Preface: From an e-mail. Name has been changed to protect the innocent.
Here they go, making more plans to control us. These people are building the system used by the "Beast". We need to see it for that. Also, our leaders are participating in it as well. Our labor is being used to formulate this system world-wide. Our tax dollars are spent globally establishing the very system which will enslave us and the rest of the world.
This link is to the people, and organization, which is controlling the moves on this earth. They are responsible for setting up this system. These people are on the devil's side! - Xyz
Thank you Xyz.
While reading this I get the distinct feeling that these people are setting policy and speaking with blatant authoritative voices...like they are in charge or as you say, "...making more plans to control us." Further...and you know what? We didn't vote for these guys!
Previewing 'Bretton Woods Two'
Peter B. Kenen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International Economics, CFR
Lee Hudson Teslik, Associate Editor, CFR.org
November 11, 2008
The November 14-15 summit in Washington of heads of top industrial and developing economies has been billed by some analysts as the successor to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference. At Bretton Woods, a group of countries agreed to create the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow Peter B. Kenen says the comparison between the two meetings isn't particularly accurate. Given the amount of planning that preceded the 1944 conference, and the fact that its delegates were leading economists and finance ministers, that meeting was much better placed to push through actual policy changes. He says the main point of this year's summit will likely be to call for reforms, "without being terribly specific."
Can you give your general preview of the summit meeting and what sorts of policy you think will come of it?
I really doubt that the summit leaders are going to come out with a set of policy proposals. They're more likely to come out with a declaration calling for some policy reforms without being very specific. After all, these are not economists or even finance ministers, although some of them have been. Their main message, I think, will be that reforms are needed, without being terribly specific. It's not clear to me whether they plan to convene a so-called Bretton Woods Two to hammer out a set of reform proposals, or whether as they look at the situation they will discover that the reforms needed in one place are different from the reforms needed in others, and that a grand conference to try and negotiate common reforms, or create new institutions, is a bit unrealistic.
So perhaps some of the expectations that have been pinned on this are a little bit overblown at this point.
I think they are.
Given the abandon with which the phrase "Bretton Woods II" is being thrown around, could you give a little historical perspective on exactly what happened there, and how this might be different?
First of all, Bretton Woods was not a meeting of heads of state. It was a meeting of finance officials, and some central bankers, but mainly finance ministry people. And they had a fairly specific mandate, which was the creation of the International Monetary Fund [IMF], and as a sort of afterthought, the creation of the World Bank. There had been preparatory meetings going on between the United States and the UK. It was a considerable battle between the U.S. Treasury and the British as to how such an arrangement, such institutions, should be structured. The British were led by Lord [John Maynard] Keynes, the Americans by [economist and U.S. Treasury official] Harry White. Ultimately the weight of facts and economic power led to an IMF much more conservative in its powers than Keynes had wanted. The American view did prevail. And then, as I say, the charter of the World Bank was also drafted, but drafted rather quickly, as the membership recognized that postwar reconstruction and subsequent development were going to require public financing.
But the fund itself, as created, was simply a pool of national currencies, plus some gold, which could be used for short- to medium-term lending. Most of the early lending was to developed countries, but even that was restricted, since countries which were receiving Marshall Plan Aid in 1948 and thereafter were excluded from drawing on the IMF, at least temporarily. The IMF itself, of course, experienced a radical transformation in the years that followed as the ex-colonies became members, and as Latin America and Asia and Africa joined the fund, until it now has some 185 members. It was initially a pretty small body in terms of the number of members, but it did include all of the major countries except for Germany and Japan, with which we were still at war. They joined afterwards. The Russians at first indicated interest, but then pulled out and pulled a couple of their satellites out with them. But it was carefully structured-Keynes and White had been negotiating bilaterally for at least two years, probably longer, on the structure of the fund. And ultimately the U.S. view of the fund, as a pool of national currencies available for lending, prevailed. Here, if the summit comes up with at least a set of objectives for subsequent negotiation, I think it will achieve a remarkable purpose. But I'm not even sure at this stage that anyone quite knows what they are really aiming at achieving.
