NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY ROBERT PESTON IS ON BBC TV SO MUCH

He's a globalist!

I have just read Peston's The New Capitalism available on the BBC at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/16_12_09_new_capitalism1.pdf

Peston attempts to pin the blame for the current credit crisis on the West using Chinese savings to inflate a credit bubble for us to buy nice homes and cars and everything else nice.

However, he does not use the D word; DERIVATIVE.

Basically Peston softens the real cause of the crisis by not using the D word, possibly because he is under a D notice not to use the D word.

Derivatives is a form of gambling, except on a much larger scale, in the quadrillions!

Not trillions, but quadrillions! The next scale up.

Get it?

Instead of financing industry, trade and commerce with credit to create a stable and growing economy, the banks quickly inflated a credit bubble with ever increasing mortgages and gambled the resulting debt instruments away in derivatives on the scale of QUADRILLIONS of pounds sterling in order to make a quick buck. Why Peston does not mention this raises suspicions.

But then Peston repays his employers by suggesting that, like our Bilderberger PM Gordon Brown does, we require a global(ist) solution, a breaking down of national sovereignty, so an international regulatory body can interfere with and direct every nation's finances. The IMF sort of does this now, but obviously not enough.

Even Peston recognises that the main nations that caused this crisis are the UK and the USA. So why should the whole world submit to yet another international regulatory body just because the major banks of just two nations gambled away their credit facilities and created a global credit crisis knowing that their Bilderberg-controlled governments would bail them out with trillions of taxpayers money?

Anyway, here is how Peston ends his piece, with pure, unadulterated globalist bullshit;
=================================
If the unfettered movement of capital, goods and services is going to survive, if there’s not going to be a retreat into national fortresses that could impoverish all of us over the longer term, we’ll have to find a far better way of monitoring global risks and of bringing governments together to deal with these risks.

Some may see this as a threat to national sovereignty, as the thin end of an anti-democratic wedge that’ll see the world ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats. Reconciling our political traditions with the imperative of making safe the globalised world will be a challenge, to put it mildly. But it’s not a challenge we can shirk.