Greece to Leave Euro Zone on June 18

reply to post by Rocketman7


So usually I have to ok the budget for the American military otherwise there is a serious lack of trust in how the money is spent and what it is needed for. And if there is a need to increase spending I am supposed to be paying attention and recognize that need etc. Which is part of my relationship with the military and that is usually quite easy because they are a necessary part of living with nuclear capabilities etc and are good at helping countries in time of need.

And that also then gives me some power in that regard but obviously not enough to dissuade them if they make up their mind to do something.

And so NATO has decided to pull out of Afghanistan, and America is talking about pulling out of Iraq in a couple years.

So then the IMF as an organization has some power over countries that it helps financially. So it too is a bit of a governing body in a world that is interconnected. And at times it is unpopular and at times it is a savior organization. But it is a needed organization when a country wants to expand economically.

So lets look at their mandate...
www.imf.org...

Christine is there with the Mexican president and they are together happy to be enjoying the G20 conference since that is their thing. That is what they do.

And if you examine that page you see we have a surplus. That is because we are good at our job.

And so you know they love it when I look over their shoulder. But they do need me to look over their shoulder occasionally for the same reason so that the trust level will be there and if it is not then I am required to explain the reasons behind something we may be doing and to account for our actions. And so then I do that in as great a length as is required.
We don't do things for sinister reasons we do things to ensure that people continue to be able to put food in their mouths. The most basic of things can get disrupted and we maintain stability in countries for the sake of the average person whose lives are affected.
So that style of organization is like a patron and like a union since it has member countries.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing sinister here.

Now another thing we do is we try to manage currency exchange and find parity between countries of differing income levels.

That, is putting it in extreme layman terms. What we do is we exercise governance of a highly complex monetary system, world-wide, that supports the capitalist system.

The two go hand in hand. And so if countries have disputes they can go the UN, and you know that diplomatic process works to a degree. At times we have to use creative methods of control to prevent such things as corruption and opportunism, all the negative things that arise out of the capitalist system which many people play as a kind of game. And in a game you need a ref.

So they don't have any sort of total power and governance but they are a leading political and economic force in this world which has authority, and can exercise that authority if need be. To achieve goals that are the goals of its member countries and the world in general.

Am I being sort of political and evasive and these sorts of things of course I am. This organization I have been affiliated with for over 20 years and have helped to shape it so it can remain clean, and trustworthy, and have authority in a world of renegade cowboys.

reply to post by Rocketman7


So when it comes to global control structures thats a complex subject and so we just maintain a positive attitude and work in a positive direction and our job is not so difficult after all.

Its a valuable tool of global economics and after a while the terms even begin to sound cliché like sound bites. Since this is a world that transfers information by sound bites.

To gage the performance of the IMF you can examine the world around you. Your level of civilization is directly affected by the IMF.

Blame them or thank them but it was always the best we could do.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Dominique Strauss-Kahn? That was one person caught up in human activity. Barely a blip on anyone's radar since this is not the New World order and there are 188 member countries with two appointed governors from each country.

Your country and my country and 186 other countries. Its the New World Order committee.

And often I steer it quite easily. It can be steered with logic and reason.

For a global economist if you take that way you take away my tool pouch and my screwdriver set. I would be like a carpenter who showed up on a job site with no tools. It would be then military intervention all the time.

Humans you know they don't always agree and so sometimes they need to be organized so they can cooperate.

I probably don't want to really talk about it because who likes to talk about work? You know I enjoy it but geez try to explain to someone what needs to be done in layman's terms and it can take a very long explanation. So by just dealing with people in the know in the position of power makes it easier to accomplish goals which are usually very productive and appreciated world wide.

Without it the world would be in economic chaos. Anarchy of a sort where black markets thrive and people do not benefit from not being able to trade fairly.
But, there are caveats. At times we make changes to the entire world system. But not often because you know the system works. Its often how we use it that gets the world in trouble.

But hey this is an evolving civilization and as it evolves, we do learn how to make it better.
Quality of life is something that is also directly affected by the IMF because it will lend money to a country that is so broke they cannot manufacture or even get water to grow food etc.
Extreme examples but we also do job creation and do a whole host of things. We steer the direction of planetary development. Economic growth. Stability. Works great on its own, the kind of organization I like because I don't have to tell it what to do. And at times I can also tell it what to do.
But its got its own political governance.
Experts. Its a flexible organization and can be restructured if it ever had to be you know its like banking in a way, they do their thing and if we want to make changes then we are changing capitalism.
Its a capitalist organization.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Are there opportunities in Afghanistan and in the trade route for economic development and are there ways in which we can use the IMF?

