IMF warns of war
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164273/Finance-crisis-lead-war-IMF-warns.html
The global financial crisis could lead to social unrest and even war, the head of the International Monetary Fund warned yesterday.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn said that the billions already pumped into the world economy risked disappearing into thin air unless there is massive reform of the financial sector.
And he dealt a severe blow to Gordon Brown’s plans for another debt-funded Budget giveaway by warning that the money might melt ‘like snow in the sun’.
At a meeting of the International Labour Organisation, Mr Strauss-Kahn warned that the global economic crisis is ‘dire’ with the threat of millions being pushed into poverty.
The managing director of the global financial watchdog went on to warn governments against ploughing yet more fiscal stimulus into their ailing economies. He said: ‘You can put in as much stimulus as you want.
‘It will just melt in the sun as snow if at the same time you are not able to have a generally smaller financial sector than before but a healthy financial sector at work.’
The IMF has called on countries to pump 2 per cent of their gross domestic product into their economies in an attempt to reverse the global downturn.
Of the international situation, Mr Strauss-Kahn added: ‘Bluntly the situation is dire. All this will affect dramatically unemployment and beyond unemployment for many countries it will be at the roots of social unrest, some threat to democracy, and maybe for some cases it can also end in war.’
———-
war with your favourite enemies..the GFC will end in a war..history tells us that will happen..between who is the only question..my personal belief is the war in afghanistan will escalate and bring pakistan into the mix..but there are hotbeds all over the world all ready for the spark to set off the hatred..the head of the IMF knows it..thats why he said it..we wait and pray that it will be short and quick wherever it happens
401
Wells Fargo funds the detention centers, such as Gitmo and others across the U.S., and this leads me to think that other corporations that are getting billions and including the untransparent Federal Reserve monies in the trillions that have been handed out (which are not usually considered gov’t bailouts so are therefore more added monies into circulation), these monies, if Wells Fargo is fronting a war enterprise, then others are undoubtedly fronting war enterprises. The bailouts and open window discounts from the Fed. are undoubtedly not just going into banks and firms to sure up the U.S. economy. The money may never make it into circulation, thus, the seeming abundance of money being printed might actually be destroyed. How? Via these front corporations shoveling their money they received from Fed. and U.S. gov’t bailouts into war armaments. Now, I’m not sure if all this money is going into war expenses soon to be known or not, much of this money might find it’s way back into the general economy. But it would seem all this money being printed and given away is going somewhere, purchasing something, or being held so whenever war begins the Military Industrial Complex has its money to replenish its lost assets blown up in a war. Whether those lost assets when blown up will be considered U.S., Pakistani, India(n), Afghan, and/or certain African countries is highly probable. Thus, when political leaders state that all this printing of money need not concern the general economy there might be truth in such statements. For the money may not flood the general economy, but simply spread out and be able to buy more armament in current wars (that might look like Pakistan versus Afghan, but the arms are bought and supplied by U.S. dollars not just in these countries but in the numerous others I’ve already mentioned). And the assets, the commodities in these bailouts and Fed. Reserve open window discounts are not seen generating actual products on the general market cause these assets are being blown up and destroyed in the numerous wars going on right now around the world. So the “favourite enemies” are all the current wars going on now being funded and supplied as the neighboring countries (geographically) fight it out in the many regions. Now if the wars slow due to political stability cause the countries don’t bite on the illusionary need for conflict between each other, if these conflicts/wars slow enough, then the money out in circulation will have to go somewhere else or else the money will show up on the general market cause it’s not being used. That’s when a new war will spark somewhere if those funding these wars can’t get two “favourite enemies” that have slowed in their fighting to reheighten their battles and destroy more tangibles. Of course all of these favourite enemies, usually side by side geographic neighbors, will want resolutions and their conflicts to stop eventually. And what will happen is a tighter knit global structure. Thus, already the borders of countries don’t matter as the instigators of these wars politically are sourced mainly in UK and U.S. and they received much help from other countries Israel to name one big player on the global scene. It’s all these countries already playing the global scene that see themselves not really as players from different countries, but world players already. They don’t see political borders and countries. They are already working across borders as if the borders aren’t even present. It is the people within the borders of these differing countries that still see the borders. And so the talking points are still country specific when the descriptions of the different countries are professed to each of their general populations. It is this wearying down of the “traditional” perspective in how each citizen, man or woman, of each individual country perceives their orientation in the world. For instance a traditional perspective of a man living in the U.S. is that he is a U.S. citizen having a Constitution and the U.S. government is protecting his freedoms. Yet, the globalists perceives that these are merely “traditions” and are old. The globalists thinks in terms of the globe and what each “global citizen” (to use Obama’s concept he spoke in the German rally before he was elected). Even a global citizen may still feel attached to a specific political country, but I would say there are global citizens that feel less attached to any specific political country. Imagine somebody that works in the UN. They may be from a certain country, but if they work in the UN daily their ties to their “home” country surely decay. Their orientation is more global and they don’t think in terms of their individual country as much as say a small business owner in Thailand.
Well, this was some out loud thinking. And I didn’t re-read this to see if I had some editing errors so hopefully it came across as smoothly as I think it may have.