Will Euro Failure Usher in World Currency?

Thursday, March 03, 2011 – by  Staff Report

German-Irish brinkmanship raises EMU stakes … German bail-out fatigue and fierce resistance to EMU “rescue creep” threaten to derail a eurozone deal this month, and risk triggering a fresh round of Europe’s debt crisis. The EU’s new criteria for bank stress tests to be agreed this week adds another risk. Ireland’s new leader Enda Kenny faces a daunting task as he tries to change the terms of his country’s €67bn (£57b EU-IMF package, either by cutting the penal rate of interest or changing the remit of the rescue fund to help Ireland claw its way out of a debt trap. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: So much to muddle through. The EU will survive.

Free-Market Analysis: The Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has published one of his usual insightful analyses on the upcoming difficulties the Irish will face in renegotiating debt payments to prop up failing Irish banks (see article excerpt above). Irish bank bonds are held by German and French banks, among others, and there has been overwhelming pressure placed on Ireland ‘s government to borrow money, raise taxes and cut expenses so as to ensure the ailing banks do not founder entirely.

The stresses placed on the Irish economy and Irish taxpayers in particular are tremendous. Iceland chose not to support its insolvent banks and as a result the Icelandic economy has show some improvement; the Irish economy still lags badly and there is no expectation that it will much improve; in fact it is likely to end in a kind of national bankruptcy or popular rebellion.

For this reason, the Irish turned to the country’s main opposition party, Fine Gael, in recent elections to provide a clear alternative to what has already been agreed upon with the EU. Nonetheless, as Evans-Pritchard shows, there are grave obstacles in the way of renegotiating an agreement with the EU that provided bank bailout money to stabilize Irish finances last year.

Much of the problem with renegotiating the current, likely unsupportable, agreement lies with Germany itself. Most recently it has been suggested that the EU could issue “eurobonds” that would considerably ease the financial crunch that countries like Ireland face. But Angela’s Merkel’s three-party German coalition is opposed to the eurobond idea, Evans-Pritchard reports, because ultimately all EU countries would end up guaranteeing such bonds. The coalition intends to put any agreement reached by the EU to a vote in the Bundestag. More than this, “A group of 189 German professors has [warned] of ‘fatal consequences for the whole process of European integration’ if the EU crosses the Rubicon to a de facto debt union.”

“I cannot remember any occasion when lawmakers have set guidance like this before: Merkel has very little leeway,” Pritchard-Evans quotes Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas as saying. “There is going to be disappointment at the summit and that will make life even harder for the EMU periphery.” Meanwhile, an oil spike will considerably reduce EU growth and make the Irish economy (among others) even less responsive. Such “peripheral countries” are most at risk from exogenous financial difficulties.

Merkel’s administration has an alternative plan to offer Eurocrats. In return for expanding the bailout pool, those recipients of aid will agree to an intrusive EU (German) regulatory and inspection reign. This has already met stiff resistance from the Irish and others. Resentments from World War II are still evident, especially in such countries as Greece, and the perception is that Germany is trying to use its financial clout to gain in peacetime the European empire it could not claim long ago by war.

The European Commission, Evans-Pritchard points out, has drafted a compromise plan, but in Germany, already, it is seen as more of the same. Outgoing Bundesbank chief Axel Weber – a vehement critic of any agreement that would further enmesh Germany financially into third-party bailouts – has attacked the plan, claiming it would eventually resolve itself into a move toward a eurobond program. Germany’s views on this matter are increasingly shared in Holland and Finland – other so-called “Northern” states that are considerably more solvent than Southern ones.

Ireland currently pays nearly 6 percent for EU loans, versus the EU funding cost of 2.6 percent and there is no guarantee that the carrying costs won’t rise as the EU gradually continues its recovery from the 2008 crisis. Evans Pritchard believes the new Irish regime has one considerable weapon in its arsenal, which is to “threaten ‘haircuts’ on senior bank creditors if the EU refuses to compromise, a move that might set off EMU-wide contagion and inflict big losses on German Landesbanken.” To play it, he concludes, would encourage the wrath of the eurozone. To allow the situation to remain as it is will reignite the wrath of the voters that the just handed a resounding defeat to the previous regime that negotiated the current bailout terms. The alternatives could not be starker.

Evans-Pritchard’s analysis ceases with the observation of the various alternatives. But we want to suggest a fourth option here – one that no respectable mainstream publication would likely speculate on. Our idea is that at this point the euro is actually being set up for failure. The current dilemma may be no accident and is in fact perfectly predictable. We have argued in the past that the eurozone is an integral part of the Anglo-American power elite’s plans for closer global governance. But the EU itself has harmonized much of Europe’s regulatory disparities and in a sense, even without full political power, has turned the Eurozone into a homogenous whole.

