closed's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/298486/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/107393-the-dow-s-lost-decade?source=feed#comment-313276 313276
But here we have a problem: Those who now should be taking decisive measures to defend the common good are still not ready to face up to the origins of the crisis. The communiqué of the G-20 summit in Washington on Nov. 15 admitted that "risks in the financial markets were underestimated.'' The latest annual advisory of Germany's Council of Economic Advisors, the so-called Five Wise Men, speaks in nebulous terms of "a darkening of the entire economy'' as the main reason for the crisis. "The chain of failure includes many,'' declared German President Horst Köhler at a conference of top bankers in Frankfurt--and one can only agree with him.

But Köhler's perhaps well-intentioned, but completely ineffective, appeal to the bankers who made ``a lot of money'' in recent years, to set up a ``Hardship Fund,'' is hardly a strategy to overcome the crisis, and the answer from those so addressed was just a tired smile. It is clear from all these statements, that the government, as well as the so-called experts, are still not willing or able to take the necessary steps to reorganize the financial system.

- Derivatives: The Main Problem -

In Europe, it is Italian Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti who, as a government representative, has had the courage to call a spade a spade, when he compared the financial crisis to a video game, in which every time you kill one monster, another pops up. And when you kill all of them, along comes the super-monster, which is derivatives outstanding.

This is exactly where the body is buried! Now panic is setting in, as investors in November have been massively withdrawing their deposits from hedge funds and financial institutions, in turn, forcing these to sell whatever assets they can. This generates a double feedback-loop: Since the depression is coming to a head, asset prices are falling--most of them having been bought on credit in the first place--which further stresses the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds, which therefore curtail their lending even further. These various intensifying phases of "deleveraging'' of so-called structured paper are the main problem.

The volume of derivative contracts outstanding was said to be, according to the Bank for International Settlements, $675 trillion at the end of 2007; the French magazine Marianne recently gave the figure as $1.4 quadrillion, but it could be much more. If an attempt is now made to honor what these bankers themselves call "toxic waste,'' then, on the one hand, this leads to hyperinflation, since more and more liquidity is pumped in to try to back up the virtual values; but at the same time, it brings on deflation, since the collapse of the real economy leads to falling prices.

This is the reason for the breathtaking speed of collapse of the real economy worldwide--the auto sector, the steel industry, petrochemicals, construction, shipping, etc., etc. And it is a global phenomenon: The U.S.A. is plunging into depression; China's American export market is collapsing; the Chinese economy is falling apart; China is no longer buying textile machinery in Germany; shipping is collapsing, since in the four or five weeks that it takes a ship to go from Europe to Asia, conditions have dramatically changed, so that the letters of credit are no longer accepted, etc., etc.: a downward spiral to...! Until an orderly bankruptcy reorganization is carried out.

- The Roosevelt Solution -

Fortunately, there is an historical precedent for how the problem can be solved: We need a new financial architecture, in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Bretton Woods System: a New Bretton Woods. That was the idea that motivated French President Nicolas Sarkozy to propose the summit meeting of the G-20 countries, and this is the policy that is being proposed by Tremonti on a daily basis. This is what Lyndon LaRouche and I have proposed for a long time--since the beginning of the 1990s, to be precise. We must win the Berlin government over to supporting this policy.

We need a real New Bretton Woods conference, at which a new financial system is decided upon, just as Roosevelt intended in 1944; that is, replacing colonialism with a new, just economic and financial order.

Second, we need a worldwide New Deal, such as Roosevelt implemented in the U.S.A. during the 1930s, to end the Depression through state credit creation.

Concretely, for Germany, this means that after (!) reorganization by means of a New Bretton Woods system, there must be an investment program of about EU200 billion for the creation of full, productive employment, as the BüSo has demanded for years. We need to build the Eurasian Land-Bridge as the centerpiece for reconstruction of the world economy.

From a technical standpoint, such a reorganization is absolutely no problem. The problem lies elsewhere. For the last four decades, the economy and morality have been completely separated from one another, and a unrestrained dog-eat-dog society and personal profiteering have taken control. On the one side, you have totally unnecessary luxuries, such as the recent dedication of an artificially created luxury island in Dubai, which was apparently planned as a refuge for the super-rich before the outbreak of a world financial crisis; at the opening festivities, the fireworks alone cost $20 million and 1.7 tons of lobster was consumed; on the other side, billions of people are threatened with starvation and brutal poverty.

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Centesimus annus (1991), called it an "abuse in the sight of God and humanity, if someone directs his capital against the people and their work,'' and this has happened, without a doubt, under the now-shattered system of globalization. We need a new paradigm, in which the economy and morality are brought into harmony, and man is placed at the center of politics and economics.

Do you really want those who neither foresaw the crisis, nor are ready now to come to terms with its real origins, to be left to decide what should happen now?

I propose that you help us, the BüSo, to carry out the necessary mobilization of the population, so that we can implement a New Bretton Woods System and a new New Deal!
]]> Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:35:04 -0500
But here we have a problem: Those who now should be taking decisive measures to defend the common good are still not ready to face up to the origins of the crisis. The communiqué of the G-20 summit in Washington on Nov. 15 admitted that "risks in the financial markets were underestimated.'' The latest annual advisory of Germany's Council of Economic Advisors, the so-called Five Wise Men, speaks in nebulous terms of "a darkening of the entire economy'' as the main reason for the crisis. "The chain of failure includes many,'' declared German President Horst Köhler at a conference of top bankers in Frankfurt--and one can only agree with him.

But Köhler's perhaps well-intentioned, but completely ineffective, appeal to the bankers who made ``a lot of money'' in recent years, to set up a ``Hardship Fund,'' is hardly a strategy to overcome the crisis, and the answer from those so addressed was just a tired smile. It is clear from all these statements, that the government, as well as the so-called experts, are still not willing or able to take the necessary steps to reorganize the financial system.

- Derivatives: The Main Problem -

In Europe, it is Italian Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti who, as a government representative, has had the courage to call a spade a spade, when he compared the financial crisis to a video game, in which every time you kill one monster, another pops up. And when you kill all of them, along comes the super-monster, which is derivatives outstanding.

This is exactly where the body is buried! Now panic is setting in, as investors in November have been massively withdrawing their deposits from hedge funds and financial institutions, in turn, forcing these to sell whatever assets they can. This generates a double feedback-loop: Since the depression is coming to a head, asset prices are falling--most of them having been bought on credit in the first place--which further stresses the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds, which therefore curtail their lending even further. These various intensifying phases of "deleveraging'' of so-called structured paper are the main problem.

The volume of derivative contracts outstanding was said to be, according to the Bank for International Settlements, $675 trillion at the end of 2007; the French magazine Marianne recently gave the figure as $1.4 quadrillion, but it could be much more. If an attempt is now made to honor what these bankers themselves call "toxic waste,'' then, on the one hand, this leads to hyperinflation, since more and more liquidity is pumped in to try to back up the virtual values; but at the same time, it brings on deflation, since the collapse of the real economy leads to falling prices.

This is the reason for the breathtaking speed of collapse of the real economy worldwide--the auto sector, the steel industry, petrochemicals, construction, shipping, etc., etc. And it is a global phenomenon: The U.S.A. is plunging into depression; China's American export market is collapsing; the Chinese economy is falling apart; China is no longer buying textile machinery in Germany; shipping is collapsing, since in the four or five weeks that it takes a ship to go from Europe to Asia, conditions have dramatically changed, so that the letters of credit are no longer accepted, etc., etc.: a downward spiral to...! Until an orderly bankruptcy reorganization is carried out.

- The Roosevelt Solution -

Fortunately, there is an historical precedent for how the problem can be solved: We need a new financial architecture, in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Bretton Woods System: a New Bretton Woods. That was the idea that motivated French President Nicolas Sarkozy to propose the summit meeting of the G-20 countries, and this is the policy that is being proposed by Tremonti on a daily basis. This is what Lyndon LaRouche and I have proposed for a long time--since the beginning of the 1990s, to be precise. We must win the Berlin government over to supporting this policy.

We need a real New Bretton Woods conference, at which a new financial system is decided upon, just as Roosevelt intended in 1944; that is, replacing colonialism with a new, just economic and financial order.

Second, we need a worldwide New Deal, such as Roosevelt implemented in the U.S.A. during the 1930s, to end the Depression through state credit creation.

Concretely, for Germany, this means that after (!) reorganization by means of a New Bretton Woods system, there must be an investment program of about EU200 billion for the creation of full, productive employment, as the BüSo has demanded for years. We need to build the Eurasian Land-Bridge as the centerpiece for reconstruction of the world economy.

From a technical standpoint, such a reorganization is absolutely no problem. The problem lies elsewhere. For the last four decades, the economy and morality have been completely separated from one another, and a unrestrained dog-eat-dog society and personal profiteering have taken control. On the one side, you have totally unnecessary luxuries, such as the recent dedication of an artificially created luxury island in Dubai, which was apparently planned as a refuge for the super-rich before the outbreak of a world financial crisis; at the opening festivities, the fireworks alone cost $20 million and 1.7 tons of lobster was consumed; on the other side, billions of people are threatened with starvation and brutal poverty.

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Centesimus annus (1991), called it an "abuse in the sight of God and humanity, if someone directs his capital against the people and their work,'' and this has happened, without a doubt, under the now-shattered system of globalization. We need a new paradigm, in which the economy and morality are brought into harmony, and man is placed at the center of politics and economics.

Do you really want those who neither foresaw the crisis, nor are ready now to come to terms with its real origins, to be left to decide what should happen now?

I propose that you help us, the BüSo, to carry out the necessary mobilization of the population, so that we can implement a New Bretton Woods System and a new New Deal!
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107455-eight-areas-to-consider-about-this-market?source=feed#comment-313271 313271
However, it is always useful to receive confirmation of their intent from inside the enemy camp: According to reliable sources, there is an active discussion within the halls of HSBC's London headquarters of the need for a new Hjalmar Schacht.

This should not be a surprising development. HSBC is the lead bank of the Brutish Empire, and was the political force behind the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany. And Schacht was the empire's man on the scene, as head of the Reichsbank and then, Minister of Economics under Hitler.

Schacht's role was to impose an even more brutal austerity on a German population whose standard of living had already been destroyed by the hyperinflation which resulted from the savage reparations imposed on the nation after World War I. Schacht helped create the conditions which made Hitler possible, and then helped finance the rise of Hitler, working closely with the Bank of England. Just as the bankers created Hitler in the 1930s, they are now pushing fascism again, this time, on a global scale.

- Corporatism -

Hitler was just one of the projects of the Brutish Empire. Another was Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator who took office a decade before Hitler, then allied with him in World War II. Mussolini took the title “Duce of Fascism,” a term which can be translated as either Duke or Doge of Fascism, Doge being the highest office in the Venetian system. Behind both the Hitler and Mussolini governments lay a complex of imperial financiers and corporate cartels, which used the governments to keep the people in line. The German cartels, many of which came together to form the infamous IG Farben, were actually creatures of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system; they, like Schacht, helped finance Hitler and build his war machine for the purpose of having Germany attack Russia--having rivals fight debilitating wars against each other is a specialty of the Brits. It was only when Hitler turned his guns west toward the heart of the empire, that the oligarchs were forced to defend themselves against the monster they created.

The purpose of this corporatist movement was to eliminate the role of the nation-state as a force in world affairs, and replace it with a system run by financial houses and corporate cartels. There were fascist parties in all the major Western nations in the 1920s and 1930s, including the U.S.A., where the Morgan and du Pont interests tried to organize a coup against Franklin Roosevelt, in a plot exposed by Gen. Smedley Butler, in 1934.

The coup against Roosevelt was thwarted, and FDR led the United States and its Allies to victory over Germany and Italy in World War II. The tools of fascism had been defeated, but not its imperial core. This corporatist movement resurfaced in a big way with the 1968 Bilderberg meeting in Mont Tremblant, Canada.

At that meeting, George Ball, a senior banker at Lehman Brothers and a major figure in the Anglo-American Establishment, gave a speech outlining the need for a new structure to replace the “outmoded” nation-state. Ball called this new structure the “world company,” an explicitly corporatist formulation. This “world company” would, in the view of its sponsors, take control over raw materials and other resources worldwide, allowing the empire to use them as it saw fit. Nations, it was said, were too selfish, tending to view the resources within their borders as theirs, to be used for the benefit of their own people.

Fast-forward to today, and look at the world from that perspective. This world company approach has largely been implemented, under the name globalization; nations everywhere are dependent upon the empire's financial markets for their funds, and dependent upon the empire's cartels for many of the necessities of life. Though we do not--yet--have the jackboots of Hitler and Mussolini, we do have the corporatist fascism they represented, and that system is coming to the fore under the guise of bailing out the financial system.

- Debt Overload -

It should be obvious to all thinking persons by now, that we cannot solve a debt crisis by taking on even more debt. All the bailout really does is transfer losses from the books of the banks to the books of the government--and thus to the taxpayer--without doing anything to increase our economy's ability to pay that debt. It does, in fact, do just the opposite, as the physical economy is further cannibalized by the demands of the bailout. We incurred this debt as a result of the decision to deindustrialize the U.S. economy, and switch to a service/finance economy; with every passing year we produce less while we spend more, making up the difference by borrowing from the rest of the world.

Wall Street financed this expansion of debt by creating an ever-wilder series of financial instruments. This process, in which debt was treated as an asset, and then that asset used as the basis to create even more assets, ad absurdum, resulting in a mountain of highly over-leveraged securities and derivatives bets which far exceeds the debt-carrying capacity of the economy. The same is true, to varying degrees, in most other countries of the world.

We are, to put it simply, flat broke, with no prospect of recovering unless we break with the failed Anglo-Dutch Liberal system and return to the time-tested policies of the American System.

- Fascism, or Renaissance? -

The clear intent of the Brutish Empire is to use this crisis to return the world to the way it existed before the American Revolution, a rentier-financier feudalist model coupled with the modern technology of "Big Brother." This is explicit in the call for a new Schacht, but it is also implicit, at least, in the efforts by the Bush Administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve to bail out the system. From the insane perspective of the financiers, the only chance they have of saving their system is to ram through a savage consolidation of the financial system into a dramatically smaller number of global institutions--giant banks, insurance companies, and a few others, which owe their allegiance to the empire rather than any nation. This would give the Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire even greater control over the issuance of credit than it now has, giving it a greater stranglehold over the peoples of the world. Credit would be largely limited to the financial institutions and the cartels of the empire, eliminating all competition, and accelerating the collapse into a new Dark Age.

The alternative, as laid out clearly by Lyndon LaRouche, is a return to the credit system established by the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress appropriates credit for infrastructure and related projects for the public welfare, and the Executive branch administers the issuance of that credit through a national bank. This method provides the optimum combination of government control over the money supply and the distribution of that credit in a manner that insures the money is used for the most productive purposes. The national bank would issue the credit to private companies via private banks, tapping the entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of the American people. Naturally, this would also require educating Congress and the citizenry in the American System, so that we can make sure Congress follows the Constitution. Were we to do this, we could lead the world into a new Renaissance.

]]> Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:21:36 -0500
However, it is always useful to receive confirmation of their intent from inside the enemy camp: According to reliable sources, there is an active discussion within the halls of HSBC's London headquarters of the need for a new Hjalmar Schacht.

This should not be a surprising development. HSBC is the lead bank of the Brutish Empire, and was the political force behind the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany. And Schacht was the empire's man on the scene, as head of the Reichsbank and then, Minister of Economics under Hitler.

Schacht's role was to impose an even more brutal austerity on a German population whose standard of living had already been destroyed by the hyperinflation which resulted from the savage reparations imposed on the nation after World War I. Schacht helped create the conditions which made Hitler possible, and then helped finance the rise of Hitler, working closely with the Bank of England. Just as the bankers created Hitler in the 1930s, they are now pushing fascism again, this time, on a global scale.

- Corporatism -

Hitler was just one of the projects of the Brutish Empire. Another was Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator who took office a decade before Hitler, then allied with him in World War II. Mussolini took the title “Duce of Fascism,” a term which can be translated as either Duke or Doge of Fascism, Doge being the highest office in the Venetian system. Behind both the Hitler and Mussolini governments lay a complex of imperial financiers and corporate cartels, which used the governments to keep the people in line. The German cartels, many of which came together to form the infamous IG Farben, were actually creatures of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system; they, like Schacht, helped finance Hitler and build his war machine for the purpose of having Germany attack Russia--having rivals fight debilitating wars against each other is a specialty of the Brits. It was only when Hitler turned his guns west toward the heart of the empire, that the oligarchs were forced to defend themselves against the monster they created.

The purpose of this corporatist movement was to eliminate the role of the nation-state as a force in world affairs, and replace it with a system run by financial houses and corporate cartels. There were fascist parties in all the major Western nations in the 1920s and 1930s, including the U.S.A., where the Morgan and du Pont interests tried to organize a coup against Franklin Roosevelt, in a plot exposed by Gen. Smedley Butler, in 1934.

The coup against Roosevelt was thwarted, and FDR led the United States and its Allies to victory over Germany and Italy in World War II. The tools of fascism had been defeated, but not its imperial core. This corporatist movement resurfaced in a big way with the 1968 Bilderberg meeting in Mont Tremblant, Canada.

At that meeting, George Ball, a senior banker at Lehman Brothers and a major figure in the Anglo-American Establishment, gave a speech outlining the need for a new structure to replace the “outmoded” nation-state. Ball called this new structure the “world company,” an explicitly corporatist formulation. This “world company” would, in the view of its sponsors, take control over raw materials and other resources worldwide, allowing the empire to use them as it saw fit. Nations, it was said, were too selfish, tending to view the resources within their borders as theirs, to be used for the benefit of their own people.

Fast-forward to today, and look at the world from that perspective. This world company approach has largely been implemented, under the name globalization; nations everywhere are dependent upon the empire's financial markets for their funds, and dependent upon the empire's cartels for many of the necessities of life. Though we do not--yet--have the jackboots of Hitler and Mussolini, we do have the corporatist fascism they represented, and that system is coming to the fore under the guise of bailing out the financial system.

- Debt Overload -

It should be obvious to all thinking persons by now, that we cannot solve a debt crisis by taking on even more debt. All the bailout really does is transfer losses from the books of the banks to the books of the government--and thus to the taxpayer--without doing anything to increase our economy's ability to pay that debt. It does, in fact, do just the opposite, as the physical economy is further cannibalized by the demands of the bailout. We incurred this debt as a result of the decision to deindustrialize the U.S. economy, and switch to a service/finance economy; with every passing year we produce less while we spend more, making up the difference by borrowing from the rest of the world.

Wall Street financed this expansion of debt by creating an ever-wilder series of financial instruments. This process, in which debt was treated as an asset, and then that asset used as the basis to create even more assets, ad absurdum, resulting in a mountain of highly over-leveraged securities and derivatives bets which far exceeds the debt-carrying capacity of the economy. The same is true, to varying degrees, in most other countries of the world.

We are, to put it simply, flat broke, with no prospect of recovering unless we break with the failed Anglo-Dutch Liberal system and return to the time-tested policies of the American System.

- Fascism, or Renaissance? -

The clear intent of the Brutish Empire is to use this crisis to return the world to the way it existed before the American Revolution, a rentier-financier feudalist model coupled with the modern technology of "Big Brother." This is explicit in the call for a new Schacht, but it is also implicit, at least, in the efforts by the Bush Administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve to bail out the system. From the insane perspective of the financiers, the only chance they have of saving their system is to ram through a savage consolidation of the financial system into a dramatically smaller number of global institutions--giant banks, insurance companies, and a few others, which owe their allegiance to the empire rather than any nation. This would give the Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire even greater control over the issuance of credit than it now has, giving it a greater stranglehold over the peoples of the world. Credit would be largely limited to the financial institutions and the cartels of the empire, eliminating all competition, and accelerating the collapse into a new Dark Age.

The alternative, as laid out clearly by Lyndon LaRouche, is a return to the credit system established by the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress appropriates credit for infrastructure and related projects for the public welfare, and the Executive branch administers the issuance of that credit through a national bank. This method provides the optimum combination of government control over the money supply and the distribution of that credit in a manner that insures the money is used for the most productive purposes. The national bank would issue the credit to private companies via private banks, tapping the entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of the American people. Naturally, this would also require educating Congress and the citizenry in the American System, so that we can make sure Congress follows the Constitution. Were we to do this, we could lead the world into a new Renaissance.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107450-gold-pressure-is-near-a-breaking-point?source=feed#comment-313268 313268
Now, Senator Inhofe, speaking on KFAQ radio station in Tulsa, has confirmed who it was that issued this threat. The interview host Pat Campbell asked Infhofe, "Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn't do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest. Who was feeding you guys this stuff?"

Inhofe replied, "That's Henry Paulson. We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think--a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been ... the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call and I guess there's no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said, he painted this picture you just described. He said, This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced."

Inhofe has demanded that the remaining funds not already given away be taken back by the government, and suggested that Paulson was giving the money to his friends.

But simply taking money back is not a solution. There is only one competent solution to this mess and that is a bankruptcy re-organization as Lyndon LaRouche has defined.

]]> Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:14:00 -0500
Now, Senator Inhofe, speaking on KFAQ radio station in Tulsa, has confirmed who it was that issued this threat. The interview host Pat Campbell asked Infhofe, "Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn't do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest. Who was feeding you guys this stuff?"

Inhofe replied, "That's Henry Paulson. We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think--a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been ... the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call and I guess there's no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said, he painted this picture you just described. He said, This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced."

Inhofe has demanded that the remaining funds not already given away be taken back by the government, and suggested that Paulson was giving the money to his friends.

But simply taking money back is not a solution. There is only one competent solution to this mess and that is a bankruptcy re-organization as Lyndon LaRouche has defined.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107450-gold-pressure-is-near-a-breaking-point?source=feed#comment-313267 313267
But here we have a problem: Those who now should be taking decisive measures to defend the common good are still not ready to face up to the origins of the crisis. The communiqué of the G-20 summit in Washington on Nov. 15 admitted that "risks in the financial markets were underestimated.'' The latest annual advisory of Germany's Council of Economic Advisors, the so-called Five Wise Men, speaks in nebulous terms of "a darkening of the entire economy'' as the main reason for the crisis. "The chain of failure includes many,'' declared German President Horst Köhler at a conference of top bankers in Frankfurt--and one can only agree with him.

But Köhler's perhaps well-intentioned, but completely ineffective, appeal to the bankers who made ``a lot of money'' in recent years, to set up a ``Hardship Fund,'' is hardly a strategy to overcome the crisis, and the answer from those so addressed was just a tired smile. It is clear from all these statements, that the government, as well as the so-called experts, are still not willing or able to take the necessary steps to reorganize the financial system.

- Derivatives: The Main Problem -

In Europe, it is Italian Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti who, as a government representative, has had the courage to call a spade a spade, when he compared the financial crisis to a video game, in which every time you kill one monster, another pops up. And when you kill all of them, along comes the super-monster, which is derivatives outstanding.

This is exactly where the body is buried! Now panic is setting in, as investors in November have been massively withdrawing their deposits from hedge funds and financial institutions, in turn, forcing these to sell whatever assets they can. This generates a double feedback-loop: Since the depression is coming to a head, asset prices are falling--most of them having been bought on credit in the first place--which further stresses the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds, which therefore curtail their lending even further. These various intensifying phases of "deleveraging'' of so-called structured paper are the main problem.

The volume of derivative contracts outstanding was said to be, according to the Bank for International Settlements, $675 trillion at the end of 2007; the French magazine Marianne recently gave the figure as $1.4 quadrillion, but it could be much more. If an attempt is now made to honor what these bankers themselves call "toxic waste,'' then, on the one hand, this leads to hyperinflation, since more and more liquidity is pumped in to try to back up the virtual values; but at the same time, it brings on deflation, since the collapse of the real economy leads to falling prices.

This is the reason for the breathtaking speed of collapse of the real economy worldwide--the auto sector, the steel industry, petrochemicals, construction, shipping, etc., etc. And it is a global phenomenon: The U.S.A. is plunging into depression; China's American export market is collapsing; the Chinese economy is falling apart; China is no longer buying textile machinery in Germany; shipping is collapsing, since in the four or five weeks that it takes a ship to go from Europe to Asia, conditions have dramatically changed, so that the letters of credit are no longer accepted, etc., etc.: a downward spiral to...! Until an orderly bankruptcy reorganization is carried out.

- The Roosevelt Solution -

Fortunately, there is an historical precedent for how the problem can be solved: We need a new financial architecture, in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Bretton Woods System: a New Bretton Woods. That was the idea that motivated French President Nicolas Sarkozy to propose the summit meeting of the G-20 countries, and this is the policy that is being proposed by Tremonti on a daily basis. This is what Lyndon LaRouche and I have proposed for a long time--since the beginning of the 1990s, to be precise. We must win the Berlin government over to supporting this policy.

We need a real New Bretton Woods conference, at which a new financial system is decided upon, just as Roosevelt intended in 1944; that is, replacing colonialism with a new, just economic and financial order.

Second, we need a worldwide New Deal, such as Roosevelt implemented in the U.S.A. during the 1930s, to end the Depression through state credit creation.

Concretely, for Germany, this means that after (!) reorganization by means of a New Bretton Woods system, there must be an investment program of about EU200 billion for the creation of full, productive employment, as the BüSo has demanded for years. We need to build the Eurasian Land-Bridge as the centerpiece for reconstruction of the world economy.

From a technical standpoint, such a reorganization is absolutely no problem. The problem lies elsewhere. For the last four decades, the economy and morality have been completely separated from one another, and a unrestrained dog-eat-dog society and personal profiteering have taken control. On the one side, you have totally unnecessary luxuries, such as the recent dedication of an artificially created luxury island in Dubai, which was apparently planned as a refuge for the super-rich before the outbreak of a world financial crisis; at the opening festivities, the fireworks alone cost $20 million and 1.7 tons of lobster was consumed; on the other side, billions of people are threatened with starvation and brutal poverty.

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Centesimus annus (1991), called it an "abuse in the sight of God and humanity, if someone directs his capital against the people and their work,'' and this has happened, without a doubt, under the now-shattered system of globalization. We need a new paradigm, in which the economy and morality are brought into harmony, and man is placed at the center of politics and economics.

Do you really want those who neither foresaw the crisis, nor are ready now to come to terms with its real origins, to be left to decide what should happen now?

I propose that you help us, the BüSo, to carry out the necessary mobilization of the population, so that we can implement a New Bretton Woods System and a new New Deal!

]]> Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:13:29 -0500
But here we have a problem: Those who now should be taking decisive measures to defend the common good are still not ready to face up to the origins of the crisis. The communiqué of the G-20 summit in Washington on Nov. 15 admitted that "risks in the financial markets were underestimated.'' The latest annual advisory of Germany's Council of Economic Advisors, the so-called Five Wise Men, speaks in nebulous terms of "a darkening of the entire economy'' as the main reason for the crisis. "The chain of failure includes many,'' declared German President Horst Köhler at a conference of top bankers in Frankfurt--and one can only agree with him.

But Köhler's perhaps well-intentioned, but completely ineffective, appeal to the bankers who made ``a lot of money'' in recent years, to set up a ``Hardship Fund,'' is hardly a strategy to overcome the crisis, and the answer from those so addressed was just a tired smile. It is clear from all these statements, that the government, as well as the so-called experts, are still not willing or able to take the necessary steps to reorganize the financial system.

- Derivatives: The Main Problem -

In Europe, it is Italian Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti who, as a government representative, has had the courage to call a spade a spade, when he compared the financial crisis to a video game, in which every time you kill one monster, another pops up. And when you kill all of them, along comes the super-monster, which is derivatives outstanding.

This is exactly where the body is buried! Now panic is setting in, as investors in November have been massively withdrawing their deposits from hedge funds and financial institutions, in turn, forcing these to sell whatever assets they can. This generates a double feedback-loop: Since the depression is coming to a head, asset prices are falling--most of them having been bought on credit in the first place--which further stresses the balance sheets of banks and hedge funds, which therefore curtail their lending even further. These various intensifying phases of "deleveraging'' of so-called structured paper are the main problem.

The volume of derivative contracts outstanding was said to be, according to the Bank for International Settlements, $675 trillion at the end of 2007; the French magazine Marianne recently gave the figure as $1.4 quadrillion, but it could be much more. If an attempt is now made to honor what these bankers themselves call "toxic waste,'' then, on the one hand, this leads to hyperinflation, since more and more liquidity is pumped in to try to back up the virtual values; but at the same time, it brings on deflation, since the collapse of the real economy leads to falling prices.

This is the reason for the breathtaking speed of collapse of the real economy worldwide--the auto sector, the steel industry, petrochemicals, construction, shipping, etc., etc. And it is a global phenomenon: The U.S.A. is plunging into depression; China's American export market is collapsing; the Chinese economy is falling apart; China is no longer buying textile machinery in Germany; shipping is collapsing, since in the four or five weeks that it takes a ship to go from Europe to Asia, conditions have dramatically changed, so that the letters of credit are no longer accepted, etc., etc.: a downward spiral to...! Until an orderly bankruptcy reorganization is carried out.

- The Roosevelt Solution -

Fortunately, there is an historical precedent for how the problem can be solved: We need a new financial architecture, in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Bretton Woods System: a New Bretton Woods. That was the idea that motivated French President Nicolas Sarkozy to propose the summit meeting of the G-20 countries, and this is the policy that is being proposed by Tremonti on a daily basis. This is what Lyndon LaRouche and I have proposed for a long time--since the beginning of the 1990s, to be precise. We must win the Berlin government over to supporting this policy.

We need a real New Bretton Woods conference, at which a new financial system is decided upon, just as Roosevelt intended in 1944; that is, replacing colonialism with a new, just economic and financial order.

Second, we need a worldwide New Deal, such as Roosevelt implemented in the U.S.A. during the 1930s, to end the Depression through state credit creation.

Concretely, for Germany, this means that after (!) reorganization by means of a New Bretton Woods system, there must be an investment program of about EU200 billion for the creation of full, productive employment, as the BüSo has demanded for years. We need to build the Eurasian Land-Bridge as the centerpiece for reconstruction of the world economy.

From a technical standpoint, such a reorganization is absolutely no problem. The problem lies elsewhere. For the last four decades, the economy and morality have been completely separated from one another, and a unrestrained dog-eat-dog society and personal profiteering have taken control. On the one side, you have totally unnecessary luxuries, such as the recent dedication of an artificially created luxury island in Dubai, which was apparently planned as a refuge for the super-rich before the outbreak of a world financial crisis; at the opening festivities, the fireworks alone cost $20 million and 1.7 tons of lobster was consumed; on the other side, billions of people are threatened with starvation and brutal poverty.

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Centesimus annus (1991), called it an "abuse in the sight of God and humanity, if someone directs his capital against the people and their work,'' and this has happened, without a doubt, under the now-shattered system of globalization. We need a new paradigm, in which the economy and morality are brought into harmony, and man is placed at the center of politics and economics.

Do you really want those who neither foresaw the crisis, nor are ready now to come to terms with its real origins, to be left to decide what should happen now?

I propose that you help us, the BüSo, to carry out the necessary mobilization of the population, so that we can implement a New Bretton Woods System and a new New Deal!

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107330-panic-crash-sentiment-causing-market-volatility?source=feed#comment-311898 311898
This is a hopeless collapse, in terms of the present system. No mere reform of this present system, will save the planet. The nearest event comparable to this, in all European civilization's experience, occurred in the 14th Century, with the general collapse, called a "New Dark Age," in which the entire system of Europe collapsed. The number of villages collapsed by one-half, the population of Europe collapsed by one-third, and it took several decades before even the beginning of civilization returned.

The crisis we have today, worldwide, is of a similar form: A great financial bubble, which has been growing at a great rate, while the rate of net physical production per capita, has been collapsing. This system is doomed in its present form. And there is no minor reform, there's no monetary reform that could save this system. We are headed for an absolute, total collapse of the planet, unless a change is made. There is no hope, for any remedy, within the framework of what's called a monetary system. But rather, as I shall emphasize here, the alternative is the establishment of a credit system, to replace the present monetary system.

The Crucial Role of the United States
Now, the model for the credit system lies in the United States, historically. If you study the U.S. Constitution and the peculiarities of the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to those of Europe, our system of government has no resemblance in essentials, to any European system of government. European systems of government are essentially parliamentary systems, not federal systems. There are reforms in European states, which have moved in the direction of a Presidential system. The best example of an attempt in that direction was Charles de Gaulle, as President of France, in his Fifth Republic. There was a serious attempt to establish a nation-state system in Europe, by de Gaulle. But since that time, there has been no successful effort, to establish a true nation-state system, as opposed to a parliamentary system.

Therefore, the United States has a crucial significance in this, and without a crucial role by the United States, which seems extremely difficult right now, because of the present Presidency and so forth—without the United States, there is no hope for avoiding what will be a plunge into a new dark age, resembling that which occurred in Europe, which occurred in the 14th Century. That's the situation we face. No simple reform, no adjustment, no monetary agreement, nothing of that sort will work.

There are, however, very specific measures, of agreements among governments which could change the system, could change it without anything too radical, but it would get us through.

Now, the first thing that has to happen is, in practice, is that unless there's an agreement of a certain type among the United States, Russia, China, and India, we have reached a condition, where it would be impossible to save the world from a collapse, a worldwide collapse. The form would be this: It would be the change of the present world monetary system, the elimination of the present world monetary system, to replace it by a credit system, which is consistent with the principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution. Remember that our Constitution, and our Presidential system, was not based on a parliamentary system; it was not based on a monetary system. It was based on what's called a credit system.

The difference is obvious to all of you: You have two types of systems in the world today, of any significance. One, there are credit systems: A credit means that the money issued by a government, is issued by a government, in the name of the government, and is backed by the promises of the government to support the credit. This credit, under law, can then be monetized and supply a money currency as well as credit for development.

This is distinct from a monetary system. A monetary system represents a system of money, which is outside government, but which may or may not have agreement with government. European systems, today, are not credit systems, they are monetary systems. The monetary system, which is tied to the IMF, today, and has been since 1971, 1972—that period—the monetary system is what is collapsing. The monetary system is collapsing, because it is tied, specifically now to the credit bubble, the derivatives bubbles. And this is what's collapsing. There's no possibility at this stage any longer, of saving the monetary system in its present form. That is, a reform made internal to the monetary system will not work. It's too late. We could have done something in that direction, back a year ago, July a year ago, back in 2007. The system is so rotten today, that it would not be possible, especially the changes that have been made by the U.S. and other governments, in the recent months, are so radical, that it would be impossible to reform this system. You have to completely overhaul it and revolutionize it.

But, our American System allows us to do that, under our Constitutional system in our history.

A Four-Power Agreement
Now, what we have to do is, is establish a power bloc, to force through a change among nations. Western Europe, despite the fact that there are positive elements, as the case of [Economics Minister Giulio] Tremonti in Italy, or some efforts on the part of [President Nicolas] Sarkozy in France; there are some initiatives in the direction of useful reforms. There are desires for useful reforms from other parts of the world. But the requirement here, is to have a sufficiently powerful agreement, to force through the reforms in a timely fashion. This can only occur by an agreement among the United States, Russia, China, and India. If the United States, Russia, China, and India function as a bloc, other countries will join them, and we can force through the reform. In my view, without that particular agreement, it would be impossible to ram through the reform, politically, at this time—not in time. We might eventually agree to it, but it would be too late. We need change now: The world system is collapsing at such a rate, now, that we do not have years to play with. We do not even have many months to play with. By the end of the year, we must be in the direction of making some kind of reform, in this direction.

Now, what it means, is this: As those of you from China know, and other countries, the change in the system, especially since 1971 and 1972 on, the change was a change in the relationship of China, from the United States to China and other countries. The change was essentially to what is called "globalization": to move production out of Europe and the United States, and to move it into countries which have low per-capita incomes: in other words, cheap labor. And thus production, and infrastructure, were moved out of the United States, and increasingly out of Europe, especially after 1989-1990, into other countries, Third World countries in particular, which operate at a cheap-labor price. Today, most of the production of the world depends critically, on a margin of production in these countries, which are the export countries, which replaced European production, U.S. production, and so forth.

So therefore, at this point, you have two things: First of all, the system is collapsing. Now, by the nature of the system, it means that the countries which were used as substitutes for production from Europe and the United States, for example, are now collapsing, because the purchases from other countries are collapsing, as in the case of China, where the collapse of China is a potential time-bomb for the entire planet. Because if the collapse of China's exports continues at the present rate, this will be a time-bomb for the entire system; and some people understand this. Therefore, the unity of four powers, the United States—which has a certain special power—Russia, China, and India, represents a bloc that can force through reforms of the type that are needed.

A Credit, Not a Monetary System
What is required is this: We have to eliminate the monetary system, by a credit system. A credit system is not some mysterious thing. It's essentially something which is traditional to the United States in particular. European systems today, are monetary systems: that is, despite agreements with government, money is controlled by agencies outside government. This is a characteristic of parliamentary systems—not a true Presidential system, but a parliamentary system. And thus, money exists independently of the control of government, although with agreement with government, but nonetheless, under the control of outside agencies: international, financial agencies, which actually control the monetary system, control and regulate the money, and government plays, less and less, a role in the control of money, in control of the monetary system. This is characteristic in Europe, particularly since 1989-1991, in which the control over money, with the Maastricht agreements and similar kinds of agreements, Europe has absolutely no control over its own monetary supply: It's controlled by outsiders, largely through London, and through things like the oil price market.

