Tagged: fed Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • ancavge 6:14 pm on September 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , fed, Federal Hall, , , , , pushes, ,   

    Obama Pushes Banker Takeover Plan at Federal Hall 

    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars
    September 14, 2009

    Obama delivered one of his famous teleprompter speeches today at Federal Hall in New York on the one-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers scam. It was a cynical move, considering Obama spoke from the building where the country’s founders once argued over how much the government should control the national economy. Federal Hall also served as the first capitol of the United States of America.

    “President Obama came to Wall Street to chastise executives and to urge Congress to pass tougher regulation of the bankers and brokers whom he blamed for the crisis in the financial markets a year ago,” reports the Christian Science Monitor. Obama said the United States needs “strong rules of the road to guard against the kind of systemic risks we have seen.”

    It was a wink and a nod speech, considering the sort of people Obama supposedly lectured now run his administration. Geithner, Summers, Clinton, Mitchell, Holbrooke, Volcker, Rice, James, Haass — on and on, ad infinitum, these are Federal Reserve, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg members, bureaucratic minions of the private and international bankster cartel.

    In fact, as Judge Napolitano notes in the video below, if the proposals Obama soft sold to the American people today are implemented, it will amount to a final coup d’état by the banksters and their technocrats and enforcers at the Federal Reserve, the unconstitutional and privately held bankster Mafia operation that masquerades as a government agency. It will install a dictatorial regulatory power by the international bankers over entire U.S. economy — right down to the local grocer and the hot dog vendor on the corner. It will require you to ask permission for the most mundane and routine of financial transactions. It will control your life down to the smallest detail.

    “President Obama’s plan to give the privately-owned and unaccountable Federal Reserve complete regulatory oversight across the entire U.S. economy, which is likely to be enacted before the end of the year, will officially herald the beginning of a new form of government in the United States – an ultra-powerful banking dictatorship controlled by a small gaggle of shadowy and corrupt elitists,” Paul Joseph and Steve Watson wrote for Prison Planet on June 18 of this year.

    As the Watson brothers and Judge Napolitano note, the new rules will give the Fed the unchallenged authority to “regulate” any company activity it believes may threaten the economy and the markets — that is to say, all who would threaten the monopoly men with independent an unregulated financial activity. Even the Los Angeles Times admitted the Obama Federal Reserve takeover bill would effectively grant the clout required to seize and take over any company.

    Professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin Robert Auerbach pointed out the obvious earlier this year: “The Federal Reserve has massive conflicts of interest that make it ill suited for its present regulatory functions and certainly for an expanded regulatory reach. The officials leading the Fed today preside over an organization that is run in substantial part by the bankers they regulate. Bank regulation begins at its 12 district Federal Reserve Banks, each governed by a nine-member board of directors, two-thirds of whom are elected by the bankers in the district.”

    “The government is ready to hand over everything to a monolithic private corporation and a gaggle of bastard banker offspring, that have gobbled up an amount close to the entire GDP of the country in taxpayers’ money and figuratively stuck the middle finger up regarding questions over where that money has gone,” the Watsons conclude. “It can be no more apparent than at this time that legislation to audit, repeal and eventually end the Federal Reserve, must be supported by Americans if they want to see their children and their grandchildren grow up without indentured debt and entrenched servitude to a fascistic marriage of private banks and hugely inflated government.”

    It remains to be seen if Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed legislation will be enacted. It has powerful foes arrayed against it – and a growing number of people steadfastly behind it. Enemies of the audit will attempt to push Obama’s plan through Congress and establish a complete private banker dictatorship over the economy and sideline the legislation.

    Obama’s appearance at Federal Hall — the site of George Washington’s inauguration and where nine of the 13 colonies met to draft a message to King George III, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, claiming entitlement to the same rights as the residents of Britain and protesting the colonies’ “taxation without representation” — is particularly obscene and criminal.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-pushes-banker-takeover-plan-at-federal-hall/

     
  • ancavge 3:05 pm on September 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , fed, , , , , taxpayer dollars,   

    A Review of “End the Fed” by Ron Paul 

    Charles Scaliger
    New American
    September 14, 2009

    “The entire federal government,” laments Congressman Ron Paul in his newest book, End the Fed, “is one giant toxic asset at the moment. It certainly has no business telling the private sector how to run its affairs. It is in worse financial shape than all the companies in the private sector put together.”

    Hard words, but Congressman Paul knows whereof he speaks. It was Ron Paul, unique among congressmen for his understanding of how a free-market economy is supposed to work, who warned repeatedly of the coming economic calamity. It was Ron Paul, too, who warned both the Bush and Obama administrations that attempts by the government to bail out failing corporations with taxpayer dollars and passing massive stimulus packages would only make things worse. And it has been Ron Paul who has warned of disastrous long-term consequences of the inflationary activities of the Ben Bernanke-led Federal Reserve.

    Congressman Paul’s concerns about the Federal Reserve are nothing new. The gynecologist-turned-eleven-term congressman from Texas has spent a long political career promoting liberty and limited constitutional government as the American Founders understood them and exposing the mischief at the Federal Reserve. With the unexpected success of his presidential campaign and his recent best-selling manifesto on liberty, Dr. Paul’s uncompromising, consistent, and thoroughly principled stances on limited, constitutionally legitimate government are well known around the world. Now, thanks to End the Fed, his views on paper money, fractional-reserve banking, and the Federal Reserve and its manipulation of the money supply are summarized for a mass readership. Under a single cover and on just 212 readable pages are assembled philosophical, economic, and constitutional arguments for abolishing the Federal Reserve, a succinct history of banking, and a number of fascinating recollections and snippets of telling dialogue between Dr. Paul and various chairmen of the Fed as far back as Paul Volcker.

    Read entire article

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/a-review-of-end-the-fed-by-ron-paul/

     
  • ancavge 2:27 pm on September 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , bonds, , , fed, , financial bubbles, , , , , stocks   

    More Financial Bubbles Ahead? 

    Bob Chapman
    The International Forecaster
    September 14, 2009

    Almost all important, pertinent data reflects continued weakness in the economy, especially retail sales and unemployment.

    There are small signs of inflation in spite of bogus government figures. In the flight to quality we see stronger gold, silver and commodities despite heavy market manipulation by the government.

    After more then two years of government and Fed intervention in the economy, only banks, Wall Street and insurance companies have been bailed out. The first part of the Stimulus package was unsuccessful, because the funds were not spent, they were used to eliminate debt. We do not think the next stimulus wave will be any more successful. The economy should now move sideways for a year with slight GDP gains and a slowing in job losses. There will be no dramatic changes unless banks start lending in a bigger way or there is another $2 trillion stimulus package.

    Interest rates have moved slightly lower as the Fed’s intervention drives bonds up and yields lower. That will end early next year as demands for funds from both the private sector and government increases. Global capital has not expanded to meet those needs. Fed monetization of $500 billion is what foreign central banks are using to buy our Treasuries. Eventually the adverse effects of excess money and credit creation and budget deficits will take their toll. Commodity prices are already reflecting a flight to quality and gold and silver are attempting to make new highs. Wall Street and Washington tell us there is no inflation. If that were so why would gold and silver be acting in such a manner? The answer is flight to quality. There are no solid currencies left in the world to compete with gold, the only real money. This past week government repulsed breakout attempts by both gold and silver, but no matter what they do they will be eventually overwhelmed as more and more gold and silver will become the destination for hot money. The hedge against prolonged recession is in place and will be augmented soon by growing inflation. A double barreled dynamic.

    We currently have bubbles in both the stock market and Treasury market, both created by the Fed. Any reappearance of inflation will very negatively affect both markets. When these markets break, which they eventually must, you will again see horror among investors and many more bankruptcies. The increase of M3 by 14% for ten years has to be worked out of the system and it will be. Destabilizing is on its way. Just be patient. This depression in many respects is already worse than the 1930s and it will continue to deteriorate. There is no chance we will see sound money anytime soon. We are a minimum of ten years away from any kind of recovery and probably much more.

    The Treasury has a 10-year auction with bid to cover of 2.77% to 1, which is very good. The question is were the buyers acting for the Fed?

    Our president has asked the Senate to raise the short-term federal debt limit to $12.1 trillion.

    For fiscal year 2009 the Harvard endowment lost 27% and Yale lost 30%.

    For centuries and 50 years ago when we began this journey through life, the most important investment criterion was to preserve wealth, and it still is. Due to bouts of inflation the investment attitudes have changed somewhat. Some, even college endowments and pension funds have been playing the leverage game and not very successfully. The investment horizon is now measured monthly not over a span of years. As a result, results are not plus in double digits, but minus, as you can see from last year’s results. Even the mighty Swiss succumbed to using 70 times deposits. Even today after two years of market downside, the US and Europeans are still holding leverage of 45 times deposits, which is insanity.

    Due to the terrible damage done to the financial system for years wealth preservation is first and foremost in investment. The dollar is crashing, the market and bonds are overpriced, even commodities have peaked after a major rally, banks are failing and fear abounds.

    You say you’d like to sleep at night and not have to worry about your wealth; well there is a way to accomplish that. Buy gold and silver related assets. After ten years gold has finally broken out over $1,000 an ounce, a signal that phase 2 of 3 or 4 phases has begun. Gold could reach anywhere from $1,200 to $1,700 an ounce before the year is over. If you buy gold and silver coins or bullion, take delivery and store them in your safe at home. At this stage of the gold and silver bull market anchor your portfolio with 3 or 4 of the strongest producing mining companies and exploration shares. In the 1977 to 1981 period some of the leveraged speculative shares went from $0.35 to $55.00 and that could well happen again. In today’s markets this is how you preserve your wealth.

    Get out of the stock and bond markets except for gold and silver shares. Terminate cash value life insurance policies and annuities; they invest in the stock market. Although mutual life companies have to invest in bonds. If you have to have some of your assets in cash, own treasuries from Canada, Switzerland or Norway. We are embarking on one of the most unusual times in investing history. Only 10 to 15 percent of investors will participate, the rest will lose 60 to 90 percent of their assets, their wealth. Don’t you be one of those losers. Don’t forget the elitists cannot print gold and gold is debt free. For 6,000 years it has been the only real currency. Gold and silver’s fundamentals are overwhelming. The supply is limited and production is falling and will continue to fall for years to come. Governmental and central bank debt is increasing exponentially and that is destroying the value of all currencies versus gold. Major nations are now aggressive major gold buyers. Gold and silver are going higher. Do not miss the opportunity to protect your wealth and perhaps to become very wealthy.

    Our estimate of real unemployment, U6 minus the Birth/Death ratio, is 21% or 30 million people unemployed or employed part-time. If you include dependents that affects some 100 of 300 million Americans. In part as a result, yoy there has been 126,000 bankruptcies up 34%. That 9.7% unemployment just doesn’t tell the entire story. We continue to see energy and commodity inflation, which translates into higher prices, which are aggravated by lower wages. About a year from now, in the absence of further stimulus or increased bank lending, unemployment will rise to over 30%. That will lead to major economic, financial and social problems the likes of which no modern economy has ever seen. Residential and commercial real estate have 20 to 30 percent downside left depending on the market region and 25%, soon to be 50%, of US mortgages are currently underwater and 50% of mortgages will be in negative equity within a year. That is when Americans will finally realize their country is bankrupt. The FDIC and mortgage lenders are broke along with 50% of the population. Over the next three years between 3,200 and 4,200 banks will go under and the Fed will create $23 to $60 trillion to bail out the mess. Either that or your savings deposits will go up in smoke. We have $1.3 quadrillion in derivatives to be settled. If only 5% fail the financial system collapses. Banks are still leveraged 5 times deposits and carrying massive losses on their books.

    Despite the government gobblygook initial jobless claims have worsened.

    Foreclosure filings in August stayed near July’s record highs. Filings fell 1% mom and were up 18% yoy. One in every 357 US households with homes got a foreclosure filing in august.

