Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘G-20’ Category

>G-20 Rules The World And Obama Bows

>You can read about the pressure each nation is putting on the other. America’s Barak Obama’s desire to keep on spending were overridden by Canada’s Stephen Harper who got backing from Germany and Britain, and the rest of the world, thank goodness, to have every nation stop spending and start reducing their deficits.

The target date that Obama blatantly announced was cutting the deficit in half by 2013.

Nothing like putting the pressure on taxpayers of a beleagured nation still feeling the effects of an 18-month recession that Obama made worse by his spending. But he wants popularity more than anything. Especially approval of the member states and their leaders, those in G-20. So he will come back and put a massive tax on Americans – possibly the Value Added Tax (VAT) and will suffocate business and increase joblessness in America so we’ll really need a bailout from China, a country with plenty of cash.

Here is the NY Times story. G-20 is suggesting an international bank tax. So now we have  G-20 ruling the world, just what Obama wanted, folks. What happened to the U.S. Constitution in all of this? Taxation without representation is illegal. It’s what caused the war between the Colonies and Great Britain. The people will revolt when the above tax is levied – at least Americans will. This is too much at a time when we should be repealing authorization for the progressive’s income tax and the Federal Reserve System which was the motivation for the income tax. After all, how can you give the Fed money to stabalize banks if you don’t have a method of collecting money from citizens? Both of these should go. We should cut our deficit in half as soon as possible, but with a new administration. The progressives – Democrats and Republicans – must GO back home and do something else with their time. They’ve miserably failed, let’s face it.

