Former President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, addresses graduate students at Stanford University on January 11, 2010.
For example, starting at 14 min 16:
…historically the Western countries were able to stay ahead, firstly because of manufacturing. Well, that got taken out and manufacturing moved to Asia.
The second thing that happened after that was that in service industries it moved to the Western countries. And now that’s been taken out in terms of Asian dominance in the service areas.
And thirdly was in technology we were able to stay ahead, but as is evident to you and I’m sure from your colleagues and people you know, the technological advance has now shifted as well.
So the challenge for our country is what the hell is it that’s going to be left for us if Asia is eating our lunch and dinner in terms of the things we used to be able to do. And it’s not just the United States …
…the 80-20 rule … is going to be a 35-65 rule and that puts a challenge of dramatic proportions to …
This sounds very similar to the dire economic predictions of Jacques Attali in “Millenium” re. North America. As far as Asia, that book focused more on Japan.
Note also that Charles Galton Darwin mentioned China as the model nation for whatever reason, which is additional evidence that globalist policy makers have been making plans around China for a long time.
I agree with the video makers that these changes such as transferring manufacturing were deliberate forced policies, and not random effects of so-called “free” trade deals. Agenda 21 policies refer to reducing consumption also. And what do governments do now other than shut down coal plants, implement “austerity” budgets, and plot to charge us extra “carbon taxes”?
International meetings of politicians and bankers, like the ones shown at the end of the video, represent constant and deliberate steps in implementation of a plan. In the video he even mentions an example of a decades-long plan. That’s how things are done.
But we don’t elect the “World Bank” to plan everything. Do we? None of these international meetings and institutions have any constitutional or democratic validity.