by Peter Raymond
George  Soros is right; the world's financial system does need to be reformed,  but just not in the way he and his collectivist cohorts envision.
So  moved by the ongoing financial crisis, Soros felt compelled to take  action.  The world has suffered as a result of "unfettered" financial markets and Soros decided now is the time to rethink how the global economy and markets should function.
"The entire edifice of global financial markets  has been erected on the false premise that markets can be left to their  own devices, we must find a new paradigm and rebuild from the ground  up. I decided to sponsor INET to facilitate the process. I hope others  will join me," Soros said when announcing his initial funding of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) in 2009.
This implies aggressive market intervention measures carried out by policymakers and regulators had little to do with creating the crisis.  As we have come to learn, numerous government policies leading up to the crisis  were extremely speculative and, with the benefit of hindsight,  categorically irrational.  And, they remain so today.  So, it is  intellectually dishonest to heap the lion share of the blame on markets  and private investors when even the medium of exchange was profoundly  manipulated by regulators.
Anyway,  so began Soros' quest to correct the "deficiencies in our outdated  current economic theories" which facilitated the seemingly inadequately  named "Great Recession."  INET's goal is to inspire "new economic  thinking" and encourage "research funding, community building, and  spreading the word about the need for change" in order to guide  regulatory reform and government policy changes. 
The  primary purpose of their research seems centered on designing a  singular global financial architecture intended to "account" for the  "imperfections in individuals" and "bring the economy to a balanced,  efficient equilibrium." 
High  on INET's agenda is to overcome the "prevailing thinking, that the  economy is an idealized system of perfectly rational, optimizing  individuals and institutions."  This view just drips of elitism and yet  the vast majority of INET's star economists and policymakers did not  forecast the current financial crisis. 
It should come as no surprise there is disagreement along ideological lines over what actually brought about the crisis.  What is undeniable however, although collectivists will never concede it, in one fell swoop the crisis effectively invalidated their central planning economic models. 
But,  such blind loyalty to failed policies should come as no surprise since  many of INET's highly esteemed participants wholeheartedly believe in  the fallacy of a positive multiplier effect from government "stimulus"  spending despite Japan's and United States' repeated failed attempts.
With  an obvious predisposition for government based solutions, it is  predictable much of INET's attention remains focused on the supposed  failings of an inherently flawed free market system while ignoring  government interventions that distorted and eventually destabilized the  markets.  In their envisioned world order, regulations and structure is  the corrective remedy for "fallible" regulators and market participants  that "frequently fall below the standard of being perfectly rational." 
The  core theme is that government is the channel through which all change  must occur.  Unmanaged markets are deemed ineffectual in meeting the  demands of the fast paced global economy of the 21st century.
But,  governments and regulating institutions have proven to be utterly  incapable in preventing a financial crisis and pathetically susceptible  to lobbying efforts.  Furthermore, policies have encouraged risk taking  by removing the consequences of failure with bailout schemes. 
History  shows political agendas inevitably influence policymakers to alter  financial regulations and push for credit expansion.  These policy  schemes create abnormally large investment bubbles that eventually  collapse and ripple through the financial market.  The size of the  "malinvestment" at the time of the collapse determines the level of  chaos created.
The  point being, government intervention, intentionally or not, perpetuates  overinvestment well beyond what would normally occur in a free market.   The resulting damage to the economy and the temptation to authorize  taxpayer funded bailouts is exponentially greater because of the  exaggerated size of these bubbles.  Therefore it seems absurd to entrust  elitists who have been consistently wrong in their economic forecasts  to build a financial system that centralizes power on a global scale.
So-called  "new economic thinking" will likely be nothing more than repackaged  expansions of Keynesian policies dependent upon central banks, fiat  currencies, government "investments," and countercyclical measures.  The  key difference is the practical abolition of sovereign borders allowing  wealth to be distributed globally according to the dictates of a single  global banking authority.
There  is little reason to presume INET members will experience an  "emancipation of belief" and work to reverse the government-centric  policies largely responsible for the crisis.  Instead, the failures to  date are excused as the consequence of under application of Keynesian  principles.  Or as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman regularly  rails about in his columns; Washington simply did not spend enough to  stimulate the economy.
It  is even suggested this new economic thinking has the potential to  "enable a better world" and may help with "solving climate change,  poverty and inequality, and driving sustainable growth in the long  run."  Forming a global banking consortium with such lofty ambitions is  obviously a cause for concern.
Predictably,  the estimated costs associated with redistributing wealth away from the  world's production centers is likely to be greatly discounted.  As is  typical of public intellectuals, they will fixate on an unrealistic  world vision. 
Avoiding  a catastrophe after tethering together the global economy with a  cumbersome financial structure is improbable in the long run.  Any  banking crisis created by ill-conceived policies of global bureaucracy, a  scenario that seems inescapable, could easily be multiple factors  larger than the current one.  At the first indications of a looming  financial disaster, the system will likely fracture and result in a near  collapse of commerce as nations are left with few, if any, alternative sources of credit. 
As evidenced by the dilemma  facing Euro nations, tensions between conservative and liberal nations  could easily escalate as demands for austerity measures go unheeded.   Milton Friedman's initial prediction the Euro would not survive a major  financial crisis will certainly be put to the test as worsening debt  issues strain the economies of member states.
This  year's annual INET conference held in Bretton Woods called the  "International Political Economy at the Crossroads" most likely will  turn out more plans to establish a global architecture that overshadows  the free market and restricts financial innovation. 
The  time has come to question the need for behemoth economic institutions.   As far as I am concerned, Soros is consumed with rehashing failed  collectivist aspirations that will undermine individual prosperity and  market stability. 
Today's  technology offers the opportunity to completely rethink our arguably  outdated concepts regarding mediums of exchange and trade.  The preferable course of action is to move toward decentralizing the global economy and financial markets to avoid the systemic risk and moral hazards of a central planning bureaucracy and too big to fail banks.
Unless  we are willing to explore options that empower individuals and at least  question the validity of central banks, fiat currencies, manipulated  interest rates, and stimulus spending, we are left with unremitting  government policies seizing more control of financial markets and the  economy.  Certainly there must be something more sensible and  imaginative than establishing a global financial oligarchy. 
                                                         Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_soros_plan_to_remake_globa.html
Peter Raymond
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
 
2 comments:
Soros is only interested in his own power and wealth. He never mentions how he forced UK out of European exchange mechanism by betting against the pound; he made billions from that.
Just consider, if all the world's currencies are linked, how much money he can make or how much control he can exert over world powers?
I believe Russian would like very much to have Soros returned to them so to stand trial, after which, he would then be executed in but a short time. I cannot understand why the United States continues harboring Soros and his not being expedited back to Russia.
Post a Comment