So therefore, the creation of a credit system to replace a monetary system, is where the solution lies. There's no way to save this monetary system in its present form. It's so full of junk, with the financial derivatives far in excess of a quadrillion dollars in claims, against the nominal size of the actual production of nations, it is impossible to reform this monetary system in its present form. You have to put the monetary system, itself, through bankruptcy. You will have to wipe out the greatest portion of nominal monetary assets in the world today! Cancel them! Because the system as a whole is hopelessly bankrupt.

Now, what do you do in that case? Well, what you do for a monetary reform to a credit system, you use the U.S. Constitution. Because of our Constitution, we can create, as Roosevelt did that formally, we can create a credit system. To replace a monetary system.

Now, what you do under this case, and with agreement with the United States, and its Constitution, with Russia, China, and India, it can be done. What you do, is you say, we put all the claims which are equivalent of monetary or credit claims in two piles. One pile we call "monetary." That's the manure pile. The other we call the "credit" pile. Now under the U.S. Constitution, money, when the Constitution is followed, is created only by the will of the government. It is done by the Executive branch of government, with the consent of the House of Representatives, and things flow from that. This credit being issued, is also authorized for monetization: So, the credit can be issued as loans for projects, or international loans, and part of it can actually be monetized, under the condition under which it was uttered. Particularly, if we had a national banking system, which we don't have presently, we could convert the Federal Reserve System, which is bankrupt, into a national banking system, as Hamilton proposed. Then it would do that, automatically. We do need a national banking system in each country. That doesn't mean they're the only banks, but it does mean you use a national banking system to control the relationship between government and the banking system as a whole, in general.



Put the System Through Bankruptcy Reorganization
If you do that, then you do a bankruptcy reform: You take the hopelessly bankrupt system—we're talking about quadrillions of dollars of claims, of monetary claims, especially as located in these speculative markets of derivatives and related kinds of things—we have to wipe most of this off the books! It can never be paid. It was foolishness, it was a lie, it was done largely since 1987, under Alan Greenspan's insanity. This we have to wipe out.

What do you do? You have to protect those things which are productive, and are necessary for the government and necessary for the population. Therefore, you create a pile called the "credit pile." What you do, is you take every obligation, and every asset, which is valuable to society, currently, or necessary and meritorious—you take the monetary value of that, and you assign that to the creation of credit, government credit, a credit system. And you leave the remainder to rot.

Then, at that point, you enter into agreements, with governments—and this is where the relationship of the United States, Russia, China, and India occurs; there are many ramifications to this thing—under the case, what we do first of all, is you create among these governments, and others who will join them, you create a credit system to replace the present monetary system. That doesn't mean that every nation is involved immediately; it means these nations and others who wish to join, will join immediately. Now, we enter into an agreement which amounts to a revival of the Bretton Woods system. What we do, therefore, is, we create a credit system, as an international system, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. And we issue credit, by agreement among these countries, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. We then proceed, to expand world production, involving these countries, through the new credit system, leaving the useless money, the useless claims, to rot.

In doing that, two things happen, particularly with these countries involved, because the future of the planet, economically, is concentrated in Asia, where the greatest single concentration of population and the need for growth exists. The other area, which has a similar character, is Africa. Now, Asia and Africa are also two areas, which contain a lot of the raw materials assets required for the development of production in the world.

Therefore, if this part of the world develops, several things happen: First of all, you have in China, and you have in India, and other countries in Asia, you have a tendency where 60-70% of the population is essentially destitute, because of the present structure of prices, prices paid. A small part of the population of these countries, varying from case to case, has, shall we say, a modern standard of living, a modern ability to produce. A great part of the population remains outside! While there's infrastructure development in China, it is not sufficient to compensate, for example, for these needs. The development of resources for developing raw materials, that is, mineral raw materials, is not sufficient. The raw materials, the minerals, lie there in the ground, but you just can't extract them, you have to develop these resources. And you have to mobilize the flow of this into the expansion of production to include that: India, China, are typical of this—but also all of Asia.

You have a parallel situation in Africa. Africa is one of the larger repositories of raw materials, necessary for humanity in the coming period. But under the present conditions, with the lack of infrastructure, you can not develop those raw materials! So therefore, what you have, is a part of the world, over 40% of the world in Asia, essentially, and a large part in Africa, and you have comparable situations in South America, where you have large resources, which are undeveloped, which could be developed, but the infrastructure development needed, has not occurred yet.

The Challenge of Development
So therefore, we have not only the question of a reform of a monetary system, to prevent a collapse of the system; we have the challenge now, of taking these areas of development, which involve large raw materials deposits, at the same time, a very large part of the population—and a large part of the population of the world is living at substandard conditions, with no immediate prospect of significant improvement—therefore, the frontier of humanity, for centuries yet to come, involves this thrust of development. It means, then, a reversal of the present tendencies in Europe and in North America, away from becoming post-industrial societies, toward playing a key supporting role in freshly generating technologies which will support this development in Asia and in Africa, and also similarly, in South America. But South America's much closer to the United States, and so forth, has largely a European cultural population, and therefore, dealing with that is much different than it is in dealing with other parts of the world which have a different cultural heritage.

So therefore, there are two things involved: First of all, is to mobilize a section of the planet, which can be mobilized, which has to be mobilized—Russia knows it needs to mobilize! Russia is facing an existential crisis, not as severe as China's right now, but it's an existential crisis. They can not simply continue to function the way they're going. Changes are required. China knows that a change is required, from the present situation. India is less unstable in some respects than China, because its characteristics are different, but all of Asia is in this condition. Africa's in a known condition. The problem in South America, even though it's a different part of the world, and has different characteristics, is similar.

So therefore, we have to think not merely about a monetary reform, or a credit reform: We have to think of a credit reform in terms of a mission-orientation, of a system of sovereign nation-states, globally, for an extended period to come. Automatically, in this kind of process, if you have this agreement of the type I've indicated, among the four leading nations, and those who join them immediately, you will go immediately to a gold-denominated, fixed-exchange-rate system. So you will begin to operate in one part of the world, even if the rest of the world has not yet joined; you'll be operating under treaty agreements, among a bloc of nations, a powerful bloc of nations in these terms. And you're moving back in the direction we have to get, to solve these problems: a fixed-exchange-rate system.

What we would do, probably, and I would do in the United States, if I had my druthers, is take the Federal Reserve System, which is now bankrupt; the Federal Reserve System is hopelessly bankrupt. I say it: It's true. Merely, the axe has not the head off, yet, but it's gone! What you have to do, is put it through bankruptcy reorganization. Now, since it has a Federal government relationship, which the Federal government has to deal with, you simply do what Alexander Hamilton would have done, and intended to do, had he had his choices, despite Andrew Jackson—and convert the Federal Reserve System, as a set of assets, and use the power of government by an Act of Congress, and the Executive branch, to convert it into a National Bank. That does not mean it's the bank that controls everything in the banking system. You are going to restore the private banks, the state banks, and the Federal banks, the chartered banks. But you need a vehicle interfacing between government and the Treasury Department, and the private part of the banking system, to mediate the handling of long-term agreements, and the handling of other things which are done on behalf of both government interest and on the part of the institutions.

So, if we create this seed crystal, of these four nations, and others who join them, we now can have, any time we decide to do it—if the President of the United States says, to the President of Russia and to the President of China, and to the government of India, and some other countries: "Let's make this agreement!", the United States has Constitutionally, the Constitutional apparatus and the authority, to do this! So we don't have to worry about what somebody in England says, or some other part of the world says—if these countries agree, on a certain mission-orientation, to act now, we can start a process toward a recovery of the planet as a whole. And once we start that process, we then can go on to the major business of getting other parts of the world involved in it. But we need to make a break.

The American Presidential System
Now, we have, of course, a new President-elect of the United States, and provided he lives—I understand there are some threats to his life—the prospects don't seem good on the surface from his behavior, but if forces like that combine, the way the American Presidential system works, the President of the United States will be shaped by the approach to such an agreement. Sometimes a President determines the way the U.S. government goes, sometimes he does not. Sometimes he dominates, in a bad way. Sometimes he dominates in a good way. But our system is not a system of a President; it is a Presidential system, in which the entirety of the Federal government is essentially a Presidential system in its character. And the other branches of government are essentially auxiliary to our control-mechanism, which determine and shape the Presidency.

But if the United States Presidency decides to move in that direction, the forces of the Presidency can control the President of the United States. And therefore, the President of the United States will be inclined and steered to do useful things, for the sake of the United States and for its allies. So that's what's required.

If we do that, then we can deal with other parts of the world, which eagerly join. The problem now, is the attempt to pick off one country at a time, to agree with this—the kind of negotiations that are occurring between London and Sarkozy of France, is completely hopeless! Nothing good can come out of this! It's absolutely useless. And the results we'll see, in the coming meeting [the Nov. 15 G-20 meeting—ed.], will be terrible results. They'll be inconsequential; it'll be chaotic. No solution will be presented! Something may be presented and called a "solution." But, calling a pig a person does not make it human. This will not work.

Nothing presently planned, by the coming meeting, will do any damned good, at all—but will only make things worse. Only a reform of the type I've described, is within sight as a feasible change in the system.

What I've said, also implies that we would go away from a floating-exchange-rate system, not only to a gold-reserve system, or a regulated system of the type that Roosevelt prescribed in 1944, as opposed to what Truman did after 1945: What Truman did, what was done under Truman, was not Roosevelt's intention. Remember, that Franklin Roosevelt's intention was to eliminate all imperialism, to get rid of colonialism, and to use the vast economic power we had assembled in the war, to build up other countries, through a partnership to eliminate colonialism, and to establish a system of nation-states on this planet.

Truman was different: Truman was actually an enemy, a political enemy of Franklin Roosevelt. He belonged to a different faction, an opposing faction. Roosevelt died. Truman took over—in a sense, Winston Churchill took over. And if President Roosevelt, who had intended to eliminate colonialism throughout the planet, through a process of development, was replaced by a President who cooperated with the British to restore colonialism—as in the case in Indochina, as in the case in Indonesia, and so forth and so on, around the planet.

So what happened under Truman, was not the actual intention of Roosevelt. If we go back to 1944, at Bretton Woods—against Keynes! Keynes was a fascist and an imperialist! That's frankly what he was; his famous 1937 General Theory, published in Berlin, in which he said his system would work better in Nazi Germany than it would in a free country. He was right. The Keynesian system was adapted to a colonial/imperial system, and we functioned under a monetarist system, with imperialistic characteristics, especially since 1971 to the present time: It's been one of our big problems.

So, going back to the Roosevelt intention, of 1944-early 1945, with a reform of this type, does give us an answer. This means that we have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system; we have to have a hard-currency system; it means we have to have a lot of regulation of prices. You can not have free, floating prices. Because, if you're not covering the costs of production, by undercutting prices, so that you try to produce below the cost of production, you're not going to have development.

The World Needs Infrastructure
This also means, that this will not work without a very large-scale investment in basic economic infrastructure. For example: Take the case of Asia, North Asia.

North Asia is a repository, part of Russia, but North Asia in general; the Siberian area and below, is a repository of concentration of raw materials which are necessary for the development of Asia as a whole. But you just can't go in there, and get those raw materials; you have to have a system of development, which develops the territory in which the raw materials lie. You can't just go down and dig them out. You have to have a system, and Russia used to have a system of that type, under the old Russian system, in infrastructure, in minerals. And therefore, to develop this area, you require large-scale, modern transportation systems; you need power systems, which means nuclear power systems, and so forth; otherwise you can not develop these territories. This means developing magnetic levitation systems in place of rail systems, restoring rail systems where they fit the bill, and all other kinds of infrastructural development which are necessary for high-technology investment and production. Without that, we can not accomplish our mission.

Therefore, we have to have very large-scale international agreements on creation of credit, for large-scale infrastructure projects, of especially international interest. You can do nothing in Africa, without a large investment in basic economic infrastructure: mass transportation, power, water management, and so forth. These countries, given freedom—true freedom—could tend to develop themselves. But! Without large-scale infrastructure, which they're not equipped to develop, they couldn't launch that kind of development.

This means, also, the world itself, at large, requires a return to large-scale rail or magnetic levitation transportation systems, which we've been destroying in the post-war period. It means other kinds of development of that type.

It means also, a new tariff system, a protectionist system, which guarantees to each nation, that its investment in production, which everybody has supported, presumably, is going to be protected in price. We can not have a low-price economy. The problem in China, for example, is, the prices at which China is able to have an export market, the prices are too low! You can not maintain China's population with those prices. And the reason this was done, was to lower the price of production below the cost of production! So we moved production out of Europe, and out of North America, we moved it to prices below the actual, physical cost of production, considering the capital investment in technology. Therefore, you take and dump on China and other countries, you dump an export market for them, but then you don't allow them to earn enough to support their entire population in development. The same thing happens in Africa. The same thing has happened in South America and Central America, in recent periods, mainly since the 1970s.

So we need these kinds of reforms, now! And that's the direction we have to go in. That's the option.

Billions Are Already Imperiled
If we're not willing to move in the direction I've indicated here, in these remarks so far, today, then, I tell you, that the situation for humanity on the planet as a whole is worse today, than it was in Europe in the 14th Century, in the onset of what was called the New Dark Age. We have over 6.5 billion people living on this planet today. With the present conditions, much of that population is already imperiled: the question of food supplies, alone, problems of disease and related things; the food crisis is grave on this planet, today, as many of us know: Without an increase in productivity, physical productivity, which means a change in these conditions, and the introduction of protectionist conditions, we're going to have a holocaust. We now have between 6.5 and 7 billion people on this planet: If we don't do something now, we're going to end up, in a couple of generations, with about 1 billion, or less.

So, we have an existential crisis on this planet. The present monetary system, the present systems, especially since 1968-71/72, the net physical output of the United States, since 1968, since the fiscal year of '67-'68—the net physical output per capita of the United States has been continually shrinking! There has been no net physical growth, per capita, per square kilometer, in the United States since fiscal year '67-'68.

You have a similar condition, but a worse condition, in Europe today, especially in Germany: In Germany, the most obvious collapse has occurred.

So, if these reforms are not made, with the goal of a protectionist system, which ensures that long-term investment is promoted and encouraged, and technological progress and the investment that goes with it, is encouraged, we are headed—right now—for a new dark age! Not some time down the line. What has happened, at an accelerating rate, since the end of July of 2007, has already been a run into a crisis.

One of the problems here, is that every economist who engages in forecasting has failed, in this entire period. They failed in the long term, but they've also failed, in particular in the past year and a half. Every economist in the world, that I know of, has been generally incompetent in forecasting, during this period. Incompetent, particularly—you have people who are publishing reports to the effect that this crisis will soon be over. It will never be over! Without this reform I've indicated, it will never be over! Life on this planet is headed for a dark age, unless the kind of reforms I've indicated occur now. There is no other solution. And any forecaster who says differently, you know is incompetent.

And that's why I say—I return to it—the key to a reform, as I see it today: There's no possibility of a necessary reform, unless you reach agreement of the United States, Russia, China, and India. If those countries agree on the general directions I indicate, and are prepared to act in that direction, other nations will join them—obviously, Japan will join them, automatically! Korea will automatically join them! Other countries will immediately join them, because they're part of the same system, the East Asian system. That whole area of East Asia, Northern Siberia, the area around Korea, the same thing—these are areas that have immediate potential for very significant development! And these countries, given the chance, will leap to that, and take advantage of that.

But without that kind of reform, without that orientation, without agreements where we can create large masses of new credit—that is, under a credit system, while junking the old monetary system—if we can't do that, there's no chance for humanity at all. And anyone who forecasts differently is wrong, and dangerously wrong.

If we don't make this kind of reform now, we're not going to have a decent planet to live on for some time to come.
]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:20:19 -0500
This is a hopeless collapse, in terms of the present system. No mere reform of this present system, will save the planet. The nearest event comparable to this, in all European civilization's experience, occurred in the 14th Century, with the general collapse, called a "New Dark Age," in which the entire system of Europe collapsed. The number of villages collapsed by one-half, the population of Europe collapsed by one-third, and it took several decades before even the beginning of civilization returned.

The crisis we have today, worldwide, is of a similar form: A great financial bubble, which has been growing at a great rate, while the rate of net physical production per capita, has been collapsing. This system is doomed in its present form. And there is no minor reform, there's no monetary reform that could save this system. We are headed for an absolute, total collapse of the planet, unless a change is made. There is no hope, for any remedy, within the framework of what's called a monetary system. But rather, as I shall emphasize here, the alternative is the establishment of a credit system, to replace the present monetary system.

The Crucial Role of the United States
Now, the model for the credit system lies in the United States, historically. If you study the U.S. Constitution and the peculiarities of the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to those of Europe, our system of government has no resemblance in essentials, to any European system of government. European systems of government are essentially parliamentary systems, not federal systems. There are reforms in European states, which have moved in the direction of a Presidential system. The best example of an attempt in that direction was Charles de Gaulle, as President of France, in his Fifth Republic. There was a serious attempt to establish a nation-state system in Europe, by de Gaulle. But since that time, there has been no successful effort, to establish a true nation-state system, as opposed to a parliamentary system.

Therefore, the United States has a crucial significance in this, and without a crucial role by the United States, which seems extremely difficult right now, because of the present Presidency and so forth—without the United States, there is no hope for avoiding what will be a plunge into a new dark age, resembling that which occurred in Europe, which occurred in the 14th Century. That's the situation we face. No simple reform, no adjustment, no monetary agreement, nothing of that sort will work.

There are, however, very specific measures, of agreements among governments which could change the system, could change it without anything too radical, but it would get us through.

Now, the first thing that has to happen is, in practice, is that unless there's an agreement of a certain type among the United States, Russia, China, and India, we have reached a condition, where it would be impossible to save the world from a collapse, a worldwide collapse. The form would be this: It would be the change of the present world monetary system, the elimination of the present world monetary system, to replace it by a credit system, which is consistent with the principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution. Remember that our Constitution, and our Presidential system, was not based on a parliamentary system; it was not based on a monetary system. It was based on what's called a credit system.

The difference is obvious to all of you: You have two types of systems in the world today, of any significance. One, there are credit systems: A credit means that the money issued by a government, is issued by a government, in the name of the government, and is backed by the promises of the government to support the credit. This credit, under law, can then be monetized and supply a money currency as well as credit for development.

This is distinct from a monetary system. A monetary system represents a system of money, which is outside government, but which may or may not have agreement with government. European systems, today, are not credit systems, they are monetary systems. The monetary system, which is tied to the IMF, today, and has been since 1971, 1972—that period—the monetary system is what is collapsing. The monetary system is collapsing, because it is tied, specifically now to the credit bubble, the derivatives bubbles. And this is what's collapsing. There's no possibility at this stage any longer, of saving the monetary system in its present form. That is, a reform made internal to the monetary system will not work. It's too late. We could have done something in that direction, back a year ago, July a year ago, back in 2007. The system is so rotten today, that it would not be possible, especially the changes that have been made by the U.S. and other governments, in the recent months, are so radical, that it would be impossible to reform this system. You have to completely overhaul it and revolutionize it.

But, our American System allows us to do that, under our Constitutional system in our history.

A Four-Power Agreement
Now, what we have to do is, is establish a power bloc, to force through a change among nations. Western Europe, despite the fact that there are positive elements, as the case of [Economics Minister Giulio] Tremonti in Italy, or some efforts on the part of [President Nicolas] Sarkozy in France; there are some initiatives in the direction of useful reforms. There are desires for useful reforms from other parts of the world. But the requirement here, is to have a sufficiently powerful agreement, to force through the reforms in a timely fashion. This can only occur by an agreement among the United States, Russia, China, and India. If the United States, Russia, China, and India function as a bloc, other countries will join them, and we can force through the reform. In my view, without that particular agreement, it would be impossible to ram through the reform, politically, at this time—not in time. We might eventually agree to it, but it would be too late. We need change now: The world system is collapsing at such a rate, now, that we do not have years to play with. We do not even have many months to play with. By the end of the year, we must be in the direction of making some kind of reform, in this direction.

Now, what it means, is this: As those of you from China know, and other countries, the change in the system, especially since 1971 and 1972 on, the change was a change in the relationship of China, from the United States to China and other countries. The change was essentially to what is called "globalization": to move production out of Europe and the United States, and to move it into countries which have low per-capita incomes: in other words, cheap labor. And thus production, and infrastructure, were moved out of the United States, and increasingly out of Europe, especially after 1989-1990, into other countries, Third World countries in particular, which operate at a cheap-labor price. Today, most of the production of the world depends critically, on a margin of production in these countries, which are the export countries, which replaced European production, U.S. production, and so forth.

So therefore, at this point, you have two things: First of all, the system is collapsing. Now, by the nature of the system, it means that the countries which were used as substitutes for production from Europe and the United States, for example, are now collapsing, because the purchases from other countries are collapsing, as in the case of China, where the collapse of China is a potential time-bomb for the entire planet. Because if the collapse of China's exports continues at the present rate, this will be a time-bomb for the entire system; and some people understand this. Therefore, the unity of four powers, the United States—which has a certain special power—Russia, China, and India, represents a bloc that can force through reforms of the type that are needed.

A Credit, Not a Monetary System
What is required is this: We have to eliminate the monetary system, by a credit system. A credit system is not some mysterious thing. It's essentially something which is traditional to the United States in particular. European systems today, are monetary systems: that is, despite agreements with government, money is controlled by agencies outside government. This is a characteristic of parliamentary systems—not a true Presidential system, but a parliamentary system. And thus, money exists independently of the control of government, although with agreement with government, but nonetheless, under the control of outside agencies: international, financial agencies, which actually control the monetary system, control and regulate the money, and government plays, less and less, a role in the control of money, in control of the monetary system. This is characteristic in Europe, particularly since 1989-1991, in which the control over money, with the Maastricht agreements and similar kinds of agreements, Europe has absolutely no control over its own monetary supply: It's controlled by outsiders, largely through London, and through things like the oil price market.

So therefore, the creation of a credit system to replace a monetary system, is where the solution lies. There's no way to save this monetary system in its present form. It's so full of junk, with the financial derivatives far in excess of a quadrillion dollars in claims, against the nominal size of the actual production of nations, it is impossible to reform this monetary system in its present form. You have to put the monetary system, itself, through bankruptcy. You will have to wipe out the greatest portion of nominal monetary assets in the world today! Cancel them! Because the system as a whole is hopelessly bankrupt.

Now, what do you do in that case? Well, what you do for a monetary reform to a credit system, you use the U.S. Constitution. Because of our Constitution, we can create, as Roosevelt did that formally, we can create a credit system. To replace a monetary system.

Now, what you do under this case, and with agreement with the United States, and its Constitution, with Russia, China, and India, it can be done. What you do, is you say, we put all the claims which are equivalent of monetary or credit claims in two piles. One pile we call "monetary." That's the manure pile. The other we call the "credit" pile. Now under the U.S. Constitution, money, when the Constitution is followed, is created only by the will of the government. It is done by the Executive branch of government, with the consent of the House of Representatives, and things flow from that. This credit being issued, is also authorized for monetization: So, the credit can be issued as loans for projects, or international loans, and part of it can actually be monetized, under the condition under which it was uttered. Particularly, if we had a national banking system, which we don't have presently, we could convert the Federal Reserve System, which is bankrupt, into a national banking system, as Hamilton proposed. Then it would do that, automatically. We do need a national banking system in each country. That doesn't mean they're the only banks, but it does mean you use a national banking system to control the relationship between government and the banking system as a whole, in general.



Put the System Through Bankruptcy Reorganization
If you do that, then you do a bankruptcy reform: You take the hopelessly bankrupt system—we're talking about quadrillions of dollars of claims, of monetary claims, especially as located in these speculative markets of derivatives and related kinds of things—we have to wipe most of this off the books! It can never be paid. It was foolishness, it was a lie, it was done largely since 1987, under Alan Greenspan's insanity. This we have to wipe out.

What do you do? You have to protect those things which are productive, and are necessary for the government and necessary for the population. Therefore, you create a pile called the "credit pile." What you do, is you take every obligation, and every asset, which is valuable to society, currently, or necessary and meritorious—you take the monetary value of that, and you assign that to the creation of credit, government credit, a credit system. And you leave the remainder to rot.

Then, at that point, you enter into agreements, with governments—and this is where the relationship of the United States, Russia, China, and India occurs; there are many ramifications to this thing—under the case, what we do first of all, is you create among these governments, and others who will join them, you create a credit system to replace the present monetary system. That doesn't mean that every nation is involved immediately; it means these nations and others who wish to join, will join immediately. Now, we enter into an agreement which amounts to a revival of the Bretton Woods system. What we do, therefore, is, we create a credit system, as an international system, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. And we issue credit, by agreement among these countries, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. We then proceed, to expand world production, involving these countries, through the new credit system, leaving the useless money, the useless claims, to rot.

In doing that, two things happen, particularly with these countries involved, because the future of the planet, economically, is concentrated in Asia, where the greatest single concentration of population and the need for growth exists. The other area, which has a similar character, is Africa. Now, Asia and Africa are also two areas, which contain a lot of the raw materials assets required for the development of production in the world.

Therefore, if this part of the world develops, several things happen: First of all, you have in China, and you have in India, and other countries in Asia, you have a tendency where 60-70% of the population is essentially destitute, because of the present structure of prices, prices paid. A small part of the population of these countries, varying from case to case, has, shall we say, a modern standard of living, a modern ability to produce. A great part of the population remains outside! While there's infrastructure development in China, it is not sufficient to compensate, for example, for these needs. The development of resources for developing raw materials, that is, mineral raw materials, is not sufficient. The raw materials, the minerals, lie there in the ground, but you just can't extract them, you have to develop these resources. And you have to mobilize the flow of this into the expansion of production to include that: India, China, are typical of this—but also all of Asia.

You have a parallel situation in Africa. Africa is one of the larger repositories of raw materials, necessary for humanity in the coming period. But under the present conditions, with the lack of infrastructure, you can not develop those raw materials! So therefore, what you have, is a part of the world, over 40% of the world in Asia, essentially, and a large part in Africa, and you have comparable situations in South America, where you have large resources, which are undeveloped, which could be developed, but the infrastructure development needed, has not occurred yet.

The Challenge of Development
So therefore, we have not only the question of a reform of a monetary system, to prevent a collapse of the system; we have the challenge now, of taking these areas of development, which involve large raw materials deposits, at the same time, a very large part of the population—and a large part of the population of the world is living at substandard conditions, with no immediate prospect of significant improvement—therefore, the frontier of humanity, for centuries yet to come, involves this thrust of development. It means, then, a reversal of the present tendencies in Europe and in North America, away from becoming post-industrial societies, toward playing a key supporting role in freshly generating technologies which will support this development in Asia and in Africa, and also similarly, in South America. But South America's much closer to the United States, and so forth, has largely a European cultural population, and therefore, dealing with that is much different than it is in dealing with other parts of the world which have a different cultural heritage.

So therefore, there are two things involved: First of all, is to mobilize a section of the planet, which can be mobilized, which has to be mobilized—Russia knows it needs to mobilize! Russia is facing an existential crisis, not as severe as China's right now, but it's an existential crisis. They can not simply continue to function the way they're going. Changes are required. China knows that a change is required, from the present situation. India is less unstable in some respects than China, because its characteristics are different, but all of Asia is in this condition. Africa's in a known condition. The problem in South America, even though it's a different part of the world, and has different characteristics, is similar.

So therefore, we have to think not merely about a monetary reform, or a credit reform: We have to think of a credit reform in terms of a mission-orientation, of a system of sovereign nation-states, globally, for an extended period to come. Automatically, in this kind of process, if you have this agreement of the type I've indicated, among the four leading nations, and those who join them immediately, you will go immediately to a gold-denominated, fixed-exchange-rate system. So you will begin to operate in one part of the world, even if the rest of the world has not yet joined; you'll be operating under treaty agreements, among a bloc of nations, a powerful bloc of nations in these terms. And you're moving back in the direction we have to get, to solve these problems: a fixed-exchange-rate system.

What we would do, probably, and I would do in the United States, if I had my druthers, is take the Federal Reserve System, which is now bankrupt; the Federal Reserve System is hopelessly bankrupt. I say it: It's true. Merely, the axe has not the head off, yet, but it's gone! What you have to do, is put it through bankruptcy reorganization. Now, since it has a Federal government relationship, which the Federal government has to deal with, you simply do what Alexander Hamilton would have done, and intended to do, had he had his choices, despite Andrew Jackson—and convert the Federal Reserve System, as a set of assets, and use the power of government by an Act of Congress, and the Executive branch, to convert it into a National Bank. That does not mean it's the bank that controls everything in the banking system. You are going to restore the private banks, the state banks, and the Federal banks, the chartered banks. But you need a vehicle interfacing between government and the Treasury Department, and the private part of the banking system, to mediate the handling of long-term agreements, and the handling of other things which are done on behalf of both government interest and on the part of the institutions.

So, if we create this seed crystal, of these four nations, and others who join them, we now can have, any time we decide to do it—if the President of the United States says, to the President of Russia and to the President of China, and to the government of India, and some other countries: "Let's make this agreement!", the United States has Constitutionally, the Constitutional apparatus and the authority, to do this! So we don't have to worry about what somebody in England says, or some other part of the world says—if these countries agree, on a certain mission-orientation, to act now, we can start a process toward a recovery of the planet as a whole. And once we start that process, we then can go on to the major business of getting other parts of the world involved in it. But we need to make a break.

The American Presidential System
Now, we have, of course, a new President-elect of the United States, and provided he lives—I understand there are some threats to his life—the prospects don't seem good on the surface from his behavior, but if forces like that combine, the way the American Presidential system works, the President of the United States will be shaped by the approach to such an agreement. Sometimes a President determines the way the U.S. government goes, sometimes he does not. Sometimes he dominates, in a bad way. Sometimes he dominates in a good way. But our system is not a system of a President; it is a Presidential system, in which the entirety of the Federal government is essentially a Presidential system in its character. And the other branches of government are essentially auxiliary to our control-mechanism, which determine and shape the Presidency.

But if the United States Presidency decides to move in that direction, the forces of the Presidency can control the President of the United States. And therefore, the President of the United States will be inclined and steered to do useful things, for the sake of the United States and for its allies. So that's what's required.

If we do that, then we can deal with other parts of the world, which eagerly join. The problem now, is the attempt to pick off one country at a time, to agree with this—the kind of negotiations that are occurring between London and Sarkozy of France, is completely hopeless! Nothing good can come out of this! It's absolutely useless. And the results we'll see, in the coming meeting [the Nov. 15 G-20 meeting—ed.], will be terrible results. They'll be inconsequential; it'll be chaotic. No solution will be presented! Something may be presented and called a "solution." But, calling a pig a person does not make it human. This will not work.

Nothing presently planned, by the coming meeting, will do any damned good, at all—but will only make things worse. Only a reform of the type I've described, is within sight as a feasible change in the system.

What I've said, also implies that we would go away from a floating-exchange-rate system, not only to a gold-reserve system, or a regulated system of the type that Roosevelt prescribed in 1944, as opposed to what Truman did after 1945: What Truman did, what was done under Truman, was not Roosevelt's intention. Remember, that Franklin Roosevelt's intention was to eliminate all imperialism, to get rid of colonialism, and to use the vast economic power we had assembled in the war, to build up other countries, through a partnership to eliminate colonialism, and to establish a system of nation-states on this planet.

Truman was different: Truman was actually an enemy, a political enemy of Franklin Roosevelt. He belonged to a different faction, an opposing faction. Roosevelt died. Truman took over—in a sense, Winston Churchill took over. And if President Roosevelt, who had intended to eliminate colonialism throughout the planet, through a process of development, was replaced by a President who cooperated with the British to restore colonialism—as in the case in Indochina, as in the case in Indonesia, and so forth and so on, around the planet.

So what happened under Truman, was not the actual intention of Roosevelt. If we go back to 1944, at Bretton Woods—against Keynes! Keynes was a fascist and an imperialist! That's frankly what he was; his famous 1937 General Theory, published in Berlin, in which he said his system would work better in Nazi Germany than it would in a free country. He was right. The Keynesian system was adapted to a colonial/imperial system, and we functioned under a monetarist system, with imperialistic characteristics, especially since 1971 to the present time: It's been one of our big problems.

So, going back to the Roosevelt intention, of 1944-early 1945, with a reform of this type, does give us an answer. This means that we have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system; we have to have a hard-currency system; it means we have to have a lot of regulation of prices. You can not have free, floating prices. Because, if you're not covering the costs of production, by undercutting prices, so that you try to produce below the cost of production, you're not going to have development.

The World Needs Infrastructure
This also means, that this will not work without a very large-scale investment in basic economic infrastructure. For example: Take the case of Asia, North Asia.

North Asia is a repository, part of Russia, but North Asia in general; the Siberian area and below, is a repository of concentration of raw materials which are necessary for the development of Asia as a whole. But you just can't go in there, and get those raw materials; you have to have a system of development, which develops the territory in which the raw materials lie. You can't just go down and dig them out. You have to have a system, and Russia used to have a system of that type, under the old Russian system, in infrastructure, in minerals. And therefore, to develop this area, you require large-scale, modern transportation systems; you need power systems, which means nuclear power systems, and so forth; otherwise you can not develop these territories. This means developing magnetic levitation systems in place of rail systems, restoring rail systems where they fit the bill, and all other kinds of infrastructural development which are necessary for high-technology investment and production. Without that, we can not accomplish our mission.

Therefore, we have to have very large-scale international agreements on creation of credit, for large-scale infrastructure projects, of especially international interest. You can do nothing in Africa, without a large investment in basic economic infrastructure: mass transportation, power, water management, and so forth. These countries, given freedom—true freedom—could tend to develop themselves. But! Without large-scale infrastructure, which they're not equipped to develop, they couldn't launch that kind of development.

This means, also, the world itself, at large, requires a return to large-scale rail or magnetic levitation transportation systems, which we've been destroying in the post-war period. It means other kinds of development of that type.

It means also, a new tariff system, a protectionist system, which guarantees to each nation, that its investment in production, which everybody has supported, presumably, is going to be protected in price. We can not have a low-price economy. The problem in China, for example, is, the prices at which China is able to have an export market, the prices are too low! You can not maintain China's population with those prices. And the reason this was done, was to lower the price of production below the cost of production! So we moved production out of Europe, and out of North America, we moved it to prices below the actual, physical cost of production, considering the capital investment in technology. Therefore, you take and dump on China and other countries, you dump an export market for them, but then you don't allow them to earn enough to support their entire population in development. The same thing happens in Africa. The same thing has happened in South America and Central America, in recent periods, mainly since the 1970s.

So we need these kinds of reforms, now! And that's the direction we have to go in. That's the option.

Billions Are Already Imperiled
If we're not willing to move in the direction I've indicated here, in these remarks so far, today, then, I tell you, that the situation for humanity on the planet as a whole is worse today, than it was in Europe in the 14th Century, in the onset of what was called the New Dark Age. We have over 6.5 billion people living on this planet today. With the present conditions, much of that population is already imperiled: the question of food supplies, alone, problems of disease and related things; the food crisis is grave on this planet, today, as many of us know: Without an increase in productivity, physical productivity, which means a change in these conditions, and the introduction of protectionist conditions, we're going to have a holocaust. We now have between 6.5 and 7 billion people on this planet: If we don't do something now, we're going to end up, in a couple of generations, with about 1 billion, or less.

So, we have an existential crisis on this planet. The present monetary system, the present systems, especially since 1968-71/72, the net physical output of the United States, since 1968, since the fiscal year of '67-'68—the net physical output per capita of the United States has been continually shrinking! There has been no net physical growth, per capita, per square kilometer, in the United States since fiscal year '67-'68.

You have a similar condition, but a worse condition, in Europe today, especially in Germany: In Germany, the most obvious collapse has occurred.

So, if these reforms are not made, with the goal of a protectionist system, which ensures that long-term investment is promoted and encouraged, and technological progress and the investment that goes with it, is encouraged, we are headed—right now—for a new dark age! Not some time down the line. What has happened, at an accelerating rate, since the end of July of 2007, has already been a run into a crisis.

One of the problems here, is that every economist who engages in forecasting has failed, in this entire period. They failed in the long term, but they've also failed, in particular in the past year and a half. Every economist in the world, that I know of, has been generally incompetent in forecasting, during this period. Incompetent, particularly—you have people who are publishing reports to the effect that this crisis will soon be over. It will never be over! Without this reform I've indicated, it will never be over! Life on this planet is headed for a dark age, unless the kind of reforms I've indicated occur now. There is no other solution. And any forecaster who says differently, you know is incompetent.

And that's why I say—I return to it—the key to a reform, as I see it today: There's no possibility of a necessary reform, unless you reach agreement of the United States, Russia, China, and India. If those countries agree on the general directions I indicate, and are prepared to act in that direction, other nations will join them—obviously, Japan will join them, automatically! Korea will automatically join them! Other countries will immediately join them, because they're part of the same system, the East Asian system. That whole area of East Asia, Northern Siberia, the area around Korea, the same thing—these are areas that have immediate potential for very significant development! And these countries, given the chance, will leap to that, and take advantage of that.

