This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
How Safe Are Central Banks? UBS Worries The Eurozone Is Different
With Fed officials a laughing stock (both inside and outside the realm of FOMC minutes), Bank of Japan officials ever-watching eyes, and ECB officials in both self-congratulatory (Draghi) and worryingly concerned on downgrades (Nowotny), the world's central bankers appear, if nothing else, convinced that all can be solved with the printing of some paper (and perhaps a measure of harsh words for those naughty spendaholic politicians). The dramatic rise in central bank balance sheets and just-as-dramatic fall in asset quality constraints for collateral are just two of the items that UBS's economist Larry Hatheway considers as he asks (and answers) the critical question of just how safe are central banks. As he sees bloated balance sheets relative to capital and the impact when 'stuff happens', he discusses why the Eurozone is different (no central fiscal authority backstopping it) and notes it is less the fear of large losses interfering with liquidity provision directly but the more massive (and explicit) intrusion of politics into the 'independent' heart of central banking that creates the most angst. While he worries for the end of central bank independence (most specifically in Europe), we remind ourselves that the tooth fairy and santa don't have citizen-suppressing printing presses.
UBS Macro Strategy: How safe are central banks?
Central banks have adopted ever-more unconventional policies since the financial crisis erupted in 2007. Chiefly, their extraordinary responses have taken the following forms.
First, the Fed and the Bank of England have purchased government securities, ‘quasi’ government securities (e.g., eligible mortgage-backed securities in the US) or credit instruments on a scale not seen (outside of Japan) during the post-war era. Even the ECB has dabbled in bond-buying via its securities market program. Second, all three central banks have acted as large-scale lenders of last resort to banks. Since 2008, that designation includes investment banks that have acquired banking licenses, at least in the US. Finally, in their capacity as liquidity providers to the financial sector several central banks— among them the ECB and some of the national central banks within the Eurozone—have significantly lowered eligible collateral standards for banks seeking funding.
All that activity makes some folks nervous. In particular, two questions arise. First, could a central bank go bust and precipitate a liquidity crisis? Second, if a central bank gets into trouble, who stands behind it?
Below, we explore both questions. We conclude that, for the most part, fears of central bank insolvency leading to a collapse of liquidity and failure of the payments system are wide of the mark. But it is possible to imagine a central bank suffering large losses, enough to wipe out its capital and hence warrant recapitalization.
That’s where matters get complicated and potentially problematic. Recapitalization by the fiscal authority—where it exists—may require legislation, which introduces politics and potential delays into the picture. So even in the US or the UK, where national governments backstop the central bank, the politics of ‘bailing out’ the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England could become messy, potentially leading to a period of elevated market uncertainty.
But the greater challenge resides in the Eurozone. No central fiscal authority exists to backstop the ECB. And some of the ECB shareholders—the 27 national central banks of the EU—might also themselves become financially stressed in a scenario where the ECB faces large losses.
In the end, investors might conclude that given the unimaginable alternatives, EU national governments would step in to recapitalize the ECB and, where necessary, their national central banks. But the history of the Eurozone crisis has not offered many reassuring examples about the speed and effectiveness of Eurozone political decision-making. In terms of crisis management, the lesson from Europe thus far has been that, indeed, crisis precedes management. Investors could be forgiven for wondering whether central bank recapitalization might not require a crisis first.
Why disorderly central bank default is unlikely
Central banks can become insolvent. Infrequently they do. But it is unusual for their losses, per se, to impair the functioning of the financial system. Indeed, losses at central banks are not the same things as losses among ordinary banks.
For one, central banks aren’t forced to mark-to-market their holdings or to provision against changes in the probability of credit losses. Dodgy assets can be held at par until losses materialize or until maturity.
But the most crucial distinction is that central banks borrow with the money they (and they alone) print. That money is fiat—irredeemable in anything but itself. To fund its Treasury or mortgage-backed securities purchases in recent years, for instance, the Fed merely credited banks’ accounts at the Fed with the dollars it printed (electronically, of course).
That makes the central bank unique. Its creditors cannot change the terms on which it borrows. As a result, the capital position of central banks is all-but irrelevant—it neither affects the central bank’s cost of funds, nor its ability to fund itself.
The privileged position of issuing fiat money enables central banks to operate with skinny capital. The Fed’s capital is $50bn—not much when compared to a balance sheet over $2.5 trillion. Were it a bank, on the other hand, the Fed’s capital ratio of less than 2% would have already landed it in bankruptcy court. Moreover, central banks can tolerate write-downs. In part, that is because they don’t require capital to borrow. But equally, it is because they are moneymaking machines in a different sense as well—they make fat profits (known as seigniorage). Central banks enjoy unparalleled net interest margin (borrowing at near-zero interest rates [Central banks will incur borrowing costs to the extent they pay interest on reserves, but those ‘borrowing rates’ are typically very low—much lower than the yield on the assets they hold and much lower than any private sector financial intermediary could hope to attain.], while investing in much higher yielding government or credit securities). Last year, for example, the Fed earned $76.9bn in profit, more than its total capital base.
Typically, central banks return all but a small fraction of their earnings to the government. In bad times, however, those earnings could be used to offset realized losses, bolstering the capital of the central bank.
But the key point is this one—even if the central bank incurred sufficiently large losses to create a negative equity position, that outcome would not change its ability to borrow via securities purchases. In short, even negative equity (technical insolvency) would not prevent a central bank from performing its customary open market operations nor its lender of last resort function.[Some observers have noted that the ECB’s low seigniorage revenues do not provide the same ‘earnings-based’ capital cushion available to other central banks. But the essential point is that capital does not determine the central bank’s ability to perform its mandated functions.] So when does a central bank actually go bust? The answer is when it cannot make payments, which would be the case if the central bank borrowed in foreign currency (i.e., money which it cannot ‘print’). That is not the case for the Fed, BoE or ECB—the liabilities of all three central banks are almost exclusively in their own currency.[In the event a country exits the Eurozone, its central bank would issue new national fiat currency, effectively re-denominating its liabilities.]
So if central bank capital is all but irrelevant, why have it? Alternatively, why worry if it is eroded by losses?
The answer may be, in part, optics.[The statutes of central banks may also require it.] No one, not even a central banker, wants negative net worth. But more subtly, it is also undesirable to incentivize central banks to maximize seigniorage (i.e., to earn their capital). After all, given a fixed net interest margin, maximizing seigniorage is about boosting assets ‘under management’. In turn, that requires creating excess money, which raises the risk of inflation. So the preferred public policy is to endow central banks with capital rather than to compel them, however infrequently, to earn it. Lastly, the source of central bank capital—the national government—acts a subtle yet powerful reminder that the central bank is not utterly independent, but ultimately is answerable to the taxpayer.
The Eurozone is different
That’s why recapitalization is probable if a central bank suffers large enough losses to wipe out its capital.
So who recapitalizes the central bank? And why is the Eurozone different?
