and hasn’t conferred with Majority Leader Harry Reid about scheduling. But she expects to conduct hearings and markup in Environment & Public Works and to bring the measures to the Senate floor. Replying to a question about EPA greenhouse gas regulations, she said, “We’ve beaten back” Republican repeal efforts. “The Clean Air Act is the law of the land” which the President “must carry out.” Boxer suggested that public opinion on climate is “far ahead” of Congress, “no one is asking for dirtier air or water.” But she offered no plans to reach across the aisle to enact their bills, either in the Democratic-controlled Senate or the Republican House. She called on environmental and public interest organizations to build support for climate legislation. Sanders suggested that the public hold accountable “Republicans who refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change.”

The Climate Protection Act certainly is the most potent climate legislation ever introduced in the Senate. 

The status of the two bills has not changed since their introduction in February 2013: both are still assigned to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and have not been sent to the House or Senate as a whole.

"The World Bank/IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild and 30 to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world. For over 150 years they have planned to take over the world through money. The IMF/World Bank are systematically tearing nations apart. It's not privatization. They steal from the people and hand it over to themselves. The World Bank/IMF pays off politicians to transfer a nation's water systems, railways, telephone companies, nationalized oil companies, gas stations, etc. to IMF-backed transnational companies, which they later destroy after transferring the assets to dummy corporations." [Rothschild Bankers Looting Nations Through the IMF and World Bank]



As of the year 2000, there were seven countries without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Then along came the convenient terror of 9-11 and soon Iraq and Afghanistan had been added to the list, leaving only five countries without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family: Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. America's true reason for intervention and missile attacks against Libya became very clear on March 29, 2011 with a sudden creation by the rebels of a new Central Bank. Libya was one of only five nations remaining who did not a Central Bank owned by the Rothschilds. Now there are only three countries left without a Rothschild-owned Central Bank: Cuba, North Korea and Iran. And guess who immediately became target number one after Gadhafi was killed? Iran. 

Cap and Trader Demands Carbon Derivatives Bubble

October 18, 2009

Infowars - In The Guardian, Nicholas Stern argues for poverty, misery, and the latest bankster scam. He says the “rich countries” not only have to reduce emissions significantly but also tax their not-so rich populations and give the money to developing countries. Current efforts to reduce carbon emissions are not enough, according to Stern.

“By 2050, the global population is projected to rise to 9 billion, so average per head emissions will have to be lower than 2 tonnes per year on average. For rich countries, this will require a cut in annual emissions by at least 80% by 2050,” he writes.

In other words, between now and 2050, the “rich countries” (or their populations anyway) will have their standards of living reduced significantly. They will be forced under international treaty to fork over $100 billion a year to developing nations [money which will not go to the people but into the pockets of the ruling elite].
 
Stern suggests “high-ambition” commitments, including a rollback of international shipping and aviation. He says a the transition to a low-carbon economy will “create a new era of prosperity and growth.”

Lord Stern, who is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, says a reduction in carbon emissions can be realized through the operation of carbon markets.

Carbon markets and trading are another bankster bubble scheme.

“This system would create whole new classes of financial assets, which financial firms could securitize, derivatize, and speculate on,” writes Eoin O’Carroll for The Christian Science Monitor. “Many critics are pointing out that this new market for carbon derivatives could, without effective oversight, usher in another Wall Street free-for-all just like the one that precipitated the implosion of the global economy.”

Wall Street is already on the move. The Center for Public Integrity noted in February that banks have been sending climate change lobbyists to Washington in earnest and are attempting to get the American Clean Energy and Security Act rammed through Congress. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212 in June. It now moves to the Senate.  

The American Clean Energy and Security Act “is about profits, not environmental remediation,” writes Stephen Lendman. “Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license pollution by creating a new profit center to do it.”

“Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, insurance companies like AIG and private equity firms had virtually no reps on Capitol Hill working on global warming policy in 2003; by last year, they had about 130 climate lobbyists, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows. About 20 additional lobbyists worked for firms and organizations wholly dedicated to carbon marketing last year,” writes Marianne Lavelle.