But without that kind of reform, without that orientation, without agreements where we can create large masses of new credit—that is, under a credit system, while junking the old monetary system—if we can't do that, there's no chance for humanity at all. And anyone who forecasts differently is wrong, and dangerously wrong.

If we don't make this kind of reform now, we're not going to have a decent planet to live on for some time to come.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107330-panic-crash-sentiment-causing-market-volatility?source=feed#comment-311864 311864
As of the end of June 2008, official figures, compiled by the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, showed a total derivatives exposure of the three largest U.S. bank holding companies--JP Morgan Chase, Citicorp and Bank of America--stood at more than $179 trillion. And the Bank for International Settlements put the amount of documented outstanding derivatives contracts worldwide at the end of 2007 at $675 trillion--still a fraction of the actual exposure.

During November, investors in hedge funds had the opportunity to withdraw their cash, without penalty, and this factor, on top of the already onrushing unraveling of the derivatives bubble, is playing out. Every major financial institution of the United States, Europe and Asia is tied up in the derivatives collapse, but no one has a clear picture of the exposure of the other financial institutions.

This is the big explosion, detonating right now and so far, the only coherent solution is bankruptcy reorganization of the entire global financial system--starting with the cancellation of all derivatives obligations. This is why the fear has turned to outright panic. We are nearing the showdown moment.

]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:47:26 -0500
As of the end of June 2008, official figures, compiled by the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, showed a total derivatives exposure of the three largest U.S. bank holding companies--JP Morgan Chase, Citicorp and Bank of America--stood at more than $179 trillion. And the Bank for International Settlements put the amount of documented outstanding derivatives contracts worldwide at the end of 2007 at $675 trillion--still a fraction of the actual exposure.

During November, investors in hedge funds had the opportunity to withdraw their cash, without penalty, and this factor, on top of the already onrushing unraveling of the derivatives bubble, is playing out. Every major financial institution of the United States, Europe and Asia is tied up in the derivatives collapse, but no one has a clear picture of the exposure of the other financial institutions.

This is the big explosion, detonating right now and so far, the only coherent solution is bankruptcy reorganization of the entire global financial system--starting with the cancellation of all derivatives obligations. This is why the fear has turned to outright panic. We are nearing the showdown moment.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107295-the-downfall-of-keynesian-economics-and-the-u-s-part-3-of-3?source=feed#comment-311862 311862
We're leaving an administration which is totally bankrupt. It's created a greater mess than any U.S. Presidency in recent record. The situation's almost hopeless. We're now in the terminal phase of the existing international monetary system: This monetary system will not exist much longer. I'm talking about weeks, as a probable case. You probably will have, as of the middle of January, you might have a peep out of France from the President of France; so far, I don't think he's made up his mind exactly what he's going to do, but he might do something. Otherwise, from Western and Central Europe, you can't expect much of an initiative. You certainly will not get anything useful out of the United Kingdom at this time.

What is probable, and what is possible--but it's a big question mark--is, what is going to happen with the incoming administration in the United States. It's a very complicated question. Because there are deals, there are interests, there are arrangements, and I don't think any of these plans are going to work. I think this is a period in which most of the plans that people are making in government are going to fail, because the system is going to change very rapidly, and very profoundly.

We are in the end-phase of a general breakdown crisis, of the international monetary system. There has been nothing comparable to this in European history, since the 14th-century new dark age. We are going to have a total collapse of the system.

Now, the system's failure is complicated by the fact that governments have been lying. The crisis is not caused by some breakdown in some mortgage crisis inside the United States, or something in England as well. The crisis comes from the top down: The crisis comes from a long-term trend since 1968, which is the beginning of the problem. Which led into what the Nixon Administration did in canceling the Bretton Woods system. This opened a period of instability, which was aggravated by the creation of the expanded spot market for petroleum, 1973 and so forth, and so on.

So suddenly you had a fundamental change in the characteristic of the world monetary system, and this went through a phase. It went through a phase of de-industrialization of Europe and the United States, especially following the developments of 1989-1990, and so forth. So we have gone through a fundamental change.

In point of fact, the United States has had no net growth, in terms of physical standards, since the Fiscal Year 1967-68. There has been absolutely no physical expansion in the United States. We've had a comparable situation in Europe, which became worse, after the fall of the Wall, when the conditions were put in by Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand--then the President of France--and George Bush, the father, then. These conditionality sent Europe into a spin: Germany has been shrunken, actually, in net effect, as a result of these conditions. And from now, Europe--essentially Western and Central Continental Europe--are essentially impotent; Britain is going heavily into a crisis.

Therefore, the only remedy, in this crisis, because of the nature of the breakdown of the system, is creating a new international system, to replace the present monetary system, while putting the old monetary system into bankruptcy. Remember, most of you know that the United States, constitutionally, is not monetary system. The United States is unlike any nation of Europe: That our system is a credit system, not a monetary system. All other countries in Europe, some with more or less independence, are participants in an international monetary system, which is not controlled by any government. Even though the monetary system has agreements with governments, it is not controlled by them; whereas under the U.S. Constitution the creation of currency, or related credit, can only be done by consent of Congress, and by action of the Executive branch. Therefore, our currency--when our law is enforced--is entirely a credit currency; it's a currency of the U.S. government, the currency of the U.S. people. Whereas the other countries have monetary systems, where they participate by agreements with governments at a central monetary system, or a group of central monetary systems.

Therefore, the European system is essentially an imperialist system, in the sense that Europe is dominated by a monetary system, which belongs to no country, although each country has agreements with the monetary system. This is a continuation of the old Venetian system, under which an imperial power, in the old times, since about 1000 A.D., in the old times, the Venetian interests, the financier interests, control the credit and currency of the world. And functioned like an empire. This financial empire made agreements with governments, or controlled governments entirely. That was the system that crashed in the great crash, the great breakdown crisis in the 14th Century. Since that time, there has been no fundamental change: Europe still operates on the basis of monetary systems, which are based on supranational monetary systems which have contracts with governments.

But the United States is unique among leading governments, even though de Gaulle wanted to go in the same direction, but unique in the sense that our Constitution, means that our government in its credit system is the system of the United States.

Now: Since we have a world monetary system, the so-called IMF system today, this system is hopelessly bankrupt. The cause of the problem is not some mortgage crisis. The cause of the crisis, which broke out in July of 2007, was a result of an increase of an expansion of derivatives expansion, which now totals to obligations in excess of quadrillions of dollars! The greatest amount of this expansion occurred under the administration of the former head of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan. And we have now quadrillions of dollars of obligations, so denominated, which are self-expanding obligations. This hyper-inflationary monster is eating the world, and the only thing we can do is put it out of its misery: Put it into bankruptcy by governments, by agreements of governments, and create a new international system, which is based on credit systems, such as the Constitution of the United States provides.

What we have to have, also, is a fixed-exchange-rate system, like the one that Roosevelt intended, when he was still President. So, what we will have to do, is, we're going to have to put the entire system into bankruptcy reorganization, by decisions by the sovereign governments.

Now, to do this, there are four sovereign governments on the planet, who are absolutely crucial in launching something which can then be participated in by other governments. These are, the United States, and include Russia, China, and India. If these four countries enter into an agreement to reform the monetary system, and replace it with a credit system, we can get out of this mess alive, and safely. Because, if these four powers agree, and this represents a margin of power absolutely required to force through the reform, then Japan will automatically join; it's in its interest to do so. Korea will join; it's in its interest to do so. Other weaker countries will join; it's in their interests to do so. On that basis, we can create a fixed-exchange-rate system, to do what the original fixed-exchange-rate system was intended to do. We can use the credit system, based on this agreement, to reorganize the bankrupt monetary system, make sure that the immediate agreements that have to be reached can be settled. We can start to expand production, solve some of these problems, and postpone settlement of some of the other matters into the future, as you often do in a general bankruptcy reorganization.

It's the only chance, right now. And it depends upon good diplomacy, among the United States, Russia, China, and India, knowing that other countries will gladly join such a union, once it's started. And it will have to lead to a fixed-exchange-rate system, because we're going to have to launch long-term credit agreements, for large projects, especially in areas such as Asia, where you have whole regions, 70% of the population is extremely poor, and underdeveloped; Africa, which is potentially a large food-growing area, but is not able to do so, because of the present conditions.

We must create those conditions. This means, large-scale infrastructure development of things like power systems, sanitation systems, and so forth, to enable Africa to get on its own feet again. So these kind of projects will be necessary, and these are long-term projects. They need two generations of investment, or longer, in mass transportation, power and so forth. And we can come out of this.

But we're at the point, that this kind of agreement and discussion among nations is absolutely indispensable: There is {no way}, that you can make a compromise with the existing system, and survive. All attempts at compromise will fail! Because they will lead immediately to disaster: You have quadrillions of dollars of obligations, all of a short-term nature, coming down on the whole system! And there's no way you can postpone that thing. You come to the point, and say, "We are not going to honor derivatives obligations! We're going to freeze them, first. We're going to defend the economies, first. We're going to have a bankruptcy reorganization, which is in the general interest, first, the general interest of the nations and their peoples.

And this requires power to push it through, because the powers that are imposing this crash upon us, do have a lot of power. Therefore, you need a combination of power strong enough to break the will of that opposition. With that combination, we can succeed.

And that's the kind of crisis we face.

Now, we have a new President of the United States coming in, a President-elect--if somebody doesn't kill him, because you're in a kind of period where those things happen, in times of crises like these, highly unstable. And the trick is, to get this Presidency, of the United States, by one way or another, to enter into this agreement, with Russia, China, and India, that I've indicated; and bringing in other nations who are informed of what this is all about, into this agreement. But the basic thing, is we need a power bloc, which is powerful enough to break the back of the opposition to a reform. And that's where I think we stand right now. Everything flows from that.

So it's a very interesting period. And the month of January is going to be extremely interesting, if we don't have a complete blow-out before the end of this year. That's the kind of world we're living in. It had to come to this. We've been insane for a long time; we've been doing insane things for a long time. And now somebody came up and just presented the bill to us, for what the costs of this insanity were. And so, the time is, we just have to act like governments, take our responsibility seriously, come to agreements, agreements of reform, and adopt a perspective which is fair to all concerned. Which I think we can do fairly easily, if reasonable governments realize how serious the danger is, right now
]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:43:43 -0500
We're leaving an administration which is totally bankrupt. It's created a greater mess than any U.S. Presidency in recent record. The situation's almost hopeless. We're now in the terminal phase of the existing international monetary system: This monetary system will not exist much longer. I'm talking about weeks, as a probable case. You probably will have, as of the middle of January, you might have a peep out of France from the President of France; so far, I don't think he's made up his mind exactly what he's going to do, but he might do something. Otherwise, from Western and Central Europe, you can't expect much of an initiative. You certainly will not get anything useful out of the United Kingdom at this time.

What is probable, and what is possible--but it's a big question mark--is, what is going to happen with the incoming administration in the United States. It's a very complicated question. Because there are deals, there are interests, there are arrangements, and I don't think any of these plans are going to work. I think this is a period in which most of the plans that people are making in government are going to fail, because the system is going to change very rapidly, and very profoundly.

We are in the end-phase of a general breakdown crisis, of the international monetary system. There has been nothing comparable to this in European history, since the 14th-century new dark age. We are going to have a total collapse of the system.

Now, the system's failure is complicated by the fact that governments have been lying. The crisis is not caused by some breakdown in some mortgage crisis inside the United States, or something in England as well. The crisis comes from the top down: The crisis comes from a long-term trend since 1968, which is the beginning of the problem. Which led into what the Nixon Administration did in canceling the Bretton Woods system. This opened a period of instability, which was aggravated by the creation of the expanded spot market for petroleum, 1973 and so forth, and so on.

So suddenly you had a fundamental change in the characteristic of the world monetary system, and this went through a phase. It went through a phase of de-industrialization of Europe and the United States, especially following the developments of 1989-1990, and so forth. So we have gone through a fundamental change.

In point of fact, the United States has had no net growth, in terms of physical standards, since the Fiscal Year 1967-68. There has been absolutely no physical expansion in the United States. We've had a comparable situation in Europe, which became worse, after the fall of the Wall, when the conditions were put in by Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand--then the President of France--and George Bush, the father, then. These conditionality sent Europe into a spin: Germany has been shrunken, actually, in net effect, as a result of these conditions. And from now, Europe--essentially Western and Central Continental Europe--are essentially impotent; Britain is going heavily into a crisis.

Therefore, the only remedy, in this crisis, because of the nature of the breakdown of the system, is creating a new international system, to replace the present monetary system, while putting the old monetary system into bankruptcy. Remember, most of you know that the United States, constitutionally, is not monetary system. The United States is unlike any nation of Europe: That our system is a credit system, not a monetary system. All other countries in Europe, some with more or less independence, are participants in an international monetary system, which is not controlled by any government. Even though the monetary system has agreements with governments, it is not controlled by them; whereas under the U.S. Constitution the creation of currency, or related credit, can only be done by consent of Congress, and by action of the Executive branch. Therefore, our currency--when our law is enforced--is entirely a credit currency; it's a currency of the U.S. government, the currency of the U.S. people. Whereas the other countries have monetary systems, where they participate by agreements with governments at a central monetary system, or a group of central monetary systems.

Therefore, the European system is essentially an imperialist system, in the sense that Europe is dominated by a monetary system, which belongs to no country, although each country has agreements with the monetary system. This is a continuation of the old Venetian system, under which an imperial power, in the old times, since about 1000 A.D., in the old times, the Venetian interests, the financier interests, control the credit and currency of the world. And functioned like an empire. This financial empire made agreements with governments, or controlled governments entirely. That was the system that crashed in the great crash, the great breakdown crisis in the 14th Century. Since that time, there has been no fundamental change: Europe still operates on the basis of monetary systems, which are based on supranational monetary systems which have contracts with governments.

But the United States is unique among leading governments, even though de Gaulle wanted to go in the same direction, but unique in the sense that our Constitution, means that our government in its credit system is the system of the United States.

Now: Since we have a world monetary system, the so-called IMF system today, this system is hopelessly bankrupt. The cause of the problem is not some mortgage crisis. The cause of the crisis, which broke out in July of 2007, was a result of an increase of an expansion of derivatives expansion, which now totals to obligations in excess of quadrillions of dollars! The greatest amount of this expansion occurred under the administration of the former head of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan. And we have now quadrillions of dollars of obligations, so denominated, which are self-expanding obligations. This hyper-inflationary monster is eating the world, and the only thing we can do is put it out of its misery: Put it into bankruptcy by governments, by agreements of governments, and create a new international system, which is based on credit systems, such as the Constitution of the United States provides.

What we have to have, also, is a fixed-exchange-rate system, like the one that Roosevelt intended, when he was still President. So, what we will have to do, is, we're going to have to put the entire system into bankruptcy reorganization, by decisions by the sovereign governments.

Now, to do this, there are four sovereign governments on the planet, who are absolutely crucial in launching something which can then be participated in by other governments. These are, the United States, and include Russia, China, and India. If these four countries enter into an agreement to reform the monetary system, and replace it with a credit system, we can get out of this mess alive, and safely. Because, if these four powers agree, and this represents a margin of power absolutely required to force through the reform, then Japan will automatically join; it's in its interest to do so. Korea will join; it's in its interest to do so. Other weaker countries will join; it's in their interests to do so. On that basis, we can create a fixed-exchange-rate system, to do what the original fixed-exchange-rate system was intended to do. We can use the credit system, based on this agreement, to reorganize the bankrupt monetary system, make sure that the immediate agreements that have to be reached can be settled. We can start to expand production, solve some of these problems, and postpone settlement of some of the other matters into the future, as you often do in a general bankruptcy reorganization.

It's the only chance, right now. And it depends upon good diplomacy, among the United States, Russia, China, and India, knowing that other countries will gladly join such a union, once it's started. And it will have to lead to a fixed-exchange-rate system, because we're going to have to launch long-term credit agreements, for large projects, especially in areas such as Asia, where you have whole regions, 70% of the population is extremely poor, and underdeveloped; Africa, which is potentially a large food-growing area, but is not able to do so, because of the present conditions.

We must create those conditions. This means, large-scale infrastructure development of things like power systems, sanitation systems, and so forth, to enable Africa to get on its own feet again. So these kind of projects will be necessary, and these are long-term projects. They need two generations of investment, or longer, in mass transportation, power and so forth. And we can come out of this.

But we're at the point, that this kind of agreement and discussion among nations is absolutely indispensable: There is {no way}, that you can make a compromise with the existing system, and survive. All attempts at compromise will fail! Because they will lead immediately to disaster: You have quadrillions of dollars of obligations, all of a short-term nature, coming down on the whole system! And there's no way you can postpone that thing. You come to the point, and say, "We are not going to honor derivatives obligations! We're going to freeze them, first. We're going to defend the economies, first. We're going to have a bankruptcy reorganization, which is in the general interest, first, the general interest of the nations and their peoples.

And this requires power to push it through, because the powers that are imposing this crash upon us, do have a lot of power. Therefore, you need a combination of power strong enough to break the will of that opposition. With that combination, we can succeed.

And that's the kind of crisis we face.

Now, we have a new President of the United States coming in, a President-elect--if somebody doesn't kill him, because you're in a kind of period where those things happen, in times of crises like these, highly unstable. And the trick is, to get this Presidency, of the United States, by one way or another, to enter into this agreement, with Russia, China, and India, that I've indicated; and bringing in other nations who are informed of what this is all about, into this agreement. But the basic thing, is we need a power bloc, which is powerful enough to break the back of the opposition to a reform. And that's where I think we stand right now. Everything flows from that.

So it's a very interesting period. And the month of January is going to be extremely interesting, if we don't have a complete blow-out before the end of this year. That's the kind of world we're living in. It had to come to this. We've been insane for a long time; we've been doing insane things for a long time. And now somebody came up and just presented the bill to us, for what the costs of this insanity were. And so, the time is, we just have to act like governments, take our responsibility seriously, come to agreements, agreements of reform, and adopt a perspective which is fair to all concerned. Which I think we can do fairly easily, if reasonable governments realize how serious the danger is, right now
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107308-china-continues-to-consider-u-s-treasuries-its-best-option?source=feed#comment-311794 311794
But his bets will be made good, he said, if China implements three things: political and economic "reform;" bailout of the IMF to save the banking system; and going green. China, he said, must implement a stimulus which is "directed at stimulating investment in preventing global warming, because that is a problem that is facing the world. I hope that both the US and China will introduce energy saving and alternative energy generation as a way of stimulating the economy, because that is what you need to come out of this global recession."

Soros also exposed his own fascist proclivities: "We are back to Keynes," he said. "He had the right idea for the 1930s, and these ideas have come back in a cyclical fashion, and they are right for the 21st century." Keynes, of course, admitted in the 1930s that his policies were better implemented in a fascist dictatorship like that of Germany under Hitler, and later fought to reject FDR's anti-colonial proposals for the post-war world, in favor of the revived Empire, and thirty years of genocidal warfare across Asia.

]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:43:48 -0500
But his bets will be made good, he said, if China implements three things: political and economic "reform;" bailout of the IMF to save the banking system; and going green. China, he said, must implement a stimulus which is "directed at stimulating investment in preventing global warming, because that is a problem that is facing the world. I hope that both the US and China will introduce energy saving and alternative energy generation as a way of stimulating the economy, because that is what you need to come out of this global recession."

Soros also exposed his own fascist proclivities: "We are back to Keynes," he said. "He had the right idea for the 1930s, and these ideas have come back in a cyclical fashion, and they are right for the 21st century." Keynes, of course, admitted in the 1930s that his policies were better implemented in a fascist dictatorship like that of Germany under Hitler, and later fought to reject FDR's anti-colonial proposals for the post-war world, in favor of the revived Empire, and thirty years of genocidal warfare across Asia.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106832-is-there-an-end-game-to-the-recession?source=feed#comment-311246 311246
This is not to say that all such misleaders were bad people. Some, like both George Bush administrations, were, admittedly, malicious. The fault of others, is that they gave the people the administration which it seemed that popular opinion desired; but, perhaps, they lacked the will to do better, since they lacked the stuff of which a President George Washington, a John Quincy Adams, an Abraham Lincoln, and a Franklin Delano Roosevelt were made.

A qualified leader of a great republic, especially one with that special quality of Constitution such as our own United States, is to know what the destiny of the nation and its people require, as Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt did, and to deliver the effort needed to bring the nation to safety, and, also, to contribute to the well-being of the community of nations generally.

I must concede the point, even as I must note the failures of the performance of recent Presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, who were not bad, but who intended good, but lacked the standard of leadership. Leadership, especially in times of grave crisis - - and this is now the greatest crisis in the history of all modern civilization - - must be a commitment to provide that mission which is required at that time, and, more than that, the destiny of coming generations.

For this reason, while there is a hopeful escape from the present general breakdown-crisis of the planet as a whole, there is only one course of action which could plausibly enable the planet to escape a global catastrophe now. (see other comments I have added esp. under

(i) Is Hyperinflation on the Horizon? (ii) Bretton Woods Redux: The Real Bridge to Nowhere ]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:13:29 -0500
This is not to say that all such misleaders were bad people. Some, like both George Bush administrations, were, admittedly, malicious. The fault of others, is that they gave the people the administration which it seemed that popular opinion desired; but, perhaps, they lacked the will to do better, since they lacked the stuff of which a President George Washington, a John Quincy Adams, an Abraham Lincoln, and a Franklin Delano Roosevelt were made.

A qualified leader of a great republic, especially one with that special quality of Constitution such as our own United States, is to know what the destiny of the nation and its people require, as Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt did, and to deliver the effort needed to bring the nation to safety, and, also, to contribute to the well-being of the community of nations generally.

I must concede the point, even as I must note the failures of the performance of recent Presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, who were not bad, but who intended good, but lacked the standard of leadership. Leadership, especially in times of grave crisis - - and this is now the greatest crisis in the history of all modern civilization - - must be a commitment to provide that mission which is required at that time, and, more than that, the destiny of coming generations.

For this reason, while there is a hopeful escape from the present general breakdown-crisis of the planet as a whole, there is only one course of action which could plausibly enable the planet to escape a global catastrophe now. (see other comments I have added esp. under

(i) Is Hyperinflation on the Horizon? (ii) Bretton Woods Redux: The Real Bridge to Nowhere ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107138-berkshire-hathaway-down-nine-days-in-a-row?source=feed#comment-311201 311201 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:52:59 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/107171-famous-thoughts-for-a-bear-market?source=feed#comment-311174 311174
"If I can use an image, it is like living in a video-game, with a key difference: In a video-game you can turn it off and the game is over. This is a video-game that will not be over. And just like in a video-game, you face a monster, you beat him and you start to relax, but another one comes, bigger than the first one; thus, the first monster was the sub-prime and somehow it was managed; the second monster was the collapse of credit and it was somehow managed; the third monster is the bankruptcy of the main financial institutions and it was somehow managed; the fourth one is the collapse of the stock markets, but behind the corner there are more monsters: the credit cards, the expected corporate bankruptcies due to troubled classification of corporate bonds, and then the monster of monsters, the derivative one, where the folly of incalculable risk appears, of non-intentional but collateral effects, definable not ex ante and not manageable without procedures that could evoke in the economic realm, the old wisdom of sabbatical year."

Tremonti quoted Cardinal Ratzinger in a 1985 paper, in which Ratzinger forecasted the collapse of a system based on market rules in the absence of "a discipline based on a strong ethical and religious order.. "We are in a terra incognita", Tremonti said. "In the current moment we are inside a situation characterized by big critical complexities. I said in a conference that this is not a recession cycle but a discontinuity... of a crisis that nevertheless leads to a solution, but you must go through it. I think that we must have scientific ignorance, knowing of not knowing. I think we should be diffident towards those who do not know that they do not know, those who, not having forecast the breakout of the crisis, want to explain to you how it will develop."

Tremonti listed a series of key changes introduced by globalization, that caused the crisis. Among these, he mentioned the rejection of Luca Pacioli's system of "double-entry bookkeeping". Calling it a "tribute we owe to an ancient Franciscan," Tremonti said that this shift was not a simple accounting change, but "a fundamental political and moral shift." "The real account is the world of values and the economic account is the world of prices. The real account is the world of values where you see the structure, the history, the origin, the present and the future of a society, as well as its industrial and moral mission." "The crisis we are living in is the crisis of a paradigm, which in the last 10-15 years has been dominated by the ideology of demand for consumer goods, often superfluous ones, better if purchased through debt... and eventually, the crisis of positivism that, at the same time, like in an insane oblivion of natural law, has deceived us into thinking that everything could be dominated by other than what is in our tradition, in the idea of a fair order, in the view of a fair social order which inspires the magistracy of the Church. The separation of moral law and economy, the effect of positivism has produced a view of man and of society in which morality is nothing but a subjective choice, and irreducibly so. Law [has become] nothing but the exercise of command by those who detain power, justum quia jussum, and the economy is nothing but an anonymous mechanism of satisfaction of individual and irrational whims, de gustibus non disputandum est... Moral law and economy have been separated, and globalization has accelerated this process, sublimated it, and favored the illusion that the individual person can always and increasingly distinguish between good and evil without the help of moral, of tradition, [but] on the basis of pseudo-scientific abstractions rather than on the basis of historic reason, as if one could crush man, values, time, space and history".

The solution to the crisis goes through a new system, that "will replace the paradigm of demand for superfluous and debt-driven consumer goods, it will be a moral, civilian and political paradigm that organizes demand on collective investments done for the common good: not for the present but for the future, and not debt-driven but made on a solid, ground-laying perspective. It will no longer be the market but individual and collective consciousness to judge power, not the other way around. One thought can inspire us on this road, an old and wise thought by Plato: `The only good currency to be changed with all others is phronesis: a practical intelligence.' Above all if it is guided by God."
]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:21:05 -0500
"If I can use an image, it is like living in a video-game, with a key difference: In a video-game you can turn it off and the game is over. This is a video-game that will not be over. And just like in a video-game, you face a monster, you beat him and you start to relax, but another one comes, bigger than the first one; thus, the first monster was the sub-prime and somehow it was managed; the second monster was the collapse of credit and it was somehow managed; the third monster is the bankruptcy of the main financial institutions and it was somehow managed; the fourth one is the collapse of the stock markets, but behind the corner there are more monsters: the credit cards, the expected corporate bankruptcies due to troubled classification of corporate bonds, and then the monster of monsters, the derivative one, where the folly of incalculable risk appears, of non-intentional but collateral effects, definable not ex ante and not manageable without procedures that could evoke in the economic realm, the old wisdom of sabbatical year."

Tremonti quoted Cardinal Ratzinger in a 1985 paper, in which Ratzinger forecasted the collapse of a system based on market rules in the absence of "a discipline based on a strong ethical and religious order.. "We are in a terra incognita", Tremonti said. "In the current moment we are inside a situation characterized by big critical complexities. I said in a conference that this is not a recession cycle but a discontinuity... of a crisis that nevertheless leads to a solution, but you must go through it. I think that we must have scientific ignorance, knowing of not knowing. I think we should be diffident towards those who do not know that they do not know, those who, not having forecast the breakout of the crisis, want to explain to you how it will develop."

Tremonti listed a series of key changes introduced by globalization, that caused the crisis. Among these, he mentioned the rejection of Luca Pacioli's system of "double-entry bookkeeping". Calling it a "tribute we owe to an ancient Franciscan," Tremonti said that this shift was not a simple accounting change, but "a fundamental political and moral shift." "The real account is the world of values and the economic account is the world of prices. The real account is the world of values where you see the structure, the history, the origin, the present and the future of a society, as well as its industrial and moral mission." "The crisis we are living in is the crisis of a paradigm, which in the last 10-15 years has been dominated by the ideology of demand for consumer goods, often superfluous ones, better if purchased through debt... and eventually, the crisis of positivism that, at the same time, like in an insane oblivion of natural law, has deceived us into thinking that everything could be dominated by other than what is in our tradition, in the idea of a fair order, in the view of a fair social order which inspires the magistracy of the Church. The separation of moral law and economy, the effect of positivism has produced a view of man and of society in which morality is nothing but a subjective choice, and irreducibly so. Law [has become] nothing but the exercise of command by those who detain power, justum quia jussum, and the economy is nothing but an anonymous mechanism of satisfaction of individual and irrational whims, de gustibus non disputandum est... Moral law and economy have been separated, and globalization has accelerated this process, sublimated it, and favored the illusion that the individual person can always and increasingly distinguish between good and evil without the help of moral, of tradition, [but] on the basis of pseudo-scientific abstractions rather than on the basis of historic reason, as if one could crush man, values, time, space and history".

The solution to the crisis goes through a new system, that "will replace the paradigm of demand for superfluous and debt-driven consumer goods, it will be a moral, civilian and political paradigm that organizes demand on collective investments done for the common good: not for the present but for the future, and not debt-driven but made on a solid, ground-laying perspective. It will no longer be the market but individual and collective consciousness to judge power, not the other way around. One thought can inspire us on this road, an old and wise thought by Plato: `The only good currency to be changed with all others is phronesis: a practical intelligence.' Above all if it is guided by God."
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107075-paulson-drops-the-ball-again?source=feed#comment-310824 310824
Today a circular letter was released signed by 400 economists, headed by Joseph Stiglitz, demanding a $350-400 billion stimulus annually for several years. Its purpose was stated by Dr. Laurie Appelbaum of Rutgers University to be, "filling the huge hole in economic demand" left by a collapse in consumption. Purely Keynes--the John Maynard Keynes who from 1932-36 looked to Nazi Germany as the model for his monetary theories. This morning Dr. Simon Johnson of the Peterson Institute was in front of the Senate Budget Committee calling for the same policy. This was ironic, since Johnson's boss Peter Peterson is spearheading the propaganda campaign for long-term drastic cuts in U.S. fiscal budgets, including particularly in Social Security and Medicare entitlements!

EIR representatives asked the four economists presenting the letter, including Stiglitz, why they hadn't emphasized that the cause of the economic collapse sweeping the globe was the breakdown of the financial and banking system--or discussed the need to reorganize the financial system in bankruptcy. All four answered in turn, that the measures of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had stabilized the financial crisis (!) and taken it off the table--exactly what Paulson and Bernanke had been claiming the previous day to a House Committee. "I think we stopped the financial collapse," said Dean Baker of Economic Policy Research Center, speaking for all of them and putting the "big stimulus" network firmly in Paulson's and Bernanke's camp.

Famous last words.

]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:00:55 -0500
Today a circular letter was released signed by 400 economists, headed by Joseph Stiglitz, demanding a $350-400 billion stimulus annually for several years. Its purpose was stated by Dr. Laurie Appelbaum of Rutgers University to be, "filling the huge hole in economic demand" left by a collapse in consumption. Purely Keynes--the John Maynard Keynes who from 1932-36 looked to Nazi Germany as the model for his monetary theories. This morning Dr. Simon Johnson of the Peterson Institute was in front of the Senate Budget Committee calling for the same policy. This was ironic, since Johnson's boss Peter Peterson is spearheading the propaganda campaign for long-term drastic cuts in U.S. fiscal budgets, including particularly in Social Security and Medicare entitlements!

EIR representatives asked the four economists presenting the letter, including Stiglitz, why they hadn't emphasized that the cause of the economic collapse sweeping the globe was the breakdown of the financial and banking system--or discussed the need to reorganize the financial system in bankruptcy. All four answered in turn, that the measures of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had stabilized the financial crisis (!) and taken it off the table--exactly what Paulson and Bernanke had been claiming the previous day to a House Committee. "I think we stopped the financial collapse," said Dean Baker of Economic Policy Research Center, speaking for all of them and putting the "big stimulus" network firmly in Paulson's and Bernanke's camp.

Famous last words.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106832-is-there-an-end-game-to-the-recession?source=feed#comment-310321 310321
In a directive issued on November 17, the Ministry announced that China's provincial and local governments must give "top priority" to keeping workers on the job. Not only the cheap-export-oriented industries, but also China's steel, aluminum, auto, and other basic industries, are laying off masses of workers. The Ministry is demanding not only measures to control the layoffs, but also emergency plans to prevent, or deal with, large groups of unemployed workers. In the export sector, bankrupt foreign factory owners are shutting down and fleeing China, leaving unpaid workers on the streets.

The Ministry wants the local emergency plans to be reported as soon as possible, and called for an "efficient" channel to deal with labor disputes, China Daily reported. Steps must be taken to guarantee unemployment insurance, try to get workers reemployed, and support migrant workers.

Both Shandong and Hubei provinces are now requiring companies to get prior approval for any layoffs of more than 40 workers, a stricter amendment of the national labor contract law, which came into effect in January. This year so far, almost 700,000 workers have lost their jobs in Shandong, a center of export production. China's state-owned companies in finance, oil, power, and telecommunications, have been told to cut wages, not jobs.

]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:44:12 -0500
In a directive issued on November 17, the Ministry announced that China's provincial and local governments must give "top priority" to keeping workers on the job. Not only the cheap-export-oriented industries, but also China's steel, aluminum, auto, and other basic industries, are laying off masses of workers. The Ministry is demanding not only measures to control the layoffs, but also emergency plans to prevent, or deal with, large groups of unemployed workers. In the export sector, bankrupt foreign factory owners are shutting down and fleeing China, leaving unpaid workers on the streets.

The Ministry wants the local emergency plans to be reported as soon as possible, and called for an "efficient" channel to deal with labor disputes, China Daily reported. Steps must be taken to guarantee unemployment insurance, try to get workers reemployed, and support migrant workers.

Both Shandong and Hubei provinces are now requiring companies to get prior approval for any layoffs of more than 40 workers, a stricter amendment of the national labor contract law, which came into effect in January. This year so far, almost 700,000 workers have lost their jobs in Shandong, a center of export production. China's state-owned companies in finance, oil, power, and telecommunications, have been told to cut wages, not jobs.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106786-after-g-20-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-old-order?source=feed#comment-310115 310115 FSF) as the world bankers' government. Draghi and IMF head Strauss-Kahn catapulting to action as early as November 13, sending a letter to the G-20 leaders, with the guidelines of the plan which envisions the FSF and the IMF as the two pillars of the world government.

At the November 14 working dinner at the White House, Draghi gave the main address. On November 17, the daily Il Giornale commented, "Only one central banker appears in the family photo of the 25 participants at the G-20 financial-economic summit--a clear privilege of Mario Draghi, present at the Washington summit as chairman of the FSF."

The FSF was founded in 1999 on British initiative, when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is based in Basel at the Bank for International Settlements, and includes major central bankers and financial "regulators." The plan is to enlarge it to include China and Russia. To achieve its goals, the FSF "needs the support of the new U.S. administration. And one of the candidates for a top position at the U.S. Treasury is N.Y. Federal Reserve chairman Tim Geithner, who in recent months has closely collaborated with Draghi," Il Giornale writes.

Mario Draghi became famous as "Mr. Britannia" in January 1993, when EIR exposed his participation as a government official in the June 2, 1992 meeting on the British royal yacht Britannia, off Italy's territorial waters. At that meeting, bankers from the City of London and Italian businessmen discussed future privatizations.

At that point, Draghi was director general of the Treasury Ministry. Under the Ciampi government, he was then appointed head of the Privatizations Committees, and oversaw all privatizations. He also authored a reform of the 1936 banking law that eliminated all firewalls between commercial banking, insurance, and investment activities, and a liberalization of the stock market that allowed hostile takeovers. Eventually, he left the Treasury in 2002 and became European Director for Goldman Sachs. He was then appointed Governor of the Bank of Italy in December 2005, in the aftermath of a scandal that caused the resignation of Antonio Fazio, the central banker who tried to oppose a foreign takeover of a regional bank in Northern Italy by ABN-Amro.

Draghi is so afraid to be called "Mr. Britannia", that last year he filed a libel suit against a right-wing newspaper in Rome. Strangely enough, he did not file a suit against the Italian Movisol website, which had been the source for the article.

]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:12:16 -0500 FSF) as the world bankers' government. Draghi and IMF head Strauss-Kahn catapulting to action as early as November 13, sending a letter to the G-20 leaders, with the guidelines of the plan which envisions the FSF and the IMF as the two pillars of the world government.

At the November 14 working dinner at the White House, Draghi gave the main address. On November 17, the daily Il Giornale commented, "Only one central banker appears in the family photo of the 25 participants at the G-20 financial-economic summit--a clear privilege of Mario Draghi, present at the Washington summit as chairman of the FSF."

The FSF was founded in 1999 on British initiative, when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is based in Basel at the Bank for International Settlements, and includes major central bankers and financial "regulators." The plan is to enlarge it to include China and Russia. To achieve its goals, the FSF "needs the support of the new U.S. administration. And one of the candidates for a top position at the U.S. Treasury is N.Y. Federal Reserve chairman Tim Geithner, who in recent months has closely collaborated with Draghi," Il Giornale writes.

Mario Draghi became famous as "Mr. Britannia" in January 1993, when EIR exposed his participation as a government official in the June 2, 1992 meeting on the British royal yacht Britannia, off Italy's territorial waters. At that meeting, bankers from the City of London and Italian businessmen discussed future privatizations.

