Amerika

Christine Lagarde seeks to provide “longevity” to a free-market driven organizational society while ignoring such detail as her own longevity or those of national borders and maritime law (or associated crude “nationalist” politics). She follows in the footsteps of globalists such as King Charles, the World Economic Forum supported by Royal Foundations across Europe, Prince Andrew as the Duke of Edinburgh and leader of the Free Masons and lastly the Pope as leader of the internationalized Catholic Church and its powerful bank.

So, in 2012 the IMF published a Global Financial Stability Report (after the Global Recession shock of 2008), which investigates the massive hidden financial burdens of longevity risk and aging populations. Not the longevity, mind you, of the Free-Market EU as a shiny example since 1993 (then 19 years old) which was badly affected by the 2008 disaster (the EU then at 15 years). Clearly, humans became the “fall-guy” for banks such as i.e., IMF and the EUB causing the sub-prime crisis.

Key Findings on Longevity Risk (according to the Report)

• Underestimated lifespans: People live longer than past forecasts predicted.
• Massive cost spikes: A 3-year increase in life expectancy raises aging costs by 50%.
• GDP impact: Extra costs equal 50% of advanced economies’ 2010 GDP.
• Emerging markets: Extra costs equal 25% of emerging economies’ 2010 GDP.
• Corporate stress: A 3-year extension adds roughly 9% to U.S. pension liabilities.

The Core Problem (according to the Report)

• Ignored risk: Few governments or pension providers fully recognize this financial exposure.
• Contribution gaps: Sponsors must pay multiples of normal annual contributions to cover shortfalls.

Policy and Mitigation Strategies (according to the Report)

• Realistic assumptions: Update mortality tables to reflect actual trends.
• Risk transfer: Shift longevity risk to insurance markets or capital markets via securitization.
• Entitlement reform: Adjust retirement ages and index benefits to life expectancy.

It is interesting that the Actuarial profession was widely adopted in universities during the 1980s making that highly regarded expertise widely available for globalist organizations such as banks and insurance companies, aiming to avoid blame for economic recessions. Instead of analysing the IMF itself, or the EU itself, or Banks, or Insurances, they analysed the “target,” which is the “market” from which money is extracted.

This brings me to the second part of this argument. Humans making up the “market” do not have extractable wealth after the age of 76 years on average, meaning they may as well be euthanised so as to ensure free-market longevity because it literally almost collapsed in 2008 after a (literally teenage type) rebellious sub-prime tantrum fifteen years after the Maastricht Treaty.

The background here is that organizations are very much like humans with human characteristics also described by psychiatrist Howard F Stein and sociologist Diane Vaughan. For example, organizations themselves can be hubristic (ask author Jim Collins) and even more importantly, it has an ego problem just like teenagers at around fifteen-years-old throwing tantrums, and at 70-years-old again throwing tantrums, but for different reasons. Again, consider Christine Lagarde (also 70 now) saying that people older than 76 serve “no purpose” which of course she later denied to the extent it was “fact-checked” as misinformation. The facts however remain that people older than 76 is a serious risk to the “Free Market.”

The third part of this argument bounces the longevity “free-market” economy back up to politics, because politics itself is not free. It is bound by borders and nationalities, which is the opposite of a “Free Market.” This contradiction was and is today still totally ignored by Europe, in fact there appears to be a bifurcation or strong divergence caused by nationalist politics in Britain, France and Germany that is doubling down while globalist leaders such previous BlackRock executive Chancellor Merz and previous Rothschild Macron are also doubling down on “economics” because this is the safe civic nationalist position.

The fourth part of this argument identifies strange events such as a political America wanting to “shrink” from its globalist desires to hemispheric desires. The difference with US economics as compared to the economic union of Europe, is that America wants to “defend” its local economy (I think) rather than defending a “free market” — which is a good thing. Another strange event is South Africa destroying its own economy in favour of political longevity, which is a bad thing. What happens there is that the political organization’s “nationalist” longevity is controlled, but the associated economic organizational longevity is media-driven according to Rotschild directives, which is extractively globalist by definition, which means that the millionaire next door will become the pauper next door. Despite nationalist tendencies, SA is the same as “liberal” Europe in the sense that SA borders are not important, while the globalist economic “borderless free market” still overrides politics in South Africa (Reserve Bank and Rothschild proponents such as Trevor Manual), meaning that the ANC will crack at some point. This bodes well for BRICS to crack as well because Brazil may disengage first by 2028 with BRICS becoming RIIC.

The fifth and last part is “the conversation” (birds and the bees) parents have with their rebellious children followed up later when the same children must have a similar “conversation” with their rebellious parents to “retire,” downsize and engage the old-age home lifestyle. The assumption in both cases is that the human is failing and that the organization is the dependable bedrock. It could not be further from the truth or as Christine Lagarde would point to “misinformation.” But somebody has to start “the conversation” with aging Europeans and South Africans, or with their senescent and senile societies, at least.

The truth is that organizations depend just like humans, on “borders,” both economically and politically. It even goes as far as that various groups within a State can have “borders,” both politically and economically, similar to provincial and city borders, even language borders where examples abound such as tribal Kingdoms above or below State structures.

For the human mind, and as such the organizational mind, structure is all important, because there will always be the human’s rebellious nature to adjusting it or itself. Humans and organizations fail primarily when structures are insecure. But structure it will be in fifteen or fifty years again, politically and economically, regardless.   As stated before, humans need organizations, but structure remains the important part contributing, even controlling any such organization.

Tags: entropy, free market, longevity, organizations