This Hedges guy is a serious buzzkill.

NPR hasn't reported on this conference, so how important can it be?

Don't worry . . . the Bilderbergers have already taken care of everything:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97135

It appears that Mr Hedges wasn't required to open an economics textbook in the course of getting his English Literature and Divinity degrees.

He seems to think the sole motivation of BRIC is to expel the US from the Eurasian sphere by causing economic damage to it. China is already suffering economic pains due to the drop in exports to the US. Does he really think they (or India) want to reduce them further?

And positing the view that economic hardship will cause all "working class" people to become "proto-fascists" sounds completely loony bin.

China, Russia, India and Brazil? C'mon you guys we can take those guys.

""C'mon you guys we can take those guys.""

On the other hand if they can form a better sentence than that one we might be in trouble!

It's not Hedges's dollaristically mo-NO-netary econometrics, it's Hudson's.

Emphasizing in it cooling off and shutting down the 'Merican military madness ... of hotheads. The wide world just does NOT Support Our __oops.

De-Dollarization: Dismantling America’s Financial-Military Empire - The Yekaterinburg Turning Point, by Prof. Michael Hudson, Global Research, June 13, 2009.

The attendees have assured American diplomats that dismantling the US financial and military empire is not their aim. They simply want to discuss mutual aid – but in a way that has no role for the United States, NATO or the US dollar as a vehicle for trade.

US diplomats may well ask what this really means, if not a move to make US hegemony obsolete. That is what a multipolar world means, after all.

Yet the meeting has elicited only a collective yawn from the US and even European press despite its agenda is to replace the global dollar standard with a new financial and military defense system.

A Council on Foreign Relations spokesman has said he hardly can imagine that Russia and China can overcome their geopolitical rivalry, suggesting that America can use the divide-and-conquer that Britain used so deftly for many centuries in fragmenting foreign opposition to its own empire.

But Bush (“I’m a uniter, not a divider”) built on the Clinton administration’s legacy in driving Russia, China and their neighbors to find a common ground when it comes to finding an alternative to the dollar ...

And there's much more, farther, rounder, comprehensive-istic Hudson -- who consults with global heads-of-state such as Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (Malaysia) -- where that came from:
GlobalResearch.CA/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Michael&authorName=Hudson

Speaking of heads-of-state, the last one of the Union of States (socialist-ological), communicating somewhere on the underside of Southstralia, recently has something to say we might notice:

It's time for a second American revolution in the spirit of perestroika, by Mikhail Gorbachev, June 10, 2009.

In recent years, I have often told listeners that I feel Americans need their own change - a perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American perestroika - and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.

Our perestroika signalled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the US model. Today, the need for a more far-reaching perestroika - one for America and the world - has become clearer than ever.

The need for change in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s was urgent. The country was stifled by a lack of freedom, and the people - particularly the educated class - wanted to break the stranglehold ....

We opted for free elections, political pluralism, freedom of religion and an economy with competition and private property.