At that point, Draghi was director general of the Treasury Ministry. Under the Ciampi government, he was then appointed head of the Privatizations Committees, and oversaw all privatizations. He also authored a reform of the 1936 banking law that eliminated all firewalls between commercial banking, insurance, and investment activities, and a liberalization of the stock market that allowed hostile takeovers. Eventually, he left the Treasury in 2002 and became European Director for Goldman Sachs. He was then appointed Governor of the Bank of Italy in December 2005, in the aftermath of a scandal that caused the resignation of Antonio Fazio, the central banker who tried to oppose a foreign takeover of a regional bank in Northern Italy by ABN-Amro.

Draghi is so afraid to be called "Mr. Britannia", that last year he filed a libel suit against a right-wing newspaper in Rome. Strangely enough, he did not file a suit against the Italian Movisol website, which had been the source for the article.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106615-ecuador-approaches-default?source=feed#comment-308969 308969
Rather, he said, his government has serious questions as to the legitimacy of the foreign debt. Speaking on his weekly radio show, he said he would use the 30-day grace period which the debt contract allows, to further study the situation, and would consult the finding of a special commission which has spent months auditing the foreign debt, and whose final report will be released on Nov. 20.

The commission's preliminary findings have already been "truly horrifying," Correa said, with more than enough proof of illegal and abusive behavior by foreign creditors.

Immediately after the government missed the payment, Standard & Whores rating agency cut Ecuador's rating to CCC-, three levels above default. But Correa responded that what S&P, and other "financial speculators and creditors" do, doesn't interest him in the least. "We shall act in the country's interest, and [on behalf] of the common good." That is the only important criteria, he said.

]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:46:19 -0500
Rather, he said, his government has serious questions as to the legitimacy of the foreign debt. Speaking on his weekly radio show, he said he would use the 30-day grace period which the debt contract allows, to further study the situation, and would consult the finding of a special commission which has spent months auditing the foreign debt, and whose final report will be released on Nov. 20.

The commission's preliminary findings have already been "truly horrifying," Correa said, with more than enough proof of illegal and abusive behavior by foreign creditors.

Immediately after the government missed the payment, Standard & Whores rating agency cut Ecuador's rating to CCC-, three levels above default. But Correa responded that what S&P, and other "financial speculators and creditors" do, doesn't interest him in the least. "We shall act in the country's interest, and [on behalf] of the common good." That is the only important criteria, he said.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106581-bailing-on-the-bailout-adds-to-market-uncertainty?source=feed#comment-308858 308858
In an interview with La Repubblica, Alesina says: "There is a difference between the intervention to avoid the failure of a bank ... and the failure of a non-financial company, or the crisis of an industrial sector." Banks should receive state money, but the state "should stay away from managing and conditioning the credit issued." Further, industrial firms should not be supported. Let them die, and give the money to the newly laid off workers. "Instead of giving money to a declining industry, it would be better to give it to those unemployed from that industry, in order to keep demand up." He expanded: "Moments of crisis are also moments of creative destruction; companies die that have no future, and new ones are born, which instead have a future." And don't heed the cries coming from industry so much: "Companies are interested in being dramatic in order to get more state aid."

]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:14:27 -0500
In an interview with La Repubblica, Alesina says: "There is a difference between the intervention to avoid the failure of a bank ... and the failure of a non-financial company, or the crisis of an industrial sector." Banks should receive state money, but the state "should stay away from managing and conditioning the credit issued." Further, industrial firms should not be supported. Let them die, and give the money to the newly laid off workers. "Instead of giving money to a declining industry, it would be better to give it to those unemployed from that industry, in order to keep demand up." He expanded: "Moments of crisis are also moments of creative destruction; companies die that have no future, and new ones are born, which instead have a future." And don't heed the cries coming from industry so much: "Companies are interested in being dramatic in order to get more state aid."

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106581-bailing-on-the-bailout-adds-to-market-uncertainty?source=feed#comment-308828 308828
The leading edge of this trade crisis is in bulk commodities, which have been hit with a dual whammy of plunging commodities prices and trade-finance shortages. Adding to the difficulty is that many bulk cargoes are financed in dollars, and dollars are increasingly difficult to obtain due to the demands of the multi-quadrillion-doll... derivatives market.

The world depends upon trade, especially during this age of globalization, with nations more dependent than ever upon foreign suppliers for the necessities of life. When this trade slows, people begin to die. When the wheat doesn't get exported, the mills cannot produce flour, the bakeries cannot produce breads, and the stores have no bread to sell. When the iron ore doesn't ship, no steel can be produced, which means factories begin to shut down, and so on, until the entire economy grinds to a halt.

We can live without the derivatives markets, the CDOs, and the other alphabet-soup financial gimmicks, but we cannot live without global trade, and we cannot survive if the supply chain breaks. That means we need a functioning banking system, one which can meet the needs of the population. What we have instead is a system that has failed to the point that it can no longer meet its basic responsibilities, and must be reorganized according to the principles outlined by Lyndon LaRouche.

The consequences of a collapse of the global supply chain would be catastrophic for all of mankind--death, famine, pestilence, the breakdown of civilization itself. The failure to solve this problem, whether by incompetence or deliberate intent, is genocide. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial system has failed, and we must abandon it in favor of an American System credit system, quickly.

]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:51:27 -0500
The leading edge of this trade crisis is in bulk commodities, which have been hit with a dual whammy of plunging commodities prices and trade-finance shortages. Adding to the difficulty is that many bulk cargoes are financed in dollars, and dollars are increasingly difficult to obtain due to the demands of the multi-quadrillion-doll... derivatives market.

The world depends upon trade, especially during this age of globalization, with nations more dependent than ever upon foreign suppliers for the necessities of life. When this trade slows, people begin to die. When the wheat doesn't get exported, the mills cannot produce flour, the bakeries cannot produce breads, and the stores have no bread to sell. When the iron ore doesn't ship, no steel can be produced, which means factories begin to shut down, and so on, until the entire economy grinds to a halt.

We can live without the derivatives markets, the CDOs, and the other alphabet-soup financial gimmicks, but we cannot live without global trade, and we cannot survive if the supply chain breaks. That means we need a functioning banking system, one which can meet the needs of the population. What we have instead is a system that has failed to the point that it can no longer meet its basic responsibilities, and must be reorganized according to the principles outlined by Lyndon LaRouche.

The consequences of a collapse of the global supply chain would be catastrophic for all of mankind--death, famine, pestilence, the breakdown of civilization itself. The failure to solve this problem, whether by incompetence or deliberate intent, is genocide. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial system has failed, and we must abandon it in favor of an American System credit system, quickly.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/101892-a-new-bretton-woods-to-restructure-the-international-financial-system?source=feed#comment-308674 308674
One of the latest is the tiny nation of Iceland, which yesterday made the concessions necessary to get a $2.1 billion IMF loan, including agreeing to compensate individual British and Dutch savers for their personal losses in the collapse of the internet bank Icesave, which will cost Iceland some $5 billion. That's right: Iceland shells out $5 billion, in exchange for $2.1 billion! Iceland may also get Dutch and British-financed EU loans, if they behave. Next on the agenda could be Iceland joining the EU and possibly the euro zone.

Pakistan is also being bled by the IMF...and the ongoing Afghanistan regional war. Since 2004, the "war on terror" has cost them over Rs 2 trillion--about $33 billion--the Ministry of Finance reported yesterday. Pakistan is a nation of 165 million people, where two-thirds of the population lives on the equivalent of less than $2 a day--the official definition of "poverty." Inflation is now 25%, and the IMF is demanding more taxation, including on agriculture. The rupee has fallen 23% to the dollar this year, sending the costs of oil and other imports sky-high. Pakistan is slated to get a pathetic $7.6 billion from the IMF between this year and next, primarily to help the country meet external debt payments by February.

Serbia is also scheduled to get a $4 billion loan from IMF, in return for government budget cutbacks. Svenska Dagbladet today warned that the Serbian GDP could collapse by 50% next year.

Belarus is in a tug-of war with the IMF, threatening to pull out of the IMF if it refuses to grant them a $2 billion loan. President Aleksandr Lukashenko told the Wall Street Journal: "We survived without IMF loans before, during the severest of times... If they deny it now...why should we co-operate?"
]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:51:37 -0500
One of the latest is the tiny nation of Iceland, which yesterday made the concessions necessary to get a $2.1 billion IMF loan, including agreeing to compensate individual British and Dutch savers for their personal losses in the collapse of the internet bank Icesave, which will cost Iceland some $5 billion. That's right: Iceland shells out $5 billion, in exchange for $2.1 billion! Iceland may also get Dutch and British-financed EU loans, if they behave. Next on the agenda could be Iceland joining the EU and possibly the euro zone.

Pakistan is also being bled by the IMF...and the ongoing Afghanistan regional war. Since 2004, the "war on terror" has cost them over Rs 2 trillion--about $33 billion--the Ministry of Finance reported yesterday. Pakistan is a nation of 165 million people, where two-thirds of the population lives on the equivalent of less than $2 a day--the official definition of "poverty." Inflation is now 25%, and the IMF is demanding more taxation, including on agriculture. The rupee has fallen 23% to the dollar this year, sending the costs of oil and other imports sky-high. Pakistan is slated to get a pathetic $7.6 billion from the IMF between this year and next, primarily to help the country meet external debt payments by February.

Serbia is also scheduled to get a $4 billion loan from IMF, in return for government budget cutbacks. Svenska Dagbladet today warned that the Serbian GDP could collapse by 50% next year.

Belarus is in a tug-of war with the IMF, threatening to pull out of the IMF if it refuses to grant them a $2 billion loan. President Aleksandr Lukashenko told the Wall Street Journal: "We survived without IMF loans before, during the severest of times... If they deny it now...why should we co-operate?"
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106025-bretton-woods-redux-the-real-bridge-to-nowhere?source=feed#comment-307117 307117
science-driven, capital-intensive, energy-dense modes of production and transportation, without which some form of great disaster will surely and now quickly overtake the planet, whatever the otherwise beneficial reforms might be.

Secondly, we must reorganize relations among states according to what can be described as a Franklin Roosevelt Bretton Woods system, not a Truman, nor a Keynesian counterfeit. The former policy means building up science-driven, power-dense restoration of formerly industrialized nations to their former, pre-1968-1971 roles in the planet as a whole, this in order to generate a long wave of increase of per-capita density of infrastructure and net output per square kilometer of territory.

Thirdly, to make these beneficial changes feasible, we must build up a mass of long-lived basic economic infrastructure of the planet, as this is indispensable for meeting the production and consumption goals of all sectors of humanity. This requires a new, international credit-system, to replace, and essentially eliminate, the presently failed European idea of monetary systems. This will require the U.S. to follow U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton (not pathetic "Mad Hatter" Hank Paulson, nor "Dormouse" Ben Bernanke), in the establishing of national banking institutions as the intermediaries of regular transactions between the treasuries of sovereign governments. No more of those damnable, European Central Banking Systems which are already presently bankrupted beyond redemption through the efforts to sustain the mountainous derivatives bubble launched by the U.S.A.'s Alan Greenspan.

Our proper shared concern, inside the U.S.A. and also Russia, is that systemic errors of either adopted interpretations of Marxist doctrine, or the actual doctrine itself, not become systemic, not viciously systemic obstacles to timely adoption of those urgently needed reforms in relations among the prospective allied nations of a revival of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 intentions for what is called a Bretton Woods system.[12]

The Relevant Obstacles


In the case of Russia, but not Russia alone, the foremost of these problems, is Marx's notion of capitalism, a notion, as expressed by him and others, whose implied view of the U.S.A., in particular, was one which has no reality in the actual establishment of the U.S.A. as an historically novel form of Federal republic.

The first such, unfortunate fact of this moment, is that no generally employed accounting system in the world today, permits any consideration of those essential, universal principles of human creativity on which all physically successful economic policy, excepting stealing (such as that of the derivative swindles, or kindred predatory practices) depend, absolutely.

The second such is the complete suppression of the notion of the role of human creativity in national economy. On this most crucial point, the actual policies of Karl Marx become a serious threat to progress, since Karl Marx's writings never acknowledged the role of the active presence of creative powers akin to those of fundamental, capital-intensive, scientific progress in increasing the productive powers of labor, nor those in any way which reflect the existence of such powers.

Marx's systemic exclusion of the specific concept of human scientific and Classical-artistic creativity which separates mankind categorically from beasts, was always a fatal systemic flaw in his argument, and, therefore, his British-empiricism-dri... denial of the actual existence of human individual creative-mental powers, to a significantly large degree, as also by his avowed followers, as by all other varieties of radical reductionists, such as the empiricists and positivists of today.

This, and all related kinds of major errors in Marx's arguments respecting political-economy are rooted in the corrupting influence he enjoyed from his preferred sources in the Haileybury School of Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, et al. Every part of the teaching of this school, was evil, and must be recognized as such.

Contrary to evil Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus's Prometheus Bound, the proper goal for man, is not the education of the individual, but the development of the creative powers of that individual. Man is not to be educated as a dog to do tricks, but to become a creator in the likeness of our Creator.[13]

I identify and explain the principle of actual human creativity a bit later in this present chapter. First, before turning to the physical-scientific core of this issue, I situate the issue historically.

The Effects of Empiricism


Marx's own adoption of Adam Smith's doctrine for economics is, essentially, typical of the systemically crippling intellectual enslavement of many nations, by the Eighteenth-Century British empiricism which had produced imperialist Lord Shelburne's agent Adam Smith. The recruiters to Marxism did not need to indoctrinate their following in this sort of belief; usually, the Liberal indoctrinaires had already delivered that supply of Liberal sophistry, on which Marx had also relied, to their victims from among the general public in their society and culture, usually in childhood or adolescence, in schools and other commonplace ways.

The argument, respecting empiricism, which I have just summarized, is true; but, we must be careful about attributing individual beliefs, too strongly, to the individual's judgment to almost anything that happens in society, either to Marx or almost any other person, as such. As I shall have reason to place special emphasis on this point, in the course of this present report, the principle of dynamics, competently understood, warns us that the adopted beliefs and related behavior of the typical member of a society, or a species, have been, usually, chiefly rooted in the society, or species, rather than originating in the mind of the individual member of that group—excepting extraordinary persons and situations in society. Those exceptions, either for the very good, or very bad, exist, but even those exceptions can be rarely understood in any different way than as remarkable exceptions in the characteristics of the individual will.

The essential issue respecting mass behavior, as the focus of attention in this report, is that which I pin-pointed earlier in the course of this present chapter of the report. It is the systemic exclusion of actual human creativity from any part of the British Eighteenth-Century empiricism of Adam Smith, et al. This exclusion is typical of the empiricism on which both the so-called science and avowed dogmas of Cartesian method were extended, to form, thus, the mass behavior expressed by the Newtonian pseudo-science and also British political-economy. Those are beliefs which may be presumed to have been derived from the same empiricist ideology employed by the plagiarist Adam Smith.[14]

This is key for understanding the systemically fatal flaw in what Karl Marx professed to be his reductionist conception of materialism, which was the belief which Marx swallowed from the British authors he admired wishfully as the font of "the only economic science," whether from Britain's Frederick Engels, the British Museum's David Urquhart, Palmerston's Giuseppi Mazzini, or other such sources. All of the systemic errors intrinsically underlying the prevalent ideological assumptions of sundry varieties of Marxian movements, have been errors which contributed directly to the most crucial, and presumedly scientifically profound among the blunders in policies of civilian economic practice in Soviet Russia, as distinct from the military practice of the Soviet Union, for example.

The most notable result of these types of simplistic errors in Marx's adopted opinions and his method, echoes the wider spread of the dogma of such dupes as the empiricists (and later positivists), and, also, the even more badly educated academic circles throughout much of the world generally since the rise of the existentialists' influence, that especially since 1968's Dionysiac rioters, until today. Among such latter varieties of folk, the silly, crudely aprioristic notion prevailed, that since society had been assimilated into the industrial capitalist interests of specific nations, as defined by Adam Smith and other members of the British East India Company's Haileybury School, any form of modern imperialism today must be presumed to be essentially a product of what the British identify as the industrial-capitalist "stage of development." Such had been the adopted basis, a priori, for what I have referenced, at the outset of this publication, as the misguided view of imperialism represented by such as both Lenin and the leading German Social-Democrats.

To sum up that point: as I have just emphasized it in these final paragraphs of this first chapter of the main body of my report, the great flaw commonplace to Marxian socialism lies essentially in its adoption of the prevalent, but erroneous ideology respecting the human principle underlying healthy directions of change in society. That is an ideology which Marx himself adopted, but which was also an ideology already distributed full-blown from the body of British Eighteenth-Century empiricist ideology, such as that of John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Bentham's Haileybury school generally.

Before turning to that central feature of this next chapter of the report, let us begin that chapter by putting a few of the most significant collateral matters to rest. For this purpose, turn attention directly to the practical and proper juridical, and scientific meaning of the term imperialism.




2. Science & Human Ecology





After certain important prefatory remarks, this second chapter of the report will be devoted to the subject of the determining agency associated with the increase of mankind's power not only to increase its productive powers of labor, but to overcome what would otherwise be a decline in the ability of the Biosphere, not only to support an increase of both physical productivity, per capita and per square kilometer, but, also, to nullify the tendency of population-growth and previous human consumption to deplete the Biosphere.

To prepare the table for that crucial, scientific discussion, I begin this chapter with the following note on those aspects of the nature and effects of actual imperialism relevant for this part of the report.

First of all, as I have already emphasized this, contrary to Lenin and relevant others, "imperialism" was not "a stage of capitalism." Imperialism as known to Europe, is older than Babylon. "Finance capitalism" as the German Social-Democracy and Lenin named it, is much older than that which the followers of Marx called "capitalism" or "socialism." It is also older than the brutish ruining of the bow-tenure plots of once-proud Sumer by the introduction of the same "loan shark" methods which had been used against Sumer's farmers. Again and again, ancient, medieval, and modern civilizations have been ruined by the same practice of usury, as used again and again, to induce the civilizations of Southwest Asia to destroy themselves as if by their own hands, as has been done, since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, by globally extended Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, most notably since the break-up of the already looted Bretton Woods System, in 1971-72.

The combination of the 1971-72 break-up of the Bretton Woods system, as followed quickly, in 1973, by the predatory Anglo-Dutch-Saudi conspiracy which created the reign of the Anglo-Dutch petroleum "spot market" over the world's finance, destroyed the U.S.A.'s control over its own dollar, and degraded the world monetary-financial dollar to a mere toy in the hands of the British empire. The influence of what had been once called British imperialism, as opposed to the true nation-state, has been a continuously leading phenomenon in globally extended European history from that time, to the present day.[15] As Rosa Luxemburg had explained, and Herbert Feis later, imperialism, is, today, as then, simply a 1970s rebirth of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal tyranny of a global financial system based, as both Rosa Luxemburg and Herbert Feis had shown, on a revived Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of international, essentially usurious loans.

For all practical purposes, in opening any discussion of the present global crisis-situation, we should start with the rough, working assumption, that there is no essential difference, as to type, between the natures of the causes of the general, global financial breakdown-crisis which has been ongoing since late July 2007, and the characteristic cause of the collapse of Fourteenth-Century Europe into a catastrophic "break-down" crisis, like that now in accelerating motion, world-wide today. Lest we had forgotten that medieval New Dark Age, into which we are now being plunged once again, by the same kind of Venetian-controlled system of international loans experienced during the Fourteenth Century, afresh, this time in the guise of financial derivatives, today.

Therefore, the following must be said here on the subject of imperialism generally.

Since the fall of the Achaemenid dynasty, and the later rise of imperial Rome during the aftermath of the Second Punic War, continental Europe, whether within or beyond the Mediterranean regions, has always been dominated by ruling political-financial institutions in the tradition traceable from the role of usury in the collapse of the bow-tenure system of Sumer, via Babylon, this despite the greatness of the intervening period of ascension of the Baghdad Caliphate, as to the present day's general, global, monetary-financial downfall.

However, it is also true, that we must now escape that same kind of moral decadence which exerted great influence on the civilization of the European continent, especially since the shock of February 1763, despite a parallel, contrary, Renaissance-like feature of the 1763-1789, pro-American, anti-British, Classical interval. This was the interval typified by the crucial contributions from German Renaissance factors such as Abraham Kästner, his student Gotthold Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn, Goethe, Schiller, and Lazare Carnot, as continued for a time by the von Humboldt brothers, Johann Friedrich Herbart, et al. The pro-American generation from the time preceding the ugly shock of the Jacobin Terror, and Pierre Robespierre's sometime protégé Napoleon Bonaparte, reflected the impact of the essential, necessary nature of the parallel role of the colonial developments in North America, in combating the morally corrupting, pro-oligarchical habits underlying the persistence of that decadence already pervading the modern traditions of European political, and related culture.

As I shall indicate at an appropriate point in this report, below, what might appear to some, mistakenly, as a certain confusion in these among my characterizations of the relevant intervals of history thus far, is not a product of any confusion in my argument here. It merely reflects the fact that I found it prudent pedagogy, for the sake of ultimate clarity, that rather than incur distracting side-tracks in the interim, to postpone the conclusion of a certain discussion of the relevant principle of dynamics, until an appropriate, later point in the development of that argument here, when the ground for introducing that clarification will have been better prepared in the mind of the reader. My justification for that course of action will be made clear before the conclusion of this present report.

There is, already, as I shall show, within this present chapter of this report, another fuller exposition of a crucially significant, profound principle of the science of physical economy, which must be presented, before a straight-forward treatment of the underlying principles of economy as science could be introduced to this present discussion.



These principles of economic science, on which all of my always "successful" forecasts since 1956, have been premised, have now been confirmed by such recent developments as a stunning accumulation of my recent, unique successes as an economic forecaster, such that, intelligent people with a relevant sense of experience, are looking with mixed astonishment and despair at their formerly accustomed view on the subject of economics, and are asking of me, "How did you do it?" Some people would never see a physician about their illnesses, until a certain element of fear brought them to the equivalent of the physician's door. The difference is, as with my former so-called critics, that circumstances have brought them to the point, that, as it is said, "The sane ones are more than ready to listen."

Despite all that, there is nothing terribly new to me, in particular, about the disease now to be discussed in these pages, only the profundity of, and remedies for the present crisis.

The Principle of Empire
The baldly exposed current intention of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal, or so-called "British" empire, is to eliminate the existence of the sovereign nation-state from this planet, now as rapidly as possible. The names for this British campaign include "globalization," "free trade," and neo-malthusian "environmentalism."

If such brutish impulses as those are not defeated, and reversed, a vastly shrunken remnant of mankind will inhabit a new barbarism of a planet probably populated by much less than one billions living persons. Presuming that we avoid nuclear warfare, the brutish imperial goal, which is more or less the goal adopted publicly (and with great emphasis) by Britain's Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, would be "achieved" within approximately one to two generations. Centuries would be required for the descendants of that remnant of humanity to creep and crawl back to something which might be regarded as a semblance of what was once known as the relatively civilized state of much of humanity prior to these horrid developments now oncoming today.

That is the key to understanding why the present global, strategic situation is so monstrously dangerous, why those forces centered in the ideologies of the Anglo-Dutch political descendants of Paolo Sarpi are such a monstrous sort of present danger to all mankind.

To understand this grave, immediate strategic threat, we must learn the lessons embedded in manifest long-range patterns of human behavior, as, for example, since prior to the founding of Sumer, from times preceding the known history of empires over the recent seven or more thousand years.

So, since the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, through the role of the essentially barbarous British Empire still today, the principal leading political powers within globally extended European and near-Asian civilization, have been based on an endemic form of usury which sometimes erupts in such extreme forms of imperialist practice as that of Europe's Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age."

Typical of this chronic, pathological tendency for today, are the Anglo-Dutch controlled, international drug-cartels, typified by British intelligence's George Soros' financial operations based among his many roosts from around the world, such as his havens in the Dutch Antilles, and his top-down control over Howard Dean's U.S. Democratic Party today. Or, compare the price of a farmer's opium crop in Southwest Asian regions such as Afghanistan, with the price of the same product, ten thousand times greater, when British-linked networks have brought the product into European or U.S.A. markets associated with locals of the activities of George Soros or his kind. This presently hyper-inflationary echo of Germany 1923 and Fourteenth-Century Europe's so-called New Dark Age, is integral to the influence of such auxiliaries of today's British imperialism as former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, and the notable swindler, Alan Greenspan.

However, there is a much more profound, specifically, and also systemically scientific meaning of that term imperialism. Therefore, please turn your attention to defining those indispensable conceptions here and now: turn to the extremely relevant subject of real "human ecology," as distinct from the brutish views of the Duke of Edinburgh and his perverse, and thoroughly vicious lackey, the former U.S. Vice-President, and perennially plump Leporello, Al Gore.

This present economic crisis is not the spread of "an American recession," nor a "recession" at all. It was never "a sub-prime crisis." It has shown itself clearly in recent developments, as I warned publicly and widely since my widely broadcast address of July 25, 2007. It has shown itself, exactly as I warned then, to have been a general monetary-financial, and physical breakdown-crisis of the present financial-monetary-eco... system of our planet as a whole. Since I had warned repeatedly of the oncoming characteristics among the types of economic phenomena leading into this crisis, the relevant question often asked of me now, has two parts. First, how did I know? Second, why did the supposed experts fail to recognize what I had already foreseen, and had repeatedly described as a long-range trend, that with remarkable precision, over, in point of fact, all these now five decades past?

What, therefore, is, or should be, the science and practice of economy for today, actually?

What Is 'Human Ecology'?
This brings us now to the explicitly physical-scientific aspects of the matter placed before us. To illustrate the core argument of this present chapter of the report, consider the systemic implications to be found in examining the comparative ecologies of three selected, respectively distinct orders (in fact) among living species: the marsupials, the mammals, and the human beings.[16] This takes us toward to the core of a science of physical economy. Understand dynamics as being coherent with the successive phases of development of the methods of Gottfried Leibniz, Carl Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, and Bernhard Riemann. Choose this view, whose modern origins are anti-Cartesian dynamics, rather than the terms employed in the empiricists' Cartesian form of reductionism. Both marsupials and mammals have respectively, qualitatively different, but relatively (dynamically) fixed ranges of variation of degrees of relative potential population-densities; whereas, the human potential relative population-density, while also dynamic, is not bounded in that way. Examine this matter more closely, for its bearing on the matter of the global economic breakdown-crisis already in progress now.[17]

The outline of the principal features of that subject, is presently of great importance for correcting some potentially deadly errors in the practice of economists, and even of some very serious physical scientists, today. The subject is, at bottom, that unique nature of our human species which underlies all of man's competent knowledge of both himself and his universe.

To illustrate this crucially important fact, look, first, at a culture in which the marsupial order had been dominant, dynamically, as in Australia prior to the English settlement; and, then, after that, consider the effect of the process of ongoing takeover of formerly marsupial habitats by mammalians, or even by human beings. Generally speaking, the invasion, by the mammalian order, of a habitat formerly dominated by marsupials, results in a process of collapse (e.g., replacement) of the potential structure of the array of types of creatures constituting the population of the marsupial order, to such effect, that most types of the latter tend to disappear, eventually, as a result of this process (excepting, for example, garbage-collectors such as the opossum).

However, there is a fundamental difference of principle between the respective kinds of ecological dynamics of those first two orders of species, on the one hand, and that of the existence of humanity, on the other. The human species' ecology is not simply bounded by the ecology in the same way as the respective animal orders of both the marsupials, the mammals, and others generally. The members of the human order are not bounded, at least not in a definitive way, by heritable genetic determinations of the kind of dynamic set of potential affecting the lower species, as found in the cases of either the marsupial or mammalian order.



The systematic understanding of this fundamental distinction, in physical principle, of the human species from all others, requires adoption of the standpoint of a modern dynamics as previously defined by Gottfried Leibniz. This is what is also expressed, implicitly, in a qualitatively more advanced degree, by Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, when compared with what Leibniz defined as dynamics, in opposition to Descartes, as I have already emphasized here. Without employing that intermediate, Leibniz-Riemann development in the dynamic approach to defining the relative population-potential of a society, per capita and per square kilometer, an approach conducted in Riemann's terms, the results of any argument on this subject would be intrinsically incompetent. Effective insight into most of the worst errors of assumption in political and related practice of entire nations today, is provided within Riemann's appreciation of the anti-Cartesian implications of, once more, Leibniz's own Specimen Dynamicum.

In Russian academic scientific experience, this matter is expressed in a relatively advanced, and crucially significant way by the manner in which the great physical chemist Academician V.I. Vernadsky defined the Biosphere, and also the Noösphere, dynamically.

Succinctly, the human population can outrun the inferred immediate limits of its habitat, as no animal species could; this qualitative up-shift in the potential of the human population, is effected by raising the qualitative level of the species-behavior of some leading portion of a society to a higher physical state of dynamic potency, as such an advance can be approximately defined as a rise in net energy-flux-density of the human society's habitation of the relevant domain.

This access of a progressively developing society to a higher physical state of potential relative population-density, involves the willfully conscious discovery of new physical principles, or their artistic equivalent, as Leibniz has anticipated Bernhard Riemann's outlook in Leibniz's own Specimen Dynamicum, in anticipating Riemann's sweeping eradication, in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, of all aprioristic definitions, axioms, and postulates of sundry geometries, such as those from Euclid through the dupes of the virtually Satanic Bertrand Russell. Riemann presents his essential case, even in summary, in the opening pages, and closing sentence, of his great 1854 habilitation dissertation. In all cases, this has been made clear for modern physical science, as I shall emphasize, and as Albert Einstein did, as being an outgrowth of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of the universal harmonies underlying Kepler's uniquely original method of discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.

Thus, although the legacy of Rene Descartes (or, the same thing, the myth of Newtonian science) underlies all modern academic and related opposition to Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, and Riemann today, it is only those more friendly predecessors of Riemann whose achievements afford us a competent general view of the principled nature of the process of development of modern science today, including any attempts at an actual physical science of economy.

Why Kepler Is Crucial


The most relevant case to this effect, is illustrated by Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation, as Albert Einstein lays stress on this unique achievement by Kepler. What Kepler actually proves, beyond his principle of universal gravitation as such, is that, as Einstein emphasized, any such discovery of an efficiently universal discovery of physical or comparable principle, defines, what is in principle, a finite universe, rather than an indefinitely extended form of a Euclidean or Cartesian one. This means a Kepler-Riemann-Einstei... universe which is, thus, self-bounded by such universal principles, and which, therefore, defines a universe without external bounds (hence finite in Einstein's sense).[18]

This standpoint in scientific method, is absolutely indispensable for any currently, adequately competent physical-scientific insights into any quality of the world's economy known, retrospectively, or currently, to historians today.

Thus, the power unique to the individual human mind, the power to effect discoveries of principle of that significance, distinguishes the members of the human species, and that species as a whole, as a category of living existence absolutely distinct, as a species of existence, from all lower forms of life. This distinction, as defined in scientific-functional terms of reference, is an absolute distinction of the human individual from both the marsupials and the mammals more broadly.

We human beings are, admittedly, mammals in apparent form, and we have no good reason to presume that we might prefer a different form of our mortal, merely biological existence than that; but, yet, we are also not merely mammals. We die as mammals die, but we live as a conscious part of the history which precedes, includes, and follows our time of life, in a quasi-living form of immortality of the conscious mind, as men and women can muster this, and as no mere mammal could be motivated to act according to these historical considerations.

We live with a certain practical access, if we are able, to a special kind of immortality as efficiently memorable personalities of an historically, upwardly-self-evolving species, evolving not biologically, but as mentally trans-generational, explicitly creative beings—as it is written, in the image of the Creator. That fact about us is virtually everything most essential that we need to know, essentially, in treating the principal subject of this report.[19]

This distinction of the human individual has a crucially significant, efficiently physical reflection in the way in which the conception of universal physical principles takes the human individual mind beyond the kinds of hereditary species-characteristic... common to all inferior forms of living species. This is a distinction which can be observed only in the instance of the creative mental powers of the human individual, but no lower form of life than mankind. All competent scientific, and, therefore, political thinking about economy, depends absolutely upon plumbing the implications of this unique distinction of the progressive development of the potential powers of the individual human mind.

The crucial principle, as already conceptualized in ancient Classical Greek discoveries in Sphaerics, is the principle known to modern European mathematical physics as the ontological infinitesimal of Leibniz, Riemann, Einstein, et al. This is also the ontological infinitesimal of the Leibniz calculus, as distinct from the mythical, failed, merely mathematically infinitesimal attributable to that Euler-Lagrange-Cauchy calculus premised on the false, a-priori presumptions of a Euclid or the like.

This notion of such an ontological infinitesimal (as distinct from Leonhard Euler's (frankly silly, and intentionally fraudulent, linear-geometric, e.g., Euclidean or Cartesian notion of an infinitesimal) represents the existence of a true universal principle, such as Kepler's discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as in his The Harmonies of the World. Such a principle corresponds to a principle of the universe, as Albert Einstein emphasized the significance of Kepler in these terms of reference which I have emphasized here.[20]

The Principle At Issue
Modern European science, is defined for Kepler by works of Nicholas of Cusa traced from Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, which is to be regarded as the founding of a competent modern physical science. The crucially pivotal issue is that fact, that human sense-perception is a function of the biological equipment customarily delivered with the infant, equipment whose function has the fairly attributed quality of instrumentation. Vision and hearing are the principal customary references in this matter, but, as the case of Helen Keller illustrated, certainly not the only such.

This function of our sensory-perceptual apparatus, prompts us to doubt that sense-perception as such; it, while indispensable to our species, is only a self-evident, naive representation of our functional interaction with the universe in which we dwell. The most crucial demonstration of the significance of this paradox is supplied by Kepler in his The Harmonies. Special attention to Book IV is required.

As it is rather well known to those who are careful about such matters, Kepler's discovery of the principle of the ontologically, rather than mathematically infinitesimal determination of the orbital relationships among the Sun, Earth and Mars, as presented in The New Astronomy, returned his attention to the harmonically ordered relationships among the planetary orbits of the then known Solar System. In brief, as my associates have developed Kepler's case in unusual detail in LaRouche Youth LLc (2006),[21] the re-enactment of the process of uniquely original discovery of a general Solar principle of universal gravitation by Kepler, frees man from the scientific frauds of followers of the neo-Cartesian Newtonian hoax. Taking that reference into account, Albert Einstein's conclusions on this matter come, together with the original, anti-Machian work of Max Planck, such that Einstein's view of Kepler's work, that from the standpoint of the dynamics of Bernhard Riemann, presents us, from him, with what is probably one of the most crucial statements respecting the very foundations of an adequately competent notion of modern science in general.[22]

Einstein's and coinciding work represents an accomplishment on behalf of the very idea of science and truthfulness generally, which is all too easily passed over by the all-so-slippery Sophist minds of contemporary academia. The crucial issue here, an issue of the greatest immediate importance for dealing with the onrushing, monstrous, general economic-breakdown-cri... of today, is the popular, reductionist's habit of mistaking a mere mathematical formation for a principle of nature.

In the broad known history of European and related science in particular, from the Pyramids of Giza, through the Sphaerics of the Pythagoreans and Plato, the essential issue of the very idea of science, as so named, or by other names, is the issue whether what our senses report to our cognitive processes is, or is not the exclusive nature of reality we experience with aid of those senses? From the best, from those scientific sources, through the work of such figures as Riemann, Einstein, Planck, and Academician Vernadsky on the Biosphere and Noösphere, and from the standpoint of the remarkable case of Helen Keller, the human mind, not the attached apparatus of sense-perception, is that which provides mankind the means of efficient practice, by means of which the potential relative population-density of our human species, accomplished what no other living species can do: increase the potential relative population-density of our human species without perceptible ultimate limit.

It is true, that in aid of this accomplishment, we require a mathematical insight into the orderly examination of the experience of our senses; but, it is a grave mistake, verging upon insanity, to assume that a mathematical formulation is the ontologically efficient, immediate expression of some universal physical principle.

The same type of challenge is presented by those artificed instruments which not only aid us in examining what serves us as experimental evidence, but, as in the domain of sub-atomic microphysics, represent artificial extensions for complementing the function of the astronomical or microphysical capacity of ordinary sense-experience.

Music, For Example


We are confronted with a related, illustrative challenge today, in the reliance on digital recording and reproduction of Classical musical performances as replacement for the analog. The replacement does not succeed, and, as a matter of physical principle, could not succeed. It becomes clear to the musician who has not lost much of his or her hearing, that the ordering of the relations of Classical counterpoint in the analog-ordered mind of the human ear, especially in performance of Classical counterpoint, belongs to a different physical curvature of space-time of hearing than the digital ordering. I cite this here to illustrate the point, that it is not simple mathematical formulations which represent the universe, but that any digital form of mathematical representation of sense-perceptual experience, is never better than a poor shadow of actual physical reality. The digital system can be heard, but is the sound heard actually human?

Thus, the manifestation of each such principle is expressed as in the apparently infinitesimally small at the same time that it is also efficiently universal; but, contrary to Eighteenth-Century, anti-Leibniz empiricists, such as de Moivre, D'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange, it is not "mathematically infinitesimal," but, rather, an expression of a true (ontologically efficient) universal physical principle. A principle may be expressed by a mathematical recipe, but only in the guise of the footprint of a principle, not its generation as a conception deployed strategically by an individual human mind. This latter, which being both universal and physically efficient, is expressed in any smallest interval of action, an interval which is always smaller than the finest possible mathematical-physical analysis of an interval of efficient physical action. [23]

This defines a universal physical geometry, in which discoverable principles bound the universe of the actions which it contains. The universe is so defined, as Kepler's method of discovery implies, and as Albert Einstein affirmed Kepler's genius on this account, is that the expanding physical universe is finite (e.g., bounded by its own universal physical principles), but also expanding in the sense of the discovery of such principles, or even creating new such principles.