Insofar as central banks are a part of government [Technically and historically, this is not quite right. Central banks historically may have public-private roots. The Fed is a quasigovernmental organization and, as noted earlier, the ECB shareholders are the 27 national central banks of the EU. But insofar as they deliver public goods (a medium of exchange and, hopefully, price stability) and because they have (near) monopoly issuance of money, they are commonly assumed to be part of government.], the taxpayer ultimately stands behind them, at least where a central (federal) government exists. In the event necessary, it is widely assumed that the Treasury (or a European Finance Ministry) would recapitalize its national central bank.
Yet the act of doing so is a fiscal transfer, making it subject to legislative approval. It isn’t far-fetched, therefore, to imagine that if a central bank required a capital infusion, politics would intrude. To be sure, even if recapitalization were held up by politics, the central bank could perform its mandated duties, as previously noted. But political intervention could have other unsettling byproducts, such as de jure or de facto restrictions on the central bank’s operational independence (or even its revocation altogether).
The Eurozone is a special case because there is no central (or federal) government that stands ready to recapitalize the ECB. Moreover, some of the ECB shareholders (the national central banks) might find themselves in a pinch at the same time that the ECB needs a capital top-up. That’s because some Eurozone national central banks have similar or worse ‘risk asset’ exposures than the ECB. For example, via the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) facility, several national central banks have extended considerable collateralized lending to banks in their countries, reportedly accepting even weaker collateral than the ECB has in its own operations. Accordingly, it is possible that a series of Eurozone sovereign or banking defaults could simultaneously erode the capital position of the ECB and those of some of its shareholding national central banks. That outcome would imply that central bank recapitalization would have to be led by a subset of creditor countries (i.e., Germany). That’s potentially a problem—recent history reminds us that Europe’s creditors have a proclivity for prevarication where asymmetric bailouts are involved.
Summary and conclusions
Central banks have taken on more risk in recent years. That’s been necessary and highly desirable during the most severe financial crisis since the 1930s, followed by the ‘great recession’. One shudders to think of the consequences of the alternative—‘Austrian’ central bankers running the show.
Yet the actions of central bankers in recent years may yet have undesired consequences. Central banks have claimed to have exercised prudence in demanding sufficient collateral and adjusting ‘haircuts’ to the value of collateral. But with central bank balance sheets swollen relative to their capital and a second recession underway in Europe, credit losses could mount. Stuff happens.
To emphasize, the risk is not that large central bank losses would impair the ability of the monetary authorities to provide liquidity, conduct open market operations, target policy rates, or safeguard the payments system. Rather, in the event that losses wipe out too much of their capital, the chief risk becomes the intrusion of politics into central banking. It might even bring about the end of independent central banks.
Food for thought indeed as EFSF structural support is worn away by ratings agency downgrades (requiring perhaps explicit central bank support and lower collateral standards), ESM subordination concerns pressures existing sovereign bond holders to unwind/hedge exposure (requiring non-economical buyers of last resort), and increasingly complex agency relationships as ponzi-bonds are swapped into and out of national and super-national central banks.
- 12591 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


They think they can buy a lot of time and get a lot of mileage by loading up with garbage.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=back+to+the+future+mr+fusion&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1R2GGHP_enUS459&biw=1481&bih=857&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=mm6wOGDEqgfhlM:&imgrefurl=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2008/04/02/the-secret-to-renewable-energy-may-be-rotting-in-your-trash-can/&docid=zKKluokHDdzswM&imgurl=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/files/2008/04/mr-fusion.jpg&w=500&h=317&ei=dcYTT5n8IcGOgweSi83gAw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=294&sig=108859981462863419786&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=208&start=0&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=81&ty=62
'it is less the fear of large losses interfering with liquidity provision directly but the more massive (and explicit) intrusion of politics into the 'independent' heart of central banking that creates the most angst.'- If you didn't laugh you'd cry...
Between Harl above and GHORDS below...are central banks safe? is the pope the head of the gay mafia? Tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny.
Safe, central banks. Is the Fed safe? Cannot get over the construct and core of this hilarity.
It's like the neard murdered asking if the heavily armed cruel man is okay. Are you okay stabber? Safe?
No they are not. They are not safe FOR you and I. Unfortunately they are too safe FROM us.
But there is a beautiful, graceful way to bring this whole house of cards crumbling down. The whole edifice.
Debt mountain crumbelosis.
And it can and should and therefore will be done the way they have done it.
.........
ori
/truth/
Harlequin001... Exactly right! The myth that central banks are independent of governments was propagated by govs and central banks.
The two have a symbiotic relationship. Governments force their citizens to use central banks printed money, central banks purchase government bonds that would go bidless or sell at lower prices/higher interest rates if the CBs and their primary dealers did not exist.
The myth that the two are independent is disingenious... especially when governments are soooo far in the red that they are seeing the benefit of having gold or a basket of commodities backing their paper to devalue against... but, they only have other paper printed in other lands.
Got PMs?
Symbiotic is a good way to put it.
Government and banks have mutually corrupted each other to the extent that they need each other to survive.
“Incestuous” works as well as they know that what they are doing is wrong but the control and wealth psychological effect iis to provide narcissistic satisfaction.
This piece from UBS is really hilarious. First the question "is the ECB capitalized enough", then an excellent explanation why capitalization is quite irrelevant for Central Banks, about seigneurage, etc., then a very garbled part about the ECB not being a Central Bank but being a CB of CBs (call it a CBsquared?), then somehow in a logic defeating jump - oh, if the ECB would require a recap, then it would become political.
How? And by the way, already forgotten that there are 17 Central Banks involved before politics comes in? Ah, this is not really relevant, the whole piece is just there so that the impression is there that something is rotten with the EUR (beside being a fiat currency, of course).
Come on, at the moment all CBs are engaged in a race to the bottom, "accellerating" - all those questions, including a recapitalization, are only relevant when the reserves are depleted, and this happens when they are "braking". While "braking", first you deplete your FX reserves, and then comes the question about letting the currency go hyper or backing it with gold or other (usually physical) assets.
Of course, since nobody mentions reserves, we are clearly still in the accelleration to the bottom phase (aka increasing inflation expectations).
UBS is a year late in even attempting to pose the question. Seriously! As Tyler often quips... Presented without comment...
Over
A Year After Being Dismissed As Sensationalist For Questioning the
ECB's Continued Solvency After Sovereign Debt Buying Binge, Guess What!
ECB As European Lender Of Last Resort = Institutional Purveryor Of A Pan-European Ponzi Scheme
The Anatomy Of A European Bank Run: Look At The Banking Situation BEFORE The Run Occurs!
The Fuel Behind Institutional “Runs on the Bank” Burns Through Europe, Lehman-Style!
The Eurocalypse Rant: The Consequences of Foolish Monetary Policy
Italy’s Woes Spell ‘Nightmare’ for BNP - Just As I Predicted But Everybody Is Missing The Point!!!
Eighteen Percent of the EU is Literally Junk, Carried As Risk
Free Assets at Par Using 30x+ Leverage: Bank Collapse is Inevitable!!!
The Anatomy of a Serial European Banking Collapse
LGD 100+: What's the Possibility of Certain European Banks Having a Loss Given Default Approaching 100%?
Click, Clack, Click: The Sound of Falling Dominoes Behind The Door of the Eurocalypse!
A List of Reasons Why Greece & Portugal Are Worse Off Than
Central/South America During the Argentienian Debt Crisis
How Long Does It Take For Losing Money To Result In Lost Money?