On a basic level, do you think the global financial system is best regulated by global institutions or by local institutions with increased global coordination?
I'm going to equivocate and say both. For example, a lot of the re-regulation that may be necessary is national and not global. If we decide to do something about the business model of the rating agencies, that's going to be national, because the rating agencies of which we are concerned, though they do international business, are U.S. firms. There are certain to be some tighter regulations, perhaps even the prohibition of some kinds of financial instruments. But it is not going to be a massive reorganization of the monetary system, which is what the [International Monetary] Fund was concerned with. It's going to be essentially an attempt to restructure regulation of the private financial sector. And there is, as I said, this disagreement lurking as to just how that should be done. But the distinction that I would draw is the fund was concerned with the monetary system, and this conference, if it focuses at all, will be concerned with financial markets. And those are not the same.
Do you think the IMF as it currently stands is adequate? Should there be new institutions, or simply modifications to the IMF?
I don't know which way it's likely to go. I'm not even quite sure how it should go, though I have skepticism about the extent to which the fund was presently equipped to do this job-my friends at the fund disagree, but that's natural enough.
Let me put it this way. The ideal outcome would be a fairly short list of commonly needed regulatory changes: increases in bank capital; restructuring of the credit rating agencies; tightening and restructuring of the mortgage market, not only in the United States but in some other countries as well, to discourage the issuance of mortgages to people who are unlikely to pay; and perhaps also some arrangements for rescuing homeowners who have gotten in over their heads. I'm not quite clear in my own mind how far we might go toward what I think I would like-the trading of derivative instruments on organized exchanges. That would provide financial backup to some of those derivatives, and also some standardization. The trouble is the derivative instruments are tailor-made to the needs of individual clients, and therefore if you were to standardize the instruments, they would lose some of their value to the customer. But I still believe that exchange-traded derivative instruments would be more sensible than the terribly elaborate and unique instruments we have. And I would hope that the summit meeting, if it makes any specific recommendations, will look at the question of the origination and the trading of derivative instruments, particularly the credit-default swaps, as well as higher standards for mortgage lending. But again, the problem here is that [using the term] Bretton Woods raises the expectation that we will somehow derive a whole set of new rules for the system, and perhaps new institutions for the system, and you just can't do that in a day. And what the follow-up will be is not clear.
Do you think you could do it granted a longer time frame? Or are there just existential problems here to any sort of global financial regulator?
There are obviously existential problems, and most countries are not going to want to delegate authority over their own financial markets to international supervisors. But in any case, it is a long and tough process because an awful lot of issues have to be covered. Even in respect to individual instruments, such as whether they should be exchange-traded or not, and what are the terms and conditions for these instruments? Some standardization is needed, and the role of individual investment banking firms in the tailor-making of these instruments has to be seriously reconsidered.
If you want to call it that...here's some more good news!
Will it be REVOLUTION before the big one? Hard to say...but one way or another we're headed there sooner than you think.
And in a somewhat related story ( see below ) ...the more they knead into the dough (pun intended), the greated the rise...in turmoil from the masses.
...another message from the innocent.
"OMG!!!! Pray this doesn't happen!!! If it does, we are doomed." - Wxy
I understand Wxy. But what will be, will be. The American people are asleep on this issue...but worse yet, the people in charge are still out to lunch and do not have a clue as to what they're doing. Deep in their troubled and corrupt minds they really know it's all their fault and are really grasping sail boat fuel (wind in the air) to fix a problem that requires ECO 101 vs "Islamic Finance 101".
GAFFNEY: Treasury submits to Shariah
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. - Nov 04, 2008
The Washington Times
The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shariah - the seditious religio-political-legal code authoritative Islam seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.
As reported in this space last week, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt set the stage with his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. His stated purpose was to promote the recycling of petrodollars in the form of foreign investment here.
Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program. While in Riyadh, Mr. Kimmitt announced: "The U.S. government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis."
"Islamic banking" is a euphemism for a practice better known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC)." And it turns out that this week the Treasury will be taking officials from various federal agencies literally to school on SFC.