Animals have their destiny, but, unlike beasts and the duped lackeys of British imperialists, we are empowered by our nature, to choose a better destiny, as the prophet of Genesis described this, by discovering it as a matter of principle, and acting to make the intended premise of its crafting come true.

Art & Science
To carry this crucially important conception an essential step further, we must decry the popularized view of an implicitly hermetic separation of physical science from true Classical artistic composition. Essentially, what are often seen as categorically unmiscible states of mind, actually share the same universal principles, as the unique success of Kepler's original discovery of a universal mode of gravitation depended upon the same inherently musical principles shared with the principle of musical counterpoint presented to us by Johann Sebastian Bach and his followers.

In that department customarily distinguished as physical science, the human mind is considering man's practical view of the domain which is Riemannian physically-geometrical... external to our species' conceptual-perceptual processes. In Classical artistic composition and its performance, a different arrangement comes into play; instead of studying nature around us, our attention is properly focused upon the individual human mind's view of the processes in which the human mind masters the domain of man's willful action on that mind of man, through which man's mind applies its same powers of creative insight to the study of man's own behavior in our species' control over the physical preconditions of human mortal life. In great Classical art, as the case of Kepler's predecessor Leonardo da Vinci goes toward the heart of the relevant principle, it is the mental-social functions of the individual human mind which are to be explored, as by the methods of fugal and related counterpoint by the greatest musical composers and performers since Bach.

Man reigns within the universe, and his knowledge of that universe is therefore man's self-conscious apprehension of that which his acquisition of such knowledge represents as his power in and over that same universe. The true subject of science is man himself, and his Creator.

Capitalism: A Significant 'Side Issue'
In stark contrast to British imperial empiricism, the idea of the existence of "capitalism," as distinct from the constitutional intention of of such United States Presidents as Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, exists only as a curious variety of Anglo-Dutch Liberal, pagan religious belief. (Hence an inevitable, inherently systemic conflict between what is called capitalism and Christianity, for example.) Happily, the remedy for such a superstitious belief is to be found in the work of such founders of the U.S. constitutional system, as in commentaries, as in the work of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's commentaries on the quaint, pagan customs among Dutch poltroons. The constitutional principle upon which the foundation of the U.S. republic depended, from the beginning, through the adoption of the Federal Constitution, was a rejection of the class systems of earlier and contemporary Europe alike. Unfortunately, the ideas of the U.S. Constitutional system have been the victims of a stunning lack popularity for them, in today's lately reigning U.S. government circles, especially during the most recent two years.

It was against that conception on which the U.S. republic was founded, which was the anti-British expression in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which prompted Lord Shelburne's lackey, Adam Smith, an avowed hater of the United States, to devote his own 1776 The Wealth of Nations, explicitly, to demanding the crushing of the young U.S. republic. No U.S. citizen can properly defend Smith for that, and also regard himself as a U.S. patriot if he does.

Among the principal supporters of the U.S. cause of 1776 and later, from among the crowned heads of Europe and relevant other Europeans, such as the Marquis de Lafayette, there was the widely expressed desire by enlightened leading Europeans, to see the success of the U.S. venture of 1776-1789, as a model for the desired, humanistic reforms of the very same systems of European government over which they either reigned, or were of influential rank. Such European supporters rightly saw us as pace-setters for effecting the pro-humanistic reforms, but not necessarily so-called "capitalist" reforms, which they desired for their own nations; we, therefore, became, thus, the expression of their own cause.

The most essential among those desired humanistic reforms, as promoted by many from around our planet, was the liberation of the great mass of the people of Europe from the millennia-old system of subjugation of the great mass of the population by the principle of perpetual ignorance which the Olympian Zeus of the playwright Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound described as the Olympian Zeus' prohibition of the extension of the fire of scientific progress to the subject human population. Those European statesman, scientists, and poets who had assimilated the legacy of that great ecumenical Council of Florence which had set modern European civilization into motion upon the debris of feudalism, were personally committed to the relevant uplifting of the status and individual development of the general population of that nation for whose destiny they considered themselves as largely responsible, and in the vital interest of their fellow-citizens, too.

The same issue which inspired both the founders of the U.S.A. and also those who assisted it in resisting the brutishness of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial system established in February 1763, reigns as a necessary view of matters for the present day. "Capitalism" is just a deceptive, silly name, used to divert attention from the actual, human issues facing humanity at large, then, as also still today. The U.S. economic system, whose reality was laid out by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and defended by President Franklin Roosevelt, is the entirely different system which all the greatest patriots of the U.S. fought to defend and promote: forget that dirty British word, "capitalism."

Ecology as Economy: Empiricism
In the immediate years following the close of what is called "The Second World War," the argument began to be spread, that the new name for "economy" should be "ecology." There was no effective clarity among those who referred to ecology as a basis for economy, or upon exactly what principle this discussion should be premised, although, in my view, the prevalent tendency was typified by the line of the Julian Huxley who was the grandson of Britain's same notorious Thomas Huxley, who had spawned the career of the virtually Satanic, and avowed fascist, H.G. Wells. Yet, at the same time, the more meaningful use of the term "ecology" as identifying a category of human behavior, would be to emphasize the categorical distinction of the physical principles specific to human ecology, as distinguished from either as merely a sub-category of animal ecology, or as economies might be described as economies viewed as subjects of what are essentially monetary systems.

Our U.S. republic's essential enemy from within "Old Europe," and that Europe's imperialist's reach into the present world at large, is an ideology, the ideology of empiricism traced from the leading role played by Venice's reformer Paolo Sarpi, during his lifetime, and that of his principal lackey, the hoaxster Galileo Galilei. The denial of the existence of knowable truth, respecting matters of physical science and other leading categories of human knowledge, was the devilishly clever trick for depriving people of the protection of principles, by asserting that no such principles could have ever existed.

They stole your money, and then replied, as Wall Street or British swindlers would say today: "What money?"

Ecology as popularly defined today, has proven itself an effective force for evil, on this account.

In reality, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson has demonstrated so abundantly today, there is no intrinsic value in money itself, nor can any durably useful conclusions be drawn from the effort to explain the behavior of real economies in terms of some concocted monetary principle.

In history customarily, the significance of a money-system lies in a principle of usury which preys upon, but reigns from outside the domain of physical economy of any sovereign nation. This predicament is typified by the systemically defined, fundamental difference between the constitutional system of economy on which the U.S. Federal Constitution was premised, and the implicitly imperialistic financial systems in the continuing parliamentary traditions of government characteristic of Europe even still today.



For a healthy republic's economy, the state must exert a virtual birth-right monopoly over the uttering of currency, and of related appendages of a typical monetary process, as the U.S. Federal Constitution provides. Whereas, in Europe, still today, even where the monetary system is forced to bargain with the nation-state over the division of territorial rights, the monetary power exists in the form of a creation of a private monopoly, such as that of implicitly supra-national monetary systems, above the national state.

This supranational, implicitly usurious character of typical European monetary systems, is key for competent understanding of the distinction between the traditional parliamentary basis of representation provided for the governments of Europe, and the truly republican American constitutional system. Thus, to the extent that the United States has compromised its Federal Constitution by concessions to designs deemed more consistent with the European political-economy models, our own U.S.A., having thus betrayed its own birth-right, has been more or less badly ruined each time we made such compromises with the inherently imperialist monetary systems and practices of "Old Europe."

The source of this historic failure of European systems, is most easily recognized in terms of the modern European systems themselves, by the fate of the attempted reforms of France's Fifth Republic under a President Charles de Gaulle whose very personal existence was set in perpetual peril by the assassins of the British monarchy's imperialist financial-monetary system. The same, implicitly fascist threat, experienced at London's hands, by President Charles de Gaulle, has been introduced into the present U.S. Presidential-election campaign, through British top-down control over the principal mass of the financing and direction of Presidential election-campaigns since about February 2006.

The essential economic and constitutional distinction in law and practice between the U.S. Federal constitutional system, and those of parliamentary Europe, is that the U.S. Constitution prudently requires a U.S. fundamental power, as a sovereign nation, over the uttering and circulation of money and related forms of public credit. Thus, we have the fundamental difference in principle between the actually original Bretton Woods design under President Franklin Roosevelt, and the contrary design for the conduct of that system under the reign of a British imperialism's vulgar stooge, President Harry S Truman.

Summing this point up in brief: the U.S. economy is organized around the constitutional principle of public credit, rather than a typically European parliamentary regime held in virtual imperial captivity by a European style in monetary systems.

It is in those terms of reference, that the fate of all humanity presently, is menaced by the predatory tyranny of functionally imperialist, globally reigning monetarist systems.

Consequently . . .
In the hands of that British crowd and its virtual colonials of today, imperial Britain's American ideological lackeys, the direction of the discussion of ecology followed the lines of Anglo-American pro-genocidalists who had shared in the promotion of the eugenics movement, and are represented today by organizations, such as the neo-malthusian Club of Rome and the closely related Club of Rome's ally, that Laxenberg, Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, which came into being, as an offshoot of that Cambridge program of Systems Analysis associated with the influence of Bertrand Russell.

Russell's influence since he came to relative notability during the1890s, has represented a process of successive phases of moral and intellectual degeneration in the work of physical and related science. Most notable is the succession of the phase of such degeneration beginning with that represented by the work of the positivist Ernst Mach. Mach's influence, which is associated with the degeneration of physical science into a mere matter of mechanics, was a crucial shift, downwards, which dominated notable scientific quarrels through the period of World War I Berlin and Austria; Mach's influence to this effect, which peaked during the period of World War I, was then superseded by the much more radical degeneration introduced by the influence of Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, a thesis which emerged as setting a dominant trend in British radical-empiricist (positivist) ideology during the period of the 1920s Solvay Conferences.[24]



Among the most notable roles of Russell was that, although Russell was filling-in for H.G. Wells in Russell's announcing, in September 1946, a campaign for a causeless launching of a "nuclear assault" on the Soviet Union, Russell, while still defending this during the 1950s and beyond, reached an accommodation with the government of Soviet General Secretary Khrushchov under the auspices of Russell's own organization of a disgusting political concoction known as World Parliamentarians for World Government, and was the leading advocate, in association with his protégé, the curiously mad Leo Szilard, in escalation of nuclear-confrontationa... schemes, during the course of the late 1950s and 1960s.

The general character of the work of Russell and H.G. Wells, from their curious personal coincidence and rivalries over the period from Wells' emergence as a leading Fabian strategist for what became World War I, from the 1890s on, through their pact of common goals and common ends reached in their 1928 pact around the time of the publication of Wells' The Open Conspiracy, is that they remained British imperial utopians, always determined, as Russell himself emphasized on repeated occasions, to concoct some scheme which would ensure the eternal supremacy of the British empire to the proverbial "end of time." This has been, since, essentially the same Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial goal which has been continued, beyond the decease of former Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, by his co-conspirator, the Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip), these two the co-authors of the pro-genocidalist World Wildlife Fund behind the global neo-malthusian movement of today.

This is the true imperial face of mankind's leading enemy, still today. The sundry, utopian schemes haunting the world still today, such as Prince Philip's echo of Russell in proposing the reduction of the world's present population from approximately six-and-a-half billions persons, to two billions or less, hopefully, according to Russell, during the 1950s, and Prince Philip still today. There is no essential moral difference between these types and Adolf Hitler, except that these British fellows and their prominent co-thinkers around the world are much more likely to succeed, unless nations band together to outlaw such criminal schemes in some efficient way.

These intended mass-murderers could not succeed without the consent of international circles which are rooted in today's international neo-malthusian schemes, such as the World Wildlife Fund, or the frauds promoted by such lackeys of Prince Philip as the hoaxster, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore.

While these evil circles of influence from around the world, profess themselves humanitarians, they have the same deep-rooted, axiomatic goals of today as the Hitler movement of the 1920s and later, and will resort to kindred, or much worse means for realizing those goals of imperial population control, unless they are stopped today. That evil scheme, is what all the feverishly impassioned popular chatter today, about so-called "environmentalism." is all about. When we examine the last decades of the Soviet Union, from the early accommodations to Russell and his circle, during the 1950s through the influence of Russell's malthusian schemes centered on the Cambridge systems analysis projects, that is what we see. That is the draught of ideological poison which came to infest, and ruin the Soviet system from within, more and more, from the top down, as the visible end of that system approached.

Affairs of the world, including the affairs of the world's economy, have reached the point of a threatened, monstrously deadly, terminal crisis of civilization as a whole.

It should be obvious from the experience of the most recent two U.S. Presidential terms, that, while the pure rage of nuclear horrors remains possible, the more likely ruin of the planet will tend to come through nothing so much as toleration of a combination of utopian financier schemes, such as the assorted expressions of "globalization," and the suicidal slide toward a monstrous, planetary "new dark age," like, but far worse than that which struck feudal Europe, done by the hand of Venetian financier interests behind the Lombard League, during Europe's Fourteenth Century. Then, one-third of Europe's population was wiped out during approximately the span of approximately a single generation; this time, if permitted, it would take at least eighty percent of the present world population.

Any nuclear-weapons or related atrocities would be essentially side-effects.

Our common strategic task, is to take the constructive economic and social measures needed to prevent that presently looming, global catastrophe from actually happening. The distance to Hell itself is now becoming very, very short.




3. Discover a New World


Apportion the outline of the proposed programmatic approach to the immediate launching of a global physical-economic recovery, among the following principal categories.

A. A New, Global, Bretton Woods System
The present financial systems of the world at large are not only hopelessly bankrupt, when considered in the entirety of the nominally outstanding assets and liabilities of each nation, or region of the world. Although we must choose, selectively, to secure the valid elements among the claimed nominal assets, the merely nominal claims, most of which, like financial derivatives, are essentially only gambling debts, must be simply discarded as waste. Any possibility of the present survival of civilization depends upon the imposition of that condition.

It should be recalled, that, despite the Federal U.S. preceding conviction of Michael Milken, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan took the lead in unloosing that flood of financial derivatives, now totalling in the amount of not less than quadrillions of U.S. dollars denomination, which is the principal driver of the general, global financial breakdown-crisis of the world financial system in its presently accelerating collapse-phase today. This already monstrous crisis has been aggravated by insane efforts, led by the U.S. and British governments, to subsidize such merely nominal assets at the expense of the otherwise probably valid holdings and claims of the international financial system.

Although, as in my international webcast of July 25, 2007, I had already warned of an immediate eruption of a general, international financial breakdown-crisis, and had presented valid actions by the U.S. government to bring that crisis under control, with the measures actually taken over the interval August 1 through October 18, 2008, relevant Federal legislative and Executive Branch agencies have not only failed to take these indicated actions, but have taken directly contrary measures which could have no other effect than literally destroying the credibility of a possible recovery from the already bankrupt, entire international financial system.

Matters have reached the point that only certain drastic emergency measures, taken by a combination of leading governments of the world, could halt the presently accelerating plunge of the world's financial-monetary systems.

However, if those emergency measures which I have prescribed are taken by a sufficient part of the world's leading, and some other nations, remedies are available. Such emergency measures require an initiative among some leading powers of the world, to employ the authority implicit in the combined efforts of a significant number of the present world's leading national powers, to force a proceeding in bankruptcy-reorganizat... of the world's financial monetary system.

Any negotiation which does not proceed from that specific, first step, will result in a far worse catastrophe than is already oncoming. The worst thing that could be done now, would be to call an impromptu "new Bretton Woods" convention which would be a hodge-podge of diplomatic debating points. By resorting to what is such an inherently failed effort, the credibility of any competent subsequent action would be ruined in advance—and the world as a whole would then, more or less assuredly, deliver itself to a sojourn of centuries to come, in a forthcoming economic version of Hell.

In my option, we must begin with measures including a process of discarding forms of human end-product properly regarded as financial waste-matter. We must take this action as a precaution on behalf of other portions representing morally legitimate claims, such as valid deposits of citizens and functionally viable assets of useful public or private institutions. Those portions of the present world financial-monetary system which are intrinsically viable and essential to the economic health of nations, must be set aside, by that combination of authorities for governmental legal protection, after which, the remainder of nominal claims report to the same hereafter where, within the U.S.A., the nominal currency of Britain's 1860s former Confederacy puppet still reposes safely in perpetual peaceful neglect today.

All claims on the account of financial derivatives, for example, are simply to be cast into oblivion as being nothing better than gambler's debts to what might have been, in fact, Alan Greenspan's defunct derivatives casino. The attempt to panic governments and others by stating that all financial claims of those institutions must be honored, more or less equally (of everyone but ordinary citizens and physically productive enterprises), is to be treated as sheer buncombe. What effective government is resolved to defend through bankruptcy protection, is all of the present financial claims which could be defended without crashing the world's physical economy into proverbial "smithereens." Any compensation wrongly awarded by recent, probably unlawful actions by government, must be returned as rapidly as feasible, to the victim, from whoever had been the illicit holder of such donations. Notably, any drug-trafficking gains accessible to governmental action should be confiscated, and delivered to the most probable choice of the beneficiary, as quickly as practicable, under the same general rule.

Among things to be protected, now privileged portions represented as legitimate claims under the process of financial reorganization, must now find a place of safe residence, under general financial and credit reorganization, for those claims. That place, should, in typical cases, be provided by the creation of newly formed credit systems, a place where legitimate claims from the former monetary systems, so defined, are now honored, according to lawful terms, consistent with the intent of national constitutions such as our own U.S. Federal Constitution, and thus provided protection under the lawful terms of a new, international credit-system.




Under New Credit Systems
The reciprocal relationship between the newly established, national credit-systems, and the intended, uninterrupted fulfillment of valid and necessary economic and related functions, must be brought into being as if, as it used to be said in these United States, "turning on a dime."

The shards of an already shattered, and monstrously bankrupt, present world financial-monetary system, must be reprocessed in this way. This happy transformation must be caused to occur in such a way that the relatively idled portion of human and other functionally valuable resources, is quickly re-directed, as flow, into an expansion of a newly expanded physically productive sector, and that as rapidly as might be possible. This will occur largely, at first, through necessary publicly funded, public works.[25] The purpose of this initial transitional phase should be, to bring the economy of each and all nations, as rapidly as possible, into a condition above the level of inherent physical-economic break-even of costs and income, t]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:34:59 -0500
science-driven, capital-intensive, energy-dense modes of production and transportation, without which some form of great disaster will surely and now quickly overtake the planet, whatever the otherwise beneficial reforms might be.

Secondly, we must reorganize relations among states according to what can be described as a Franklin Roosevelt Bretton Woods system, not a Truman, nor a Keynesian counterfeit. The former policy means building up science-driven, power-dense restoration of formerly industrialized nations to their former, pre-1968-1971 roles in the planet as a whole, this in order to generate a long wave of increase of per-capita density of infrastructure and net output per square kilometer of territory.

Thirdly, to make these beneficial changes feasible, we must build up a mass of long-lived basic economic infrastructure of the planet, as this is indispensable for meeting the production and consumption goals of all sectors of humanity. This requires a new, international credit-system, to replace, and essentially eliminate, the presently failed European idea of monetary systems. This will require the U.S. to follow U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton (not pathetic "Mad Hatter" Hank Paulson, nor "Dormouse" Ben Bernanke), in the establishing of national banking institutions as the intermediaries of regular transactions between the treasuries of sovereign governments. No more of those damnable, European Central Banking Systems which are already presently bankrupted beyond redemption through the efforts to sustain the mountainous derivatives bubble launched by the U.S.A.'s Alan Greenspan.

Our proper shared concern, inside the U.S.A. and also Russia, is that systemic errors of either adopted interpretations of Marxist doctrine, or the actual doctrine itself, not become systemic, not viciously systemic obstacles to timely adoption of those urgently needed reforms in relations among the prospective allied nations of a revival of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 intentions for what is called a Bretton Woods system.[12]

The Relevant Obstacles


In the case of Russia, but not Russia alone, the foremost of these problems, is Marx's notion of capitalism, a notion, as expressed by him and others, whose implied view of the U.S.A., in particular, was one which has no reality in the actual establishment of the U.S.A. as an historically novel form of Federal republic.

The first such, unfortunate fact of this moment, is that no generally employed accounting system in the world today, permits any consideration of those essential, universal principles of human creativity on which all physically successful economic policy, excepting stealing (such as that of the derivative swindles, or kindred predatory practices) depend, absolutely.

The second such is the complete suppression of the notion of the role of human creativity in national economy. On this most crucial point, the actual policies of Karl Marx become a serious threat to progress, since Karl Marx's writings never acknowledged the role of the active presence of creative powers akin to those of fundamental, capital-intensive, scientific progress in increasing the productive powers of labor, nor those in any way which reflect the existence of such powers.

Marx's systemic exclusion of the specific concept of human scientific and Classical-artistic creativity which separates mankind categorically from beasts, was always a fatal systemic flaw in his argument, and, therefore, his British-empiricism-dri... denial of the actual existence of human individual creative-mental powers, to a significantly large degree, as also by his avowed followers, as by all other varieties of radical reductionists, such as the empiricists and positivists of today.

This, and all related kinds of major errors in Marx's arguments respecting political-economy are rooted in the corrupting influence he enjoyed from his preferred sources in the Haileybury School of Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, et al. Every part of the teaching of this school, was evil, and must be recognized as such.

Contrary to evil Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus's Prometheus Bound, the proper goal for man, is not the education of the individual, but the development of the creative powers of that individual. Man is not to be educated as a dog to do tricks, but to become a creator in the likeness of our Creator.[13]

I identify and explain the principle of actual human creativity a bit later in this present chapter. First, before turning to the physical-scientific core of this issue, I situate the issue historically.

The Effects of Empiricism


Marx's own adoption of Adam Smith's doctrine for economics is, essentially, typical of the systemically crippling intellectual enslavement of many nations, by the Eighteenth-Century British empiricism which had produced imperialist Lord Shelburne's agent Adam Smith. The recruiters to Marxism did not need to indoctrinate their following in this sort of belief; usually, the Liberal indoctrinaires had already delivered that supply of Liberal sophistry, on which Marx had also relied, to their victims from among the general public in their society and culture, usually in childhood or adolescence, in schools and other commonplace ways.

The argument, respecting empiricism, which I have just summarized, is true; but, we must be careful about attributing individual beliefs, too strongly, to the individual's judgment to almost anything that happens in society, either to Marx or almost any other person, as such. As I shall have reason to place special emphasis on this point, in the course of this present report, the principle of dynamics, competently understood, warns us that the adopted beliefs and related behavior of the typical member of a society, or a species, have been, usually, chiefly rooted in the society, or species, rather than originating in the mind of the individual member of that group—excepting extraordinary persons and situations in society. Those exceptions, either for the very good, or very bad, exist, but even those exceptions can be rarely understood in any different way than as remarkable exceptions in the characteristics of the individual will.

The essential issue respecting mass behavior, as the focus of attention in this report, is that which I pin-pointed earlier in the course of this present chapter of the report. It is the systemic exclusion of actual human creativity from any part of the British Eighteenth-Century empiricism of Adam Smith, et al. This exclusion is typical of the empiricism on which both the so-called science and avowed dogmas of Cartesian method were extended, to form, thus, the mass behavior expressed by the Newtonian pseudo-science and also British political-economy. Those are beliefs which may be presumed to have been derived from the same empiricist ideology employed by the plagiarist Adam Smith.[14]

This is key for understanding the systemically fatal flaw in what Karl Marx professed to be his reductionist conception of materialism, which was the belief which Marx swallowed from the British authors he admired wishfully as the font of "the only economic science," whether from Britain's Frederick Engels, the British Museum's David Urquhart, Palmerston's Giuseppi Mazzini, or other such sources. All of the systemic errors intrinsically underlying the prevalent ideological assumptions of sundry varieties of Marxian movements, have been errors which contributed directly to the most crucial, and presumedly scientifically profound among the blunders in policies of civilian economic practice in Soviet Russia, as distinct from the military practice of the Soviet Union, for example.

The most notable result of these types of simplistic errors in Marx's adopted opinions and his method, echoes the wider spread of the dogma of such dupes as the empiricists (and later positivists), and, also, the even more badly educated academic circles throughout much of the world generally since the rise of the existentialists' influence, that especially since 1968's Dionysiac rioters, until today. Among such latter varieties of folk, the silly, crudely aprioristic notion prevailed, that since society had been assimilated into the industrial capitalist interests of specific nations, as defined by Adam Smith and other members of the British East India Company's Haileybury School, any form of modern imperialism today must be presumed to be essentially a product of what the British identify as the industrial-capitalist "stage of development." Such had been the adopted basis, a priori, for what I have referenced, at the outset of this publication, as the misguided view of imperialism represented by such as both Lenin and the leading German Social-Democrats.

To sum up that point: as I have just emphasized it in these final paragraphs of this first chapter of the main body of my report, the great flaw commonplace to Marxian socialism lies essentially in its adoption of the prevalent, but erroneous ideology respecting the human principle underlying healthy directions of change in society. That is an ideology which Marx himself adopted, but which was also an ideology already distributed full-blown from the body of British Eighteenth-Century empiricist ideology, such as that of John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Bentham's Haileybury school generally.

Before turning to that central feature of this next chapter of the report, let us begin that chapter by putting a few of the most significant collateral matters to rest. For this purpose, turn attention directly to the practical and proper juridical, and scientific meaning of the term imperialism.




2. Science & Human Ecology





After certain important prefatory remarks, this second chapter of the report will be devoted to the subject of the determining agency associated with the increase of mankind's power not only to increase its productive powers of labor, but to overcome what would otherwise be a decline in the ability of the Biosphere, not only to support an increase of both physical productivity, per capita and per square kilometer, but, also, to nullify the tendency of population-growth and previous human consumption to deplete the Biosphere.

To prepare the table for that crucial, scientific discussion, I begin this chapter with the following note on those aspects of the nature and effects of actual imperialism relevant for this part of the report.

First of all, as I have already emphasized this, contrary to Lenin and relevant others, "imperialism" was not "a stage of capitalism." Imperialism as known to Europe, is older than Babylon. "Finance capitalism" as the German Social-Democracy and Lenin named it, is much older than that which the followers of Marx called "capitalism" or "socialism." It is also older than the brutish ruining of the bow-tenure plots of once-proud Sumer by the introduction of the same "loan shark" methods which had been used against Sumer's farmers. Again and again, ancient, medieval, and modern civilizations have been ruined by the same practice of usury, as used again and again, to induce the civilizations of Southwest Asia to destroy themselves as if by their own hands, as has been done, since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, by globally extended Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, most notably since the break-up of the already looted Bretton Woods System, in 1971-72.

The combination of the 1971-72 break-up of the Bretton Woods system, as followed quickly, in 1973, by the predatory Anglo-Dutch-Saudi conspiracy which created the reign of the Anglo-Dutch petroleum "spot market" over the world's finance, destroyed the U.S.A.'s control over its own dollar, and degraded the world monetary-financial dollar to a mere toy in the hands of the British empire. The influence of what had been once called British imperialism, as opposed to the true nation-state, has been a continuously leading phenomenon in globally extended European history from that time, to the present day.[15] As Rosa Luxemburg had explained, and Herbert Feis later, imperialism, is, today, as then, simply a 1970s rebirth of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal tyranny of a global financial system based, as both Rosa Luxemburg and Herbert Feis had shown, on a revived Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of international, essentially usurious loans.

For all practical purposes, in opening any discussion of the present global crisis-situation, we should start with the rough, working assumption, that there is no essential difference, as to type, between the natures of the causes of the general, global financial breakdown-crisis which has been ongoing since late July 2007, and the characteristic cause of the collapse of Fourteenth-Century Europe into a catastrophic "break-down" crisis, like that now in accelerating motion, world-wide today. Lest we had forgotten that medieval New Dark Age, into which we are now being plunged once again, by the same kind of Venetian-controlled system of international loans experienced during the Fourteenth Century, afresh, this time in the guise of financial derivatives, today.

Therefore, the following must be said here on the subject of imperialism generally.

Since the fall of the Achaemenid dynasty, and the later rise of imperial Rome during the aftermath of the Second Punic War, continental Europe, whether within or beyond the Mediterranean regions, has always been dominated by ruling political-financial institutions in the tradition traceable from the role of usury in the collapse of the bow-tenure system of Sumer, via Babylon, this despite the greatness of the intervening period of ascension of the Baghdad Caliphate, as to the present day's general, global, monetary-financial downfall.

However, it is also true, that we must now escape that same kind of moral decadence which exerted great influence on the civilization of the European continent, especially since the shock of February 1763, despite a parallel, contrary, Renaissance-like feature of the 1763-1789, pro-American, anti-British, Classical interval. This was the interval typified by the crucial contributions from German Renaissance factors such as Abraham Kästner, his student Gotthold Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn, Goethe, Schiller, and Lazare Carnot, as continued for a time by the von Humboldt brothers, Johann Friedrich Herbart, et al. The pro-American generation from the time preceding the ugly shock of the Jacobin Terror, and Pierre Robespierre's sometime protégé Napoleon Bonaparte, reflected the impact of the essential, necessary nature of the parallel role of the colonial developments in North America, in combating the morally corrupting, pro-oligarchical habits underlying the persistence of that decadence already pervading the modern traditions of European political, and related culture.

As I shall indicate at an appropriate point in this report, below, what might appear to some, mistakenly, as a certain confusion in these among my characterizations of the relevant intervals of history thus far, is not a product of any confusion in my argument here. It merely reflects the fact that I found it prudent pedagogy, for the sake of ultimate clarity, that rather than incur distracting side-tracks in the interim, to postpone the conclusion of a certain discussion of the relevant principle of dynamics, until an appropriate, later point in the development of that argument here, when the ground for introducing that clarification will have been better prepared in the mind of the reader. My justification for that course of action will be made clear before the conclusion of this present report.

There is, already, as I shall show, within this present chapter of this report, another fuller exposition of a crucially significant, profound principle of the science of physical economy, which must be presented, before a straight-forward treatment of the underlying principles of economy as science could be introduced to this present discussion.



These principles of economic science, on which all of my always "successful" forecasts since 1956, have been premised, have now been confirmed by such recent developments as a stunning accumulation of my recent, unique successes as an economic forecaster, such that, intelligent people with a relevant sense of experience, are looking with mixed astonishment and despair at their formerly accustomed view on the subject of economics, and are asking of me, "How did you do it?" Some people would never see a physician about their illnesses, until a certain element of fear brought them to the equivalent of the physician's door. The difference is, as with my former so-called critics, that circumstances have brought them to the point, that, as it is said, "The sane ones are more than ready to listen."

Despite all that, there is nothing terribly new to me, in particular, about the disease now to be discussed in these pages, only the profundity of, and remedies for the present crisis.

The Principle of Empire
The baldly exposed current intention of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal, or so-called "British" empire, is to eliminate the existence of the sovereign nation-state from this planet, now as rapidly as possible. The names for this British campaign include "globalization," "free trade," and neo-malthusian "environmentalism."

If such brutish impulses as those are not defeated, and reversed, a vastly shrunken remnant of mankind will inhabit a new barbarism of a planet probably populated by much less than one billions living persons. Presuming that we avoid nuclear warfare, the brutish imperial goal, which is more or less the goal adopted publicly (and with great emphasis) by Britain's Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, would be "achieved" within approximately one to two generations. Centuries would be required for the descendants of that remnant of humanity to creep and crawl back to something which might be regarded as a semblance of what was once known as the relatively civilized state of much of humanity prior to these horrid developments now oncoming today.

That is the key to understanding why the present global, strategic situation is so monstrously dangerous, why those forces centered in the ideologies of the Anglo-Dutch political descendants of Paolo Sarpi are such a monstrous sort of present danger to all mankind.

To understand this grave, immediate strategic threat, we must learn the lessons embedded in manifest long-range patterns of human behavior, as, for example, since prior to the founding of Sumer, from times preceding the known history of empires over the recent seven or more thousand years.

So, since the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, through the role of the essentially barbarous British Empire still today, the principal leading political powers within globally extended European and near-Asian civilization, have been based on an endemic form of usury which sometimes erupts in such extreme forms of imperialist practice as that of Europe's Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age."

Typical of this chronic, pathological tendency for today, are the Anglo-Dutch controlled, international drug-cartels, typified by British intelligence's George Soros' financial operations based among his many roosts from around the world, such as his havens in the Dutch Antilles, and his top-down control over Howard Dean's U.S. Democratic Party today. Or, compare the price of a farmer's opium crop in Southwest Asian regions such as Afghanistan, with the price of the same product, ten thousand times greater, when British-linked networks have brought the product into European or U.S.A. markets associated with locals of the activities of George Soros or his kind. This presently hyper-inflationary echo of Germany 1923 and Fourteenth-Century Europe's so-called New Dark Age, is integral to the influence of such auxiliaries of today's British imperialism as former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, and the notable swindler, Alan Greenspan.

However, there is a much more profound, specifically, and also systemically scientific meaning of that term imperialism. Therefore, please turn your attention to defining those indispensable conceptions here and now: turn to the extremely relevant subject of real "human ecology," as distinct from the brutish views of the Duke of Edinburgh and his perverse, and thoroughly vicious lackey, the former U.S. Vice-President, and perennially plump Leporello, Al Gore.

This present economic crisis is not the spread of "an American recession," nor a "recession" at all. It was never "a sub-prime crisis." It has shown itself clearly in recent developments, as I warned publicly and widely since my widely broadcast address of July 25, 2007. It has shown itself, exactly as I warned then, to have been a general monetary-financial, and physical breakdown-crisis of the present financial-monetary-eco... system of our planet as a whole. Since I had warned repeatedly of the oncoming characteristics among the types of economic phenomena leading into this crisis, the relevant question often asked of me now, has two parts. First, how did I know? Second, why did the supposed experts fail to recognize what I had already foreseen, and had repeatedly described as a long-range trend, that with remarkable precision, over, in point of fact, all these now five decades past?

What, therefore, is, or should be, the science and practice of economy for today, actually?

What Is 'Human Ecology'?
This brings us now to the explicitly physical-scientific aspects of the matter placed before us. To illustrate the core argument of this present chapter of the report, consider the systemic implications to be found in examining the comparative ecologies of three selected, respectively distinct orders (in fact) among living species: the marsupials, the mammals, and the human beings.[16] This takes us toward to the core of a science of physical economy. Understand dynamics as being coherent with the successive phases of development of the methods of Gottfried Leibniz, Carl Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, and Bernhard Riemann. Choose this view, whose modern origins are anti-Cartesian dynamics, rather than the terms employed in the empiricists' Cartesian form of reductionism. Both marsupials and mammals have respectively, qualitatively different, but relatively (dynamically) fixed ranges of variation of degrees of relative potential population-densities; whereas, the human potential relative population-density, while also dynamic, is not bounded in that way. Examine this matter more closely, for its bearing on the matter of the global economic breakdown-crisis already in progress now.[17]

The outline of the principal features of that subject, is presently of great importance for correcting some potentially deadly errors in the practice of economists, and even of some very serious physical scientists, today. The subject is, at bottom, that unique nature of our human species which underlies all of man's competent knowledge of both himself and his universe.

To illustrate this crucially important fact, look, first, at a culture in which the marsupial order had been dominant, dynamically, as in Australia prior to the English settlement; and, then, after that, consider the effect of the process of ongoing takeover of formerly marsupial habitats by mammalians, or even by human beings. Generally speaking, the invasion, by the mammalian order, of a habitat formerly dominated by marsupials, results in a process of collapse (e.g., replacement) of the potential structure of the array of types of creatures constituting the population of the marsupial order, to such effect, that most types of the latter tend to disappear, eventually, as a result of this process (excepting, for example, garbage-collectors such as the opossum).

However, there is a fundamental difference of principle between the respective kinds of ecological dynamics of those first two orders of species, on the one hand, and that of the existence of humanity, on the other. The human species' ecology is not simply bounded by the ecology in the same way as the respective animal orders of both the marsupials, the mammals, and others generally. The members of the human order are not bounded, at least not in a definitive way, by heritable genetic determinations of the kind of dynamic set of potential affecting the lower species, as found in the cases of either the marsupial or mammalian order.



The systematic understanding of this fundamental distinction, in physical principle, of the human species from all others, requires adoption of the standpoint of a modern dynamics as previously defined by Gottfried Leibniz. This is what is also expressed, implicitly, in a qualitatively more advanced degree, by Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, when compared with what Leibniz defined as dynamics, in opposition to Descartes, as I have already emphasized here. Without employing that intermediate, Leibniz-Riemann development in the dynamic approach to defining the relative population-potential of a society, per capita and per square kilometer, an approach conducted in Riemann's terms, the results of any argument on this subject would be intrinsically incompetent. Effective insight into most of the worst errors of assumption in political and related practice of entire nations today, is provided within Riemann's appreciation of the anti-Cartesian implications of, once more, Leibniz's own Specimen Dynamicum.

In Russian academic scientific experience, this matter is expressed in a relatively advanced, and crucially significant way by the manner in which the great physical chemist Academician V.I. Vernadsky defined the Biosphere, and also the Noösphere, dynamically.

Succinctly, the human population can outrun the inferred immediate limits of its habitat, as no animal species could; this qualitative up-shift in the potential of the human population, is effected by raising the qualitative level of the species-behavior of some leading portion of a society to a higher physical state of dynamic potency, as such an advance can be approximately defined as a rise in net energy-flux-density of the human society's habitation of the relevant domain.

