Derivatives, along with other financial instruments, are an inherent weakness built into the system. But instead of automatically interpreting such weaknesses as a threat to central bank autonomy, it is feasible that they present an opportunity for further far-reaching ‘reforms‘ to the financial system.
To globalists, crises open the gateway for establishing broad consensus for major economic change. Because out of chaos invariably comes consolidation of resources.
The question is, how could substantial financial instability be of benefit to the Bank of England? After the initial phase of the 2008 crisis had played out, the Bank for International Settlements put into motion new regulatory standards called ‘Basel III‘. Conceived on the global stage, the new regulations were designed to be implemented by national jurisdictions over a gradual period of time. Many of the standards are now in place, but the full roll out is not due to be completed until around 2021.
One of the aims of the FPC, as expressed in the Financial Stability Report, is to ‘ensure that systemically important payment systems support financial stability.’ This resonated with me because as I have touched on in previous articles, the Bank of England is targeting the year 2025 for the wholesale reform of the RTGS payments system in the UK. A reformed RTGS would have the capability of connecting to distributed ledger technology (DLT). As explained elsewhere, blockchain is a form of DLT, and works in conjunction with cryprocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
Changes on this scale would represent a major overhaul of the UK’s financial system, and would conveniently coincide with the BIS 2025 initiative. This initiative, as outlined by the BIS, will ‘foster international collaboration on innovative financial technology within the central banking community‘.
Based on the documentation I have read from the BIS, the IMF and the BOE, the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDC’s) is very much part of the drive for ‘innovative financial technology.’
The prospect of central banks issuing their own form of digital currencies in the future is, according to BIS general manager Agustin Carstens, something that might come sooner than people realise:
Many central banks are working on it; we are working on it, supporting them. And it might be that it is sooner than we think that there is a market and we need to be able to provide central bank digital currencies.
Whereas attention is directed to the short term actions of central banks, longer term plans provide a clearer perspective on the direction that global institutions want to take the financial system in the medium to longer term.
It appears that globalists are targeting the period between 2025 and 2030 as the time when digital currencies would start to be implemented, resulting in the eventual abolition of physical money.
A crisis of this magnitude could quite easily be used by central banks as a rationale for a new approach to how currencies are disseminated and controlled.
Back in the present, the conventional theory pushed throughout alternative media is that protectionism is something that central banks and international institutions like the BIS and the IMF fear. On examination, I am doubtful of this claim. The FPC’s report makes it clear that even in the event of a ‘protectionist-driven slowdown‘ running in parallel to a no deal Brexit, the financial system would ‘absorb, rather than amplify, the resulting economic shocks.’ It remains to be seen whether this rhetoric bares any semblance to reality.
My concern is that rather than fear the breakdown of what globalists call the ‘rules based global order‘, it is in actuality an essential variable for orchestrating reforms of the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment