国产免费人成视频在线观看,国产极品粉嫩馒头一线天AV,国产精品欧美一区二区三区,亚洲 古典 另类 欧美 在线

首頁 > 文章 > 國際 > 國際縱橫

拉魯什大膽預(yù)測美國將會破產(chǎn)

拉魯什 · 2009-09-20 · 來源:烏有之鄉(xiāng)
金融海嘯 收藏( 評論() 字體: / /

美學者大膽預(yù)測美國將會破產(chǎn)
《環(huán)球視野》摘自2009年8月7日《環(huán)球時報》


溫憲 


美國經(jīng)濟學家拉魯什日前在接受《環(huán)球時報》記者專訪時發(fā)出驚人論斷,認為美國將在今年10月爆發(fā)一場“總危機”,并徹底破產(chǎn)。

今年87歲的林登•拉魯什是美國知名政治活動家和經(jīng)濟學家。拉魯什在美國頗受爭議,他曾8次競選美國總統(tǒng)但遭失敗,而且曾數(shù)次成功預(yù)言世界經(jīng)濟危機。他創(chuàng)建了“拉魯什運動”和有影響的《行政情報評論》雜志,并經(jīng)常發(fā)表驚世駭俗的言論。

7月30日拉魯什在接受《環(huán)球時報》記者專訪時表示, 今年10月2日至10月10日或12日將是美國爆發(fā)總危機的時間節(jié)點。那時,已完全無望的美國將徹底在政治上破產(chǎn),并將陷于瓦解進程。他表示,實際上,這一進程現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)開始。拉魯什稱,“總危機”之所以會發(fā)生在今年10月,是因為10月是美國財政年度計劃結(jié)束之時,到那時危機將會凸現(xiàn)出來。

拉魯什說,他于 2007年 7月25 日、27日預(yù)言美國經(jīng)濟將出現(xiàn)崩潰危機。三天之后,就發(fā)生了這場被一些“說謊的人”稱為的“次貸危機”。實際上發(fā)生的是一場整個國際貨幣金融體系崩潰的危機,只不過這場危機的爆發(fā)點位于整個國際貨幣金融體系最為薄弱的次貸領(lǐng)域。他將整個危機稱之為“溫莎城堡的倒坍”。

拉魯什否認自己是“悲觀主義者”。他說,美國有很大的潛力,但美國政府的現(xiàn)行政策“很不好”,“華爾街沒有生活在現(xiàn)實世界中,奧巴馬總統(tǒng)也沒有生活在現(xiàn)實世界。無論如何,美國在今年10月之后不能再繼續(xù)奉行現(xiàn)行政策。”

在討論如何應(yīng)對危機時,拉魯什說:“整個世界金融體系急需快刀斬亂麻式的改變。美國必須與中國、俄羅斯、印度聯(lián)手重新建立國際金融信用體系,使其重新運轉(zhuǎn)起來。”“整個美國必須進行破產(chǎn)重組,必須將巨額財政赤字減下來,我們必須改變”,拉魯什說。

(《環(huán)球視野》摘自2009年8月7日《環(huán)球時報》)
 

林登·拉魯什:現(xiàn)行的世界金融體系已經(jīng)無可救藥
———專訪美國著名經(jīng)濟學家林登·拉魯什
作者:鞠輝    文章來源:烏有之鄉(xiāng)    點擊數(shù):1776    更新時間:2009-7-25    文章屬性:   熱 薦  ★★★ 

本報駐美國記者 鞠輝

中青在線-中國青年報  2009-07-24

他曾9次成功預(yù)言世界經(jīng)濟危機,但8次競選美國總統(tǒng)失敗;他曾幫助里根政府謀劃拖垮蘇聯(lián)的“星球大戰(zhàn)計劃”,卻因為殘酷的政治斗爭而淪為階下囚。他就是美國政界和經(jīng)濟學界的傳奇人物———林登·拉魯什。一個陽光燦爛的夏日午后,記者應(yīng)邀來到拉魯什位于華盛頓郊外的鄉(xiāng)間別墅,聆聽他對世界經(jīng)濟形勢的獨到見解。

林登·拉魯什生于1922年,美國知名經(jīng)濟學家和政治活動家,早年曾經(jīng)推崇馬克思主義,后來轉(zhuǎn)而支持美國式的資本主義經(jīng)濟。自1976年以來,拉魯士曾8次參加總統(tǒng)大選,其中一次是作為美國工黨候選人參選,7次是角逐民主黨候選人提名,但均未成功。他的研究領(lǐng)域涵蓋政治、經(jīng)濟、哲學、歷史以及自然科學等各個方面,經(jīng)常發(fā)表驚世駭俗的獨特言論。他所創(chuàng)建的“拉魯什運動”和《行政情報評論》雜志在美國乃至世界很多國家政界和學界頗具影響力。由于拉魯什自身理念與傳統(tǒng)黨派觀點格格不入,他在美國政壇一直是一位爭議性人物。1988年,拉魯什因涉嫌票據(jù)欺詐被判15年監(jiān)禁,他本人及其支持者相信這是美國歷史上史無前例的政治迫害。拉魯什在政治道路上歷經(jīng)坎坷,但在經(jīng)濟學方面早已功成名就。從上世紀50年代開始,拉魯什曾對美國經(jīng)濟和世界經(jīng)濟作過9次預(yù)言,這些預(yù)言無一例外地警告危機即將來臨而且都被后來的事實所驗證,其中就包括著名的1973年美國經(jīng)濟大蕭條和1998年的亞洲金融風暴。與大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟學家不同的是,拉魯什關(guān)注的并不是經(jīng)濟數(shù)據(jù)模型,而是潛心研究資本積累趨勢等那些決定未來社會長遠發(fā)展的物質(zhì)和文化因素。2007年7月,拉魯什再次向世界發(fā)出預(yù)警稱,除非美、中、俄、印四國能夠聯(lián)合起來重塑世界金融體系,擺脫金融寡頭控制,否則,一場席卷全球的嚴重經(jīng)濟危機將很快到來。當時正值華爾街一片“漲聲”、牛氣沖天之際,很多人對這一警告嗤之以鼻,但僅僅一年之后,拉魯什的預(yù)言再次應(yīng)驗。

采訪剛剛開始,已經(jīng)87歲高齡的拉魯什便語出驚人:“現(xiàn)行的世界金融體系其實已經(jīng)崩潰了,無可救藥了,從這場次貸危機引發(fā)的全球金融危機就可清晰地看到這一點。”按照拉魯什的理論,當前這場仍在不斷惡化的金融危機是自1971年以來美國實行的金融體系的必然產(chǎn)物。拉魯什認為美國經(jīng)濟必定要發(fā)生危機的基本觀點是:實物生產(chǎn)不斷下降,而虛擬貨幣數(shù)量卻不斷上升,實體經(jīng)濟和虛擬貨幣兩條曲線一條向下,一條向上,兩者產(chǎn)生了巨大的背離,當虛擬貨幣的數(shù)量遠遠超過實物的數(shù)量時,這個世界就要發(fā)生災(zāi)難。

在拉魯什看來,從20世紀60年代起美國經(jīng)濟便開始逐步被金融寡頭所掌控,美國由此走向衰退,從一個奮發(fā)向上、不斷開拓的創(chuàng)新型國家變?yōu)橐粋€唯利是圖的貪婪國度,人人都指望不費力氣就可以發(fā)家致富,靠剪“外國羊毛”———剝削別國為生。為此,美國不斷把自己的危機轉(zhuǎn)嫁于人。然而,從亞洲金融危機開始,這種金融危機的傳染性越來越強,破壞力越來越大。“外國羊”都死了,美國怎能再繼續(xù)靠“剪羊毛”為生呢?