This access of a progressively developing society to a higher physical state of potential relative population-density, involves the willfully conscious discovery of new physical principles, or their artistic equivalent, as Leibniz has anticipated Bernhard Riemann's outlook in Leibniz's own Specimen Dynamicum, in anticipating Riemann's sweeping eradication, in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, of all aprioristic definitions, axioms, and postulates of sundry geometries, such as those from Euclid through the dupes of the virtually Satanic Bertrand Russell. Riemann presents his essential case, even in summary, in the opening pages, and closing sentence, of his great 1854 habilitation dissertation. In all cases, this has been made clear for modern physical science, as I shall emphasize, and as Albert Einstein did, as being an outgrowth of Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of the universal harmonies underlying Kepler's uniquely original method of discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.

Thus, although the legacy of Rene Descartes (or, the same thing, the myth of Newtonian science) underlies all modern academic and related opposition to Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, and Riemann today, it is only those more friendly predecessors of Riemann whose achievements afford us a competent general view of the principled nature of the process of development of modern science today, including any attempts at an actual physical science of economy.

Why Kepler Is Crucial


The most relevant case to this effect, is illustrated by Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation, as Albert Einstein lays stress on this unique achievement by Kepler. What Kepler actually proves, beyond his principle of universal gravitation as such, is that, as Einstein emphasized, any such discovery of an efficiently universal discovery of physical or comparable principle, defines, what is in principle, a finite universe, rather than an indefinitely extended form of a Euclidean or Cartesian one. This means a Kepler-Riemann-Einstei... universe which is, thus, self-bounded by such universal principles, and which, therefore, defines a universe without external bounds (hence finite in Einstein's sense).[18]

This standpoint in scientific method, is absolutely indispensable for any currently, adequately competent physical-scientific insights into any quality of the world's economy known, retrospectively, or currently, to historians today.

Thus, the power unique to the individual human mind, the power to effect discoveries of principle of that significance, distinguishes the members of the human species, and that species as a whole, as a category of living existence absolutely distinct, as a species of existence, from all lower forms of life. This distinction, as defined in scientific-functional terms of reference, is an absolute distinction of the human individual from both the marsupials and the mammals more broadly.

We human beings are, admittedly, mammals in apparent form, and we have no good reason to presume that we might prefer a different form of our mortal, merely biological existence than that; but, yet, we are also not merely mammals. We die as mammals die, but we live as a conscious part of the history which precedes, includes, and follows our time of life, in a quasi-living form of immortality of the conscious mind, as men and women can muster this, and as no mere mammal could be motivated to act according to these historical considerations.

We live with a certain practical access, if we are able, to a special kind of immortality as efficiently memorable personalities of an historically, upwardly-self-evolving species, evolving not biologically, but as mentally trans-generational, explicitly creative beings—as it is written, in the image of the Creator. That fact about us is virtually everything most essential that we need to know, essentially, in treating the principal subject of this report.[19]

This distinction of the human individual has a crucially significant, efficiently physical reflection in the way in which the conception of universal physical principles takes the human individual mind beyond the kinds of hereditary species-characteristic... common to all inferior forms of living species. This is a distinction which can be observed only in the instance of the creative mental powers of the human individual, but no lower form of life than mankind. All competent scientific, and, therefore, political thinking about economy, depends absolutely upon plumbing the implications of this unique distinction of the progressive development of the potential powers of the individual human mind.

The crucial principle, as already conceptualized in ancient Classical Greek discoveries in Sphaerics, is the principle known to modern European mathematical physics as the ontological infinitesimal of Leibniz, Riemann, Einstein, et al. This is also the ontological infinitesimal of the Leibniz calculus, as distinct from the mythical, failed, merely mathematically infinitesimal attributable to that Euler-Lagrange-Cauchy calculus premised on the false, a-priori presumptions of a Euclid or the like.

This notion of such an ontological infinitesimal (as distinct from Leonhard Euler's (frankly silly, and intentionally fraudulent, linear-geometric, e.g., Euclidean or Cartesian notion of an infinitesimal) represents the existence of a true universal principle, such as Kepler's discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as in his The Harmonies of the World. Such a principle corresponds to a principle of the universe, as Albert Einstein emphasized the significance of Kepler in these terms of reference which I have emphasized here.[20]

The Principle At Issue
Modern European science, is defined for Kepler by works of Nicholas of Cusa traced from Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, which is to be regarded as the founding of a competent modern physical science. The crucially pivotal issue is that fact, that human sense-perception is a function of the biological equipment customarily delivered with the infant, equipment whose function has the fairly attributed quality of instrumentation. Vision and hearing are the principal customary references in this matter, but, as the case of Helen Keller illustrated, certainly not the only such.

This function of our sensory-perceptual apparatus, prompts us to doubt that sense-perception as such; it, while indispensable to our species, is only a self-evident, naive representation of our functional interaction with the universe in which we dwell. The most crucial demonstration of the significance of this paradox is supplied by Kepler in his The Harmonies. Special attention to Book IV is required.

As it is rather well known to those who are careful about such matters, Kepler's discovery of the principle of the ontologically, rather than mathematically infinitesimal determination of the orbital relationships among the Sun, Earth and Mars, as presented in The New Astronomy, returned his attention to the harmonically ordered relationships among the planetary orbits of the then known Solar System. In brief, as my associates have developed Kepler's case in unusual detail in LaRouche Youth LLc (2006),[21] the re-enactment of the process of uniquely original discovery of a general Solar principle of universal gravitation by Kepler, frees man from the scientific frauds of followers of the neo-Cartesian Newtonian hoax. Taking that reference into account, Albert Einstein's conclusions on this matter come, together with the original, anti-Machian work of Max Planck, such that Einstein's view of Kepler's work, that from the standpoint of the dynamics of Bernhard Riemann, presents us, from him, with what is probably one of the most crucial statements respecting the very foundations of an adequately competent notion of modern science in general.[22]

Einstein's and coinciding work represents an accomplishment on behalf of the very idea of science and truthfulness generally, which is all too easily passed over by the all-so-slippery Sophist minds of contemporary academia. The crucial issue here, an issue of the greatest immediate importance for dealing with the onrushing, monstrous, general economic-breakdown-cri... of today, is the popular, reductionist's habit of mistaking a mere mathematical formation for a principle of nature.

In the broad known history of European and related science in particular, from the Pyramids of Giza, through the Sphaerics of the Pythagoreans and Plato, the essential issue of the very idea of science, as so named, or by other names, is the issue whether what our senses report to our cognitive processes is, or is not the exclusive nature of reality we experience with aid of those senses? From the best, from those scientific sources, through the work of such figures as Riemann, Einstein, Planck, and Academician Vernadsky on the Biosphere and Noösphere, and from the standpoint of the remarkable case of Helen Keller, the human mind, not the attached apparatus of sense-perception, is that which provides mankind the means of efficient practice, by means of which the potential relative population-density of our human species, accomplished what no other living species can do: increase the potential relative population-density of our human species without perceptible ultimate limit.

It is true, that in aid of this accomplishment, we require a mathematical insight into the orderly examination of the experience of our senses; but, it is a grave mistake, verging upon insanity, to assume that a mathematical formulation is the ontologically efficient, immediate expression of some universal physical principle.

The same type of challenge is presented by those artificed instruments which not only aid us in examining what serves us as experimental evidence, but, as in the domain of sub-atomic microphysics, represent artificial extensions for complementing the function of the astronomical or microphysical capacity of ordinary sense-experience.

Music, For Example


We are confronted with a related, illustrative challenge today, in the reliance on digital recording and reproduction of Classical musical performances as replacement for the analog. The replacement does not succeed, and, as a matter of physical principle, could not succeed. It becomes clear to the musician who has not lost much of his or her hearing, that the ordering of the relations of Classical counterpoint in the analog-ordered mind of the human ear, especially in performance of Classical counterpoint, belongs to a different physical curvature of space-time of hearing than the digital ordering. I cite this here to illustrate the point, that it is not simple mathematical formulations which represent the universe, but that any digital form of mathematical representation of sense-perceptual experience, is never better than a poor shadow of actual physical reality. The digital system can be heard, but is the sound heard actually human?

Thus, the manifestation of each such principle is expressed as in the apparently infinitesimally small at the same time that it is also efficiently universal; but, contrary to Eighteenth-Century, anti-Leibniz empiricists, such as de Moivre, D'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange, it is not "mathematically infinitesimal," but, rather, an expression of a true (ontologically efficient) universal physical principle. A principle may be expressed by a mathematical recipe, but only in the guise of the footprint of a principle, not its generation as a conception deployed strategically by an individual human mind. This latter, which being both universal and physically efficient, is expressed in any smallest interval of action, an interval which is always smaller than the finest possible mathematical-physical analysis of an interval of efficient physical action. [23]

This defines a universal physical geometry, in which discoverable principles bound the universe of the actions which it contains. The universe is so defined, as Kepler's method of discovery implies, and as Albert Einstein affirmed Kepler's genius on this account, is that the expanding physical universe is finite (e.g., bounded by its own universal physical principles), but also expanding in the sense of the discovery of such principles, or even creating new such principles.

Animals have their destiny, but, unlike beasts and the duped lackeys of British imperialists, we are empowered by our nature, to choose a better destiny, as the prophet of Genesis described this, by discovering it as a matter of principle, and acting to make the intended premise of its crafting come true.

Art & Science
To carry this crucially important conception an essential step further, we must decry the popularized view of an implicitly hermetic separation of physical science from true Classical artistic composition. Essentially, what are often seen as categorically unmiscible states of mind, actually share the same universal principles, as the unique success of Kepler's original discovery of a universal mode of gravitation depended upon the same inherently musical principles shared with the principle of musical counterpoint presented to us by Johann Sebastian Bach and his followers.

In that department customarily distinguished as physical science, the human mind is considering man's practical view of the domain which is Riemannian physically-geometrical... external to our species' conceptual-perceptual processes. In Classical artistic composition and its performance, a different arrangement comes into play; instead of studying nature around us, our attention is properly focused upon the individual human mind's view of the processes in which the human mind masters the domain of man's willful action on that mind of man, through which man's mind applies its same powers of creative insight to the study of man's own behavior in our species' control over the physical preconditions of human mortal life. In great Classical art, as the case of Kepler's predecessor Leonardo da Vinci goes toward the heart of the relevant principle, it is the mental-social functions of the individual human mind which are to be explored, as by the methods of fugal and related counterpoint by the greatest musical composers and performers since Bach.

Man reigns within the universe, and his knowledge of that universe is therefore man's self-conscious apprehension of that which his acquisition of such knowledge represents as his power in and over that same universe. The true subject of science is man himself, and his Creator.

Capitalism: A Significant 'Side Issue'
In stark contrast to British imperial empiricism, the idea of the existence of "capitalism," as distinct from the constitutional intention of of such United States Presidents as Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, exists only as a curious variety of Anglo-Dutch Liberal, pagan religious belief. (Hence an inevitable, inherently systemic conflict between what is called capitalism and Christianity, for example.) Happily, the remedy for such a superstitious belief is to be found in the work of such founders of the U.S. constitutional system, as in commentaries, as in the work of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's commentaries on the quaint, pagan customs among Dutch poltroons. The constitutional principle upon which the foundation of the U.S. republic depended, from the beginning, through the adoption of the Federal Constitution, was a rejection of the class systems of earlier and contemporary Europe alike. Unfortunately, the ideas of the U.S. Constitutional system have been the victims of a stunning lack popularity for them, in today's lately reigning U.S. government circles, especially during the most recent two years.

It was against that conception on which the U.S. republic was founded, which was the anti-British expression in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which prompted Lord Shelburne's lackey, Adam Smith, an avowed hater of the United States, to devote his own 1776 The Wealth of Nations, explicitly, to demanding the crushing of the young U.S. republic. No U.S. citizen can properly defend Smith for that, and also regard himself as a U.S. patriot if he does.

Among the principal supporters of the U.S. cause of 1776 and later, from among the crowned heads of Europe and relevant other Europeans, such as the Marquis de Lafayette, there was the widely expressed desire by enlightened leading Europeans, to see the success of the U.S. venture of 1776-1789, as a model for the desired, humanistic reforms of the very same systems of European government over which they either reigned, or were of influential rank. Such European supporters rightly saw us as pace-setters for effecting the pro-humanistic reforms, but not necessarily so-called "capitalist" reforms, which they desired for their own nations; we, therefore, became, thus, the expression of their own cause.

The most essential among those desired humanistic reforms, as promoted by many from around our planet, was the liberation of the great mass of the people of Europe from the millennia-old system of subjugation of the great mass of the population by the principle of perpetual ignorance which the Olympian Zeus of the playwright Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound described as the Olympian Zeus' prohibition of the extension of the fire of scientific progress to the subject human population. Those European statesman, scientists, and poets who had assimilated the legacy of that great ecumenical Council of Florence which had set modern European civilization into motion upon the debris of feudalism, were personally committed to the relevant uplifting of the status and individual development of the general population of that nation for whose destiny they considered themselves as largely responsible, and in the vital interest of their fellow-citizens, too.

The same issue which inspired both the founders of the U.S.A. and also those who assisted it in resisting the brutishness of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial system established in February 1763, reigns as a necessary view of matters for the present day. "Capitalism" is just a deceptive, silly name, used to divert attention from the actual, human issues facing humanity at large, then, as also still today. The U.S. economic system, whose reality was laid out by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and defended by President Franklin Roosevelt, is the entirely different system which all the greatest patriots of the U.S. fought to defend and promote: forget that dirty British word, "capitalism."

Ecology as Economy: Empiricism
In the immediate years following the close of what is called "The Second World War," the argument began to be spread, that the new name for "economy" should be "ecology." There was no effective clarity among those who referred to ecology as a basis for economy, or upon exactly what principle this discussion should be premised, although, in my view, the prevalent tendency was typified by the line of the Julian Huxley who was the grandson of Britain's same notorious Thomas Huxley, who had spawned the career of the virtually Satanic, and avowed fascist, H.G. Wells. Yet, at the same time, the more meaningful use of the term "ecology" as identifying a category of human behavior, would be to emphasize the categorical distinction of the physical principles specific to human ecology, as distinguished from either as merely a sub-category of animal ecology, or as economies might be described as economies viewed as subjects of what are essentially monetary systems.

Our U.S. republic's essential enemy from within "Old Europe," and that Europe's imperialist's reach into the present world at large, is an ideology, the ideology of empiricism traced from the leading role played by Venice's reformer Paolo Sarpi, during his lifetime, and that of his principal lackey, the hoaxster Galileo Galilei. The denial of the existence of knowable truth, respecting matters of physical science and other leading categories of human knowledge, was the devilishly clever trick for depriving people of the protection of principles, by asserting that no such principles could have ever existed.

They stole your money, and then replied, as Wall Street or British swindlers would say today: "What money?"

Ecology as popularly defined today, has proven itself an effective force for evil, on this account.

In reality, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson has demonstrated so abundantly today, there is no intrinsic value in money itself, nor can any durably useful conclusions be drawn from the effort to explain the behavior of real economies in terms of some concocted monetary principle.

In history customarily, the significance of a money-system lies in a principle of usury which preys upon, but reigns from outside the domain of physical economy of any sovereign nation. This predicament is typified by the systemically defined, fundamental difference between the constitutional system of economy on which the U.S. Federal Constitution was premised, and the implicitly imperialistic financial systems in the continuing parliamentary traditions of government characteristic of Europe even still today.



For a healthy republic's economy, the state must exert a virtual birth-right monopoly over the uttering of currency, and of related appendages of a typical monetary process, as the U.S. Federal Constitution provides. Whereas, in Europe, still today, even where the monetary system is forced to bargain with the nation-state over the division of territorial rights, the monetary power exists in the form of a creation of a private monopoly, such as that of implicitly supra-national monetary systems, above the national state.

This supranational, implicitly usurious character of typical European monetary systems, is key for competent understanding of the distinction between the traditional parliamentary basis of representation provided for the governments of Europe, and the truly republican American constitutional system. Thus, to the extent that the United States has compromised its Federal Constitution by concessions to designs deemed more consistent with the European political-economy models, our own U.S.A., having thus betrayed its own birth-right, has been more or less badly ruined each time we made such compromises with the inherently imperialist monetary systems and practices of "Old Europe."

The source of this historic failure of European systems, is most easily recognized in terms of the modern European systems themselves, by the fate of the attempted reforms of France's Fifth Republic under a President Charles de Gaulle whose very personal existence was set in perpetual peril by the assassins of the British monarchy's imperialist financial-monetary system. The same, implicitly fascist threat, experienced at London's hands, by President Charles de Gaulle, has been introduced into the present U.S. Presidential-election campaign, through British top-down control over the principal mass of the financing and direction of Presidential election-campaigns since about February 2006.

The essential economic and constitutional distinction in law and practice between the U.S. Federal constitutional system, and those of parliamentary Europe, is that the U.S. Constitution prudently requires a U.S. fundamental power, as a sovereign nation, over the uttering and circulation of money and related forms of public credit. Thus, we have the fundamental difference in principle between the actually original Bretton Woods design under President Franklin Roosevelt, and the contrary design for the conduct of that system under the reign of a British imperialism's vulgar stooge, President Harry S Truman.

Summing this point up in brief: the U.S. economy is organized around the constitutional principle of public credit, rather than a typically European parliamentary regime held in virtual imperial captivity by a European style in monetary systems.

It is in those terms of reference, that the fate of all humanity presently, is menaced by the predatory tyranny of functionally imperialist, globally reigning monetarist systems.

Consequently . . .
In the hands of that British crowd and its virtual colonials of today, imperial Britain's American ideological lackeys, the direction of the discussion of ecology followed the lines of Anglo-American pro-genocidalists who had shared in the promotion of the eugenics movement, and are represented today by organizations, such as the neo-malthusian Club of Rome and the closely related Club of Rome's ally, that Laxenberg, Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, which came into being, as an offshoot of that Cambridge program of Systems Analysis associated with the influence of Bertrand Russell.

Russell's influence since he came to relative notability during the1890s, has represented a process of successive phases of moral and intellectual degeneration in the work of physical and related science. Most notable is the succession of the phase of such degeneration beginning with that represented by the work of the positivist Ernst Mach. Mach's influence, which is associated with the degeneration of physical science into a mere matter of mechanics, was a crucial shift, downwards, which dominated notable scientific quarrels through the period of World War I Berlin and Austria; Mach's influence to this effect, which peaked during the period of World War I, was then superseded by the much more radical degeneration introduced by the influence of Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, a thesis which emerged as setting a dominant trend in British radical-empiricist (positivist) ideology during the period of the 1920s Solvay Conferences.[24]



Among the most notable roles of Russell was that, although Russell was filling-in for H.G. Wells in Russell's announcing, in September 1946, a campaign for a causeless launching of a "nuclear assault" on the Soviet Union, Russell, while still defending this during the 1950s and beyond, reached an accommodation with the government of Soviet General Secretary Khrushchov under the auspices of Russell's own organization of a disgusting political concoction known as World Parliamentarians for World Government, and was the leading advocate, in association with his protégé, the curiously mad Leo Szilard, in escalation of nuclear-confrontationa... schemes, during the course of the late 1950s and 1960s.

The general character of the work of Russell and H.G. Wells, from their curious personal coincidence and rivalries over the period from Wells' emergence as a leading Fabian strategist for what became World War I, from the 1890s on, through their pact of common goals and common ends reached in their 1928 pact around the time of the publication of Wells' The Open Conspiracy, is that they remained British imperial utopians, always determined, as Russell himself emphasized on repeated occasions, to concoct some scheme which would ensure the eternal supremacy of the British empire to the proverbial "end of time." This has been, since, essentially the same Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial goal which has been continued, beyond the decease of former Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, by his co-conspirator, the Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip), these two the co-authors of the pro-genocidalist World Wildlife Fund behind the global neo-malthusian movement of today.

This is the true imperial face of mankind's leading enemy, still today. The sundry, utopian schemes haunting the world still today, such as Prince Philip's echo of Russell in proposing the reduction of the world's present population from approximately six-and-a-half billions persons, to two billions or less, hopefully, according to Russell, during the 1950s, and Prince Philip still today. There is no essential moral difference between these types and Adolf Hitler, except that these British fellows and their prominent co-thinkers around the world are much more likely to succeed, unless nations band together to outlaw such criminal schemes in some efficient way.

These intended mass-murderers could not succeed without the consent of international circles which are rooted in today's international neo-malthusian schemes, such as the World Wildlife Fund, or the frauds promoted by such lackeys of Prince Philip as the hoaxster, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore.

While these evil circles of influence from around the world, profess themselves humanitarians, they have the same deep-rooted, axiomatic goals of today as the Hitler movement of the 1920s and later, and will resort to kindred, or much worse means for realizing those goals of imperial population control, unless they are stopped today. That evil scheme, is what all the feverishly impassioned popular chatter today, about so-called "environmentalism." is all about. When we examine the last decades of the Soviet Union, from the early accommodations to Russell and his circle, during the 1950s through the influence of Russell's malthusian schemes centered on the Cambridge systems analysis projects, that is what we see. That is the draught of ideological poison which came to infest, and ruin the Soviet system from within, more and more, from the top down, as the visible end of that system approached.

Affairs of the world, including the affairs of the world's economy, have reached the point of a threatened, monstrously deadly, terminal crisis of civilization as a whole.

It should be obvious from the experience of the most recent two U.S. Presidential terms, that, while the pure rage of nuclear horrors remains possible, the more likely ruin of the planet will tend to come through nothing so much as toleration of a combination of utopian financier schemes, such as the assorted expressions of "globalization," and the suicidal slide toward a monstrous, planetary "new dark age," like, but far worse than that which struck feudal Europe, done by the hand of Venetian financier interests behind the Lombard League, during Europe's Fourteenth Century. Then, one-third of Europe's population was wiped out during approximately the span of approximately a single generation; this time, if permitted, it would take at least eighty percent of the present world population.

Any nuclear-weapons or related atrocities would be essentially side-effects.

Our common strategic task, is to take the constructive economic and social measures needed to prevent that presently looming, global catastrophe from actually happening. The distance to Hell itself is now becoming very, very short.




3. Discover a New World


Apportion the outline of the proposed programmatic approach to the immediate launching of a global physical-economic recovery, among the following principal categories.

A. A New, Global, Bretton Woods System
The present financial systems of the world at large are not only hopelessly bankrupt, when considered in the entirety of the nominally outstanding assets and liabilities of each nation, or region of the world. Although we must choose, selectively, to secure the valid elements among the claimed nominal assets, the merely nominal claims, most of which, like financial derivatives, are essentially only gambling debts, must be simply discarded as waste. Any possibility of the present survival of civilization depends upon the imposition of that condition.

It should be recalled, that, despite the Federal U.S. preceding conviction of Michael Milken, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan took the lead in unloosing that flood of financial derivatives, now totalling in the amount of not less than quadrillions of U.S. dollars denomination, which is the principal driver of the general, global financial breakdown-crisis of the world financial system in its presently accelerating collapse-phase today. This already monstrous crisis has been aggravated by insane efforts, led by the U.S. and British governments, to subsidize such merely nominal assets at the expense of the otherwise probably valid holdings and claims of the international financial system.

Although, as in my international webcast of July 25, 2007, I had already warned of an immediate eruption of a general, international financial breakdown-crisis, and had presented valid actions by the U.S. government to bring that crisis under control, with the measures actually taken over the interval August 1 through October 18, 2008, relevant Federal legislative and Executive Branch agencies have not only failed to take these indicated actions, but have taken directly contrary measures which could have no other effect than literally destroying the credibility of a possible recovery from the already bankrupt, entire international financial system.

Matters have reached the point that only certain drastic emergency measures, taken by a combination of leading governments of the world, could halt the presently accelerating plunge of the world's financial-monetary systems.

However, if those emergency measures which I have prescribed are taken by a sufficient part of the world's leading, and some other nations, remedies are available. Such emergency measures require an initiative among some leading powers of the world, to employ the authority implicit in the combined efforts of a significant number of the present world's leading national powers, to force a proceeding in bankruptcy-reorganizat... of the world's financial monetary system.

Any negotiation which does not proceed from that specific, first step, will result in a far worse catastrophe than is already oncoming. The worst thing that could be done now, would be to call an impromptu "new Bretton Woods" convention which would be a hodge-podge of diplomatic debating points. By resorting to what is such an inherently failed effort, the credibility of any competent subsequent action would be ruined in advance—and the world as a whole would then, more or less assuredly, deliver itself to a sojourn of centuries to come, in a forthcoming economic version of Hell.

In my option, we must begin with measures including a process of discarding forms of human end-product properly regarded as financial waste-matter. We must take this action as a precaution on behalf of other portions representing morally legitimate claims, such as valid deposits of citizens and functionally viable assets of useful public or private institutions. Those portions of the present world financial-monetary system which are intrinsically viable and essential to the economic health of nations, must be set aside, by that combination of authorities for governmental legal protection, after which, the remainder of nominal claims report to the same hereafter where, within the U.S.A., the nominal currency of Britain's 1860s former Confederacy puppet still reposes safely in perpetual peaceful neglect today.

All claims on the account of financial derivatives, for example, are simply to be cast into oblivion as being nothing better than gambler's debts to what might have been, in fact, Alan Greenspan's defunct derivatives casino. The attempt to panic governments and others by stating that all financial claims of those institutions must be honored, more or less equally (of everyone but ordinary citizens and physically productive enterprises), is to be treated as sheer buncombe. What effective government is resolved to defend through bankruptcy protection, is all of the present financial claims which could be defended without crashing the world's physical economy into proverbial "smithereens." Any compensation wrongly awarded by recent, probably unlawful actions by government, must be returned as rapidly as feasible, to the victim, from whoever had been the illicit holder of such donations. Notably, any drug-trafficking gains accessible to governmental action should be confiscated, and delivered to the most probable choice of the beneficiary, as quickly as practicable, under the same general rule.

Among things to be protected, now privileged portions represented as legitimate claims under the process of financial reorganization, must now find a place of safe residence, under general financial and credit reorganization, for those claims. That place, should, in typical cases, be provided by the creation of newly formed credit systems, a place where legitimate claims from the former monetary systems, so defined, are now honored, according to lawful terms, consistent with the intent of national constitutions such as our own U.S. Federal Constitution, and thus provided protection under the lawful terms of a new, international credit-system.




Under New Credit Systems
The reciprocal relationship between the newly established, national credit-systems, and the intended, uninterrupted fulfillment of valid and necessary economic and related functions, must be brought into being as if, as it used to be said in these United States, "turning on a dime."

The shards of an already shattered, and monstrously bankrupt, present world financial-monetary system, must be reprocessed in this way. This happy transformation must be caused to occur in such a way that the relatively idled portion of human and other functionally valuable resources, is quickly re-directed, as flow, into an expansion of a newly expanded physically productive sector, and that as rapidly as might be possible. This will occur largely, at first, through necessary publicly funded, public works.[25] The purpose of this initial transitional phase should be, to bring the economy of each and all nations, as rapidly as possible, into a condition above the level of inherent physical-economic break-even of costs and income, t]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106025-bretton-woods-redux-the-real-bridge-to-nowhere?source=feed#comment-307062 307062
Table of Contents
Prologue
Her Crucial Part in History
British Imperialism Today

Introduction: Lenin's Blunder in Economics
The U.S.A. & Russia
Britain's War Against Us, Since 1890
Law: Empire versus Nation
The Neo-Feudal Road to a Dying Europe
A Note on Rosa Luxemburg

1. Britain & Karl Marx
What Is Really Wrong with Marx?
U.S.A., Russia, and Marx
The Problems of Marxism Today
The Relevant Obstacles
The Effects of Empiricism

2. Science & Human Ecology

The Principle of Empire
What Is 'Human Ecology'?
Why Kepler Is Crucial
The Principle At Issue
Music, For Example
Art & Science
Capitalism: A Significant 'Side Issue'
Ecology as Economy: Empiricism
Consequently...

3. Discover a New World

A. A New, Global, Bretton Woods System
Under New Credit Systems
The Mission of Reform
End the Evil of Liberalism
The Spirit of the Reform Itself
The Mission-Orientation
B. The Dynamic Role of Infrastructure
C. The Creation of International Credit
D. An Eurasia-Africa Global Perspective

Prologue

The following report may come to be considered by some among the world's leading circles of today, as the most important political document you have read, or might have read, during your lifetime to date. Certainly, the strategic issues presented here provide what would have been heretofore the most important subject in the world's historical experience of modern European civilization.

You stand here and now, in this moment of world history, between the hope of Heaven and prospect of Hell, such as you have never even dreamed before.

However matters of that sort, with which we deal in this report, are to be seen, it were suitable that there be no harsh battle-cries, but that what must be said, is said in those quiet tones of deadly earnest used by the commanders of the troops on the early morning of the day the greatest war was to begin. It is not the wild passions of the drunken mob, but the chillingly quiet cadences with which the cavalry man steadies his mount, and commanders calm their charges at times when the unthinkable is, at last, finally, actually to begin.

Therefore, as I have just promised you that I would, I speak calmly of things which men should remember in the aftermath of the great battle now coming on. Read these words calmly, that you might read them with an open mind. For, if you can accept calmly the reality of what I report to you here, we were all more likely to make the decisions through which we survive this presently oncoming general breakdown-crisis of present society, world wide.

That celebrated daughter of the once-famous Bund, Rosa Luxemburg, was, without doubt, the most competent economist, scholarly or otherwise, among her socialist contemporaries: the best such, by far. Although she is almost forgotten in today's academic and political life, her uniquely original, and correct treatment of the subject of British imperialism, then, comes now to the surface of current world-crisis events, on the verge of the November 4th U.S. Presidential election, when our planet as a whole now careens, at accelerating speeds, into what threatens to become a world-wide plunge of the entire planet into a deeper new dark age than that of Europe's 14th Century.

The relevance of Rosa's Luxemburg's study of modern imperialism then, is to be presently located by us here as, in the fact, that, to understand the present crisis of world civilization, we must recognize two considerations. First, that this present world crisis is a product of a current influence exerted by the same British-imperialist enemies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and by Britain's own U.S. and other sympathizers which had been mobilized against Roosevelt beginning Summer 1944, by virtual enemies including Winston Churchill accomplice, and President Harry S Truman. Second, that succession of changes in U.S. policy made by British influence of variously corrupt, or stupid, leading U.S. figures since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, especially following the riotous Weatherman-terrorist events of the 1968-70 period. Those events reflect the changes which, have induced all U.S. Presidential administrations since 1971 to either promote, or lack the temper to resist, a state of affairs, inside the U.S.A. itself, in which the net physical output of the U.S. economy as a whole, has been shrinking at a generally accelerating net rate, between gains and losses, over the entire interval spanning U.S. fiscal year 1967-68 to the present date.

The relevance of Rosa Luxemburg's work for the times of today's crisis, is to be found in the result of those British-imperialist-di... attacks against the policies of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, which are expressed today as having been the careening of the economy of the entire planet into the present condition of a general breakdown-crisis of the entire world monetary and physical-economic systems. If that physical-economic situation were not to be turned around—very soon—the period following the November 4, 2008 U.S. general election could be the clarion for the collapse of the economies of all nations of the planet of a type similar to, but far, far worse than that which Europe experienced during that Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age, a New Dark Age during which the number of parishes of Europe shrank by half, the population of Europe was quickly reduced by one third, and the Black Death was the characteristic cultural feature of the decades following the official bankruptcy of the King of England.[1] This time, if that dark age looming on your doorstep is actually unleashed, the result will be one far, far worse than what happened to Europe during that previous European New Dark Age.

On account of this issue of British imperialism today, Rosa Luxemburg stands out still, in fact, as apart from and above a presently reigning generation of both most economists, and the academics in the field of so- called "political science" and law generally, or the generality of leading political figures today. This includes nearly all recent or present candidates for U.S. President, none of whom has a grasp of the notion of history as a process, rather than merely a sequence of selected events whose outcomes might be bought and sold to the highest bidder today.

As the consistent decline of the U.S. physical economy since 1968 attests, only a few among us, internationally, and, chiefly, only of my generation or a relatively fewer of the immediately younger generation today, stand out as being, even rarely, exceptions to today's general rule of incompetence in the shaping of the economic policies of nations of the world today. Her 1913 Accumulation of Capital, whose English-language translation was published by Monthly Review back in 1951, is remarkable in that it provided the English-speaking reader a uniquely scientific approach to the subject of modern imperialism, relative to other European sources. It therefore deserves recognition today as a starting-point provided by a competently professional historian, Luxemburg herself, for the understanding of the origins of the general, global economic breakdown-crisis currently in progress, today.[2]

So, let the following be said, and received as an appropriate introduction to the great, rapidly soaring crisis of world economy which we must address, with the highest degree of authority, now.

Her Crucial Part in History


Rosa Luxemburg was the socialist economist who proved that Russia's V.I. Lenin, as also the German Social-Democracy of that time, lacked comprehension of the real-life meaning of what is called modern imperialism. Her only rival in competence as a leading economist from among socialists, during her time, was France's Jaurès.

In my own personal experience, it was in my post-war engagement, as a U.S. soldier, in 1946 Calcutta, during the first half of that year, that a high density of initial meetings and repeated encounters with typical leaders and others of the political parties of India, afforded me a deep, well grounded insight into the cruelly, and mass-murderously raw nature of British imperialism, and my deep, justly existential quality of contempt for the British imperialist stooge back home, that Harry S Truman who succeeded our justly beloved, devoutly anti-imperialist President Franklin Roosevelt.

However, it was not until the U.S. State Department professional, Herbert Feis,[3] documented the case for this same argument on the subject of modern imperialism, by Rosa Luxemburg, that any well known economic historian had actually developed the publicly available, rounded, corroborative evidence, publicly, in depth, which showed that Rosa Luxemburg had been right, against her socialist rivals, and others, then, as now.

British Imperialism Today
Similarly, at present, the popular, but utterly incompetent notion, among professed socialists and others, that the U.S.A. "is the world's leading imperialism today," is not only an utterly wrong idea, but a belief which could be presently suicidal in actual practice for nations such as both the U.S.A. and Russia, and others, today. Nonetheless, that wrong idea is a belief among many leading economists and statesmen, throughout the world, who cling stubbornly to the notion of American imperialism, still today. Thus, the world is presently menaced by the effects upon the credulous, of that strategic delusion, the delusion that it is the U.S.A., rather than the British Empire's Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, which is, uniquely, the dominant, actually imperialist strategic force operating throughout the planet today. Indeed, each of the impassioned haters of the U.S.A. among even our citizens, and others abroad, even leading political figures, is a product of the fact that they are virtually, either unwitting, or more or less witting British agents against our United States, whether they are able to grasp that fact, or not. A similar delusion is met among many in Russia, still today.

As I indicate later in this present report, the term imperialism, competently employed, never corresponds to an extension of world-power by some particular nation-state. In reality, as distinct from the childish fairy-tales of the credulous, all empires are dynamically supranational, and the kingdoms or comparable states of that time are merely, in and of themselves, the subjects of some supranational, imperialist power, as that relationship is illustrated by the thrust toward the condition in western and central Europe under which the supra-national authority of supra-national government, such as "globalization" and "free trade" generally, or the World Trade Organization in particular, subordinates, or even replaces actual national sovereignties.

Fighting the wrong choice of enemy, especially in the wrong war, especially long wars according to designs tailored for the U.S.A. by London, or British agents-in-fact such as former President George H.W. Bush, the son of the Prescott Bush who moved funds to bail out Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party, most especially, perpetual wars, is the best way to get one's own nation destroyed, as we should recognize this factor in the effects of the long U.S. war in Vietnam, under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, then, or, now in Iraq, under Presidents Bush, father and son, since January 1989.[4]

It is the legacy of that chief adversary of the present world's British imperialism, the constitutional United States, since the crucial historical break of the February 1763 Peace of Paris, and also the legacy of Massachusetts' Winthrops and Mathers, and their political heir Benjamin Franklin: that United States remains the most effective force so far, even despite the two U.S. Presidents Bush, to secure the true freedom of nations from so-called "British" imperialism of today.



The legacy of Benjamin Franklin's leading role in crafting the constitutional U.S. republic in its essential character, remains, still, the leading, constitutional adversary of the world's only true empire of today, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire sprung from the tradition of Paolo Sarpi. At the least, this is true of our United States to the degree it has, repeatedly, represented, as under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the rallying-point of peoples of the world against what has been the leading traditional opponent, British imperialism, since February 1763.

Our United States has never been an imperialist nation in its national character, and has seldom acted in a way even resembling an imperialist power, except when the U.S. government was controlled by British influences such as our own American Tory party descended from such as that outright traitor and British Foreign Office agent U.S. Vice-President Aaron Burr, or, as under avowed virtual agent of British influence, President Harry S Truman, or was confronted by a multi-national adversary, such as, most frequently, the allies and agents of our republic's principal adversary in fact, the British empire itself.[5]

Today, the United States alone could not win the battle for its freedom from Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism. Since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the ascendancy of that wretched defender of British colonialism, President Harry Truman, the power and practiced principle of our United States has been spoiled, that to such a degree that long since the accession of Truman, the U.S.A. has been chiefly self-ruined by a rarely interrupted succession of phases marked by the accession of Truman, the assassination of President John Kennedy, the break-up of the Bretton Woods system sought by London (on the initiative of the accomplices of British subversion of the U.S. administration of President Richard Nixon), and by those predatory, treasonous hordes of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, the which were deployed in service of the same, pro-genocidal green fascism of the pro-genocidal World Wildlife Fund of Britain's Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip) and his leading, recently deceased partner, Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

That much said on background for the following report as a whole, turn, now, to the preface and, then, the main body of the report itself.




