Heading towards Collapse: How Central Banks destroy Global Stability
From 2000 until today, central banks have done more to destroy global financial stability than at any other time in history.
Different from what is commonly believed, central banks do not exist to bring about stability of any kind, but to control and monopolise financial and monetary policy that keeps them in control of economies worldwide.
All bubbles and financial crises have arisen from central bank manipulation of markets and unnecessary interventions.
Central banks are out there to protect the interests of their owners, and that means if they need to cause a global collapse, they will do just that to achieve their goals. In fact, they’ve done so for over a century.
Economic and financial crises do not know limits. They can emerge in poor regions of the world as well as in heavily industrialised nations, where speculation with financial products is let loose and sometimes unleashed by the bankers themselves.
In many occasions, crises are blamed on world instability due to famine, poverty and social unrest, but banks always forget to mention that they are the source of such crises.
Of all banks out there, the Bank of International Settlements is at the head of all pre-planned crises. This entity is sort of the equivalent of the Bilderberg Group of all banks, it is the Central Bank of all central banks.
It is the place where monetary policy is dictated to the central banks of all countries around the world that adopted their model of control.
It is, therefore, laughable that the BIS warns that new bubbles are on the way and that emerging nations might be the victims of their international policies this time.
Before we enter into BIS’s latest warning, let’s get something obvious out of the way: Global economic and financial crises are engineered to transfer power and money from many hands to few and to justify the “rescue” of financial institutions that are deemed “too big to fail”.
Recently, the coordinator of the central banks warned of the risks that can trigger a new crisis, when the world has not yet recovered from the previous crisis they created.
These dangers are more likely to affect emerging countries such as China and Brazil, and not so much those that already suffered a large housing bubble, such as Spain, United Kingdom or the United States.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) analyzes four types of medium-term risks: a possible upturn in inflation, financial tensions, consumption and investment weakened by high debt levels and what it calls “Protectionism”, a detectable trend in political changes like the exit of the United Kingdom from the EU and the victory of Donald Trump in the United States.
It is not a surprise that globalists and globalist institutions to warn about nationalism or protectionism as both movements directly threaten their supremacy and control of financial and monetary policies. What would BIS be without the legitimacy provided by its members?
In this regard, the general director of the BIS, Jaime Caruana, stated in a speech that “non-tariff barriers, such as regulation or subsidies, have quadrupled since the end of 2010.”
One of the most interesting aspects of a report that was released by the BIS is the warning about some signs of financial warming, especially in emerging countries, reminiscent of those that preceded the Great Financial Crisis, for which the BIS has already coined its own acronym GFC .
“In these countries, an already long-lasting credit expansion, usually accompanied by real estate price increases, indicates the growth of risks,” said Claudio Borio, head of the BIS’s Monetary and Economic Department.
The body responsible for coordinating the world’s central banks notes that large financial risks do not target the advanced economies that were at the center of the great crisis of 2008, such as the US, UK and Spain, which suffered a collapse of Its real estate sector.
In these countries, debt reduction processes involving cuts in social programs and large transfers of money from the middle class to the rich class are taking place; and these cycles of financial manipulation have just begun.
There, the main focus of concern in the medium term are the problems to fix the imbalances of financial sectors, especially in the euro area.
On the contrary, “the classic signs of a cycle of financial risks appear in several countries that got rid of the GCF. This group brings together several emerging economies as well as some of the advanced ones, especially those large exporters of goods.
“In all of them, interest rates have been very low or even negative, inflation has been low, or even have been driven to deflation, despite strong economic growth,” the report says.
The BIS welcomes the fact that low interest rates have contributed to lower debt levels. As many other policies established by BIS and its offspring central banks all over the western world, low interests rates are an artificial way to prevent the inevitable collapse of the economies due to the manipulation and abuse that banks carry out without any supervision.
The economic situation is so bad today that central banks refuse to raise interest rates because of the catastrophic results such increase would have.
Such increase will take place only when the bankers have the pieces of the puzzle in place to collapse the global economy again.
Other risk factors are the growth of the foreign exchange market and high levels of indebtedness; and the fact that in many countries the expansion has been made thanks to the decrease in consumption, something that the BIS considers a symptom of instability.
In its report, BIS did not miss the opportunity to scare the population by saying that a reversal in globalisation would have an even more devastating result.
The opposite is true. Globalization and the concentration of power and money is the reason why financial instability reigns supreme today.
The body headed by Jaime Caruana acknowledges that it does not yet have all the data to evaluate its potential effects.
“Just as no one advocates a technological involution, turning back on globalization would be extremely detrimental to living standards,” Caruana said in his speech. One would not expect to hear anything different from a globalist puppet.
The trio of evils that the BIS referred to last year, however, are continuing: an unusual mix of low productivity growth, high debt and little or no room for economic policies to drive growth.
The three evils are a result of central bank policies and decisions not of the move to deglobalize economies. Does anyone remember of any global financial and economic calamity when countries negotiated in a bilateral or trilateral fashion?
I did not think so.