拉魯什自認有一種重塑西方健康文明的使命,要恢復(fù)自文藝復(fù)興以后被歪曲了的西方文明精華,哲學上要恢復(fù)柏拉圖那種主動探索自然法則的人文精神,理論上要復(fù)興德國科學家黎曼等人創(chuàng)造的“物理經(jīng)濟學”,政策上要恢復(fù)富蘭克林·羅斯福新政時的辦法,管制金融資本,為產(chǎn)業(yè)復(fù)興提供低息貸款,重新煥發(fā)美國人的創(chuàng)造精神。為此,他不斷呼吁各國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人重新合作,再建新的國際金融貨幣體系。

拉魯什贊成中國政府采取的金融管制和經(jīng)濟轉(zhuǎn)型政策。他說,隨著上世紀70年代中美建交以及中國實行改革開放政策,中國經(jīng)濟進入了持續(xù)30年的快速增長期。拉魯什認為,中國經(jīng)濟的迅猛發(fā)展主要得益于基于成本比較優(yōu)勢的對外貿(mào)易,但這種經(jīng)濟增長方式的弊端也非常明顯,中國的出口導(dǎo)向型經(jīng)濟嚴重依賴外部市場,一旦歐美經(jīng)濟出現(xiàn)問題,中國的出口放緩甚至在某些領(lǐng)域出現(xiàn)停滯,必將嚴重影響中國的整體經(jīng)濟。事實證明,中國經(jīng)濟確實受到了這一輪金融危機的沖擊,好在中國堅持資本項目的管制,因而避免了更大損失。

拉魯什強調(diào),世界經(jīng)濟已經(jīng)走到了一個十字路口,任何想要挽救舊有國際金融體系的努力都是徒勞的,唯一可行的解決辦法就是通過破產(chǎn)重組回歸國家信用體系。拉魯什說,在美國的法律概念中,破產(chǎn)重組的目的是幫助企業(yè)解困,現(xiàn)在需要用破產(chǎn)的手段使國家盡快擺脫金融危機的困擾。

按照拉魯什的建議,美國應(yīng)該取消因為金融衍生品過度“杠桿化”而造成的大量虛擬債務(wù),并承擔合理的債務(wù),從而回歸美國首任財長漢密爾頓所設(shè)想的國家信用體系,即由國家銀行統(tǒng)管全國債務(wù)和信貸。而在國際間,則建立一套基于主權(quán)國家間平等條約的國際信用體系。通過固定匯率制來確定國際商品價格,通過主權(quán)國家間的平等條約提供足夠的國際信用。拉魯什認為,由于美國、中國、俄羅斯、印度是世界上面積最大、人口最多的主權(quán)國家,因此這四大國家之間通過協(xié)議達成一致將是新的世界經(jīng)濟體系的重要基礎(chǔ)。

拉魯什相信,整個亞洲的發(fā)展是未來人類文化發(fā)展的前沿。而中國是歐亞大陸發(fā)展的關(guān)鍵。他說,中國通過30年的高速經(jīng)濟增長實現(xiàn)了跨越式發(fā)展,但不可否認的是仍然有大量人口還不富裕,因此要共同制定出一個跨越三代人的目標,通過改善水利、能源等基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施來提高這部分人的生產(chǎn)能力。中國當然需要轉(zhuǎn)變經(jīng)濟增長方式,由出口導(dǎo)向型轉(zhuǎn)入內(nèi)需拉動型,因為中國擁有潛力巨大的內(nèi)部市場,但僅靠中國自身的資本投入遠遠不夠,這就需要其他國家提供大量的有形資本支持。俄羅斯蘊藏著豐富的礦產(chǎn),可以通過協(xié)議向中國提供大量高質(zhì)量礦產(chǎn)資源,日本可以向中國出口先進技術(shù),韓國等國都發(fā)揮各自的作用,這樣在亞洲的太平洋沿岸將會形成全世界最大的經(jīng)濟快速增長帶,從而帶動世界最終走出經(jīng)濟危機。
 
 
七次競選 屢出驚人之語—訪美政壇傳奇人物拉魯什 
2006年05月15日  來源:文匯報 
 
 


拉魯什在匹茲堡的莊園中

  新聞提示

    春暖花開的5月,在美國的朋友指引下,記者從華盛頓驅(qū)車來到弗吉尼亞州西北的鄉(xiāng)下,拜訪了美國政壇上的傳奇人物——拉魯什。今年84歲的拉魯什自1976年起就參選總統(tǒng),至今是“七戰(zhàn)七敗”,但他依然斗志不改。他宣揚世界金融集團試圖控制美國和全世界的理論,主張美國必須改造現(xiàn)行制度。除了參加競選活動,拉魯什經(jīng)常發(fā)出令人震驚的言論。比如,他至今還堅稱“9·11事件”是美國政府操縱的陰謀。有人說他是瘋子,有人說他是英雄。這么一位怪人,在美國的政壇是如何生存下來,他的魅力何在?

    在他那位于崎嶇山頭的別墅內(nèi),熱情的拉魯什特意拿出自制的點心和咖啡招待中國的客人。不過,真正讓我們“胃口大開”的還是他關(guān)于美國經(jīng)濟的奇談怪論,以及他對自己的競選經(jīng)歷、人生價值觀的看法。當然,這位“著名經(jīng)濟學家”也談到了對人民幣匯率的高見。讓人想不到的是,耄耋之年的老人精神矍鑠,說起話來思路敏捷,時帶幽默。

    競選美國總統(tǒng)未必一定是大富翁

    “沒有顯赫的家族背景和雄厚的經(jīng)濟實力,你為什么多次競選美國總統(tǒng)這個看似不可完成的任務(wù)呢?”一見面沒多久,記者就毫不客氣地向拉魯什提出了疑問。拉魯什似乎早有準備,他不急不慢地說,美國總統(tǒng)并不一定是大富翁出身,關(guān)鍵在于你的政治主張有沒有吸引力,還有你的個人魅力,包括學識、口才和組織能力。說到這里,他有點得意地笑了笑。在美國,只要你能代表民意,有人支持你,就可以競選總統(tǒng),這是美國民主的游戲規(guī)則。家境貧寒的林肯總統(tǒng)不就是很好的例子嗎?