    Commercial paper expanded for a 4th straight week for the first time since December. CP rose $11.3 billion to $1.174 trillion outstanding. ABS CP out rose $6.2 billion after rising by $19.5 billion the prior week. Unsecured financial issuance rose by $6.2 billion after falling $11.3 billion the previous week.

    The government sold $12 billion worth of 30-year bonds. The bid-to-cover was 2.82 to 1, above the average of 2.38 over the last four reopenings. Foreigners bought 46.4% of the sale, above the average of 40.9%.

    Many the times we went to the Tavern on the Green, a very high-class restaurant in NYC. On Thursday they filed bankruptcy.

    If Bernanke increases the Fed’s debt monetization scheme of $300B that is scheduled to end in October, the Chinese and Mr. Market will be very unhappy. The dollar will tank further; gold, oil and commodities should surge. This action should actually force bonds lower.

    If Bernanke refrains from further debt monetization, US dealers will be holding the bag and the short-term outlook for bonds would be negative.

    Bernanke will soon be forced to choose between saving the dollar and bonds or stocks.

    An Associated Press-GfK poll says that public disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent. The same survey shows that 49 percent now disapprove of his overall performance as president. In July, just 42 percent disapproved of how he was handling his job.

    The number of people crossing the northern and southern land borders into the USA has dropped sharply since a passport requirement began June 1.

    Businesses in tourism-dependent border communities blame the policy for making a bad year worse.

    At Martin’s Fantasy Island, an amusement park in Grand Island, N.Y., about 10 minutes from the Canadian border, “our Canadian business is way off,” spokesman Mike McGuire says. Nearly one-third fewer Canadian families of four have come for discounted “Canadian Wednesdays” compared with last year, he says. He blames the recession, a soggy summer and the passport rule.

    Household incomes decreased in 2008, the first full year of the recession, and the poverty rate rose to the highest since 1997, government data showed.

    The median household income fell 3.6 percent to $50,303, snapping three years of increases, the Census Bureau said today in its annual report on incomes, poverty and health insurance. The poverty rate climbed to 13.2 percent from 12.5 percent. The number of people living in poverty rose to 39.8 million last year, an increase of 2.6 million from 2007.

    The U.S. trade deficit widened in July and imports gained by a record 4.7 percent, signaling a revival of commerce as the global recession eased.

    The gap between imports and exports grew 16 percent, the most in more than a decade, to $32 billion from a revised $27.5 billion in June that was larger than previously estimated, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. In another sign the U.S. slump may be ending, a Labor Department report showed jobless claims last week fell to the lowest level since July.

    Imports outpaced a 2.2 percent gain in exports as businesses replenished stockpiles of goods including pharmaceuticals, toys and televisions in anticipation of rising consumer demand, while automakers boosted purchases of parts and machinery. The export gain reflected renewed demand for U.S.-made goods among trade partners such as Mexico and Japan.

    “Credibly” privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage-finance companies seized by U.S. regulators last year, may be too difficult given the precedent set by the Treasury Department’s financial assistance, according to a Government Accountability Office analysis.

    “The financial markets likely would continue to perceive that the federal government would provide substantial financial support to the enterprises, if privatized as largely intact entities, in a financial emergency,” the GAO said in a report today from Washington. “Consequently, such privatized entities may continue to derive financial benefits, such as lowered borrowing costs, resulting from the markets’ perceptions.”

    The Treasury today reiterated that the government intends to make recommendations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac next year. The companies, which own or guarantee about $5.4 trillion of U.S. residential debt and have accounted for about 70 percent of all new home loans this year, would need a “potentially lengthy transition” given their size, the GAO said.

    The number of Americans filing first-time claims for jobless benefits dropped last week to the lowest level since July, a sign the labor market is deteriorating at a slower pace.

    Applications fell by 26,000 to 550,000 in the week ended Sept. 5, lower than economists forecast, from a revised 576,000 the week before, Labor Department data showed today in Washington. The total number of people collecting unemployment insurance declined to the lowest level since April.

    Electricity demand is forecast to fall 3.3% this year as a slump in industrial consumption continues to weigh on sales, the government said Wednesday.

    In its monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration said it expects demand to improve in the second-half of the year as residential consumption begins to recover. After seeing a 4.4% decline in the first half of the year, the EIA expects demand to be down only 2.3% during the second half of 2009. As for 2010, the agency sees demand growing 1.2%. The EIA last month had projected a 2.7% drop in demand for 2009 and a 0.8% increase in 2010.

    The agency continues to see residential power prices rising this year, but again curbed its estimates. The EIA now is forecasting a 2.5% increase this year driven by rate increases in the first half of the year. The agency significantly cut its outlook for power prices for next year, now seeing a decline of 2.1% amid a sharp drop in natural gas prices. Last month, the EIA estimated a price increase of around 4.2% this year and 2.6% in 2010.

    National chain-store sales rose 0.2% in the first week of September versus the previous month, according to Redbook Research’s latest indicator of national retail sales released Tuesday.

    The rise in the index compared with a targeted 0.3% drop and came as sales picked up heading into Labor Day.

    The Johnson Redbook Index also showed seasonally adjusted sales in the period were down 2.4% from September 2008 and compared with a targeted 2.9% fall. The latest numbers are starkly different because they don’t include Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), which earlier this year stopped giving monthly same-store-sales figures.

    Redbook said, “Shoppers responded positively to various Labor Day sales and promotions. Discount stores reported strength in categories such as children’s clothing, shoes and lower margin back-to-school supplies. Discount stores also registered strong food sales ahead of the long weekend.”

    The International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs Retail Chain Store Sales Index rose 0.6% in the week ended Saturday from its level a week before on a seasonally adjusted, comparable-store basis.

    On a year-on-year basis, retailers saw sales decrease 0.1% in the latest week, with the decline moderating from recent weeks.

    Application volume was up an unadjusted 64.5% for the week ended Sept. 4 compared with the same week in 2008, according to the Washington-based MBA’s latest weekly survey. The survey covers about half of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications.

    Week-to-week filings fell a seasonally adjusted 2.2% in the week ended August 28.

    Refinancing applications were up 22.5% last week from the prior week before — the biggest jump since mid-March. And applications for mortgages to buy homes were up a seasonally adjusted 9.5% — the largest such gain since early April.

    The four-week moving average for all mortgages was up 7% on a seasonally adjusted basis, the MBA said.

    Refinancings made up 59.8% of all applications last week, up from 56.5% the previous week, while adjustable-rate mortgages accounted for 5.8%, up from 5.6%.

    The average rate on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages was 5.02% last week, down from 5.15% the week before. Fifteen-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 4.45%, down from 4.57% the previous week, with one-year ARMs averaging 6.69%, down from 6.71%.

    To obtain the rates, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage required an average 1.23 points, the 15-year fixed-rate mortgage required an average 1.13 points and the 1-year ARM required an average 0.19 point. A point is 1% of the total mortgage amount, charged as prepaid interest.

    Nevada has replaced Tennessee as the state with the most bankruptcies, as filings continue to stack up nationally.

    From January to August, national bankruptcy filings reached 954,911, up from 703,732 in the same period of 2008, according to Automated Access to Court Electronic Records. In August, filings were up 22% compared with August 2008.

    It is likely that filings will total 1.45 million this year, says Robert Lawless, professor of law at the University of Illinois.

    The default rate on commercial mortgages held by U.S. banks will rise to 5.4 percent in 2011, the highest since at least 1992, as banks anticipate more losses amid falling rents, according to Real Estate Econometrics LLC.

    The property research firm increased its projected default rates for 2009 to 2011 amid declining occupancies and incomes at hotels, shopping malls and office buildings.

    Defaults will rise to 4.2 percent this year and 5.3 percent next year before peaking at 5.4 percent in 2011, the New York- based firm said. Previously, it estimated rates of 4.1 percent this year, 5.2 percent next year and 5.3 percent in 2011.

    “The higher default rate reflects a larger number of loans moving from delinquency to non-accrual status,” said Sam Chandan, president and chief economist of Real Estate Econometrics, in a statement. Loans moved to non-accrual status signify the bank doesn’t expect to be paid back in full.

    The default rate more than doubled in the second quarter. Loans that were 90 days or more past due climbed to 2.88 percent of outstanding balances from 1.18 percent a year earlier, according to the firm.

    Commercial mortgages labeled as “non-accrual” more than doubled last quarter to $27.76 billion, according to Real Estate Econometrics. Balances for delinquent loans, those that were 30 to 89 days past due, fell.

    “This shift corresponds with banks working to identify and mitigate losses associated with problem loans earlier in the delinquency period and an increase in the share of delinquent loans that will require modification or foreclosure,” Chandan said.

    The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors . and Chrysler late last year is unlikely to be repaid.

    “I think they drove a very hard bargain,” said Elizabeth Warren, the panel’s chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration’s Treasury Department. “But it may not be enough.”

    The prospect of recovering the government’s assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10% of Chrysler and 61% of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM’s case by next year.

    The number of open jobs fell 50% over the past two years to a seasonally adjusted 2.4 million in July, the lowest in the brief history of the data, the Labor Department reported Wednesday.

    The job opening rate fell to a record-low 1.8% in July.

    Job openings track the demand for labor, the flip side of the unemployment rate, which measures the supply of labor.

    In July, there were 6.05 unemployed people for every job opening, according to the most recent data on labor turnover. In December 2007, when the recession began, there were 1.72 unemployed people for every job opening.

    The number of workers hired in July was little changed at 4.06 million, while the number of workers separated from their jobs was little changed at 4.29 million. The hires rate rose to 3.1%, while the separations rate remained at a series-low 3.3%.

    In the past 12 months, hires have fallen 13.9%, while separations are down 12.8%.

    Layoffs were little changed in July at 2.3 million, while 1.7 million people quit their job. Layoffs have increased 15% in the past year, while quits are down 32%. In the 12 months ending in July, hires totaled 51.3 million and separations totaled 56.6 million, with a net job loss of 5.3 million.

    The federal deficit surged higher into record territory in August, hitting $1.38 trillion with one month left in the budget year.

    The Treasury Department says the deficit last month was $111.4 billion, below the $152 billion that economists expected.

    Still, the imbalance added to a flood of red ink already accumulated through a severe recession and massive spending needed to stabilize the banking system.

    The Obama administration last month trimmed its forecast for this year’s deficit to $1.58 trillion, from an earlier $1.84 trillion. The recovery of the banking system led to the reduced estimate as it meant the administration did not need to get an additional $250 billion in bailout support for banks.

    A total of 358,471 properties received a default or auction notice or were seized last month, according to data provider RealtyTrac Inc. That’s up 18 percent from a year earlier, and down 0.5 percent from July, the Irvine, California-based

    company said in a statement. One in 357 households received a filing.

    “The foreclosure numbers are largely unemployment related,” Davis, a former Federal Reserve Board economist, said in an interview. “As long as 15 million Americans are unemployed, record foreclosures will continue.”

    Consumer sentiment improved as of the middle of September.

    The Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary consumer sentiment index for September stood at 70.2, from 65.7 in August. It had been expected to stand at 67.5.

    The preliminary current conditions index was 71.8, from 66.6, while the expectations index was 69.2, up from 65.0 in August.

    The one year inflation expectations index came in at 2.8%, after August’s 2.8%, while the five year inflation expectations index hit 2.8%, versus 2.8% the prior month.

    US Aug Import Price Index rises 2.0% MoM and moderates its decline to 15.0% yearly.

    Higher crude-oil prices drove import prices up by 2% in August, the fifth increase in the past six months, the Labor Department reported Friday.

    Import prices have risen 7.6% so far in 2009 as energy prices have rebounded.

    Despite the recent gains, import prices are still down 15% over the past 12 months.

    Imported fuel prices rose 9.8% in August, but they’re down 39.6% in the past 12 months. Prices of nonfuel imports into the United States rose 0.4% in August, the largest gain in a year. Nonfuel import prices are down 5.1% in the past year, showing that general deflationary pressures haven’t been confined to energy goods.

