by Barbara L. Minton

citizen journalist

June 21, 2008

from NaturalNews Website

 

 

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva recently revealed that the South American countries are planning for a common currency as part of the integration of the individual countries into the Union of South American Nations. This integration is patterned after the formation of the European Union, and parallels the plan for the North American Union.

The union of South American nations would create a trade block designed to be competitive with the European and North American trade blocks. Central to the formation of the union is the creation of a central bank to oversee the new common currency that would replace the currencies of the individual countries in the block. In a recent broadcast, President Lula stated that he sees the implementation of this plan as not being a fast one.

In his message, the president stressed the need to help the countries of South America that are economically weak, such as Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia.

"We have to help them because the stronger the countries in South America economically are, the more tranquility, peace, democracy, trade, companies, jobs, incomes and development", he is quoted here.

Another unfolding feature of the South American Union similar to that of the North American Union is its dependence on newly created infrastructure.

 

The South American alliance will promote the cross-nation construction of railroads, highways, bridges and transmission lines that will connect the entire region resulting in smooth interaction and movement within the trading block. The NAFTA and CAFTA Superhighways epitomize the infrastructural development of the North American Union trading block.

The union plan also calls for a regional defense council, apparently the beginning of the imposition of a regional government. This council would resolve regional conflicts, promote military cooperation and allow for the regional coordination of weapons production, much as the military integration of Canada and the U.S. initiates the unification of governments in the North American Countries.

The plan to establish a new common currency for the Union of South American Nations is the latest development in the initiation of common currencies representative of multi-country trading blocks. The Euro was the first trade block currency, established as part of the European Union.

 

The Amero is the name of what may be the North American Union's counterpart to the Euro, debuting after economic integration and homogenization of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada have been completed, at exchange rates that represent the lowered standard of living of the Americans and the Canadians.

Critics of the Union of South American Nations' efforts to establish a common currency see it as playing right into the hands of the world banking cartel.

 

The clustering and assimilation of currencies facilitates the eventual merger into a one world currency promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and its political puppets. They see the move toward the South American Union with its single currency as easily fitting with the European Union and current efforts to establish the North American Union.

 

Once the formation of these major trading blocks is completed, the next step would be the unification of the blocks into a one world government.

This one world government is sometimes referred to as the New World Order. The Council on Foreign Relations has openly stated that its intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the U.S. with the aim of creating a one world government. The Council, referred to as CFR, has influence in all vital areas of American life and around the world.

 

Members have run or are running the major media outlets including NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and many other publications.

CFR members dominate the political world. U.S. presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have been CFR members, with the exception of Ronald Reagan. CFR members also dominate the academic world, top corporations, unions and the military. They are on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

 

Barack Obama and John McCain are CFR members, as well as the Bushes and the Clintons. There are many corporate members of the CFR.

 

CFR plans are not subject to the,

• scrutiny

• debate

• vote of the people

Discussion of the plans has been conspicuously absent from the endless debating of the presidential candidates.


 

---

The End of National Currency
by Benn Steil
May/June 2007

from ForeingAffairs Website
 

THE RISE OF MONETARY NATIONALISM
Capital flows have become globalization's Achilles' heel.

 

Over the past 25 years, devastating currency crises have hit countries across Latin America and Asia, as well as countries just beyond the borders of western Europe - most notably Russia and Turkey.

 

Even such an impeccably credentialed pro-globalization economist as U.S. Federal Reserve Governor Frederic Mishkin has acknowledged that,

"opening up the financial system to foreign capital flows has led to some disastrous financial crises causing great pain, suffering, and even violence."

The economics profession has failed to offer anything resembling a coherent and compelling response to currency crises.

 

International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysts have, over the past two decades, endorsed a wide variety of national exchange-rate and monetary policy regimes that have subsequently collapsed in failure. They have fingered numerous culprits, from loose fiscal policy and poor bank regulation to bad industrial policy and official corruption.

 

The financial-crisis literature has yielded policy recommendations so exquisitely hedged and widely contradicted as to be practically useless.

Antiglobalization economists have turned the problem on its head by absolving governments (except the one in Washington) and instead blaming crises on markets and their institutional supporters, such as the IMF - "dictatorships of international finance," in the words of the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

"Countries are effectively told that if they don't follow certain conditions, the capital markets or the IMF will refuse to lend them money," writes Stiglitz.

 

"They are basically forced to give up part of their sovereignty."

Is this right? Are markets failing, and will restoring lost sovereignty to governments put an end to financial instability?

 

This is a dangerous misdiagnosis. In fact, capital flows became destabilizing only after countries began asserting "sovereignty" over money - detaching it from gold or anything else considered real wealth.

 

Moreover, even if the march of globalization is not inevitable, the world economy and the international financial system have evolved in such a way that there is no longer a viable model for economic development outside of them.
 

Return to Globalization - The Octopus of The New World Order

Return to The Global Banking System

Return to The North America Union