It is estimated that the “carbon market” and its securitized, derivatized, and speculated financial assets will ultimately be worth trillions a year to Wall Street and the bankers. It will inflate a massive bubble designed to burst like all the bubbles that came before it.

“If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat for what’s coming. Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivative bubbles look like target practice,” warns Catherine Austin Fitts.

“Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis,” notes Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

Dennis Kuchinich cited Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article on the Goldman Sach’s bubble machine: “Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they are about to do it again.”

Goldman Sachs is confident Obama and Congress will pass cap and trade legislation. On October 12, The New York Times reported that Goldman Sachs has completed a $12 million carbon offsets transaction, described as “the largest deal of its kind in the United States.”

The “transaction reflects growing confidence in a regulated carbon market in the United States, even though the concept is still the subject of much debate in Congress,” according to the newspaper. 

Finally, Lord Stern is hardly a neutral observer merely concerned with climate change and the fate of the planet. On June 16, 2008, Dow Jones Financial News Online announced that Stern “is set to launch a rating service for carbon credits in an attempt to boost investment in the nascent market.”

EU Mulls Carbon Tax to Fight Climate Change

October 3, 2009

China View — European Union (EU) finance ministers on Friday discussed the idea of introducing a carbon tax across the 27-nation bloc as a way to help fight climate change.

“Today, there were few reactions, but all the reactions were positive,” Laszlo Kovacs, EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, told reporters after presenting the idea to EU finance ministers at an informal meeting in the Swedish port city of Gothenburg.

Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, whose country holds the EU rotating presidency, said there had been a constructive exchange of views and that the European Commission was encouraged to make a formal proposal, possibly next year.

He said a number of ministers welcomed the idea of introducing a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from sectors outside the EU Emission Trading Scheme.

The EU currently runs the world’s largest Emission Trading Scheme, which imposes emission caps on certain EU industries, including power generators and some heavy industrial plants, and requires them to buy extra permit if they want to emit more.

The new carbon tax is likely to be applied to transport, agriculture, forestry, households and others.

In fact, several EU member states have already introduced such tax on national basis.

Borg said Sweden’s carbon tax had proved “very successful” since it was introduced at the start of the 1990s.

Denmark, Finland and Slovenia also have taxes on household carbon emissions resulting from heating and electricity use. France is planning to introduce a carbon tax on gasoline or diesel fuel for cars next year, hoping it can bring more revenue for the government.

But Kovacs admitted it would not be easy to reach a deal since taxation is reserved for national sovereignty under EU rules and any change requires unanimity among 27 member states.

“Introducing a new tax in the EU has never been easy, and particularly it is not easy in the time of a financial and economic crisis,” he said.

“But it is evident that the climate change is an even more disastrous global challenge than the current financial and economic crisis. It’s a question of life or death for the population of the globe,” he added.

Kovacs said the tax would not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, but also its revenues could be used in financing the fight against climate change in the developing world.

The revenues “should be used for climate change purposes (and) to finance the climate change efforts of the developing countries, because they need some support and we need revenues to support them,” he said.

EU finance ministers also had an “active and constructive” discussion on the issue of climate financing today, according to the Swedish EU presidency.

World governments are expected to reach a new deal on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012 at a United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen this December, but current negotiations have been deadlocked, with climate financing proving to be a stumbling block.

Developing countries have called for generous financial support from rich countries to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of global warming, for which industrialized nations are historically responsible.

In early September, the European Commission unveiled a blueprint for scaling up international finance to help poor nations, proposing that the EU would contribute some 2 to 15 billion euros (2.9 to 22 billion U.S. dollars) a year by 2020, a sum criticized by developing countries as not enough.

"The Fall of the U.S. Empire and the Breakup of the Geopolitical Matrix"

Billions in Aid to Ukraine Will Be Used to Bail Out International Banks That Hold Ukrainian Government Debt

Aid to Ukraine Is a Bad Deal For All

March 31, 2014

Ron Paul - Last week Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill approving a billion dollars in aid to Ukraine and more sanctions on Russia. The bill will likely receive the president’s signature within days. If you think this is the last time US citizens will have their money sent to Ukraine, you should think again. This is only the beginning.

