July 10 (Bloomberg) – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev illustrated his call for a supranational currency to replace the dollar by pulling from his pocket a sample coin of a “united future world currency.”
“Here it is,” Medvedev told reporters today in L’Aquila, Italy, after a summit of the Group of Eight nations. “You can see it and touch it.”
The coin, which bears the words “unity in diversity,” was minted in Belgium and presented to the heads of G-8 delegations, Medvedev said.
The question of a supranational currency “concerns everyone now, even the mints,” Medvedev said. The test coin “means they’re getting ready. I think it’s a good sign that we understand how interdependent we are.”
Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the U.S. dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the G-20 meeting in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency.
I’d say you took the words right out of my mouth, but my contract with the Zionist Mole Banker Trilateral Bilderberg Association of the Constellation Draco forbids me to state anything.
No no no, you’ve got it all wrong. This helpful chart explains it all:
.
OT again: Also, from what I hear, the Russian economy is becoming more socialistic as of late. Though, funnily enough, PM Putin criticised Obama as too interventionist.
What, exactly, difference does it make if the Federal Reserve system is the product of human stupidity, a Rockefeller plot, Chinese agents or the lizardmen of Draco? Let’s focus on arguments against things like centralized banking based on solid economic arguments, not fringe theories that often have strong association with racial supremacy and religious fundamentalism, and end up making opponents of centralized programs look like overworked X-Files fans.
I do care, because it’s complete political correctness shunning people away because they think it’s a conspiracy (isn’t the state itself a conspiracy, as a workable concept? Ooops, I guess all anti-statists are silly X-files conspiracy theorists now), versus those who do not.
More clearly, I think it’s complete idiocy to argue that incompetence is a stronger possibility than conscious intent, when the answer is clearly both (i.e. incompetence at lower levels, intent at higher levels, which could be as high as corrupt bankers influecing governments, which is hardly historically new & unique to the X-Files strawman you propose).
I would love to focus on the arguments of incompetenc**e versus intent, without people proposing it is intent being told to shut-up by the possibly arrogant who think that a corrupt system of coercion somehow magically came about due to incompetence, and not by some inherent flaws in the design of said system (in this case, the US starting out as more or less minarchist constitutional republic; the constitution has been proven since the outcome of the civil war & before an failure, albiet gradually), & by intent of various people who helped drive such events, which could be anyone from cabinet members to bankers etc.
If racial supremacy & religious fundamentalism come into anyone’s “arguments”, then argue against those specifically.
I’m tired of reactionary pc comments such as “let’s focus on the arguments”, when the supposed “conspiracy theorist” (who might be proposing something possibly realistic, such as the FED being corrupt & possibly having influence on the government at large, or bankers leveraging their power to influence, etc.) ends up getting told to shut up, because their arguments have been equated with things they do not argue for from the outset.
I don’t know, I just see problems with it all. It seems to persecute genuinely possible ideas (such as global bankers, slippery slope towards one world government, diminishing the middle class to increase instability, etc.) into the realm of insanity for the sake of popularity points, especially when prospects for one world government are not new ideas & have been historically confirmed to be tossed around as early as Woodrow & FDR.
One could argue such possible one world governments came close to being realized before when empires would reign over the globe in said cultural or military dominance, just without all the new shiny technology & more complacent majorities to make it easier this time around.
Oh dear, I guess I’m some sort of conspiracy nut for preferring the argument of pro-intent, versus pro-incompetence, despite their being plenty of incompetence to go around.
Then again, imo, incompetence would imply that the state can be run correctly (unless you specify that the incompetent would advocate an incompetent model such as statism, I suppose), which is partially why I think the assumption of incompetence, at least by anti-statists, is ultimately contradictory.
Any one-world coin must be hefty enough to do damage when tossed off the Empire State Building and strong enough to put in a vending machine afterwards.
-Nearly every person on the planet consents to being governed by a groups of people who typically steal (tax) at least 1/3 of their income,
-Almost every president/prime minister on earth in the last 50 years has presided over some form of mass killing/war yet only a tiny fraction have been held accountable, and most are actually still idealized on some level
-Every country has a central bank, pursuing destructive economic policy that just happens to help those in government, and those wealthy enough to have influence in government, while hurting the masses who do not
-Nearly every country on earth is on an accelerated march towards statism, in every way imaginable
This is all due to the fact that some idiots existed, managed to get into power, and stuff just…happened? If that’s the case, you can call me a proud conspiracy theorist.
As Rothbard said:
"Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals…It is the opponents of “conspiracy” analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning… Do we say that David Rockefeller’s prodigious efforts on behalf of certain statist public policies are merely a reflection of unfocused altruism? Or is there pursuit of economic interest involved? Was Jimmy Carter named a member of the Trilateral Commission as soon as it was founded because Rockefeller and the others wanted to hear the wisdom of an obscure Georgia governor? Or was he plucked out of obscurity and made President by their support? Was J. Paul Austin, head of Coca-Cola, an early supporter of Jimmy Carter merely out of concern for the common good? Were all the Trilateralists and Rockefeller Foundation and Coca-Cola people chosen by Carter simply because he felt that they were the ablest possible people for the job? If so, it’s a coincidence that boggles the mind. Or are there more sinister political-economic interests involved? I submit that the naïfs who stubbornly refuse to examine the interplay of political and economic interest in government are tossing away an essential tool for analyzing the world in which we live.
When / If it happens. You can ridicule those who obsess about the crystal ball, but you’d be ridiculous to immediately discount the possibilities they speak of.
Could anyone have imagined the impact of the Prussian model (education) would eventually have in state indoctrination, or did people back then view it all as a conspiracy?
It also doesn’t mean that you can arrogantly dismiss anything resembling a conspiracy as ‘nazi moon base wacko nutjob theories’, or whatever term of abuse suits those eager to drink up the government kool aid.
This is especially true when one has only taken a cursory look at one side of the subject…