    Inventories at U.S. wholesalers in July fell to their lowest level in nearly three years, declining for the 11th straight month after sharp drops in furniture and metals stocks, government data showed on Friday,

    The Commerce Department said total wholesale inventories dropped 1.4 percent to $387.2 billion, the lowest level since September 2006, after a revised 2.1 percent decline in June, previously reported as a 1.7 percent slump.

    Economists polled by Reuters had expected a 1 percent drop in July from June.

    Compared to the same period a year ago, inventories fell 12.8 percent.

    Companies have been slashing accumulated stockpiles of goods as the economy reels from the worst recession in seven decades. Furniture inventories fell 2.7 percent, while stocks of unsold metal declined 4.4 percent in July.

    Wholesale sales rose 0.5 percent in July, the biggest advance since June 2008, after rising by a revised 0.3 percent the previous month. June sales were previously reported as 0.4 percent higher.

    That left the inventory-to-sales ratio, a measure of how long it would take to sell stocks at the current sales pace, at 1.23 months’ worth from June’s 1.25 months. (Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Neil Stempleman

    Commercial-property sales in the U.S. this year are forecast to fall to the lowest in almost two decades as the industry endures its worst slump since the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s.

    About $16 billion of office transactions will be completed by year-end, according to data compiled by Real Capital Analytics Inc., a New York research firm that has tracked deals for almost a decade. Real Capital Managing Director Dan Fasulo and Sam Chandan, chief economist of Real Estate Econometrics LLC, said that may be the lowest volume since at least 1991.

    There’s no real way to sugarcoat it, Fasulo said in an interview. A slowdown of this magnitude certainly hasn’t occurred since I’ve been in the business.

    The budget deficit for August was only $111.40 billion and that is 11 straight months of deficits.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/more-financial-bubbles-ahead/

     
  • ancavge 5:38 pm on September 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , fed, , , ,   

    House of Representatives to Hold Audit the Fed Hearings 

    Reuters
    September 10, 2009

    Congressman Ron Paul informed Campaign for Liberty today that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank will hold hearings on H.R. 1207, Congressman Paul`s bill to audit the Federal Reserve. The hearings are tentatively set to take place Friday, September 25th at 9:00 am.

    “The Federal Reserve wields tremendous power and is at the center of our current economic storm of deficits, debt and bailouts.Congressman Barney Frank should be commended for his willingness to hold hearings on Fed transparency,” said Campaign for Liberty President John Tate.

    “A full and thorough Audit of the Federal Reserve is now supported by over 75 percent of the American people, and nearly the same percent of U.S. Congressmen, and these hearing are a major step toward that critical goal. Campaign for Liberty will continue to push for a clean vote and ultimate passage of H.R. 1207,” continued Tate.

    Read entire article

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/house-of-representatives-to-hold-audit-the-fed-hearings/

     
  • ancavge 3:36 pm on September 1, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , fed, , , , , provocateurs,   

    Provocateurs At End The Fed Rally? 

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Tuesday, September 1, 2009

    According to testimony given at a Missouri House of Representatives meeting yesterday, anarchists attempted to get other protesters to commit criminal acts during the End the Fed protests late last year, in what was a possible attempt to instigate chaos to justify a harsh crackdown on behalf of the authorities.

    In March it came to light that the End the Fed protests, which took place at banks and regional Federal Reserve branches across the country on November 22, were being monitored closely by the United States Army Reserve Command, who implied that those protesting against the Fed and the bankster bailout were essentially terrorists.

    On November 22, 2008, Alex Jones led a rally at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas Texas. The Dallas protest is specifically mentioned in the official Army document. Ron Paul’s brother was also in attendance.

    During testimony given in response to the infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, a document authored by Missouri Highway Patrol and distributed to fellow law enforcement agencies that characterizes Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display political bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag as potential domestic terrorists, one of the organizers who attended the protests said that “anarchists” attempted to recruit followers and encouraged them to commit illegal acts.

    “My group was at the End the Fed rally and there were a bunch of different groups there,” Cisse Spragin told the Missouri House of Representatives on Monday. “And there was this group of anarchists who started talking to us. And then they tried to recruit us or have us join their group. Then they started telling us what should we should write on our signs, and insisting on letting them re-write some of our signs. Later we overheard them saying they couldn’t even get us to jaywalk.”

    Spragin’s testimony suggests that the anarchists were attempting to steer the nature of the protests in the opposite direction to guidelines published by End the Fed rally organizers before the protests which called for “Cooperation and respect for local laws and authorities,” and “No blocking of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.”

    This wouldn’t be the first time that anarchist groups have been used as a tool with which to stir chaos. As we have documented before, the black bloc anarchist groups are routinely infiltrated and steered by authorities who use them to provoke disorder as a pretext to crack down on legitimate demonstrators.

    During the April 2009 G20 summit in London, police stood back and watched anarchists attack banks and other buildings in an incident that had all the hallmarks of a staged event.

    Following the SPP protests in Canada in 2007, Quebec provincial authorities were forced to admit that three rock-wielding black mask-wearing “anarchists” were in fact police infiltrators used to gather information on protesters.

    Video shows two of the provocateurs pick up rocks and try to incite violence before they are outed as cops by legitimate demonstrators. The two thugs then tried to slip behind police lines before their fellow officers were forced to stage their arrest. Again, the fact that they were cops in disguise was later admitted by authorities. Watch the video.

    Alex Jones’ film Police State 2: The Takeover exposed how the black bloc anarchists were completely infiltrated and provocateured by the authorities during the violent 1999 WTO protests in Seattle.

    The authorities declared a state of emergency, imposed curfews and resorted to nothing short of police state tactics in response to a small minority of hostile black bloc hooligans. Police allowed the black bloc to run riot in downtown Seattle while they concentrated on preventing the movement of peaceful protestors. The film presents clear evidence that the black bloc anarchist group was actually controlled by the state and used to demonize peaceful protesters. Watch the video below.

    At the WTO protests in Genoa 2001 a protestor was killed after being shot in the head and run over twice by a police vehicle. The Italian Carabinere also later beat on peaceful protestors as they slept, and even tortured some, at the Diaz School. It later emerged that the police fabricated evidence against the protesters, claiming they were anarchist rioters, to justify their actions. Some Carabiniere officials have since come forward to say they knew of infiltration of the so called black bloc anarchists, and that fellow officers acted as agent provocateurs.

    At the Free Trade Area of Americas protests in Miami in late November 2003, more provocateuring was evident. The United Steelworkers of America calling for a congressional investigation, stated that the police intentionally caused violence and arrested and charged hundreds of peaceful protestors.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/provocateurs-at-end-the-fed-rally/

     
  • ancavge 4:28 pm on August 25, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , fed, , , , , , , the illuminati,   

    Ron Paul Takes Out the New World Order Trash 

    Infowars
    August 25, 2009

    ron paul comic

    See more here.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-takes-out-the-new-world-order-trash/

     
  • ancavge 4:11 pm on August 25, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , disclose, fed, , ,   

    Judge Orders Fed To Disclose Who Received Bailout Trillions 

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Tuesday, August 25, 2009

    A New York District Judge has ordered the Federal Reserve to disclose the destination of around $2 trillion dollars in bailout funds after the Fed failed to convince the Judge that the records should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

    “Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected the central bank’s argument that the records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions. The collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” according to the lawsuit that led to yesterday’s ruling,” reports Bloomberg, the news outlet that originally filed the lawsuit.

    Citing the fact that the US taxpayer is an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks, Bloomberg argued that the risks behind the $2 trillion in lending needed to be made public.

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    “When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”

    The Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke in particular have attempted to hide the destination of the bailout funds at every step of the way since Bloomberg first filed the lawsuit over nine months ago.

    During a hearing on Capitol Hill last month, Congressman Alan Grayson confronted Bernanke on which foreign banks had received around half a trillion dollars in credit swaps.

    Bernanke responded, “I don’t know.”

    “Half a trillion dollars and you don’t know who got the money?” asked Grayson.

    It’s no surprise that the Fed is reticent to disclose who got the bailout funds, since the man appointed by Henry Paulson to dole out the ill-gotten gains was none other than his fellow ex-Goldman Sachs executive Neel Kashkari. This level of cronyism undoubtedly ensured that Bernanke and Paulson’s bankster gangster friends were well looked after.

    “President elect Barack Obama, who in a September 22 campaign speech promised to “Make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s business,” refused to comment on the story when contacted by Bloomberg, which is no surprise considering the fact that the man who guaranteed “change” has indicated he will not only follow the Bush administration policy of a socialized financial system, but radically expand it,” we wrote in our original story on the lawsuit back in November.

    That foresight has now manifested itself again today, with Obama set to nominate Ben Bernanke, one of the main architects of the bailout under Bush, as Fed chief for a second term.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/judge-orders-fed-to-disclose-who-received-bailout-trillions/

     
  • ancavge 8:19 pm on August 8, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , fed, , , , , , , , , , tent cities, , , ,   

    The Expiring Economy 

    Paul Craig Roberts
    Infowars
    August 8, 2009

    Tent cities springing up all over America are filling with the homeless unemployed from the worst economy since the 1930s. While Americans live in tents, the Obama government has embarked on a $1 billion crash program to build a mega-embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, to rival the one the Bush government built in Baghdad, Iraq.

    featured stories   The Expiring Economy
    stock market
    A homeless tent city in Reno, Navada, 2009.

    Hard times have now afflicted Americans for so long that even the extension of unemployment benefits from 6 months to 18 months for 24 high unemployment states, and to 46 – 72 weeks in other states, is beginning to run out. By Christmas 1.5 million Americans will have exhausted unemployment benefits while unemployment rolls continue to rise.

    Amidst this worsening economic crisis, the House of Representatives just passed a $636 billion “defense” bill.

    Who is the United States defending against? Americans have no enemies except those that the US government goes out of its way to create by bombing and invading countries that comprise no threat whatsoever to the US and by encircling others—Russia for example—with threatening military bases.

    America’s wars are contrived affairs to serve the money laundering machine: from the taxpayers and money borrowed from foreign creditors to the armaments industry to the political contributions that ensure $636 billion “defense” bills.

    President George W. Bush gave us wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are entirely based on lies and misrepresentations. But Obama has done Bush one better. Obama has started a war in Pakistan with no explanation whatsoever.

    If the armaments industry and the neoconservative brownshirts have their way, the US will also be at war with Iran, Russia, Sudan and North Korea.

    Meanwhile, America continues to be overrun, as it has been for decades, not by armed foreign enemies but by illegal immigrants across America’s porous and undefended borders.

    It is more proof of the Orwellian time in which we live that $636 billion appropriated for wars of aggression is called a “defense bill.”

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    Who is going to pay for all of this? When foreign countries have spent their trade surpluses and have no more dollars to recycle into the purchase of Treasury bonds, when US banks have used up their “bailout” money by purchasing Treasury bonds, and when the Federal Reserve cannot print any more money to keep the government going without pushing up inflation and interest rates, the taxpayer will be all that is left. Already Obama’s two top economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers, are floating the prospect of a middle class tax increase. Will Obama be maneuvered away from his promise just as Bush Sr. was?

    Will Americans see the disconnect between their interests and the interests of “their” government? In the small town of Vassalboro, Maine, a few topless waitress jobs in a coffee house drew 150 applicants. Women in this small town are so desperate for jobs that they are reduced to undressing for their neighbors’ amusement.

    Meanwhile, the Obama government is going to straighten out Afghanistan and Pakistan and build marble palaces to awe the locals half way around the world.

    The US government keeps hyping “recovery” the way Bush hyped “terrorist threat” and “weapons of mass destruction.” The recovery is no more real than the threats. Indeed, it is possible that the economic collapse has hardly begun. Let’s look at what might await us here at home while the US government pursues hegemony abroad.