This $1 billion for Ukraine is a rip-off for the America taxpayer, but it is also a bad deal for Ukrainians. Not a single needy Ukrainian will see a penny of this money, as it will be used to bail out international banks who hold Ukrainian government debt. According to the terms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-designed plan for Ukraine, life is about to get much more difficult for average Ukrainians. The government will freeze some wage increases, significantly raise taxes, and increase energy prices by a considerable margin.

But the bankers will get paid and the IMF will get control over the Ukrainian economy.

The bill also authorizes more US taxpayer money for government-funded “democracy promotion” NGOs, and more money to broadcast US government propaganda into Ukraine via Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. It also includes some saber-rattling, directing the US Secretary of State to “provide enhanced security cooperation with Central and Eastern European NATO member states.”

The US has been “promoting democracy” in Ukraine for more than ten years now, but it doesn’t seem to have done much good. Recently a democratically-elected government was overthrown by violent protestors. That is the opposite of democracy, where governments are changed by free and fair elections. What is shocking is that the US government and its NGOs were on the side of the protestors! If we really cared about democracy we would not have taken either side, as it is none of our business.

Washington does not want to talk about its own actions that led to the coup, instead focusing on attacking the Russian reaction to US-instigated unrest next door to them. So the new bill passed by Congress will expand sanctions against Russia for its role in backing a referendum in Crimea, where most of the population voted to join Russia. The US, which has participated in the forced change of borders in Serbia and elsewhere, suddenly declares that international borders cannot be challenged in Ukraine.

Those of us who are less than gung-ho about sanctions, manipulating elections, and sending our troops overseas are criticized as somehow being unpatriotic. It happened before when so many of us were opposed to the Iraq war, the US attack on Libya, and elsewhere. And it is happening again to those of us not eager to get in another cold — or hot — war with Russia over a small peninsula that means absolutely nothing to the US or its security.

I would argue that real patriotism is defending this country and making sure that our freedoms are not undermined here. Unfortunately, while so many are focused on freedoms in Crimea and Ukraine, the US Congress is set to pass an NSA “reform” bill that will force private companies to retain our personal data and make it even easier for the NSA to spy on the rest of us. We need to refocus our priorities toward promoting liberty in the United States!

"The Fall of the U.S. Empire and the Breakup of the Geopolitical Matrix"

May 15, 2011

"David Galland: You’ve been steadily warning your readers for years about the coming chaos in what you call “Chaostan,” yet another forecast of yours that is coming true today. Before we get to current events, could you define Chaostan for readers who aren’t familiar with it.

Richard Maybury: In Central Asia, the word "stan" means "land of." Therefore Kazakhstan is the land of the Kazakhs, Kurdistan is the land of the Kurds, and so forth. I coined the word Chaostan in 1992, the land of chaos, to refer to the area from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean and Poland to the Pacific, plus North Africa.

To understand why I call this area Chaostan, you have to first understand the two fundamental laws that make civilization possible. The first being “You should do all you have agreed to do,” which is the basis of contract law. The other is “Do not encroach on other persons or their property,” which is the basis of tort law and some criminal law. Where you find these laws most widely obeyed, especially by government, you find the most peace and prosperity and economic advancement, especially peace. In areas where they are less obeyed, you find chaos.


The area that I refer to as Chaostan never developed legal systems based on those two laws, at least not legal systems that the governments feel obligated to follow. I should point out those two fundamental laws provide the foundation for the old British common law, which was the basis of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution – essentially the legal documents that make America what it is or, rather, what it was.

So that's the essential thing, that Chaostan is the primary area that never developed rational legal systems, or at least not rational legal systems that governments are required to obey. As a result, throughout history they have suffered, and will continue to suffer, political, economic and social upheaval… chaos.

DG: Which brings us to the present, with a real flare-up going on in Chaostan. As Doug Casey has often said, "The thing that gets you is the thing you don’t see coming." Other than you and Doug, no one else I’m aware of anticipated the current trouble in places like Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. One day, things are quiet, the next we've got all sorts of major oil-producing countries – countries that people believed would never really change – up for grabs. What are your general thoughts on the situation?

