Posted on 05/08/2007 11:20:54 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
I like that idea. He is evil.
I like that idea. He is evil.
Sorry, but the average Joe is probably more scared of Pat Robertson's influence than Soros. The MSM has it's priorities, you know.
Interview with George Soros, Chairman, Soros Fund Management
The more than ten billion dollars in assets controlled by Soros' Quantum Fund and Soros Fund Management qualify him as being one of the 'sovereign' financial powers whose interests transcend national borders, and can influence the evolution of political and social systems through investment priorities.
Snip
I think that the World Bank has to be developed as an institution that would make public monies available for creating a more level playing field—because you have some income maldistribution within individual countries—and that's very much part of a democracy, creating equal opportunities, ensuring people that they can have access, for instance, to education. Now, internationally, that is, at the moment, not available. So, I would like to see the World Bank develop in that direction, as a creator of a more even playing field.
Mark Schapiro: Who would be the political power that would authorize the World Bank to take that role?
George Soros: It has to be the shareholders and I don't think you can get away from that. Actually, these institutions work better than the United Nations, because the shareholders actually control the institutions. [Voting in the World Bank is weighted according to each country's financial contribution.] So, inevitably, this would mean domination by the rich countries and I don't think it's appropriate to change that, provided the monies are used for creating that more level playing field. And provided the institution is more insulated from the specific interests of particular shareholders, because the way the World Bank has worked out, you have certain countries that have a stake in a [particular] project and they push it, and it's done more for the benefit of the donor than the benefit of the recipient. Most international aid is more to benefit the donor than the recipient. So you have to insulate the World Bank from that interest much more than it has been. But I would not put it under the control of the developing countries, because there is a donor relationship and the donor should be in charge of the funds that she is donating. I'm in favor of, let's say, greater foreign aid, if you like, provided it is directed to benefit the recipient and not the benefit of the donor.
More:
http://www.simulconference.com/clients/sowf/interviews/interview3.html
see link on #4
And it was a power grab by cheyney bush et al.
He’s a competent guy but how exactly can we forget that he tried to promote his girl like it was his fathers saloon he’s running ?
This is plain out corrupt. (Not that I’d like to say that sorros is a saint)
He’s got to loose that job - tough marmelade that soros wins. He’ll loose next time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.