    The real estate crisis is not over. More home foreclosures await as unemployment rises and unemployment benefits are exhausted. The commercial real estate crisis is yet to hit. More bailouts are coming, and they will have to be financed by more debt or money creation. If there are not sufficient purchasers for the Treasury bonds, the Federal Reserve will have to purchase them by creating checking accounts for the Treasury, that is, by debt monetization or the printing of money.

    More debt and money creation will put more pressure on the US dollar’s exchange value. At some point import prices, which include offshored goods and services of US corporations, will rise, adding to the inflation fueled by domestic money creation. The Federal Reserve will be unable to hold down interest rates by buying bonds.

    No part of US economic policy addresses the systemic crisis in American incomes. For most Americans real income ceased to grow some years ago. Americans have substituted second jobs and debt accumulation for the missing growth in real wages. With most households maxed out on debt and jobs disappearing, these substitutes for real income growth no longer exist.

    The Bush-Obama economic policy actually worsens the systemic crisis that the US dollar faces as reserve currency. The fact that there might be no alternative to the dollar as reserve currency does not guarantee that the dollar will continue in this role. Countries might find it less risky to settle trade transactions in their own currencies.

    How does an economy based heavily on consumer spending recover when so many high-value-added jobs, and the GDP and payroll tax revenues associated with them, have been moved offshore and when consumers have no more assets to leverage in order to increase their spending?

    How does the US pay for its imports if the dollar is no longer used as reserve currency?

    These are the unanswered questions.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/the-expiring-economy/

     
  • ancavge 8:04 pm on August 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , fed, , , , , , , regulations, , ,   

    Martial Law Under the Cover of Bush Era Quarantine Regulations 

    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars
    August 5, 2009

    It didn’t fly under Bush, but it might under Obama. “The Obama administration is quietly dusting off an effort to impose new federal quarantine regulations, which were vigorously resisted by civil liberties organizations and the airline industry when the rules were first proposed by the Bush administration nearly four years ago,” reports Politico.

    Under the plan, the feds will have the authority to lock down cities or even entire areas of the country under “provisional quarantine.” In addition, the plan cooked up under Bush would have required airlines and cruise lines to store information about domestic and international passengers, such as e-mail addresses, traveling companions and return flight information. The information would be subject to review by federal officials in a health emergency.

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    Critics say Obama and crew will attempt to sneak through the unconstitutional regulations while Congress is in recess this month.

    “The White House’s Office of Management and Budget has set a September target date to complete the first major overhaul of the quarantine regulations in about three decades. That would have at least some of the rules in place if swine flu returns with a vengeance later this year, though officials are reluctant to make that link publicly,” writes Josh Gerstein for Politico.

    The plan is backed by the CDC. “It’s important to public health to move forward with the regulations,” said Christine Pearson, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We need to update our quarantine regulations, and this final rule is an important step.” The Office of Management and Budget has confirmed the lock-down plan is currently in “an interagency review process.”

    As the flu outbreak approaches — promised to hit this autumn — we are beginning to see the full extent of the government’s plan to declare martial law and further violate the Constitution, or sideline it completely.

    An outbreak of the flu is only a convenient pretext. According to Politico, analysts said the administration may want to hold new quarantine powers in reserve, for “unforeseen situations” or for diseases other than the flu.

    In other words, the government may use the new lock-down regulations for political reasons. Late last year, the IMF said U.S. troops may need to be used to quell protests and bank runs during an economic crisis, according to the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute.

    In December, trends forecaster Gerald Celente predicted “food riots, squatter rebellion, tax revolts and job marches” in response to a crashing economy.

    It was revealed at the time by Sen. James Inhofe and Rep. Brad Sherman that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson considered the possibility of civil unrest while he pushed for September’s Wall Street bankster bailout and even suggested martial law might be required.

    The government’s consideration of new federal quarantine regulations is merely a cynical ploy to exploit fears of a flu pandemic in order to push for a martial law option. There is absolutely no difference between the Obama and Bush administrations – both have put into place plans long ago drafted by our globalist rulers.

    It is not al-Qaeda or a flu bug they fear but rather the people who will naturally rise up, as Celente and others predict, in response to tyranny.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/martial-law-under-the-cover-of-bush-era-quarantine-regulations/

     
  • ancavge 7:18 pm on August 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , fed, , Global Government, , , ,   

    Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve 

    Andrew Gavin Marshall
    Global Research
    August 5, 2009

    This essay is Part 3 of “Global Power and Global Government,” published by Global Research.

    Part 1: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System
    Part 2: Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order

    The Bilderberg Group and the European Union Project

    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    bilderberg
    The first Bilderberg meeting in 1954.

    In 1954, the Bilderberg Group was founded in the Netherlands, which was a secretive meeting held once a year, drawing roughly 130 of the political-financial-military-academic-media elites from North America and Western Europe as “an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially.”[1] Regular participants include the CEOs or Chairman of some of the largest corporations in the world, oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and Total SA, as well as various European monarchs, international bankers such as David Rockefeller, major politicians, presidents, prime ministers, and central bankers of the world.[2]

    Joseph Retinger, the founder of the Bilderberg Group, was also one of the original architects of the European Common Market and a leading intellectual champion of European integration. In 1946, he told the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the British counterpart and sister organization of the Council on Foreign Relations), that Europe needed to create a federal union and for European countries to “relinquish part of their sovereignty.” Retinger was a founder of the European Movement (EM), a lobbying organization dedicated to creating a federal Europe. Retinger secured financial support for the European Movement from powerful US financial interests such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers.[3] However, it is hard to distinguish between the CFR and the Rockefellers, as, especially following World War II, the CFR’s main finances came from the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation and most especially, the Rockefeller Foundation.[4]

    The Bilderberg Group acts as a “secretive global think-tank,” with an original intent to “to link governments and economies in Europe and North America amid the Cold War.”[5] One of the Bilderberg Group’s main goals was unifying Europe into a European Union. Apart from Retinger, the founder of the Bilderberg Group and the European Movement, another ideological founder of European integration was Jean Monnet, who founded the Action Committee for a United States of Europe, an organization dedicated to promoting European integration, and he was also the major promoter and first president of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Common Market.[6]

    Declassified documents (released in 2001) showed that “the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.”[7] The documents revealed that, “America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.” Further, “Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then,” and “The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years.” Interestingly, “The leaders of the European Movement – Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.”[8]

    The European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951, and signed by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Newly released documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting show that a main topic of discussion was “European Unity,” and that “The discussion affirmed complete support for the idea of integration and unification from the representatives of all the six nations of the Coal and Steel Community present at the conference.” Further, “A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority.” Interestingly, “A United States participant confirmed that the United States had not weakened in its enthusiastic support for the idea of integration, although there was considerable diffidence in America as to how this enthusiasm should be manifested. Another United States participant urged his European friends to go ahead with the unification of Europe with less emphasis upon ideological considerations and, above all, to be practical and work fast.”[9] Thus, at the 1955 Bilderberg Group meeting, they set as a primary agenda, the creation of a European common market.[10]

    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which created the European Union and led to the creation of the Euro.

    In 1957, two years later, the Treaty of Rome was signed, which created the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the European Community. Over the decades, various other treaties were signed, and more countries joined the European Community. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which created the European Union and led to the creation of the Euro. The European Monetary Institute was created in 1994, the European Central Bank was founded in 1998, and the Euro was launched in 1999. Etienne Davignon, Chairman of the Bilderberg Group and former EU Commissioner, revealed in March of 2009 that the Euro was debated and planned at Bilderberg conferences.[11] This was an example of regionalism, of integrating an entire region of the world, a whole continent, into a large supranational structure. This was one of the primary functions of the Bilderberg Group, which would also come to play a major part in other international issues.

    Interdependence Theory

    The theoretical justifications for integration and regionalism arrived in the 1960s with what is known as “interdependence theory.” One of its primary proponents was a man named Richard N. Cooper. Two other major proponents of interdependence theory are Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Interdependence theory and theorists largely expand upon the notions raised by Keynes.

    Richard Cooper wrote that, during the 1960s “there has been a strong trend toward economic interdependence among the industrial countries. This growing interdependence makes the successful pursuit of national economic objectives much more difficult.” He also identified that “the objective of greater economic integration involves international agreements which reduce the number of policy instruments available to national authorities for pursuit of their economic objectives.”[12] Further, “Cooper argues that new policies are needed to address the unprecedented conditions of international interdependence.”[13]

    Cooper also opposed a return to mercantilist pursuits in order for nations to secure economic objectives, arguing that, “economic nationalism invited policy competition that is doomed to fail,” and thus concludes “that international policy coordination is virtually the only means to achieve national economic goals in an interdependent world.”[14]

    Keohane and Nye go into further analysis of interdependence, specifically focusing on how interdependence transforms international politics. They tend to frame their concepts in ideological opposition to international relations realists, who view the world, like mercantilists, as inherently anarchic. Keohane and Nye construct what is known as “complex interdependence,” in which they critique realism. They analyze realism as consisting of two primary facets: that states are the main actors in the international arena, and that military force is central in international power. They argue that, “global economic interdependence has cast doubt on these assumptions. Transnational corporations and organizations born of economic integration now vie with states for global influence.”[15]

    Keohane and Nye also discuss the relevance and importance of international regimes in the politics of interdependence, defining regimes as “networks of rules, norms, and procedures that regularize behavior.” They argue that, “Regimes are affected by the distribution of power among states, but regimes, in turn, may critically influence the bargaining process among states.”[16] Again, this contests the realist and mercantilist notions of the international sphere being one of chaos, as a regime can produce and maintain order within the international arena.

    Interdependence theorists tend to argue that interdependence has altered the world order in that it has become based upon cooperation and mutual interests, largely championing the liberal economic notion of a non-chaotic and cooperative international order in which all nations seek and gain a mutual benefit. Ultimately, it justifies the continued process of global economic integration, while realist and mercantilist theorists, who interdependence theorists contest and debate, justify the use of force in the international arena in terms of describing it as inherently chaotic. In theory, the notions of mercantilism and liberalism are inimical to one another however, they are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, mutually reinforcing. Events throughout the 1970s are a clear example of this mutually reinforcing nature of mercantilist behaviour on the part of states, and the “interdependence” of the liberal economic order.

    As early mercantilist theorist Frederick List wrote in regards to integration and union, “All examples which history can show are those in which the political union has led the way, and the commercial union has followed. Not a single instance can be adduced in which the latter has taken the lead, and the former has grown up from it.”[17] It would appear that the elites have chosen the road less traveled in the 20th century, with the Bilderberg Group pursuing integration and union in Europe by starting with commercial union and having political union follow. This concept is also evident in the notions of interdependence theory, which focuses on global economic integration as changing the realist/mercantilist notions of a chaotic international order, as states and other actors become more cooperative through such economic ties.

    Trilateralism

    In the late 1960s, Western European economies (in particular West Germany) and Japan were rapidly developing and expanding. Their currencies rose against the US dollar, which was pegged to the price of gold as a result of the Bretton Woods System, which, through the IMF, set up an international monetary system based upon the US dollar, which was pegged to gold. However, with the growth of West Germany and Japan, “by the late 1960s the system could no longer be expected to perform its previous function as a medium for international exchange, and as a surrogate for gold.” On top of this, to maintain its vast empire, the US had developed a large balance-of-payments deficit.[18]

    Richard Nixon took decisive, and what many referred to as “protectionist” measures, and in 1971, ended the dollar’s link to gold, which “resulted in a devaluation of the dollar as it began to float against other currencies,” and “was meant to restore the competitiveness of the US economy,”[19] as with devaluation, “U.S.-made goods would cost less to foreigners and foreign-made goods would be less competitive on the U.S. market.” The second major action taken by Nixon was when he “slapped a ten percent surcharge on most imports into the United States,” which was to benefit U.S. manufacturing firms over foreign ones in competition for the U.S. market. The result was that less imports from Asia were coming into the US, more US goods were sold in their markets at more competitive prices, forcing Japan and the European Economic Community (EEC) to relax their trade barriers to US products.[20]

    An article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, referred to Nixon’s New Economic Policy as “protectionist,” encouraging a “disastrous isolationist trend,”[21] and that Nixon shattered “the linchpin of the entire international monetary system— on whose smooth functioning the world economy depends.”[22] Another article in Foreign Affairs explained that the Atlanticist, or internationalist faction of the US elite were in particular, upset with Nixon’s New Economic Policy, however, they “agreed on the diagnosis: the relative balance of economic strengths had so changed that the United States could no longer play the role of economic leader. But they also argued that further American unilateralism would fuel a spiral of defensive reactions that would leave all the Western economies worse off. Their suggested remedy, instead, was much more far-reaching coordination among all the trilateral [North American, European and Japanese] governments.”[23]

    There was a consensus within the American ruling class that the Bretton Woods System was in need of a change, but there were divisions among members in how to go about changing it. The more powerful (and wealthy) international wing feared how US policies may isolate and alienate Western Europe and Japan, and they advocated that, “The world economic roles of America must be reconciled with the growth to power of Europe and Japan. There must be fundamental reform of the international monetary system. There must be renewed efforts to reduce world trade barriers. The underlying U.S. balance of payments has deteriorated.” However, Nixon “went much too far” as he alienated Western Europe and Japan.