RM: Since you’ve read Early Warning Report for so many years, you know that there is nothing going on today that surprises me or my readers. That's the direction I thought Chaostan would go. I'm just surprised that it took as long to get to this point as it did. In that regard, I have often used a quote from Doug…

DG: "Just because something is inevitable doesn’t make it imminent”?

RM: That too, but I was thinking of this quote to the effect of, "The nasty things that you think are coming always take longer to arrive than you think they will, but once they get here, they make up for their tardiness by being worse than you thought they’d be." I think that's a fantastic observation, and it sure does apply here. I've always been convinced that this mess was going to happen, but will confess to being amazed that it is all happening at the same time, and that it's occurring in such a short period of time.

DG: What do you attribute the upheaval to?

RM: There are two big things going on: One is the fall of the U.S. Empire, and that is leading to the second, which is the breakup of the geopolitical matrix. In the case of the latter, I am referring to the many relationships the governments of the world have with each other and with their own people. This matrix of relationships and political structures are called countries, most of which have existed for a long time, but that's breaking up now, in part because, in most cases, the borders between these countries were drawn a long time ago by people who knew nothing about the local populations.

While the breakup is starting in North Africa, I think it's going to spread across most or all of Chaostan. And it will have effects even in North America and South America. While it's almost impossible to predict exactly how, it’s my view the world that we grew up in is going away, and it will be replaced by some new political matrix. These changes will only be exacerbated by the fact that the U.S. Empire that we grew up with is crumbling very fast. As the U.S. Empire collapses, all sorts of relationships will die, leading to yet more chaos. You can see this with Obama calling up Mubarak and ordering him to resign, so I think chaos is the only word that fits.

As far as I know, nothing on this scale has ever happened before in world history, and for people who don’t understand it and are not paying close attention, it's going to be hell. But for those who do understand it, it's going to be one of the biggest money-making opportunities in all of world history. I don’t know what to say other than just look out.

DG: We'll get back to the money-making opportunities momentarily. First, however, a bit more on the crumbling U.S. Empire, an assessment we agree with. The administration was clearly caught flat-footed by what happened in Egypt. First it supported Mubarak’s regime and then, as you noted, it flipped and Obama demanded he go. It seems like right now the U.S. government really doesn’t even know whom it should be talking to, let alone supporting, in these various countries. This is no small matter seeing that for decades much of U.S. foreign policy has been directed at ensuring a steady supply of oil by creating relationships in the Middle East, including setting up and supporting various despots. With these relationships now at risk, the U.S. government has to be seriously concerned that it will see a steep degradation of its influence in the Middle East. Would you agree?

RM: Yes, I think U.S. government influence in the area is probably almost completely gone. The only real influence they have is within, let's say, a hundred miles of any given aircraft carrier. I don’t think Washington is taken seriously by anybody anymore, except for its military power. The simple fact is, and you saw this in the Bush administration as well as in the Obama administration, it's clear to everybody that they don’t know what they’re doing. They have absolutely no understanding of the things that they’re meddling in. I remember watching a television interview with Condoleezza Rice right after 9/11, when she said "Nobody in the White House knew where Afghanistan was." And that after the Twin Towers came down, they all gathered in the Oval Office and had somebody bring in a globe so that they could all find out where Afghanistan was.

DG: Of course the region really only matters to the U.S. because of its oil, and I think right now something like half of Libya's production is off line. Do you see the situation region-wide affecting supplies on a sustained basis?

RM: Let me push back a bit on your comment that "The only reason it's important to the U.S. is because of the oil." I would modify that a little bit by saying, "The only reason the region is important to you and me is because of the oil." But to the U.S. government, the region is a place they have exerted their power, and that is what drives the U.S. government – a lust for power. You have a whole lot of people who spend their adult lives trying to acquire power, and once they get it, they want to use it on somebody, and one of the groups of people that they have used it on are those in the Mideast.

