by Amy S.
Robert and Kim Kiyosaki People have been leaving big cities for safer areas, but is it time they leave the US? Watch this interview as Andrew discusses going where you’re treated best, getting a second passport.
The swift and massive shock of the coronavirus pandemic and shutdown measures to contain it have plunged the global economy into a severe contraction. According to World Bank forecasts, the global economy will shrink by 5.2% this year.1 That would represent the deepest recession since the Second World War, with the largest fraction of economies experiencing declines in per capita output since 1870, the World Bank says in its June 2021 Global Economic Prospects.
Economic activity among advanced economies is anticipated to shrink 7% in 2021 as domestic demand and supply, trade, and finance have been severely disrupted. Emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) are expected to shrink by 2.5% this year, their first contraction as a group in at least sixty years. Per capita incomes are expected to decline by 3.6%, which will tip millions of people into extreme poverty this year.
The blow is hitting hardest in countries where the pandemic has been the most severe and where there is heavy reliance on global trade, tourism, commodity exports, and external financing. While the magnitude of disruption will vary from region to region, all EMDEs have vulnerabilities that are magnified by external shocks. Moreover, interruptions in schooling and primary healthcare access are likely to have lasting impacts on human capital development.
Analytical sections in this edition of Global Economic Prospects address key aspects of this historic economic shock:
How deep will the COVID-19 recession be? An investigation of 183 economies over the period 1870-2021 offers a historical perspective on global recessions.
Scenarios of possible growth outcomes: Near-term growth projections are subject to an unusual degree of uncertainty; alternative scenarios are examined.
How does informality aggravate the impact of the pandemic? The health and economic consequences of the pandemic are likely to be worse in countries with widespread informality.
The outlook for low-income countries: The pandemic is taking a heavy human and economic toll on the poorest countries.
Regional macroeconomic implications: Each region is faced with its own vulnerabilities to the pandemic and the associated downturn.
Impact on global value chains: Disruptions to global value chains can amplify the shocks of the pandemic on trade, production, and financial markets.
Lasting scars of the pandemic: Deep recessions are likely to do long-term damage to investment, erode human capital through unemployment, and catalyze a retreat from global trade and supply linkages.
The implications of cheap oil: Low oil prices that are the result of an unprecedented drop in demand are unlikely to buffer the effects of the pandemic but may provide some support during a recovery.
The pandemic highlights the urgent need for health and economic policy action, including global cooperation, to cushion its consequences, protect vulnerable populations, and strengthen countries’ capacities to prevent and deal with similar events in the future. It is critically important for emerging market and developing economies, which are particularly vulnerable, to strengthen public health systems, address challenges posed by informality and limited safety nets, and enact reforms to generate strong and sustainable growth once the crisis passes.
Prepare Yourself For What’s Probably Coming
Looking past the near-term concerns that have plagued population policy at the political level, it is increasingly apparent that the long-term sustainability of civilization will require not just a leveling-off of human numbers as projected over the coming half-century, but a colossal reduction in both population and consumption.
It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach 9 billion, perhaps more, by mid-21st century. On the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates suggest that the Earth’s long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an “adequate” to “moderately comfortable” developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion. It may be considerably less, particularly if the normative lifestyle (level of consumption) aspired to is anywhere close to that of the United States.
As a consequence of this modern-day “Malthusian dilemma,” it is past time to think boldly about the midrange future and to consider alternatives that go beyond merely slowing or stopping the growth of global population. The human species must develop and quickly implement a well-conceived, clearly articulated, flexible, equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in human numbers over the next two or more centuries. This effort will likely require a global population shrinkage of at least two-thirds to three-fourths, from a probable mid-to-late 21st century peak in the 9 to 10 billion range to a future (23rd century and beyond) “population optimum” of not more than 2 to 3 billion.
Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude will require a major reorientation of human thought, values, expectations, and lifestyles. There is no guarantee that such a program will be successful. But if humanity fails in this effort, nature will almost certainly impose an even harsher reality. As a practicing physical anthropologist and human evolutionary biologist, I am concerned that this rapidly metastasizing (yet still partly hidden) demographic and environmental crisis could emerge as the greatest evolutionary/ecological “bottleneck” that our species has yet encountered.
Although the need for population reduction is controversial, it can be tested scientifically. The hypothesis may be falsified if it can clearly be shown that ongoing estimates of global population size over the next few hundred years will not exceed our increasingly accurate projections of both current and future optimal carrying capacities. However, the hypothesis will be confirmed if future global population size continues to exceed those carrying capacity estimates by a significant margin. And even if the 2 to 3 billion optimal carrying capacity estimate turns out to be off by, say, a factor of two, achieving a global population optimum of 4 to 6 billion would still necessitate a very substantial reduction from the 9-plus billion projected for mid-century.
