阴谋论：设计16年全球大萧条催生世界统一货币

联储, 世界各国央行, 花旗, 美林, 瑞银等一大批世界顶级金融机构拥有最全面最准确的数据和情报, 最有经验的掌们人和他们属下大量的研究机构和顶尖的经济学家群体, 但居然没有一个看出来次级房贷危机即将大规模爆发? 这是不可能的! 另外有人赔钱,必然有人赚钱, 这么多钱到底进了谁的腰包? 我们有理由怀疑这是一场有组织的,蓄谋已久的金融大屠杀! 包括中国在内的世界各国将遭到空前的浩劫.

下面这片文章值得折仔细研究. 它暗示了包括美元在内的147种主权货币将被推倒, 由以黄金为支撑的全球统一的货币新体系取而代之. 时间都订好了, 是从2008年到2024年. 世界中央银行定在瑞士的苏黎世, 日内瓦或巴塞尔. 瑞士这个国际银行家的老窝深不可测啊!  

“全球经济需要一个全球性货币” …… 保罗.沃尔克，美联储前主席。

“我完全支持一个单一的全球性货币”。

我感到大吃一惊，在等待一个解释。

“这样非洲的农民就能和北美的农民得到相同的报酬，而亚洲的工人也可以相应地获得与欧洲或其他地方工人相同的待遇”。

嗯，一个很有趣的观点。我问坐在午餐桌对面的先生，“你有认真研究过银行或货币的历史作用吗？”

他的否定的回应并不让我感到惊讶，毕竟，工资平等和产品价值不是货币本身的问题，尽管汇率问题确实发挥了作用。因此，我们的大部分午饭时间用在了回顾货币，银行，电力等之间的关系。

这一激烈的讨论，并享受一碗热腾腾的汤，就发生在一个熟百万美元的基督教救济组织的年会上。

和我共餐的人不仅仅是个感兴趣的观众，他是代表着该组织区域分部的一名董事会成员。

理所当然的，他只是在一个大的行政架构下的个人，但他的决定，加上董事会其他成员，将影响全球的项目。

因此，我发现他的支持世界统一货币的声明更令人不安；这哥们参与影响全球项目的经济决策却不明白自己要求的是什么。 

在我们的午餐时间，很明显他对在这样一个图谋下发生令人难以置信的权力转换没有任何概念，这个转换将有效地创建一个深不可测的全球主宰。

他所能看出的是一个国际规模的联合救助解决方案，“单一的全球性货币”用来解决世界贫困。

回家后我回放了这次会谈，我将其解释为一个人为了良好的动机甘愿去冒全球性的风险来疏解自己的困扰。

回到我的金融和经济领域的图书馆后，当我迅速翻阅大量书籍和文件，去试图解开萦绕在我心头的这些棘手的问题时，大量的引述便跃然纸上。

“控制货币的伟大斗争，控制货币的发行和分配就是为了控制财富、资源和全人类。”几乎是不厌其烦地重复断言，— Jack Weatherford，人类学家和货币史学家。

“控制货币和信贷可以打击国家主权的心脏”，— A W Clausen, 美洲银行总裁，在一次全球中央银行会议上对一个建议作出的回应（后来成为世界银行主席）。 

“一旦一国的货币和信贷被部分控制，不在乎谁在制定该国法律”— W L Mackenzie King, （加拿大前总理）

所有这些引发了一个有趣的问题：世界是否需要一个全球中央银行？如果你想要一个单一的世界货币，它需要一个行星规模的货币政策来武装国际金融体系。本质上来说，单一的全球性货币将使得银行的权力超越国家、种族和语言。加拿大前国会议员Paul Hellyer在1994年批评这方面的进展时说，“在这样一个全球性货币/银行体系里，公民利益，单个国家只能服从… …于国际金融体系的利益”。“国家将不再制定任何独立的政策”。凌驾在最强大的经济工具的主权将变成国际怪兽，世界银行将被不需向任何人负责的世界霸权集团所运作。

由于不熟悉我的午饭胃口，自二战结束之日起，这个单一全球货币的想法已悄悄地在银行和经济学家的圈子里流传。多年来这一号召得到了强化。

我想到一些引述：

1969年：“让我从吹毛求疵的反对转向一些更积极的讨论，并且从最佳和最差的国际货币体系开始谈起。据我判断，第一最好的货币体系，是拥有世界金融权威的单一世界货币。”— Charles P. Kindleberger, [经济学教授，麻省理工学院], 于联邦储备银行波士顿会议。