The American founders understood that. It’s why they created the Constitution as they did, as an attempt to limit the use of power, but the Constitution stops at the border. So U.S. politicians, almost right from the beginning, have gone outside the country to exert their power because it's a whole lot easier to do it in other countries than it is to do it in this country, and we have to keep that in mind. While the oil is definitely a big factor, more of an excuse, for the U.S. government’s involvement over there, it's the exercise of power that they draw satisfaction from and that's the reason they have meddled in these countries for so many decades.

Now as far as what's going to happen with the oil, my guess is that there will be more uprisings, and Washington will try to establish new relationships with whatever regimes rise up out of that. In the end, as you know, fundamentally whoever owns the oil can't do anything with it except sell it, and so they will sell it and we will buy it.

DG: Might the Chinese, for example, move in there and take these opportunities to redirect more oil in their direction?

RM: Sure, but you’ve got to pay for the cost of the extraction, and there will be all sorts of governments, probably already are, sending agents in there to try to steer things in directions favorable to them, and they will try to use whatever oil they get control of as a weapon against their enemies. I'm not talking about anything that hasn’t, in essence, been going on for centuries. That's how governments behave. I have no idea how it's going to shake out in the end, other than to say that ultimately whoever owns the stuff is going to sell it to somebody. They may not sell it directly to the United States or to U.S. oil companies, but they’ll sell it somewhere in the world, and that will increase the general world supply, and the U.S. will then buy oil from somebody.

I think that a whole lot of politics will be tangled up in these transactions, but I guess maybe the main factor to keep in mind is how much of the oil infrastructure is going to be destroyed while these governments are maneuvering against each other over there. While it’s too early to say, if a lot of that infrastructure isn't destroyed, I'll be very surprised.

DG: With the U.S.'s long relationship with Israel and support for all sorts of despots in the region, is the guy on the streets in the Middle East anti-American at this point?

RM: I've heard of a few incidents here and there, but the impression I get is that people around the world generally like the individual American, because we are a personality they have never run into before. In most countries, if you tell an insulting joke about the government, everybody looks over their shoulders to find out if somebody overheard. An American never looks over his shoulder when he tells a political joke, and they find that fascinating. We speak with confidence and openly and about subjects that they will never talk about in public. So they’re captivated with our personalities as individuals, but they really hate and fear our government, just like many Americans do.

To illustrate that point, just think about the sick feeling you get in your gut when you go to your mailbox and find a letter with a return address for the IRS. Now imagine what it's like being, let's say an Iranian, and looking out your kitchen window and seeing an American guided missile cruiser sitting out there in the water.

DG: I remember when I lived in Chile being shocked to see U.S. soldiers jogging in double lines up the roads. This was a regular sight. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out how people in the U.S. would react if Iraqi troops were a regular sight in their towns. Back to the question of oil, the big players in the region are Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you think Saudi Arabia, in particular, will be in play before this is over?

RM: They already are in play in the sense that they’re trying to steer events in directions that are favorable to them. Maybe we should explain to the readers where Saudi Arabia came from. This is not a natural country. It is a country created by the government of Britain. Britain went into Arabia and picked the Saudi tribe as the one that ought to run the place as a surrogate of the British government. They supported the Saudi tribe so the Saudi tribe could conquer the other tribes, and that's essentially what Saudi Arabia is today.

It's as if someone went into Texas and picked the Jones family to run Texas and renamed the place Jones Texas. That's what Saudi Arabia is, and the other tribes don’t enjoy being dominated by the Saudi tribe, so there is inherent tension in that country all the time. The way the Saudi tribe tries to avoid violence is by buying off the population. They just keep pumping money into the population in an attempt to keep them fat, dumb and happy, but the population is getting tired of the whole scam, and that ancient hatred of the Saudi tribe is always there, just under the surface. There is a horrible resentment in the population.

When the ocean of oil is poured into the mix, yielding unimaginable riches for the Saudi rulers, it’s a nitro and glycerin combination that people have been writing about for decades. I'm one of them. I'm amazed Saudi Arabia is still there. I thought it would have blown up a long time ago, but it could be the uprisings spreading all across the Islamic world now that light the fuse on their overthrow. Saudi Arabia is the big prize, and this means a lot of people want it and they’ll be likely to fight over it – and where it is going to go, I don’t know. This may be the greatest level of uncertainty since World War II.