The Effects Of Rampant Bond Selling on Devalued Sovereign Debt
Reg, would that the question even had a basis away from Farce. It's a farcial question. Hilarious.
Your work by the way, is spot on!
ori
I know, what we need is for the IMF to step in as a Central Bank of Central Banks of Central Banks and print SDRs... then we'll finally have inviolable monetary units.
3 cheers for Reggie. Appreciate you share so much with those of us who just visit boombustblog.
Excellent post Reggie...
I would like to add this from Mish... and I would like to add that Kyle Bass is being proven more correct as the days pass.
"Merkle denies need for EFSF to be triple A rated; German CEOs ponder dumping the Euro for a "North Euro" or Deutschmark; Schaeuble rejects ECB as lender of last resort"
"In the medium term Greece needs to exit. And in the end write downs on Greek bonds will not be between 50 and 70%, but will be 100%" Reitzle, CEO of BMW, said.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/01/merkel-denies-need-for-efsf-to-be-aaa.html
You folks need to get away from lost money and into lost country. "the bank fails when it's capital base (i.e. "the country of Greece) physically leaves. THEN your balance sheet looks totally plucked. Europe and the US are similar in that they have an expansionist polity and a means to execute on said physical growth (in the US it's statehood.'in the EU it's a common "law" of sorts.) Europe is reversing. Should France exit itself under what I call the "small is beautiful money" construct (just look at Swtzerland...and the only thing similar in the US...New Hampshire) then yes...the Banking System is in deep trouble. Their asset base would be..."impaired beyond recognition."
central banks are playing two mutually exclusive games both anarchist and apologist, eventually they have to be caught
The problem with central banks losing money on shitty collateral isn't that they will go bust. It means the liquidity they create is almost impossible to remove from the system at a later date. For example, if the central bank buys Italian debt at 100 cents and the value drops to 10 cents then they can only sale it back into the market for 10 cents. In othe words they injected 100 cents into circulation but can only remove 10 cents. Therefore, the risk central banks are taking is that they have no good way to control the inflation they are creating. They painted themselves into a corner that they can never escape from. Raising rates won't work because it will mean most countries entire tax revenue will go to interest expense.
Not sure the stakeholders see that as a bug. More like a feature.
Creating expectations of inflation is like winning a game of chicken. One good strategy for winning a game of chicken is to remove the steering wheel and throw it out the window. Then your opponent will be convinced that you will not swerve out of his way.
Creating liquidity which cannot be called back is a great way to create inflation expectations. Since there is some convincing evidence that deflation is the chief problem facing the EZ, then this could be seen as a plus.
[Of course it will be "cost push" inflation (otherwise known as "mass theft") but from the bankers' perspective, hey, more money. What's not to like?]
Bad debt will simply not be recognized as such. Greek and Italian bonds will be carried at par on the ECB books long past first skipped coupon. The ECB will simply retain its "earnings" and recognize obvious losses when it's good and ready. The Euro will crater but that too will likely be viewed as a "feature".
correct, this is seen as a "feature" and it's all about creating the expectations of inflation - while keeping the gold price volatile and low as long as possible
in the whole architecture of the EUR is this embedded "feature" of having the national CBs as "second line of defence" because IF the EUR hypers, they could switch to national currencies. But this is a scenario that would follow a critical damage of the USD that holes the system in any unexpected way...
the ultimate recapitalization for a central bank is quite simple: gold - so yes, the EUR could break (all human endevours can fail), but no, the EUR can't break in a bottom racing part of a currency war, the EUR is more likely to break (if at all) when Nations balk at using the national gold hoard to backstop a common currency instead of the national currency. As it happened in Weimar Germany, for example - where they preferred to use a real estate gizmo to refloat a fiat currency instead of sacrificing the last gold hoard.
Ghordius... Excellent observations.
I feel certain that you know that the ECB holds gold on their balance sheet as a 'floating' commodity; ie, they revalue gold to current spot every quarter so as the euro currency goes higher/lower against other fiats, gold is revalued on balance sheet higher/lower.
This Euro feature differs from the US proceedure of holding gold at a constant price on balance sheet, at a rediculously low price, for generations.
The differing approaches could cause much different outcomes if fiats are revalued against gold.
As always, (imo) the best approach for a citizen is to hold physical in possession and hope for the best. Become your own banker of last resort...and wait for fiat to price flex against gold instead of the other way round.
thanks. perhaps at this point I may point out that I'm not a fiat-central-banking-fractional-reserve-banking-system apologist? I'm stacking, for criminy... Though I do think even if you are an enemy of the thing (which I'm not), you have to study the thing.
The point you are making re. the ECB's gold valuation is also made by FOFOA, the freegold school and some others (including ZH's "Spitzer").
The point I'm trying to make is that there was a lot of thought invested in this ECB concept, and some really bright minds took special care in putting features that would be helpful for the eurozone in the case of currency wars, trade wars and others. A fiat currency is like a bridge - a "technology" to get the things done with less resources than by building a dam. Ultimately, metal is involved...bitchez. Not yet, though.
All Central/National Banks are, at a certain point in their history, accused of doing all the wrong things. What people often forget is that a CB often accomodates monetary policy to what the rest of the world is doing and what the government is doing. And the idiot governments of this world are simply too (politically) lazy (or corrupt) to balance their budgets, aren't them?
Ghordius... Excellent post... except "And the idiot governments of this world are simply to lazy to balance their budgets, aren't them?"
I don't believe they are too lazy, I believe that they pols know that a decision to balance their soverign budgets would mean defeat in the next election.
This is a fault of democracy that has been well known since ancient Greece.
The great mistake came when the gold standard was abandoned in favor of 'flexible' fiat.
Keynes told the pols what they wanted to hear.
Austrians told the pols the truth.
Pols voted in favor of Santa Clause.
Long live Santa! Though when you want to fund unfundable wars, Fiat is king and the best friend of every growing (and politically lazy) Empire.
Fiat Money, in this world, is a technology of war more fierce than nuclear. Another unpalatable truth, eh?
Lewy... Excellent post. I especially like the 'steering wheel' analogy.
Yes they can, it is what they are doing now. The 'liquidity' goes into the bond market, thus the bond market is inflating, particularly the government bond market, even though government bonds are complete shit.
Good analysis. CBs took collateral at 100 cents on the dollar despite its market value of 10, they could have taken it for 10, but in this case the entire banking system would go down. So, in other words there is a conflict between two mandates CBs have: being a lender of last resort and providing price stability. If they go one way, they will bankrupt banking systems and indeed entire countries and cause another Great Depression, if they go the other way, they create a lot of inflation. CBs didn't have much of a choice other than two options, they are indeed in the corner, hence I think this conclusion:
can actually materialize sooner rather than later as popular outrage at 'fat cats saved and small people penalized' will destroy any remaining credibility and popular support idea of CBs have, since they can no longer fulfil the mandates they were created upon.
Boris...
The US Fed has recently been running up the flag pole the concept of discarding their two current mandates ....
... in favor of GDP targeting.
Since the construct of US GDP is farcical at best inflation targeting can mean anything... and I feel sure that 'mean anything' is the goal.
