ger beavers” are about to be hit again byrnour NWO-controlled government—tornhelp fund Wall Street’s Asian bailouts.rnLest we forget, the IMF is a Western govemment-rnsupTported “bank,” of which thernAmerican taxpayer is by far the largestrnguarantor. When Clinton, Gingrich,rnand other globalist polihcians tell us thatrnthe IMF soluhon is the way to solve therncurrent Asian banking crisis, they forgetrnto mention that about 40 cents of ever’rnIMF bailout dollar comes out of thernAmerican taxpayer’s pocket, just likernthev forgot in the Mexican bailout in earlyrn1995.rnThanks to their control of the mainstreamrncorporate media, the NWO eliternand their friend in the White House arernshll able to claim credit for the recentrnstrength of the American economy,rnwhile helping themselves to the pocketsrnof the true Main Street entrepreneurs byrnusing public funds to bail out private interestsrnin foreign countries. Our electedrnofficials do not make the calls about usingrntaxpayers’ money for private rescuernmissions. The NWO’s appointed proxiesrnin the Clinton cabinet do.rnCase in point: On October 30, U.S.rnTreasun,’ Secretar)’ Robert Rubin (a formerrnWall Street tycoon) reportedlyrncalled the top Treasury and WhiternHouse officials to tell them that he hadrnagreed to contribute three billion dollarsrnof U.S. taxpayers’ money to the IMFrnbailout of Indonesian banks. Get this—rnthe Treasury Secretar)’ told the Presidentrnwhat sort of a deal he had cut with hisrnWall Street banking pals! This sums uprnwho is really running this country and forrnwhose benefit.rnAnd these Wall Street and Washingtonrnhyenas will help themselves to a fewrnmore tens of billions of the taxpayers’ dollarsrnbefore the Great Asian Bailout isrnover. The money needed to resuscitaternother Asian countries could amount tornmore than $100 billion, double the Mexicanrnrescue of 1995, according to a BusinessrnWeek report last November. Thernpotential price tag involves not only thern$40 billion commitment to Indonesiarnbut an additional $23 billion to Thailandrnand the Philippines. Financial analystsrnare also predicting that Korea, with itsrnlack of foreign reserves and a banking crisisrnsparked by debt-choked companies,rnwill need as much as $40 billion to cleanrnup its mess.rnSix of the top 30 corporations in Korearnfiled for bankruptcy last year alone. If allrnof the bad loans were written off, the entirernequity of Seoul’s commercial banksrnwould disappear. Japanese banks are alsornon the hook to the “Asian tigers” forrnsome $263 billion. European banksrnhave contributed about $155 billion;rnAmerican banks, a reported $55 billion.rnBut the biggest troubles may be brewingrnin Japan and China, the largest Asianrnmarkets. Japan is in line for “a trulyrnworld-class banking crisis,” predicted Dr.rnMorris Goldstein in an interview withrnthe Australian Financial Times. Goldstein,rna former deputy head of researchrnfor the IMF who is now with the Instituternfor International Economics in Washington,rnD.C., said that the “systemic risk”rnis highest in Japan. Subsequent failuresrnof Hokkaido Takushoku Bank, part ofrnthe 100-year old Yamaichi Securities,rnconfirmed Goldstein’s forecast. In laternNovember, Moody’s downgraded therncredit ratings of Long Term Credit Bankrnof Japan, Nippon Credit Bank, MitsuirnTrust, Yasuda Trust, and Chuo Trust.rnA Jardine Fleming report suggestedrnthat the nonperforming loans held by allrnJapanese banks could account for almostrn23 percent of Japan’s Gross DomesticrnProduct—a level surpassing even Thailand’srnfailures (13 percent). America’srnsavings and loan crisis was insignificantrnby comparison. The cost to the publicrnsector of solving that crisis was “only”rnaround 3 percent of the GDP. Flemingrnestimates that the ultimate cost to thernJapanese government will be 11 percentrnof the GDP, or about $500 billion.rnWithout doubt, that would be “a trulyrnworld-class crisis.”rnThen there is China, that darling ofrnthe globalist elite. During the 1990’s,rnChina attracted $158 billion of foreignrninvestments, more than any other countryrnin the world except for the UnitedrnStates, according to UNCTAD. Japan,rnby contrast, got about $8 billion duringrnthe same period. During the 1990’s, foreignrncapital spending in China hasrngrown at an annual rate of 52 percentmorernthan three times faster than the averagernworld increase of 16 percent. Andrnthe pace of investment in China hasrnbeen accelerating. In 1996 alone, Chinarnreceived over $42 billion in foreign investments.rnThat’s about one-third of allrninvestments made in developing countriesrnlast year. And no wonder. The masterrnbailer had set the bait for the victimsrnof its future bailouts. In Septemberrn1996, the IMF predicted that Asia wouldrnlead the world in 1997 with an 8 percentrnGDP growth.rnNow that a financial tsunami has hitrnAsia, analysts and economists are scramblingrnto lower their Asia forecasts, and investors’rnenthusiasm — even in China — isrnstarting to ebb. Foreign investmentsrncontracted by about 35 percent in thernfirst 10 months of 1997, in part becausernChina’s top banks have about $90 billionrnin problem loans. Despite nearly tworndecades of economic reform, the Chinesernstate still owns about 30 percent ofrnthe economy, employs two-thirds of thernurban work force, and accounts for morernthan 50 percent of industrial assets, accordingrnto an October report by the SundayrnTelegraph of London. There arernmore than 300,000 state enterprises inrnChina, and at least half are in debt. Tornan economist, these behemoths cry outrnfor sweeping reform, the Telegraph concluded.rnRead: privatization, downsizing,rnand layoffs, the IMF specialty.rnThe country is wallowing in excessrnmanufacturing capacitv’, and real estaternin Shanghai and Beijing has been overbuilt.rnA British tourist recentiy told mernthat a member of the Shanghai Real EstaternBoard enthusiastically proclaimed:rn”Shanghai propert)’ is hot.” To whichrnthe Briton replied: “No, Shanghai propertyrnis empty.” The newly built mallsrnand commercial buildings which shernhad visited “were all eerily empt}’.”rnWhy? Because foreign investors hadrntalked themselves into spending hundredsrnof billions of dollars on the basis ofrnthe grossly inflated Asian economicrngrowth projections, and because greedyrnlocal chieftains had talked themselves intornbelieving that they can buy economicrnprosperit)’ with borrowed money. Nowrnthat the bubble has burst in Asia, bothrnbankers and politicians are talking containment,rnwhich is why Clinton agreedrnat the APEC summit in Vancouver tornhold a global conference on the bankingrncrisis.rnWhile the financial elite debate howrnbest to protect themselves by using publicrnfunds, much more than jobs and realrnestate are at stake for China and its neighbors.rnWlien factories falter, so do cheaprnor free education, medical care, housing,rnand the broader sense of community thatrnis part of urban life. For example, in thernindustrial cit’ of Tianjin, about an hour’srndrive from Beijing, some families havernbeen plunged into povert}’ almost overnightrnafter being laid off. All this has ledrnthe London Telegraph to conclude thatrn”China edges to the brink of a socialrnbreakdown” as tens of millions of Chi-rnMARCH 1998/39rnrnrn