Introduction: Lenin's Blunder in Economics

For reasons which shall be made clearer during the course of the present report's in-depth study of the causes, prevention, and cure of the presently ongoing general economic breakdown-crisis of our planet, there are immediately available prospects for a safe escape from the present crisis.

Notably, the present world financial-monetary system could not survive, and we of the U.S.A. would not survive, either, without entering into a new quality of co-operation with Russia and other nations during the immediate months ahead, a coalition sufficiently powerful in itself to crush the efforts of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interest's efforts to destroy all of us together, by hanging each one among us separately. If those particular partners are divided, all mankind loses. In history, powerful alliances from among the predator's intended victims, often bring down the tyrant himself.

However, a new world economic system of respectively sovereign, "globalization-free," modern nation-states, must, and could be established, a system which would be entirely consistent with the original intention of such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton in the founding of our own U.S. Federal Republic. This would have nothing in common with the monetary-economic and related characteristics of the British (Anglo-Dutch Liberal) world empire and its presently Fabian roots in such locations of the essentially Fabian imperialist British Labour Party leadership of such as the author of the Iraq war and other, similar atrocities (by aid of both fraud and by the death of an honest British intelligence figure, Dr. David Kelly), Tony Blair, and of Baroness Liz Symons and her husband, and Gordon Brown today.

The U.S.A. & Russia


The outstanding significance of Russia as a U.S. partner in this global economic-recovery-prog... can be found in relations between the two nations since the time of Catherine the Great's role in creating that League of Armed Neutrality on which the U.S.A.'s own freedom depended at that time. Similarly, when our republic's traditional imperialist adversary, the British Empire, rallied Napoleon III and the slaving-trading Spanish monarchy in the efforts to destroy us and Mexico, in 1861-65, it was the Russian navy which came to contribute crucial margins of aid to us, in deploying its naval force to guarantee the defense of our Pacific and Atlantic Coasts against an outright British naval attack.

However, there was a still deeper, common root of that relationship with Russia then; the connection was the common influence of Gottfried Leibniz in shaping the ideas on which our own economic development and the design of our Declaration of Independence depended, ideas which had influenced the Peter the Great who had visited Saxony's Freiberg Academy, both as Prince and Czar, during the same period of a few years as Leibniz's visit to the same place.

However, the role of Russia as a prospective key partner of the U.S.A. in any possible, global recovery of the present world's economy, has two additional leading features. First, that we and Russia have deeply rooted, long-standing, historical common interests between ourselves. Second, that Russia is, for historical reasons dating from the time of Genghis Khan, the world's principal Eurasian culture. Russia, together with a group of presently independent republics in the area of what had once been the Soviet Union, and imperial Russia earlier, is the gateway between the republican currents within the world's trans-Atlantic culture as extended to the land-mass of Asia as well.

The U.S.A. and Russia also share a common strategic interest in resisting the evil done by their chief common enemy, the British (or, better said, "Brutish") empire. The evil leading role of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the efforts of the Thatcher-Mitterrand-Bu... plot to crush Germany, as through the Maastricht agreement, and also eastern Europe (including Russia), and the later deployment of the British royal yacht for the destruction of the then-existing government of Italy, from that time to the present date, are only typical of British imperialism's attitudes toward relations with its continental European neighbors.

The planet as a whole has been dominated, increasingly, by the systemic, trans-Atlantic conflict of principled interest between the English-speaking population of the U.S. and the imperialist interests centered in Britain, since about 1620. The establishment of the British monarchy and Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-Liberal system through the so-called "Seven Years War" of 1755-1763, divided the patriots of English-speaking North America from Britain in a manner which has persisted in Britain's chosen role as the principal foe of the continued existence of what would become the U.S.A. of Benjamin Franklin et al. since the February 1763 Peace of Paris. It was that Peace of Paris which had established the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne et al. as that true, Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial power which has remained, through all its own internal evolutions, as our own republic's most consistent enemy, from then to the present year's controlling role of British Foreign Office agents such as drug-lord George Soros in top-down control of the Democratic Party and its U.S. Presidential primaries and into the November general election.

Since February 1763, that Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperialist interest has been the principal continuing influence which has repeatedly ruined the efforts to develop viable systems of government on the continent of Europe.

Britain's War Againt Us, Since 1890
From the time of the establishment of the British Foreign Office by the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne, in 1782,[6] the essential feature of British imperialism has never been the British colonies as such, but, rather, the overreach of the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne, Jeremy Bentham, et al., and the Company's Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier hierarchy, as extended throughout most of the planet as a whole. The legacy of the Seven Years War of 1755-63 stamped the character of the British imperial system since that time, a character to which it has returned in a clearly visible way, again and again, especially since the 1865 failure of its determination to break up the United States, a failure brought about through its defeat, with Russia's help, by forces under U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. This British defeat by Lincoln's republic, was a menacing defeat of what had been Britain's imperial policy under the British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham and Lord Palmerston, successively, the defeat of the British intention to isolate and destroy the U.S.A.'s continued existence as a potency within the Americas themselves.

Had the British not mobilized to incite warfare throughout Eurasia at that point, the British Empire—the Anglo-Dutch empire of usury—would have long since ceased to exist. The threat to end British imperial power, was a reflection of the adoption of the model of the American System of political-economy, whose influence, and imitations, had been spread from North America into continental Europe and beyond. Thus, from that moment, the U.S. influence's challenge to the tyranny of British sea-power, on which the British empire depended, became the so-called "geopolitical" issue around which the British Empire has repeatedly launched general warfare ever since, especially since the Prince of Wales succeeded in prompting the ejection of Chancellor Bismarck in 1890. Essentially, all important warfare on this planet since those times, has been an expression of the model of the so-called "geopolitical" conflict between the American republican and the British imperialist models of society.

British rage against President Lincoln was obviously the primary motive for the British intelligence services' assassination of President Lincoln, as also Presidents Garfield and McKinley, later—and these have not been the only cases; but, British imperialism's strategic interest in eliminating the U.S. republic as the most deadly challenger of continued British imperial power, as by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been primary. Assassinations, or corruption of the U.S.'s Presidency and legislatures, has been the more commonplace efforts to the same general effect. However, the fact of the British monarchy's role in bringing about the ouster of Germany's Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, that done in order to bring on what became World War I, exposes the broader, continuing anti-American strategy of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system over the entire period since February 1763.

To illustrate that point of principle, consider the following.



During the time after his 1890 ouster from office, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck warned that the sole cause for what was, in fact, to become London's intended Balkans wars, wars which would lead, predictably, into the 1914 outbreak of general warfare, was an intended British re-enactment of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests' launching of that 1755-1763 Seven Years War which had resulted in the establishment of the British East India Company's emergence as an imperial entity and world power at the February 1763 Peace of Paris. It is that British imperial, international financier-oligarchical institution, which is determined to weaken and destroy would-be challengers of the British role on this account. That role has been a reflection of the intent to establish Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier power as the only truly world-wide, "globalized" empire on this planet, from that time to the present day. As for the British monarchy itself, it is simply a creature of the imperial financier oligarchy whose modern political and financier power is an institutional expression of the so-called New Venetian party of Paolo Sarpi and his followers.

To understand this should be a simple matter for any educated person who is not also a silly ideologue of a Rudyard Kipling sort of "Colonel Blimp" category. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, written by Edward Gibbon as a report delivered personally to his master, Lord Shelburne, is the actual draft of all long-term objectives, and of the adopted imperial character, by Shelburne, of the intended existence of the British Empire. What is prescribed as doctrine for the empire is the adoption of the model of Julian the Apostate, as the characteristic feature of the empire's design was so described by Gibbon, and has remained the manifest intention of practice, since that time, to the present day.

Thus, we came to enjoy, courtesy of Shelburne, Gibbon, et al., not only the 1914-1918 general war, but both World War II and the post-President Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A. "Cold War" under British accomplice President Harry Truman.[7] The Truman-Churchill creation of the long conflict between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union were never anything, in principle, but, exactly as Chancellor Bismarck understood, continuations of the intention expressed by the followers of the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne in the continuing aftermath of the February 1763 Peace of Paris.

So, the French Revolution of July 14, 1789 and beyond, and London's and the Habsburgs' use of Napoleon Bonaparte's ruin of continental Europe to long-term British imperial, strategic advantage, were expressions of the principal type of wider operations among those machinations of the British Foreign Office run by the British East India Company's British Foreign office, as under the leadership of Shelburne and his followers. From that time, to the present day, these have been the followers who were proceeding, under the same imperial strategy used by the British East India Company for the orchestration of the 1755-1763 Seven Years War.

Unwitting British asset Napoleon Bonaparte was used, in this same way, to the advantage of his all-the-while giggling, British puppet-masters, all done to the same purpose as the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' orchestration of the "Seven Years War." As former Chancellor Bismarck was to emphasize implicitly, the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna was one among a succession of the true successors to the British East India Company's imperial triumph in the February 1763 Peace of Paris.

After the defeat, by President Abraham Lincoln's leadership, of the British Empire's fresh efforts to destroy the challenge of the U.S.A., through the empire's operations which had been run continuously through the British Foreign Office of Lord Shelburne, Jeremy Bentham, and Lord Palmerston, over the 1815-1865 interval, the British Empire launched what became "geo-political" World Wars I and II. This new, post-1865 emphasis in British imperial policy was on a continuing succession of general, imperial warfares, as typified by the role of the British Prince of Wales Edward Albert's use of the ouster of Bismarck to set the stage for pitting the Russia of Czar Nicholas II against the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm II. At the same time, Prince of Wales Edward Albert wooed Japan's Mikado into the 1894 launching, on Britain's behalf, of Japan's 1894-1945 wars aimed for the twofold goals, of destroying the government of China, dismembering that nation, and also, destroying the Pacific maritime power of the Mikado's and Britain's common adversary, the United States.[8]



That post-1865 phase of the British empire used those same methods, through employing what were, during my lifetime thus far, then presently "former Anglo-American backers of Adolf Hitler," such as the current U.S. President's grandfather, the Prescott Bush who played a key role in rescuing Hitler from bankruptcy at a crucial moment, for the purpose of drawing the U.S.A. itself into the role of a British puppet of what became today's Anglo-Dutch Liberal thrust for using a nuclear conflict between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, as the infinitely evil Bertrand Russell had demanded, from 1946 on, for the purpose of effecting the mutually assured nuclear destruction of both of those principal strategic targets[9]

That 1923-1940, British virtual alliance-in-fact with Hitler's cause, was thrown off balance by a coincidence of the role of a pro-fascist government of France in opening the gates of France to the Wehrmacht assault, which prompted British leading circles, such as Winston Churchill, to break with Hitler over Hitler's breach of the agreement to recognize France as a British puppet. Then, the British turned to the U.S.A. under President Franklin Roosevelt for salvation, and Nazi Germany came to be defeated in what was, for the Nazi power, an ultimately hopeless, two-front war.[10]

That same British imperialism, is the source of all the most notably of the principal strategic evil afoot on this planet today, especially that promoted through the pro-Satanic, post-1989-1991 devices of the organized moral and economic depravity known as the "environmentalism" and "globalization." The latter is that which British asset, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore has promoted, with his lies against science, an effort he has made in his capacity as an associate of that British Prince Philip (the Duke of Edinburgh) who has openly demanded genocide against much of the planet's population, that done in company with the Duke's now deceased accomplice, Prince Bernhard, in the pro-genocidal campaigning of the World Wildlife Fund.

All this has crucial, strategic economic and related consequences at the present moment.

The effects of this Anglo-Dutch Liberal, imperialist policy, are also the origin of those processes over the 1945-2008 interval, to present date, of the presently ongoing, planetary, general economic breakdown-crisis of the entire world system of this present moment.

Thus, over these centuries, we have now reached that point in time, at which the cumulative economic and other cultural factors generated, chiefly, by Anglo-Dutch financier-ruled Liberalism, have now created the over-ripe preconditions for the presently, immediately threatened, general, physical breakdown-crisis of the entire planet.

Therefore, the most urgent intellectual concern which we must adopt, is attention to those faults in the behavior of the intended victim-nations themselves, faulty behavior which tends to prevent the witting among the intended victims of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, including, most notably, the leading powers among Britain's intended victims, such as the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, from becoming the needed, potent rallying point of those nations which might be resolved to free themselves, forever, from playing the part of Britain's duped strategic victims, yet once, again, and again, and yet once again.

Law: Empire versus Nation
This present period of modern history, following both the establishment of the Anglo-Dutch mode in Liberal power under William of Orange, and the final awful two years preceding the death of England's Queen Anne, has been a British campaign for the replacement of governments of actually sovereign nation-states, by the corrupted role of nations, such that, as the cases of the European Union and the Maastricht Treaty attest, nations have tended to become, consequently, mere appendages, mere subordinates, almost "petty kingdoms," within a Classical, ancient through modern, "globalized" form of world empire.

The specter of genocide through the new "Tower of Babel" called "globalization," is the prospect for the time immediately ahead, unless the forces of Anglo-Dutch Liberal usury are defeated by us now. For that contingency, we require a force of nations which is sufficiently powerful to put so-called British imperialism out of operation, for once and for all.

So, for related British reasons, the fascist "Weatherman" cult, an outgrowth of what had been spawned on the campus of New York's Columbia University, was to be seen in the infamous Chicago riots. This utterly depraved, dionysian cult-formation found its echoed, more violent expression in late 1980s Germany, where the anti-nuclear, fascist rioting reached near to the level of outright civil war by the German "cousins" of the Weathermen. This is the key for understanding the Sorelian cult of violence expressed by the so-called "international terrorism," the new "1848," of the entire 1968-2008 interval to date.

This insurrectionary factor in contemporary nations is always directed from above, from inside leading financial institutions and related law firms of kindred financial affinities, always chiefly centered in a structure of command within the scope of Anglo-Dutch Liberal networks of high finance. The intention behind the deployment of these young fascists of the Weatherman or similar types, is always the same as it was with the way in which Anglo-Venetian financier interests launched Mussolini in a staged exhibition of Sorelian "purgative violence." Look behind the Weatherman fascist cult to the offices where it finds homes today, to see where the danger to our republic lies simmering, now.

The degeneration of the former sovereignties of continental western and central Europe since Germany's submission to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's stripping away the sovereignty of Chancellor Helmut Kohl's Germany (with U.S. President George H.W. Bush's consent at that time), has now reached the condition, at least for the moment, at which, technically, no nation of western and central continental Europe is a true sovereign, unless, and until it frees itself from the existential quicksand of British-led "environmentalism" and "globalization." Notably, as seen most clearly in the current cases of France and Italy, there are pronounced expressions of a rising determination to accomplish such needed freedom from the iron heel of Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism.

So, Great Britain itself is not, essentially, a truly sovereign nation-state, but virtually a mere province of an imperial financier-oligarchical monarchy, an imperial monarchy which reigns over subordinates, such as nation-states, which are essentially, therefore, reduced to components of a virtual "Tower of Babylon," an increasingly "globalized" likeness of mere kingdoms of Europe's past imperial orders, such as Venetian-steered feudalism, rather than true sovereigns. The victims include kingdoms, or the like, operating under imperial authority established, under the oligarchical order, with such outcomes of this agreement as the empire of Augustus Caesar, and also the later expression of that (originally Asian) form of empire under Diocletian and his successor Constantine.

As under that same ultramontane principle of imperialism, only an emperor can establish general principles of law; the kingdoms have no power beyond the making of what are fairly described as local ordinances within the lesser domain. Thus, according to the ancient Asian-European, oligarchical principle of imperial law, the international, internationally extended Liberal financier-oligarchy, not the United Kingdom, is the only existing imperial authority of government of the world at large presented in the world as a whole today.

The Neo-Feudal Road to a Dying Europe


With the decline of Byzantium, more than a thousand years ago, the power of the empire shifted its seat of power from Byzantium, to the rising financier-oligarchical power of Venice: a Venice which used, most notably, the chivalry of the Anjou, the model for the future Nazi SS, as an instrument enforcing a reign of the feudal equivalent of modern international fascism of an SS, Caesarian state.

This evolution of medieval Europe under Venetian management of the feudal system, led into the notorious "New Dark Age" of the Fourteenth Century, during which the parishes of Europe were reduced by half, and the level of population by one third. This "New Dark Age" was brought onto the stage of history of that time by practices of Lombard usury, which employed methods similar to those of the present 1987-2008 interval, through which the world as a whole has been brought, presently, to the brink of a general economic breakdown-crisis of global civilization now.

The new-born modern Europe of the Fifteenth Century had been rescued by developments centered around the leadership of such figures as that great genius, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who set forth both the principle of the modern sovereign nation-state and established the foundations of all competent modern science. The influence of Cusa led to the founding of the first modern European sovereign nation-state republics, that of France's Louis XI and his admirer Henry VII's England. These developments established modern European civilization, but they were, unfortunately, not uncontested. The same Venetian interests represented by the Habsburgs struck back, plunging Europe into the religious warfare of 1492-1648.

Thus, with the Habsburg-linked expulsion of the Jews from Spain, in 1492, the system of sovereign nation-states and modern science, which had been established by the great ecumenical Council of Florence, was significantly suppressed, with the resulting 1492-1648 subjugation of all Europe to a long period of religious warfare. Out of this continuing warfare, the Venetian faction led by Paolo Sarpi emerged as a major, rising power of so-called Protestant authority, an authority based in the riparian regions of the north coasts of Europe, as opposed to the formerly reigning, nominally Catholic regions of the Mediterranean maritime regions.

Within that 1492-1648 interval of perpetual religious warfare, preceding the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, there were two important, if partial victories of the cause of the sovereign form of European nation-state.

The first was a product of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, as expressed in the establishment of modern physical science by, chiefly, the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and the carrying forward of Cusa's proposal for trans-oceanic development which was put into effect, initially, through Christopher Columbus.



The second, later, crucial positive development, was as expressed, as an echo of France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, in the crucial role of Cardinal Mazarin and his associate Jean-Baptiste Colbert, in the installation and development of the great principled form known as the 1648 Peace of Westphalia's ecumenical principle for relations among sovereigns.

Over the course of the 1492-1648 interval, there were two crucial, closely related, added developments, which had shaped the history of the principal modern, globally extended developments, to the present date.

The first, was the movement set into motion by Columbus' implementation of Cusa's program for this purpose, of carrying the best samplings of modern European civilization across the oceans, to places from whence the needed reforms of a Europe corrupted with the legacy of the ancient, Asian "oligarchical model" might be developed and launched to effect the needed reform to free Europe itself from that oligarchical evil. The development of the future U.S.A., as in the pre-1689 Massachusetts Bay Colony, was a leading example of this; the founding and securing of the U.S. republic up to the point of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, typifies this happy development.

However, the legacy of the neo-Venetian Paolo Sarpi's Liberal system, the so-called Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, became the leading efficient adversary of those happier developments which had come to be typified by the American republican form based on the principle of the Treaty of Westphalia.

The result of that conflict, was the increasing concentration of the greatest relative impetus for, and against economic development in two, mutually opposing, English-speaking powers, the U.S. republic versus the British Liberal system. That trans-Atlantic struggle, centered in opposing, English-speaking cultures, a struggle for true human freedom against the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of neo-Venetian imperialism, is the struggle which has been the principal pivot of world history under this arrangement, to the present day.

It is only from that outlook on those leading elements of modern and related history, that the present mortal threat to the continued existence of civilization, can be located and understood. That understanding is now indispensable if peace and progress are to exist anywhere on this planet, during the foreseeable generations just ahead.

A Note on Rosa Luxemburg
My references to Rosa Luxemburg here, refer to a complex personality, a true creative genius, but not a perfected specimen in all matters at hand.

To wit: Starting from the insane state of affairs in Europe, and also the U.S.A., after the ouster of Bismarck, and after the assassinations of France's President Carnot and the U.S.A.'s Presidents Garfield and McKinley, conditions throughout both Europe and the U.S.A., as elsewhere, reached a heated state of complexity which had no obvious precedent in the experience of those nations at that time. World War I and its outcomes, were already brewing, but creating a state of affairs whose complexities were not clearly understood by any source available on records known to me from that time, to the present day.

For a better appreciation of the complexity of those global circumstances, imagine a U.S.A. of the early 1860s without the presence of a President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's steady hand and deeply grounded notions of efficient principles in history, responded to circumstances which no contemporary but Lincoln himself grasped. There are, thus, crises, such as that of today's world, which no ordinary leading figure of the time could be presumed to understand. Only a true genius such as Lincoln, could leap that hurdle of comprehension. Only the figure who understands the crisis, could actually craft a clear and coherent vision of the remedy. Without knowing the question, the discovery of the answer remains doubtful.

To add to it all, Rosa Luxemburg was very much a woman, and thus representative of a sexual "species" not taken much into account in those times, in the usual course of settling great matters of nations. Not only did she experience such a psychological predicament within herself, but she was, like the victim of the Norman inquisition, Jeanne d'Arc, fatally encumbered with her obligation, so to speak, to wear men's clothes, burdened by the reaction to any woman's playing such a role in the great events of that time. Even today, women thrust into leading political and comparable roles, either tend to drift into the safer hiding place of specialization, or make fools of themselves out of their reaction to the still prevalent view of the limited role suitable for women in society.

They should be better; but, could we dare to say that it is only their own fault?

In the meantime, she suffered the combined effects of seeking to combine being a political leader on the grand scale, and an effective woman in her desired personal life to be a wife and mother, too. The threatening situation in which she found herself, not only on each account, but the dynamic domain in which the two combined, has not ceased to be a most difficult one for women generally, still today. Take her for what she achieved, and be grateful enough not to condemn her for what she was not.




1. Britain & Karl Marx





To enter the body of this report, I must begin with a reference to the Marxian view of political-economy. That is a view of a technical subject which is, itself, on the verge of going the way of the Dodo; but the effects, if not the intent of what had been so-called Marxism's former influence and role, remain crucial today, especially so when we are considering the crucially important history of strategic relations between Russia and the U.S.A.

Since I am obliged, by such presently very important strategic considerations, to take up this subject here, and since the subject itself is still a very touchy one, we must get through that discussion decently, without unnecessary rancor, before turning attention to pressing, other relevant matters.

That much said, I proceed as follows.

In any outlook but that of a piece of fantasy, the possibility of preventing the world as whole from falling into a general economic, cultural, social breakdown of world civilization, that very soon, hangs, as I shall show here, on a certain immediate, qualitative improvement of the relationship between the U.S.A. and Russia. This is to be considered a relationship grounded in the unique role of their co-operation of a certain form: co-operation in their combined efforts in bringing immediately into being, a committed coalition of sovereign nation-states, a coalition without which the planet as whole would be soon plunged into a dark age worse than that of Europe's Fourteenth Century.

In this case, the significance of the influence of the idea of the doctrines of Karl Marx, remains, for many represented on one or the other of both sides of the required co-operation, the large pebble of inconvenience in the boot of progress. Unless that difficulty is removed, it could be a lack of agreement motivated by memory of past quarrels, which would tend to cause both nations, and, thus, the world as a whole, to stumble into a dark age.

Thus, if we do not clear away what came to be seen as the related matter of "Cold War" after-effects, and recognize the crimes of Prime Minister Thatcher and U.S. President George H.W. Bush, during the post-1989-1992 interval for what they have been, the needed quality of co-operation could not be effected in a sufficiently timely fashion, perhaps not at all. In that case, all nations and peoples of the planet would be plunged into a prolonged new dark age, in which entire cultures would disappear into a general, rapid and accelerating collapse of the level of population of the planet as a whole, a collapse in the order of billions of persons.

In times prior to the middle through late 1970s, it was often still necessary to pose certain categories of economic notions with reference to a plausibly "orthodox Marxian" standpoint, but, as in the case of my own practice of that convention, always emphasizing, at the same time, that the foundations of a competent modern economics are actually to be found in the work of the follower of Leibniz, Alexander Hamilton, and, for my own purposes, also the physics of Bernhard Riemann. That is also to say, that it is not necessary to resolve all possible quarrels at all times, but, rather, often, to proceed by way of a Platonic conception of an organic quality of ongoing dialogue, a dialogue crafted with the goal of discarding troubling, habituated differences in the process of reaching agreement on urgent, validated higher principles and their goals.

The method of the Platonic dialogue, in and of itself, is to be recognized as the shared process of the discovery of truth, respecting principles, through dialectic.

The most important among the dialogues respecting physical-economic policies today, is posed by the closing sentence of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation: "This leads into another scientific domain, that of physics, which the quality of the present occasion [the subject of mathematics as such] does not permit us to enter." No true universal physical principle was ever defined by mere mathematics; by their very nature, all true principles of the universe stand as if outside formal mathematics as such; they lie in the domain of the so-called infinitesimal, as that infinitesimal is to be recognized by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original, experimental discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, and in the application of that notion of universal principle by Fermat and Leibniz, especially Leibniz' definition of an anti-Cartesian science, which he supplied during the course of the 1690s, as by his Specimen Dynamicum.

Keep that in mind as we proceed to the later parts of this present chapter. Shift our focus for a moment, to the empirical fact, that the physical economy of the U.S.A. has been in a continuing collapse, per capita and per square kilometer, since U.S. Fiscal Year 1967-68. This collapse has been driven by a willful collapse of physical investment in infrastructure, scientific progress, technology, and the long-term decline in rates of physical standard of living of the lower eighty percentile of the U.S. population, that throughout the entire 1968-2008 interval to date. Overpaid parasites, such as those with their "golden parachutes," make poor, foolish Queen Marie Antoinette seem almost a prophetic genius in promotion of a higher standard of living for those living outside the privileged ranks of our predatory investment banking's social parasites of today.

With the 1977 advent of a U.S. Carter Administration, one which was thoroughly duped by the hideous schemes of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, the only purpose for continuing the dialogue in the same terms was to seek out a dialogue, as I did at that time, with the last bastion of Marxist teachings, on the "other side" of what was stereotyped as the "capitalist-versus-soc... divide. It was proper to honor the graves of the deceased, but not to propose that actually living people simply transfer the social life of the living to the residences of the dead.

In this present, critically strategic circumstance of the entirety of our planet, the possibility of bringing the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India together, as the needed seed-core of initiating sponsors of a new, constructive global peace among most parts of the world, thus requires the approach adopted in launching a sudden surge of what might be named "non-ideological" intellectual clarity about not only the actual role of Karl Marx and his doctrines, and also the perversion of those doctrines, as in the crafting of the myth on which British imperialism has relied heavily for dulling the general population into the duped condition of support for a new imperialist mouse-trap called "globalization."

This presently, urgently needed escape from chaos into a real New Bretton Woods agreement, into a global, fixed-exchange-rate system, also requires a refreshed, new conception of the nature of the proper principles of political-economy, principles which are either generally unknown, or simply, arbitrarily rejected in a world which, largely, mistakes what is, essentially, merely financial accounting, and currencies bloated with soaring rates of inflation, for economic science. A rejection of the urgently needed general reforms which I have proposed, would therefore result in the kinds of ensuing, far worse consequences than those into which the world is currently being led. This would bring us all, soon, into the depths of that abyss of a general breakdown-crisis of the world, one worse than what Europe experienced during the so-called "New Dark Age" of the Fourteenth Century. What the world as a whole now faces, and that immediately, is a consequence of a global folly which is already in a very advanced state of development, today.

The issues which I have posed in what I have written in this report thus far, have been largely negative. This has been a necessary introductory step, since our attention must be focused on the negative features of those currently ongoing plunges into what is not a mere economic depression, such as that of 1929-1933, within the present world crisis, but a general break-down crisis of the planet in its entirety.

However, as I shall make clear in the course of this present report, the fact that a great tragedy now grips this planet, means that the world at large is now being challenged to reply to this menacing reality, by seeking out remedies which could not be found without, first, discovering that the principled character of the deadly issues of the present, must be treated as warnings, that certain kinds of categorical changes in global relations must be recognized, whether those changes are well-liked at present, or not. Insight into such specific, underlying, determining trends must lead us all, secondly, into the discovery and adoption of a relevant higher state of understanding of what is actually the presently needed development of relations among nations, a development which should have been made earlier, but was not, for one reason or another.

So, to define, here and now, those new, higher goals for relations among sovereign nation-states, we must pass through, and round out a series of topics, as preparation for reducing the results of that dialogue into a general conclusion as to needed principle. We must quickly pass through that dialogue, here and now, before attempting to present the needed end-game remedies at an appropriate, later point, as I shall in the course of this present dialogue in its entirety.

As will be made clear, at certain relevant points in this present report as a whole, some of the required topics are by no means simply understood, but they are indispensable if survival of civilization is to be had. In the meanwhile, here, let us take the course of touching on each relevant topic in our stride.

For that purpose, the roots of the principal causes of crises of the planet during 1945-2008, must be situated within what is a fresh, corrected view of the profound change in the relations of the U.S.A. and Soviet Union, from those during the time the foe of British imperialism, President Franklin Roosevelt, led the United States, while he lived, into the opposite direction of relations which were defined in a different direction, under his successor, the President Harry Truman who was a supporter of British and related European colonialism. This change, from Roosevelt to Truman, produced the radically changed U.S. direction in foreign and also domestic relations which we experienced under Truman, and, much worse, under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and the Bushes. This change of U.S. Presidents, and of the U.S.'s shifting choices among new, if temporary, changes in choices of friend and foe, must be seen with respect to the consequent changes, both those which have occurred, and those which should occur, in the essential character of the interaction by the U.S.A. with the past Soviet Union, the present Russia, and other states.

Since Russia's present, post-Soviet role, is of crucial importance in any set of workable remedies for this planet for today, we must begin by reconsidering some among those rarely recognized, but crucial issues, which are tied up, inextricably, with conflicts of strongly held opinions, in assessment of the practical influence of Karl Marx in shaping the past and present policies of practice in and among nations.

This is not a matter of settling "old scores." Many of the issues, including many heated ones of past times and places, have been more diversions of attention from important practical issues, than the actual issues of policy which needed to be resolved. Often, as in the history of nations, it is what you don't know, or refuse to recognize, which kills you. This is the crucial problem which it is my intent to clarify in this report. In such cases, a reflection on the history of the problem at hand, is what is usually required in search of remedies. The aspects of Marx's influence worth considering at length here, are, fortunately, reduced to a few essentials; the others are already merely relics.

What Is Really Wrong with Marx?
For the treatment of that indispensable subject for discussion here, we should begin with attention to the relevant, shared delusion, concerning modern economy, of the German Social-Democrats and V.I. Lenin, in their times. This was the theory, adopted through the credulity of Lord Palmerston's duped British asset Karl Marx, that "Adam Smith was installed as the only paragon of a valid doctrine of political-economy."[11... Such a misguided view of the governing outlook and related role of Karl Marx has proven, that the specifics of Marx's own doctrine have had a significant, auxiliary role in the developments contributing to causing the present world crisis, and have played a significant role in promoting absurd, and essentially diversionary notions of the nature and cause of imperialism. However, those matters of belief were not, in themselves, the primary cause of the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

The cause of the collapse is found in the influence of the ideas, not of Marx as such, but those associated with that impassioned hater of American freedom, Shelburne hack Adam Smith. The collapse must be considered, rather, as being symptomatic of the chiefly other, usually problematic, conditions which allowed the Soviet Union, paradoxically, on the one side, to develop great leadership in the military aspects of economic strategy, on the one hand, but, at the same time, to fail tragically in economy, largely because of Marx's teaching of Adam Smith to socialists.

There is a principled consideration underlying the Soviet economy's systemic inclination to such ironical failure in physical-economic policies, a failure which was rooted in a grave error of epistemology respecting the nature of the distinctive, uniquely creative powers of the individual human mind. It was chiefly for reason of this particular error in Marxist policy generally, substituting the horny hand of labor for that human mind which defines the laborer as human. It was an error expressed in a most extremely decadent, implicitly terminal form in the current customs and related specific mythologies and doctrines of post-1968 trans-Atlantic Liberalism.

That lesson, of that error, from the past, must be grasped, and that very quickly, if a solution is to be found for the onrushing general breakdown-crisis and threatened conditions of warfare inhering in the general economic breakdown-crisis of the world as a whole today.

U.S.A., Russia, and Marx
There are two leading problematic problems arising from the systemic blunders by Karl Marx, which plague discussion of strategy today. There remain problems, some of which are merely blunders which must be simply recognized, and, sometimes, others which must be corrected, if a timely performance is to be expected in what is presently the urgently needed co-operation, as keystone partners, between the U.S.A. and Russia.

The objective to be brought clearly into view, is, briefly this.

The essential fact to be considered in seeking co-operation between the U.S.A. and western and central Europe, is the British disease rooted in that same pro-feudalist, oligarchical legacy of continental Europe which prompted the most far-seeing European leaders to follow the advice of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the advice Columbus read from Cusa's own written words, advice Christopher Columbus adopted, to go across the oceans to find the leverage to remedy the chronic, oligarchical (read, "Venetian") disease of Europe . This was the same advice respecting the United States, which Germany's Otto von Bismarck heeded, in seeking peaceful relations with Russia, during his service as Germany's Chancellor.

However, the most important fact to be considered, is typified by the fact that Russia had been the ally of the United States, not only during the reign of the Empress Catherine the Great, but against the U.S.A.'s enemy Britain, during the period of the U.S. Civil War.

For that same reason, a close relationship had begun to develop between the United States and the government of Russia during the same period as the United States' own struggle for freedom against the British empire which had been founded at the February 1763 Treaty of Paris.

We must never overlook, that during the period of the Soviet Union, Russia never ceased to exist. President Franklin Roosevelt understood this, to such effect that no conflict between Russia and the United States would have been possible as long as Franklin Roosevelt's policy led the U.S. Presidency. The British Empire clearly understood, as did Stalin's government, in its own way, that if Roosevelt lived, the British Empire and the system of British imperialism which reigns, even over the U.S. electoral process now, would have vanished peacefully from the Earth. England would have not only survived, but benefitted from this change, but the British empire not. Communism was never, in itself, a break, but only a remediable source of difficulties in the historic good relations between Russia and the United States.

Presently, the continued existence of a civilized life among nations anywhere on this planet, depends upon an effective return to the long-ranging co-operation between Russia and the United States which had persisted, essentially, from the time of John Quincy Adams' term of U.S. public service in Petrograd, up to the point of the British-steered assassination of U.S. President William McKinley.

The leading issue in this connection, is, once again, the outcome of the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' organization of the 1755-1763 Seven Years War. War, mixed with conflict leading toward wars, between the powers of continental Europe, and between the U.S.A. and some European and other powers, has always been, as Bismarck clearly understood, the strategic cornerstone of the British Empire since the close of the Seven Years War.

The wisest leaders of Russia, whether in its role as a monarchy, or a Communist state, have always understood this fact, more or less clearly. Soviet orientation, as under Khrushchov, Andropov, and Gorbachov, toward alliance with the British Empire against the U.S.A., has always been the road toward ruin of both Russia and the United States. All truly competent and patriotic leaders of the United States have also understood this, if in their own choice of terms, rather than exactly my own.

However, the Communist legacy was no longer a source of existential frictions, as long as President Franklin Roosevelt remained President, or his policy were perpetuated. Now, however, that friction became a significant problem, not because of Communist traditions, but because of the results of President George H.W. Bush's shamefully kissing the foot of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the matter of the terms of Germany's reunification. The source of the remaining problems there has been the British determination to destroy Germany, and also Eastern Europe and Russia, thoroughly, now that Germany was no longer a bastion manning NATO's eastern front.

The only real problem of the Marxist legacy in the relationship between Russia and the U.S.A. presently, is the failure to clarify the systemic errors which the British ties have fostered as the kind of rapacious carpet-bagging, typified by the phenomenon of thieving, London-linked, ex-Communist Russian billionaires, or the British Empire's George Soros, and others, which ran rampant throughout the post-Soviet 1990s, and still burrows from within today. Communist economic policy was a failure, if not by any means, but for the reasons given by the vultures of the existentialist and otherwise pro-fascist Congress for Cultural Freedom. Much more could be said on that; we have said enough here, so that the general idea of the matter should be reasonably clear.

However, for as long as certain actual errors of Marxist dogma are not recognized, the mistakes of the economic policy of the Soviet period are still hung, like the a]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:43:55 -0500
Table of Contents
Prologue
Her Crucial Part in History
British Imperialism Today

Introduction: Lenin's Blunder in Economics
The U.S.A. & Russia
Britain's War Against Us, Since 1890
Law: Empire versus Nation
The Neo-Feudal Road to a Dying Europe
A Note on Rosa Luxemburg

1. Britain & Karl Marx
What Is Really Wrong with Marx?
U.S.A., Russia, and Marx
The Problems of Marxism Today
The Relevant Obstacles
The Effects of Empiricism

2. Science & Human Ecology

The Principle of Empire
What Is 'Human Ecology'?
Why Kepler Is Crucial
The Principle At Issue
Music, For Example
Art & Science
Capitalism: A Significant 'Side Issue'
Ecology as Economy: Empiricism
Consequently...

