More UN financial BS

The UN Secretary General issued a report on restructuring the financial architecture of the world in May 2023. Clearly they did not want people to understand it. In this case, the UN suggests that even though countries cannot pay back their loans, they should be given larger loans with longer terms to pay them back.

One way to make the ideas unintelligible is to create extraordinarily long sentences, so by the time you get to the end yo have forgotten the beginning and the meaning is lost. Here is one example that spit out 81 words before a period appeared:

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/our-common-agenda-policy-brief-international-finance-architecture-en.pdf

“As noted in Our Common Agenda, a coordinating

body through the Biennial Summit, building on

the spirit of earlier proposals for an “Economic

Security Council”, would be a natural venue to

address immediate issues, including the promo-

tion of ultra-long-term financing for sustainable

development and a Sustainable Development

Goal stimulus for all countries in need, and longer-

term issues, such as making the international

financial architecture fit for purpose and resil-

ient to global crises, including food, energy and

financial crises.“

And they call this a solution?

“Lower the cost of sovereign

borrowing and create a lasting

solution for countries facing

debt distress”

Here are the Conclusions on page 31

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/our-common-agenda-policy-brief-international-finance-architecture-en.pdf

OUR COMMON AGENDA POLICY BRIEF 6: REFORMS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL ARCHITECTURE31

Conclusion

The reforms outlined in the present policy brief

are motived by the failure of the current inter-

national architecture to fulfil its core tasks and

to support long-term stable financing for the

Sustainable Development Goals, including invest-

ments in the rights to education, health and

social protection. The Sustainable Development

Goal and Paris Agreement targets will clearly not

be met if the international financial architecture

does not channel resources at scale and speed

to the world’s most vulnerable economies. This

failure poses a growing and systemic threat to the

multilateral system itself, driving deepening diver-

gence, geoeconomic fragmentation and geopolit-

ical fractures across the world.

[In other words, lend lots more money or the financial system will collapse—though wasn’t the financial system’s problem too much unsustainable debt that got us here to the brink of financial collapse? I suspect the PTB want a lot more borrowing to stabilize things for a little while, making things more unstable over the medium term—allowing them to crash the whole thing when they have reached the right time for themselves to justify the rest of the Great Reset.—Nass]

To avert such outcomes, we must pursue ambi-

tious reforms and advance on all the proposals

in the present brief. They should be regarded as

a paradigmatic shift in the structuring of interna-

tional economic and financial relationships that,

as a package, support the convergence of coun-

tries towards sustainable development. We need

to enable more sustainable and inclusive develop-

ment pathways for all countries, aligned with the

Sustainable Development Goals and anchored

in “beyond GDP” metrics. This will require new

forms of international cooperation, underpinned

by an architecture fit for purpose in the twen-

ty-first century, across the financial and monetary

system, tax, trade, environmental stability and cli-

mate action, and other development issues. Our

current multilateral system does not fit this bill,

but it can, with the reforms that I propose in the

present policy brief.

[WTH does “beyond GDP” mean? Beyond arithmetic? Are you reading this as gobbledygook the way I am?]