Saturday, May 13, 2017

Leadership in the Free Market Era

We have talked lately about the past. Let us talk today about the possibility to learn from it.

When England sought to create financial dependency in the American Colonies of the 1750's - by passing a law that prohibits the Colonies from creating and managing their own "internal" money - what was their purpose? How does this compare to U.S. policy with regard to monetary sanctions (or much worse) when any sovereign chooses to bypass "dollar settlement"?

How does the Wolfowitz doctrine differ in strategy to the Mackinder? Both pose a very aggressive interventionist approach to maintaining global supremacy.

But what if England in the 1750s not only allowed the Colonies to act as a true sovereign nation-state, but encouraged a special partnership such that together both would prosper more bountifully than history's actual strategy choice could allow? Ahhh, but wait, that could never work while "poverty was rife in the motherland."

And again we see the similarity between the England of back then, and the U.S. of today. The banking class of both era's institute a world-wide "misery loves company" monetary-monopoly-policy over indebted serfs. So many parallels.

But what if the England of back then acted as China acts today, with Xi Jinping visiting neighboring countries extending the hand of joint economic development with trade deals designed to create joint prosperity?

Ahhh, but wait, that could never work. England and it's colonies did not have a common enemy as China and its neighbors have today - a larger empire bent on dominating them all!

Because England my friends WAS the larger Empire bent on dominating all. Just as the U.S. is today.

Still though these parallels do exist. Let us not fail to deduce what they confirm. Global empires seldom act in a manner that is proven to be superior. And this is specially relevant to our modern era of global corporatism.

The power of a united TEAM under leadership that recognizes and leverages that advantage will always accomplish better results than any smaller construct that partly constitutes it. This is no Tony Robbins pipe cheer. Roacheforque has proven it so (not at Giant levels but at millions per month). But it will never happen in a world run by the banking class.

I think the fault lies in what we have discussed in articles past - the tribal instinct, or "tribalism". When the Hegemon is slipping and trying to maintain, it lashes out aggressively. But the "enemy and their friends" as they rise to step in against the backdrop of the desperately failing empire's self-inflicted extinction, acts cool and calm, cooperative and magnanimous. As Xi does today.

It remains to be seen - a TRUE leader, who espouses the values and example of Xi Jinping as he admirably promotes teamwork, cooperation and mutual self interest today. The U.S. could have a such a leader today, though they didn't elect one. Frankly there was none among the choices.

Let us see if Xi Jinping behaves as he does today, when China is on top, during the free market, FreeGold era. If global Capitalism truly means "a world run by bankers" it will never happen. Only in a world led by true leaders can this be sustained, and I do not think we will call it Capitalism, Socialism or Communism.

If we can depart from those labels and think clearly about the real world, a new label for a new type of leader is required.


  1. Very nice post. In fact the last three of your posts have been especially insightful and helpful... at least to me.

  2. Whatever it is called and whoever is in charge, in the end it is always resonating between the opposite poles of slavery and freedom. If restraining equilibrium is lost, it spins out of control.