    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    bilderberg
    In 1970, David Rockefeller became Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, while also being Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan.

    In 1970, David Rockefeller became Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, while also being Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan. In 1970, an academic who joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1965 wrote a book called Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. The author, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called for the formation of “A Community of the Developed Nations,” consisting of Western Europe, the United States and Japan. Brzezinski wrote about how “the traditional sovereignty of nation states is becoming increasingly unglued as transnational forces such as multinational corporations, banks, and international organizations play a larger and larger role in shaping global politics.” David Rockefeller had taken note of Brzezinski’s writings, and was “getting worried about the deteriorating relations between the U.S., Europe, and Japan,” as a result of Nixon’s economic shocks. In 1972, David Rockefeller and Brzezinski “presented the idea of a trilateral grouping at the annual Bilderberg meeting.” In July of 1972, seventeen powerful people met at David Rockefeller’s estate in New York to plan for the creation of the Commission. Also at the meeting was Brzezinski, McGeorge Bundy, the President of the Ford Foundation, (brother of William Bundy, editor of Foreign Affairs) and Bayless Manning, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.[24] So, in 1973, the Trilateral Commission was formed to address these issues.

    A 1976 article in Foreign Affairs explained that, “Trilateralism as a linguistic expression—and the Trilateral Commission—arose in the early 1970s from the reaction of the more Atlanticist part of the American foreign policy community to the belligerent and defensive unilateralism that characterized the foreign economic policy of the Nixon Administration.”[25] The Commission’s major concerns were to preserve for the “industrialized societies,” in other words, seek mutual gain for the Trilateral nations, and to construct “a common approach to the needs and demands of the poorer nations.” However, this should be read as, “constructing a common approach to [dealing with] poorer nations.” As well as this, the Commission would undertake “the coordination of defense policies and of policies toward such highly politicized issues as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and aerial hijacking, and such highly politicized geographic areas as the Middle East or Southern Africa.”[26]

    Interestingly, interdependence theorist Joseph Nye is a member of the Trilateral Commission, as is Richard N. Cooper.[27] Today, Joseph Nye is a member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations,[28] and Richard N. Cooper was a Director of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1993-1994.[29]

    The end of the link of the dollar to gold meant that, “the US was no longer subject to the discipline of having to try to maintain a fixed par value of the dollar against gold or anything else: it could let the dollar move as the US Treasury [and ultimately, the Federal Reserve] wished and pointed towards the removal of gold from international monetary affairs.” This created a dollar standard, as opposed to a gold standard, which “places the direction of the world monetary policy in the hands of a single country,” which was “not acceptable to Western Europe or Japan.”[30] Addressing this issue was among the reasoning behind the creation of the Trilateral Commission.

    The Oil Crisis

    The May 1973 meeting of the Bilderberg Group occurred five months prior to the extensive oil price rises brought about by the Yom Kippur War. However, according to leaked minutes from the meeting, a 400% increase in the price of oil was discussed, and meeting participants were creating a “plan [on] how to manage the about-to-be-created flood of oil dollars.”[31] Oil is no issue foreign to the interests of the Bilderberg Group, as among the 1973 participants were the CEOs of Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum (BP), Total S.A., ENI, Exxon, as well as significant banking interests and individuals such as Baron Edmond de Rothschild and David Rockefeller, and the US Secretary of State at the time, Henry Kissinger.[32]

    In 1955, Henry Kissinger, a young scholar at the time, was brought into the Council on Foreign Relations, where he distinguished himself as a prominent Council member and became a protégé to Nelson Rockefeller, one of David Rockefeller’s brothers. In 1969, Kissinger became Richard Nixon’s National Security Adviser.[33] This Bilderberg meeting was taking place during a time of great international instability, particularly in the Middle East.

    Kissinger, as National Security Adviser, was in a power struggle with Secretary of State William Rogers over foreign policy. Nixon even referred to the continual power struggle between Kissinger as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State William Rogers, saying that, “Henry’s personality problem is just too goddamn difficult for us to deal [with],” and that Kissinger’s “psychopathic about trying to screw [Secretary of State William] Rogers.” Nixon even said that if Kissinger wins the struggle against Rogers, Kissinger would “be a dictator.” Nixon told his Chief of Staff, Haldeman, that Kissinger feels “he must be present every time I see anybody important.”[34]

    At the time of the Yom Kippur War, Nixon was in the middle of major domestic issues, as the Watergate scandal was breaking, leading to an increase in the power and influence of Kissinger, as “The president was deeply preoccupied, and at times incapacitated by self-pity or alcohol.”[35] By 1970, Kissinger had Rogers “frozen out of policy-making on Southeast Asia,” during the Vietnam War, so Rogers “concentrated on the Middle East.” Eventually, Nixon had Rogers resign, and then Henry Kissinger took the position as both National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.[36]

    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    Kissinger said the Rockefeller family represents “what goes for an aristocracy in our country.”

    As Kissinger later said in a speech marking the 25th anniversary of the Trilateral Commission, “In 1973, when I served as Secretary of State, David Rockefeller showed up in my office one day to tell me that he thought I needed a little help,” and that, “David’s function in our society is to recognize great tasks, to overcome the obstacles, to help find and inspire the people to carry them out, and to do it with remarkable delicacy.” Kissinger finished his speech by saying, “David, I respect you and admire you for what you have done with the Trilateral Commission. You and your family have represented what goes for an aristocracy in our country—a sense of obligation not only to make it materially possible, but to participate yourself in what you have made possible and to infuse it with the enthusiasm, the innocence, and the faith that I identify with you and, if I may say so, with your family.”[37]

    Kissinger sabotaged Rogers’ peace negotiations with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who, at the time, was trying to rally other Arab leaders against Israel. In 1972, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia had “insisted that oil should not be used as a political weapon.” However, “in 1973, Faisal announced that he was changing his mind about an oil embargo.” Faisal held a meeting with western oil executives, warning them. Sadat told Faisal of the plan to attack Israel, and Faisal agreed to help both financially and with the “oil weapon.” Days later, the Saudi oil minister, Sheik Ahmed Yamani, “began dropping hints to the oil companies about a cutback in production that would affect the United States.” Yamani said Henry Kissinger had been “misleading President Nixon about the seriousness of Faisal’s intentions.”[38]

    On October 4, the US National Security Agency (NSA) “knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that an attack on Israel would take place on the afternoon of October 6.” However, the Nixon White House “ordered the NSA to sit on the information,” until the US warned Israel a few hours before the attack, even though “Nixon’s staff had at least two days’ advance warning that an attack was coming on October 6.”[39] Hours before the attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt, the U.S. warned its Israeli counterparts, however, “the White House insisted that the Israelis do nothing: no preemptive strikes, no firing the first shot. If Israel wanted American support, Kissinger warned, it could not even begin to mobilize until the Arabs invaded.” Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir stood Israeli defences down, citing “Kissinger’s threats as the major reason.” Interestingly, Kissinger himself was absent from his office on the day of the attack, and he knew days before when it was set to take place, yet, still went to the Waldorf Astoria in New York. Further, he waited three days before convening a U.N. Security Council meeting.[40] The attack needed to go forward, as directed by the backdoor diplomacy of Kissinger.

    With the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War on October 6, 1973, Kissinger “centered control of the crisis in his own hands.” After the Israelis informed the White House that the attack on them had taken place, Kissinger did not consult Nixon or even inform him on anything for three hours, who was at his retreat in Florida. After talking to Nixon hours later, Kissinger told him that, “we are on top of it here,” and “the president left matters in Kissinger’s hands.” Alexander Haig, Kissinger’s former second in command in the National Security Council, then Chief of Staff to Nixon, was with the President on that morning. Haig told Kissinger “that Nixon was considering returning to Washington, [but] Kissinger discouraged it—part of a recurring pattern to keep Nixon out of the process.” For three days, it was Kissinger who “oversaw the diplomatic exchanges with the Israelis and Soviets about the war. Israeli prime minister Golda Meir’s requests for military supplies, which were beginning to run low, came not to Nixon but to Kissinger.” On October 11, the British Prime Minister called asking to speak to Nixon, to which Kissinger responded, “Can we tell them no? When I talked to the President he was loaded,” but the British were told, “the prime minister could speak to Kissinger.”[41]

    On October 12, the major American oil companies sent a letter to Nixon suggesting the Arab countries “should receive some price increase,” and Nixon, following Kissinger’s advice, sent arms to Israel, which precipitated the Arab OPEC countries to announce a 70% increase in the price of oil on October 16th, and announce an oil embargo against the US on the 17th.[42]

    The Bilderberg meeting five months prior involved participants planning “how to manage the about-to-be-created flood of oil dollars.” At the meeting, an OPEC Middle East oil revenue rise of over 400% was predicted. A Bilderberg document from the meeting stated that, “The task of improving relations between energy importing countries should begin with consultations between Europe, the US and Japan. These three regions, which represented about 60 per cent of world energy consumption, accounted for an even greater proportion of world trade in energy products, as they absorbed 80 per cent of world energy exports.” The same document also stated that “an energy crisis or an increase in energy costs could irremediably jeopardize the economic expansion of developing countries which had no resources of their own,” and the “misuse or inadequate control of the financial resources of the oil producing countries could completely disorganize and undermine the world monetary system.”[43]

    As economist F. William Engdahl noted in his book, A Century of War, “One enormous consequence of the ensuing 400 per cent rise in OPEC oil prices was that investments of hundreds of millions of dollars by British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell [both present at Bilderberg] and other Anglo-American petroleum concerns in the risky North Sea could produce oil at a profit,” as “the profitability of these new North Sea oilfields was not at all secure until after the OPEC price rises.”[44] In 2001, the former Saudi representative to OPEC, Sheik Ahmed Yamani, said, “’I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.” When he was sent by King Faisal to the Shah of Iran in 1974, the Shah said that it was Henry Kissinger who wanted a higher price for oil.[45]

    An article in Foreign Policy, the journal published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, concluded from exhaustive research, that, “Since 1971, the United States has encouraged Middle East oil-producing states to raise the price of oil and keep it up.” This conclusion was based upon State Department documents, congressional testimony and interviews with former policy-makers.[46] At the Eighth Petroleum Congress of the League of Arab States (Arab League) in 1972, James Akins, head of the fuel and energy section of the State Department, gave a speech in which he said that oil prices were “expected to go up sharply due to lack of short-term alternatives to Arab oil,” and that this was, “an unavoidable trend.” A Western observer at the meeting said Akins’ speech was essentially, “advocating that Arabs raise the price of oil to $5 per barrel.” The oil industry itself was also becoming more unified in their position. The National Petroleum Council (NPC), “a government advisory body representing oil industry interests, waited until Nixon was safely re-elected before publishing a voluminous series of studies calling for a doubling of U.S. oil and gas prices.”[47]