LOL, yes. In fact, there is are some funny articles around in the internet about how Bernanke wants to use subtle inflation expectation raising tools. We might soon even find articles about how ZH is a subtle Bernanke tool. The horror, the horror!
--------------
WilliamBanzai7, you unelected Bernanke Propagandist, disclose immediately how much the FED agents are paying you!!! (/sarc, in case someone does not get it)
Anything for inflation as long as it is lower than nominal GDP growth, then they can claim there is a real GDP growth, even if in reality it is stagflation. Given propensity to massage the figures, I bet they will succeed for some time, or until nobody cares about the figures. This one will go up for sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_%28economics%29
Right. So rather than be "captured" by this dilemma the prisoner will simply set himself free by creating a new central bank and going back to the old...and superior...currency. Greece, Spain, Germany, Italy...they're lashed to the mast of the euro. Like a pair of homeless alcoholics that are in love...they cannot be separated. France need not trifle with such nonsense.
the biggest "dilemma" for any country except the US is that the dominant reserve currency is the fiat FRN. All follows from that - you cannot have anything else than fiat when the hegemon is that well endowed with strike groups and FRN. Period. The EUR is a reflection on this. That simple. The Yin to the Yang. The Reaction to the Action.
And I maintain that having a currency union is a boon for internal trade in the eurozone while the currency wars rage... At this point, any country getting out of the eurozone is going to be fleeced... call it unit cohesion in (the economic) battle.
Which is EXACTLY why the money creation game is all about "FLOW" rather than "STOCK". The asset deflation doesn't stop at the Fed's balance sheet simply because it says so. So the liabilities they create to redeem deflating assets have a shrinking half life. IOW, each additional dollar of monetization has less effect in the real economy. So they run the printing presses ever faster just to stay in place.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
--Hemingway
Is this UBS' politically correct way of saying something they can't say in more direct ways?
Good article except that one has to wonder what "catastrophe" would have been caused by Austrian approach.
The main problem with such thinking is that it ignores the fact that in an Austrian economy such ridiculous leveraging wouldn't happen in the first place.
Had CB's used any common sense approach in 2008, all TBTF's would be long gone and after a year or two of despair things would be much better today.
It is rather odd...this preternatural attachment to..."non failure of anything" as it were. Classically human tho!
"Not to worry we are going triagecate the shells when it comes time to take action to prevent inflation." "What does that mean?" "Don't know but I hope it holds them until I can get out of the country."
The assets of central banks have had no quality for years & its creditors can change the terms on which central banks borrow. In the case of the Fed, BoE, BoJ, nobody has yet asked.
AUD... What creditors. The Fed, through their PD network, has become the buyer of only resort for US Ts.
What we are witness to is an experiment by Ben to see how large he can grow the Fed balance sheet as the Fed buys all US Ts and all the crappy paper that TBTF banks want to off load...not to mention Fannie/Freddie, et al.
Actually, we are in the petri dish that this experiment is being performed in.
Fortunately for us we live in a democracy so we can vote for 'change we can believe in'. :)
Those who hold dollar balances. The idea that the Fed is the only buyer of UST's is bogus, one day maybe but not today. The 'assets' of the Fed have been garbage for years, the 'assets' of US banks have been garbage for years. As long as US debt is bid the game will continue.
how safe? you can bank on it!
The Eurozone debt crisis along with looming sovereign debt defaults by every major global economy from Japan to the US will provide the final justification required for the planned transition to a global central bank with a single global currency run by the global oligarchs vis a vis the G-20, the IMF and the BIS. Germany is being forced to guarantee the fiscal idiocy of the EU community, thereby, insuring its own fiscal and monetary demise.
The CDS market on sovereign debt is the lever that will be used to simultaneously bankrupt the financial system of each major nation's economy as the counterparties are unable to make good on their financial "insurance" obligations. Once every major economy is in tatters and the global financial system is totally wrecked, the globalists can then be sure there will be no holdouts. The world's population will run desperately into their final solution giving up any notion of the need for individual liberties and/or desire for national sovereignty.
Jefferson... NOT. You assume that all current soverigns will submit and give up their power with little or no protest.
Once soverign power is threatened, war results... and, the outcome of nuclear war is anything but certain.
Globalists are type A sociopaths. Sociopaths, feigning friendship with other sociopaths, are quick with the knife to the back tactic.
Read some Shakespeare to find what happens when sociopaths strive for the only seat of power... or Gibbons, or any history of empire that interests you.
Sociopath bastards do not play well with others.
Sovereign power in Europe was long ago ceded to the central banking cartel. Just ask Nigel Farage. The central banks work for the globalists not for the citizens of their respective countries.
Is there anyone who actually believes the US government, the US military and the Fed are acting on behalf of American national interests?
Probably the same people that believe Greenspan and Bernanke had no idea there was a housing bubble in 2006 because it says so in the official minutes. And didn't realize that CDS would eventually wreak havoc on the financial system. Or who believe Jon Corzine has no idea where the missing $1.2 billion of MF Global customer funds went because that's what he told Congress.
Who cares about S&P's downgrade of Europe's sovereign debt? Last week's real news was that William Dudley, the president of the NY Fed and Vice Chairman of the FOMC, not to mention former Goldman alum, was appointed Chairman of the BIS's Committee on the Global Financial System. What do you think is on their agenda?
As far as sociopaths not playing well with each other, the expression "[o]n a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero" comes to mind.
Don't over estimate the intelligence of the general population.
please do not mention Nigel Farage (shudders), please!
Regarding globalists: are you sure you are not a globalist? Is there a certification you can obtain?
What I mean is - can you prove yourself that you are not profiting from globalism?
"Sovereign power in Europe was long ago ceded to the central banking cartel. Just ask Nigel Farage. The central banks work for the globalists not for the citizens of their respective countries."
.................................
No doubt you are correct on this point.
My point is that the SE Asians are not a part of this globalist agenda nor are they going to become a part of it. Nor is Russia and the Mid East large oil producers... Nor anyone affiliated with the SCO.
So, the sinking West is interested in globalization but the countries sitting on the greatest natural resources and the rising economies are not. Germany, with great engineering and manufacturing but lacking natural resources will turn to Russia, eventually. Where else will Germany get the natural resources?
Golbalists 0
SCO 10
I guess all those US military bases, aircraft carriers and troops scattered thoughout the Middle East, along with the tens of billions of dollars of weapon systems being sold to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iraq each year, not to mention the fact that all sales of oil must be denominated in US dollars, are indications the ME region is completely independent from the globalists. And the fact that China and Russia are both clamoring for the IMF's SDRs to be the world's new reserve currency demonstrates they are totally outside the reach of the globalist agenda. (sarcasm off)
Wars only happen if the globalists finance them. No finance, no war. Anyone outside the central banking system cannot get financing.
What we are witnessing is the endgame whereby the nation state paradigm will be permanently discredited in order to allow the next stage of centralization to occur in favor of global government. That is what the carbon tax is about, that is what the Financial Transaction Tax is about, SDRs, etc.
" China and Russia are both clamoring for the IMF's SDRs to be the world's new reserve currency demonstrates they are totally outside the reach of the globalist agenda. "
..........................
