User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive
 

OECDIntroduction

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD ) was born as OEEC to run the US-financed Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe (Western) after WWII. Eventually the OEEC was transformed into the OECD in 1961.

Does this matter? Of course it does. This organization was created to determine how to dispose of US money, goods and services. Do you actually believe that the US had nothing whatsoever to say about that? How naïve can people be? Of course the US was the "silent partner" in the OEEC from the beginning quietly yielding its influence throughout it. The OECD is simply the continuation of such dynamic. This is not to say that the OECD is fully controlled by the US, it is obviously not but it does not have to be. In many issues, particularly how to extract the maximum amount of money from people, they are all united. This could not be otherwise since they are all politicians operating in a democracy where spending is the only way to have job security (if you are a politician).

Their mission

The so-called "mission" of the OECD is "to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world".

And their track record shows how successful they have been. Oh… wait a second… there is no information on their track record? None whatsoever. It can't be. There must be some statistic hidden somewhere in some report showing how direct OECD action directly "improved the economic and social well-being of people" considering that they are a "results oriented" organization. But sadly no. There isn't a single statistic that can show how thanks to the direct action of the OECD our standard of living has increased. Not one. Sure, the OECD website is full of generic statistic but not one of them can directly and unequivocally link what the OECD does with increased standards of living, at least not to our knowledge. But then again, not everything that the OECD does is public. A large part of its operations is hidden from public view by design. So much for transparency. So there may be something showing unequivocally that the OECD has been successful in its mission, but we don't have access to it. If this is so, please do correct us.

Let's be clear. To our knowledge the OECD can't provide a single independently verifiable statistic that indicates that as a direct consequence of OECD's policy proposal (and only due to OECD's work), the economic and social standards of living of even a single person has increased in a sustainable manner.

What we are saying is this. Yes, the standard of living of some people may have increased (presumably - we are being ridiculously generous here) due to some OECD proposal. But this proposal, once implemented was nothing more than a spend-scheme. For as long as you have money to burn, you can effectively create any increment in standards of living you may desire. The problem is, these standards are not sustainable. We know so because every single one of our Indices measuring country default levels ( DI or DVI ) indicates that countries are bankrupt. In addition every single one of our socialist indices indicate that current socialism is not sustainable ( ESSI , ESSII , GFSS , ISI ).

Imagine this. Let's say that you enjoy the good life. So you borrow and spend. Eventually you can't borrow any more and when this happens you resort to rob people in order to keep spending… but you still spend more than you rob. Your standard of living is clearly non-sustainable even by robbing other people. This is exactly what governments do. The standards of living that they are promising to people are simply not achievable not even through unlimited robbing (i.e. taxes). But this gets worse. They are not even achievable through taxing, borrowing and printing! This is what OECD policy recommendations lead to. Does this make sense to you? At any level whatsoever?

Not government

They work "with" government (they are not government) and measure different economic and social indicators including "how much people pay in taxes and social security, and how much leisure time they can take". Based on this information they "recommend policies designed to improve the quality of people's lives".

Again, here we have a non-government, government-funded organization that dares to tell governments how to manage everything that you do or are. And they are not even elected officials! If this is not bureaucratic power we don't know what it may be!

Budget

Their budget is of "only" 357 million EUR (2014) and it is "donated" from member countries based on a prorated base defined by economy size. US is the biggest donor with 22% followed by Japan. Again, with US providing 22% of the budget, how much influence do you think the US has? Only a naïve person would believe the OECD agenda is not biased.

But then again, 357 million EUR (or about 460 million USD) is not much, you can only get:

  • 1 to 2 fully equipped large hospitals per year or
  • 23 to 46 fully equipped schools per year or
  • 130 to 400 million school lunches per year or
  • 9,000 to 45,000 police salaries per year or
  • 5,000 to 10,000 teacher salaries per year or

… well… you do your own calculations…

Considering what the OECD is "delivering" do you believe that this is money well spent? Is the creation of policies that help governments to rob you more efficiently something you agree with?

Furthermore, we would like to point out that the money the OECD uses to create such policies comes from your pockets to begin with. Don't you think that you should have a saying on this? Considering that most people are against taxes, the "will of the people" is pretty much a given. Alas, you do not have a saying and you will never do. Does this make any sense? At any level? At all? Thought so.

Program of work

High level decisions as to what will the OECD do are determined by member countries (politicians). However the details are left to the OECD. This is the exact same procedure when laws are enacted and then regulations (which will effectively govern your lives) are left to bureaucrats. Both, laws and regulations are invalid. The first because social contracts are invalid and the second because bureaucrats do not represent anybody and as such they don't have any authority over anybody. The bottom line is that the OECD is simply a bureaucratic organization rented by governments; a corporate employee. They should not have any power over you whatsoever yet… somehow… they have a gigantic power over everybody's lives! Does this seem OK to you? At all?

Core values

The OECD claims that its core values are:

  • Objective: Our analyses and recommendations are independent and evidence-based.
  • Open: We encourage debate and a shared understanding of critical global issues.
  • Bold: We dare to challenge conventional wisdom starting with our own.
  • Pioneering: We identify and address emerging and long term challenges.
  • Ethical: Our credibility is built on trust, integrity and transparency.

