I am compelled to provide an alternative interpretation of the document in question. The commentary that accompanies the text is my own opinion, and
does not in any way mean I intend to challenge the OP or his or her stated position or interpretation.
Opening Statement
We, the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G-20, have a common goal of promoting employment, welfare and development in our
countries.
I find this statement revealing in and of itself. The Finance Ministers and “Central Banks” have adopted an ownership posture. Of course, this
could be construed as a reference to stewardship, but their day-to-day behavior belies that perception.
We are convinced that strong and sustained economic growth is necessary both at national and global level to achieve this end. We have therefore
discussed the requirements for long-lasting growth on the basis of our own experience and believe that domestic policy needs to address three
tasks:
The have talked about what is required in order to achieve long-lasting growth. And as a matter of their own 'personal' experiences (interesting
that they would render their own suggestions as a 'requirement'). Herein is another example of the paradigm of their judgment as supra-national
authority - this posture is similar to that of the CFR and other transnational organizations of intellectual elite. They are issuing a statement to
be applied to the 'domestic' policies of sovereign nations. This is significant.
...establishing and maintaining monetary and financial stability; enhancing domestic and international competition; and empowering people to
participate.
- "...establishing and maintaining monetary and financial stability"
Take a moment to consider how disingenuous such a statement is. The Central Bank structures as they are positioned across the globe are completely in
control of this issue. They exist within their host nations as a monopoly; they are the sole authority and producers of the domestic currencies. As
such, it has always been under their purview and stewardship. They inflate and stabilize currencies at their own whim. The context of this statement
implies that nations themselves are in control - which is nothing less than a lie, and nothing more than blatantly incorrect.
- "...enhancing domestic and international competition"
The phrase includes the word 'enhance'. A favored term within those who fear to specify or delineate the context of the word. Domestic and
international competition is another vaguery. Competition for what? Corporate supremacy, market domination, all the money on earth? Competition is
measure by the object of success; they deftly fail to mention the goal.
- "...empowering people to participate."
What exactly do they mean.., 'the people' and what manner of 'participation' is their intention to promote? Personally, given the history of the
financial industry as I understand it, and given the fact that we are discussing the 'advice' of what is essentially a global bank-cartel; I can
only infer that they are referring to the 'empowerment' of the common producer of wealth (the citizen) to give them their money to invest and gamble
in their stereotypical game of speculative chance. Once again, the optimist may be inclined to interpret this as a call for entrepreneurship; but my
'experience' in observing the model and paradigm of their control leads me to believe the former over the latter possibility..
Transparency and accountability within an internationally agreed framework of codes and standards remain key to ensuring sustained economic growth
and stability at the global level.
This seems like a fantasy statement to me. First of all the 'internationally agreed framework' is ANYTHING BUT transparent. In fact, the United
States has recently seen just how 'impossible' it is to get a straight answer to any questions regarding the disposition of monies or the decision
to inflate or deflate currency. Globally, it is even less accessible to the people. Banks have engaged in secret agendas since their inception. And
those who stand to gain from that obscurity of purpose and action want it to remain that way.
We agreed on the following key elements that will guide our domestic economic policies in the future.
Interesting and somewhat inflammatory if you ask me. 'Our domestic policies' seems to imply that the people of each sovereign nation will submit to
their judgment. The meeting of non-elected officials and bank elites is leading to the imposition of policy by this body on the entire planet. Is
that what we 'signed up for?'
In implementing these elements, microeconomic aspects must be given due consideration.
Ever hear of the phrase 'I hate my boss because he micromanages everything I do.'? Their policies will extend into the day-to-day mainstream
'main street' fiscal activity. They will be 'managed' at the scale of local regionalities. Yet who defines these regions? They do. Beware this
'consideration' as it will lead to sudden clamping down on overly-successful sectors of business - especially if they threaten the viability of
another business in another area. A paranoid example would be I invent a vehicle that doesn't need tires and is so popular that the synthetic rubber
and chemical industries around the world could collapse. Will they "shut down" my business? Will they tax my vehicle into oblivion? My local
economy would be thriving with jobs and support revenue..., but only at the 'micro' level. They have set their goal as to 'deal with that'?
Questions, questions.
As these principles are interlinked, they must be implemented consistently, with due regard to possible trade-offs and complementarities, because
many single elements have the potential of blocking the positive effects of others.
That's funny..., wasn't that the point of competition? This is a finite world where they have the ability to produce infinite currency; I think
there's is the problem in this equation, not the producers.
While appropriate and credible policies are the basis for economic growth, they need to be backed by high-quality institutions, including ethical
standards in corporate governance.
So, appropriate and credible policies and ethical standards in corporate governance is dependent on the institution's quality? That is an
interesting, if somewhat incongruent position, considering that the attribute should be the definition of a high quality institution and not
independent of the judgment.
Policymakers should build institutions in parallel with engaging in reforms and also ensure that institutions stay consistent with the
requirements of a changing environment.
Let's be direct, they are referring to global parliaments, senates, councils, and congresses. All - ostensibly - duly empowered through consent of
the governed. This charge, as it were, is a vacuous pontification. And references to the environment 'changing' is as disingenuous as neglecting
to admit up front that it's their monetary policy that causes the problems.
It's as if to say, when they (for whatever whim or reason) change the monetary policy in a country or region, we must pretend that it is a
'natural' and 'uncontrollable' aspect of the economy and must alter our course or actions to suit them. Bad karma.
However, given the diversity of institutional settings and the success of different economic strategies among G-20 countries, there is no
single template for strong long-term growth.
Perhaps the problem isn't in fact that there are differing approaches in the pursuit of economic stability and prosperity..., perhaps the problem is
that the 'control' of the economy by a G20 or any other cabal of intellectuals is untenable and leads to more problems than it solves. Some horse
cannot be broken; usually it's the one's who value their freedom more than their life.... sound familiar?
Policies need to be shaped to the special circumstances in individual countries.
Of course there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution to this matter. Yet they believe and are trying to convince the world that THEY are the
solution. It's a common position for the 'problem' to take. Especially when theirs profit and power involved.
Efforts along these lines will unfold their full potential in a favourable international environment, in particular in the context of a robust and
effective international financial and trade architecture which supports countries in the adoption of these principles.
All of this gibber-jabber relates to the paradigm of 'we control everything'. I feel much less confident that these people have ANY NOTION of what
it is like to be SUBJECT to their controls.
I will proceed with the remainder of the 3-page document should the readership here express interest....
[edit on 20-11-2008 by Maxmars]
