The INET Bretton Woods summit, summoned by George Soros and those who alternatively hide behind, or gather around him, has now happened.

But before trying to analyze whatever we may discover of what occurred there, it is critical to discern how it fits an overall picture.  For context, one must also see what the IMF and World Bank “communitarian” elitists are up to.

We find that before the Bretton Woods affair, focusing upon “new solutions,” there was a similar IMF meeting, called “New Ideas for a New World.”  It was centered upon “Post-Crisis Policy Making” and occurred March 7-14.  That gave some of them a lot of time to communicate and plan in quiet (the traditional word for that is conspire) when they were not attending official sessions, or making videos.

Then, we see that Soros’ April 8-11 conference ended just as the IMF and World Bank took up their April 11-17 Spring Meetings, just a limo ride away.  “Blossom of Spring, won’t you bloom and grow?”  Let us see what is budding in this intensive series of conferences, by the first one’s own promotional vid.

Here is a collection of pitches for “New Ideas for a New World.”  Hey, they left out the last word, “Order.”  Could it be that some of them know their version of order requires fomenting massive disorder first, the crises not to be wasted?  They also left out the word “Brave,” before “New World.”  Maybe that is because some of them like Huxley, have qualms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsst1U8jidA

This video puts their dexterous foot forward about that March 2011 conference, while their sinister footfalls go on.  So who are these dudes, getting together and yukking it up (well, three out of four globalist manipulators seem to approve) and just how spooky are they?  What are the messages of the Big Money priests, to the unwashed, PITI-ful masses of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance payers?

(more…)

What would you think if George Soros were organizing his fellow anti-American, globalist, neo-Marxist “thought leaders,” in pursuit of globally governed banking and finance, in a second Bretton Woods conference?

Would you consider that their goals include dragging American influence and incomes down, while confiscating much of our personal finances and giving them to other nations (and yes, the age-old financier network behind them) in the name of “communitarianism?”

Would you find their goal is to replace the bad influences of the IMF and the World Bank, with a much worse, more powerfully controlling, post-American global apparatus?

What would you think, if that meeting were being held this April 8th through 11th?

I got an email, last week; it was Tuesday the 22nd.  It was from George Soros.  To hear as straight from the dragon’s mouth as feasible, I had subscribed.  In this emailed article, he lamented the inequities of wealth among the nation-states of Europe, under the strains of their continuing insolvency crisis.  He warned of the dangers of national interest.  Rather, he proposed, not surprisingly, a further blowing of the global insolvency bubble, so the more indebted European nations may get along owing, while their lending nations get along being owed — all the while, blending and worsening the  financial and monetary crises and spreading this yeasty recipe further throughout the world, especially to America.

That was quite provocative.

(more…)

The President is expected to sign the financial overhaul bill today, yet he might want to pause a moment to consider not signing this bill because of the potentially unconstitutional racial and gender preference provisions buried in the massive bill.

Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have signed a letter complaining that Section 324 of the conference report titled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” “includes a section on race and gender that even those who pride themselves on keeping up with national affairs may have failed to notice.” This provision, which can be found on page 172 of the conference report, may lead to unconstitutional racial and gender preferences being forced on financial institutions covered by the new law.

As the Becker-Posner blog argues, this over 2000-page long bill is “complex, disorderly, politically motivated, and not well thought out reaction to the financial crisis that erupted beginning with the panic of the fall of 2008.” One of the critiques leveled by Gary Becker and Richard Posner is that “the bill adds regulations and rules about many activities that had little or nothing to do with the crisis.” It is clear that the lack of racial and gender preferences had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in the fall of 2008. Section 342 is a special interest provision that has no relevance to financial services reform and may lead to this law being deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

The letter from members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was signed by Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano. In the letter these experts in civil rights law explain that the legislation “requires that each covered agency establish an ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ responsible for ‘all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.’” This law will empower federal bureaucrats to issue rules and regulations governing the financial sector of the economy, if those businesses are doing any work for the federal government.

(more…)

The University of Basel’s Institute of Governance recently published a map showing the nations most linked to dirty money. What made the map interesting is that only one of the 28 nations listed was a so-called tax haven, thus exposing the left-wing lie that low-tax jurisdictions are somehow hotbeds of dirty money.

A more fundamental question is whether anti-money laundering laws are an effective way of fighting crime.  The evidence is not encouraging. The system costs billions of dollars each year. Banks are forced to set up expensive monitoring systems to snoop on their customers. They are then required to send reports to the government for all large or unusual transactions. Theoretically, these reports are supposed to alert law enforcement to patterns of criminal activity, but since banks are compelled to send millions of reports every year, it is impossible to sift through haystacks of data to find needles of criminal activity. This is why conservatives, such as a former Reagan Justice Department official John Yoder, think the laws do more harm than good. This six-minute video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains why the time has come for politicians to reconsider the current approach.

(more…)

A must read piece by Peter Wallison in today’s Wall Street Journal:

It’s hard to imagine a worse piece of financial regulatory legislation than the bill Barney Frank and the administration put before the House Financial Services Committee last month. But Sen. Chris Dodd’s effort, introduced last week, clears this hurdle

Much attention has focused on the fact that his “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” differs from the administration and Frank proposals by creating an entirely new agency to function as a “systemic regulator” of nonbank financial institutions, instead of the Federal Reserve. Far more important, however, is the regulatory and bailout powers it gives to the government. Here the Dodd bill follows the same flawed ideas advanced by the administration and Mr. Frank, but in some ways make things worse.

(more…)

We will never know how many, if any, of the major banks would have failed without the TARP bailout package passed a year ago. Several banks were strong-armed into taking the money. We can be reasonably sure that Citigroup and Bank of America wouldn’t be the institutions they are today without some government hand-holding—actually, it is more like continuous CPR while giving blood and donating a kidney.

However, while we can’t know the counterfactual, we can assess how the liquidity infusions have decreased credit risk, lowering the cost of capital, and compare these savings to profits. And the stunning numbers show that up to nearly half of all profits from the top 18 banks are the result of Uncle Sam subsidizing the cost of credit.

Every day financial firms borrow money to conduct business. Just like with individuals and families, there is a cost to the credit in the form of an interest payment or fee. However, with a virtual government guarantee of security, the big financial institutions have been able to borrow at artificially reduced rates. Lenders to financial institutions know Uncle Sam has the back of the big boys on Wall Street. They’re sure to get their money back, based on current White House and Fed policy.

The problem is that this gives large financial institutions a competitive advantage over smaller business. Those smaller firms have to pay more for their credit. They don’t have the government guarantee. They are more risky. And while it is true that smaller firms will always have to pay more money to borrow than the larger firms, the government guarantee has widened the gap between the cost of credit for the smalls and bigs.

(more…)