Both China and Russia and, in fact, all the BRICS are going to demand a much bigger seat at the table if they support the SDRs as a new reserve currency... and if you don't know that, what do you know?
...........................
US Military? They will function only so long as US can sell or pawn off it's FRNs/Ts as viable assets. How much longer can that last? Average life span of a fiat is 40 years... we are there...and, if the US Military/Isreal are so strong, why don't they take on little ol Iran? You sound more like a chicken hawk than a globalist... or, maybe they are one and the same?
..............................
"Wars only happen if the globalists finance them. No finance, no war. Anyone outside the central banking system cannot get financing."
.................................
In future, wars will be financed with PMs, as they were in the past. Country with most PMs wins if they are competent on the battlefield. Why do you think central banks around the world are now big buyers of PMs?
....................................
"What we are witnessing is the endgame whereby the nation state paradigm will be permanently discredited in order to allow the next stage of centralization to occur in favor of global government. That is what the carbon tax is about, that is what the Financial Transaction Tax is about, SDRs, etc."
.....................................
Pure speculation on your part... Especially the part about SDRs. The IMF might soon be needed as a 'bank of last resort' to issue a new reserve currency for world commerce to continue... But, only if the BRICS are given an important place at the IMF table. The IMF SDR may or may not become an important world trading country but even if it does locals will still purchase in local currencies. SDRs will be for settlement in international trade.
Meanwhile, there is no reason that the BRICS and their various trading partners cannot trade in their own local currencies... as they are doing more each day.
I think you have been reading too many conspiracy blogs. Sociopaths will not give up their powers to some bunch of idiot bankers... except in the West... which has a lot to do with the decline of the West.
I can see now why you are so confused. The globalists control the bankers and politicians. Not the other way around. The bankers and politicians are simply henchmen for the globalists.
The West at least the US is declining because the globalists controlling the multinationals shipped the manufacturing base from the US to China, et. al. while saddling the US with war debts.
Thanks to the US military the globalists exert control over the oil and natural gas resources in the Middle East region. By definition, the globalists have no allegiance to any particular country or any particular currency. In fact, China is probably preferable because an authoritarian regime is more suitable for their goal of world domination.
As soon as the dollar and the American people have served their purpose, they will be discarded faster than a $20 crack hoar.
Chinese will have their own parasites to feed as had for centuries. Arrogance that 'globalists' may possess, relies heavily on the functional US empire, if it seizes to exist or even comes into distress, so will vain or reduce their influence. Any elite power results from people lending them this power, I guess americans shouldn't be worried if globalists take collectively one way tickets to China - they should wave them goodbye and proceed with restoring what is left of the economy.
Jefferson... I'm confused?
You have created in your mind THE FACT that 'globalists' can work together, in harmony, over great stretches of time, to acheive the goal of 'world domination'... and, I'm confused?
You need good professional help. Someone that specializes in paranoia.
The 'globalists' you are describing are men, the ilk of Hitler, Stalin, Lincoln, Mussolini, Atilla, Mao, and many, many more. They may cooperate for short periods of time but their egos are too large for a long arrangement.
The bankers have thought, from time to time, that they had some of these sociopaths under control, only to be subjugated by them once they acheived power. Hitler is a good example of this.
If any globalists exist they are in your mind. Sociopaths are about power, and if you are a student of history you would certainly know that sociopaths do not share power... they kill each other for it.
BTW, why don't you name a few of the 'globalists' that you are so certain are conspiring to acheive their 'great dream'?
Snidley,
It is obvious you are hopefully naive and simplistic in your world view and have a very limited understanding of history.
If men like Stalin and Hitler, and more importantly their network of financial backers and political supporters, don't make you paranoid then probably nothing will.
Who knows whether this particular generation of globalists will be successful in their efforts to create an enduring empire. But to assume that men and women bent on world domination no longer exist and must fail by virtue of their sociopathic nature is rather ignorant.
By no means is this a complete list of the current crop of globalists but it certainly is a good starting point:
Royalty- Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (1997, 2000, 2006, 2008–2011)[1][2][3]
- Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (1954, 1975)[4][5] (deceased)
- Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, United Kingdom (1986)[6][7]
- Juan Carlos I of Spain, King of Spain (2004)[8]
- Prince Philippe, Prince of Belgium (2007–2009)[9]
- Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, United Kingdom (1965, 1967)[10][11]
- Queen Sofía of Spain (2008–2010)[3][12]
- King Harald V of Norway [13] (1984[14])
[edit]Politics [edit]Austria- Oscar Bronner (2009[15], 2010[16], 2011[17]) Newspaper publisher
- Werner Faymann (2009[18]) Chancellor 2008–present
- Heinz Fischer (2010)[19] Federal President 2004–present
- Alfred Gusenbauer (2007[20]) Chancellor 2007-2008
- Walter Rothensteiner (2011[21]) CEO of Raiffeisen Zentralbank
- Rudolf Scholten (2011[21]) Board member of Oesterreichische Kontrollbank
- Andreas Treichl (2010[22]) CEO of Erste Group
[edit]Belgium- Paul-Henri Spaak, Former Prime Minister and Secretary General of NATO[23] (1963)
[edit]Bulgaria- Nikolai Kamov, Member of Parliament[24] (1999)
[edit]Canada- Pierre Elliott Trudeau,[25] Prime Minister of Canada, 1968–1979, 1980–1984
- Jean Chrétien (1996),[26] Prime Minister of Canada, 1993–2003
- Stephen Harper (2003),[25] Prime Minister of Canada, 2006-current
- Mike Harris,[25] Premier of Ontario 1995-2002
- Bernard Lord,[25] Premier of New Brunswick 1999-2006
- Paul Martin (1996),[26] Prime Minister of Canada, 2003–2006
- Frank McKenna (2006, 2010),[27] Deputy Chair of TD Bank Financial Group, Canadian Ambassador to the United States 2005-2006, Premier of New Brunswick 1987-1997
- Gordon Campbell (2010), Premier of British Columbia, 2001–2011
- Heather Reisman 2000–Present, CEO of Chapters/Indigo, Co-Founder of the Heseg Foundation, Bilderburg Steering Committee member
[edit]China- Fu Ying (2011)[28], Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, former Ambassador to the UK and Australia
[edit]Finland- Eero Heinäluoma (2006),[29] former chairman of the Social Democratic Party and he was the Minister of Finance between 2005 and 2007
- Jyrki Katainen (2007, 2009),[30][31][32] chairman of the National Coalition Party and the current Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister
- Sauli Niinistö (1997),[1] former Minister of Finance, former Speaker of the Parliament
- Matti Vanhanen (2009),[31][32] former Prime Minister, former chairman of Centre Party
[edit]France- Gaston Defferre (1964),[33] member of National Assembly and mayor of Marseille (at the time) (deceased)
- Georges Pompidou, Former Prime Minister of France, Former President of the French Republic[34] (deceased)
[edit]Germany- Guido Westerwelle (2007),[35] Chairman of the Free Democratic Party of Germany and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany.