    “不過,我最欣賞的總統(tǒng)是富蘭克林·羅斯福總統(tǒng)。他帶領(lǐng)美國走出了經(jīng)濟大蕭條的時代,并為防止下一次危機做好準備。”拉魯什告訴記者,新的經(jīng)濟危機已經(jīng)到來,美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人根本沒有采取合理的防范措施,所以他要站出來大聲疾呼,喚醒那些沉默的民眾,拯救人民于“水火”。

    現(xiàn)狀表明美國經(jīng)濟正在破產(chǎn)

    4月27日,拉魯什在華盛頓發(fā)表演講,主題為“當代世界最大的經(jīng)濟危機”。與布什總統(tǒng)的沾沾自喜、媒體的津津樂道不同,拉魯什在談到美國經(jīng)濟的現(xiàn)狀時,一再使用“破產(chǎn)”一詞,讓人印象深刻。拉魯什跟記者滔滔不絕地講起了他關(guān)于世界經(jīng)濟的一整套理論。他說,世界經(jīng)濟一直受到邪惡的國際金融集團的控制,上世紀初希特勒的上臺就是金融集團的陰謀。如今,在猶太人控制的金融集團的操縱下,美國正在失去傳統(tǒng)的西方文明的特征,經(jīng)濟正在崩潰。

    面對將信將疑的記者,拉魯什擺出了他的一系列證據(jù):只要看看周圍鄰居的生活水平,就知道美國經(jīng)濟糟糕到了什么程度。“我附近的許多人都是中產(chǎn)階級,現(xiàn)在房價、油價不斷上漲,失業(yè)的人越來越多,很多人為了維持生計不得不放下尊嚴,去干不體面的活。”拉魯什說,現(xiàn)在美國的股票、房地產(chǎn)市場有太多泡沫,貿(mào)易赤字越積越高,貧富差距越來越大,說明整個現(xiàn)行的經(jīng)濟體系是失敗的。

    “不要相信媒體和政客的報道,那些都不是真實的,”拉魯什告訴記者,“我們身邊人的境遇才是最說明問題的”。他表情嚴肅地說,美國必須及時改變現(xiàn)行的制度,這也是我站出來競選總統(tǒng)的原因。如果美國經(jīng)濟崩潰,世界經(jīng)濟也就破產(chǎn)了,到時候?qū)κ澜缍际菫?zāi)難。

    主張改變現(xiàn)有體制吸引了年輕人

    記者告訴拉魯什,去年9月的世界首腦大會期間,曾在紐約聯(lián)合國總部外看到他的支持者打著標語抗議,今年又在華盛頓的白宮外看到他的支持者舉著寫有他名字的示威標牌,很多都是年輕人。“那么你吸引青年人的魅力在哪里呢?”記者好奇。拉魯什故作神秘,“其實我的支持者并不算多,在全國也就分布在十幾個城市,鐵桿(支持者)也就幾百人。”

    他接著說道,“這些人確實很多都是年輕人,他們大多是二戰(zhàn)后的嬰兒潮的后代,因為經(jīng)歷了冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束和全球化的時代,傳統(tǒng)的價值觀日益缺失,而美國的政治經(jīng)濟制度正在破產(chǎn),導(dǎo)致競爭激烈,生活成本上升,道德觀念混亂,加上恐怖主義盛行,政府發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭,這一切都讓他們感到迷茫。由于不滿現(xiàn)實生活,一些年輕人吸毒、縱欲或者無所事事,而我理解他們的心聲,主張徹底改造經(jīng)濟體系的聲音,使他們看到了希望,贏得了他們的支持。”

    人民幣升值會加速美國經(jīng)濟崩潰

    拉魯什是經(jīng)濟學出身,他寫過多篇經(jīng)濟著作,其中包括“生產(chǎn)力三角理論”,倡導(dǎo)西歐、東歐和中國為代表的歐亞大陸的經(jīng)濟復(fù)興,有一定的影響力。當記者問他,更喜歡人們叫他經(jīng)濟學家還是政治家時,他想了想說道,“兩者兼有吧。在美國,要成為合格的政治家,不能對經(jīng)濟一竅不通,我很幸運,學過經(jīng)濟。”

    拉魯什對中國的經(jīng)濟狀況很感興趣,在談到人民幣匯率的問題時滔滔不絕,頗有一番自己的見解。他說,美國政府將美中貿(mào)易逆差歸于人民幣匯率的原因,實在是愚蠢而瘋狂的想法。如果人民幣一下子升值百分之二十,美國經(jīng)濟只會崩潰得更快。中國應(yīng)該放棄拿龐大的外匯購買美國股票和債券的做法,而是進一步擴大內(nèi)需,加強中西部的建設(shè),實現(xiàn)共同富裕。“我對中國的經(jīng)濟發(fā)展前景感到樂觀。”

    可能不參加2008總統(tǒng)選舉

    拉魯什曾經(jīng)在1976年以工黨候選人的身份參加總統(tǒng)競選,結(jié)果輸?shù)煤軕K。之后他加入民主黨,先后六次試圖以黨內(nèi)候選人身份參選總統(tǒng),但是每次都是連黨內(nèi)提名都未獲通過。可是,老先生依然不屈不撓,屢敗屢戰(zhàn),并且始終有一幫子忠實的支持者,他們在全國各地組建了幾十個競選地區(qū)總部。盡管美國媒體對拉魯什的參選活動取笑大于捧場,但也承認他是美國民主選舉的一道獨特風景線。熱鬧慣了的拉魯什是否會在2008年的大選中繼續(xù)發(fā)揚參與精神呢?

    在記者的追問下,拉魯什透露,他基本上不打算再參加總統(tǒng)競選。現(xiàn)在,他正在與民主黨代表們商議候選人的問題,如果推舉的新人讓他感到滿意,他會全力輔佐。不過,如果推舉出來的人讓他實在看不過去,他也很難保證不會“威脅”繼續(xù)參選,給他們施加壓力。

    誰會成為下屆美國總統(tǒng)?

    “你最看好誰會成為下屆美國總統(tǒng)?”

    “在我看來,現(xiàn)在還沒有出現(xiàn)一個能夠勝任總統(tǒng)的候選人。”也許是挑剔慣了,或者有些自戀,拉魯什對時下熱門的總統(tǒng)候選人希拉里、麥凱恩乃至布什的弟弟杰布都看不上眼。除了對代表大企業(yè)主的共和黨深表不滿外,拉魯什對民主黨當下的情形也有怨言。“民主黨需要新面孔,他們必須提出符合實際的政治綱領(lǐng),解決正在威脅世界的經(jīng)濟危機。可惜的是,很少有人看到這樣的危機。”拉魯什有些失望地搖了搖頭。

    雖然身居偏地,卻心系塵世。拉魯什在首都華盛頓成立了以自己名字命名的“政治行動委員會”,并經(jīng)常出席一些重要的經(jīng)濟和政治論壇,接受記者采訪。此外,他還建立了個人網(wǎng)站,隨時更新自己的見解。看來,這個幾經(jīng)征戰(zhàn)的政治老人是不會輕易離開美國政治的漩渦的。

    兩個小時很快過去了,告別拉魯什之前,記者和他打賭,如果半年內(nèi)美國經(jīng)濟沒有出現(xiàn)大崩潰的局面,我們還會再來跟他要個說法。拉魯什再次露出神秘的微笑,“相信我吧,美國經(jīng)濟已經(jīng)在崩潰。”

    為求安全 搬至郊區(qū)

    拉魯什的家位于匹茲堡附近的一個很偏僻的山頭上,那是一個很大的莊園。門口的道路蜿蜒曲折,不熟悉道路的人還真不容易找上門來。在山腳下的大門口,鋼筋柵欄的兩側(cè)水泥柱子上端坐著兩只黑色的鐵狗,造型栩栩如生,頗有幾分威嚴,攝像頭就安在上面。車進了大門,順著山坡再上行幾十米,就到了他的建筑群。除了一棟大房子外,院子里還有專門的修車庫和好幾間木屋,當中是一個小型的水池。院子里停放了六、七輛小汽車,都不是什么好車。后來一打聽,拉魯什雇了好幾個保鏢,加強他的安全。

