Are you still laughing about the New World Order? Do you still believe Keynesian economics will solve the current economic crisis?
If so, you may want to watch this video by Dick Morris about President Obama surrendering American sovereignty at last year's G20 summit: Fundamentally Change America (a new world order).
If that doesn't do anything for you, consider what Belgian Prime Minister and first E.U. President Herman Van Rompuy said about the Copenhagen summit:
2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.
See the video here: Copenhagen and the New World Order.
Now they're planning a global tax!
The G20 – or rather, in this instance, the G20 minus Canada – wanted to impose a global tax on banks. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty quietly said that Canada, for its part, would do no such thing.
It goes without saying, of course, that the global bank tax was not exactly what its proponents said it was. The proposed G19 tax, in somewhat different guise, traces back to Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin’s proposed global currency tax of the 1970s. In turn, the Tobin currency tax traces back to John Maynard Keynes’ proposed Wall Street speculation tax of the 1930s.
Regardless of the differing formulas, the purpose of all such taxes is precisely what Prof. Tobin (who died in 2002) said it was – “to throw sand in the wheels of the financial markets, to end the dictate of the financial markets.”
When French President Nicolas Sarkozy grandly proclaimed “the return of the State” the other day, he was expressing the same strategic objective that motivated Louis XIV: government control of the financial markets – and the final taming of the shrewd.
For his part, Prof. Tobin described himself explicitly as “a disciple of Keynes.” But, as many contemporary Keynesians forget, Mr. Keynes himself – when it mattered – was himself a disciple of dictatorships. In his essay Keynes, the Man, U.S. libertarian economist Murray Rothbard recalls that Keynes was an enthusiastic supporter in the 1930s of Sir Oswald Mosley, the founder of British fascism, and that Keynes consistently championed the fascist economic model. Writing in 1939, in the foreword to the German edition of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, his manifesto, Mr. Keynes conceded that his economic theories “adapt more easily to the conditions of a totalitarian state … than to the conditions of free competition.”
In fact, the world is now awash in Keynesian proposals to levy taxes on financial institutions and transactions ... taxes are always proposed, initially at least, at a low rate. (Prof. Tobin suggested that his currency tax be levied at a rate of 0.5 per cent, or 50 cents on every $100 conversion.)
The proponents of these taxes make no effort to hide the fact that they regard them as a vindictive comeuppance for the rich. This is illusion ... As Roaring Twenties President Calvin Coolidge put it: “No matter what anyone says about making the rich and the corporations pay, in the end all taxes are paid by people who toil.”
In his own assessment of the global bank tax, Royal Bank of Canada CEO Gordon Nixon essentially confirmed Mr. Coolidge’s analysis – saying that banks would, if necessary, pass the cost on to their customers ... The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Simon Johnson, a liberal U.S. economist, agrees ... “A financial transaction tax is more a tax on regular people, like you and me, than on anyone else.”
Yes, that's exactly what this is. A tax on regular people like you and me.
Make no mistake about what Keynes said concerning his theories either, that they "adapt more easily to the conditions of a totalitarian state … than to the conditions of free competition."
This proposal is the world taxing authority the United Nations has been after since day one, and World Government is in their sights. But it looks like there's a bit of resistance ... for now that is. You know how it goes. They'll eventually roll-over.
The Obama Administration's push for a "bailout tax" on banks ran into some surprising resistance over the weekend, and not from Republicans. At the G-20 confab in Washington, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. remains committed to a balance-sheet tax on banks ... But Canada, Australia, Japan and Brazil, among other countries, beg to differ.
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made the sensible case over the weekend that sucking more money out of the banking system to pay for domestic spending wasn't the best way to foster financial stability.
Mr. Geithner and friends want a global bank tax because they realize that a country-specific tax could drive financial institutions to less-confiscatory regimes. This could jeopardize New York or London as major financial centers—which is another reason for Canada and other countries not to go along.
It's also fascinating to hear that a bailout tax would spare taxpayers the cost of future rescues ... The political demand for a bailout tax is a tacit admission that the current reform would do no such thing, as some of us have been saying.
It is no surprise that the International Monetary Fund is eager to do the bidding of the would-be taxers. In a "confidential" report leaked last week to the BBC, the IMF proposes two taxes that it projects in combination could rake in as much as 4% of a nation's GDP.
The first is a balance-sheet tax that the IMF calls a financial stability contribution, intended to defray the cost of bailouts going forward. Its companion is a so-called financial-activities tax—or FAT—that would dun the combined profits and payrolls of financial institutions.
The IMF also seems to think it makes little difference whether the revenue from these taxes goes into a fund earmarked for bailout costs or into the government treasury, as either would pay down national debt and increase a country's capacity to pay for future bailouts. Left unmentioned is the near-certainty that the extra revenue would simply be spent, leaving no one but our spenders-in-chief better off when the next crisis comes. For a precedent, consider the Social Security "lockbox."
A globally coordinated tax of any sort carries additional risks. Global financial regulation in the form of the Basel accords exacerbated the financial panic by encouraging regulators and banks around the world to take similar views on the relative risks of mortgage-backed securities ...
Likewise, global tax coordination risks magnifying any policy errors and reducing the chance that they'll be detected until it's too late ... not to mention intense lobbying over what gets weighted favorably and what does not. A global tax is also a precedent for the kind of world taxing authority that the U.N. and IMF have long coveted.
These tax proposals are, first and last, about grabbing revenue from a politically soft target ... Depleting the financial industry of capital will drain vitality from the entire economy, leaving government budgets the poorer for it.
There you have it. A global taxing authority making "too big to fail" their permanent solution for transferring the wealth of the common people of the world, to the politicians, banks, and politically connected corporations.
This is the stuff "conspiracy theorists" said would happen while you laughed at them. What a strange world we live in ... isn't it?