World Leaders Agree on Timetable for Cutting Deficits

TORONTO — Leaders of the world’s biggest economies agreed Sunday on a timetable for cutting deficits and halting the growth of their debt, but also acknowledged the need to move carefully so that reductions in spending did not set back the fragile global recovery.
Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
President Obama cautioned that “our fiscal health tomorrow will rest in no small measure on our ability to create jobs today.”
Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
President Obama and other world leaders at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Toronto on Sunday.
The action at the Group of 20 summit meeting here signaled the determination of many of the wealthiest countries, after enacting spending programs to counter the worldwide financial crisis, to now emphasize debt reduction. And it underscored the conviction of European nations in particular that deficits represented the biggest threat to their economic stability.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had consistently advocated a measured approach to debt reduction that would not stymie growth and lead to a double-dip recession.
The United States, however, joined other countries at the summit meeting, which was met by protests and several hundred arrests, by endorsing a goal of cutting government deficits in half by 2013 and stabilizing the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product by 2016. Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, had proposed the targets, backed by Germany and Britain.
To assuage objections from the United States, Japan, India and some other countries, the timetable was couched as an expectation, rather than a firm deadline. The G-20 joint statement explicitly stated that Japan, which is heavily dependent on domestic borrowing, was not expected to meet the targets.
The divisions were in contrast to the unity that characterized the previous three G-20 leaders’ summits, when the urgency of a potential global collapse produced solidarity and a unified economic approach. Although Mr. Obama insisted emphatically that there was “violent agreement” on the need to reduce debt over time, the final communiqué included a delicately worded call for deficit reduction “tailored to national circumstances.” In essence, the leaders were blessing their decision to go their own ways.
The joint statement acknowledged both sides of the debate. “There is a risk that synchronized fiscal adjustment across several major economies could adversely impact the recovery,” the statement said. “There is also a risk that the failure to implement consolidation where necessary would undermine confidence and hamper growth.”
In a news conference at the conclusion of the summit meeting, Mr. Obama referred only indirectly to the disagreement with Europe, saying, “We must recognize that our fiscal health tomorrow will rest in no small measure on our ability to create jobs today.”
His concern about stimulus was echoed by some economists who viewed the pledge on deficits as imperiling the prospects for growth.
“China’s growth, specifically, is not seen as sustainable at current rates,” Ronald A. Kurtz, professor of global economics and management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in an e-mail message. “The G-20 declaration therefore amounts to saying ‘assume a miracle’ for global growth.” He said Europe’s fiscal austerity plans would also slow growth.
But Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said he thought the risks of a new downturn were minimal.
“We don’t forecast any double dip,” he said. “Double dip was not discussed at the meeting.”
It is the first time the G-20 has set dates for deficit reduction, but the timetable, which is not binding, will probably not require new policy actions. Most of the governments, including the United States, have already put forward budget proposals in line with the targets.
The leaders also discussed banking regulations, but could not agree on a proposal for a global bank tax, supported by the United States, Britain and the European Union, but opposed by Canada and Australia.
And while the G-20 reaffirmed a deadline — their next meeting, in November in Seoul, South Korea — for agreeing on new capital standards for banks, they signaled that several countries might not implement the standards by 2012, as initially planned.
“While the illusion of progress is good, I don’t see real action to alter the imbalances that brought us to this crisis,” said Raghuram G. Rajan, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund who is now a professor in the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.
The United States, he said, continues to run large trade deficits financed by Germany, China and Japan. “The U.S. has been the world’s consumer of first resort,” he added, “and because it has been unable to persuade other countries to spend more or to reform quickly, it is likely to take up that position once again.”
Though Mr. Obama did not prevail in his emphasis on stimulus, he did arrive in Canada with three victories under his belt.
European leaders had agreed to conduct stress tests on their big banks, an exercise successfully undertaken in the United States last year, in an effort to restore market confidence. China had announced that it would allow a gradual appreciation of its currency. And Congressional negotiators had agreed on a far-reaching overhaul offinancial regulations.
But those accomplishments did not alter the mix of lagging growth, heavy debts and anxious voters that pushed European leaders to press for austerity.
“The U.S. may be concentrated on premature fiscal tightening, but most other countries are looking with a nervous eye to the sovereign debt mess in Europe,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard economist and former I.M.F. chief economist. “Aiming for a gradually improving debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by 2016 is hardly wild-eyed fiscal conservatism.”
In that light, the G-20 outcome was a victory for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who argued that without actions to rein in spending, investors would drive up governments’ borrowing costs, as they did in Greece.
Mr. Obama said, “We helped to draft this communiqué, which reflects our policies,” and added, “Keep in mind that we had already proposed a long time ago that we were going to cut our deficits in half by 2013.”
He continued, “We can’t all rush to the exits at the same time.” But he also said that for all the talk of German austerity, it was actually reducing its spending gradually, and not any more quickly than the United States.
While aides to Mr. Obama said that the G-20 statement was in line with budget plans he had already announced, others said it was a move toward austerity.
“The best thing that countries with fiscal challenges can do is to show that they can live within their means,” George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, said. “Barack Obama has recognized that.”
The mood here was far less anxious than in November 2008, when the G-20 leaders converged for the first time, in Washington, to battle a still-raging financial crisis. But it was hardly cheery.
While China did not make any new commitments, the G-20 statement appealed to China to increase spending on infrastructure, let its currency fluctuate and strengthen social protections.
Those actions are part of what economists call rebalancing — a reorientation of the world economy to be less reliant on debt-financed spending by North American and Western European consumers. China is the largest growth engine but its workers save too much and spend too little, some economists say.
At China’s urging, the G-20 leaders removed from their joint statement a proposed clause that would have praised China for agreeing to greater exchange-rate flexibility. Mr. Harper said he understood China’s wish not to be singled out, for either criticism or praise, but added, “When you make commitments on the world stage, you will be held accountable for them.”

>Get A Peak At The Future Of Money

>The G-20 meetings taking place in and around London are not giving us the real story. While President Obama is hobnobbing with rulers and presidents of the world’s most financially — I was going to say powerful, but changed my mind — invested countries, his secretary of the Treasury, Tim Gaithner, is meeting in back rooms with his counterparts from those 20 nations.

And the topic is something that could hurt you financially unless you are prepared with enough assets, food, clothing, gold and housing that you don’t have to rely on money in the bank which won’t be worth too much, anyway. Experts think gold could go up to $5,000 an ounce. Wow!

Larry Edleson is touting gold — because the entire world wants to get off the dollar and create a new currency backed by the International Monetary System and a dollar won’t be worth much.That’s why Obama is depreciating the dollar with all of his targeted spending — outrageous spending, in fact.