    拉魯什這么擔心人身安全,不是沒有道理。由于經(jīng)常發(fā)表不滿政府的言論,拉魯什的確遇到了不少麻煩。他告訴記者,美國政府官員和他的政敵都很忌恨他,千方百計想搞掉他,聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局曾經(jīng)策劃過對他的暗殺。上世紀80年代末到90年代初,拉魯什曾經(jīng)因涉嫌詐騙資金被判入獄,他始終認為這是別人有意設(shè)計對他的迫害。對于這段經(jīng)歷,他引用支持者的話說,“這是美國失敗的政治制度的見證”。此后,他不得不處處加以小心。記者問他,搬到這么偏遠的地方安家,是不是感到安全了呢?拉魯什點了點頭,無奈地說,“至少我可以安靜地思考我的戰(zhàn)略。”

    頻頻出席各種場合,四處宣揚政治主張,他的競選資金來自哪里呢?拉魯什的家庭是傳統(tǒng)的鞋業(yè)大亨,但他父母去世多年,留下的家業(yè)不大。不過,他于1977年再婚,其年輕的德國妻子的背景不為人知。當記者詢問活動經(jīng)費的來源時,拉魯什有點輕描淡寫。他說,競選的費用主要靠支持者的捐助,至于自己的生活來源,“我不停地寫文章,作演講,有時還寫書,對我這么一個老家伙來說,維持生活不需要太多的錢。”

    人物簡介 永久的總統(tǒng)候選人

    拉魯什全名林登·赫姆利·拉魯什,1922年9月8日出生于新罕布什爾州的羅切斯特,他是美國非常活躍的政治活動家和一些跨國界組織如“核聚變能基金”的創(chuàng)始人。他最著名的頭銜就是美國總統(tǒng)“永久的候選人”。

    拉魯什是美國政壇有爭議的傳奇人物,他學經(jīng)濟出身,出過多本專著,曾經(jīng)做過管理顧問、經(jīng)濟專欄作家,1944年至1946年在印度和緬甸服過軍役。他還做過記者,曾在里根政府時期當過政府顧問等職務(wù)。拉魯什于1976年開始競選美國總統(tǒng),之后他以民主黨身份參加了歷次總統(tǒng)大選。在1992年的北達科他州和2000年的密歇根州曾贏得初選勝利,其他競選經(jīng)歷都以失敗告終。

    1988年拉魯什因陰謀罪、逃稅等罪名被判15年監(jiān)禁,后于1994年被釋放。不過,這一點也不影響他的競選努力,反而使他贏得了更多的支持者,前司法部長克拉克對拉魯什的遭遇表示了同情。

    拉魯什認為,一個類似于20世紀30年代大蕭條的經(jīng)濟危機正在悄悄到來,他的責任就是要制止這場危機,拯救美國和世界經(jīng)濟。

    目前,84歲的拉魯什仍在從事政治活動,他是美國《信息評論雜志》的主席兼編輯。(牛震)
 

THE DEATH OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

Lyndon LaRouche

Sept. 8, 2009

Following are several key responses from US economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche to international questions during a webcast from Reston, Virginia, on Sept. 8, 2009. The webcast was hosted by LaRouche's national spokeswoman Debra Freeman. A video archive of the event is also available on the LaRouchePAC.com website.


FREEMAN: The bulk of the questions do come from various institutions inside the United States, who are working on precisely the questions that Mr. LaRouche has addressed in the body of his remarks…. But first there are a few questions that have come in from international institutions. The first is from a major think tank in China, that has been following Lyndon LaRouche very closely. The question is prefaced by a request to forward to Lyn good wishes on his 87th birthday, and to wish him many happy returns of this day. The questioner notes that 8, as a number in China, symbolizes luck — and we are sure going to need it. [laughs]

His question: "Mr. LaRouche, as you know, China holds more than $2 trillion in foreign currency. This has led to a great debate about the dollar as a reserve currency, etc., etc., but really, what I wish to ask you, is, if you think that such a practice, a practice of holding such a large sum of money in foreign currency, is a safe practice. And if not, what you would indicate as a more reliable option for nations."

LAROUCHE: The greatest asset we should seek, at this moment of world history, is the establishment of a relationship among a group of sovereign nation-states, which can be considered keystone, sovereign nation-states, which represent sufficient power, to force the world as a whole to come to its senses. Now, what I've indicated, there are four nations, which are most obvious candidates for that: Our own United States, presumably, under a President Obama who has accepted my proposals, today. Otherwise, we got a problem. Secondly, Russia, which is not only a major Eurasian state, but which has the keystone in technology — not just in territory, but in technology — an historically developed technology, to develop the mineral resources of the tundra and related areas of Siberia and northern Russia. Because these resources are the richest resources now available — apart from what's in the ocean; the ocean's a basic source of all mineral resources, of mankind, today — but this is key, particularly in respect to China's proximity to Asia. Because South Asia, and Central Asia, such as China, requires a very large increase of the powers of productivity, of its population.

The problem of China, today, with this sudden collapse of the U.S. and other markets which has occurred, is that there's a large part of the Chinese population and territory which has not been sufficiently developed, to have any sort of autonomy, in terms of its position in the world economy. And therefore, that has to be fixed.

Despite the changes in government in Japan, the interest of Japan clearly remains, the technology of Japan and its participation in a role in respect to cooperation with China, in cooperation with Russia, and in that region. Because the development of Siberia, particularly of the Pacific section of Siberia, is very crucial for this entire area.

So therefore, then, you have to have, the next largest nation in the world, India. China and India, and the United States and Russia: These four nations, not excluding others, represent a crucial combination of nation-states, which, if in cooperation, with this kind of intention that I've indicated, is the basis for a change in the world system. I think, without such cooperation, the possibility of saving the world from a new dark age, is highly questionable. The role of these nations is crucial, their cooperation.

We have to understand, of course, that there are differences in policy and culture among these nations. But that is not important. Because this is a part of the problem: We do not need a homogenized world. One of the great problems today, which I did not reference, but I think I should reference it here, is globalization.

The reason for the danger we face today, is a process which was actually launched in 1968, but especially over the period, '68-'73, the process leading to globalization. We destroyed the functioning concept of the sovereign nation-state. Today, we shipped production from nations which had high technology, into nations which did not have high technology, and use cheap labor, as the offset for the difference in productivity in those nations.

Thus we destroyed, the technological capability, the higher-level of technological capability, in the United States, Germany, and so forth, and shipped production into other parts of the world. The effect has been, that the idea of national economic security no longer exists on this planet at this time. Nations do not have any degree of self-sufficiency. We used to have a degree of self-sufficiency in basic food supplies, in basic industrial requirements, and so forth. We no longer have that, as a result of globalization.

Worse! The policy of the international system, today, has been to shift production from nations which do not consume that production, to nations which will not produce that, but will consume it. So therefore, the international monetarist money-men are able, thus, to control both nations, because they control the food supply of one and the industrial production of the other. That sort of thing.

