IMF Wants to Collect from Banks

If you've been deriding those who mentions NWO (New World Order; Mr. Kissinger's remark after 2:00 mark) as "conspiracy nuts", it's staring right in your face if you care to recognize. The so-called conspiracy is not done in some dark, smoke-filled back room. It's in your face.

IMF, an institution no developing country wanted to deal with any more before the financial crisis and the global recession triggered by it, is back to wheeling and dealing. The crisis has been God-sent for their raison d'être; it clearly revitalized the institution, with funds pouring in from China, Japan, and Russia, dispensing money and austerity programs again to countries who suddenly found themselves facing insolvency.

Feeling confident that it is finally becoming what it was designed back in 1944 in Bretton Woods, IMF has started to talk like the global central bank.

IMF presses for tax on banks' risky behaviour (10/2/09 Guardian UK)

"The International Monetary Fund today threw its weight behind a new tax on the global financial sector designed to limit risky speculative behaviour and help the world's poorest countries.

"Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF's managing director, said banks and other big financial institutions were responsible for systemic risk and it was only right that they provided resources to mitigate those threats to the world economy."

With due respect (meaning I don't have much respect), I disagree with Strauss-Kahn's assessment that banks and financial institutions were responsible for systemic risk. The ones who were truly responsible were the central banks, and one in particular, the U.S. Federal Reserve, and politicians who need central banks to print money for their grandiose government policies and projects. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was the Finance and Economy Minister under Lionel Jospin's cabinet from 1997 to 1999, and has been the Managing Director of IMF since November 2007.

And who will define what the "risky behavior" is? IMF bureaucrats under the direction of member countries' politicians?

And why should IMF direct banks to help the world's poorest countries? Whatever tax is assessed on banks' activities, it will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers of mostly developed countries where those "risky" banks reside. It will be paid either through increased fees for bank transactions, or through outright bailout.

That will be on top of the extra burdens that the taxpayers are straddled with in the form of "stimulus" programs, new taxes, and bank bailouts.

The finance minister of Brazil, host to 2016 Olympics, expressed support for IMF as 'central bank':

Brazil would support "central bank" role for IMF (10/2/09 Reuters)

"ISTANBUL, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Brazil would support the International Monetary Fund acting as a kind of global central bank, offering liquidity and currency swaps, Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega said on Friday.

"Such a role for the IMF would be part of increasing coordination in global policy and efforts to fix economic imbalances between countries, Mantega told reporters at the semiannual meeting of the IMF in Istanbul."

What the hell is "economic imbalances between countries"? That some countries are richer than the other? Is that something bad?

Toward the end of the article,

"The idea of the IMF effectively becoming a global central bank is one of many ideas for radical reform informally discussed by officials and academics around the world over the past year."

Sorry. That idea may seem "radical", but it's hardly new. As I said earlier, that was exactly the original intent when IMF was created along with what has become World Bank in 1944 at Bretton Woods. (For more on the subject, I highly recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve)

You know what's next: global currency. Oh wait, they have been talking about that for quite some time already (China wants one and UN wants one). Maybe they have already picked the name for the currency then. Oh wait again, John Maynard Keynes already picked the name: it's "Bancor".

Technocrats in regional and global organizations like EU, IMF, World Bank are increasingly dictating how we live our lives. If you are not a 'globalist' and if you still insist on national sovereignty (not to mention regional or local sovereignty), you might be accused of being a "racist", a popular word these days to describe any opposition to official policies.

Tweet