It may be that the euro itself is expendable at this point. The idea would be, of course, that as the euro continues to falter, an alternative currency must be waiting in the wings. The Anglosphere has such a currency available in the IMF’s SDRs, which can be resolved into an even more fungible currency called the “bancor” as economist John Maynard Keynes suggested 50 years ago.

While this may sound somewhat unrealistic, to say the least, we would argue (as Devil’s advocate) that it is sociopolitical and economic chaos that drives sizable economic changes. Is such chaos looming on the horizon? It seems to us that the power elite has already begun to inflict it on the world, creating regime change throughout the Middle East and Africa. We’ve covered Western culpability in this regard in numerous articles. We would argue that any elite capable of setting off controlled revolutions in a dozen countries is certainly willing to introduce similar chaos in the West.

What signs to do we see? We think that Western central banking policies may have deliberately introduced raging price inflation in developed and developing countries. We believe the sudden advent of food scarcity (to be followed by water scarcity) may be no accident either. All these factors are controllable via money power and we it would seem to us, arguably anyway, that this controlled – and expanding – chaos is meant to be.

In America, Barack Obama has added trillions to the national debt and made George Bush’s profligacy look almost modest by comparison. Again, we believe that this may be a deliberate destabilization of the nation’s fiscal and monetary situation. Homeland Security’s authoritarian depredations are acting as deliberate incitements as well. With 40 million on food stamps, 20 percent unemployment (at least), mounting price inflation, failing wars, 10-percent foreclosures and a polarized political environment, we would tend to believe that America is on the verge of the kinds of civil disturbances that Europe is likely to face as the weather warms.

It is not the civil unrest itself that will make the difference but the inflationary decline of the dollar reserve system. The combination of monetary destabilization, social unrest and military tension (the West versus the growing “threat” of a (controlled) faux-militant Islam) could create the necessity for a grand G-20 compromise that could usher in a new monetary environment administered by the IMF under the auspices of the UN. At that point, all that would be needed to create a UN-driven “new world order” is a taxing authority, something the UN has been suggesting with increased enthusiasm for the past several years.

Conclusion: Certainly all the above sounds radically speculative but we have been astonished at the boldness – desperation? – of the power elite’s depredations in the past few years. Destabilizing a quarter of the world is apparently not beyond it and we would not put it past this shadowy cabal to purposefully begin to destabilize the euro as they have evidently destabilized the dollar. China has all but broken away from the dollar-reserve system in the past months and Russia shall not be far behind in our opinion. We do not yet foresee the exact mechanisms that might resolve themselves into a new monetary system but in this article we have done our best to pursue the issue logically. Far-fetched? Sure. But no more than many other events occurring in the world today.

http://www.thedailybell.com/1816/Will-Euro-Failure-Usher-in-World-Currency.html

No, not far fetched at all….

IT’S TIME FOR GADAFFI TO GO…CAMERON

IS GETTING OBSESSED…………..CONCENTRATE ON THIS COUNTRY IDIOT!!

Sat Apr 12 18:51:06 2003
208.152.73.35

To All,

I forward this a second time in case any of you missed it the first time I sent it. Most people are aware of the term “Big Brother” but I am often amazed at how few know it came from this classic novel.

If you haven’t read “1984? it is safe to say, “you don’t know what you are missing”. “1984? was written by a member of the secret society known as “The Fabians”. The way I heard this part of it, George Orwell (the pen-name) “woke up” to realize what he was involved in as this “society” was nothing more than a think tank for “social engineering”. Not knowing a better way to tell the truth of what was being PLANNED for the world’s future (and fearing for his life), he warned us in “story form”. What is foretold in “1984? has been coming to fruition for years. Written in 1948 (if memory serves), how could the author have possibly even known of the technology he addresses in the writing ?

The principle is simple; evil forces operating through willing “change agents” (we call them men and women “leaders”) intend to be your god. They intend to know and orchestrate everything in your life. The antithesis of God.

Paperbacks and hard cover copies are getting harder and harder to find. you might want to down-load this printing.

LLTF,
Roland

Hello,

This was sent to me for free and I thought I would just pass it on. This is an excellent read even for the second or third time.