The department is hosting a half-day course entitled "Islamic Finance 101" on Thursday at its headquarters building. Treasury's self-described "seminar for the policy community" is co-sponsored with the leading academic promoters of Shariah and SCF in the United States: Harvard University Law School's Project on Islamic Finance. At the very least, the U.S. government evidently hopes to emulate Harvard's success in securing immense amounts of Wahhabi money in exchange for conforming to the Islamists' agenda. Like Harvard, Treasury seems utterly disinterested in what Shariah actually is, and portends.
Unfortunately, such submission - the literal meaning of "Islam" - is not likely to remain confined long to the Treasury or its sister agencies. Thanks to the extraordinary authority conferred on Treasury since September, backed by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the department is now in a position to impose its embrace of Shariah on the U.S. financial sector. The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury's purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the ability to provide, or withhold, funds from its new slush-fund can translate into unprecedented coercive power.
Concerns in this regard are only heightened by the prominent role Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari will be playing in "Islamic Finance 101." Mr. Kashkari, the official charged with administering the TARP fund, will provide welcoming remarks to participants. Presumably, in the process, he will convey the enthusiasm about Shariah-Compliant Finance that appears to be the current party line at Treasury.
As this enthusiasm for SCF ramps up in Washington officialdom, it is worth recalling a lesson from "across the pond." Earlier this year, the head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, provoked a brief but intense firestorm of controversy with his declaration that it was "unavoidable" that Shariah would be practiced in Britain. Largely unremarked was the reason he gave for such an ominous forecast: The U.K. had already accommodated itself to Shariah-Compliant Finance.
This statement provides an important insight for the incumbent U.S. administration and whomever succeeds it: Shariah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shariah into Western societies.
Regrettably, SCF is not the only instrument of the stealth jihad by which Shariah-promoting Islamists are seeking to achieve "parallel societies" here and elsewhere in the West. The British experience is instructive on this score, too. Her Majesty's government has allowed the establishment of at least five Shariah courts to hear (initially) family law cases. Polygamists in the U.K. can get welfare for each of their wives (as long as all the marriages beyond the first were performed overseas).
Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shariah is so manifest. But Treasury's accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory - the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shariah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril.
After all, the object of Shariah is the supplanting of our government and Constitution, through violent means if possible and, until then, through stealthy ones. Islamists, having secured footholds via their parallel societies, inevitably use those to extend their influence over Muslims who have no more interest in living under authoritative Islam's Shariah than the rest of us do. Inexorably, it becomes the turn of non-Muslims to accommodate themselves to ever more intrusive demands from the Islamists. It is known as submission, or dhimmitude.
Soon - possibly as early as this Wednesday - the Treasury Department and the other federal agencies will be taking orders from representatives of Barack Obama or John McCain. It may be that the outgoing administration's determination to advance the Islamist agenda via "Islamic Finance 101," and what flows from it, may be the first, far-reaching policy decision inherited by the new president-elect. If he does not want to have his transition saddled with an implicit endorsement of submission to Shariah, the winner of the White House sweepstakes would be well-advised to pull the plug on Thursday's indoctrination program and the insidious industry it is meant to foist on the "policy community," our capital markets and our country.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
November 12, 2008 - Rupert Wright
 The National (UAE)
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008
Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.
“We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business,” says Baron Rothschild. “We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally.”
The Rothschilds have been helping the British government – and many others – out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815. According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today.
In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis. There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the US Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power – just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months – the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence. So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long?
The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just US$1 million (Dh3.67m) in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.
Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf. “There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint,” he says.
An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity. “For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader,” he says. “Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs.”
He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear – at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil. They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the US, a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.
Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future? “There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse,” he says. “They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold – and sold at a profit.”
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.”
So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.”
It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region. “In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity,” he says. “They are two arms of the same body looking for money.”
The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals. “Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies,” says Mr Reynolds. “I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition.
“We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients.”
He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them “trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night”. Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates. “It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people,” says Mr Reynolds. “Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser.”
Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.
In what the British press are calling “Yachtgate”, the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity. “If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture,” he says. “You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober.”
Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man – he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters – an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the “odd concert”. He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.
It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?
“I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States,” he said. “And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE.”