DG: It would be logical that the U.S. military-industrial complex is going to use all this instability as an excuse to rationalize continuing with the huge levels of military spending, which is a big problem in terms of reducing the deficit. Do you see the U.S. military remaining as big as it is, or is there a change coming as the empire continues to dwindle down?

RM: I think there will be some token cuts to the military, but I can't see anything serious because all you need to do to get the American people to support a larger military is to just scare them a little bit. And that's easy to do – in this present situation it is very easy to do. So I would tend to think that all you’ve got to do is announce that we need more aircraft carrier battle groups, because the oil supply is threatened, and the typical American on the street is going to say fine, build more aircraft carriers.

A point here to keep in mind is that, yes, the U.S. has by far the largest military force in the world, but Washington has taken unto itself the largest military obligation in the world – namely the responsibility of policing the whole planet. There is no other country that thinks it has the obligation to police the earth, so in terms of fire power versus territory that is being controlled, Washington is actually very weak and its enemies know this.

DG: Recently the U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates told cadets at West Point that we may never fight another large ground war. Do you believe that? I mean, if Saudi Arabia gets really unstable, do you think we are going to put boots on the ground there?

RM: Yes, definitely. This idea that you can fight a war without the use of ground forces is ridiculous. It shows a lack of understanding of what government is. A government is an organization that has control over a given piece of territory, and to control it you’ve got to have infantry standing on the ground. The phrase "boots on the ground" is a very good one for that. The place has to be occupied by soldiers with rifles, and if you don’t have the ability to do that, then you can't control the place. You can just bomb the heck out of it, but eventually you’ve got to put troops on the ground.

DG: Yet in his speech to the cadets, Gates said that wars like Afghanistan are not likely and in fact he would advise against it. I have a copy of the article here, and I quote; "In my opinion, any future defense secretary that advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the middle of Africa should have his head examined."

RM: What he's saying is absolutely true, that you should not get involved in foreign wars, but I think it's a naïve idea to assume that they won't do it, because after all it's a government. It wants to use its power. It's going to use its power on somebody, and it will get into more wars, because the people who run the government are power seekers and they want to use their power. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution that says the U.S. government can't meddle in other countries, we're going to have wars in other countries.

DG: Speaking of foreign entanglements, Israel has got to be watching all this stuff with great concern.

RM: Yes, if I were the Israelis, I'd be pretty scared, and certainly they are also working secretly to try to steer events in directions favorable to them. I don’t know what to say about it other than the old phrase, "The situation is fluid." It sure is fluid, no doubt.

DG: Returning just for a moment to your contention that governments need to exercise power. Is this just a psychological aberration amongst power seekers, or is there more to it than that?

RM: I regard it as a mental illness. People such as you and me and our readers are generally wealth seekers. We want to live a prosperous, comfortable life and we seek wealth in order to do that. By contrast, people who rise to the top in government are power seekers. They get their satisfaction from forcing other people to do what they want. They are essentially bullies.

Let's offer a little proof here. Practically every piece of legislation enacted in the last 100 years has involved the use of force on persons who have not harmed anyone. Anybody who wants that privilege has to have something wrong with them, so I think it's a given that when you're dealing with a high-level politician or a high-level bureaucrat, you're dealing with somebody who likes to push other people around, and that's the fundamental factor that the American founders were looking at when they created the Constitution. They understood that political power corrupts the morals and the judgment.

DG: A moment ago, you mentioned that one way the government can get people to go along with its schemes is to scare them, and history supports that this isn’t a new tactic. Yet, a lot of Americans look at 9/11 as proof that Muslim extremists are after us and we have to defend ourselves, and see that as sufficient rationale for the U.S. military to take action in the Middle East. Even from our readers, we hear things like "Kill them all and let God sort them out." How would you respond to that?

RM: I know a lot of people that seem to need somebody to hate, and when the government gives them somebody to hate, they’re grateful. I've known a lot of people like that. They enjoy despising whole classes of people, painting them all with the same brush, even the children.