Sure. They could lend money and collect your penny tolls to pay for things at times because we expect that this organization will have a long history and it is a well functioning body that does not depend on a key person.

Businesses depend on key people and they often are the company in a way and without them the company couldn't function.

Not so with the IMF. So it lends money and has time to wait for something like a toll that is so small its barely noticeable because it is just added into to some small tax or tariff somewhere in your country's normal business so you don't even have to go to the trouble of putting the penny in a slot. But for poor people with a need to grow their economy they need time to pay and also some times debts to be forgiven.

You know what its like trying to manage a city a state or a federal government?

Well this is the same thing. Countries can go broke and need a bailout.

I could take you up a few flights of stairs to where the philosophy behind its operation is, but then it requires a lot of knowledge. A lot of disciplines. Philosophy of course is one of those disciplines because that is where logic and reason are situated. If you cannot agree on terms and well, philosophy is not just a vague subject studied in university philosophy applied is how the world is run.

reply to post by Rocketman7


So was Dominique Strauss-Kahn just sacrificing himself to get my attention? Well thats entirely possible because I am not always at my desk. Sometimes I use NATO and go exploring go a wandering into other people's countries to rescue their freezing inhabitants like you know boy stuff.
Taking on dictators with stern warnings and threats of desolation lol death destruction and pain.

Well thats sometimes necessary.

And also economically I often just steer the world without them merely by steering the giant economy or economies and then we have a little more proper oligarchy since really no one wants to be ruled by a committee.

So we have our big name stars. Our big larger than life politicians. So then we form loose associations and relations and we work together and the IMF we rarely use we have big budgets to work with and huge investment capital to draw from and can run things like a business then if we want.

So we maintain flexibility. Its true I am a key player in todays world, and sometimes a key man but thats because I am also a rep right? I am Zeus' rep. So what Zeus would do in the sense of making a good decision I am expected to know what he would do and do accordingly without the lightning bolts.

Its like a chain of authority but its not written in stone because well there are examples where politicians in the oligarchy did not agree with my opinion and they went ahead and did whatever the heck they wanted to.
Let freedom reign.

When people in the future look back at us they will see that we liked to network.
We like to be connected as a group by nature. So we are social animals and really not dictators at heart.
We like to know what other people think and we are always looking for good ideas.

So we have a good G20 now that is a triumph for the world. Is it a duplication like the IMF and now the G20?

Well I am an economist so you have one tool belt and you have another tool belt.

reply to post by Rocketman7


If we want to use some terminology that could hypothetically describe what we were doing with the G20 what we say will affect the markets. So just by using language we can influence things to a degree. Generate some hype and create a climate for investment and things which will appear in the popular press as current economic issues.
Again capitalism but you could use terms like a firestorm of economic activity, as opposed to what the IMF does which is just helping poor countries often and its interesting but its not as interesting to the people who read newspapers as what the G20 might be doing to help them find work or that sort of thing or build trade relations.

A bit of history is required here...

The G7 began in 1975 as the Group of Six and included the countries of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States, and was joined by Canada the following year

Then the G8 and then the G20.

A major focus of the G8 since 2009 has been the global supply of food.

The G-20 was proposed by former Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin[5] as a forum for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system.

Paul Martin was also one of the world's leading economists who was very good at his job and well respected for it.
What you see today in terms of economic prosperity in Canada was largely due to his ability to come up with creative solutions and yes left leaning Liberal policies which has helped to steer the entire world away from war.
And create trade relations and include other countries. So the world does not appear so elitist.
And there is strength in numbers.

Martin is chair of the Congo Basin Forest Fund, addressing poverty issues in a ten-nation region in Africa. Since his retirement from politics, he has been an adviser to the International Monetary Fund, and to the Coalition for Dialogue on Africa. He also works with the Martin Aboriginal Educational Initiative, which assists First Nations youth

What he did for Canada was help Canada to come to grips with debt.

In his debut as finance minister, Martin made huge budget cuts that almost ground economic growth to a halt, scaling down government to 1951 levels. In the period from 1994–1996, when these cuts were made, economic growth was reduced by 3.5 percentage points, according to a study by CIBC-Wood Gundy. The resulting loss in tax revenue almost eliminated the savings made by the cuts but crucially rebalanced the economy away from the public sector towards the private sector. His policy of cuts endangered the provinces' abilities to pay for social programs, health care, and public infrastructure. In response, the Bank of Canada lowered interest rates to avoid contributing to a growing recession, causing a huge spurt of economic growth and resulting increase in government revenue.[5] In 1998, Martin introduced a balanced budget, an event that has only been occurred twice in 36 years before 1997.[6]

Does that sound like he was flying by the seat of his pants working miracles? By hooking up with me, he tapped into the big network and so he had some backup. I was an experienced political adviser by then. I survived Mulrooney. Free Trade Mulrooney. Its a long story.
We worked together but he came up with the ideas. There's a switch. Well you had to be there.