You no longer have sovereign nation-states in the economic sense. Therefore, for this reason, the collapse of the United States, or the internal collapse of China, because of this loss of employment which has recently occurred, will be sufficient to blow the whole planet up into a dark age! As a chain-reaction effect. There are no nations, which could survive a collapse of the U.S. economy, today. The collapse of the U.S. economy would mean a total collapse of the world as a whole, in a chain-reaction effect, in a very short period of time. Hmm? And China is the leading target for this, right now. If the United States goes down, China goes down. If China goes down, Russia goes down. Europe goes down. South and Central America become a joke, but a bad joke.

So therefore, if we do not end globalization, if we do not enter into a system of cooperation among sovereign nation-states, to end globalization, by reversing this process, then there's no chance of civilization on this planet, for generations still to come.

The question of the $2 trillion debt to China, is exemplary of this. China has no external markets to make up for that! And if the credit of the United States is no good, then China has to eat those $2 trillion! And lose everything that goes with it. That sets off quite a time-bomb, inside the United States, itself, as well as China, and the world as a whole.

So therefore, we can no longer stand for globalization. Monsanto will give up this fake patent rights it has! No one will be allowed to patent a food. They didn't invent it, they can't patent it. Let Monsanto — get 'em out there: "Okay, Mr. Monsanto, you can have all the inorganic ingredients you want! You can not have any living thing in there. And I want you to show, that you can take these inorganic elements, and combine them in such a way, that suddenly, you have produced grain, viable, living grain. That can hatch, and produce more grain. If you can't do that Mr. Monsanto, I think we have to consider your patent rights a fraud — and they're cancelled." [applause]

This is the kind of problem we face.

Now, what we have to do, to deal with this: We really have to have some competent economics in this: We need a 50-year contract, essentially, among the leading nations of the world, which will be a credit system, shared among the nations of the world. Each will have their own credit system, but we'll have them in a fixed-exchange-rate relationship. We will then make agreements between governments, which allow for investment in long-term cooperation.

Now, take the case of China, which is the specific question here. China can not put its entire population, on the world market for export, today. It won't work! The market isn't there. The market has been destroyed — it was artificial anyway. What China requires, is a long-term capital development, of its own internal technology. That means, capital investments over a period of about 50 years—50 years, mean. So therefore, you have to have an international system, a fixed-exchange-rate system, based on long-term credit for these kinds of projects, which will enable China, for example, to develop its capabilities, to enter in with full partnership, and full equality on the world market, for its entire population — which is going to increase. And to maintain an increasing population on this planet, today, requires a very rapid, and very aggressive bit of scientific and technological progress. So China must have a participation in that part of scientific and technological progress, which enables it to catch up, so to speak — for its whole population to catch up, to international standards. And within 50 years, that's about two generations, we can do that.

So China requires a system of international credit, at reasonable rates — we're talking about 1.5 to 1% internationally, under agreements between sovereign nation-states, which have the purpose of ensuring that every nation-state is going to come to a point, 50 years from now, where the system is more or less in balance, as nation-states. And we have to eliminate globalization, to do that. No more globalization: Cancel it! Go back to the sovereign nation-state.

And China has to be a key part, precisely because China has this problem! And because China, at the same time, is a very important part of any international combination of change. Therefore, the rights of China, the interests of China must be served, in any such agreement. Without such an agreement, there's no chance for the world as a whole: China, India, Russia, United States.

Because Europe, presently, has no function in the world scale, because the British have gobbled up Europe, with the euro. There is no sovereign nation between the Atlantic Ocean, and the Russia border, to speak of. Doesn't exist. They've all been gobbled up by the euro! And therefore, we have to restore sovereignty of nation-states in Europe, in order to qualify them, to be free to participate fully in this type of reorganization.

In the meantime, in my view, the United States, Russia, China, and India: These are four nations which have differences in cultural outlook, differences in perspective, but have a common interest: to unite around the common interest as a sovereign nation-state, and to create a nucleus, to overpower the British Empire in the world. [applause.]

 

THE DEATH OF THE ‘BRITISH’ EMPIRE

Lyndon LaRouche

Sept. 8, 2009

     International discussion during Lyndon LaRouche webcast from Reston, Virginia, on Sept. 8, 2009. (continued)

FREEMAN: Lyn, this question comes from a Russian diplomat in New York. And the question relates to the UN Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], which, over the last few days, has released a report, in which they say that system of currencies and capital rules that currently binds the international financial system, is not working properly, and, according to them, is what was largely responsible for the current financial and economic crises, that we face globally. The UN in their report adds, that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world's reserve currency, should be subjected to wholesale reconsideration.

The questioner says, that although leading economists in a number of countries, including China and Russia, at various points, have suggested replacing the dollar, as the world's currency, the UN report is the first time, to his knowledge, that a major, multinational institution has posed this kind of suggestion. He says that, "in essence, what the report calls for, is a New Bretton Woods-style system of managed, international exchange rates, meaning that central banks would be forced to intervene, and either support or push down their currencies, depending on how the rest of the world economy is behaving.

"The UN proposal also implies that surplus nations, such as China and Germany, should stimulate their economies further, in order to cut their own imbalances, rather than, as in the present system, deficit nations, such as the U.K. and U.S. having to take the main burden of readjustment." He quotes one of the authors of the report, who says, "replacing the dollar with an artificial currency, would solve some of the problems related to the potential of countries running large deficits, and would help stability. But you will also need a system of managed exchange rates. Countries should keep real exchange rates, adjusted for inflation, stable. Central banks would have to intervene, and if not, they would have to be told to do so, by some multilateral institution, such as the IMF."

He says, "Mr. LaRouche, these proposals, to me, amount to a threat to national sovereignty and perhaps the most radical suggestions for redesign of the global monetary system that I have seen to date. Although many economists have pointed out that the economic crises that we currently face, owe more to the malfunctioning to the post-Bretton Woods system, it still seems to me that this proposal is not a very good alternative. I ask you the question, however, because I know that this will come up, as a major discussion as an alternative, at the G20 meeting, and also because I know, that this has been a source of massive debate, often very hostile debate, in my own country."

LAROUCHE: Well, the point is, the whole issue is totally incompetent. The problem is, we have been going — the world as a whole, beginning with the United States in what? — 1966, '65 — the United States went to zero growth, net zero economic growth, in basic economic infrastructure. Since about 1968-1973, the United States has been in a process of negative growth. Since the same period, 1967-1973, Europe has been a state of negative growth, and real decadence.

This negative growth has been a result of policies adopted by governments, and adopted and encouraged by leading economists, working inside those countries, or for those governments. So, I think it's fair to say, that the thinking of the UN, as described by the questioner, the thinking of the UN is a reflection of that habit of incompetence, which has led to the present world crisis. And I don't think we need more of that incompetence, as a stimulus for remedies, hmm? We don't need more injections with the disease which has caused the problem. And the problem has been caused by the incompetence of the economic policies, of virtually every leading government of the world, in one way or the other.

China, for example: Take a look at China, China has progressed. But! China progressed on the assumption of being an exporter for other countries. That export market for China, has disappeared! China's policy depended upon the assumption that that would not—

Or take Russia: Russia's policy was a stupid one, in a sense, despite what was accomplished by President Putin, and then by President Medvedev. It's been foolish — why? Because it based Russia's future on the gamble that the raw-materials sale from Russia to other countries would be the source of income for Russian growth. And now that market has collapsed. And Russia's in a crisis, because it had the wrong policy, of assuming certain things about the rest of the world's policies which are wrong. So, I can take the case and prove it, and I have proven it, I think, repeatedly, that the policies of every part of the world have been aggregately insane, in terms of their long-term effects over the past 40 years. We're in a mess today because of 40 years of wrong thinking, and any of the economists come up and say, "Well, we're the expert, we're going to fix this for you. We're going to tell you how to fix it." And you say, "Please, I had cancer once, don't give it to me again. I don't need that anymore." And that's what our problem is.

