It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For nations living the good life, the party's over, IMF says

page: 1
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

For nations living the good life, the party's over, IMF says


www.washingtonpost.com

In the lingo of the International Monetary Fund, the future of the world hinges on "rebalancing and consolidation," antiseptic words that would not seem to raise a fuss.
Who doesn't want more balance in their life?

But the translation is a bit ruder, something on the order of: "Suck it up. The party's over."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I find this rather interesting. The IMF here is openly admitting that they want the dollar to be weakened, and, that they want developed nations to stop living so lavishly. What more proof do people need? I'm going to post what I think highlights the most important part of the article here... tell me what you think about this.


"It is not that living standards will lower, but they will not increase as fast as they have been," said Domenico Lombardi, a former IMF executive director. The ideas being discussed by world leaders "are coded words," he said. "They don't like words like 'imposing higher taxes' and 'cutting spending.' "

Rebalancing

The IMF has long had a reputation as a bearer of bad news -- it dispatches well-educated and diplomatically deft teams to tell economically troubled countries how many people they have to fire and which programs they have to cut to get financial assistance. But the IMF now finds itself in the odd position of having that conversation not with a single ailing sovereign but with the developed countries at the core of the world system, including the United States.

Its prescription is centered on two concepts.

"Rebalancing" is an idea that most everyone endorses -- including the technicians at the fund and President Obama and the leaders of the G-20 group of economically powerful nations. In broad strokes, it means curbing what has been a massive transfer of capital from nations that consume more than they produce, such as the United States, to nations that produce more than they consume, such as China.
ad_icon

The imbalance has been key to China's modernization: The country buys U.S. government bonds by the tens of billions to keep the dollar stronger than it would be and to keep its domestic currency -- and its exports -- cheaper. Looked at one way, the flow of U.S. debt to the People's Bank of China has acted like a giant, collective credit card, underwriting consumers across the United States and driving the business models of major retailers such as Wal-Mart.

How to do it? One way is for China -- or Asian exporters, more generally -- to let their currencies rise on world markets. The other way, which IMF economist Blanchard raised this week, would be to devalue the dollar, the euro and other developed-world currencies.

"The advanced economies as a whole may need to depreciate their currencies so as to increase their net exports," Blanchard said.

The less well-advertised side of the equation: If the dollar is worth less, then imports, regardless of their source, will cost more. U.S. exports will be proportionately cheaper -- a good thing for American businesses trying to become more competitive in overseas markets -- but everything from iPods to jeans to the latest Barbie doll would jump in price.

The ideas offered by the IMF "could certainly reorder the balance of the international economy, but not in a way that benefits the average person in the U.S.," said J. Craig Shearman, vice president of government affairs for the National Retail Federation.


www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Good and bad things come from these kind of moves.

In times of recession, parents spend more time with their kids, grandparents play a bigger role in the family, consumerism dies down, people generally appreciate what they have.

The bad, is that extreme poverty gets passed down to those who are already in poverty, and big business consolidates power.

We'll have to see how this plays out over the next year or two.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Translation: Good for big business and multinationals looking for new markets.

Bad for Americans.


Well what about this is new, exactly? We've been hurting average Americans while helping big business for years, and people cheered it on, because "big business creates jobs," and all sorts of other wacky explanations to justify the growing inequality.


And we can't tax them -- lordy no. Taxing them for the benefit of these (soon to be) poor Americans would somehow hurt jobs and the economy.. Wait, what economy? We exported that (about the only thing we do export) to China, Korea, and Taiwan..


You know, the saddest thing about this is that when even more people are living lower standards, they'll probably be even more in the pockets of big business propaganda than they were before.. That seems to be the way things work, anyhow.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 

I just look at these things, as fuel for provoking revolutionary circumstances.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Well, it doesnt take a genius to realize this had to happen. No individual expects to spend more than they make indefinitely. Why should the formula be different for entire nations?

The only thing I find surprising is that this news would be surprising to anyone.

Much like I will be amazed the day the rest of the planet realizes the .01% of the population who were advocating a lower population were right. Some things are just common sense. Something many very intelligent people, and many people in power seem curiously lacking in.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier

I just look at these things, as fuel for provoking revolutionary circumstances.


Well, I am not sure how you are reading that article, but if you think a revolution in America would prevent our currency from becoming devalued, I think you are mistaken. If anything, civil war would cause our currency to become worthless even more quickly.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Yes we should all learn to lower our expectations and living standards.

Except of course if you are one of TPTB making the rules.

For them it's a continual increase in expectations and living standards with more poor people to peel their grapes and cook their meals onboard their private/polluting jets.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I just look at these things, as fuel for provoking revolutionary circumstances.
Well, I am not sure how you are reading that article, but if you think a revolution in America would prevent our currency from becoming devalued, I think you are mistaken. If anything, civil war would cause our currency to become worthless even more quickly.