DG: Yet people would argue that the U.S. government did not give us the Arabs to hate. They blew up the World Trade Center. There is clear evidence that in fact somebody does hate us, and so we should hate them back.

RM: Yes, well, as Ron Paul has pointed out, and I think this is a direct quote from Ron, "They didn’t come over here until we went over there."

DG: And we've been over there an awfully long time at this point.

RM: That's right. You can go back 200 years, if you want, which I do. The original war between the U.S. and Muslims was the Barbary Wars back in the early 1800s, and that was essentially an extension of the Crusades. The Europeans were fighting the Muslims, and the Europeans hoodwinked the American politicians into joining the war on their side. When you hear the Marine Corps hymn "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli," to the shores of Tripoli refers to the Barbary Wars in which the U.S. came into the Crusades against the Muslims on the side of the Europeans.

So you can go back 200 years when the Europeans manipulated us into this thing, or you can count the modern onset as being in the 1940s when Roosevelt made an agreement to support the Saudis. There has never been a case where an Islamic government sent armies into the United States, but the U.S. has done it in the Mideast numerous times.

DG: Speaking of being manipulated, it is always remarkable to me how the British were up to their necks in Israel, as were the French in Vietnam, and presto chango, they’re out of the picture, replaced by the Americans. How we ended up as Israel's number one benefactor is amazing, just as it is amazing to me that we ended up losing 50,000 men in Vietnam after the French left. It makes no sense to me, but I guess it’s to be expected once you start getting drawn into foreign adventures. What else are you following for your readers? What sort of themes are you getting into?

RM: In terms of economics, we've been writing about the decline of the dollar for years now. But actually, as of the March issue, I'm making a turn and going back to a much deeper geopolitical orientation, because I think what's going on in the Islamic world now is going to be at least as dominant as the fall of the Soviet Empire was back in the 1990s. Jim Powell has made an interesting point. He said that it won't be very long and we will all be looking back and referring to life before Tunisia and life after Tunisia, and I think that is true. The Tunisia uprising will be viewed akin to the attack on Pearl Harbor or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 where life was totally different after that incident happened. I think we're in that situation now.

DG: And I take it for granted that you think oil is going a lot higher.

RM: Yes, not that it isn’t going to have corrections along the way, but I've been predicting for a long time we are going to see oil at $300 a barrel. I don’t know when, but I'm sure it's coming.

DG: And gold is a core holding at this point?

RM: Absolutely, gold and silver. I think they still have a long way to go, which is to say the dollar still has a long way to fall.

DG: A final question. Do you see the government pulling out of Afghanistan more or less on schedule?

RM: I doubt it, but given how fluid the situation is, who knows? Gates' comment was very revealing. It is amazing he would admit in public that it was a stupid thing to go into Afghanistan. If U.S. officials can divert the public's attention enough with what's going on in North Africa, maybe they can pull it off – maybe they can cut and run, and let the Afghan government fall without the American public noticing the lives that were wasted propping it up. The one thing I can tell you for sure is that if you want to keep track of what's really going on in the world, you have to watch the aircraft carriers. The U.S. has 10 aircraft carriers – the big super-carriers – and they are always an indication of what Washington is really serious about.

DG: So when you read that a carrier is being moved into a certain area, then that's a tip-off that something’s about to go on?

RM: Yes. The position of carriers is a tip-off. Google “Positions of U.S. Aircraft Carriers.” Secondarily, Washington uses amphibious warfare ships as substitutes for the big carriers, so you want to keep an eye on those as well."

•

A Casey Report Interview with Richard Maybury: With everything going on in the world today, we thought it a good time to catch up with the views of longtime friend Richard Maybury, a low-key but highly respected author, lecturer and analyst. In addition to his work consulting with businesses and high net worth individuals on strategic planning, Richard is the editor of the U.S. & World Early Warning Report, a monthly service that helps readers see the world as it is, versus how the media and the officialdom would like you to see it. Richard is widely regarded as one of the finest free-market writers in America today. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and other major publications. Website: http://www.richardmaybury.com/