If Larry Summers were a country, he would have joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. With a backpedalling Washington now completely isolated in its opposition to the China-led venture and with support and enthusiasm running so high that even Beijing itself is apparently surprised, none other than “the hawk” that was almost, kind of considered for the chairmanship of the Fed is out with a sharp rebuke of the US stance calling March “the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system.” Of course we’ve been persistent in our contention that the AIIB represents much more than an attempt on China’s part to provide an alternative source of infrastructure financing to fill the gaps left by the ADB, and as is made abundantly clear by the following, the “secret” is certainly out…
* * *
Time US Leadership Woke Up To New Economic Era, by Larry Summers
This past month may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system. True, there have been any number of periods of frustration for the US before, and times when American behaviour was hardly multilateralist, such as the 1971 Nixon shock, ending the convertibility of the dollar into gold. But I can think of no event since Bretton Woods comparable to the combination of China’s effort to establish a major new institution and the failure of the US to persuade dozens of its traditional allies, starting with Britain, to stay out of it.
This failure of strategy and tactics was a long time coming, and it should lead to a comprehensive review of the US approach to global economics. With China’s economic size rivalling America’s and emerging markets accounting for at least half of world output, the global economic architecture needs substantial adjustment. Political pressures from all sides in the US have rendered it increasingly dysfunctional. …
Are we really to believe that these PhD economics experts didn’t see this coming? Just as Greenspan didn’t see the magnitude of the bubble he was blowing or its vulnerability to fraud and corruption? Are we to believe that the study of economics somehow blocks higher neural activity in the brain?
This is simply not plausible, but if we cling to the belief that our “leaders” are attempting to act in the national self interest then there is no alternative explanation. It’s only when we’re willing to jettison that pleasant illusion and face reality that the motive becomes clear: the US economy must be destroyed to eliminate any alternative to our utter subservience to the banksters’ wet dream: a global government overseen by the private central bankers. Self-sufficiency is anathema to such plans, therefore every sovereign state must be rendered utterly dependent on the global financial hierarchy for physical survival.
More alarmingly, the same principle applies to our utterly reckless and suicidal military posture toward russia and china.
“The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
— Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
… Most people who survive a disaster want the opposite of a clean slate: they want to salvage whatever they can and begin repairing what was not destroyed. “When I rebuild the city I feel like I’m rebuilding myself,” said Cassandra Andrews, a resident of New Orleans’ heavily damaged Lower Ninth Ward, as she cleared away debris after the storm. But disaster capitalists have no interest in repairing what once was. In Iraq, Sri Lanka and New Orleans, the process deceptively called “reconstruction” began with finishing the job of the original disaster by erasing what was left of the public sphere.
When I began this research into the intersection between super-profits and mega-disasters, I thought I was witnessing a fundamental change in the way the drive to “liberate” markets was advancing around the world. Having been part of the movement against ballooning corporate power that made its global debut in Seattle in 1999, I was accustomed to seeing business-friendly policies imposed through arm-twisting at WTO summits, or as the conditions attached to loans from the IMF.
As I dug deeper into the history of how this market model had swept the globe, I discovered that the idea of exploiting crisis and disaster has been the modus operandi of Friedman’s movement from the very beginning – this fundamentalist form of capitalism has always needed disasters to advance. What was happening in Iraq and New Orleans was not a post-September 11 invention. Rather, these bold experiments in crisis exploitation were the culmination of three decades of strict adherence to the shock doctrine.
Seen through the lens of this doctrine, the past 35 years look very different. Some of the most infamous human rights violations of this era, which have tended to be viewed as sadistic acts carried out by anti-democratic regimes, were in fact either committed with the intent of terrorising the public or actively harnessed to prepare the ground for radical free-market “reforms”. In China in 1989, it was the shock of the Tiananmen Square massacre and the arrests of tens of thousands that freed the Communist party to convert much of the country into a sprawling export zone, staffed with workers too terrified to demand their rights. The Falklands war in 1982 served a similar purpose for Margaret Thatcher: the disorder resulting from the war allowed her to crush the striking miners and to launch the first privatisation frenzy in a western democracy.
The bottom line is that, for economic shock therapy to be applied without restraint, some sort of additional collective trauma has always been required. Friedman’s economic model is capable of being partially imposed under democracy – the US under Reagan being the best example – but for the vision to be implemented in its complete form, authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian conditions are required. …
The global elite’s plans for the USA: “IMF Riots”