    The summer before the Yom Kippur War, in 1973, James Akins was made U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He also happened to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[48] Saudi Arabian minister for petroleum and representative to OPEC, Sheik Ahmed Yamani, stated in February of 1973, that, “it is in the interests of the oil companies that prices be raised,” as “their profits are collected from the production stage.” It was also in the interests of the US, as OPEC will have a massive increase in revenues to be invested, likely in the US, itself.[49]

    The oil companies themselves were also fearful of having their business facilities in OPEC countries nationalized, so they “were anxious to engage OPEC countries in the oil business in the United States, in order to give them an interest in maintaining the status quo.” Weeks before war broke out, the National Security Council, headed by Kissinger, issued a statement saying that military intervention in the event of a war in the Middle East was “ruled out of order.”[50]

    U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, later testified in congress on the fact that when, in 1975, the Saudis went to Iran to try to get the Shah to roll back the price of oil, they were told that Kissinger told the Iranians that, “the United States understood Iran’s desire for higher oil prices.”[51] Akins was removed from Saudi Arabia in 1975, “following policy disputes with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.”[52]

    The OPEC oil price increases resulted in the “removal of some withholding taxes on foreign investment” in the United States, “unchecked arms sales, which cannot be handled without U.S. support personnel, to Iran and Saudi Arabia,” as well as an “attempt to suppress publication of data on volume of OPEC funds on deposit with U.S. banks.”[53] Ultimately, the price increases “would be of competitive advantage to the United States because the economic damage would be greater to Europe and Japan.” Interestingly, “Programs for sopping up petrodollars have themselves become justifications for the continued flow of U.S. and foreign funds to pay for higher priced oil. In fact, a lobby of investors, businessmen, and exporters [was] growing in the United States to favor giving the OPEC countries their way.” Outside the United States, it is “widely believed” that the high-priced oil policy was aimed at hurting Europe, Japan, and the developing world.[54] There was also “input from the oil industry” which went “into the formulation of U.S. international oil policy.”[55]

    In 1974, when a White House official suggested to the Treasury to force OPEC to lower the price of oil, his idea was swept under, and he later stated that, “It was the banking leaders who swept aside this advice and pressed for a ‘recycling’ program to accommodate to higher oil prices.” In 1975, a Wall Street investment banker was sent to Saudi Arabia to be the main investment adviser to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA), and “he was to guide the Saudi petrodollar investments to the correct banks, naturally in London and New York.”[56]

    In 1974, another OPEC oil price increase of more than 100 percent was undertaken, following a meeting in Tehran, Iran. This initiative was undertaken by the Shah of Iran, who just months before was opposed to the earlier price increases. Sheikh Yamani, the Saudi oil minister, was sent to meet with the Shah of Iran following his surprise decision to raise prices, as Yamani was sent by Saudi King Faisal, who was worried that higher prices would alienate the US, to which the Shah said to Yamani, “Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger – he is the one who wants a higher price.”[57]

    As Peter Gowan stated in The Globalization Gamble, “the oil price rises were the result of US influence on the oil states and they were arranged in part as an exercise in economic statecraft directed against America’s ‘allies’ in Western Europe and Japan. And another dimension of the Nixon administration’s policy on oil price rises was to give a new role, through them, to the US private banks in international financial relations.” He explained that the Nixon administration was pursuing a higher oil price policy two years before the Yom Kippur War, and “as early as 1972 the Nixon administration planned for the US private banks to recycle the petrodollars when OPEC finally did take US advice and jack up oil prices.”[58] Ultimately, the price rises had devastating impacts on Western Europe and Japan, which were quickly growing economies, but which were heavily dependent upon Middle eastern oil. This is an example of how the US, while championing a liberal international economic order, acted in a mercantilist fashion, depriving competitors through improving its own power and influence.

    In 1973, David Rockefeller set up the Trilateral Commission to promote coordination and cooperation among Japan, Western Europe, and North America (namely, the US), yet, in the same year, his good friend and close confidante, Henry Kissinger, played a key role in promoting and orchestrating the oil price rises that had a damaging impact upon Japan and Western Europe. Also it should be noted, David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, of which he was CEO at the time, profited immensely off of the petrodollar recycling system promoted by Henry Kissinger, where the OPEC countries would reinvest their new excess capital into the American economy through London and New York banks.

    How does one account for these seemingly diametrically opposed initiatives? Perhaps the oil crisis, having a negative effect on Japan and Western European economies, could have spurred the necessity for cooperation among the trilateral countries, forcing them to come together and coordinate future policies.

    It is of vital importance to understand the global conditions in which the price rises and its solutions arose, particularly in relation to the Third World. Africa, since the late 1800s, had been under European colonial control. It was from the 1950s to the 1960s that almost all African countries were granted independence from their European metropoles. Africa is a very significant case to look at, as it is extremely rich in many resources, from agriculture to oil, minerals, and a huge variety of other resources used all around the world. If African nations were able to develop their own economies, use their own resources, and create their own industries and businesses, they could become self-sufficient at first, and then may become a force of great competition for the established industries and elites around the world. After all, Europe does not have much to offer in terms of resources, as the continent’s wealth has largely come from plundering the resources of regions like Africa, and in becoming captains of monetary manipulation. A revitalized, vibrant, economically independent and successful Africa could spell the end of Western financial dominance. “Between 1960 and 1975 African industry grew at the annual rate of 7.5 per cent. This compared favourably with the 7.2 per cent for Latin America and 7.5 per cent for South-East Asia.”[59] In Africa, “the 1960-73 period witnessed some important first steps in the process of industrialization,” however, “[t]he dramatic decline in rates of industrialization began to show after the first ‘oil crisis’. Between 1973 and 1984, the rate of growth” rapidly declined.[60]

    So, by manipulating the price of oil, you can manipulate the development of the Third World, which was beginning to look as if it could grow into significant competition, as it was experiencing exponential growth. There were two oil shocks in the 1970s; one in 1973 and another in 1979. Following the price rises, there was a need for the developing countries of the world to borrow money to finance development.

    The banks that were getting massive amounts of petrodollars deposited into them from the oil producing countries needed to “recycle” the dollars by investing them somewhere, in order to make a profit. Luckily for the banks, “[d]eveloping countries were desperate for funds to help them industrialize their economies. In some cases, developing countries were oil consumers and required loans to help pay for rising oil prices. In other cases, a decision had been made to follow a strategy of indebted industrialization. This meant that states borrowed money to invest in industrialization and would pay off the loans from the profits of their new industries. Loans were an attractive option because they did not come with the influence of foreign transnational corporations that accompanied foreign direct investment and most states had few funds of their own to invest.”[61]

    The oil price rises “changed the face of world finance,” as: “In the new era of costly energy, scores of countries, not all of them in the Third World, were too strapped to pay their imported-oil bills. At the same time, Western banks suddenly received a rush of deposits from oil-producing nations. It seemed only logical, even humane, that the banks should recycle petrodollars.” This is where the true face of Trilateralism began to show: “It became an everyday event for one or two lead banks in the U.S. or Western Europe to round up dozens of partners by telephone to put together so-called jumbo syndicates for loans to developing countries. Some bankers were so afraid of missing out that during lunch hours they even empowered their secretaries to promise $5 million or $10 million as part of any billion-dollar loan package for Brazil or Mexico.” Interestingly, these banks argued, “that their foreign loans were encouraged by officials at the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Board. They feared that developing countries would become economically and politically unstable if credit was denied. In 1976 Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve, began cautioning bankers that they might be lending too much overseas, but he did nothing to curb the loans. For the most part, they ignored the warning. Financiers were confident that countries like Mexico, with its oil reserves, and Brazil, with abundant mineral resources, were good credit risks.”[62]

    According to a report produced by the Federal Reserve, prior to the 1973 oil crisis, “the private Japanese financial system remained largely isolated from the rest of the world. The system was highly regulated,” and, “various types of banking firms and other financial service firms were legally and administratively confined to a specified range of activities assigned to each.” However, the “OPEC oil shock in 1973 signaled a turning point in the operation of the Japanese financial system.”[63] As part of this turning point, the Bank of Japan (the central bank of Japan), relaxed “monetary control by lending more generously to the major banks. The result was a growing budget deficit and a rapid rise in inflation.”[64] The deregulation of Japanese banking access to foreign markets went hand-in-hand with the deregulation of domestic markets. It was a two-way street; as Japanese industry and banks gained access to foreign markets, foreign industry and banks gained access to the Japanese market. This led to the growth of Japanese banks internationally, of which today many are among the largest banks in the world. This was a result of the Trilateral Commission’s efforts. Also evident of the Trilateral partnership was that western banks “made loans so that poor countries could purchase goods made in Western Europe and North America.”[65]

    Of great significance was that, “the new international monetary arrangements gave the United States government far more influence over the international monetary and financial relations of the world than it had enjoyed under the Bretton Woods system. It could freely decide the price of the dollar. And states would become increasingly dependent upon developments in Anglo-American financial markets for managing their international monetary relations. And trends in these financial markets could be shifted by the actions (and words) of the US public authorities, in the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board (the US Central Bank).”[66] This new system is referred to as the Dollar-Wall Street Regime (DWSR), as it is dependent upon the US dollar and the key actors on Wall Street.

    The Federal Reserve’s response to the initial 1973-74 oil price shock was to keep interest rates low, which led to inflation and a devalued dollar. It’s also what allowed and encouraged banks to lend massive amounts to developing countries, often lending more than their net worth. However, in 1979, with the second oil shock, the Federal Reserve changed policy, and the true nature of the original oil crisis, petrodollar recycling and loans became apparent.

    The Rise of Neo-Liberalism

    In the early 1970s, the government of Chile was led by a leftist socialist-leaning politician named Salvador Allende, who was considering undertaking a program of nationalization of industries, which would significantly affect US business interests in the country. David Rockefeller expressed his view on the issue in his book, Memoirs, when he said that actions taken by Chile’s new government “severely restricted the operations of foreign corporations,” and he continued, saying, “I was so concerned about the situation that I met with Secretary of State William P. Rogers and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.”[67]

    As author Peter Dale Scott analyzed in his book, The Road to 9/11, David Rockefeller played a pivotal role in the events in Chile. After a failed attempt at trying to solve the ‘situation’ by sending David’s brother Nelson Rockefeller, the Governor of New York, down to Latin America, David Rockefeller attempted a larger operation. David Rockefeller told the story of how his friend Agustin (Doonie) Edwards, the publisher of El Mercurio, had warned David that if Allende won the election, Chile would “become another Cuba, a satellite of the Soviet Union.” David then put Doonie “in touch with Henry Kissinger.”[68]

    In the same month that Kissinger met with Edwards, the National Security Council (of which Kissinger held the top post) authorized CIA “spoiling operations” to prevent the election of Allende. David Rockefeller had known Doonie Edwards from the Business Group for Latin America (BGLA), which was founded by Rockefeller in 1963, later to be named the Council of the Americas. Rockefeller founded it initially, in cooperation with the US government, “as cover for [CIA’s] Latin American operations.” The US Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs at the time was Charles Meyer, formerly with Rockefeller’s BGLA, who said that he was chosen for his position at the State Department “by David Rockefeller.” When Allende was elected on September 4, 1970, Doonie Edwards left Chile for the US, where Rockefeller helped him “get established” and the CEO of PepsiCo, Donald Kendall, gave him a job as a Vice President. Ten days later, Donald Kendall met with Richard Nixon, and the next day, Nixon, Kissinger, Kendall and Edwards had breakfast together. Later that day, Kissinger arranged a meeting between Edwards and CIA director, Richard Helms. Helms met with both Edwards and Kendall, who asked the CIA to intervene. Later that day, Nixon told Helms and Kissinger to “move against Allende.”[69]

    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    General Augusto Pinochet orchestrated a coup d’état, with the aid and participation of the CIA, against the Allende government of Chile, overthrowing it and installing Pinochet as dictator.