Let's see if those values hold under scrutiny.

Objective: their analysis are evidence-based. OK. Then why is that all their recommendations are socialistic in nature? The evidence overwhelmingly points towards the fact that communism does not work and its little offspring (socialism) does not work either (if it would work then socialism would be self-sustainable, which is not). We are not even suggesting that the OECD should look at the fact that democracy is irrevocably broken (that would be suicidal for OECD bureaucrats). If the OECD is objective than why is that the OECD is not looking at the data before socialism took over the world, which indicates that under such conditions economies grew in real terms (not fake ones) at about 2% to 3% per year without economic disasters (such as the current ones)? Why is that the OECD is not looking at the data indicating that the vast majority of economic disasters are caused by the Boom/Bust cycle? Well, obviously the OECD is neither objective nor are its decisions based on evidence.

Open: they encourage debate and a shared understanding. If they really do so, why is that their website does not indicate a single initiative where stakeholders from all opinions are requested input? How can the OECD encourage debate if by definition its marching orders are determined by governments at budget time? To encourage debate would mean to go against its marching orders. Furthermore, a debate is by definition composed of opposing points of view and as such it does not lend itself to a shared (unique) understanding. Or are we missing something here?

Bold: challenging conventional wisdom including their own. And how exactly are they doing so? We are unable to find anywhere in the OECD"s website any report, paper, conclusion, recommendation or action of any sort that is not within the boundaries of conventional socialistic economic thinking. If they are truly bold, then we should at see at least one recommendation that would depart from current political and economic thinking. Yet not one is to be found. Zero. Zip. Nada. They receive orders from governments. These orders are by definition conventional. So… would this mean that they are challenging their orders? If they are doing so, then they are going against their employers and should be fired. If they are not doing so, then they are not faithful to their core values and should be fired.

Pioneering: they ID and address long term challenges. OK… now what exactly does this mean? Considering that their mandates are valid for two years… what exactly is the meaning of long term? Two years? So much for "long term". Also, what is the meaning of ID? Again, we are unable to find any revolutionary (or at least unknown) study or report where the OECD has discovered something completely new (at least that's the meaning of "pioneering"). And even if they would have discovered such a thing, what are their "new" approaches to the problem? Again, we are unable to find any entirely new suggestion, recommendation or report as to how to deal with any new government problem. Sure, they have plenty of suggestions and recommendations but they are all based on the old tried-and-failed socialistic policies (spend, spend, spend and then spend some more). Where exactly are these "pioneering" ways addressing these challenges?

Ethical: their credibility is built on trust, integrity and transparency. Well… what can we say. To begin with, there are an infinite number of Ethical Systems in Philosophy. So, without specifying which Ethical system they abide by, this statement is irrelevant. It is like saying that a person is faithful to a religion. Which religion? There are many differences! Secondly, who considers that the OECD is "credible"? According to their own data only 40% of people trust their governments; but if the OECD is nothing but a government employee (and a very unknown at that) this means that at least 60% of people (i.e. the majority) do not trust the OECD. As to integrity and transparency… well… what can we say? The OECD is a one-way road. It only produces information but where is the input from the people? We are talking about direct input (not government input)? Alas, it does not seem to be any. The OECD is a one-way road. It's their way or the highway. We don't know who the OECD is. We don't know who creates its reports and recommendations. We don't know how those reports and recommendations are created. We don't know what the discussions or points of view were. We don't know how decisions were taken. For any intent and purpose and where and when it matters the OECD is completely opaque. So much for integrity and transparency.

Current developments

Since its inception in 1961 the OECD was pretty much a bureaucratic organization with almost no impact on people's lives. However, a few years back it all changed. OECD's focus was set straight on taxation (robbery). They were tasked with extracting the highest amount of money from people and companies and they have been exceedingly good at it. Whether or not this extraction focuses strictly on tax evasion (illegal) or goes into tax avoidance (legal) is a matter of debate. Our opinion is that the OECD covers both. This is important because of a very simple truth: governments do not produce anything, they only spend. Your money and companies' money invested in capital projects is what produces wealth, not government spending. The less money you or companies have, the lower everybody's wealth becomes. Yes. It is that simple. In focusing on extracting as much money as possible from everybody, the OECD has by definition focused on decreasing wealth for everybody. The OECD is an organization you should know because its actions have negative impacts on your standards of living. These impacts are long term and will not be reversed by politicians because of their need to spend. Check mate… at least until the time comes When Countries Dissolve.

CONCLUSION

The OECD is yet another supra-national bureaucratic organization that is controlled by socialistic politicians and policies. It does not respond to the will of the people (only to politicians' will) and yields a disproportionate influence on our lives. Considering that it is paid with our taxes, we say that all its employees should all be fired and the OECD dismantled… and while we are at it… fire all politicians and dismantle all governments as well which are deleterious to your economic health anyways.

But that's just us. If you believe that the OECD is from the government and that they are there to help, you will get something from the government just not help. When this happens, don't come crying back to us. It was your choice.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

Comments | Add yours
  • No comments found
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It