- Helmut Schmidt, West German Chancellor[4]
[edit]Iceland- Bjarni Benediktsson[36] (1965, 1967, 1970),[37] Mayor of Reykjavík 1940-47, Foreign Minister 1947-55, editor of The Morning Paper 1956-59, Minister of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs 1959-63, Prime Minister 1963-70
- Björn Bjarnason[36] (1974, 1977),[38] Assistant editor of The Morning Paper 1984-1991, Minister of Education 1995-2002, Minister of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs 2003, 2009
- Davíð Oddsson[36] (ca. 1991-1999), Mayor of Reykjavík 1982-1991, Prime Minister 1991-2004, Foreign Minister 2004-2005, Central Bank governor 2005-2009, editor of The Morning Paper as of September 2009
- Einar Benediktsson[36] (ca. 1970), ambassador: OECD 1956-60, UK 1982-1986, European Union et al. 1986-1991, NATO 1986-1990, United States et al. 1993-1997, etc.[39]
- Geir Haarde,[40] Central Bank economist 1977-1983, member and chairman of the Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee 1991-1998, Minister of Finance 1998-2005, Foreign Minister 2005-2006, Prime Minister 2006-2009
- Geir Hallgrímsson[36] (ca. 1974-1977,[38][41] 1980[42]), Mayor of Reykjavík 1959-72, Prime Minister 1974-78, Foreign Minister 1983-1986, Central Bank governor 1986-1990
- Hörður Sigurgestsson,[36] former CEO of shipping line Eimskip, former chairman and CFO of Icelandair[43]
- Jón Sigurðsson[36] (1993), IMF Board of Directors 1974-1987, Minister of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs 1987-88, Industry and Commerce 1988-93, Central Bank governor 1993-94, Nordic Investment Bank governor 1994-2005[44]
[edit]Ireland- Garret FitzGerald, former Taoiseach [45]
- Paul Gallagher, Attorney General of Ireland.[46]
- Dermot Gleeson, former Attorney General of Ireland.[47]
- Michael McDowell (2007), former Attorney General, former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [9]
- Peter Sutherland, Director General of the WTO and former Attorney General of Ireland [1]
[edit]Italy- Mario Monti, Economist and Prime Minister [26]
- Renato Ruggiero, former WTO director, politician [26]
[edit]Netherlands- Ruud Lubbers, Former Prime Minister[34]
- Wim Kok, Former Prime Minister[34]
- Jan-Peter Balkenende, Former Prime Minister[34]
- Maxime Verhagen, Minister[34]
- Max van der Stoel, Minister
[edit]Norway- Siv Jensen (2006) Leader for The Norwegian political party, "Fremskrittspartiet". (Progress Party (Norway))
- Jens Stoltenberg (2002), current Prime Minister of Norway.[13]
- Kristin Clemet[13] (1999, 2008[48]) Managing Director of the liberal and conservative think tank Civita, Former Minister of Education and Science.
- Geir Lundestad (2005)[49] Director of the Norwegian Nobel institute and Secretary to The Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
[edit]Portugal- Francisco Pinto Balsemão (1981, 1983–1985, 1987–2008),[9] former Prime Minister of Portugal, 1981–1983 and CEO of Impresa media group
- Manuel Pinho (2009),[50][51] former Minister of Economy and Innovation
- José Sócrates (2004),[50][51][52] former Prime Minister of Portugal
- José Pedro Aguiar-Branco,[50][51][52] former Minister of Justice
- Santana Lopes (2004),[50][51][52] former Prime Minister of Portugal
- José Manuel Durão Barroso (1994, 2003, 2005),[50][53][54] former Prime Minister of Portugal and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and current President of the European Commission
- Nuno Morais Sarmento,[51][52] former Minister of Presidency and Minister of Parliament Affairs
- António Costa (2008),[51][52] former Minister of Interior and current Mayor of Lisbon
- Rui Rio (2008),[51][52] current Mayor of Porto
- Manuela Ferreira Leite (2009),[51][55] former Minister of Education and Minister of Finance and Public Administration
- Augusto Santos Silva,[51] former Minister of Education, Minister of Culture, Minister of Parliament Affairs, and current Minister of National Defence
- Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (1998),[51] former Minister of Parliament Affairs
- António Guterres (1994),[51][53][54] former Prime Minister of Portugal, former President of the Socialist International and current United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
- Ferro Rodrigues,[53] former Minister of Labour and Social Solidarity and Minister of Public Works, Transport and Communications
- Jorge Sampaio,[53][54] former President of Portugal
- Luís Mira Amaral (1995),[54][56] former Minister of Labour and Social Solidarity, chairman of Caixa Geral de Depósitos and CEO of Banco Português de Investimento
- Vítor Constâncio (1988),[54][56] governor of the Banco de Portugal
- Manuel Ferreira de Oliveira,[54] CEO of Galp Energia
- Ricardo Salgado,[54][57] CEO of Banco Espírito Santo
- Fernando Teixeira dos Santos (2010),[56] former Minister of Finance
- José Medeiros Ferreira (1977, 1980),[56] former Minister of Foreign Affairs
- Joaquim Ferreira do Amaral (1999),[56] former Minister of Public Works, Transport and Communications
- António Miguel Morais Barreto (1992),[56] former Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries
- João Cravinho,[57] former Minister for Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development
- Artur Santos Silva,[57] former vice-governor of the Banco de Portugal, chairman of Banco Português de Investimento and current non-executive chairman of Jerónimo Martins
- Francisco Luís Murteira Nabo,[57] former chairman of Portugal Telecom, Minister of Public Works, Transport and Communications, and current chairman of Galp Energia and president of the Portuguese Economists Association
[edit]Poland- Józef Retinger (1954 to 1960), Founder and secretary of Bilderberg Group[5][58] (deceased)
[edit]Spain [edit]Sweden- Carl Bildt (2006),[59] (2008),[59] (2009), Minister of Foreign Affairs 2006–
- Anders Borg (2007),[59] Minister of Finance 2006–
- Thorbjörn Fälldin (1978),[60] Prime Minister 1976–1978
- Maud Olofsson (2008),[59] Minister of Industry 2006–2011
- Fredrik Reinfeldt (2006),[59] Prime Minister 2006–
- Mona Sahlin (1996),[59] Head of the Swedish social democratic party 2007–2011
[edit]Switzerland- Rolf Schweiger (2011) (German) [61]
[edit]United Kingdom- Rt Hon the Baroness Shirley Williams (at least 2010), stateswoman and member, House of Lords; Harvard University Professor; Past President, Chatham House; int'l member, Council on Foreign Relations.
