- DAVOS, Switzerland - There
were many hot topics here at the 2005 World Economic Forum. They included:
the spread of global terrorism, American foreign policy, the value of
the dollar, and climate change. The hot buttons, however, were poverty
and disease in Africa the spread of global terrorism, and what has been
called "An International Tax for the Poor."
-
- Having been to seven of these meetings, I can tell you
that this is a very complex place to be. First you have 1,000 handpicked
CEO's from some of the world's largest multinational corporations. This
year the total market capitalization totaled $8T which equals 20% of the
world's annual Gross National Product! Then you have various world leaders:
Britain's Tony Blair returned after a five year absence, Germany's Gerhard
Schroder was present and French President Jacques Chirac spoke via satellite.
Then there was the first appearance by Chinese businesses and their Executive
Vice Premier, Huang Ju, as well as the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, and the newly elected president of the Ukraine, Victor
A. Yushchenko. Usually there are the leaders of the United Nations and
its various agencies - hardly any of them were here but then again, there
were 55 heads of non-governmental organizations! Let me not leave out
26 religious leaders and 172 representatives from academic institutions
and think tanks. All total there was over 2,200 participants from 96 countries,
a mini UN.
-
- Since the World Economic Forum has NGO consultative status
at the United Nations, the underlying philosophy of their meetings is to
spread that gospel to the participants. This is evident in the mixture
of over 200 workshops. To be fair, the World Economic Forum brings together
CEO's for networking purposes, to share experiences, and to "understand
the state of the world." The quality of speakers is unparalleled and
the topics cover everything happening in the world. Although the United
Nations would probably not exist without the financial and material support
of the United States, it clearly is an important component of the international
structure and (what I consider) world government. Having covered 65 global
meetings in every part of the globe except Asia, I have yet to change my
mind. In the eyes of the governments that sponsored the birthing of the
UN, it was to be a place to solve the world's problems. It should be noted
that America's representative, Alger Hiss, who chaired that meeting and
who was its first secretary-general, was convicted of lying to the government
about his involvement in the Communist Party. The Charter of the United
Nations is not based on the U. S. Constitution where are freedoms are unlimited
and come from God, but on the Russian Constitution where they come from
government and can be taken away. Sixty years later, the UN has expanded
with a structure that looks like any other government in the world, with
the exception of an international taxing mechanism.
-
- Given its current structure and the recently added 75,000
troop rapid deployment force, the only component missing to make this a
complete governmental structure is taxation. In addition, UN has been working
on a way for non-governmental organizations-NGOs or civil society to be
represented with a voice in the General Assembly. Other than setting up
an International House of Representatives with the people of the world
electing their own representative, the Right of Petition is being formulated
so NGO's can go directly to the General Assembly, possibly avoiding the
need to set up a lower chamber.
-
- Therefore, the fact that French President Jacques Chirac
laid on the table for business leaders to consider the idea of global taxation
to raise money for the poor, was equal to a nuclear bomb being set off
in London. His proposals were basically old one with a little updating
or modification.
-
- Chirac's modified "Tobin Tax" or tax on speculative
international currency transactions will probably never fly. I have been
in IMF/World Bank Meetings where the experts said it was too complicated
to do. I believe the reasons for brining it up again is that it is so radical
that what they really want will be easier to swallow. While he recommended
a $1 tax on airline tickets, a tax on fuel for shipping and aviation, and
a tax on capital flows in and out of countries with bank secrecy, there
are two key suggestions that are the real tax schemes. The real tax that
they want is an increase in Overseas Development Assistance which can be
leveraged through the new international facility which British Finance
Minister, Gordon Brown suggested. In response to Chirac's international
tax proposals, former president Bill Clinton said that while he was in
favor of an "income stream to fund the Millennium Development Goals,
there has never been an international tax. Who would approve it?"
It is thought that it would take five to ten years to put an international
tax scheme in place - many said that would take too long.
-
- The real stealth tax bomb is the Overseas Development
Assistance-ODA which are funds given by countries for debt relief, technical
cooperation and emergency and disaster relief along with food aid. America
is currently appropriating 0.23% GNP for ODA or about 6 cents per $100
of national income. Interestingly enough out of the G8 countries, we are
giving 6 cents per $100 of national income whereas the UK is giving 2 cents,
Canada is giving 5 cents, Germany is giving 4 cents, with Japan and Italy
giving a bit less than or 1 cents. America has been castigated at every
international conference for her "stinginess" which I believe
is a tactic by some of the world's most prominent socialists.
-
- At the World Economic Forum, Britain pledged $1.8B over
the next 15 years which will come from raising their ODA from its present
rate to 0.7% of GNP. France and Germany have committed to raising theirs
ODA as well. World leaders have pledged over the years, with the last major
pledge in 2002 to raise ODA to 0.7% and have not. The momentum building
over the poverty and disease in Africa is now the impetus, NGO's say, for
the rich countries of the world to rise to the challenge. For America,
this would mean adding $55B a year to ODA. Interestingly enough, the UN
says the amount it needs to meet its Millennium Development Goals is $50B
a year. Surprise, surprise--what a great transfer of wealth!
-
- What is the difference between giving and transfer of
wealth? The outpouring of relief that we witnessed over the South Seas
tsunami came from the heart. It was not dictated. To add injury to insult,
British finance minister Gordon Brown has unveiled a mechanism called the
"International Finance Facility" that would take the ODA pledges
and float international bonds in the market to leverage country pledges.
By having the G7 countries guarantee the bonds, this would commit us for
30 years. Can you imagine a $10T "mortgage" over 30 years (0.7%
ODA = $72B year x15 years)? That's the bottom line. Then let us add the
cost of $2T which is the projection to change Social Security and the possibility
some kind of VAT or national sales tax! Debt is the tool for transfer of
wealth - from us to them.
-
- Again, we should consider all of the poor African countries
that can't pay their bills. A great many of them are former British colonies
and they are very rich in gold, bauxite, diamonds, iron, copper, cobalt
and coal, not to mention forests and agriculture. In a speech by Tanzania
President Benjamin William Mkapa, he said that because his country trades
in commodities there is no value added, the prices are unstable, and they
get unfair prices. Furthermore, he admitted that they borrowed very heavily
from the IMF/World Bank as well as other lenders which is why they are
impoverished and highly indebted. Unfortunately, this is the story of all
the other poverty stricken African countries. On top of that, there is
warring going on over control of their natural resources.
-
- I posed the following question to British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, "As a former colony of Britain, I know what happened to
us when we de-colonized, and I know where we are today. I too am very
concerned about Africa and its plight. Could you help me understand what
happened to many of these African countries that were at one time colonies
of Britain and now are members of the Commonwealth. How did what happen,
happen in Africa and what are the reasons as to why they happened?"
Blair, said, "Briefly," the people in the room laughed and he
basically gave me a non answer but was kind enough to end with, "I
realize this is probably not the answer you wanted."
-
- I believe we are being set up for a major transfer of
wealth that will put a greater burden on the backs of Americans which already
have more than what they can handle. Am I for world peace? Yes, but it
will never happen because it has never happened. Man is not capable of
world peace. It is a utopian ideal for which the socialists and communists
want control of the world for the sake of control
|
