Poverty, hunger and instability are not consequences of a polarized world, but the result of policies implemented by industrialists and bankers to force the poor to live in misery.
Eradicating poverty and misery is cheaper than maintaining it. This reality is well-known by those in power. Yet, year in and year out, the ‘governors’ of the international financial syndicate refuse to put an end to endemic poverty worldwide, even though they have tools and the skills to do so.
While everyone expects that new, creative and innovative ways to solve poverty come out of gatherings such as Davos and the Bilderberg Group meetings, it is really hard to see how the ‘governors’ would want to do just that.
The gathering at Bretton Woods back in 1944 allowed 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations to plan their vision of the world to come.
The ‘governors’ laid out very clearly the type of progress and at times the lack of it, that there would be for the best part of the 20th and 21st centuries.
They created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1945, which are still today the United Nations Monetary and Financial organizations that control development worldwide, but with more intensity in the so-called developing world, which by the way has remain so – developing – since the Bretton Woods institutions were installed.
This system of global governance has either purposely failed to curb poverty and end misery, or it was simply designed to keep the wealth concentrated in few hands, which is what it has managed to do so far. In this context, can the ‘governors’ of the Bretton Woods institutions, who dragged the world down into the pit it is in today solve the current global crisis?
The argument presented by those who think it is possible to solve the issue of poverty is very simple and it can be summarized in one word: productivity.
History is the best witness that while the world was a productive place and while the industrialists were in a controlled mode, the global economy is the fairest to most people. It was not perfect of course, but it was the time when the largest tidal wave of progress lifted the most boats.
However, once the forces entangled with the hands of the ‘governors’ grew out of control, productivity took a back seat to monopoly capitalism, concentration of wealth and exploitation of natural resources beyond any limits.
Today, as a result of an out-of-control corporatization of the economic and financial landscape, one percent of the people who live on planet Earth have concentrated half of the world’s wealth in their pockets.
What most people do not understand is that the installation of the Bretton Woods institution was a direct attempt to control, not to aid development. Any and all examples of progress seen since after WWII was roughly planned for and carefully made available.
Having accumulated a lot of wealth, the owners of industry and banking began to do what we have all witnessed with more frequency since the start of 1990s and up until now. Political bodies and private interests have worked systematically to transfer the most amount of wealth and power into fewer hands.
This is the real purpose of the Bretton Woods institutions and the real intention envisioned by its creators.
By promoting development in some of its member-states while limiting and controlling progress in the developing world, where they had put themselves in charge to ‘help out’, the ‘governors’ guaranteed that they would have unlimited cheap, nearly free labor while swallowing up the most natural resources which they used to develop infrastructure and technology that further expanded their control.
Although productivity was the mother of all progress, industrialists and bankers only used it as long as it worked for them and not a minute longer. The moment productivity appeared to be providing more wealth and power to those outside their circle, the ‘governors’ turned their eyes to monopoly.
They implemented monopolies through two main practices. First, so-called free-trade to implement even more controls over production, labor, wages, markets, sales and profit. Under these programs, jobs, savings and property have vanished. Second, they embarked in a political conquest that called for the unification of existing bureaucracies and geographical areas as well as the creation of new ones that are not accountable to anyone.
According to the United Nations’ World Food Program, investment of one US dollar against child malnutrition brings benefits equal to an investment of 45 US dollars. So why have the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations itself failed to end poverty?
One of the reasons is that poverty is a weapon of control, that, as mentioned earlier, has been used forever to control development in third world regions of the planet. Financial aid and debt negotiation, for example, have been conditioned to adopting austerity policies that promoted and still promote more poverty.
The growth of poverty and misery around the world is policy, not an accident or a sign of political incapacity.
An investigation published by “The Lancet” concludes that the populations of developing countries can get as much as 46% more income throughout their life if they receive adequate nutrition during the first two years of their life.
Although promoting policies to end hunger is an objective of all political leaders and philanthropists, it is clear that neither politicians nor philanthropists think it is a good idea to increase productivity and eradicate poverty in order to end hunger and malnutrition. As pointed out before, productivity, which is in itself a generator of employment, income and consequently better living conditions for the greatest number of people, is no longer a goal for the ‘governors’.
Experts in the field such as Horton and Hoddinott proved the thesis that productivity supports the birth of better living conditions. A study conducted in Guatemala in 1969 compared the evolution of two groups of preschoolers: a few were fed properly and others followed their usual diet. Thirty-five years later it was found that those who received adequate nutrition spent more years in school and found a better cognitive development than others. They also got good jobs, better wages and household consumption registered a 66% increase.
Despite the fact that studies as those conducted by Horton and Hoddinott clearly exemplify how productivity promotes the betterment of humanity, don’t expect the participants at the Davos meeting to tell you that or to act upon it. All they want to talk about is how vaccinations, land-grabbing by the UN, concentration of power and wealth in fewer hands are the salvation for us all, even though vaccines, political and economic power and illegal confiscation of property have nothing to do with health, nutrition, productivity or progress for humanity.
As Oxfam has reported, inequality, a consequence of political and economic policies adopted since the inception of Bretton Woods, is directly responsible for poverty, little or no economic growth, unhappy populations, undermining national governance and democracy and the squashing of human potential. All of these realities are true today.
Can the “global governors”, the fathers of the Bretton Woods institutions that dragged the world down into the hole it is today now solve the issues they have purposely caused? Probably not. They can’t because it would mean going back to earlier times, when they were less in control of world affairs. It also means they would have to yield wealth and power. They can’t. They don’t want to.
Luis Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda News. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news.