Now, there's only one thing. First of all, you've got to do — you must eliminate monetarism. [applause] You must use the United States as the proven standard, under certain Presidents, under its original intention, under certain Presidents, such as Lincoln, such as Franklin Roosevelt, and use those experiences to show the American System is the best system which was ever developed for economy on this planet. Except, we had a problem — we had too much British influence inside Wall Street. And it was British influence and British traitors inside the United States, who loved the British Queen more than they loved their own country, which are the cause of our problems. Aside from the fact that Britain was an empire, we had trouble fighting against it for some period.

But, we defeated the British Empire under Lincoln. Palmerston went down like a rocket. But what happened is, that Lincoln was shot, by the British. It was the British that killed him; this is an open fact, no question about that. Just like McKinley was assassinated, for example. McKinley. McKinley was a patriot, a seasoned patriot and a competent President of the United States. But they got into trouble, and he put a bum in as Vice President — Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was the nephew of the chief Confederate spy working for the British Empire in the Civil War. The guy, Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt was essentially a traitor to the United States. Now, at that point, under McKinley, the policy of the United States, in terms of Europe, was to try to make peace with France — which was a difficult problem at that time — and to rely upon the tradition of Bismarck's role in Germany and to try to have relations with Russia which are based on Bismarck's agreements with the Russian Czar. That was our policy of war avoidance. We were going to cooperate with Germany and Russia, and hopefully France, against the British Empire. That was our policy.

The assassination of McKinley, by a British agent, sent in from Europe to do the job, with cooperation of the circles of Theodore Roosevelt in New York City, who was then the Vice President of the United States, brought President Theodore Roosevelt into power, and a fundamental change in policy. It was Theodore Roosevelt's inauguration as President, in cooperation with what became the Woodrow Wilson Administration, which installed the Federal Reserve System, which is the enemy of the U.S. Constitution. It was these arrangements which put the United States into its role in World War I. And despite the British—Franklin Roosevelt changed it; it was supposed to go the other way; Franklin Roosevelt was supposed to be on the side of the British in this thing, and he wasn't. He was on the side of the United States.

Then, when Roosevelt was out of office, they used Truman, who was a pig, to put us back in the same direction again. And over the entire period, the leading economists, with some exceptions, were traitors to the United States in terms of their way of thinking. Either traitors or incompetent. Most of the economists I know — I know some economists who are competent in varying degrees — some of them are competent in specialties, some are competent in history, some are competent in certain aspects of national policy-making. There are some of these people who I would obviously say should be called in as key advisors of the present U.S. government, because they have the kind of knowledge which is needed to provide the government with a well-crafted policy—foreign policy, economic policy, domestic policy. They exist. …

We have to eliminate monetarism. We have to destroy, through bankruptcy reorganization, like an international Glass-Steagall Act. We have to purge the world of everything that smells of monetarism, and rely only on sovereign nation-states' lawful currency. We must bring into agreement to a global, fixed exchange-rate system. The way to do that is the dollar. Because the dollar has no longer, since about 1973, has no longer been a controlling factor in international monetary affairs. The British Empire has been the controlling factor in international affairs. Eliminate the British Empire, and you suddenly find a different world. All the filth in the world, all the evil, comes from the British Empire, which as I said today, is not an empire of the people of the United Kingdom. It's an empire of an international monetarist interest. This monetarist interest is, by its nature, private, not public. The International Monetary Fund is essentially a cabal of private interests, not nation interests.

But the nations have been corrupted by monetarism. We must eliminate monetarism from this planet. All the agreements on reform of the international system have been failures from the outset by design, because they assume that you are going to have agreements among monetary systems, like those of John Maynard Keynes. And don't forget, that in 1936, when John Maynard Keynes published his General Theory, he published it first in Germany, and he selected Germany as the place of its publication, because he thought the present policies of Germany were more suitable to his policies than those of any other part of the world. In other words, Keynes was really a fascist. And the world has been influenced largely, in the postwar world, by the influence of John Maynard Keynes. And Keynesianism is one of the worst diseases on this planet.

Eliminate monetarism! Go back to credit systems; fixed-exchange-rate credit systems of each nation of the world. And start with four nations which have to get rid of that pestilence right away — the United States, Russia, China, and India. And other countries will happily join that alliance.

But the UN is largely a bad institution for that, because it is polluted by this kind of monetarist and similar kinds of liberal thinking. The very kind of thinking that brought us to this crisis, since the day that Roosevelt died, and especially since 1968, when fascism ran amok in the streets of the United States in the name of the Weathermen, which was a cultural change which became the Baby Boomer movement, which destroyed the United States from the inside. And that's the way you have to look at these things.

 

THE DEATH OF THE ‘BRITISH’ EMPIRE (continued)

International discussion during Lyndon LaRouche webcast from Reston, Virginia, on Sept. 8, 2009. (continued)

FREEMAN: Lyn, this is a question along a similar vein, which came up from the — the question itself came from a combination of the Stanford Group [of US economists who are potential advisers for President Barak Obama], but it was the Stanford Group actually discussing a report that came out of a conference that was held in June in Paris by a number of economists — most of them American, but some of them representing other countries as well, which included the American economist Jamie Galbraith. This is the Economists for Peace and Security, as well as the Initiative for Rethinking the Economy. And the question is as follows:

"Mr. LaRouche, without question, the growing assessment of all of us, but also of economists all over the world, is that the IMF is essentially beyond repair. The organization exists outside the framework of law, and it routinely violates its own charter with impunity, particularly in denying to member states the right to impose control over capital flows. As I think you know, under the charter of the IMF, members do have the right to demand reduction in terms of repayment. Yet, the IMF and the World Bank routinely seek to set themselves apart as creditors preferred above anyone else. Conditionality and austerity are imposed on the most vulnerable member countries, with the objective of undermining the most basic human economic rights, under conditions that preclude any possibility of effective economic recovery. I think we can all agree that adding funds and power to this organization is an exercise in self-defeat. In fact, the very concept of a reformed IMF, is an oxymoron.

"There really," they say, "is no question that, in an ideal world, what you've called a Four-Power Agreement, to replace the currently dysfunctional international monetary institutions, would certainly be the most preferable option. However, there does not really seem to be an immediate appetite for this. One proposal that has been put before us, as an alternative to a single-reserve-asset world, is something that we wanted your opinion on, because there is some lack of clarity among us, and certainly this is different than the market-basket of currencies that has been proposed elsewhere, but we are not sure this is workable. What we have been handed is an alternative to a single-reserve-asset system that would pursue the development of regional monetary authorities, which could, among other things, make dollar-reserve assets earned by countries that are successful net exporters, available to neighbors who are not. Such authorities would have distinct advantages over a global system, because one: The regional fund has a direct stake in the success of the other member countries under its authority; and two: a structured system like this, would give small countries some of the advantages and margin for maneuver that are now enjoyed by large countries in both the developed and developing world; and three: regional power can be deployed effectively over regional financial institutions. The drawback of this, is I think clear, but is there anything salvageable, as far as you can see, in this proposal, especially as an interim measure to be taken?"

