IMF Wants to Spend Millions on Global Trade to Reduce Populist Anger
By Daily Bell Staff - October 09, 2016

World Finance Officials Pledge More Resources to Aid Growth … World finance leaders pledged Saturday to use more resources to try to bolster economic gains as they confront stubbornly slow growth and a rising backlash against globalization. The policy committee for the 189-nation International Monetary Fund said the world has “benefited tremendously from globalization” but that protectionism is a threat. Increasing anger over globalization dominated the annual meetings of the IMF and its sister lending agency, the World Bank. – ABC/AP

What’s the solution to Brexit? More spending on international trade.

Because people are angry about globalism, the IMF has decided its member states need to spend more money counteracting the “globalist” backlash.

We’ve been following the “populism versus globalism” meme closely and have written it is justifying increased spending on globalist programs, as you can see from this excerpt above.

We have always been suspicious of the Brexit outcome, believing that elites in Britain could have manipulated votes against Brexit if they’d wished to do so.

Apparently, they did not. Instead, Brexit passed in order to create “directed history.”

The idea of this history may be to use “anger” expressed by Brexit to develop costly, new programs supporting worldwide trade. Presumably such additional resources might flow into support for technocratic trade agreements such as TPP.


IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said “growth has been too low for too long, benefiting too few,” and that’s what officials need to address. French Finance Minister Michel Sapin said global leaders must address concerns of inequality and injustice caused by globalization, such as tax evasion by big corporations and job losses by workers.

“We must fight against this immorality of globalization, this inequality, to again give our people the taste for openness and multilateralism,” Sapin told reporters. “There can be an unhappy globalization and we must fight against it.”

In their statement, IMF officials committed to designing and putting in place policies “to address the concerns of those who have been left behind and to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from globalization and technological change.”

The article mentions both Brexit and the U.S. presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump as evidences of disgruntled populism. This is one reason why we think there is the possibility that Trump could win in November.

Perhaps Trump could win the popular vote on his own. But it seems to us, given the dispersal of easily hacked voting machines around the US, that the election can be tipped in whatever the direction elite political forces choose. A Trump victory would further justify globalist spending to counteract the pernicious impact of Trump and Brexit.

The article warns, as others have, that the effects of Brexit have not been consequential in the short term but that in longer term, there will be significant difficulties for Britain, Europe and the world.

Mario Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank … said a lot will depend on how prolonged the post-Brexit uncertainty lasts as Britain and the EU negotiate next year over the terms of separation. “It’s a matter of this political uncertainty that clouds the outlook for growth,” Draghi said … U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew urged the IMF to “more boldly and forcefully” push member countries to pursue all economic policy options to spur growth.

According to this article, The Obama administration wants countries with trade surpluses like Germany, to spend more to boost global commerce.

Over and over we are seeing these themes in the mainstream media. Lagarde sums up succinctly, saying that global trade must be “fostered” to make sure “global trade works for all.”

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim mentioned “tremendous anger against trade.” But added that poverty could not be lifted around the world without “more robust trade.” This would include increased spending to support additional immigration and emigration.

What we are seeing with the “populism versus globalism” meme is classic elite propaganda. Create the problem and then counteract it by creating new and costly programs (paid for by common taxes) that can be integrated into the fiber of elite-controlled international relationships.

Conclusion: The outcome of Brexit must be a coordinated campaign of worldwide spending to ensure the benefits of globalization – even though Brexit was an emphatic statement against such globalization. Thesis, antitheses, synthesis … and so it goes.




You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • Christopher Snittle

    Unfortunately much of that will just go into the pocket of corrupt officials the world over.

  • Unfortunately much of that will just go into the pocket of corrupt officials the world over. …. Christopher Snittle

    Hi, Christopher Snittle,

    Putting money into the pockets of corrupt officials does not provide them the intelligence that media needs to provide to save them from the flash crash mobsters and anonymous hitmen being radicalised and mobilised/energised and directed from virtually all spaces and really spooky places. And ignoring the future being silently prepared and wwwidely shared is a certain stealth remotely delivered to its agents.

    And the following which has been shared elsewhere, is a very apt APT well suited to minds exploring alternate otherworldly wordy possibilities here ….

    They won’t go away, you know, when forever morphing into championing phantoms.

    And it is engaging to ponder on who and/or what else would be likely to be interested in providing such a vital service for servers. Another foreign media outlet on important politically sensitive missions? An enlightened aspirational political party in competition or opposition to intellectually challenged status quo organisations? A struggling religious order? A Right Royal Household Division in need of repair and rebuilding to former glories? Millionaires and multi-millionaires and billionaires who wannabe anonymous state and non state actor leaders by remote autonomous proxy? Special forces on secret virtual manoeuvres to secure all vital advantageous positions? El Reg?

    All or any of these can be possible with a custom made role tailored for them to play and employ. And is such what current earthbound systems administrations are presently enthralled with and terrified of?

    It is strange world we live in and IT is getting ever stranger to magically micro/macromanage it.

  • robertsgt40

    BTW has Lagard’s trial started yet? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Marathon-Youth

    Who came up with the word “populist”? I consider myself a nationalist and that is not so popular. I do not consider myself a Populist and I am for BREXIT.

  • Doc

    The War on Unhappy Globalization, imagine how much money they could pocket in that battle…

  • George Gamble

    Just another way to funnel more money into their cronies pockets. They are jumping for joy with the idea that Clinton may become the next US president. Just more opportunity to feed at the trough.