- Paddy Ashdown (1989),[62] former leader of Liberal Democrats, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Ed Balls (2006),[63] former Economic Secretary to the Treasury and advisor to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and was Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (2007–2010)
- Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (Steering Committee member),[64] former Foreign Secretary
- Kenneth Clarke (1993,[65] 1998,[66] 1999,[67] 2003,[68] 2004,[69] 2006,[70] 2007,[70] 2008,[71][72] Chancellor of the Exchequer 1993-1997, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 2008-2010, Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice 2010-current
- Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (Viscount Cranborne) (1997),[1] Leader of the House of Lords 94-97
- Denis Arthur Greenhill, Lord Greenhill of Harrow (deceased) (1974),[73]) former Head of Foreign and Commonwealth Office
- Denis Healey (founder and Steering Committee member),[64] former Chancellor of the Exchequer
- Peter Mandelson (1999,[74] 2009[75] Business Secretary (2008–2010)
- John Monks (1996),[26] former TUC General Secretary
- George Osborne (2006,[76] 2007,[76] 2008[77] 2009[78]) Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (2004–2010), Chancellor of the Exchequer 2010-current
- David Owen (1982),[79] former British Foreign Secretary and leader of the Social Democratic Party
- Enoch Powell, (deceased) (1968),[80] MP and Ulster Unionist
- Malcolm Rifkind (1996),[26] former Foreign Secretary
- Eric Roll (1964, 1966, 1967, 1973–1975, 1977–1999) (Bilderberg Steering Committee),[81] Department of Economic Affairs, 1964, later Bilderberg Group Chairman
- David Hannay, Baron Hannay of Chiswick (1995),[82] Diplomatic posts at European Union and United Nations.
- John Smith (1989) (deceased),[83] Labour Party leader
[edit]Prime Ministers- Tony Blair (1993),[84][65] Prime Minister 1997-2007
- Gordon Brown (1991),[85] Prime Minister 2007- 2010
- Edward Heath,[4] Prime Minister 1970-1974
- Alec Douglas-Home (1977–1980),[86] Chairman of the Bilderberg Group, Prime Minister 1963-1964
- Margaret Thatcher (1975),[87] Prime Minister 1979-1990
[edit]United States- Roger Altman (2009),[88] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993–1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
- George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[89] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968
- Sandy Berger (1999),[90] National Security Advisor, 1997–2001
- Timothy Geithner(2009),[88] Treasury Secretary
- Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman
- Christian Herter,[91] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State
- Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[92] Special Assistant to the President
- Joseph E. Johnson[93] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008, 2009, 2011)[94][60], 56th United States Secretary of State
- Richard Perle (2011), Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee 2001–2003, United States Assistant Secretary of Defense 1981–1987 [95]
- Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State
- Lawrence Summers,[88] Director of the National Economic Council
- Paul Volcker[when?],[88] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979–1987
[edit]Presidents- Bill Clinton (1991),[84][85] President 1993-2001
- Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[4][96] President 1974-1977
[edit]Senators- John Edwards (2004),[97][98] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005
- Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[99] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009
- Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997
[edit]Governors- Rick Perry (2007),[100] Governor of Texas 2000-current
- Mark Sanford (2008),[101] Governor of South Carolina
[edit]EU CommissionersEuropean Union Commissioners who have attended include:
- Frederik Bolkestein (1996, 2003),[102] former European Commissioner
- Neelie Kroes (2011), EU Commissioner [103]
- Pascal Lamy (2003,[102] 2010[3]), former European Commissioner for Trade, Director-General of the World Trade Organization 2005–present
- Peter Mandelson (1999),[74] (2009),[75] former European Commissioner for Trade 2004-2008
- Pedro Solbes (2010),[3] former European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, former Second Vice President of Spain, former Minister of Economy and Finance
[edit]Military- Colin Gubbins[104] (1955, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1964, 1966), head of the British SOE (deceased)
- Lyman Lemnitzer (1963),[23] Supreme Allied Commander NATO 1963-1969 (deceased)
- Alexander Haig (1978),[60] NATO Commander 1974-1979 (US Secretary of State 1981-1982) (deceased)
- Jaap de Hoop Scheffer[3] (2010), former Secretary General of NATO
[edit]Financial institutions- Ben Bernanke (2008,[101] 2009),[75] Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve
- Wim Duisenberg, former European Central Bank President[34] (deceased)
- Gordon Richardson,[105](1966, 1975) former Governor of the Bank of England
- William J McDonough (1997),[1] former President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
- Antonio Nogueira Leite (Portuguese) (2011), Economist [95]
- Jean-Claude Trichet (2009,[106] 2010[3]) President of the European Central Bank 2003-2011
- Paul Volcker (1982, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1997),[1] former Chairman of the Federal Reserve
- Siegmund Warburg (1977)[105] (deceased)
- Andreas Treichl (2009),[107] CEO of Erste Bank
- Rudolf Scholten (2010),[19] Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
- David Rockefeller, Sr. Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank [108]
[edit]Major corporations- Josef Ackermann (2009–2011), CEO of Deutsche Bank[47]
- Marcus Agius, Chairman of Barclays (2011) [95]
- Giovanni Agnelli (1997), Honorary Chairman of Fiat Automobiles [109]
- Umberto Agnelli (1997), Chairman of IFIL [109]
- Percy Barnevik (1992–1996, 1997,[1] 2001), former CEO of ASEA
- Franco Bernabè (2011), CEO of Telecom Italia [103]
- Jeff Bezos (2011),[110] Founder and CEO of Amazon.com
- Michel Bon,[111] former CEO of France Telecom
- Lord Browne of Madingley (1995, 1997,[1] 2004), Chief Executive BP
- Thomas Enders (2011), CEO of Airbus [95]
- Bill Gates (2010),[112] Chairman of Microsoft
- Donald E. Graham (2008–2010),[46] CEO and Chairman of The Washington Post Company, Board of Directors for Facebook
- Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.,[113]
- H. J. Heinz II (1954),[93] CEO of H. J. Heinz Company
- Chris Hughes (2011),[110] Co-founder of Facebook
- Klaus Kleinfeld (2011),[110] Chairman and CEO of Alcoa
- André Kudelski (2011) Director of Nestlé, CEO of the Kudelski Group [114]
- André Lévy-Lang, (French)[111] former CEO of Paribas
- Alexei Mordashov (2011), CEO of Severstal [115]
- Jorma Ollila (1997,[1] 2005, 2008, 2011), Non-Executive Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia Corporation
- Paul Rijkens (Dutch) Former Chairman of Unilever[34]
- Eric Schmidt (2008, 2010, 2011),[46] CEO and Chairman of Google
- Jürgen E. Schrempp (1994–1996, 1997),[1] 1998, 1999, 2001–2005, 2006, 2007), former CEO of DaimlerChrysler
- Rolf Soiron (2011), CEO of Holcim Ltd.[116]
- Hans Stråberg (2006),[59] CEO of Electrolux
- Peter Sutherland (1989–1996, 1997,[1] 2005), former Chairman of BP
- Martin Taylor[1] (1993–1996,[26] 1997), former CEO, Barclays
- Otto Wolff von Amerongen,[1] Chairman Otto Wolff GmbH.
- Jacob Wallenberg (2006),[59] Chairman of Investor AB
[edit]University, institute and other academic- Richard Pipes (1981),[117] Senior Staff Member, National Security Council
- C. Fred Bergsten (1971, 1974, 1984, 1997),[1] President, Peterson Institute
- Thierry de Montbrial,[111] Director of the Institut Français des Relations Internationales
[edit]MediaSCO? Please excuse my ignorance, what stands it for?
Here is what Wiki has to say... The Wiki definition is outdated and the SCO is much more complex, of course. Military cooperation has especially increased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
It's laughable that NATO appears in all Western Media... but SCO seldom appears. The US and several other Western Soverigns applied for observer status to the SCO and all were denied.
IMO, the only issue for the central banks and their masters is "credibility". If they lose credibility, then they lose power because people will not trust their fiat toilet paper as a store of value.
It seems to me that with people waking up, many are becoming "enlightened ones" with the power to counterbalance the "service to selfers" and their stranglehold on the world.
The controllers are not competent enough to run a "service to others" world where the full potential of the masses with good education and good rule of law are developed and maintained ... they FEAR the loss of power with an educated and free populace. This defines them as very weak and afraid little entities. So they have become bullies and then rationalize away their sociopathic nature by claiming that they are the architects creating order out of chaos and "one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet"... and they kill anyone that gets in their way, as any frightened and weak bully (believing himself above the law) might do.
They use fear as a weapon, even though they are the ones who are really frightened. To them competition is not only a sin, but it is a revelation of the distortion of their own self image. Can't have that now can we.
Why would they care? TPTB never pay the price for anything. If a loaf of bread is $40 (or $400 for that matter) a year from now - whats the worst that happens to them, they resign to "spend more time with family" ? If the sheep take to the streets to protest - the rubber bullets and tear gas will be waiting. If it gets out of control- it will become a Marshall law "shoot on site" police state. History has shown fear trumps hunger for quite awhile. None of the rich or powerful will suffer anything more than inconvenience - all while pointing fingers at everyone else.
CBs will print into hyperinflation but none of these countries will ever sell so much as one gold coin to pay down debt. What good are "well capitalized" banks if you have 30% unemployment and riots in the streets?
Sociopaths care not what a loaf of bread costs, nor do they care what anything costs.
Their interest is in power. Money to a sociopath is only a means to an end... the end being power.
They do not think like you and I.
Well said...and unfortunately true.
How safe can anyone feel when their economic destiny is the hands of someone else whom they have never met,
Someone who talks in riddles, doesnt answer questions, wont say how much money they just printed.
And then just smirks and says "trust us"...
Central banking cannot survive direct scrutiny because it is based on fraud. Pure and simple...
Rating of countries
http://fnn24.com/?p=38352
Central banks are the biggest financial scam going. They steal from every producer by pretending that the effect of wealth - money, on which the banks have an issuance monopoly - is its cause. But debt is not capital. Counterfeiting - expanding the money supply in bankerspeak - robs everyone who owns any thing denominated in the unit of account. Pretending otherwise is a sweat act requiring cosmic bloviation by the central banks and the marketing units of their creatures, the primary stealers. Hatheway's Escheresque musings about the need of central banks - which are inexplicably immune from prosecution for printing money out of thin air - to recapitalise themselves is reminiscent of the flight of the zuni bird. (The mythical creature that flies in ever-decreasing circles until it disappears up its own asshole). Central banking = systemic national theft. UBS apparently doesn't want politics to intrude on that, but the consequences of reality ultimately will.
yes. but remember that the theft starts with (usually elected) politicians not balancing the budget and therefore writing IOUs in your name.
Then the banking system happily makes some revenue out of it - doling "credit for nearly nothing" to the masses on the way - until the CB monetizes.
Does anybody anywhere even think they are making an effort to keep up with all this? I doubt their books have been posted up to date in a year or two, and if they tried to do so they would go crazy trying to reconcile the balance sheet. They are all clusterfarks to begin with and serve merely as vehicles to keep the ink flowing and keep the public at bay. Just another phantom bunch of agencies with no substance behind them whatsoever.
http://fnn24.com/?p=38374
EFSF to lose its AAA. Another eurusd fall coming to 1.255?
Capital? Net Worth? Those requirements are just for the little people. Bunky Hunt once said that a man who knows how much he is worth probably isn't worth very much, so obviously to play in the big leagues, having a stated net worth is not required.
"And....it's gone."
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/222624/the-importance-of-saving-money
Ah yes, the modern banking system.
I now understand why old folks I met in the 70's and 80's didn't trust a bank as far as they could spit.
if there was ever a central bank that could go bust it's the ECB. Their printing press is running day and night, with eye bleeding unrealized loses, they are now addicted to buying PIIGS/EZ debt. An addiction feed backloop, with EZ banks dumping everything on their balance sheet. When will it end? When Europe gets an inflation beat down which is now and the whole region explodes with riots and maybe even a war. Before it gets to that Germany will do somthing...kick out a country, namely Greece.
chump... And this is different from what the Fed is doing in what way?
The euro still exists. How many times did you, ZH, bring it to its grave? Be honest Americans: without the money printing and bondbuying of Bernanke, the US (UK as well) would be as Greece: skyrocketing interests, massive dump of bonds, collapsing dollar, huge depression and austerity till you die. It's a Ponzi scheme, but so far no collapse.
It's a worldwide Ponzi scheme.
Go to Europe and read the press and they are pointing fingers at the US.
Here in the US we are pointing fingers at the EU.
Pot calling kettle black!
The euro ist bound to die. There is no way a currency can survive expansion of money supply and capital outflows forever. Its only a question of time.
Central Bank , definition, a fraudulant institution setup by governments for the purpose of stealing wealth from nations through inflation and deflation, common practices of central banks are pumping economies full of counterfeit credit, which in essence pushes money into circulation artificially making goods and real property like homes more desireable as hedges against the inflation, when the credit is cut off the economy contracts and people are forced out of their real property which the banks then collect for free.
Central banks are essentially thieves.... giving your money to any bank, especially a central bank is like watching someone steal from your neighbour then stopping that thief on his way home and asking him to watch your money for you while you while you go on vacation ^^.
The big news out of Europe on Friday was *not* S&P's downgrade of 9 countries, but rather the signs that the ECB is getting very, very angry. And you wouldn't like them when they're angry:
http://financeaddict.com/2012/01/the-ecb-is-very-p-o-d/
The barely-challenged tenet that the central banks are to be "independent" from politics so as to avoid all the "bad stuff" that happens when they are not independent is a cover for the direct control of the central banks by the banks and monied elites. And still, we have plenty of "bad stuff" going on that certainly benefits a certain segment of our society. I guess "bad" depends on your point of view, huh?
Bankers,
How effective was the Central Bank in the Mexico and Argentina defaults. That's the future on a global scale.
Did they save the day without personal losses.
Do they save the USA from inflation.
They only save the rich from inflation through assured capital accumulation.
Go to the grocery store Tonto and buy a loaf of good bread, it's getting close to $5.
Have you read a Tale of Two Cities by Dickens.
Do you realize that when it comes, the unthnkable will come fast.
Please study the colapse of the USSR and report back.
The people will loot and burn.
bill
How "safe" are central banks?
Silly question. My deposits will ALWAYS be redeemed. They may be worthless in terms of the amount of real goods I can exchange them for, depending how long I've left them on deposit, but that is now the ONLY risk. The question is settled. Central banks everywhere are completely "safe" because they have chosen to lend against any and all collateral for an "extended period".
Only the medium in which they lend has risk now.
"One shudders to think of the consequences of the alternative—‘Austrian’ central bankers running the show."
Like maybe that they would not confuse money with wealth, and continue to steal vast amounts of private wealth via deliberate dilution, just like when a bartender waters down the liquor. Yes, Keynesians and supporters of the Socialist State would shudder because sound money means the end of big and Ever Bigger government.