NineteenEighty-Four-GeorgeOrwell

The Fabians
by Norman Ian. MacKenzie
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067122347X/fast-bkasin-20/002-1527871-4232805
=========================================

Posted – 01/28/2003 : 11:15:01 Show Profile Reply with Quote
http://lufa.ca/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=375

I have been asked to post some of my findings here for you people to read. I caution you that if you are anything like me you will find the information “unsettling” at first. I wish it were not true, but it is…it REALLY is.

There is quite a bit of information to read, far more than can be read in one sitting. Try NOT to scan this info… it needs to be understood.

I will give you the links to the information here, and you can copy and paste them and read them as you like. O.K. … let’s get started

Begin here and read the Grand Deception under the Issues heading ” http://www.freedom-force.org/granddeception.htm “

Then you can validate their existance here ” http://junior.apk.net/~forestj/ifabian.html “

and ” http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/fabian.htm “

and ” http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org  /”

and ” http://www.alphalink.com.au/~noelmcd/wolves.htm  “

and ” http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-93.html  “

and finally ” http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Pfabian.htm  “

Now… as if that isn’t enough you need to read this “http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/regionalism/dodd.htm  “

and this ” http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/research/fabiansociety.html  “

There is more, but this is enough to get an understanding of something that everyone should be cognizant of. It is real, they are serious and we see the effects of their efforts evry day. Moreso once you understand what is taking place.

Cheers! George.
=========================

The New York Review of Books: HELP THE FABIANS
… 12, 1977 Letter HELP THE FABIANS By John Kenneth Galbraith … Kermode’s review of the MacKenzies on the Fabians (NYR, March 17), all who read the … civilize modern industrial existence? The Fabians are still at work, still exploring …
Description: An article by John Kenneth Galbraith from The New York Review of Books, May 12, 1977
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8497  – 6 KB

The Fabians and the British Empire, Part IV – Suite101.com
… The Fabians and the British Empire, Part IV Author: Joseph Sramek Published on: June 9, 2000 Related …
more hits from: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/945/33734  – 42 KB

LUFA – The Fabians are why you are losing your freedoms.
… All Forums LUFA Forums Political unrest The Fabians are why you are losing your freedoms. New Topic Reply to Topic …
more hits from: http://lufa.ca/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=375
===================================

Routing The Fabians
Kenneth McDonald
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/economichistory/routingfabians.shtml

I can still hear Sidney Webb explaining to me that the future belonged to the great administrative nations, where the officials govern and the police keep order

-Elie Halevy

Founded in England in 1884, the Fabian Society’s aim was to spread the ideas of socialism gradually by democratic means. For almost a century it succeeded. In Great Britain and North America, under liberal and conservative governments alike, the state’s influence spread. As recently as the late 1970s, every member of (British) Prime Minister James Callaghan’s cabinet was a Fabian.

Nevertheless it was increasingly plain to majorities of British and North American voters that attempts in the Fabian mode “to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society” had built up a governmental apparatus that was choking their economies. The election of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and, later, Brian Mulroney signaled a rejection of Fabianism.

What has not been signaled is the nature of the “ism” that will replace it. It is not enough to hail the blessings of individual enterprise, or freer trade, or even individual freedom. All three stand to be enhanced as the state assumes a less active role in the economy. Desirable though that enhancement may be, it lacks the appeal that wins elections. Nor can we afford the luxury of the Fabians’ gradualism in reverse. The accelerating burden of debt–servicing charges alone demands action in years, not generations.

The political task is to establish a principle, to form policies that adhere to it, and to explain the combination to the people.

Suppose that in North America the principle were to be that the best government is that which governs least, i.e., the antithesis of Fabian socialism. Policy would then be directed toward dismantling the governmental apparatus. Government corporations would be offered for sale. Any unsold after a stated interval would be dissolved. Services provided solely by federal governments would be contracted out to private suppliers whose terms of contract would stipulate criteria of service and performance. Federal governments would withdraw from revenue-sharing programs of a service nature (education, health and hospital care), leaving to states and provinces the options of making up the difference by direct taxation or contracting the services out.
Individual Choice

The effect would be to transfer significant amounts of spending power, and decisions about spending, from governments back to the individuals who contribute to their revenue.

Two consequences would follow. First, as federal spending fell, budgets would move into balance while providing for steady retirement of the public debt. Second, as states and provinces assumed full responsibility for matters now subject to revenue sharing, the cost of discharging that responsibility would be met by direct taxation supplemented by borrowing on their sole credit.