  • Bruce C.

    I don’t necessarily disagree that the globalist bureaucrats are going to want to spend more money to support global trade (or anything else they might call it) but they’re going to have a tough sell. More scrutiny than ever is going to be on where the money is going to come from for that. If Trump wins the US, in particular, is going to want to focus on domestic spending for infrastructure development and the building up of manufacturing here. The money to do that may not be easy to come by either but if there is any extra spending that’s where it will be. If there’s any validity to Trump’s promise to make better, pro-American, deals it will be along the lines of other countries putting up the big bucks for their own hair-brained schemes, not America’s. Other countries are going to have to start paying the US for their defense, for example, or pay for their own in some other way. Another “clever” thing Trump may be able to do is to have spending come not from the US government (as more big government boondoggles) but rather to give it to businesses and individuals more directly through lower taxation and regulations. The net result is the same mathematically to the government, but the pathway would be different. It would by-pass Washington and all the laundering that would occur. Money would be spent at more local levels that would make more sense economically. That would be a very “populist” thing to do by definition and hard to argue against politically.

  • Sheath

    Reading articles on IMF website. The IMF wants each country to commit $340 Million US$ to the fund for lending out. Twenty-five or twenty-six countries have committed and Christine L expects more. There is a document on the “country” page for Iraq that was produced by a group of middle eastern countries. They thought the IMF’s actions a good idea. Did not like the protectionism exhibited by Brexit and America’s Trump campaign. However, their closing paragraph stated that that they wanted to see things done that made sense for their nations’ economies. (hypocrites!!) They are nationalist, too.

  • rahrog

    The globalists sound just like cocaine addicts.

  • marcdepiolenc

    I have a fundamental problem against this sort of “analysis.” No matter what the outcome, it was intended, so no matter what happens it fits into a predetermined theory of events. As a result, the analysis has little practical usefulness because it has not predictive power – anything can happen, and no matter what happens, it will fit into the theory. Meaning that the theory is not falsifiable and is therefore wrong.

    • JohnnyZ

      You are correct, but probably this article is to be seen in this light: maybe the globalists were surprised by the vote, but this is how they are going to spin the result now.

  • Me Again

    Yes I was an OUT voter, have been for a decade, so it was nice to actually get a vote. BUT we thought we were going to lose, by a small margin not win by nearly a million and a half votes.
    We did what we could to mitigate fiddling, riding escort to the ballot boxes as they left the polling stations and keeping a hawk eye on the counters as they worked, as practised in the European and general elections of the previous 2 years. So many OUT voters were quite practised at watching for anomalies.
    There was the fear of box stuffing as occurred in Austria to keep out a “right” wing president. Even dodgy Dave’s ‘keep the poll registration open for an extra 48 hours’ was considered highly suspect since supposedly an incredible 432,000 registered in just that time.
    They very likely did try to fix it. Their problem was believing their own polls which put remain ahead -repeatedly. Of course they were ‘fixed’ too so I guess they were victims of their own BS.
    Again I think it simply shows that these ‘controllers’ take their advice from only the converted and that will always screw you up….ask Adolf.
    So therefore I think your conclusion is flawed. It was a serendipitous occurrence that Britain voted out. We are hearing the bile and feeling the anger of the elites across Europe and our own country even now. New bogeymen arising to say to us you were wrong to vote for freedom and these will be the consequences -if we can fix it.
    I rather suspect that Dodgy Dave had told the EU elites that all was in the bag….

  • balloonknot9

    There is more to the anti-globalization than increasing trade, or placating the masses with more money. The IMF fails to see that one large government, one large economy will NEVER address everyones needs as well as empower people. It does the opposite. Their “solution” is nothing more than doubling down their faulty assumptions, their attitude of they know best. If they “learned” anything from this globalist backlash, they have gotten their information from the wrong places, and refuse to acknowledge that people want/need/will regain their ability to have a voice to invoke change as society needs it, not what they think we need.

  • EDD

    “This would include increased spending to support additional immigration and emigration.”
    Continuing this theme is the long proposed effort: forced homogenization is the leading component of downgrading American wealth so America can be successively secured as a third world nation. Upon completion of this enterprise, the hope of TPTB is that the American citizens will readily accept promised ‘change’ that never materializes for the proposed good of all.

    How many Americans actually realize how the Soros backed ‘fronts’ are leading the causes of unrest in America? Today it is ‘Black Lives Matter’. What would be tomorrows leading social injustice cause? All of this is predicated upon the belief that our ‘money’ is real; not some ‘pull the rabbit out of the hat’ magical creation of wealth created out of thin air.

    TPTB must be laughing in their closed door meetings about how easy it is to convince gullible sheeple in spite of their sleight of hand maneuvering of phony financial wealth. Madoff is just one more small potatoes player among many to enjoy the wrath of those who, in all truth, owe their own existence to the largest ‘Ponzi scheme’ the world has ever known.

  • Earn nest

    Theft, bubbles and other misallocations is all I hear when the counterfeiters speak. I’m sick of their interventions. Power always corrupts especially the lucre kind and overshadows any good that might even be accomplished.

  • Because of the nature of debt-based capitalism, the IMF and World Bank must always borrow (steal) money from those they claim to spend it on. This is best represented by the consumerist slogan “Spend now, pay later.” The false idea that the IMF or World Bank can stimulate any long-term growth has been borne out by the inexorable slide into poverty of common people and the relentless enrichment of the financial elites. The IMF and World Bank are part of the problem, not part of the solution.