1984年：“我已经提出了一个激进的下个世纪的选择方案：所有的工业民主国家建立一个有共同货币政策的共同货币，并建立联合的货币发行银行以决定货币政策… …这个建议在不久的将来的确是过于偏激，但可以提供一个'远景'或目标，来指导今后的步骤… …” —Richard N. Cooper [美国哈佛大学教授]12月31日于美联储波士顿会议。

1998年:“对整个世界来说，过渡到单一世界货币的速度可能使很多人大吃一惊，世界可能在10年内便由今天的200多种货币进化到只有一种货币， 并且从今天起25年后，历史学家将想知道为何花了这么长的时间去清除存在了20个世纪的货币”。— Bryan Taylor环球财务数据公司首席经济学家。

2001年：“25年前，VISA 成立时缔造者就把世界看作是需要单一货币体系进行兑换的，我们所做的一切均是基于全球视野，并努力来一步一步地实现我们的全球愿景。”— Sarah Perry, VISA战略投资计划部主管。

2004年:“如果全球市场经济在今后数十年蓬勃发展，全球性货币的出现似乎是合乎逻辑的”。— Martin Wolf, 金融时报首席经济评论员，高级经济学家，于世界银行年会。

2007年，外交关系协会提出了地球货币再造的思想，通过其出版物发表了题为“国家货币的终结”一文（注：在这一期外交事务的封面，有篇文章题为“一个世界，太多种类货币”）。

Benn Steil，外交关系协会的国际经济部主任，更简洁地指出国家主权货币应该抛弃，“由于经济发展不可能游离在全球化进程之外，货币国家主义和全球化是不相容的。”并且，“为了安全地全球化，各国应该放弃货币的国家主义并废除那些多余的货币”。

这是一个了不起的飞跃，以Steil的声誉，他准确描述了世界经济中潜在的弱点：美元在全球的地位不断弱化，而这个弱点将带领我们迈向一个新的金融协议。

过去几十年来，美元已经成为无可置疑的全球货币，世界各国持有美元在各地市场进行交易，特别的石油。Steil写道：“美元当今的特权地位不是天上赐予的，美元是最终也是被另一种诚信的货币所支持，别人会愿意接受它在过去买到的等值的东西在未来的回报。这给了美国政府机构巨大的负担以保证这种诚信。不幸的是，这些机构未能肩负起这一重担。鲁莽的美国财政政策正在削弱美元一直扩张的全球货币的地位。”

在认识到可能的美元价值的情况下，Steil指出了他对对中国和其它“美元储备丰富的央行”的不断关注。请记住，中国独自拥有超过一万亿美元储备，而来自东方的对于以美元进行清算的抱怨已开始引起骚动。

即使Steil不问，这个问题也是令人心痛和不言而喻的：如果中国和其他国家“担心不能承受美元储备之轻”，世界将会怎样？如果美元被各央行迅速倾销，世界经济将会怎样？

所有这一切都突出了一个战略现实，可以归纳为三个词：危机，平等、机会。正如金融大亨A W Clausen所说，“新的跨种族的全面的政治经济制度总是产生于征服或共同的危机。” 

Robert Mundell, “欧元之父”，世界上最受人尊敬的经济学家之一，也 指出危机是变革的起点。在2007年5月的讲座中，蒙代尔指出，“国际货币改革通常在面对全球性的危机的反应和威胁时才成为可能。”

这个诺贝尔奖得主还把他的手指指向可能的危机触发点，他说“全球经济危机必将涉及美元”，而统一的世界货币将被看作是全球性美元灾难的“一个偶然”。

在类似危机的思维中，Benn Steil似乎提供的是一种利他主义的解决方案。为了避免出现危机，在问题不可挽回之前，所有的国家所要做的就是放弃主权。

各国政府必须走出的致命观念，即民族独立必须是在自己的领土上发行和控制通用货币。

“国家货币和全球市场不能简单地混合在一起，否则他们将酿造致命的货币危机和紧张的地缘政治局势，并以此制造破坏性的保护主义的借口。” 

那么应该如何除掉货币主权呢？Steil坦率地说，世界需要重组为三个区域性货币：美元，欧元，和一个新的亚洲货币。这项建议与罗伯特.蒙代尔的工作遥相呼应，他一直周游世界讲授一种新的基于美元，欧元，日圆的国际货币单位。根据蒙代尔的计划，在这三种货币的基础上，形成了一个“世界货币单位”，被称为“滴（DEY）”，而国际货币基金组织将是这个货币的总经理。 

实施蒙代尔的计划可能不会太遥远，因为主要货币板块块正在世界不同地区形成，欧元在欧洲率先获得成功。南美洲，东南亚，以及非洲都盼望建立区域性货币区。中东也在沿着这条道路走下去。实际上，在2010年，如果一切都按计划进行，由中东国家组成的海湾合作理事会（Gulf Cooperation Council，GCC），包括科威特和沙特阿拉伯，都将有他们自己的区域金融体系。GCC将坐落在关键会员国阿联酋的迪拜，这个世界上发展最快的城市。

北美洲也欢迎货币一体化。北美货币体系这个多年的概念已经出现在央行的圈子里，并建议用阿梅罗（Amero）作为新的大陆货币的名称。[见2007年7月份 Forcing Change发表的19页报告中对这一进展的描述]。 

如果不是有阿梅罗（Amero），肯定有人相信美元应该成为三国的货币。 

1999年5月，经济学家Judy Shelton向美国众议院的银行和金融服务委员建议北美洲美元化。其他人也同样一直在研究这个大陆的货币选择，目的是建立一个约束力日渐增强的涵盖加拿大，美国和墨西哥的新区域经济体系。 

但是，区域货币块如何演变成单一的全球货币呢？Morrison Bonpasse，全球单一货币委员会总裁(Single Global Currency Association, SGCA),该委员会是一组以世界货币为工作目标的经济学家，回答了这个问题：“二十一世纪的货币联盟，以及那些幸存下来的二十世纪货币联盟，是通向未来之路和全球货币联盟的里程碑。 

Bonpasse深入地阐述了这一点，“感谢欧洲和其它的货币联盟取得的成功，我们现在知道了如何建立并维持第三代：一个拥有全球央行和单一世界货币的全球性货币联盟。世界正准备开始为单一的全球性货币做好准备，正如欧洲为欧元做的准备，阿拉伯海湾国家为自己的共同货币做准备一样。在由占世界GDP相当比重的代表性国家建立了全球单一货币目标之后，这个项目就象前面的区域性货币那样向前推进。”

“简言之，区域货币模式是世界货币模式的垫脚石。然而现在民族主义盛行。” Bonpasse写道:“这个认为可以很简单地来说明：如何从目前的147种货币变成1种。” 不断发展的克服民族主义的残余力量的政治意志是迈向3-G世界的主要挑战。欧元的实施，货币联盟的经济和政治就密不可分地绑在了一起；这两点的逻辑都指向了3-G世界。” 

“现在的问题不是世界是否会采用单一的全球货币，而是何时采用？以及如何顺利和廉价采用或是粗糙地、昂贵地和混乱地采用？对国际主义者而言，国家主权是压倒一切的障碍，为了让全球中央银行和世界货币存在，必须要形成一些政治安排。”

罗伯特.蒙代尔在2003年作了名为“国际货币体系和单一世界货币案例”的讲座理解了这个政治问题的，他的反应很坦率：“没有世界政府的单一世界货币是不可能实现的。强制执行单一货币将涉及重大的组织问题”。

但这个现实并没有阻止SGCA和其他有同样想法的人进行的渐进性规划。正如Bonpasse断言：“现在是时候认真追求建立单一世界货币的目标了，这个世界货币由全球货币联盟内部的全球中央银行管理。”

SGCA 已经有了日期: 2024年。至于全球中央银行的总部，Bonpasse 建议设在巴塞尔，苏黎世或日内瓦。 

“瑞士有良好的货币声誉，把全球央行放在瑞士，是对那些加入全球货币联盟成为会员的的国家的必要的鼓励。”

“全球央行的治理结构应该是比较容易设计，可以借鉴现有的成功模式，如美联储、欧洲中央银行、国际货币基金、世界银行、联合国，和一些相关的组织如世界卫生组织。”

“不是每个人都喜欢这些组织结构，但它的确可以磋商政治问题。”

他是对的：这是一个政治问题。对Richard Cooper 来说，当他在新罕布什的布雷顿森林召开的1984年美联储会议上提出全球央行和世界货币的想法时，就显然是这样。

“在今天这个想法的政治可行性是很遥远的，在人们对这个想法习以为常之前，要号召一个真正汇集了货币主权的考虑将需要多年。”