If we were all smart, we’d stock up on commodities so we could live for a year without having to go to the grocery store. We’d own our homes so we don’t have to try and pay it off with those inflated dollars, or would you? No, come to think of it. Inflated dollars are fine — in fact if you owed $400,000 on your mortgage and a dollar became worth only a penny, .01 then everything you had to buy to subsist would be out of sight, but fixed debts could be paid off quicker with these cheap dollars. The ones who would be hurt would be those owning property that they thought they would sell — because everything will be different.

Here’s the report, and you decide who’s better off:

What you won’t hear much about, though, will be the secret meetings hidden from the media to forge a radical overhaul of the world’s monetary system.
Attendees at the G-20 meeting will strive to wipe the world’s debt ledgers clean.

The real goal of the G-20 meetings: Creation of a new financial order based upon drastically new units of paper or fiat money to help wipe the world’s debt ledgers clean.

How? By systematically and progressively devaluing existing currencies, especially the U.S. dollar, and re-inflating ALL asset prices.

If the plan shapes up as I think it will, my current target for gold of $2,270 could turn out to be ultra-conservative. Depending on how the new currencies are structured, we could ultimately be looking at $5,000 gold … or even higher!

Over the next few weeks, I recommend you keep your ears tuned to the media for phrases like “new financial architecture” … “new monetary system” … the “rules of the game” … “Bretton Woods II” … and other financial speak. They are essentially the cover words that will ultimately spell a dramatic change in the value of money.

And while the planning stages will occur behind closed doors, already the public cries for a seismic shake-up of the world currency structure are becoming louder and louder …

French President Sarkozy recently declared, “We must rethink the financial system from scratch, as at Bretton Woods” … and that it’s time to “change the rules of the game.”

British Prime Minister Brown touts “a new global financial order,” describing this as a “decisive moment” for the world economy to adopt a “new Bretton Woods.”

European Central Bank council member Ewald Nowotny calls into question the “centrality of the U.S. dollar” and further states that the U.S., Europe, and Asia are developing a “tri-polar global currency system to replace the current dollar-centric reserve structure with more centers of gravity.”

At the recent World Economic Forum, Russia’s Prime Minister Putin explains that “Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy.”

The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party and the unofficial mouthpiece of the Beijing government, warns of the threat of a “financial tsunami” and urges action. “The world urgently needs to create a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States.”

On March 19, the United Nations Commission on Reforms of International Finance and Economic Structures, chaired by the 2001 Economics Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, recommended that the dollar be replaced as the world’s reserve currency.

On March 23, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), China’s central bank, proposed replacing the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

Changing the value of a currency is nothing new. Government officials have talked the talk before. Treasury Secretary Donald Regan floated the idea in response to the Latin American debt crisis in 1982. The next year, when the French franc nosedived with three successive devaluations, it was President Francois Mitterrand’s turn to call for “a new Bretton Woods.”

Then, spurred by the emerging-market financial troubles of 1997-98, British Prime Minister Tony Blair opined, “We should not be afraid to think radically and fundamentally … We need to commit ourselves today to build a new Bretton Woods for the next millennium.”

In the past, whenever an international financial crisis crops up, authorities in high places have often referred to a new Bretton Woods “solution” (i.e., changing the value of paper money).

This time, though, given the Great Depression II, it looks like the current generation of leaders is ready to walk the walk. Indeed, they may have no other choice.

Historical Background:
The First Seeds of Major Global Currency Tampering —
The 1933 London Monetary and Economic Conference

The concept of changing the world’s monetary system to wipe bad debts clean and to start anew with a fresh ledger or balance sheet, if you will, is not new.

It dates back to Roman times when emperors successively devalued the Roman denarius to wipe out debts and spark asset inflation.

More recently, emerging economies have engaged in chronic currency devaluations to deal with their mountains of debt. But surprisingly to most analysts, the industrialized world has also tried to “change the rules of the game,” which is central-bank speak for altering the value of paper money.

And interestingly, the most famous historical precedent — almost an exact analogy to today’s emergency G-20 meetings — was a little-known but critically important meeting in 1933, called the London Monetary and Economic Conference.

At the depths of that Great Depression, the world’s leading economic ministers met to find a cure for the global depression … just like they’re doing today.

But when finance ministers, central bankers and government leaders met in London to work out a plan, President Franklin Roosevelt changed his mind at the last minute and refused to attend. By most historical accounts, he had decided that there was no time to bicker with other nations and that action needed to be taken immediately.