In short, the governmental apparatus, which now absorbs about half of national incomes and is adding more to debt every day, would return to solvency. State and provincial governments, whose seduction into shared cost programs has also forced them to share the debt that the programs have incurred, would regain control of their affairs.

Fabians and other critics would denounce the foregoing as a return to laissez faire and the law of the jungle. In fact, however, except for a period in 19th century England, Francois Quesnay’s laisser passer et laisser faire (free passage and freedom of action) has not been tried.

One of many myths about laisser faire is that it caused the Great Depression. As Murray Rothbard wrote: “Hoover’s role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his predecessor. To scoff at Hoover’s tragic failure to cure the depression as a typical example of laissez faire is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover rout must be set down as failure of government planning and not of the free market.” 1

By contrast, the period from the end of the Napoleonic War to 1890 saw England’s governmental expenditure fall from 29 per cent of the national product to nine per cent. As H.S. Ferns described it: “This period of government expenditure declining in proportion to the total product of the community was one of economic success measured by almost any indicator one cares to choose: population growth, production per capita, intake of food per capita, house building, technological innovation, saving and investment, improvements in literacy, average length of life, etc.” 2

The irony is that laissez faire capitalism, which would engage everyone’s self-interest to everyone’s benefit, is hobbled by self–interest in league with the state. Powerful groups use elected governments as their agents to restrain trade in their favor. Industry associations, commercial and financial interests, labor unions, even the associations of consumers who have most to gain from laissez faire – all demand special treatment. The results are seen in oligopolies, cartels, import quotas, tariffs, restrictive labor laws and affirmative action programs. In Canada, goods often pass more readily to and from the United States than they do between provinces.

The truth is that all of us are demanding more from governments than they can provide at the cost we are prepared to pay. We won’t pay more taxes – the growth of the underground economy bears witness to that – yet we expect governments to supply the services below cost. It is the rising cost of subsidizing the services, and politicians’ reluctance to reduce the subsidies, that has put governments into debt.
Invest in the Private Sector

Nevertheless, appeals to self-interest may constitute the best hope for change.

It is a fact that the growing proportion of federal budgets consumed by debt charges reduces the proportion that is available to fund government services. As the debt rises, the taxpayers get smaller and smaller returns on their investment in the government that taxes support. If the government raises taxes to meet its rising costs, the taxpayers will keep less of their income. Everything points to the taxpayers getting less value for their money.

It is also a fact, borne out by tax payers’ daily experience, that private suppliers give better service than governments.

Take those two facts together and it is plainly in the taxpayers’ interest to invest less in the government and more in the private sector.

Getting politicians to subscribe openly to the proposition would call for a self-denying ordinance whereby they would resist the temptation to spend other people’s money and start helping them to save some of it instead.

This might be accomplished by looking upon taxes as an investment in government services rather than a levy to meet government’s expenses. Switching from the slow, cumbersome and costly supplier to the efficient and competitive one would be simply an act of good business.

It remains to consider how pow-erful groups might be resisted in their claims for special treatment. The remedy is to be found in appeals to the principle of equality before the law. “We’re sorry, we sympathize with your proposal, but we must treat everyone alike. Government as it has been allowed to expand is a drag on the economy. You and everyone else will benefit through its withdrawal from active participation.”

Thus two principles are involved: the best government governs least; and all are equal before the law. Having established them, the political leadership would need a rallying cry that would convey the message to the people.

Quesnay’s free passage and freedom of action is ready made. There is an exuberant ring to it, a slogan to blow fresh air across the barriers to freedom.
At the time of the original publication, Kenneth McDonald was a free-lance writer and editor living in Toronto.

1. Murray N. Rothbard, America’s Great Depression (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1963), p. 168.

2. H.S. Ferns, The Disease of Government (London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd., 1978), p. 15.

Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., October 1985, Vol. 35, No. 10.

http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/4-13-03/discussion.cgi.54.html

The Fabian JM Keynes

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

- John Maynard Keynes

The full power of Keynesian economics and deficit spending wasn’t realized until the 1960's and Linden Johnson’s Great Society. Since then, the United States has had ballooning deficits, the abandonment of the gold standard (1971), and a migration from the world’s largest creditor to the world’s largest debtor. The economic crisis we see today is a direct result of Kenesian economics replacing Austrian economics. And, when the United States finally bankrupts itself over this mess, the Soviet Union prediction 60 years ago was that Communism or Socialism will rise as the new form of government.

Two generations of Americans have now been raised on Keynesian economic and communist social issues. While not acknowledged in the United States, this movement was exactly the agenda of the Fabian Society- a movement whose purpose is to advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means.