然而，即使在当时，Cooper还是提出了一个具体的时间表，并开始严肃地考虑这个问题: “这个单一的货币制度实在太激进，以至于在不久的将来是难以面对的。但25年后，它就不那么过于激进了。”

回想起来，Cooper的计时似乎相当精确：1984年，二十五年后，即2009年，今天，单一世界货币的想法正在启动并被SGCA这类组织和主要倡导者如罗伯特.蒙代尔所牵引。此外，国际清算银行－这个被认为是世界上中央银行家的中央银行－已公开考虑围绕区域集团建立单一世界货币的可能性。

但所有这一切，“是在帮助非洲农民，”或是带来全世界工人平等的工资吗？

可能不是。而且，它将给予国际银行卡特尔一个前所未有的权力，这是从来没有过的或没有经历过的。就象一个全球金融的批评家曾经写道的：“金钱就是金钱，银行业务是银行业务，既不承认任何忠诚，不承担复利”。

“感谢上帝，他通过我们的主耶稣基督给了我们胜利。所以，我亲爱的弟兄们，坚定、不动摇、始终为上帝工作。”

 “A global economy requires a global currency.”  — Paul Volcker, former Chair of the US Federal Reserve.

“I fully support a single global currency.”

Flabbergasted, I waiting for an explanation.

“That way farmers in Africa get the same pay as farmers in North America, and workers in Asia would receive the same as their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere.”

Hmmm…an interesting perspective. I asked the gentleman sitting across the lunch table; “Have you ever seriously studied banking or the historical role of money?”

His response to the negative didn’t surprise me; after all, wage equality and production values are not currency issues per se, albeit currency matters do play a role. Much of our lunch hour, therefore, was spent reviewing the relationship between money, banking, and power.

This provocative discussion, enjoyed over a steaming bowl of soup, took place at the annual meeting of a multi-million dollar Christian-based relief organization. And the person I was dining with wasn’t just an interested attendee; he was a board member representing a significant regional arm of this organization. Granted, he was only one man in a large administrative structure, but his decisions – combined with other board members – impact projects around the globe. Thus, I found his supportive statement for a world currency even more disturbing; here was an individual involved in economic decisions that impacted projects around the globe, yet he didn’t understand what he was asking for.

During the course of our lunch-hour, it was obvious that he had no conception of the incredible power-shift that would occur under such a scheme – a shift that would effectively create a global master of untouchable proportions. All he could see was an international-sized band-aid solution, “a single global currency,” to address the problem of world poverty.

I replayed this conversation after returning home, perplexed by the ease in which a person with the right motives was willing to embrace such a risky global venture. Turning to the banking and economics section of my library, I thumbed through a variety of books and documents in an attempt to wrap my mind around this thorny issue. A number of interesting quotes jumped from the pages,

“The great struggle of history has been for the control over money. It is almost tautological to affirm that to control the production and distribution of money is to control the wealth, resources, and people of the world.”
       — Jack Weatherford, anthropologist and author of The History of Money.

“The control of money and credit strikes at the very heart of national sovereignty.”
       — A.W. Clausen, President of Bank of America, in a response to the suggestion of a global central bank. [Clausen later became the President of the World Bank].

“Once a nation parts with control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws.”
       — W.L. Mackenzie King, [former Prime Minister of Canada].

All of this brings up an interesting question: Does the world need a global central bank? If you want a single world currency, it requires an international banking structure armed with a monetary policy on a planetary scale. Essentially, the requirement for a single global currency is a bank that has power over all countries, kindred, and tongues. Former Canadian Member of Parliament, Paul Hellyer, criticized this development in 1994, saying that under such a global currency/banking system “the interests of citizens, of individual countries must be subordinate…to the interests of international finance.”

“…[countries] would no longer be able to pursue any kind of independent policy. Sovereignty over the most powerful of all economic tools would be turned to an international monster…A world bank run by a world kingship of international appointees collectively not accountable to anyone? Heavenly days!”

Unknown to my lunchtime counterpart, the idea of a single global currency has been quietly batted around in banking and economist circles since the closing days of the Second World War. Over the years this call has increased in intensity. Consider some quotes,

1969: “Let me turn from digging away at the opposition to something more positive, and start with the best and worst of international monetary systems. The first-best, in my judgment, is a world money with a world monetary authority.”— Charles P. Kindleberger, [Professor of Economics, MIT], speaking at a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference.