The important part is he balanced the budget at a time when most people would have thought that would be impossible.

reply to post by Rocketman7


So then why would Paul and I want to create the G20? Well we like China and want it to be part of the global economy.

As well as the other countries. We would use the term Pacific Rim countries for trade relations. And in that way we have a larger economic force to steer the global economy and help to protect the investments people make. And to help us grow our own economies.

Now have you ever been something like a finance minister? Well don't expect to know everything they are really thinking in terms of work because like any professional they need some space to do their job. Business itself keeps its secrets because of competition. The G20 is like the G8 and the G7 they carry a lot of weight.
What they say can affect the world.

Take a look at the list of members...
en.wikipedia.org...

Thats a good bunch of countries. Its democratic, its capitalistic, and really its about money and finance and business and trade and the stuff that puts food on the table.

People would like to have a body that does what I do. And well it will maybe some day be able to manage the global economy to some degree. There are challenges. Since people are not used to managing a global economy.
Its a huge thing to manage. So since it is not that old an organization, 1999
Zeus' number is 9. So it is set up to rule the world financially according to todays standards.

And over the years it will learn how to do that.
But not by itself. There are other organizations in the world with clout.

We could have done it with 6 7 8 or 33 etc.

But 20 is a nice number because its not too big that you can't get to know who the people are, and not too small to seem elitist and invite criticism and accusations of totalitarian corporate greed and all the things they say when they protest the G7.

The same people doing the same things, and if it was really down to brass tacks you know the G7 would be in there since then again the largest economies again would unite in strength like they do in politics and form a coalition if a tighter group was needed so that it was easier to form a consensus.

So I am in the G7 too but when we meet then we talk of Ragnarök!
lol yeah then when we meet with the elite, yes they too exist, at lets say the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland then again we are meeting as people who want to know what is going on in the world of economics and what opportunities exist for investment and what are the trends. And so sometimes I will attend remotely and join that conference.

So then thats a lot of writing I did today on the subject but the information I gave you is how much of the world is run economically. I hope I was able to show how we all work together and how we all have our own place in the global economy. Its not really like politics which is often for show, we are hands on driving the economy and managing the economy. And organizations like the UN supporting the world economy and the world in general through its ambassadors and activities all over the world.
I wish at times the UN had more power but we have had to appeal to the world on economic terms since the alternative is military terms.
Personally maybe I have too much power but I am still the best qualified so its not like I am a sinister evil doer as an oligarch. I have people over me too.

reply to post by Rocketman7


You know they don't need me to teach them economics. Go back in time to Aristotle then imagine the work that science has done all over the world every day and all that work, then imagine the results of all that math.

Imagine the intuitive power of numbers applied and statistics. Well thats the G20. The culmination of everything man has learned about money and how to manage it since money was invented.
But we can say just go back to Aristotle since that was when a somewhat formal method of science was born.

Incredible amount of knowledge. Take a look at Wiki on statistical analysis, demographics and statistics and glimpse what is in their heads while they have breakfast...

But the markets are this huge investment vehicle and like a well like a woman needs to be treated properly because it will react if not.
Something I will not be able to teach them is how I manage the markets. That requires personality often.

Thats something you can't teach. If you want to move the markets you have to use psychology but you have to be operating on a plan, and you need the best of the best in the world working with you in key locations designated as leaders of a section or group and it is done with a wink and a nod, since those people are already employed in that position and they are elected by their peers.

These people have the respect of their peers and so then they become point men and women.

So now you have people in areas where they have control to a degree of their area and now you can work as a team. And each area has a point man who is an expert in that section and people agree his advice is usually the best advice and would constitute a consensus.
So now then you have taken a very large group and concentrated that power into a smaller group without affecting the group dynamic.
And then you need a leader. And historically in these situations that would be me or Alan or someone like that.
I am not a public figure so the advantage is that we don't have to explain everything we are doing we can just work and get things done.

But then what is it we want to get done? And that is usually governed by the goals of the larger organizations that I have mentioned. Together we have long range goals and short range goals.