It would be much better to be ruled by Stalin than by the restrictive and monopolistic cliques which dominate Western capitalism. For it would be much better to live within a system, however barbaric in some of its features, that has in some creative force making the liberation of mankind from class oppression and primary poverty than to thrust back under dead the hand of deycaying capitalism.
- GDH Cole, Fabian Society

The program outlined by Stalin and advanced via the Fabian Society is soon coming to its end. We are in the midst of the financial collapse Stalin predicted for us. Government involvement in private industry has undermined capitalism, and thus our economy exists only in a credit bubble that is now bursting. But capitalism didn’t fail, for capitalism ceased to exist once government started intervening.

Our universities don’t teach it this way, though, and so Americans may be ready to accept- with open arms- their new socialist society.

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Principled capitalists, conservatives, and libertarians worry, rightfully so, about a $700 billion bailout and $790 billion stimulus bills, but social security is a $50 trillion obligation and growing. And hedge funds? They are currently leveraged at ten times the global combined GDP. The great instigators for this are numerous; interest rates were forced down to where an uncoherced market would have never supported them, all in the name of political gain.

The credit crisis has only begun, and it will culminate when China stops funding our federal deficit, causing pressure to send bond rates skyrocketing. But with an out-of-control government keen on spending its way into more problems, and raising interest rates during a recession being political suicide, we’ll instead see the outright destruction of the dollar when the Federal Reserve becomes the main buyer of unprecedented amounts of government bonds via “printed” money.

Stalin was right: the unbearable burden of government involvement in private industry has indeed broken the back of capitalism.

The timing couldn’t be worse for patriotic Americans nor better for socialists. President Obama’s “stimulus” package attacks producers; in other words his policies seek to marginalize the very people needed most to fuel a recovery. He seeks to raise energy prices again (his own internal documents show this!), raise capital gains taxes to discourage reinvestment in America, and make income tax more progressive to punish success. Doug Ross summarizes these policies, and can only wonder, “Is he doing this on purpose?“? By surpressing a recovery, this sets the stage for a state takeover of private industry. If Stalin, GDH Cole, and others are right, Americans will be grateful to their government for saving them from evil capitalism. It’s like choosing a life in a prison for its protection from street crime.

Who will weild power in the global financial meltdown? Those who can rebuild. Russia has a controlling interest in the world’s oil production and is even moving towards a gold-backed currency. China, meanwhile, is the production center of the world. Expect their influences to expand rapidly.

Good day, comrades.

I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I’m proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture – and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declared in substance:

” ‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’

“And they’re ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme.”

-Ezra Taft Benson

Not just gullable but like Brits Trible and that is what Fabians cultivated- making the workers think that Fabians stood for workers- Labour Party!!

The full power of Keynesian economics and deficit spending wasn’t realized until the 1960's and Linden Johnson’s Great Society. Since then, the United States has had ballooning deficits, the abandonment of the gold standard (1971), and a migration from the world’s largest creditor to the world’s largest debtor. The economic crisis we see today is a direct result of Kenesian economics replacing Austrian economics. And, when the United States finally bankrupts itself over this mess, the Soviet Union prediction 60 years ago was that Communism or Socialism will rise as the new form of government.

No gold standard – FIAT money without value.

The Austrian Ludwig Von Mises knew what Keynes was about – he was ignored- well- with Fabians at the helm thats’ to be expected…………Brown and co followed the Kenysian economic model…………….The Fabian model that is!!

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12700

THE PLANNED DEMISE OF CAPITALISM- WE HAVEN’T LIVED UNDER THAT SYSTEM FOR A LONG WHILE- WE HAVE CORPORATE FACISM- PPPs SOFT FASCISM.

WHY ARE TAX PAYERS PAYING TAX CREDITS FOR MULTINATIONALS  WITH HUGE PROFITS- THATS’ COPORATE FASCISM.

GIVING TAX MONEY TO PRIVATE RAIL COMPANIES AS A SUBSIDY VIA PPPs THAT’S SOFT FASCISM.

CAPITALISM- YOUR BUSINESS FAILS- TOO BAD DOWN THE PAN YOU GO!!

WE ARE MAKING UP POORLY PAID FOLK’S WAGES FROM OUR TAXES- THEN WONDER WHY THE COUNTRY IS FAILING…HEARD OF A POOR INTERNATIONAL COPORATION?

THAT MAKES’ SERFS OF US ALL- LOW WAGES- HIGH TAXES – HIGH PRICES ETC ETC ETC.

View the original article here