Please note: this is not a rapture or tribulation date-setting video!! There are a number of very significant events that could possibly occur , and if they do, could play a role in Bible prophecy. I’m not trying to scare anyone or set any dates for the rapture or tribulation, I am just sharing the news that is already out there, with anyone who is not aware. The more we are aware of these things, the better we can prepare ourselves and are not completely surprised by them if they do happen. Since I obviously did not create, initiate or plan any of these events, just like anyone else, I have no way to know if or when they will happen, until the time comes. If nothing happens, then great, we will have more time for each of us to prepare for when and if they do. I do believe that the elite will have their New World Order achieved at some point, so please just stay current on the news and continue to watch for the signs.
The endgame will be a one-world government presiding over the earth for the benefit of global oligarchs and their superclass functionaries, leaving the mass of humanity as serfs, to serve the elite, while suffering impoverishment and immiseration.
More than half a century ago, at the dawn of the nuclear age, Albert Einstein suggested that we would require a new manner of thinking if humankind were to survive. Even though the population explosion is neither as instantaneous nor as spectacular as its nuclear counterpart, the ultimate consequences may be just as real (and potentially just as devastating) as the so-called nuclear winter scenarios promulgated in the early 1980s.
That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary issue seems to be whether this process will be under conscious human control and (hopefully) relatively benign, or whether it will turn out to be unpredictably chaotic and (perhaps) catastrophic. We must begin our new manner of thinking about this critically important global issue now, so that Einstein’s prescient and legitimate concerns about human and civilizational survival into the 21st century and beyond may be addressed as rapidly, fully, and humanely as possible.
The plan includes scientifically engineered global population reduction (viruses/vaccines/genetically-modified food), cutting the world’s population to less than one billion, leaving the earth’s resources for the exclusive use of this global oligarchy.
This conspiracy to impose a global totalitarian society has been shrouded in almost total secrecy. To begin to understand the elite’s endgame, we must learn about the plan’s origins and development, and about the individuals, organizations, and institutions that fund, control, and benefit from it.
Over the last thirty years, capital has abstracted upwards, from production to finance; its sphere of operations has expanded outwards, to every nook and cranny of the globe; the speed of its movement has increased, to milliseconds; and its control has extended to include “everything.” We now live in the era of global finance capitalism.
Crisis : Finance
Now we come to the dangerous bit. Neoliberalism is a way of running the economy that produces dramatic price increases on the stock exchange, where the rich put their money to make even more. But stocks and shares are a relatively safe bet, compared with neoliberalism’s other “irrational exuberances,” like the vast financial apparatus surrounding the swollen credit market. Disaster strikes when, as in 1929 and 2007, the proportion of money going to the super-rich 1 percent rises towards 25 percent, far-exceeding requirements for productive investment, and necessitating speculation to increase returns. For the price of high returns is…eternal risk. Any investment fund that does not generate quick and large returns (and therefore does not take on extreme risk), suffers disinvestment in highly competitive markets, where money changes hands in computer-quickened moments. So there is a competitive compulsion to take increasingly daring risks in search of higher returns that temporarily attract investment. Financial managers overseeing capital accumulations compete for control over assets by promising these returns. Those that fail to deliver high profit-rates disappear to be replaced by “more aggressive” investment analysts. So debt, speculation, risk, and fear are structurally endemic to finance capitalism, in what Alan Walks calls “Ponzi Neoliberalism.”16 Fear itself becomes the source of further speculation—buying gold or futures, for example. Debt and gambling spread from Wall Street into all sectors of society—house prices, state lotteries, casinos, numbers games, bingo at the church hall, sweepstakes, Pokémon cards—everyone gambles, even little kids.
The interlocking of these speculations is the source of their intractability. So the financial crisis that began in 2007 had the following moments: vastly overpriced housing particularly near booming financial centers; competition among financial institutions to offer easy credit that makes everyone hopelessly indebted; the bundling of home mortgages and other debts into tradable paper; very high levels of leveraging; and the use of assets whose value can disappear in an instance to securitize other, even more risky, investments. It is not just that crisis spreads from one area to another. Its more that crisis in one (like the inevitable end to the housing price bubble) had exponential effects on the others (investment banks overextended into high risk speculations) to the degree that losses accumulated that tested the rescuing powers even of client states and governance institutions. Hence inequality is not merely unethical—it is dangerous. The combination of debt and speculation, deriving from inequality, produces an inevitable tendency towards repeated financial crises.