About 'accounting jobs in london'|... from a P O Box in Nassau bought a complete row of shops in east London for a pittance and have left them to rot. If the leaseholders ...
Ａｎ ａｎａｌｙｓｉｓ ｂｙ Ｄｒ. Ｇｅｏｒｇｅ Ｆｒｉｅｄｍａｎ, ｆｏｕｎｄｅｒ ｏｆ Ｓｔｒａｔｅｇｉｃ Ｆｏｒｅｃａｓｔｉｎｇ, ａｎｄ Ｐｅｔｅｒ Ｚｅｉｈａｎ, ｒｅｐｒｉｎｔｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｐｅｒｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ. Ｂｙ Ｇｅｏｒｇｅ Ｆｒｉｅｄｍａｎ ａｎｄ Ｐｅｔｅｒ Ｚｅｉｈａｎ Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ Ｐｒｅｓｉｄｅｎｔ Ｎｉｃｏｌａｓ Ｓａｒｋｏｚｙ ａｎｄ Ｕ.Ｓ. Ｐｒｅｓｉｄｅｎｔ Ｇｅｏｒｇｅ Ｗ. Ｂｕｓｈ ｍｅｔ Ｏｃｔ. 18 ｔｏ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｓｓｉｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ａ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｕｍｍｉｔ. Ｔｈｅ ｍｅｅｔｉｎｇ ｅｎｄｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ａｎ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｏｆｆｅｒ ｔｏ ｈｏｓｔ ａ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｓｕｍｍｉｔ ｉｎ Ｄｅｃｅｍｂｅｒ ｍｏｄｅｌｅｄ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ 1944 Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｔｈａｔ ｆｏｕｎｄｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｄｅｒｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ｔｈｅ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｆｒａｍｅｗｏｒｋ ｉｓ ｏｎｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｒｅ ｍｉｓｕｎｄｅｒｓｔｏｏｄ ｄｅｖｅｌｏｐｍｅｎｔｓ ｉｎ ｈｕｍａｎ ｈｉｓｔｏｒｙ. Ｔｈｅ ｃｏｎｖｅｎｔｉｏｎａｌ ｗｉｓｄｏｍ ｉｓ ｔｈａｔ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｃｒａｆｔｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｄｅｒｎ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ａｒｃｈｉｔｅｃｔｕｒｅ, ｌａｓｈｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｔｒａｄｉｎｇ ａｎｄ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｃｙ ｓｙｓｔｅｍｓ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｌｄ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄ ｔｏ ａｃｈｉｅｖｅ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｓｔａｂｉｌｉｔｙ. Ｔｏ ａ ｃｅｒｔａｉｎ ｄｅｇｒｅｅ, ｔｈａｔ ｉｓ ｔｒｕｅ. Ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｆｏｒｍ ｔｈａｔ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｔｏｏｋ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｕｂｌｉｃ ｍｉｎｄ ｉｓ ｏｎｌｙ ａ ｖｅｎｅｅｒ. Ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌ ｉｍｐｌｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ ａｎｄ ｍｅａｎｉｎｇ ｏｆ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ａｒｅ ａ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｓｔｏｒｙ ａｌｔｏｇｅｔｈｅｒ. Ｃｏｎｖｅｎｔｉｏｎａｌ Ｗｉｓｄｏｍ: Ｔｈｅ Ｄｅｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎ ａｎｄ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ Ｔｈｅ ｏｒｉｇｉｎ ｏｆ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｌｉｅｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ｇｒｅａｔ Ｄｅｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎ. Ａｓ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｏｕｔｐｕｔ ｄｒｏｐｐｅｄ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ 1930ｓ, ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔｓ ｗｏｒｌｄｗｉｄｅ ａｄｏｐｔｅｄ ａ ｓｗａｔｈｅ ｏｆ ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｉｏｎｉｓｔ, ｐｏｐｕｌｉｓｔ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ - ｉｍｐｏｒｔ ｔａｒｉｆｆｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒｌｙ ｉｎ ｖｏｇｕｅ - ｔｈａｔ ｅｎｅｒｖａｔｅｄ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｔｒａｄｅ. Ｉｎ ｏｒｄｅｒ ｔｏ ｍａｉｎｔａｉｎ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｍｅｎｔ, ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔｓ ａｎｄ ｆｉｒｍｓ ａｌｉｋｅ ｅｎｃｏｕｒａｇｅｄ ｏｎｇｏｉｎｇ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｇｏｏｄｓ ｅｖｅｎ ｔｈｏｕｇｈ ｍｕｔｕａｌ ｔａｒｉｆｆ ｗａｌｌｓ ｐｒｅｖｅｎｔｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｓａｌｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｇｏｏｄｓ ａｂｒｏａｄ. Ａｓ ａ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ, ｐｒｉｃｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｇｏｏｄｓ ｄｒｏｐｐｅｄ ａｎｄ ｄｅｆｌａｔｉｏｎ ｓｅｔ ｉｎ. Ｓｏｏｎ ｆｉｒｍｓ ｆｏｕｎｄ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｉｃｅｓ ｔｈｅｙ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｒｅａｓｏｎａｂｌｙ ｃｈａｒｇｅ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｇｏｏｄｓ ｈａｄ ｄｒｏｐｐｅｄ ｂｅｌｏｗ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｓｔｓ ｏｆ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｉｎｇ ｔｈｅｍ. Ｔｈｅ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ ｐｒｏｆｉｔａｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｌｅｄ ｔｏ ｌａｙｏｆｆｓ, ｗｈｉｃｈ ｒｅｄｕｃｅｄ ｄｅｍａｎｄ ｆｏｒ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｓ ｉｎ ｇｅｎｅｒａｌ, ｆｕｒｔｈｅｒ ｒｅｄｕｃｉｎｇ ｐｒｉｃｅｓ. Ｆｉｒｍｓ ｗｅｎｔ ｏｕｔ ｏｆ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ ｅｎ ｍａｓｓｅ, ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｌｌｉｏｎｓ ｌｏｓｔ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｊｏｂｓ, ｄｅｍａｎｄ ｗｉｔｈｅｒｅｄ, ａｎｄ ｐｒｉｃｅｓ ｆｏｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｓｕｉｔ. Ａｎ ｅｆｆｏｒｔ ｄｅｓｉｇｎｅｄ ｏｒｉｇｉｎａｌｌｙ ｔｏ ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔ ｊｏｂｓ (ｔｈｅ ｔａｒｉｆｆｓ) ｒｅｓｕｌｔｅｄ ｉｎ ａ ｄｅｅｐ, ｓｅｌｆ-ｒｅｉｎｆｏｒｃｉｎｇ ｄｅｆｌａｔｉｏｎａｒｙ ｓｐｉｒａｌ, ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｖａｒｉｅｔｙ ｏｆ ｍｅａｓｕｒｅｓ ａｄｏｐｔｅｄ ｔｏ ｃｏｍｂａｔ ｉｔ - ｔｈｅ Ｎｅｗ Ｄｅａｌ ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅｄ - ｃｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｓｅｅｍ ｔｏ ｒｉｇｈｔ ｔｈｅ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃａｌｌｙ, Ｗｏｒｌｄ Ｗａｒ ＩＩ ｗａｓ ａ ｇｏｄｓｅｎｄ. Ｔｈｅ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｅｆｆｏｒｔ ｇｅｎｅｒａｔｅｄ ｄｅｍａｎｄ ｆｏｒ ｇｏｏｄｓ ａｎｄ ｌａｂｏｒ. Ｔｈｅ ｇｏｏｄｓ ｐａｒｔ ｉｓ ｐｒｅｔｔｙ ｓｔｒａｉｇｈｔｆｏｒｗａｒｄ, ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｌａｂｏｒ ｉｓｓｕｅ ｉｓ ｗｈａｔ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ａｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ ｔｏ ｔｕｒｎ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｒｎｅｒ. Ｏｂｖｉｏｕｓｌｙ, ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｅｆｆｏｒｔ ｒｅｑｕｉｒｅｄ ｍｏｒｅ ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ ｔｏ ｃｒａｆｔ ｇｏｏｄｓ, ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ ｂａｒｓ ｏｆ ｓｏａｐ ｏｒ ａｉｒｃｒａｆｔ ｃａｒｒｉｅｒｓ, ｂｕｔ "ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ" ｗｅｒｅ ａｌｓｏ ｃａｌｌｅｄ ｕｐｏｎ ｔｏ ｓｅｒｖｅ ａｓ ｓｏｌｄｉｅｒｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｒｅｍｏｖｅｄ ｔｅｎｓ ｏｆ ｍｉｌｌｉｏｎｓ ｏｆ ｍｅｎ ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｌａｂｏｒ ｆｏｒｃｅ, ｓｈｉｐｐｉｎｇ ｔｈｅｍ ｏｆｆ ｔｏ - ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃａｌｌｙ ｓｐｅａｋｉｎｇ - ｎｏｎｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｖｅ ｅｎｄｅａｖｏｒｓ. Ｓｕｓｔａｉｎｅｄ ｄｅｍａｎｄ ｆｏｒ ｇｏｏｄｓ ｃｏｍｂｉｎｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｌａｂｏｒ ｓｈｏｒｔａｇｅｓ ｒａｉｓｅｄ ｐｒｉｃｅｓ, ａｎｄ ａｓ ｅｘｐｅｃｔａｔｉｏｎｓ ｆｏｒ ｉｎｆｌａｔｉｏｎ ｒａｔｈｅｒ ｔｈａｎ ｄｅｆｌａｔｉｏｎ ｓｅｔ ｉｎ, ｃｏｎｓｕｍｅｒｓ ｂｅｃａｍｅ ｍｏｒｅ ｗｉｌｌｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｓｐｅｎｄ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｍｏｎｅｙ ｆｏｒ ｆｅａｒ ｉｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｗｏｒｔｈ ｌｅｓｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｆｕｔｕｒｅ. Ｔｈｅ ｄｅｆｌａｔｉｏｎａｒｙ ｓｐｉｒａｌ ｗａｓ ｂｒｏｋｅｎ; ｓｕｐｐｌｙ ａｎｄ ｄｅｍａｎｄ ｃａｍｅ ｂａｃｋ ｉｎｔｏ ｂａｌａｎｃｅ. Ｐｏｌｉｃｙｍａｋｅｒｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｔｉｍｅ ｒｅａｌｉｚｅｄ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｓｅｃｕｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｈａｄ ｓｕｓｐｅｎｄｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎ, ｂｕｔ ｆｅｗ ｗｅｒｅ ｃｏｎｆｉｄｅｎｔ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｈａｄ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｅｎｄｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｎｄｉｔｉｏｎｓ ｔｈａｔ ｍａｄｅ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎ ｐｏｓｓｉｂｌｅ. Ｓｏ ｉｎ Ｊｕｌｙ 1944, 730 ｒｅｐｒｅｓｅｎｔａｔｉｖｅｓ ｆｒｏｍ 44 ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｃｏｕｎｔｒｉｅｓ ｃｏｎｖｅｒｇｅｄ ｏｎ ａ ｓｍａｌｌ ｓｋｉ ｖｉｌｌａｇｅ ｉｎ Ｎｅｗ Ｈａｍｐｓｈｉｒｅ ｔｏ ｃｏｂｂｌｅ ｔｏｇｅｔｈｅｒ ａ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｔｈａｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｐｒｅｖｅｎｔ ａｄｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌ ｄｅｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎｓ ａｎｄ - ｗｅｒｅ ｏｎｅ ｔｏ ｏｃｃｕｒ - ｃｏｍｅ ｕｐ ｗｉｔｈ ａ ｍｅａｎｓ ｏｆ ｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｉｔ ｓｈｙ ｏｆ ｄｅｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｕｐｏｎ ａ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｗａｒ. Ｗｈｅｎ ａｌｌ ｗａｓ ｓａｉｄ ａｎｄ ｄｏｎｅ, ｔｈｅ ｄｅｌｅｇａｔｅｓ ａｇｒｅｅｄ ｔｏ ａ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｏｆ ｅｘｃｈａｎｇｅａｂｌｅ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｃｉｅｓ ａｎｄ ｂｒｏａｄｌｙ ｏｐｅｎ ｒｕｌｅｓ ｏｆ ｔｒａｄｅ. Ｔｈｅ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｂａｓｅｄ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｌｄ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄ ｔｏ ｐｒｅｖｅｎｔ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｃｙ ｆｌｕｃｔｕａｔｉｏｎｓ, ａｎｄ ａ ｐａｉｒ ｏｆ ｉｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｉｏｎｓ - ｗｈａｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ｋｎｏｗｎ ａｓ ｔｈｅ Ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ Ｍｏｎｅｔａｒｙ Ｆｕｎｄ (ＩＭＦ) ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ Ｗｏｒｌｄ Ｂａｎｋ - ｗｏｕｌｄ ｓｅｒｖｅ ａｓ ｇｕａｒｄｉａｎｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ'ｓ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ａｎｄ ｆｉｄｕｃｉａｒｙ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｃｏｎｖｅｎｔｉｏｎａｌ ｗｉｓｄｏｍ ｉｓ ｔｈａｔ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗｏｒｋｅｄ ｆｏｒ ａ ｔｉｍｅ, ｂｕｔ ｔｈａｔ ｓｉｎｃｅ ｔｈｅ ｅｎｔｉｒｅ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｗａｓ ｌｉｎｋｅｄ ｔｏ ｇｏｌｄ, ｔｈｅ ｌｉｍｉｔｅｄ ａｖａｉｌａｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｇｏｌｄ ｐｕｔ ａｎ ｕｐｐｅｒ ｌｉｍｉｔ ｏｎ ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｗ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｈａｎｄｌｅ. Ａｓ ｐｏｓｔｗａｒ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ａｃｔｉｖｉｔｙ ｅｘｐａｎｄｅｄ - ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｓｕｐｐｌｙ ｏｆ ｇｏｌｄ ｄｉｄ ｎｏｔ - ｔｈａｔ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ ｂｅｃａｍｅ ｓｏ ｍａｍｍｏｔｈ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ａｂａｎｄｏｎｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｌｄ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄ ｉｎ 1971. Ｍｏｓｔ ｐｏｉｎｔ ｔｏ ｔｈａｔ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｅｎｄ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ｉｎ ｆａｃｔ, ｗｅ ａｒｅ ｓｔｉｌｌ ｕｓｉｎｇ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ, ａｎｄ ｗｈｉｌｅ ｎｏｔｈｉｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｅｄ ｔｏ ｔｈｉｓ ｐｏｉｎｔ ｉｓ ｗｒｏｎｇ ｅｘａｃｔｌｙ, ｉｔ ｉｓ ｏｎｌｙ ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｓｔｏｒｙ. Ａ Ｄｅｅｐｅｒ Ｕｎｄｅｒｓｔａｎｄｉｎｇ: Ｗｏｒｌｄ Ｗａｒ ＩＩ ａｎｄ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ Ｔｈｉｎｋ ｂａｃｋ ｔｏ Ｊｕｌｙ 1944. Ｔｈｅ Ｎｏｒｍａｎｄｙ ｉｎｖａｓｉｏｎ ｗａｓ ｉｎ ｉｔｓ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｍｏｎｔｈ. Ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｋｉｎｇｄｏｍ ｓｅｒｖｅｄ ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｓｔａｇｉｎｇ ｇｒｏｕｎｄ, ｂｕｔ ｗｉｔｈ Ｌｏｎｄｏｎ ｅｘｈａｕｓｔｅｄ, ｉｔｓ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｃｏｍｍｉｔｍｅｎｔ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｏｐｅｒａｔｉｏｎ ｗａｓ ｍｏｄｅｓｔ. Ｗｈｉｌｅ ｔｈｅ ｔｉｄｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｈａｄ ｃｌｅａｒｌｙ ｔｕｒｎｅｄ, ｔｈｅｒｅ ｗａｓ ｍｕｃｈ ｓｌｏｇｇｉｎｇ ａｈｅａｄ. Ｉｔ ｈａｄ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ａｐｐａｒｅｎｔ ｔｈａｔ ｌａｕｎｃｈｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｖａｓｉｏｎ ｏｆ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ - ｍｕｃｈ ｌｅｓｓ ｓｕｓｔａｉｎｉｎｇ ｉｔ - ｗａｓ ｉｍｐｏｓｓｉｂｌｅ ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ ｌａｒｇｅ-ｓｃａｌｅ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｉｎｖｏｌｖｅｍｅｎｔ. Ｓｉｍｉｌａｒｌｙ, ｔｈｅ ｂａｌａｎｃｅ ｏｆ ｆｏｒｃｅｓ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ Ｅａｓｔｅｒｎ Ｆｒｏｎｔ ｒａｄｉｃａｌｌｙ ｆａｖｏｒｅｄ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔｓ. Ｗｈｉｌｅ ｔｈｅ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒｓ ｗｅｒｅ, ｏｆ ｃｏｕｒｓｅ, ｏｐｅｎ ｔｏ ｄｅｂａｔｅ, ｎｏ ｏｎｅ ｗａｓ ｓｏ ｉｄｅａｌｉｓｔｉｃ ｔｏ ｔｈｉｎｋ ｔｈａｔ ａｆｔｅｒ ｓｕｆｆｅｒｉｎｇ ａｔ Ｎａｚｉ ｈａｎｄｓ, ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｗｉｔｈｄｒａｗ ｆｒｏｍ ｔｅｒｒｉｔｏｒｙ ｃａｐｔｕｒｅｄ ｏｎ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｗａｙ ｔｏ Ｂｅｒｌｉｎ. Ｔｈｅ ｓｈａｐｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｌｄ Ｗａｒ ｗａｓ ａｌｒｅａｄｙ ｂｅｇｉｎｎｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｕｎｆｏｌｄ. Ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ Ｕｎｉｏｎ, ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｄｅｒｎ ｗｏｒｌｄ - ｎａｍｅｌｙ, Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ - ｗａｓ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｅｘｐｅｒｉｅｎｃｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ ｏｃｃｕｐａｔｉｏｎ ｏｒ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ａ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｏｒａｔｅ. Ａｔ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｒｅ ｏｆ ｔｈａｔ ｒｅａｌｉｚａｔｉｏｎ ｗｅｒｅ ｔｗｉｎ ｃｈａｌｌｅｎｇｅｓ. Ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ, ａｎｙ ｈｏｐｅ ｔｈｅｙ ｈａｄ ｏｆ ｒｅｂｕｉｌｄｉｎｇ ｗａｓ ｔｏｔａｌｌｙ ｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｔ ｕｐｏｎ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｗｉｌｌｉｎｇｎｅｓｓ ｔｏ ｒｅｍａｉｎ ｅｎｇａｇｅｄ. Ｉｓｓｕｅｓ ｏｆ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ ａｔｔａｃｋ ａｓｉｄｅ, ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｈａｄ ｄｅｃｉｍａｔｅｄ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ, ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｄａｍａｇｅ ｗａｓ ｏｎｌｙ ｂｅｃｏｍｉｎｇ ｗｏｒｓｅ ｗｉｔｈ ｅａｃｈ ｉｎｃｈ ｏｆ Ｎａｚｉ ｔｅｒｒｉｔｏｒｙ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎｓ ｏｒ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔｓ ｃｏｎｑｕｅｒｅｄ. Ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｎｔｉｎｅｎｔａｌ ｓｔａｔｅｓ - ａｎｄ ｅｖｅｎ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｋｉｎｇｄｏｍ - ｗｅｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃａｌｌｙ ｓｐｅｎｔ ａｎｄ ｉｎｄｅｂｔｅｄ ｂｕｔ ｗｅｒｅ, ｔｏ ｂｅ ｐｅｒｆｅｃｔｌｙ ｂｌｕｎｔ, ｄｅｓｔｉｔｕｔｅ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｗａｓ ｎｏｔ Ｗｏｒｌｄ Ｗａｒ Ｉ, ｗｈｅｒｅ ｍｏｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｆｉｇｈｔｉｎｇ ｈａｄ ｏｃｃｕｒｒｅｄ ａｌｏｎｇ ａ ｓｉｎｇｌｅ ｓｅｒｉｅｓ ｏｆ ｔｒｅｎｃｈｅｓ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｗａｓ ｂｌｉｔｚｋｒｉｅｇ ａｎｄ ｓａｔｕｒａｔｉｏｎ ｂｏｍｂｉｎｇｓ, ｗｈｉｃｈ ｌｅｆｔ ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｎｔｉｎｅｎｔ ｉｎ ｒｕｉｎｓ, ａｎｄ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｗａｓ ａｌｍｏｓｔ ｎｏｔｈｉｎｇ ｌｅｆｔ ｆｒｏｍ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｔｏ ｒｅｂｕｉｌｄ. Ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ａｖｏｉｄｉｎｇ ｍａｓｓ ｓｔａｒｖａｔｉｏｎ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ａ ｃｈａｌｌｅｎｇｅ, ａｎｄ ａｎｙ ｒｅｂｕｉｌｄｉｎｇ ｅｆｆｏｒｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｕｔｔｅｒｌｙ ｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｔ ｕｐｏｎ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｆｉｎａｎｃｉｎｇ. Ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｗｉｌｌｉｎｇ ｔｏ ａｃｃｅｐｔ ｎｅａｒｌｙ ｗｈａｔｅｖｅｒ ｗａｓ ｏｎ ｏｆｆｅｒ. Ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ, ｔｈｅ ｉｓｓｕｅ ｗａｓ ｏｎｅ ｏｆ ｓｅｉｚｉｎｇ ａ ｈｉｓｔｏｒｉｃ ｏｐｐｏｒｔｕｎｉｔｙ. Ｈｉｓｔｏｒｉｃａｌｌｙ, ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｔｈｏｕｇｈｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｋｉｎｇｄｏｍ ａｎｄ Ｆｒａｎｃｅ - ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｍａｒｉｔｉｍｅ ｔｒａｄｉｔｉｏｎｓ - ａｓ ｍｏｒｅ ｏｆ ａ ｔｈｒｅａｔ ｔｏ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ ｔｈａｎ ｔｈｅ ｌａｒｇｅｌｙ ｌａｎｄ-ｂａｓｅｄ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ Ｕｎｉｏｎ ａｎｄ Ｇｅｒｍａｎｙ. Ｅｖｅｎ Ｗｏｒｌｄ Ｗａｒ Ｉ ｄｉｄ ｎｏｔ ｆｕｌｌｙ ｄｉｓｐｅｌ ｔｈｉｓ ｃｏｎｃｅｒｎ. (Ｊａｐａｎ, ｆｏｒ ｉｔｓ ｐａｒｔ, ｗａｓ ａｌｗａｙｓ ｖｉｅｗｅｄ ａｓ ａ ｈｏｓｔｉｌｅ ｐｏｗｅｒ.) Ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｅｎｔｅｒｅｄ Ｗｏｒｌｄ Ｗａｒ ＩＩ ｌａｔｅ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｄｉｄ ｎｏｔ ｏｃｃｕｒ ｏｎ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｓｏｉｌ. Ｓｏ - ｕｎｉｑｕｅｌｙ ａｍｏｎｇ ａｌｌ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ'ｓ ｍａｊｏｒ ｐｏｗｅｒｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｄａｙ - Ｕ.Ｓ. ｉｎｆｒａｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｅ ａｎｄ ｉｎｄｕｓｔｒｉａｌ ｃａｐａｃｉｔｙ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｅｍｅｒｇｅ ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ ｌａｒｇｅｒ (ｆａｒ, ｆａｒ ｌａｒｇｅｒ) ｔｈａｎ ｗｈｅｎ ｉｔ ｅｎｔｅｒｅｄ. Ｗｉｔｈ ｉｔｓ ｔｒａｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌ ｒｉｖａｌｓ ｅｉｔｈｅｒ ａｌｒｅａｄｙ ｇｒｅａｔｌｙ ｗｅａｋｅｎｅｄ ｏｒ ｗｅｌｌ ｏｎ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｗａｙ ｔｏ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｓｏ, ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｈａｄ ｔｈｅ ｏｐｐｏｒｔｕｎｉｔｙ ｔｏ ｓｅｔ ｉｔｓｅｌｆ ｕｐ ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｒｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｗ ｏｒｄｅｒ. Ｉｎ ｔｈｉｓ, ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｆａｃｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｃｈａｌｌｅｎｇｅｓ ｏｆ ｄｅｆｅｎｄｉｎｇ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ Ｕｎｉｏｎ. Ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｏｃｃｕｐｙ Ｗｅｓｔｅｒｎ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ ａｓ ｉｔ ｅｘｐｅｃｔｅｄ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔｓ ｔｏ ｏｃｃｕｐｙ Ｅａｓｔｅｒｎ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ; ｉｔ ｌａｃｋｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｔｒｏｏｐｓ ａｎｄ ｗａｓ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｗｒｏｎｇ ｓｉｄｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｏｃｅａｎ. Ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｈａｄ ｔｏ ｈａｖｅ ｎｏｔ ｊｕｓｔ ｔｈｅ ｐａｒｔｉｃｉｐａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｗｅｓｔｅｒｎ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ｉｎ ｈｏｌｄｉｎｇ ｂａｃｋ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ ｔｉｄｅ, ｉｔ ｎｅｅｄｅｄ ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ｔｏ ｄｅｆｅｒ ｔｏ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ａｎｄ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｄｅｍａｎｄｓ - ａｎｄ ｔｏ ｄｏ ｓｏ ｗｉｌｌｉｎｇｌｙ. Ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｓｐｅｒａｔｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｄｅｓｔｉｔｕｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ, ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｕｎｐｒｅｃｅｄｅｎｔｅｄ ａｎｄ ｕｎｐａｒａｌｌｅｌｅｄ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｓｔｒｅｎｇｔｈ, ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｃａｒｒｏｔｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｔｈｅ ｏｂｖｉｏｕｓ ｗａｙ ｔｏ ｇｏ. Ｐｕｔ ａｎｏｔｈｅｒ ｗａｙ, Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ａ ｂｒｏａｄｅｒ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｆｆｏｒｔ ｔｏ ｅｘｔｅｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｗａｒｔｉｍｅ ａｌｌｉａｎｃｅ - ｓａｎｓ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔｓ - ｂｅｙｏｎｄ Ｇｅｒｍａｎｙ'ｓ ｓｕｒｒｅｎｄｅｒ. Ａｆｔｅｒ ａｌｌ ｗａｒｓ, ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｈｏｐｅ ｔｈａｔ ａｌｌｉａｎｃｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｈａｖｅ ｄｅｆｅａｔｅｄ ａ ｃｏｍｍｏｎ ｅｎｅｍｙ ｗｉｌｌ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕｅ ｔｏ ｆｕｎｃｔｉｏｎ ｔｏ ａｄｍｉｎｉｓｔｅｒ ａｎｄ ｍａｉｎｔａｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｅａｃｅ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ ａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｎｇｒｅｓｓ ｏｆ Ｖｉｅｎｎａ ａｎｄ Ｖｅｒｓａｉｌｌｅｓ ａｓ ｗｅｌｌ. Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈａｎ ａｎ ａｔｔｅｍｐｔ ｔｏ ｓｈａｐｅ ｔｈｅ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ, ｉｔ ｗａｓ ａｎ ｅｆｆｏｒｔ ｔｏ ｇｒｏｗ ａ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ａｌｌｉａｎｃｅ ｉｎｔｏ ａ ｂｒｏａｄｅｒ Ｕ.Ｓ.-ｌｅｄ ａｎｄ -ｄｏｍｉｎａｔｅｄ ｂｌｏｃ ｔｏ ｃｏｕｎｔｅｒ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔｓ. Ａｔ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ, ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｍａｄｅ ｉｔｓｅｌｆ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｒｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｗ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ, ａｇｒｅｅｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ｔｈｅ ｔｒａｄｉｎｇ ｐａｒｔｎｅｒ ｏｆ ｆｉｒｓｔ ａｎｄ ｌａｓｔ ｒｅｓｏｒｔ. Ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ａｌｌｏｗ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ ｎｅａｒ ｔａｒｉｆｆ-ｆｒｅｅ ａｃｃｅｓｓ ｔｏ ｉｔｓ ｍａｒｋｅｔｓ, ａｎｄ ｔｕｒｎ ａ ｂｌｉｎｄ ｅｙｅ ｔｏ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ'ｓ ｏｗｎ ｔａｒｉｆｆｓ ｓｏ ｌｏｎｇ ａｓ ｔｈｅｙ ｄｉｄ ｎｏｔ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ｔｏｏ ｅｇｒｅｇｉｏｕｓ - ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ａｔ ｌｅａｓｔ ｉｎ ｐａｒｔ ｆｌｅｗ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｆａｃｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｇｒｅａｔ Ｄｅｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎ'ｓ ｌｅｓｓｏｎｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｓａｌｅ ｏｆ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎ ｇｏｏｄｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｈｅｌｐ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ ｄｅｖｅｌｏｐ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃａｌｌｙ, ａｎｄ, ｉｎ ｅｘｃｈａｎｇｅ, ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅ ｄｅｆｅｒｅｎｃｅ ｏｎ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ａｎｄ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｍａｔｔｅｒｓ: ＮＡＴＯ - ｔｈｅ ｕｌｔｉｍａｔｅ ｈｅｄｇｅ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ ｉｎｖａｓｉｏｎ - ｗａｓ ｂｏｒｎ. Ｔｈｅ "ｆｒｅｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ" ａｌｌｉａｎｃｅ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｃｏｎｓｉｓｔ ｏｆ ａ ｓｅｒｉｅｓ ｏｆ ｅｑｕａｌ ｓｔａｔｅｓ. Ｉｎｓｔｅａｄ, ｉｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｃｏｎｓｉｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ａｎｄ ｅｖｅｒｙｏｎｅ ｅｌｓｅ. Ｔｈｅ "ｅｖｅｒｙｏｎｅ ｅｌｓｅ" ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅｄ ｓｈａｔｔｅｒｅｄ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｅｓ, ｔｈｅｉｒ ｉｍｐｏｖｅｒｉｓｈｅｄ ｃｏｌｏｎｉｅｓ, ｉｎｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｔ ｓｕｃｃｅｓｓｏｒ ｓｔａｔｅｓ ａｎｄ ｓｏ ｏｎ. Ｔｈｅ ｔｒｕｔｈ ｗａｓ ｔｈａｔ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ ｌｅｓｓ ａ ｃｏｍｐａｃｔ ｏｆ ｅｑｕａｌｓ ｔｈａｎ ａ ｆｒａｍｅｗｏｒｋ ｆｏｒ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎｓ ｗｉｔｈｉｎ ａｎ ｕｎｅｑｕａｌ ａｌｌｉａｎｃｅ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ Ｕｎｉｏｎ. Ｔｈｅ ｆｏｕｎｄａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｏｗｅｒ - ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔ ｉｎ ｓｔｒｅｎｇｔｈｅｎｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｅｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｔｏ ｉｍｍｕｎｉｚｅ ｔｈｅｍ ｆｒｏｍ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｓｍ ａｎｄ ｂｕｉｌｄ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｍｅｎｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ Ｕｎｉｏｎ. Ａｌｍｏｓｔ ｉｍｍｅｄｉａｔｅｌｙ ａｆｔｅｒ ｔｈｅ ｗａｒ, ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｂｅｇａｎ ａｃｔｉｎｇ ｉｎ ｗａｙｓ ｔｈａｔ ｉｎｄｉｃａｔｅｄ ｔｈａｔ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ ｎｏｔ - ｆｏｒ ｉｔｓｅｌｆ ａｔ ｌｅａｓｔ - ａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ. Ｗｈｅｎ ｌｏａｎｓ ｔｏ ｆｕｎｄ Ｗｅｓｔｅｒｎ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ'ｓ ｒｅｄｅｖｅｌｏｐｍｅｎｔ ｆａｉｌｅｄ ｔｏ ｓｔｉｍｕｌａｔｅ ｇｒｏｗｔｈ, ｔｈｏｓｅ ｌｏａｎｓ ｂｅｃａｍｅ ｇｒａｎｔｓ, ａｋａ ｔｈｅ Ｍａｒｓｈａｌｌ Ｐｌａｎ. Ｓｈｏｒｔｌｙ ｔｈｅｒｅａｆｔｅｒ, ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ - ｃｅｒｔａｉｎｌｙ ｔｏ ｉｔｓ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｌｏｓｓ - ａｌｍｏｓｔ ａｂｓｅｎｔｍｉｎｄｅｄｌｙ ｅｘｔｅｎｄｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔｓ ｏｆ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｔｏ ａｎｙ ｓｔａｔｅ ｉｎｖｏｌｖｅｄ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｓｉｄｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｌｄ Ｗａｒ, ｗｉｔｈ Ｊａｐａｎ, Ｓｏｕｔｈ Ｋｏｒｅａ ａｎｄ Ｔａｉｗａｎ ｓｉｇｎｉｎｇ ｕｐ ａｓ ｉｔｓ ｍｏｓｔ ｅｎｔｈｕｓｉａｓｔｉｃ ｐａｒｔｉｃｉｐａｎｔｓ. Ａｎｄ ｆａｓｔ-ｆｏｒｗａｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｗｅｎｔ ｏｆｆ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｌｄ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄ ａｎｄ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｓｕｐｐｏｓｅｄｌｙ ｄｉｅｄ, ｇｏｌｄ ｗａｓ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｒｅｐｌａｃｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｄｏｌｌａｒ. Ｆａｒ ｆｒｏｍ ｄｙｉｎｇ, ｔｈｅ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ/ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｕｎｄｅｒｓｔａｎｄｉｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ｕｎｄｅｒｐｉｎｎｅｄ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｈａｄ ｏｎｌｙ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ｍｏｒｅ ｅｎｔｒｅｎｃｈｅｄ. Ｗｈｅｒｅａｓ ｂｅｆｏｒｅ, ｔｈｅ ｇｒｅａｔｅｓｔ ｌｉｍｉｔｅｒ ｗａｓ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ａｖａｉｌａｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｇｏｌｄ, ｎｏｗ ｉｔ ｂｅｃａｍｅ - ａｎｄ ｒｅｍａｉｎｓ - ｔｈｅ ｗｈｉｍ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ'ｓ ｍｏｎｅｔａｒｙ ａｕｔｈｏｒｉｔｉｅｓ. Ｔｏｗａｒｄ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ＩＩ Ｆｏｒ ｍａｎｙ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｗｉｌｌ ｂｅ ａｔｔｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ａｌｒｅａｄｙ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｄｕｂｂｅｄ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ＩＩ, ｈａｖｉｎｇ ｔｈｉｓ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｃｅｎｔｒａｌｉｔｙ ａｓ ｓｕｃｈ ａ ｋｅｙ ｐｉｌｌａｒ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｒｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ. Ｔｈｅ ｆｕｎｄａｍｅｎｔａｌ ｐｒｉｎｃｉｐｌｅ ｏｆ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｓｏｖｅｒｅｉｇｎｔｙ ｗｉｔｈｉｎ ａ ｆｒａｍｅｗｏｒｋ ｏｆ ｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎｓｈｉｐｓ, ｕｌｔｉｍａｔｅｌｙ ｇｕａｒａｎｔｅｅｄ ｎｏｔ ｊｕｓｔ ｂｙ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｂｕｔ ｂｙ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｏｗｅｒ. Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ ｎｏｔ ｓｏ ｍｕｃｈ ａ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ａｓ ａ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ. Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｄｗａｒｆｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｎｏｎｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｓｔ ｗｏｒｌｄ, ａｎｄ ｇｕａｒａｎｔｅｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｓｔａｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｓｅｐｔｅｍｂｅｒ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ ｈａｓ ｓｈｏｗｎ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｂａｓｉｃ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｈａｓ ｃｈａｎｇｅｄ, ｂｕｔ ｗｈａｔ ｈａｐｐｅｎｓ ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｇｕａｒａｎｔｏｒ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｉｔｓｅｌｆ ｕｎｄｅｒｇｏｅｓ ａ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ. Ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｂｕｂｂｌｅ ｉｎ Ｊａｐａｎ - ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ'ｓ ｓｅｃｏｎｄ-ｌａｒｇｅｓｔ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ - ｂｕｒｓｔ ｉｎ 1990-1991, ｉｔ ｄｉｄ ｎｏｔ ｉｎｆｅｃｔ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ. Ｎｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｄｉｄ ｔｈｅ Ｅａｓｔ Ａｓｉａｎ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ ｉｎ 1997, ｎｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｒｕｂｌｅ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ ｏｆ 1998. Ａ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ ｉｎ Ｆｒａｎｃｅ ｏｒ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｋｉｎｇｄｏｍ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｓｉｍｉｌａｒｌｙ ｒｅｍａｉｎ ａ ｌｏｃａｌ ｏｎｅ. Ｂｕｔ ａ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ ｂｅｃｏｍｅｓ ｇｌｏｂａｌ. Ｔｈｅ ｆｕｎｄａｍｅｎｔａｌ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｒｅｍａｉｎｓ ｕｎｃｈａｎｇｅｄ: Ｔｈｅ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ ｒｅｍａｉｎｓ ｔｈｅ ｌａｒｇｅｓｔ, ａｎｄ ｄｙｓｆｕｎｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｔｈｅｒｅ ａｆｆｅｃｔ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ. Ｔｈａｔ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ, ａｎｄ ｔｈａｔ ｉｓ ｕｌｔｉｍａｔｅｌｙ ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ ｃａｌｌ ｆｏｒ ａ ｎｅｗ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｉｓ ａｂｏｕｔ. Ｔｈｅｒｅ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｔａｌｋ ｏｆ ａ ｍｅｅｔｉｎｇ ａｔ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｇｉｖｅｓ ｕｐ ｉｔｓ ｐｌａｃｅ ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ'ｓ ｒｅｓｅｒｖｅ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｃｙ ａｎｄ ｐｒｉｍａｃｙ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ｔｈａｔ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｉｓ ｍｅｅｔｉｎｇ ｗｉｌｌ ｂｅ ａｂｏｕｔ, ａｎｄ ｃｅｒｔａｉｎｌｙ ｎｏｔ ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ ａｒｅ ａｆｔｅｒ. Ｔｈｅ ｕｓｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｄｏｌｌａｒ ａｓ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｒｅｓｅｒｖｅ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｃｙ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｂａｓｅｄ ｏｎ ａｎ ａｇｇｒａｎｄｉｚｉｎｇ ｆｉａｔ, ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｄｏｌｌａｒ ａｌｏｎｅ ｈａｓ ａ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｐｒｅｓｅｎｃｅ ａｎｄ ｔｒｕｓｔ. Ｔｈｅ ｅｕｒｏ, ａｆｔｅｒ ａｌｌ, ｉｓ ｏｎｌｙ ａ ｄｅｃａｄｅ ｏｌｄ, ａｎｄ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｂａｃｋｅｄ ｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｂｙ ｓｏｖｅｒｅｉｇｎ ｔａｘｉｎｇ ｐｏｗｅｒｓ ｏｒ ｂｙ ａ ｃｅｎｔｒａｌ ｂａｎｋ ｗｉｔｈ ｖａｓｔ ａｕｔｈｏｒｉｔｙ. Ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎ Ｃｅｎｔｒａｌ Ｂａｎｋ (ＥＣＢ) ｃｅｒｔａｉｎｌｙ ｓｔｅａｄｉｅｓ ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ, ｂｕｔ ｉｔ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｓｏｖｅｒｅｉｇｎ ｃｏｕｎｔｒｉｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｄｅｆｉｎｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ. Ａｓ ｗｅ ｈａｖｅ ｓｅｅｎ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｃｅｎｔ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ, ｔｈｅ ＥＣＢ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｌａｃｋｓ ｔｈｅ ａｕｔｈｏｒｉｔｙ ｔｏ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ'ｓ ｂａｎｋｓ. Ｒｅｌｙｉｎｇ ｏｎ ａ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｃｙ ｔｈａｔ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｈａｎｄｓ ｏｆ ａ ｓｏｖｅｒｅｉｇｎ ｔａｘｉｎｇ ｐｏｗｅｒ, ｂｕｔ ｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｔ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｗｉｌｌ ｏｆ (ｓｏ ｆａｒ) 15 ｃｏｕｎｔｒｉｅｓ ｗｉｔｈ ｖｅｒｙ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ, ｄｏｅｓ ｎｏｔ ｍａｋｅ ｆｏｒ ａ ｒｅｌｉａｂｌｅ ｒｅｓｅｒｖｅ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｃｙ. Ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｌｏｏｋｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｃｈａｌｌｅｎｇｅ ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｐｏｗｅｒ, ｔｈｅｙ ａｒｅ ｌｏｏｋｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｇｒｅｅ ｔｏ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｃａｎ ｉｎｆｌｕｅｎｃｅ ｔｈｅ ｄｙｎａｍｉｃｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ, ｗｉｔｈ ａｎ ｅｙｅ ｔｏｗａｒｄ ｌｉｍｉｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ａｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎｓ ｔｏ ａｃｃｉｄｅｎｔａｌｌｙ ｄｅｓｔａｂｉｌｉｚｅ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ａｇａｉｎ. Ｔｈｅ Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ ｉｎ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒ ｌｏｏｋ ａｔ ｔｈｅ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｏｆ ａ ｆａｉｌｕｒｅ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｏｒｙ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ｃｅｒｔａｉｎｌｙ ｈａｖｅ ａ ｐｏｉｎｔ. Ｉｆ ｆａｕｌｔ ｉｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｐｉｎｎｅｄ, ｉｔ ｉｓ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｌｅｔｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ ｇｒｏｗ ａｎｄ ｇｒｏｗ ｕｎｔｉｌ ｉｔ ｔｒｉｇｇｅｒｅｄ ａ ｌｉｑｕｉｄｉｔｙ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ. Ｔｈｅ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｉｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｉｏｎｓ - ｓｐｅｃｉｆｉｃａｌｌｙ ｔｈｅ ＩＭＦ, ｗｈｉｃｈ ｉｓ ｓｕｐｐｏｓｅｄ ｔｏ ｓｅｒｖｅ ｔｈｅ ｒｏｌｅ ｏｆ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｌｉｇｈｔｈｏｕｓｅ ａｎｄ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ ｍａｎａｇｅｒ - ｐｒｏｖｅｄ ｉｒｒｅｌｅｖａｎｔ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍｓ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｉｓ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔｌｙ ｐａｓｓｉｎｇ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ. Ｉｎｄｅｅｄ, ａｌｌ ｍｕｌｔｉｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｉｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｉｏｎｓ ｆａｉｌｅｄ ｏｒ, ｍｏｒｅ ｐｒｅｃｉｓｅｌｙ, ｈａｖｅ ｌｉｔｔｌｅ ｔｏ ｄｏ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｔｈａｔ ｗａｓ ｏｐｅｒａｔｉｎｇ ｉｎ 2008. Ｔｈｅ 64-ｙｅａｒ-ｏｌｄ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ａｇｒｅｅｍｅｎｔ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｄｉｄｎ'ｔ ｈａｖｅ ａｎｙｔｈｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｄｏ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ. Ｕｌｔｉｍａｔｅｌｙ, ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｌｉｋｅ ｔｏ ｓｅｅ ａ ｓｈｉｆｔ ｉｎ ｆｏｃｕｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｏｆ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｉｎｔｅｒａｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｆｒｏｍ ｓｔｒｅｎｇｔｈｅｎｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｔｒａｄｉｎｇ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｔｏ ｃｏｎｔｒｏｌｌｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ｉｎ ｐｒａｃｔｉｃａｌ ｔｅｒｍｓ, ｔｈｅｙ ｗａｎｔ ａｎ ｏｖｅｒｓｉｇｈｔ ｂｏｄｙ ｔｈａｔ ｃａｎ ｇｕａｒａｎｔｅｅ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｗｏｎ'ｔ ｂｅ ａ ｒｅｐｅａｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔ ｃｒｉｓｉｓ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｉｎｖｏｌｖｅ ｅｖｅｒｙｔｈｉｎｇ ｆｒｏｍ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ ｏｎ ａｃｃｏｕｎｔｉｎｇ ｍｅｔｈｏｄｓ, ｔｏ ｒｅｓｔｒｉｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｏｎ ｗｈａｔ ｃａｎ ａｎｄ ｃａｎｎｏｔ ｂｅ ｔｒａｄｅｄ ａｎｄ ｂｙ ｗｈｏｍ (ｏｆｆｓｈｏｒｅ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｈａｖｅｎｓ ａｎｄ ｈｅｄｇｅ ｆｕｎｄｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｅｌｙ ｆｉｎｄ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｗｏｒｌｄｓ ｃｉｒｃｕｍｓｃｒｉｂｅｄ), ｔｏ ｆｒａｍｅｗｏｒｋｓ ｆｏｒ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｉｎｔｅｒｖｅｎｔｉｏｎｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｎｅｔ ｅｆｆｅｃｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｔｏ ｃｒｅａｔｅ ａｎ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｂｕｒｅａｕｃｒａｃｙ ｔｏ ｏｖｅｒｓｅｅ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｍａｒｋｅｔｓ. Ｆｕｎｄａｍｅｎｔａｌｌｙ, ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｈｏｐｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｍｏｄｅｒｎｉｚｅ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ, ｂｕｔ ｉｎｓｔｅａｄ ｔｏ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｉｚｅ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｍａｒｋｅｔｓ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｉｓ ｕｌｔｉｍａｔｅｌｙ ｎｏｔ ａ ｆｉｎａｎｃｉａｌ ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ, ｂｕｔ ａ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｏｎｅ. Ｔｈｅ Ｆｒｅｎｃｈ ａｒｅ ｔｒｙｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｆｌｉｐ Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｆｒｏｍ ａ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｗｈｅｒｅ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｂｕｔｔｒｅｓｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｔｏ ａ ｓｉｔｕａｔｉｏｎ ｗｈｅｒｅ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｒｅｍａｉｎｓ ｔｈｅ ｂｕｔｔｒｅｓｓ ｂｕｔ ｉｓ ｍｏｒｅ ｃｏｎｓｔｒａｉｎｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｂｒｏａｄｅｒ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ. Ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎ ｖｉｅｗ ｉｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｉｓ ｗｉｌｌ ｈｅｌｐ ｅｖｅｒｙｂｏｄｙ. Ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｐｏｓｉｔｉｏｎ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｙｅｔ ｆｒａｍｅｄ ａｎｄ ｗｏｎ'ｔ ｂｅ ｕｎｔｉｌ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｗ ｐｒｅｓｉｄｅｎｔ ｉｓ ｉｎ ｏｆｆｉｃｅ. Ｂｕｔ ｉｔ ｗｉｌｌ ｂｅ ａ ｖｅｒｙ ｔｏｕｇｈ ｓｅｌｌ. Ｆｏｒ ｏｎｅ, ａｔ ｉｔｓ ｃｏｒｅ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ ｉｓ "ｓｉｍｐｌｙ" ａ ｌｉｑｕｉｄｉｔｙ ｆｒｅｅｚｅ ａｎｄ ｏｎｅ ｔｈａｔ ｉｓ ａｌｒｅａｄｙ ｔｈａｗｉｎｇ. Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ'ｓ ａｎｄ Ｅａｓｔ Ａｓｉａ'ｓ ｒｅｃｅｓｓｉｏｎｓ ａｒｅ ｂｏｕｎｄ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｄｅｅｐｅｒ ａｎｄ ｌｏｎｇｅｒ ｌａｓｔｉｎｇ. Ｓｏ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｉｓ ｓｕｒｅ - ｎｏ ｍａｔｔｅｒ ｗｈｏ ｔａｋｅｓ ｏｖｅｒ ｉｎ Ｊａｎｕａｒｙ - ｔｏ ｂｅ ｌｅｓｓ ｔｈａｎ ｋｅｅｎ ａｂｏｕｔ ｒｅｖａｍｐｓ ｏｆ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓｅｓ ｉｎ ｇｅｎｅｒａｌ. Ｆａｒ ｍｏｒｅ ｉｍｐｏｒｔａｎｔ, ａｎｙ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ｔｈａｔ ｏｖｅｒｓｅｅｓ ａｓｐｅｃｔｓ ｏｆ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｆｉｎａｎｃｅ ｗｏｕｌｄ, ｂｙ ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｉｏｎ, ｎｏｔ ｂｅ ｕｎｄｅｒ ｆｕｌｌ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｃｏｎｔｒｏｌ, ｂｕｔ ｕｎｄｅｒ ｓｏｍｅ ｓｏｒｔ ｏｆ ｑｕａｓｉ-Ｂｒｕｓｓｅｌｓ-ｌｉｋｅ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚａｔｉｏｎ. Ａｎｄ ｎｏ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｐｒｅｓｉｄｅｎｔ ｉｓ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｅｎｇａｇｅ ｇｌｅｅｆｕｌｌｙ ｏｎ ｔｈａｔ ｓｏｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｏｐｉｃ. Ｕｎｌｅｓｓ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｅｌｓｅ ｉｓ ｏｎ ｏｆｆｅｒ. Ｂｒｅｔｔｏｎ Ｗｏｏｄｓ ｗａｓ ｕｌｔｉｍａｔｅｌｙ ａｂｏｕｔ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｔｒａｄｉｎｇ ａｃｃｅｓｓ ｔｏ ｉｔｓ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｍｉｇｈｔ ｆｏｒ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ａｎｄ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｄｅｆｅｒｅｎｃｅ. Ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｍｉｇｈｔ ｒｅｍａｉｎｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ, ｔｈｅｎ, ｉｓ ｓｉｍｐｌｅ: Ｗｈａｔ ｗｉｌｌ ｔｈｅ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅａｎｓ ｂｒｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｔａｂｌｅ ｗｉｔｈ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｔｏ ｂａｒｇａｉｎ? |
Image of accounting jobs in london
 |
| accounting jobs in london |
accounting jobs in london Image 1
 |
| accounting jobs in london |
accounting jobs in london Image 2
 |
| accounting jobs in london |
accounting jobs in london Image 3
 |
| accounting jobs in london |
accounting jobs in london Image 4
| accounting jobs in london |
accounting jobs in london Image 5
Related blog with accounting jobs in london
- jimdee.blogspot.com/...we mean; house, bank account, job, mobile phones... in the outer southern suburbs of London, where we were...have been in London we had made...
- cutoutthestars.blogspot.com/...off ‘getting to London’ for a damn long time... my bank account, or when my mum asked me how the job hunt was going. In the meantime however, there...
- hackneygetsrippedoff.blogspot.com/... from a P O Box in Nassau bought a complete row of shops in east London for a pittance and have left them to rot. If the leaseholders ...
- mpetrelis.blogspot.com/...safety and security of LGTB people in Baghdad. Please, between you and...Iraqi LGBT and serve as their accountant, address my concerns... to drop his full-time job and produce something instantly. You...
- greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/...left of his meager accounts. The former star comedian... to MGM for any job --- extra, carpenter, handyman...one of them in that perilous business...they might as well be London After Midnight, The Divine...
- thewebstress.blogspot.com/... me about my job. I work from home. Yes, yes, on a London weighting. Hours..., keeping tax money in an account for tax and not a new car...
- pinktreefrog.typepad.com/amphibianavenger/...to pollution as they breathe through their skin. Atrazine in particular (the world's commonest weedkiller) is doing a top job of damaging frog populations world...
- ambralovesherlife.blogspot.com/...celebrate my new job in London! Yes, next Monday I will start working in an interior design...yet, I still have my job in Milan, as my leave...brand new British bank account, on Sat I will go to...
- whpsocal.blogspot.com/... out the London attacks... unique only in the fact that... by all accounts ordinary ..., jobs...all the ...
- greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/...their feature program. The scheme was helped in no small way by Paramount's assigning demon publicist Arthur Mayer the job of ginning up Panther Woman excitement. Mayer ...
Accounting Jobs In London - Blog Homepage Results
A random account of the early travels in my youth while finishing college and working my first corporate job.
... up with the Londoners - a blog tracking... my boyfriend behind in another City. Accounts of my new job working undercover for...
... below or click an icon to log in: Email (required) (Address never... using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change ) You are...
Related Video with accounting jobs in london
accounting jobs in london Video 1
accounting jobs in london Video 2
accounting jobs in london Video 3
On the net publishing websites have to have an established screen using a easy page layout along with direction-finding, in order to make the idea remain out from the Jobs in accounting websites.
답글삭제