Anonymous ID: 46b8df April 10, 2019, 3:14 p.m. No.6126092   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6100

Globalists Are Bringing Their One World Currency Plans Out Into The Open

(edit to fit)

If economic collapse is a process rather than an event, at what point in the process will we start to feel direct consequences? While crash conditions in economic fundamentals have indeed already started in the final quarter of 2018, culminating in faltering housing and retail numbers as well as an inverted yield curve, the average person is only affected so far in a minor way.

In the past I have said that when globalist criminals stop trying to hide their criminality – when they start to become brazen in their rhetoric and agenda, that is when it is time for people to worry. Why? Because when criminals act more confident it is usually because they think they have already gotten away with it. Their plans are almost complete.

 

Over the past year, the globalists have become absolutely brazen in flaunting their endgame for a single global currency system. Yes, it is time to be concerned. But there are people out there who will tell you that the notion is “far fetched”. They will tell you that it is “doom porn”, and they will tell you it is “conspiracy theory”.

 

The evidence says otherwise. The evidence says it is conspiracy FACT.

Much of the argument against a one world currency hinges on the notion that the US dollar is too entrenched to be replaced anytime soon. In terms of a deliberate collapse of the dollar, the concept is simply too much for some people to wrap their heads around. The dollar is the world reserve currency, how could it possibly come under threat?

 

Fallacy #1: The Globalists Need The Dollar To Maintain Power

 

This is patently untrue. The dollar is nothing, just like any other fiat currency system. It is a fabrication, a fantasy. Its value is an arbitrary product of manipulated forex markets. Its buying power has dwindled to a shadow of its former glory in the past century. The globalists have resided over the life and death of multiple reserve currencies, and the dollar is no different.

For people who make this claim, I suggest they consider the dominance of the British sterling in the early part of the 20th century. It was a world reserve as well as the petro-currency of the era. The world's central banks held sterling as the majority of their balances and its liquidity was strong. Its role was crushed, though, when globalists used British treasury bond holdings in America and France as leverage and forced oil producing nations in the Middle East to drop the sterling's petro-status.(edited for space)

 

Fallacy #2: There Is No Other Currency Mechanism In The World That Can Take The Dollar's Place

 

This fallacy relies on two assumptions – One, that no currency has the liquidity to match the dollar and fill the void in global trade if it were to fall. Two, the majority of reserves held in central banks around the world are denominated in dollars, therefore a replacement is unlikely because the world is “used to paying with dollars”.

 

First, liquidity is meaningless. Liquidity in any currency can be created on a whim. In fact, the Chinese have been ramping up the liquidity of the Yuan for the past ten years. Trillions in Yuan have been conjured from nothing, which is a development I have warned about repeatedly along with the Yuan's inclusion into the IMF's SDR basket.

This is not to say I think the Yuan will replace the dollar as the world reserve, far from it. That honor will go to another mechanism entirely, which we will discuss in a moment. The point is, fiat currencies are not limited by their liquidity, they are only limited by the restrictions that central banks set upon them. If global central banks decide in unison that they will dump the dollar as the world reserve and use another currency, then that is exactly what will happen. Liquidity can be created with the push of a button.

When one accepts the fact that the Bank for International Settlements dictates and coordinates the policies of all major central banks, then the idea that they might all drop the dollar as the world reserve at the same time becomes less difficult to grasp.

 

Fallacy #3: The Globalists Already Have Total Control Through The Dollar, So Why Would They Change Anything?

This argument generally comes from people who have no understanding of the psychology of economics and the psychology of power.

First and foremost, the federal reserve and the dollar are merely a franchise of a larger system; they are but one tentacle writhing from the body of the globalist vampire squid. In the pyramid of banking power, the Fed is an errand boy, a workhorse, that is all. At the top if the pyramid sits the major global institutions which control policy, including the IMF, the BIS, World Bank and the UN.

rest at link

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-10/globalists-are-bringing-their-one-world-currency-plans-out-open

Anonymous ID: 46b8df April 10, 2019, 3:16 p.m. No.6126127   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>6126100

agree. Take this with the IMF saying we need a new round of QE and they are really trying to push this quickly. Too bad the mkts are not co-operating with them.

Anonymous ID: 46b8df April 10, 2019, 3:24 p.m. No.6126221   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6308 >>6411

PG&E : Bankruptcy Judge Urges Deal to End Clash Over Power Contracts

Wallstreet Journal via Mkt Screener

(not paying those idiots anymoar)

 

A bankruptcy judge Wednesday urged PG&E Corp. and renewable energy suppliers to try to reach a deal to avert a jurisdictional clash with federal authorities over up to $42 billion in power-purchase agreements.

 

"I'm not looking for good guys and bad guys. I'm looking for a solution, " said Judge Dennis Montali at a hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in San Francisco. If PG&E can't come to terms with its suppliers by May 3, he said, he will issue a decision.

 

The dispute centers on the prospect that California's largest utility will try to unwind some or all of the $42 billion worth of contracts with suppliers, many of which are renewable energy producers. PG&E wants the bankruptcy judge to have sole power to rule whether it can cut off contracts. Suppliers want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to weigh in on the decision, making it tougher for PG&E to simply walk away.

 

The utility filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection at the end of January facing an estimated $30 billion in damages from years of wildfires linked to its equipment.

 

Filing for bankruptcy allows PG&E to negotiate its fire-damage claims, and gives it a possible way out of so-called excess power contracts. Those deals require the utility to buy electricity from producers of wind or solar energy and other suppliers.

 

Uncertainty over whether PG&E will keep their contracts or reject them in bankruptcy has dented the prospects of green-energy producers that count the California utility as a big customer. Some have been downgraded to junk status, even though PG&E is still adhering to its contracts.

 

The energy industry is keeping a close eye on the fight, which is viewed as a test of the power of FERC, the federal agency that regulates interstate power markets.

 

NextEra Energy Partners LP, which owns a number of wind and solar plants that sell power to PG&E, turned to FERC as the utility prepared to file for bankruptcy protection, urging the regulator to stake out its authority and preserve the stability of the California energy markets. Days before PG&E filed its chapter 11 papers, FERC asserted that it has concurrent jurisdiction with the bankruptcy court over the power contracts.

 

FERC's language bothered the bankruptcy judge, who commented on Wednesday that the agency may have overreached its authority. Whatever he decides, Judge Montali said, he is ready to move the question up quickly to the next level of review, which is likely a federal appeals court in California or in Washington, D.C.

 

PG&E's lawyers contend that only the bankruptcy judge can rule on whether it can break its power purchase contracts. If the utility persuades Judge Montali to allow it out of a contract, FERC has no authority to force PG&E to continue buying power, PG&E lawyer Theodore Tsekerides said.

 

"Nobody else can tell me what to do but you," Mr. Tsekerides told Judge Montali at Wednesday's arguments.

 

FERC and the companies on the other side of PG&E's power purchase contracts disagreed. A ruling from the bankruptcy judge doesn't extinguish the agency's authority to protect the public interest, said FERC lawyer Shane Huang.

 

If PG&E's decision to end a contract threatens to upset the power market, FERC must have the authority to act, he said. Before its obligations are erased, PG&E should be required to get permission from the bankruptcy judge and from its regulator, Mr. Huang argued.

 

Both the bankruptcy judge and the regulator have roles to play in PG&E's future, said NextEra lawyer David Stern. "You do your job, FERC does its job," Mr. Stern told Judge Montali.

https://www.marketscreener.com/PG-E-CORPORATION-13946/news/PG-E-Bankruptcy-Judge-Urges-Deal-to-End-Clash-Over-Power-Contracts-28386541/