I never said what kind of revolution. Perhaps a revolution in spending habits?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 


I wish that were the case, but the truth is none of this is new. Inequality has been growing for years, wages have stagnated, the government has been taken over by lobbyists who work on behalf of big business interests, news papers (and all the journalists they hire) are on the verge of collapse, our schools suck, our infrastructure is decrepit, public resources are being handed over to private businesses, the corporate majority is coming after your social security (in due time), and the only thing anybody seems to know is that "immigrants, welfare, socialism, is ruining the country; and the liberal commies are trying to take everything you own and run your life. Also, unions are deplorable -- labor should never be allowed to organize, they should do what their owners tell them."

We're a society of slaves, and the dumbasses who are being exploited the most are the ones unwittingly fighting the hardest for their masters.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that things do become worse for the average American, and that the USA begins to look more like a third world country with 90% of the population poor and stupid, and 10% wealthy and living off the sweat and labor of the bewildered majority. It's kind of already that way, actually, but there's room for more "efficiency" (as it's called) in terms of how little we can pay these retards for the amount of work output (and ultimately profit) they produce for the ruling class.


I see absolutely no hope at all. Admittedly, i'm usually a pessimist, though.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 


I think that is what the article is saying is inevitable. That as we are forced to pay the real cost of the products from "developing" countries, that we will be able to buy a lot less.

They are saying (in the article) our standard of living will not drop, that it just wont increase as quickly, but I think that is an unreasonable expectation. Our quality of life is destined to drop. It has to. There is no way the resources and wealth of the world can be distributed in a more "balanced" way without the wealthiest nations taking a hit. Especially since the number of people among whom those finite resources are divided among continues to increase.

Of course as someone else said, the wealthiest individuals will not necessarily want that same logic to apply to them. What is good for whole countries and the species in general will be resisted fiercely on an individual level.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I dont think you are a pessimist. I think you are a realist. I see the same scenario. In the short run. There is always the possibility of the poor rising up against the rich, however. The rich do know this, though, and it is no coincidence that there is a push to disarm the populace around the globe.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 
We're a society of slaves, and the dumbasses who are being exploited the most are the ones unwittingly fighting the hardest for their masters.


Well put, sir, well put.

I don't understand how they (The Masses) can remain so oblivious to it, that they are slaves.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
This isn't going to end well. This move is so big and broad that the government will have no choice but to tell people what is going on. This isn't something that they can slip under the peoples noses.

As I have mentioned before they have gone about as far as they can go with the agenda of slipping stuff under peoples noses and trying to convince them that doing something that is harmful to the country is a good thing. We have come to the point now where the elites will violently impose their will upon the people.

In fact I could actually see this being the turning point where people actually start doing something about the situation. If you think Americans are lazy and won't do anything, well you'll just have to wait and see won't ya.

This isn't going to end well, there is already a decent size portion of the population that wants the Fed audited and the economy is on the top of the list of problems that need to be fixed.

This is going to be interesting.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier

I just look at these things, as fuel for provoking revolutionary circumstances.


One other thing, regarding this idea, I think everyone interested in keeping our Constitution alive and well should realize that the very best and fastest and cheapest way for the global elite to do away with our Constitution would be to incite Americans to a civil war or revolution.

That would allow them to be freed of the restrictions of the Constitution, and it would strip us of its protections. And, it would cost them nothing. We would foolishly as a nation be doing it to ourselves.

Without our Constitution, it would only be a matter of time before America was divided up into segments, and then disarmed like the rest of the world.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


That’s only if you are assuming the American people will loose the battle to regain there freedom and restore there constitution to its original intent. and in the process elect officials to hold office that will live up to there oath they swore, that’s to uphold the constitution at all coasts, not to try and find a way to get around the constitution to advance there own agenda.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
In other words, this sounds like a selfish attempt, so the rich can have whatever they damn well please, and the majority, get table scraps,...the usual. STandards do and will lower. If someone cant have what they want, or cant afford it, they can only make do with what they have ya know. Many times, that does depress the individual, therfore lowering the quality of life*
IN reality it shuold be called, the lowering of 'ones' self life'.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
These moves are part of the perennial war on labor waged by the ruling class. Specifically designed to "maximize profits" the mandate and governing ethos of corporate capitalism. We are told we must exploit people and our environs in order to achieve success.

Americans so desperately want to be "winners" in the race to the bottom!



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
It's just another way of saying:

We embrace socialism, so you better get used to it.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Well, I am not sure how you are reading that article, but if you think a revolution in America would prevent our currency from becoming devalued, I think you are mistaken. If anything, civil war would cause our currency to become worthless even more quickly.


Yes indeed a revolution would do that over night if you consider a bit of paper to be worth much more than electronic digits on a computer but taking the long view a revolution would also end the pratice of printing money to steel from a mans pocket.

In the UK we now have the case of Hollie Greig who was a little girl that was rapped by policemen and members of the justice system and the goverment is doing all in it powers to ensure this does not become MSM news so this shows the true nature of these people and how far they will go so to me, doing nothing is not an option.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join