    However, before Edwards met with the CIA director, Henry Kissinger had met privately with “David Rockefeller, chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, which had interests in Chile that were more extensive than even Pepsi-Cola’s.” Rockefeller even allowed the CIA to use his bank for “anti-Allende Chilean operations.”[70] After Allende came to power, “commercial banks, including Chase Manhattan, Chemical, First National City, Manufacturers Hanover, and Morgan Guaranty, cancelled credits to Chile,” and the “World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Agency for International Development, and the Export-Import Bank either cut programs in Chile or cancelled credits.” However, “military aid to Chile, which has always been substantial, doubled in the 1970-1974 period as compared to the previous four years.”[71]

    On September 11, 1973, General Augusto Pinochet orchestrated a coup d’état, with the aid and participation of the CIA, against the Allende government of Chile, overthrowing it and installing Pinochet as dictator. The next day, an economic plan for the country was on the desks of “the General Officers of the Armed Forces who performed government duties.” The plan entailed “privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending,” written up by “U.S.-trained economists.”[72] These were the essential concepts in neoliberal thought, which, through the oil crises of the 1970s, would be forced upon the developing world through the World Bank and IMF.

    In essence, Chile was the neo-liberal Petri-dish experiment. This was to expand drastically and become the very substance of the international economic order.

    Globalization: A Liberal-Mercantilist Economic Order?

    Neo-Liberals Take the Forefront

    In 1971, Jimmy Carter, a somewhat obscure governor from Georgia had started to have meetings with David Rockefeller. They became connected due to Carter’s support from the Atlanta corporate elite, who had extensive ties to the Rockefellers. So in 1973, when David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski were picking people to join the Trilateral Commission, Carter was selected for membership. Carter thus attended every meeting, and even paid for his trip to the 1976 meeting in Japan with his campaign funds, as he was running for president at the time. Brzezinski was Carter’s closest adviser, writing Carter’s major campaign speeches.[73]

    When Jimmy Carter became President, he appointed over two-dozen members of the Trilateral Commission to key positions in his cabinet, among them, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became National Security Adviser; Samuel P. Huntington, Coordinator of National Security and Deputy to Brzezinski; Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense; Warren Christopher, Deputy Secretary of State; Walter Mondale, Vice President; Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State; and in 1979, he appointed David Rockefeller’s friend, Paul Volcker, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.[74]

    In 1979, the Iranian Revolution spurred another massive increase in the price of oil. The Western nations, particularly the United States, had put a freeze on Iranian assets, “effectively restricting the access of Iran to the global oil market, the Iranian assets freeze became a major factor in the huge oil price increases of 1979 and 1981.”[75] Added to this, in 1979, British Petroleum cancelled major oil contracts for oil supply, which along with cancellations taken by Royal Dutch Shell, drove the price of oil up higher.[76]

    However, in 1979, the Federal Reserve, now the lynch-pin of the international monetary system, which was awash in petro-dollars (US dollars) as a result of the 1973 oil crisis, decided to take a different action from the one it had taken earlier. In August of 1979, “on the advice of David Rockefeller and other influential voices of the Wall Street banking establishment, President Carter appointed Paul A. Volcker, the man who, back in August 1971, had been a key architect of the policy of taking the dollar off the gold standard, to head the Federal Reserve.”[77]

    featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    kissinger featured stories   Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
    In the early 60s, Volcker went to work in the Treasury Department, and returned to Chase in 1965 “as an aide to Rockefeller, this time as vice president dealing with international business.”

    Volcker got his start as a staff economist at the New York Federal Reserve Bank in the early 50s. After five years there, “David Rockefeller’s Chase Bank lured him away.”[78] So in 1957, Volcker went to work at Chase, where Rockefeller “recruited him as his special assistant on a congressional commission on money and credit in America and for help, later, on an advisory commission to the Treasury Department.”[79] In the early 60s, Volcker went to work in the Treasury Department, and returned to Chase in 1965 “as an aide to Rockefeller, this time as vice president dealing with international business.” With Nixon entering the White House, Volcker got the third highest job in the Treasury Department. This put him at the center of the decision making process behind the dissolution of the Bretton Woods agreement.[80] In 1973, Volcker became a member of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. In 1975, he got the job as President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful of the 12 branches of the Fed.

    In 1979, Carter gave the job of Treasury Secretary to Arthur Miller, who had been Chairman of the Fed. This left an opening at the Fed, which was initially offered by Carter to David Rockefeller, who declined, and then to A.W. Clausen, Chairman of Bank of America, who also declined. Carter repeatedly tried to get Rockefeller to accept, and ultimately Rockefeller recommended Volcker for the job.[81] Volcker became Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and immediately took drastic action to fight inflation by radically increasing interest rates.

    The world was taken by shock. This was not a policy that would only be felt in the US with a recession, but was to send shock waves around the world, devastating the Third World debtor nations. This was likely the ultimate aim of the 1970s oil shocks and the 1979 Federal Reserve shock therapy. With the raising of interest rates, the cost of international money also rose. Thus, the interest rates on international loans made throughout the 1970s rose from 2% in the 1970s to 18% in the 1980s, dramatically increasing the interest charges on loans to developing countries.[82]

    In the developing world, states that had to import oil faced enormous bills to cover their debts, and even oil producing countries, such as Mexico, faced huge problems as they had borrowed heavily in order to industrialize, and then suffered when oil prices fell again as the recession occurring in the developed states reduced demand. Thus, in 1982, Mexico declared that it could no longer pay its debt, meaning that, “they could no longer cover the cost of interest payments, much less hope to repay the debt.” The result was the bursting of the debt bubble. Banks then halted their loans to Mexico, and “Before long it was evident that states such as Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, and many sub-Saharan African countries were in equally difficult financial positions.”[83]

    The IMF and World Bank entered the scene newly refurnished with a whole new outlook and policy program designed just in time for the arrival of the debt crisis. The IMF “negotiated standby loans with debtors offering temporary assistance to states in need. In return for the loans states agreed to undertake structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These programs entailed the liberalization of economies to trade and foreign investment as well as the reduction of state subsidies and bureaucracies to balance national budgets.”[84] Thus, the neoliberal project of 1973 in Chile was expanded into the very functioning of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs).

    Neoliberalism is “a particular organization of capitalism, which has evolved to protect capital(ism) and to reduce the power of labour. This is achieved by means of social, economic and political transformations imposed by internal forces as well as external pressure,” and it entails the “shameless use of foreign aid, debt relief and balance of payments support to promote the neoliberal programme, and diplomatic pressure, political unrest and military intervention when necessary.”[85] Further, “neoliberalism is part of a hegemonic project concentrating power and wealth in elite groups around the world, benefiting especially the financial interests within each country, and US capital internationally. Therefore, globalization and imperialism cannot be analysed separately from neoliberalism.”[86]

    Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, wrote in his book, Globalization and its Discontents, “In the 1980s, the Bank went beyond just lending for projects (like roads and dams) to providing broad-based support, in the form of structural adjustment loans; but it did this only when the IMF gave its approval – and with that approval came IMF-imposed conditions on the country.”[87] As economist Michel Chossudovsky wrote, “Because countries were indebted, the Bretton Woods institutions were able to oblige them through the so-called ‘conditionalities’ attached to the loan agreements to appropriately redirect their macro-economic policy in accordance with the interests of the official and commercial creditors.”[88]

    The nature of SAPs is such that the conditions imposed upon countries that sign onto these agreements include: lowering budget deficits, devaluing the currency, limiting government borrowing from the central bank, liberalizing foreign trade, reducing public sector wages, price liberalization, deregulation and altering interest rates.[89] For reducing budget deficits, “precise ‘ceilings’ are placed on all categories of expenditure; the state is no longer permitted to mobilize its own resources for the building of public infrastructure, roads, or hospitals, etc.”[90]

    Joseph Stiglitz wrote that, “the IMF staff monitored progress, not just on the relevant indicators for sound macromanagement – inflation, growth, and unemployment – but on intermediate variables, such as the money supply,” and that “In some cases the agreements stipulated what laws the country’s Parliament would have to pass to meet IMF requirements or ‘targets’ – and by when.”[91] Further, “The conditions went beyond economics into areas that properly belong in the realm of politics,” and that “the way conditionality was imposed made the conditions politically unsustainable; when a new government came into power, they would be abandoned. Such conditions were seen as the intrusion by the new colonial power on the country’s own sovereignty.”[92]

    “The phrase ‘Washington Consensus’ was coined to capture the agreement upon economic policy that was shared between the two major international financial institutions in Washington (IMF and World Bank) and the US government itself. This consensus stipulated that the best path to economic development was through financial and trade liberalization and that international institutions should persuade countries to adopt such measures as quickly as possible.”[93] The debt crisis provided the perfect opportunity to quickly impose these conditions upon countries that were not in a position to negotiate and with no time to spare, desperately in need of loans. Without the debt crisis, such policies may have been subject to greater scrutiny, and with a case-by-case analysis of countries adopting SAPs, the world would become quickly aware of their dangerous implications. The debt crisis was absolutely necessary in implementing the SAPs on an international scale in a short amount of time.

    The effect became quite clear, as the result “of these policies on the population of developing countries was devastating. The 1980s is known as the ‘lost decade’ of development. Many developing countries’ economies were smaller and poorer in 1990 than in 1980. Over the 1980s and 1990s, debt in many developing countries was so great that governments had few resources to spend on social services and development.”[94] With the debt crisis, countries in the developing world were “[s]tarved of international finance, [and] states had little choice but to open their economies to foreign investors and trade.”[95] The “Third World” was recaptured in the cold grasp of economic colonialism under the auspices of neo-liberal economic theory.

    A Return to Statist Theory

    Since the 1970s, mercantilist thought had re-emerged in mainstream political-economic theory. Under various names such as neo-mercantilism, economic nationalism or statism, they hold as vital the centrality of the state in the global political economy. Much “Globalization” literature puts an emphasis on the “decline of the state” in the face of an integrated international economic order, where borders are made illusory. However, statist theory at least helps us understand that the state is still a vital factor within the global political economy, even in the midst of a neo-liberal economic order.

    Within the neo-liberal economic order, it was the powerful western (primarily US and Western European) states that imposed neo-mercantilist or statist policies in order to protect and promote their interests within the global political economy. Some of these methods were revolved around policy tools such as export subsidies, imposed to lower the price of goods, which would make them more attractive to importers, giving that particular nation an advantage over the competition.

    For example, the US has enormous agriculture export subsidies, which make US agriculture and grain an easily affordable, attractive and accessible commodity for importing nations. Countries of the global south (the Lesser-Developed Countries, LDCs), subject to neo-liberal policies imposed upon them by the World Bank and IMF were forced to open their economies up to foreign capital. The World Bank would bring in heavily subsidized US grain to these poor nations under the guise of “food aid,” which would have the affect of destabilizing the nation’s agriculture market, as the heavily subsidized US grains would be cheaper than local produce, putting farmers out of business. Most LDCs are predominantly rural based, so when the farming sector is devastated, so too is the entire nation. They plunge into economic crisis and even famine.

    With the statist approach, theorists examine how the state is still relevant in shaping economic outcomes and still remains a powerful entity in the international arena. One theorist who is prominent within the statist school is Robert Gilpin. Gilpin, a professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In his book, Global Political Economy, Gilpin postulated that multinational corporations were an invention of the United States, and indeed an “American phenomenon” upon which European and Asian states responded by internationalizing their own firms. In this sense, his theory postulated to a return to the competitive nature of mercantilist economic theory, in which one state gains at the expense of another. He also addresses the nature of the international economy, in that both historically and presently, there was a single state acting as the main enforcer and manager of the global economy. Historically, it was Britain, and presently, it was the United States.