1984: “I have put forward a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all the industrial democracies with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy…This proposal is far too radical for the near future, but it could provide a ‘vision’ or goal which can guide interim steps...” — Richard N. Cooper [Harvard professor], speaking at a Federal Reserved Bank of Boston conference.

1998: “…the transition to a single currency for the entire world could come with a speed that might surprise many. The world might easily move from having almost 200 currencies today to having one within a decade, and twenty-five years from now, historians would wonder why it took so long to eliminate the Babel of currencies which existed in the twentieth century.” — Bryan Taylor, Chief Economist at Global Financial Data.

2001: “When VISA was founded twenty-five years ago, the founders saw the world as needing a Single Global Currency for exchange. Everything we’ve done from a global perspective has been about trying to put one piece in place after another to fulfill that global vision.” — Sarah Perry, Director of VISA’s Strategic Investment Program.

2004: “…if the global market economy is to thrive over the decades ahead, a global currency seems the logical concomitant.” — Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, former senior economist at the World Bank.

In 2007, the Council on Foreign Relations propelled the idea of a planet-wide currency restructuring by publishing an article in its journal, Foreign Affairs, titled “The End of National Currency.” [Note: on the cover of this Foreign Affairs issue, the article is titled “One World, Too Many Monies.”]

Benn Steil, the Director of International Economics at the CFR, wrote that national money systems should be abandoned, “Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible…” Stated even more succinctly, “Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization.” And, “In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies…”

This is quite the leap. To Steil’s credit, he pinpoints the potential chink in the world economy that could lead us towards a new financial arrangement: the weakening state of the US dollar at the global level.

Over the decades, the US dollar has become the unquestionable global currency, with nations around the world required to hold American greenbacks in order to buy and sell in various international markets, especially in relationship to petroleum. Steil writes,

“…the dollar’s privileged status as today’s global money is not heaven-bestowed. The dollar is ultimately just another money supported only by faith that others will willingly accept it in the future in return for the same sort of valuable things it bought in the past. This puts a great burden on the institutions of the institutions of the U.S. government to validate that faith. And those institutions, unfortunately, are failing to shoulder that burden. Reckless U.S. fiscal policy is undermining the dollar’s position even as the currency’s role as a global money is expanding.”

Recognizing the possible dollar-value scenario, Steil points to the growing concern over China and other “dollar-rich central banks.” Keep in mind, China alone holds over a trillion dollars in reserves, and rumblings from the East over liquidating US dollars have started to cause a stir.

Even though Steil doesn’t ask the question, it becomes painfully obvious: What happens if China and other nations “fear the unbearable lightness of their holdings”? What becomes of the world economy if the US dollar is rapidly dumped by central banks?

All of this underscores a strategic reality that can be summed up in three words: Crisis equals opportunity. As banking mogul A.W. Clausen once said, “new comprehensive politico-economic systems across peoples almost always arise out of conquest or common crisis…”

Robert Mundell, “the father of the euro,” and one of the world’s most respected economists, also views crisis as the starting point for change. In a May, 2007 lecture, Mundell related, “International monetary reform usual becomes possible only in response to a felt need and the threat of a global crisis.”

This Nobel Prize winner also pointed his finger to the possible trigger event, saying that the “global crisis would have to involve the dollar,” and that a world currency should be viewed as “a contingency” to a global dollar disaster.

With a similar crisis in mind, Benn Steil offers what appears to be an altruistic solution. In order to avert the crisis, all that nations need to do is relinquish sovereignty before the problem become insurmountable:

“Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crisis and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism.”

So how should monetary sovereignty by expunged? Steil candidly asserts that the world needs to re-group itself into three regional monetary units: the Dollar, the Euro, and a new Asian currency. This proposal mirrors the work of Robert Mundell, who has been traveling the globe lecturing on a new international monetary unit based on the US dollar, Euro, and Yen. Under Mundell’s plan these three currencies would form the basis of a “world currency unit” called the DEY, and the International Monetary Fund would be its manager.

The implementation of Mundell’s plan may not be too distant as major currency blocks, led by Europe’s success with the euro, are forming in different parts of the globe. South America, the South Eastern Asian nations, and Africa are all looking to create regional currency zones. The Middle East too is going down this road. In fact, in 2010, if all goes according to plan, the Gulf Cooperation Council – which is made up of a number of Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – will have their own regional monetary system. And the world’s fastest growing city, Dubai, is located in a key member-nation of the GCC, the United Arab Emerites.