LAROUCHE: What you have to look at is, you have to look at the Glass-Steagall Act by President Franklin Roosevelt, which Larry Summers — from inside the Clinton Administration when Clinton was in trouble — managed to screw up. You have to have, the first step in dealing with any monetary question today, or any question of currency, you must put every system of the planet through internal bankruptcy reorganization. This planet has been polluted. All the financial transactions included by this process which began, really was unleashed in 1987, with the 1987 crash, under which, in effect, Greenspan unleashed hell on Earth in the form of financial derivatives. It's a swindle. Now, most of the debt, and most of the list of assets that are under discussion in most parts of the world today, are completely fraudulent. If you apply a Glass-Steagall standard—which you must apply, because it's the one existing standard which is reliable for all countries, every country of the world can apply that standard the same way—you apply the Glass-Steagall standard, and you take this pile of so-called monetary assets, financial assets over here, put a big pile here. Now, you put a test. It's like, "You going to heaven or are you going to hell?" And at the gates, you've got St. Peter, and he's watching at the gate. Somebody comes up and says, "We have this financial asset." And he says, "Downstairs, please." And by the time you've gone through the process, there are very few safe Christians or anybody else left up there. So, you have a much smaller number of claims, financial claims, on the system as a whole. You have eliminated the waste material. You've had the great ExLax event of the century. And therefore, we should not talk about the existing so-called national monetary assets, because they're polluted. We have to cancel most of them. You know, I think about $25-30 trillion of the debt listed as the assets in claims in the United States ought to be just pssft—gone!

Now, we've got to go back to a hard credit dollar. We have to transform the U.S. dollar from a monetarist dollar to a hard credit dollar. Which means that suddenly agriculture and industry and other things become the means anymore, no longer financial speculation. Financial speculation is a crime. I think we ought to make that part of our criminal law. The practice of monetarism should be outlawed as a crime against humanity. Certainly, monetarism has killed more people on this planet than any known disease. Shouldn't we outlaw it? Its only rival is drug trafficking. Shouldn't we outlaw it?

So therefore, when we talk about relations between national currencies, we mean the currency of a national credit system, in which a sovereign government declares, "This is our money. It's not somebody else's money; it's not some international cartel." Governments don't borrow money from international financial institutions. It's a matter of their relationship with an institution; their sovereign relationship to any private institution. It's not a matter of international institutions.

What has killed the world since the time of ancient Greece, since the Peloponnesian War? What is the problem? Was it an economic problem? No, it wasn't. It was a monetary problem. The question was, after the defeat of the Persian Empire's attempt to take over the eastern Mediterranean, after the great battle where this occurred, you had three foci of Greek—what we call today Greek, Greek-speaking culture, in the Mediterranean, which had a certain relationship with Egypt, which unfortunately at that time was under Persian occupation. So, Egypt was an essential part of the culture. The relationship of Greece, historic relationship of Greece to the culture, the Greek culture and the Etruscan culture for example, were a key part from the 7th Century B.C. onward. So, you had suddenly, the Persian Empire had attempted to take over the area of the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, using its alliance with Tyre as a key part of this process. So, this whole period through the triumph of Alexander the Great, is of this particular type of nature, where Egypt came back into the situation as an independent power, Tyre was destroyed, and the Persian Empire was gobbled up by Alexander, who tried to assimilate it into a new kind of international system. He was poisoned, probably by Aristotle, who had tried to poison him before, but this time probably successfully. So, this is the period.

So what had happened is, in this period, before Alexander, you had these Greek influences which were apart from being political influences, were actually economic interests; the economic interests of maritime power. Greek civilization, and also predominantly historically Egyptian civilization, the Etruscan civilization was essentially maritime power, not land power. And thus, these nations, which had emerged with the melting of the glaciers, and up to the present levels of seas today, these powers had existed on the basis of trade. They produced things, and they traded. Their trade was based on the existence of monetary systems. The monetary system of reference for the Greek-speaking people of that period was the Cult of Delphi, which was an Asian intrusion into European civilization. And the priests of the Cult of Delphi, playing their magic tricks and so forth, got these three parts — one centered on Athens, another centered on Corinth, which is Sparta, that area, and the other centered on Syracuse. And they started out with a war between the two Greek-speaking areas, which were rivals in trade on the basis of monetary rivalry, of who was going to be the monetary power.

So, they got into a war! The beginning of the Peloponnesian War, the first phase, which is Athens against Corinth. The Athenians, the Ionians against the — in this Peloponnesian War. Then, not satisfied with that piece of folly, which had almost destroyed the joint, they went through a war with Syracuse! And did the same thing — another great power in the Mediterranean. Syracuse was a center of intellectual and monetary financial power, and economic power in that region. Boom! So, they destroyed themselves for the sake of another power.

So, you had the systems of monetarism, in which private ownership of money, or the equivalent of money, determines power. And the wars of the world, particularly of European civilization, since that time to the present day, have been a struggle for imperial power above nation-states. That's what the meaning of empire is. Empire is not — the British Empire is not an empire because the British control the world. If you know British people, they're not capable of controlling the world; they can't even control themselves. But they can control some stupid Americans. But the power lies in the power of a private interest, a private monetary interest, a money interest, which, by controlling money, and credit based on the idea of money, control nations, as from above. This is what imperialism is in the European experience. It's monetarism, like that of John Maynard Keynes. It's monetarism. And that's where the problem lies.

When we get rid of monetarism, as our American founders understood from the time of Massachusetts Bay Colony. Get rid of monetarism! Get rid of the international imperial power of private monetary interests over nation-states. Establish the superiority of the sovereignty of the nation-state over all other power, and define world relations on the relations among sovereign nation-states, like the U.S. Constitution prescribes. This is the unique genius of our system, the Hamiltonian feature of the U.S. Constitution. And thus, if you want to have a reform, the first thing you do is you take the monetarists out and you melt them down, because they're not real. Because that's what you've got to do. So, don't talk about relations, about state-to-state relations, or system-to-system relations. You've got to get rid of syphilis first! Get rid of the syphilis before you try sex!...

 

On the reality of the US economic disaster:

Question to Lyn from a representative from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who has been working with the section of the Stanford Group working on jobs policy.

He says, "Mr. LaRouche, I know you're aware of the fact that unemployment climbed to 9.7% last month, and that that represents a 26-year high. However, I don't know if you have access to all of the information that we have access to, and I'd like to share some of that with you before I ask my question.

"Certainly, the trend is that we've lost a lot of jobs, and we're still losing them. But, the fact is that the media has somehow tried to turn this into a good thing, saying that the trend is somehow improving. Trying to put that spin on it, is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig, because the bottom line is that for the job situation to be improving, it would mean that we would have to stop losing jobs!

"The fact is that as bleak as the recent reports seem to be, the situation is really far worse, and there are a couple of things that I think have to be noted."

He says, "Number one, the unemployment numbers of the past two months were revised upward to include another 46,000 job losses. We will probably see a lot more of that in the coming months, because of this strange thing called the 'birth/death model,' which counts theoretical business births and deaths. That model added 116,000 theoretical jobs last month, which was 26,000 more than it added the month before.