So then when you steer the markets you are interfering with capitalism a bit but if you are making people rich who is gong to complain?
But then again the markets is just another tool belt to an economist.
I am usually selected as leader in that regard by that group because I can be trusted, am an oligarch, and do not chase money. But am a qualified capitalist again as I say so that I can investigate hands on and play the markets and that too so I am not just talking but experienced.
But is it right to manipulate the markets?

Well without someone like me who can organize that system in a very short period of time since we are drilled, then you can't put forward a united front against problems that arise on a global level.

Beyond that there are some things about the capitalist system that requires maintenance and management and care.
The markets are usually left alone and managed by the people who run them and it is like a game to some people and it drives them on towards capitalist success.
So I don't mess with the markets unless its necessary. And that includes even if they call me.
And I will let nature take its course if that is the right thing to do.

The big picture. Thats whats important. And so you can't lose sight of the big picture. And the solemn seriousness of people's life savings. And the other part of that is banking.

Its easy to lose sight of the real economy if you spend too much time thinking that by steering the markets you steer the world. The markets often try to anticipate what will happen. Thats how they bet.
Thats different than making laws and creating policy. Then you are talking about the real economy where people have to earn wages or salary or they have a profit margin.
Bricks and mortar is the expression.

But watching the markets is fun and entertaining and exciting for people with money invested.
Knowing how to manipulate the markets carries with it a great deal of responsibility.

But if it was you, would you let the country fall into economic ruin or manipulate the markets?

So there are times when you need to do it if you can. And the government and the Fed try to do that and are able to do that in America to a degree. When they do it they give it money.

I would do it differently by networking a group of the best there is. Then they appeal to the public in their own professional way and together we move the beast a bit if we can. We know how to do it. We are reluctant to do it because we like free enterprise and the free market system and so why mess with it if you don't have to?

reply to post by Rocketman7


So if my head and my heart were not in the right place then I could not gather that group together as like minded people with a job to accomplish.

And that is the same for someone else that is elected as leader of the moment. Usually the Fed chairman is a good candidate.

People would not understand how you could not want to just let the good times roll pump the markets get boom time happening money flowing like a river into coffers and pockets and heck to just watch a few bucks roll into a million.

Well again, read what I wrote and you will see all the factors you have to consider. All the organizations and all the countries and how they too are affected.

Its not a game. It is the money that people have earned and often need for their retirement.
Or it funds business and drives the economy.

Well consider again that you need philosophy to properly wield a bit of power and the better your philosophy the better you can wield that power wisely.
We should be thankful we have such great talented people in these organizations who are for the most part our public servants, that we have selected in each of our countries to represent us. We usually send our best candidates to represent us in these organizations because we want the rest of the countries in the world to take us seriously in these matters and for our interests to be acknowledged.

Take a look at my avatar, and take a ride on the elevator to where I live and you would live by different rules.
Those are my grandparents as seen from space embedded on the surface of the earth in Nazca Peru.
Ancient aliens as they are called on the History Chanel.

If I have secrets like that imagine what sort of secrets Bill Gates or Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world has. I don't think I want to know his secrets and he probably doesn't want to know mine.

DAMN dude! write a book! you are endless!

reply to post by Alda1981


I know, don't get me started.

Federal Reserve extends Operation Twist

www.thestar.com...

I chose that link because the Global doom in progress link from Reuters was just too busy and the page wouldn't load. Global Markets down. etc was the headline.

So ok I did a lot of writing during the G20 but people want clarification on the global market management strategy and that part was in the middle and really difficult to find above if you didn't know what to look for so I will encapsulate it.

Paul Martin suggested that we build the G20 so that we have point men and women ready to handle any sort of situation that might threaten global economic stability.

Now I explained that to manage the markets that requires personality. And you cannot teach personality.

When we mobilize everyone knows the drill in the markets, everyone selects a point man or woman out of their ranks, as their elected rep, the best they have. We then give them the nod, since almost always they are the best there is in that section or sector.

So then we network, and we inform each other of ok its more like the top asks for cooperation through the ranks to achieve a goal and if that goal makes sense we apply it, and if not we modify it.

So Ben, has personality, so he is always a good point man. So when you select people, remember also that charismatic leaders are needed to get things done. And just because they are charismatic does not mean that is a bad thing. They are not trying to lead you down the garden path. They merely need to get people to cooperate with something that needs to be done for the positive good.
Teams and team leaders and point men and women based on merit, and fairly secretive and thats about it.

Right now you have time to work on that because its really a time for patience in world markets and the world economy since it takes a couple years to see progress when you are talking about large scale trade routes etc and exit strategies and the organization of trade groups.

is this still a thing?