North America is also embracing currency integration. For years the concept of a North American monetary system has cropped up in central banking circles, with the Amero as the suggested name for the new continental currency. [See the July 2007 issue of Forcing Change for a 19-page report on this development]. And if not the Amero, then some believe the US dollar should become the tri-national staple.

In May 1999, economist Judy Shelton suggested the dollarization of North America to the US House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Others have likewise been examining currency options for the continent, and the momentum towards a new regional economic system binding Canada, the US, and Mexico has grown in intensity.

But how do regional monetary blocks play into a Single Global Currency? Morrison Bonpasse, President of the Single Global Currency Association (SGCA), a group of economists working towards a world currency, answers that question, “The monetary unions of the twenty-first century, and those which survived the twentieth, are the milestones on the path to the future, and to the Global Monetary Union.”

Bonpasse elaborates on this point further,

“Thanks to the success of the European and other monetary unions, we now know how to create and maintain the 3-Gs: a Global Monetary Union, with a Global Central Bank and a Single Global Currency.”

“The world is ready to begin preparing for a Single Global Currency, just as Europe prepared for the euro and as the Arabian Gulf countries are preparing for their common currency. After the goal of a Single Global Currency is established by countries representing a significant proportion of the world’s GDP, then the project can be pursued like its regional predecessors.”

Simply put, the regional model becomes the steppingstone to a one-world currency. However, the problem of nationalism prevails. Discussing this “problem,” Bonpasse writes,

“The task can be stated quite simply: how to move from the current 147 currencies to 1. Developing the political will to overcome the residual strength of nationalism is the major challenge for the movement to a 3-G world. As with the implementation of the euro, the economics and politics of monetary union are inextricably bound together; and the logic of both point toward the 3-G world.

"The question now is not whether the world will adopt a Single Global Currency but When? and How smooth and inexpensive OR rough, costly and chaotic will the journey be?” [Italics and capitals in original]

To the internationalist, national sovereignty is the overriding obstacle. In order for a Global Central Bank and world currency to exist, some other political arrangements will have to be formed. Robert Mundell understood this political problem when giving a lecture in 2003 titled, “The International Monetary System and the Case for a World Currency.” His response was frank: “a global single currency could not be achieved without a global government. To enforce a single currency would involve big problems of organization.”

But this reality isn’t stopping the SGCA and others of like mind from progressive planning. As Bonpasse asserts,

“It is now time to seriously pursue the goal of a Single Global Currency as managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union.”

Already the SGCA has a date in mind: 2024. Regarding a headquarters for the Global Central Bank, Bonpasse suggests Basel, Zurich, or Geneva.

 “Switzerland has a reputation for sound money, and locating the GCB in Switzerland just might be the necessary incentive for that country to join the Global Monetary Union as a member.”

“The governing structure of the GCB should be relatively easy to design, given the available, successful models of the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, and associated organizations such as the World Health Organization. Not everyone is happy with the structure of all those organizations, but it’s a negotiable political question…”

He’s right: it is a political question. This was evident to Richard Cooper when he brought up the idea of a global central bank and currency while at a 1984 Federal Reserve conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire:

 “The idea is so far from being politically feasible at present – in its call for a real pooling of monetary sovereignty – that it will require many years of consideration before people become accustomed to the idea.”

However, even then Cooper advanced a specific timetable to begin taking this idea seriously: “This one-currency regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future. But it is not too radical to envisage 25 years from now…”

In retrospect, Cooper’s timing appears fairly accurate: Twenty-five years after 1984 brings us to 2009, and today the idea of a single global currency is starting to gain traction through organizations like the SGCA and through major advocates such as Robert Mundell. Moreover, the Bank for International Settlements – which is viewed as the central bank for the world’s central bankers – has publicly considered the potential for a one-world currency built around regional groupings.

But will all of this “help the farmer in Africa,” or bring wage equality to the worker’s of the world?

Probably not. It will, however, give unprecedented powers to an international banking cartel, the likes of which has never been seen or experienced before. As a critic of global banking once wrote, “Money is money, and banking is banking, and neither recognizes any allegiances that don’t bear compound interest.”

"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666." Revelation 13:16-18

"Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord...."  1 Corinthians 15:56

站内搜索：	输入您的搜索字词 提交搜索表单	Web my.icxo.com