"I want to stress however, that these jobs are theoretical. They do not exist. And then there's the question of 'seasonal adjustment.' Note that the number of people no longer counted in the labor force, thus doing their patriotic duty to hold down the unemployment rate, is something which we again have to look at, especially in terms of seasonally adjusted numbers. That rose by 143,000. The subset, however, of those still wanting a job rose to 381,000. Now, if you look at the non-seasonally adjusted numbers, you find people no longer counted in the workforce, and that rose 1,578,000. That's an enormous number to ignore. The subset of those still wanting a job rose 516,000.

"Then, you have to look at the number of jobs lost. Our survey showed a plunge of 392,000—at least that was the government number. But that number was flattened by a surge in self-employment. Now whether these newly minted consultants and home improvement contractors were making any money, is wholly another story; and wage and salary workers, well, they don't figure into this equation, but they happened to have plunged by 637,000. That is the largest decline since March, when the stock market was testing its new lows. The number of people not on temporary lay-off, surged by 220,000 in August, and that level continues to reach new highs. In fact, that number alone is now at 8.1 million. This accounts, by the way, for about 54% of the unemployed. And it's a proxy for permanent job loss.

"To make the point: These jobs are not coming back. Now, if we think about that for a moment, then we have to consider some other things as well.

"Today, there are 223,000 fewer jobs in America than there were ten years ago. But, the country has 33.5 million more people. How you can call this anything but a Great Depression, is really beyond me. The unemployment rate for adult males is well over 10%, even by official numbers, and for people under the age of 25, it's over 27%, which is the highest on record. The average duration of unemployment is also at the highest level that it has ever been, since we started keeping records. The precondition for job gains, which is longer hours for part-timers and taking on additional temporary employees, was not met last month.

"Now, despite all these depressing numbers, there are two numbers that make it even worse. The first number is 1.3 million. That's the number of people whose unemployment benefits are going to run out by the end of the year. Five hundred thoussand of them will exhaust their benefits before this month is over. These people are going to lose yet one more strand of what has become a very thin safety net. Right now, more than 50% of the people who collect unemployment will exhaust their benefits, and they will do it very quickly.

"Now, workers aren't the only ones who are running out of unemployment money; the states are too. Eighteen states have simply run out of money to pay the benefits, and they've been forced to borrow from Washington. In fact, in the last two months, they've borrowed more than $8 billion. That number is going to grow, as more states reach the brink. Now, if they are not able to pay that amount back before 2011, and most of them will not be able to do so, they're facing paying hundreds of millions of dollars in interest. Many have been maintaining close to zero reserves for years, even before the economy ostensibly headed south. California got into trouble by raising benefits without increasing taxes. Other states, like Michigan, lowered taxes to levels that were unsustainable for them to run their budgets. Now, in the midst of the worst crisis our nation has ever faced, these states are going to be forced to either raise taxes or cut benefits in the midst of a depression, just when those changes will do the most economic damage.

"The second depressing number is 40%, and that's the percentage of people collecting food stamps, who are employed. That's up from 25% just two years ago. These are people who have watched their hours being cut, to the point that they can no longer make ends meet without government assistance, and given the fact that the threshold for collecting food stamps is really quite high, their situation is dire. Yet, they are listed as being employed. On top of that, 35% of all workers in the United States have less than one week's salary in savings.

"The job situation in the United States is going to continue to get worse, unless the reasons for these job losses are addressed. And despite what President Obama seems to think, the economy did not break down because the American consumer bought too few cars and not enough houses. So the fact is that tax credits to encourage people to buy more cars and houses, are not going to solve this problem. The question is, what will it take to solve the problem? And that really where my question comes in. Not to ask you what it will take, because I believe you have outlined that both in broad terms and, in private communications, more specific terms.

"My question is this: If I were the President, and I was going to go to the American people to ask for their support for a broad recovery program, I would not wish to cover up these numbers. I would want people to know just how bad things were, and just how many people in our nation were suffering. The fact that we continually cover this up, and minimize the plight of these unemployed; the fact that there is no media in the U.S. that shines a spotlight on this, leads me to believe, and it leads many others to believe, that the government itself has no intention whatsoever of asking for support for policies that would address this. Obviously, this is a very stark contrast to the way FDR approached the problem, but then FDR intended to do something about it. Am I being cynical or is that in fact what the problem is?"
 

 


 

「 支持烏有之鄉(xiāng)!」

烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站,宣傳紅色文化!

注:配圖來自網(wǎng)絡(luò)無版權(quán)標志圖像,侵刪!
聲明:文章僅代表作者個人觀點,不代表本站觀點——烏有之鄉(xiāng) 責任編輯:heji

歡迎掃描下方二維碼,訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號

收藏

心情表態(tài)

今日頭條

點擊排行

  • 兩日熱點
  • 一周熱點
  • 一月熱點
  • 心情
  1. 歐洲金靴|教育之亂,禍起蕭墻
  2. 日本女優(yōu)橫宮七海自殺身亡——畸形的社會還要逼死多少人?
  3. 司馬南:公開丑化河南人民,是可忍孰不可忍!
  4. 以前那么“窮”,為什么大家還懷念從前?
  5. 《鄧選》學習 (十一)發(fā)展速度
  6. 星話大白|越南
  7. 《鄧選》學習 (十)
  8. 對菲律賓斗爭的關(guān)鍵是,讓它的挑釁得不償失
  9. 影評:電影《熔爐》看資本主義特權(quán)
  10. 大快人心,知名“電子寵物”在美落網(wǎng)
  1. 普京剛走,沙特王子便墜機身亡
  2. 司馬南|對照著中華人民共和國憲法,大家給評評理吧!
  3. 紫虬:從通鋼、聯(lián)想到華為,平等的顛覆與柳暗花明
  4. 湖北石鋒:奇了怪了,貪污腐敗、貧富差距、分配不公竟成了好事!
  5. 弘毅:警醒!?魏加寧言論已嚴重違背《憲法》和《黨章》
  6. 這是一股妖風
  7. 李昌平:縣鄉(xiāng)村最大的問題是:官越來越多,員越來越少!
  8. 美國的這次出招,后果很嚴重
  9. 司馬南|會飛的螞蟻終于被剪了翅膀
  10. 朝鮮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)落淚
  1. 張勤德:堅決打好清算胡錫進們的反毛言行這一仗
  2. 吳銘|這件事,我理解不了
  3. 今天,我們遭遇致命一擊!
  4. 尹國明:胡錫進先生,我知道這次你很急
  5. 不搞清官貪官,搞文化大革命
  6. 普京剛走,沙特王子便墜機身亡
  7. 這輪房價下跌的影響,也許遠遠超過你的想象
  8. 三大神藥謊言被全面揭穿!“吸血鬼”病毒出現(xiàn)!面對發(fā)燒我們怎么辦?
  9. 祁建平:拿出理論勇氣來一次撥亂反正
  10. 說“胡漢三回來了”,為什么有人卻急眼了?
  1. 在蒙受冤屈的八年中,毛澤東遭受了三次打擊
  2. 大快人心,知名“電子寵物”在美落網(wǎng)
  3. 鐵穆臻|今年,真正的共產(chǎn)主義者,要理直氣壯紀念毛澤東!
  4. 《鄧選》學習 (十一)發(fā)展速度
  5. 司馬南|對照著中華人民共和國憲法,大家給評評理吧!
  6. 司馬南|對照著中華人民共和國憲法,大家給評評理吧!