    One cannot deny the significance of the state in the global political economy, as it has been, and still remains very relevant. The events of 1973 are exemplary of this, however, more must be examined in order to better understand the situation. Though states are still prominent actors, it is vital to address in whose interest they act. Mercantilist and statist theorists tend to focus on the concept that states act in their own selfish interest, for the benefit of the state, both politically and economically. However, this is somewhat linear and diversionary, as it does not address the precise structure of the state economy, specifically in terms of its monetary and central banking system.

    States, most especially the large hegemonic ones, such as the United States and Great Britain, are controlled by the international central banking system, working through secret agreements at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and operating through national central banks (such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve). The state is thus owned by an international banking cartel, and though the state acts in such a way that proves its continual relevance in the global economy, it acts so not in terms of self-interest for the state itself, but for the powerful interests that control that state. The same international banking cartel that controls the United States today previously controlled Great Britain and held it up as the international hegemon. When the British order faded, and was replaced by the United States, the US ran the global economy. However, the same interests are served. States will be used and discarded at will by the international banking cartel; they are simply tools.

    In this sense, interdependence theory, which presumes the decline of the state in international affairs, fails to acknowledge the role of the state in promoting and undertaking the process of interdependence. The decline of the nation-state is a state-driven process, and is a process that leads to a rise of the continental state and the global state. States, are still very relevant, but both liberal and mercantilist theorists, while helpful in understanding the concepts behind the global economy, lay the theoretical groundwork for a political economic agenda being undertaken by powerful interests. Like Robert Cox said, “Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.”

    Hegemonic-Stability Theory

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    In his book, Global Political Economy, Gilpin explained that, “In time, if unchecked, the integration of an economy into the world economy, the intensifying pressures of foreign competition, and the necessity to be efficient in order to survive economically could undermine the independence of a society and force it to adopt new values and forms of social organization. Fear that economic globalization and the integration of national markets are destroying or could destroy the political, economic, and cultural autonomy of national societies has become widespread.”[96]

    However, Gilpin explains that the “Creation of effective international regimes and solutions to the compliance problem require both strong international leadership and an effective international governance structure.” Yet, he explains, “Regimes in themselves cannot provide governance structure because they lack the most critical component of governance – the power to enforce compliance. Regimes must rest instead on a political base established through leadership and cooperation.”[97] This is where we see the emergence of Hegemonic Stability Theory.

    Gilpin explains that, “The theory of hegemonic stability posits that the leader or hegemon facilitates international cooperation and prevents defection from the rules of the regime through use of side payments (bribes), sanctions, and/or other means, but can seldom, if ever, coerce reluctant states to obey the rules of a liberal international economic order.” As he explained, “The American hegemon did indeed play a crucial role in establishing and managing the world economy following World War II.”[98]

    The roots of Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) lie within both liberal and statist theory, as it is representative of a crossover theory that cannot be so easily placed in either category. The main concept champions the liberal notion of the open international economic system, guided by liberal principles of open-markets and free trade, while bringing in the statist concept of a single hegemonic state representing the concentration of political and economic power, as it is the enforcer of the liberal international economy.

    The more liberal-leaning theorists of HST argue that a liberal economic order requires a strong, hegemonic state to maintain the smooth functioning of the international economy. One thing this state must do is maintain the international monetary system, as Britain did under the gold standard and the United States did under the Dollar-Wall Street Regime, following the end of the Bretton-Woods dollar-gold link.

    Regime Theory

    Regime Theory is another crossover theory between liberal and mercantilist theorists. Its rise was primarily in reaction to the emergence of Hegemonic Stability Theory, in order to address the concern of a perceived decline in the power of the US. This was due to the rise of new economic powers in the 1970s, and another major purveyor of this theory was Robert Keohane. They needed to address how the international order could be maintained as the hegemonic power declined. The answer was in the building of international organizations to manage the international regime.

    In this sense, Regime Theory has identified an important aspect of the global political economy, in that though states have upheld the international order in the past, never before has there been such an undertaking to institutionalize the authority over the international order through international organizations. These organizations, such as the World Bank, IMF, UN, and WTO, though still controlled and influenced by states, predominantly the international hegemon, the United States, represent a changing direction of internationalization and transnationalism. Regime Theorists tend to justify the formation of a more transnational apparatus of power, beyond just a single hegemonic state, into a more internationalized structure of authority.

    Notes

    [1]        CBC, Informal forum or global conspiracy? CBC News Online: June 13, 2006: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/

    [2]        Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. (South End Press: 1980), 161-171

    [3]        Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. (South End Press: 1980), 161-162

    [4]        CFR, The First Transformation. CFR History: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html

    [5]        Glen McGregor, Secretive power brokers meeting coming to Ottawa? Ottawa Citizen: May 24, 2006: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ff614eb8-02cc-41a3-a42d-30642def1421&k=62840

    [6]        William F. Jasper, Rogues’ gallery of EU founders. The New American: July 12, 2004: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_14_20/ai_n25093084/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

    [7]        Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs. The Telegraph: June 19, 2001: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

    [8]        Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs. The Telegraph: June 19, 2001: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

    [9]        Bilderberg Group, GARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN CONFERENCE. The Bilderberg Group: September 23-25, 1955, page 7:

    http://wikileaks.org/leak/bilderberg-meetings-report-1955.pdf

    [10]      Who are these Bilderbergers and what do they do? The Sunday Herald: May 30, 1999: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990530/ai_n13939252

    [11]      Andrew Rettman, ‘Jury’s out’ on future of Europe, EU doyen says. EUobserver: March 16, 2009: http://euobserver.com/9/27778

    [12]      George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: page 110

    [13]      George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: page 107

    [14]      George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: pages 107-108

    [15]      George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: page 108

    [16]      George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: page 108

    [17]      George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: pages 50-51

    [18]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. South End Press: 1980: page 65

    [19]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 215

    [20]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. South End Press: 1980: pages 66-67

    [21]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. South End Press: 1980: page 67

    [22]      C. Fred Bergsten, The New Economics and US Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs: January, 1972: page 199

    [23]      Richard H. Ullman, Trilateralism: “Partnership” For What? Foreign Affairs: October, 1976: pages 3-4

    [24]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. South End Press: 1980: pages 76-78

    [25]      Richard H. Ullman, Trilateralism: “Partnership” For What? Foreign Affairs: October, 1976: page 3

    [26]      Richard H. Ullman, Trilateralism: “Partnership” For What? Foreign Affairs: October, 1976: page 5

    [27]      Congressional Research Service, TRILATERAL COMMISSION. The Library of Congress: pages 13-14: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5014337/Trilateral-Commission

    [28]      CFR, Joseph S. Nye, Jr.. Board of Directors: http://www.cfr.org/bios/1330/joseph_s_nye_jr.html

    [29]      Annual Report, The Council on Foreign Relations. Historical Roster of Directors and Officers, 2008: page 78

    [30]      Peter Gowan, The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences. Page 19-20

    [31]      William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. (London: Pluto Press, 2004), 130-132

    [32]      William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. (London: Pluto Press, 2004), 286-287, 134

    [33]      CFR, “X” Leads the Way. CFR History: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/x_leads.html

    [34]      Robert Dallek, The Kissinger Presidency. Vanity Fair: May 2007: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/kissinger200705

    [35]      Ibid.

    [36]      David Stout, William P. Rogers, Who Served as Nixon’s Secretary of State, Is Dead at 87. The New York Times: January 4, 2001: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E5D6113BF937A35752C0A9679C8B63

    [37]      TC, Tributes to David Rockefeller, Founder and Honorary Chairman. The Trilateral Commission: December 1, 1998: http://www.trilateral.org/nagp/regmtgs/98/1201tribs.htm

    [38]      John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. St. Martin’s Griffin: 1994: pages 304-307

    [39]      John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. St. Martin’s Griffin: 1994: pages 308-310

    [40]      John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. St. Martin’s Griffin: 1994: pages 310-311

    [41]      Robert Dallek, The Kissinger Presidency. Vanity Fair: May 2007: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/kissinger200705

    [42]      John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. St. Martin’s Griffin: 1994: pages 312-313

    [43]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: pages 130-132

    [44]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: pages 136-137

    [45]      The Observer, Saudi dove in the oil slick. The Guardian: January 14, 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol

    [46]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: page 24

    [47]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: pages 31-33

    [48]      IPC, James Akins. Iran Policy Committee: Scholars and Fellows: http://www.iranpolicy.org/scholarsandfellows.php#1

    [49]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: pages 35-36

    [50]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: pages 37-38

    [51]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: page 44

    [52]      Time, The Cast of Analysts. Time Magazine: March 12, 1979: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948424,00.html

    [53]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: page 48

    [54]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: pages 50-51

    [55]      V.H. Oppenheim, Why Oil Prices Go Up (1) The Past: We Pushed Them. Foreign Policy: No. 25, Winter, 1976-1977: page 53

    [56]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 137

    [57]      The Observer, Saudi dove in the oil slick. The Guardian: January 14, 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol

    [58]      Peter Gowan, The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences: marxsite.com/Gowan_DollarWallstreetRegime.pdf: page 10

    [59]      Dharam Ghai, ed., The IMF and the South: The Social Impact of Crisis and Adjustment (London: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1991), 81

    [60]      Dharam Ghai, ed., The IMF and the South: The Social Impact of Crisis and Adjustment (London: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1991), 82

    [61]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 223

    [62]      Gisela Bolte, et. al., Jumbo Loans, Jumbo Risks. Time Magazine: December 3, 1984: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923771,00.html

    [63]      Allen B. Frankel and Paul B. Morgan, A Primer on the Japanese Banking System. Board of Governors of the Federal reserve System, International Finance Discussion Papers: Number 419, December 1991: page 3

    [64]      A. W. Mullineux, International Banking and Financial Systems: A Comparison. Springer, 1987: page 63

    [65]      Robert K. Schaeffer, Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005: page 82

    [66]      Peter Gowan, The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences: marxsite.com/Gowan_DollarWallstreetRegime.pdf: page 12

    [67]      David Rockefeller, Memoirs. New York: Random House: 2002: Page 431

    [68]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 39-40

    [69]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 41

    [70]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: pages 40-41

    [71]      Daniel Brandt, U.S. Responsibility for the Coup in Chile. Public Information Research: November 28, 1998: http://www.namebase.org/chile.html

    [72]      Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Macmillan: 2007: page 77

    [73]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. South End Press: 1980: pages 201-203

    [74]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. South End Press: 1980: pages 91-92

    [75]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 88

    [76]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 173

    [77]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 174

    [78]      Joseph B. Treaster, Paul Volcker: The Making of a Financial Legend. John Wiley and Sons, 2004: page 36

    [79]      Joseph B. Treaster, Paul Volcker: The Making of a Financial Legend. John Wiley and Sons, 2004: page 37

    [80]      Joseph B. Treaster, Paul Volcker: The Making of a Financial Legend. John Wiley and Sons, 2004: page 38

    [81]      Joseph B. Treaster, Paul Volcker: The Making of a Financial Legend. John Wiley and Sons, 2004: pages 57-60

    [82]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 223

    [83]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 224

    [84]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 224

    [85]      A. Paloni and M. Zonardi, eds., Neoliberalism: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto, 2005: page 3

    [86]      A. Paloni and M. Zonardi, eds., Neoliberalism: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto, 2005: page 1

    [87]      Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton, 2003: page 14

    [88]      Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, 2nd ed. Quebec: Global Research, 2003: page 35

    [89]      Marc Williams, International Economic Organizations and the Third World. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994: page 85

    [90]      Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, 2nd ed. Quebec: Global Research, 2003: page 52

    [91]      Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton, 2003: pages 43-44

    [92]      Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton, 2003: pages 44-46

    [93]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 224

    [94]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 224

    [95]      Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan: 2007: page 225

    [96]      Robert Gilpin, Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order, Princeton University Press, 2001: page 81

    [97]      Robert Gilpin, Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order, Princeton University Press, 2001: page 97

    [98]      Robert Gilpin, Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order, Princeton University Press, 2001: pages 97-98

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/controlling-the-global-economy-bilderberg-the-trilateral-commission-and-the-federal-reserve/

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.