3. Discover a New World

A. A New, Global, Bretton Woods System
Under New Credit Systems
The Mission of Reform
End the Evil of Liberalism
The Spirit of the Reform Itself
The Mission-Orientation
B. The Dynamic Role of Infrastructure
C. The Creation of International Credit
D. An Eurasia-Africa Global Perspective

Prologue

The following report may come to be considered by some among the world's leading circles of today, as the most important political document you have read, or might have read, during your lifetime to date. Certainly, the strategic issues presented here provide what would have been heretofore the most important subject in the world's historical experience of modern European civilization.

You stand here and now, in this moment of world history, between the hope of Heaven and prospect of Hell, such as you have never even dreamed before.

However matters of that sort, with which we deal in this report, are to be seen, it were suitable that there be no harsh battle-cries, but that what must be said, is said in those quiet tones of deadly earnest used by the commanders of the troops on the early morning of the day the greatest war was to begin. It is not the wild passions of the drunken mob, but the chillingly quiet cadences with which the cavalry man steadies his mount, and commanders calm their charges at times when the unthinkable is, at last, finally, actually to begin.

Therefore, as I have just promised you that I would, I speak calmly of things which men should remember in the aftermath of the great battle now coming on. Read these words calmly, that you might read them with an open mind. For, if you can accept calmly the reality of what I report to you here, we were all more likely to make the decisions through which we survive this presently oncoming general breakdown-crisis of present society, world wide.

That celebrated daughter of the once-famous Bund, Rosa Luxemburg, was, without doubt, the most competent economist, scholarly or otherwise, among her socialist contemporaries: the best such, by far. Although she is almost forgotten in today's academic and political life, her uniquely original, and correct treatment of the subject of British imperialism, then, comes now to the surface of current world-crisis events, on the verge of the November 4th U.S. Presidential election, when our planet as a whole now careens, at accelerating speeds, into what threatens to become a world-wide plunge of the entire planet into a deeper new dark age than that of Europe's 14th Century.

The relevance of Rosa's Luxemburg's study of modern imperialism then, is to be presently located by us here as, in the fact, that, to understand the present crisis of world civilization, we must recognize two considerations. First, that this present world crisis is a product of a current influence exerted by the same British-imperialist enemies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and by Britain's own U.S. and other sympathizers which had been mobilized against Roosevelt beginning Summer 1944, by virtual enemies including Winston Churchill accomplice, and President Harry S Truman. Second, that succession of changes in U.S. policy made by British influence of variously corrupt, or stupid, leading U.S. figures since the death of Franklin Roosevelt, especially following the riotous Weatherman-terrorist events of the 1968-70 period. Those events reflect the changes which, have induced all U.S. Presidential administrations since 1971 to either promote, or lack the temper to resist, a state of affairs, inside the U.S.A. itself, in which the net physical output of the U.S. economy as a whole, has been shrinking at a generally accelerating net rate, between gains and losses, over the entire interval spanning U.S. fiscal year 1967-68 to the present date.

The relevance of Rosa Luxemburg's work for the times of today's crisis, is to be found in the result of those British-imperialist-di... attacks against the policies of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, which are expressed today as having been the careening of the economy of the entire planet into the present condition of a general breakdown-crisis of the entire world monetary and physical-economic systems. If that physical-economic situation were not to be turned around—very soon—the period following the November 4, 2008 U.S. general election could be the clarion for the collapse of the economies of all nations of the planet of a type similar to, but far, far worse than that which Europe experienced during that Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age, a New Dark Age during which the number of parishes of Europe shrank by half, the population of Europe was quickly reduced by one third, and the Black Death was the characteristic cultural feature of the decades following the official bankruptcy of the King of England.[1] This time, if that dark age looming on your doorstep is actually unleashed, the result will be one far, far worse than what happened to Europe during that previous European New Dark Age.

On account of this issue of British imperialism today, Rosa Luxemburg stands out still, in fact, as apart from and above a presently reigning generation of both most economists, and the academics in the field of so- called "political science" and law generally, or the generality of leading political figures today. This includes nearly all recent or present candidates for U.S. President, none of whom has a grasp of the notion of history as a process, rather than merely a sequence of selected events whose outcomes might be bought and sold to the highest bidder today.

As the consistent decline of the U.S. physical economy since 1968 attests, only a few among us, internationally, and, chiefly, only of my generation or a relatively fewer of the immediately younger generation today, stand out as being, even rarely, exceptions to today's general rule of incompetence in the shaping of the economic policies of nations of the world today. Her 1913 Accumulation of Capital, whose English-language translation was published by Monthly Review back in 1951, is remarkable in that it provided the English-speaking reader a uniquely scientific approach to the subject of modern imperialism, relative to other European sources. It therefore deserves recognition today as a starting-point provided by a competently professional historian, Luxemburg herself, for the understanding of the origins of the general, global economic breakdown-crisis currently in progress, today.[2]

So, let the following be said, and received as an appropriate introduction to the great, rapidly soaring crisis of world economy which we must address, with the highest degree of authority, now.

Her Crucial Part in History


Rosa Luxemburg was the socialist economist who proved that Russia's V.I. Lenin, as also the German Social-Democracy of that time, lacked comprehension of the real-life meaning of what is called modern imperialism. Her only rival in competence as a leading economist from among socialists, during her time, was France's Jaurès.

In my own personal experience, it was in my post-war engagement, as a U.S. soldier, in 1946 Calcutta, during the first half of that year, that a high density of initial meetings and repeated encounters with typical leaders and others of the political parties of India, afforded me a deep, well grounded insight into the cruelly, and mass-murderously raw nature of British imperialism, and my deep, justly existential quality of contempt for the British imperialist stooge back home, that Harry S Truman who succeeded our justly beloved, devoutly anti-imperialist President Franklin Roosevelt.

However, it was not until the U.S. State Department professional, Herbert Feis,[3] documented the case for this same argument on the subject of modern imperialism, by Rosa Luxemburg, that any well known economic historian had actually developed the publicly available, rounded, corroborative evidence, publicly, in depth, which showed that Rosa Luxemburg had been right, against her socialist rivals, and others, then, as now.

British Imperialism Today
Similarly, at present, the popular, but utterly incompetent notion, among professed socialists and others, that the U.S.A. "is the world's leading imperialism today," is not only an utterly wrong idea, but a belief which could be presently suicidal in actual practice for nations such as both the U.S.A. and Russia, and others, today. Nonetheless, that wrong idea is a belief among many leading economists and statesmen, throughout the world, who cling stubbornly to the notion of American imperialism, still today. Thus, the world is presently menaced by the effects upon the credulous, of that strategic delusion, the delusion that it is the U.S.A., rather than the British Empire's Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, which is, uniquely, the dominant, actually imperialist strategic force operating throughout the planet today. Indeed, each of the impassioned haters of the U.S.A. among even our citizens, and others abroad, even leading political figures, is a product of the fact that they are virtually, either unwitting, or more or less witting British agents against our United States, whether they are able to grasp that fact, or not. A similar delusion is met among many in Russia, still today.

As I indicate later in this present report, the term imperialism, competently employed, never corresponds to an extension of world-power by some particular nation-state. In reality, as distinct from the childish fairy-tales of the credulous, all empires are dynamically supranational, and the kingdoms or comparable states of that time are merely, in and of themselves, the subjects of some supranational, imperialist power, as that relationship is illustrated by the thrust toward the condition in western and central Europe under which the supra-national authority of supra-national government, such as "globalization" and "free trade" generally, or the World Trade Organization in particular, subordinates, or even replaces actual national sovereignties.

Fighting the wrong choice of enemy, especially in the wrong war, especially long wars according to designs tailored for the U.S.A. by London, or British agents-in-fact such as former President George H.W. Bush, the son of the Prescott Bush who moved funds to bail out Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party, most especially, perpetual wars, is the best way to get one's own nation destroyed, as we should recognize this factor in the effects of the long U.S. war in Vietnam, under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, then, or, now in Iraq, under Presidents Bush, father and son, since January 1989.[4]

It is the legacy of that chief adversary of the present world's British imperialism, the constitutional United States, since the crucial historical break of the February 1763 Peace of Paris, and also the legacy of Massachusetts' Winthrops and Mathers, and their political heir Benjamin Franklin: that United States remains the most effective force so far, even despite the two U.S. Presidents Bush, to secure the true freedom of nations from so-called "British" imperialism of today.



The legacy of Benjamin Franklin's leading role in crafting the constitutional U.S. republic in its essential character, remains, still, the leading, constitutional adversary of the world's only true empire of today, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire sprung from the tradition of Paolo Sarpi. At the least, this is true of our United States to the degree it has, repeatedly, represented, as under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the rallying-point of peoples of the world against what has been the leading traditional opponent, British imperialism, since February 1763.

Our United States has never been an imperialist nation in its national character, and has seldom acted in a way even resembling an imperialist power, except when the U.S. government was controlled by British influences such as our own American Tory party descended from such as that outright traitor and British Foreign Office agent U.S. Vice-President Aaron Burr, or, as under avowed virtual agent of British influence, President Harry S Truman, or was confronted by a multi-national adversary, such as, most frequently, the allies and agents of our republic's principal adversary in fact, the British empire itself.[5]

Today, the United States alone could not win the battle for its freedom from Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism. Since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the ascendancy of that wretched defender of British colonialism, President Harry Truman, the power and practiced principle of our United States has been spoiled, that to such a degree that long since the accession of Truman, the U.S.A. has been chiefly self-ruined by a rarely interrupted succession of phases marked by the accession of Truman, the assassination of President John Kennedy, the break-up of the Bretton Woods system sought by London (on the initiative of the accomplices of British subversion of the U.S. administration of President Richard Nixon), and by those predatory, treasonous hordes of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, the which were deployed in service of the same, pro-genocidal green fascism of the pro-genocidal World Wildlife Fund of Britain's Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip) and his leading, recently deceased partner, Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

That much said on background for the following report as a whole, turn, now, to the preface and, then, the main body of the report itself.




Introduction: Lenin's Blunder in Economics

For reasons which shall be made clearer during the course of the present report's in-depth study of the causes, prevention, and cure of the presently ongoing general economic breakdown-crisis of our planet, there are immediately available prospects for a safe escape from the present crisis.

Notably, the present world financial-monetary system could not survive, and we of the U.S.A. would not survive, either, without entering into a new quality of co-operation with Russia and other nations during the immediate months ahead, a coalition sufficiently powerful in itself to crush the efforts of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interest's efforts to destroy all of us together, by hanging each one among us separately. If those particular partners are divided, all mankind loses. In history, powerful alliances from among the predator's intended victims, often bring down the tyrant himself.

However, a new world economic system of respectively sovereign, "globalization-free," modern nation-states, must, and could be established, a system which would be entirely consistent with the original intention of such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton in the founding of our own U.S. Federal Republic. This would have nothing in common with the monetary-economic and related characteristics of the British (Anglo-Dutch Liberal) world empire and its presently Fabian roots in such locations of the essentially Fabian imperialist British Labour Party leadership of such as the author of the Iraq war and other, similar atrocities (by aid of both fraud and by the death of an honest British intelligence figure, Dr. David Kelly), Tony Blair, and of Baroness Liz Symons and her husband, and Gordon Brown today.

The U.S.A. & Russia


The outstanding significance of Russia as a U.S. partner in this global economic-recovery-prog... can be found in relations between the two nations since the time of Catherine the Great's role in creating that League of Armed Neutrality on which the U.S.A.'s own freedom depended at that time. Similarly, when our republic's traditional imperialist adversary, the British Empire, rallied Napoleon III and the slaving-trading Spanish monarchy in the efforts to destroy us and Mexico, in 1861-65, it was the Russian navy which came to contribute crucial margins of aid to us, in deploying its naval force to guarantee the defense of our Pacific and Atlantic Coasts against an outright British naval attack.

However, there was a still deeper, common root of that relationship with Russia then; the connection was the common influence of Gottfried Leibniz in shaping the ideas on which our own economic development and the design of our Declaration of Independence depended, ideas which had influenced the Peter the Great who had visited Saxony's Freiberg Academy, both as Prince and Czar, during the same period of a few years as Leibniz's visit to the same place.

However, the role of Russia as a prospective key partner of the U.S.A. in any possible, global recovery of the present world's economy, has two additional leading features. First, that we and Russia have deeply rooted, long-standing, historical common interests between ourselves. Second, that Russia is, for historical reasons dating from the time of Genghis Khan, the world's principal Eurasian culture. Russia, together with a group of presently independent republics in the area of what had once been the Soviet Union, and imperial Russia earlier, is the gateway between the republican currents within the world's trans-Atlantic culture as extended to the land-mass of Asia as well.

The U.S.A. and Russia also share a common strategic interest in resisting the evil done by their chief common enemy, the British (or, better said, "Brutish") empire. The evil leading role of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the efforts of the Thatcher-Mitterrand-Bu... plot to crush Germany, as through the Maastricht agreement, and also eastern Europe (including Russia), and the later deployment of the British royal yacht for the destruction of the then-existing government of Italy, from that time to the present date, are only typical of British imperialism's attitudes toward relations with its continental European neighbors.

The planet as a whole has been dominated, increasingly, by the systemic, trans-Atlantic conflict of principled interest between the English-speaking population of the U.S. and the imperialist interests centered in Britain, since about 1620. The establishment of the British monarchy and Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-Liberal system through the so-called "Seven Years War" of 1755-1763, divided the patriots of English-speaking North America from Britain in a manner which has persisted in Britain's chosen role as the principal foe of the continued existence of what would become the U.S.A. of Benjamin Franklin et al. since the February 1763 Peace of Paris. It was that Peace of Paris which had established the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne et al. as that true, Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperial power which has remained, through all its own internal evolutions, as our own republic's most consistent enemy, from then to the present year's controlling role of British Foreign Office agents such as drug-lord George Soros in top-down control of the Democratic Party and its U.S. Presidential primaries and into the November general election.

Since February 1763, that Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperialist interest has been the principal continuing influence which has repeatedly ruined the efforts to develop viable systems of government on the continent of Europe.

Britain's War Againt Us, Since 1890
From the time of the establishment of the British Foreign Office by the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne, in 1782,[6] the essential feature of British imperialism has never been the British colonies as such, but, rather, the overreach of the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne, Jeremy Bentham, et al., and the Company's Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier hierarchy, as extended throughout most of the planet as a whole. The legacy of the Seven Years War of 1755-63 stamped the character of the British imperial system since that time, a character to which it has returned in a clearly visible way, again and again, especially since the 1865 failure of its determination to break up the United States, a failure brought about through its defeat, with Russia's help, by forces under U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. This British defeat by Lincoln's republic, was a menacing defeat of what had been Britain's imperial policy under the British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham and Lord Palmerston, successively, the defeat of the British intention to isolate and destroy the U.S.A.'s continued existence as a potency within the Americas themselves.

Had the British not mobilized to incite warfare throughout Eurasia at that point, the British Empire—the Anglo-Dutch empire of usury—would have long since ceased to exist. The threat to end British imperial power, was a reflection of the adoption of the model of the American System of political-economy, whose influence, and imitations, had been spread from North America into continental Europe and beyond. Thus, from that moment, the U.S. influence's challenge to the tyranny of British sea-power, on which the British empire depended, became the so-called "geopolitical" issue around which the British Empire has repeatedly launched general warfare ever since, especially since the Prince of Wales succeeded in prompting the ejection of Chancellor Bismarck in 1890. Essentially, all important warfare on this planet since those times, has been an expression of the model of the so-called "geopolitical" conflict between the American republican and the British imperialist models of society.

British rage against President Lincoln was obviously the primary motive for the British intelligence services' assassination of President Lincoln, as also Presidents Garfield and McKinley, later—and these have not been the only cases; but, British imperialism's strategic interest in eliminating the U.S. republic as the most deadly challenger of continued British imperial power, as by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been primary. Assassinations, or corruption of the U.S.'s Presidency and legislatures, has been the more commonplace efforts to the same general effect. However, the fact of the British monarchy's role in bringing about the ouster of Germany's Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, that done in order to bring on what became World War I, exposes the broader, continuing anti-American strategy of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system over the entire period since February 1763.

To illustrate that point of principle, consider the following.



During the time after his 1890 ouster from office, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck warned that the sole cause for what was, in fact, to become London's intended Balkans wars, wars which would lead, predictably, into the 1914 outbreak of general warfare, was an intended British re-enactment of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier interests' launching of that 1755-1763 Seven Years War which had resulted in the establishment of the British East India Company's emergence as an imperial entity and world power at the February 1763 Peace of Paris. It is that British imperial, international financier-oligarchical institution, which is determined to weaken and destroy would-be challengers of the British role on this account. That role has been a reflection of the intent to establish Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier power as the only truly world-wide, "globalized" empire on this planet, from that time to the present day. As for the British monarchy itself, it is simply a creature of the imperial financier oligarchy whose modern political and financier power is an institutional expression of the so-called New Venetian party of Paolo Sarpi and his followers.

To understand this should be a simple matter for any educated person who is not also a silly ideologue of a Rudyard Kipling sort of "Colonel Blimp" category. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, written by Edward Gibbon as a report delivered personally to his master, Lord Shelburne, is the actual draft of all long-term objectives, and of the adopted imperial character, by Shelburne, of the intended existence of the British Empire. What is prescribed as doctrine for the empire is the adoption of the model of Julian the Apostate, as the characteristic feature of the empire's design was so described by Gibbon, and has remained the manifest intention of practice, since that time, to the present day.

Thus, we came to enjoy, courtesy of Shelburne, Gibbon, et al., not only the 1914-1918 general war, but both World War II and the post-President Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A. "Cold War" under British accomplice President Harry Truman.[7] The Truman-Churchill creation of the long conflict between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union were never anything, in principle, but, exactly as Chancellor Bismarck understood, continuations of the intention expressed by the followers of the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne in the continuing aftermath of the February 1763 Peace of Paris.

So, the French Revolution of July 14, 1789 and beyond, and London's and the Habsburgs' use of Napoleon Bonaparte's ruin of continental Europe to long-term British imperial, strategic advantage, were expressions of the principal type of wider operations among those machinations of the British Foreign Office run by the British East India Company's British Foreign office, as under the leadership of Shelburne and his followers. From that time, to the present day, these have been the followers who were proceeding, under the same imperial strategy used by the British East India Company for the orchestration of the 1755-1763 Seven Years War.

Unwitting British asset Napoleon Bonaparte was used, in this same way, to the advantage of his all-the-while giggling, British puppet-masters, all done to the same purpose as the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' orchestration of the "Seven Years War." As former Chancellor Bismarck was to emphasize implicitly, the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna was one among a succession of the true successors to the British East India Company's imperial triumph in the February 1763 Peace of Paris.

After the defeat, by President Abraham Lincoln's leadership, of the British Empire's fresh efforts to destroy the challenge of the U.S.A., through the empire's operations which had been run continuously through the British Foreign Office of Lord Shelburne, Jeremy Bentham, and Lord Palmerston, over the 1815-1865 interval, the British Empire launched what became "geo-political" World Wars I and II. This new, post-1865 emphasis in British imperial policy was on a continuing succession of general, imperial warfares, as typified by the role of the British Prince of Wales Edward Albert's use of the ouster of Bismarck to set the stage for pitting the Russia of Czar Nicholas II against the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm II. At the same time, Prince of Wales Edward Albert wooed Japan's Mikado into the 1894 launching, on Britain's behalf, of Japan's 1894-1945 wars aimed for the twofold goals, of destroying the government of China, dismembering that nation, and also, destroying the Pacific maritime power of the Mikado's and Britain's common adversary, the United States.[8]



That post-1865 phase of the British empire used those same methods, through employing what were, during my lifetime thus far, then presently "former Anglo-American backers of Adolf Hitler," such as the current U.S. President's grandfather, the Prescott Bush who played a key role in rescuing Hitler from bankruptcy at a crucial moment, for the purpose of drawing the U.S.A. itself into the role of a British puppet of what became today's Anglo-Dutch Liberal thrust for using a nuclear conflict between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, as the infinitely evil Bertrand Russell had demanded, from 1946 on, for the purpose of effecting the mutually assured nuclear destruction of both of those principal strategic targets[9]

That 1923-1940, British virtual alliance-in-fact with Hitler's cause, was thrown off balance by a coincidence of the role of a pro-fascist government of France in opening the gates of France to the Wehrmacht assault, which prompted British leading circles, such as Winston Churchill, to break with Hitler over Hitler's breach of the agreement to recognize France as a British puppet. Then, the British turned to the U.S.A. under President Franklin Roosevelt for salvation, and Nazi Germany came to be defeated in what was, for the Nazi power, an ultimately hopeless, two-front war.[10]

That same British imperialism, is the source of all the most notably of the principal strategic evil afoot on this planet today, especially that promoted through the pro-Satanic, post-1989-1991 devices of the organized moral and economic depravity known as the "environmentalism" and "globalization." The latter is that which British asset, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore has promoted, with his lies against science, an effort he has made in his capacity as an associate of that British Prince Philip (the Duke of Edinburgh) who has openly demanded genocide against much of the planet's population, that done in company with the Duke's now deceased accomplice, Prince Bernhard, in the pro-genocidal campaigning of the World Wildlife Fund.

All this has crucial, strategic economic and related consequences at the present moment.

The effects of this Anglo-Dutch Liberal, imperialist policy, are also the origin of those processes over the 1945-2008 interval, to present date, of the presently ongoing, planetary, general economic breakdown-crisis of the entire world system of this present moment.

Thus, over these centuries, we have now reached that point in time, at which the cumulative economic and other cultural factors generated, chiefly, by Anglo-Dutch financier-ruled Liberalism, have now created the over-ripe preconditions for the presently, immediately threatened, general, physical breakdown-crisis of the entire planet.

Therefore, the most urgent intellectual concern which we must adopt, is attention to those faults in the behavior of the intended victim-nations themselves, faulty behavior which tends to prevent the witting among the intended victims of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, including, most notably, the leading powers among Britain's intended victims, such as the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, from becoming the needed, potent rallying point of those nations which might be resolved to free themselves, forever, from playing the part of Britain's duped strategic victims, yet once, again, and again, and yet once again.

Law: Empire versus Nation
This present period of modern history, following both the establishment of the Anglo-Dutch mode in Liberal power under William of Orange, and the final awful two years preceding the death of England's Queen Anne, has been a British campaign for the replacement of governments of actually sovereign nation-states, by the corrupted role of nations, such that, as the cases of the European Union and the Maastricht Treaty attest, nations have tended to become, consequently, mere appendages, mere subordinates, almost "petty kingdoms," within a Classical, ancient through modern, "globalized" form of world empire.

The specter of genocide through the new "Tower of Babel" called "globalization," is the prospect for the time immediately ahead, unless the forces of Anglo-Dutch Liberal usury are defeated by us now. For that contingency, we require a force of nations which is sufficiently powerful to put so-called British imperialism out of operation, for once and for all.

So, for related British reasons, the fascist "Weatherman" cult, an outgrowth of what had been spawned on the campus of New York's Columbia University, was to be seen in the infamous Chicago riots. This utterly depraved, dionysian cult-formation found its echoed, more violent expression in late 1980s Germany, where the anti-nuclear, fascist rioting reached near to the level of outright civil war by the German "cousins" of the Weathermen. This is the key for understanding the Sorelian cult of violence expressed by the so-called "international terrorism," the new "1848," of the entire 1968-2008 interval to date.

This insurrectionary factor in contemporary nations is always directed from above, from inside leading financial institutions and related law firms of kindred financial affinities, always chiefly centered in a structure of command within the scope of Anglo-Dutch Liberal networks of high finance. The intention behind the deployment of these young fascists of the Weatherman or similar types, is always the same as it was with the way in which Anglo-Venetian financier interests launched Mussolini in a staged exhibition of Sorelian "purgative violence." Look behind the Weatherman fascist cult to the offices where it finds homes today, to see where the danger to our republic lies simmering, now.

The degeneration of the former sovereignties of continental western and central Europe since Germany's submission to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's stripping away the sovereignty of Chancellor Helmut Kohl's Germany (with U.S. President George H.W. Bush's consent at that time), has now reached the condition, at least for the moment, at which, technically, no nation of western and central continental Europe is a true sovereign, unless, and until it frees itself from the existential quicksand of British-led "environmentalism" and "globalization." Notably, as seen most clearly in the current cases of France and Italy, there are pronounced expressions of a rising determination to accomplish such needed freedom from the iron heel of Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism.

So, Great Britain itself is not, essentially, a truly sovereign nation-state, but virtually a mere province of an imperial financier-oligarchical monarchy, an imperial monarchy which reigns over subordinates, such as nation-states, which are essentially, therefore, reduced to components of a virtual "Tower of Babylon," an increasingly "globalized" likeness of mere kingdoms of Europe's past imperial orders, such as Venetian-steered feudalism, rather than true sovereigns. The victims include kingdoms, or the like, operating under imperial authority established, under the oligarchical order, with such outcomes of this agreement as the empire of Augustus Caesar, and also the later expression of that (originally Asian) form of empire under Diocletian and his successor Constantine.

As under that same ultramontane principle of imperialism, only an emperor can establish general principles of law; the kingdoms have no power beyond the making of what are fairly described as local ordinances within the lesser domain. Thus, according to the ancient Asian-European, oligarchical principle of imperial law, the international, internationally extended Liberal financier-oligarchy, not the United Kingdom, is the only existing imperial authority of government of the world at large presented in the world as a whole today.

The Neo-Feudal Road to a Dying Europe


With the decline of Byzantium, more than a thousand years ago, the power of the empire shifted its seat of power from Byzantium, to the rising financier-oligarchical power of Venice: a Venice which used, most notably, the chivalry of the Anjou, the model for the future Nazi SS, as an instrument enforcing a reign of the feudal equivalent of modern international fascism of an SS, Caesarian state.

This evolution of medieval Europe under Venetian management of the feudal system, led into the notorious "New Dark Age" of the Fourteenth Century, during which the parishes of Europe were reduced by half, and the level of population by one third. This "New Dark Age" was brought onto the stage of history of that time by practices of Lombard usury, which employed methods similar to those of the present 1987-2008 interval, through which the world as a whole has been brought, presently, to the brink of a general economic breakdown-crisis of global civilization now.

The new-born modern Europe of the Fifteenth Century had been rescued by developments centered around the leadership of such figures as that great genius, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who set forth both the principle of the modern sovereign nation-state and established the foundations of all competent modern science. The influence of Cusa led to the founding of the first modern European sovereign nation-state republics, that of France's Louis XI and his admirer Henry VII's England. These developments established modern European civilization, but they were, unfortunately, not uncontested. The same Venetian interests represented by the Habsburgs struck back, plunging Europe into the religious warfare of 1492-1648.

Thus, with the Habsburg-linked expulsion of the Jews from Spain, in 1492, the system of sovereign nation-states and modern science, which had been established by the great ecumenical Council of Florence, was significantly suppressed, with the resulting 1492-1648 subjugation of all Europe to a long period of religious warfare. Out of this continuing warfare, the Venetian faction led by Paolo Sarpi emerged as a major, rising power of so-called Protestant authority, an authority based in the riparian regions of the north coasts of Europe, as opposed to the formerly reigning, nominally Catholic regions of the Mediterranean maritime regions.

Within that 1492-1648 interval of perpetual religious warfare, preceding the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, there were two important, if partial victories of the cause of the sovereign form of European nation-state.

The first was a product of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, as expressed in the establishment of modern physical science by, chiefly, the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and the carrying forward of Cusa's proposal for trans-oceanic development which was put into effect, initially, through Christopher Columbus.



The second, later, crucial positive development, was as expressed, as an echo of France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, in the crucial role of Cardinal Mazarin and his associate Jean-Baptiste Colbert, in the installation and development of the great principled form known as the 1648 Peace of Westphalia's ecumenical principle for relations among sovereigns.

Over the course of the 1492-1648 interval, there were two crucial, closely related, added developments, which had shaped the history of the principal modern, globally extended developments, to the present date.

The first, was the movement set into motion by Columbus' implementation of Cusa's program for this purpose, of carrying the best samplings of modern European civilization across the oceans, to places from whence the needed reforms of a Europe corrupted with the legacy of the ancient, Asian "oligarchical model" might be developed and launched to effect the needed reform to free Europe itself from that oligarchical evil. The development of the future U.S.A., as in the pre-1689 Massachusetts Bay Colony, was a leading example of this; the founding and securing of the U.S. republic up to the point of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, typifies this happy development.

However, the legacy of the neo-Venetian Paolo Sarpi's Liberal system, the so-called Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, became the leading efficient adversary of those happier developments which had come to be typified by the American republican form based on the principle of the Treaty of Westphalia.

The result of that conflict, was the increasing concentration of the greatest relative impetus for, and against economic development in two, mutually opposing, English-speaking powers, the U.S. republic versus the British Liberal system. That trans-Atlantic struggle, centered in opposing, English-speaking cultures, a struggle for true human freedom against the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of neo-Venetian imperialism, is the struggle which has been the principal pivot of world history under this arrangement, to the present day.

It is only from that outlook on those leading elements of modern and related history, that the present mortal threat to the continued existence of civilization, can be located and understood. That understanding is now indispensable if peace and progress are to exist anywhere on this planet, during the foreseeable generations just ahead.

A Note on Rosa Luxemburg
My references to Rosa Luxemburg here, refer to a complex personality, a true creative genius, but not a perfected specimen in all matters at hand.

To wit: Starting from the insane state of affairs in Europe, and also the U.S.A., after the ouster of Bismarck, and after the assassinations of France's President Carnot and the U.S.A.'s Presidents Garfield and McKinley, conditions throughout both Europe and the U.S.A., as elsewhere, reached a heated state of complexity which had no obvious precedent in the experience of those nations at that time. World War I and its outcomes, were already brewing, but creating a state of affairs whose complexities were not clearly understood by any source available on records known to me from that time, to the present day.

For a better appreciation of the complexity of those global circumstances, imagine a U.S.A. of the early 1860s without the presence of a President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's steady hand and deeply grounded notions of efficient principles in history, responded to circumstances which no contemporary but Lincoln himself grasped. There are, thus, crises, such as that of today's world, which no ordinary leading figure of the time could be presumed to understand. Only a true genius such as Lincoln, could leap that hurdle of comprehension. Only the figure who understands the crisis, could actually craft a clear and coherent vision of the remedy. Without knowing the question, the discovery of the answer remains doubtful.

To add to it all, Rosa Luxemburg was very much a woman, and thus representative of a sexual "species" not taken much into account in those times, in the usual course of settling great matters of nations. Not only did she experience such a psychological predicament within herself, but she was, like the victim of the Norman inquisition, Jeanne d'Arc, fatally encumbered with her obligation, so to speak, to wear men's clothes, burdened by the reaction to any woman's playing such a role in the great events of that time. Even today, women thrust into leading political and comparable roles, either tend to drift into the safer hiding place of specialization, or make fools of themselves out of their reaction to the still prevalent view of the limited role suitable for women in society.

They should be better; but, could we dare to say that it is only their own fault?

In the meantime, she suffered the combined effects of seeking to combine being a political leader on the grand scale, and an effective woman in her desired personal life to be a wife and mother, too. The threatening situation in which she found herself, not only on each account, but the dynamic domain in which the two combined, has not ceased to be a most difficult one for women generally, still today. Take her for what she achieved, and be grateful enough not to condemn her for what she was not.




1. Britain & Karl Marx





To enter the body of this report, I must begin with a reference to the Marxian view of political-economy. That is a view of a technical subject which is, itself, on the verge of going the way of the Dodo; but the effects, if not the intent of what had been so-called Marxism's former influence and role, remain crucial today, especially so when we are considering the crucially important history of strategic relations between Russia and the U.S.A.

Since I am obliged, by such presently very important strategic considerations, to take up this subject here, and since the subject itself is still a very touchy one, we must get through that discussion decently, without unnecessary rancor, before turning attention to pressing, other relevant matters.

That much said, I proceed as follows.

In any outlook but that of a piece of fantasy, the possibility of preventing the world as whole from falling into a general economic, cultural, social breakdown of world civilization, that very soon, hangs, as I shall show here, on a certain immediate, qualitative improvement of the relationship between the U.S.A. and Russia. This is to be considered a relationship grounded in the unique role of their co-operation of a certain form: co-operation in their combined efforts in bringing immediately into being, a committed coalition of sovereign nation-states, a coalition without which the planet as whole would be soon plunged into a dark age worse than that of Europe's Fourteenth Century.

In this case, the significance of the influence of the idea of the doctrines of Karl Marx, remains, for many represented on one or the other of both sides of the required co-operation, the large pebble of inconvenience in the boot of progress. Unless that difficulty is removed, it could be a lack of agreement motivated by memory of past quarrels, which would tend to cause both nations, and, thus, the world as a whole, to stumble into a dark age.

Thus, if we do not clear away what came to be seen as the related matter of "Cold War" after-effects, and recognize the crimes of Prime Minister Thatcher and U.S. President George H.W. Bush, during the post-1989-1992 interval for what they have been, the needed quality of co-operation could not be effected in a sufficiently timely fashion, perhaps not at all. In that case, all nations and peoples of the planet would be plunged into a prolonged new dark age, in which entire cultures would disappear into a general, rapid and accelerating collapse of the level of population of the planet as a whole, a collapse in the order of billions of persons.

In times prior to the middle through late 1970s, it was often still necessary to pose certain categories of economic notions with reference to a plausibly "orthodox Marxian" standpoint, but, as in the case of my own practice of that convention, always emphasizing, at the same time, that the foundations of a competent modern economics are actually to be found in the work of the follower of Leibniz, Alexander Hamilton, and, for my own purposes, also the physics of Bernhard Riemann. That is also to say, that it is not necessary to resolve all possible quarrels at all times, but, rather, often, to proceed by way of a Platonic conception of an organic quality of ongoing dialogue, a dialogue crafted with the goal of discarding troubling, habituated differences in the process of reaching agreement on urgent, validated higher principles and their goals.

The method of the Platonic dialogue, in and of itself, is to be recognized as the shared process of the discovery of truth, respecting principles, through dialectic.

The most important among the dialogues respecting physical-economic policies today, is posed by the closing sentence of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation: "This leads into another scientific domain, that of physics, which the quality of the present occasion [the subject of mathematics as such] does not permit us to enter." No true universal physical principle was ever defined by mere mathematics; by their very nature, all true principles of the universe stand as if outside formal mathematics as such; they lie in the domain of the so-called infinitesimal, as that infinitesimal is to be recognized by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original, experimental discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, and in the application of that notion of universal principle by Fermat and Leibniz, especially Leibniz' definition of an anti-Cartesian science, which he supplied during the course of the 1690s, as by his Specimen Dynamicum.

Keep that in mind as we proceed to the later parts of this present chapter. Shift our focus for a moment, to the empirical fact, that the physical economy of the U.S.A. has been in a continuing collapse, per capita and per square kilometer, since U.S. Fiscal Year 1967-68. This collapse has been driven by a willful collapse of physical investment in infrastructure, scientific progress, technology, and the long-term decline in rates of physical standard of living of the lower eighty percentile of the U.S. population, that throughout the entire 1968-2008 interval to date. Overpaid parasites, such as those with their "golden parachutes," make poor, foolish Queen Marie Antoinette seem almost a prophetic genius in promotion of a higher standard of living for those living outside the privileged ranks of our predatory investment banking's social parasites of today.

With the 1977 advent of a U.S. Carter Administration, one which was thoroughly duped by the hideous schemes of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, the only purpose for continuing the dialogue in the same terms was to seek out a dialogue, as I did at that time, with the last bastion of Marxist teachings, on the "other side" of what was stereotyped as the "capitalist-versus-soc... divide. It was proper to honor the graves of the deceased, but not to propose that actually living people simply transfer the social life of the living to the residences of the dead.

In this present, critically strategic circumstance of the entirety of our planet, the possibility of bringing the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India together, as the needed seed-core of initiating sponsors of a new, constructive global peace among most parts of the world, thus requires the approach adopted in launching a sudden surge of what might be named "non-ideological" intellectual clarity about not only the actual role of Karl Marx and his doctrines, and also the perversion of those doctrines, as in the crafting of the myth on which British imperialism has relied heavily for dulling the general population into the duped condition of support for a new imperialist mouse-trap called "globalization."

This presently, urgently needed escape from chaos into a real New Bretton Woods agreement, into a global, fixed-exchange-rate system, also requires a refreshed, new conception of the nature of the proper principles of political-economy, principles which are either generally unknown, or simply, arbitrarily rejected in a world which, largely, mistakes what is, essentially, merely financial accounting, and currencies bloated with soaring rates of inflation, for economic science. A rejection of the urgently needed general reforms which I have proposed, would therefore result in the kinds of ensuing, far worse consequences than those into which the world is currently being led. This would bring us all, soon, into the depths of that abyss of a general breakdown-crisis of the world, one worse than what Europe experienced during the so-called "New Dark Age" of the Fourteenth Century. What the world as a whole now faces, and that immediately, is a consequence of a global folly which is already in a very advanced state of development, today.

The issues which I have posed in what I have written in this report thus far, have been largely negative. This has been a necessary introductory step, since our attention must be focused on the negative features of those currently ongoing plunges into what is not a mere economic depression, such as that of 1929-1933, within the present world crisis, but a general break-down crisis of the planet in its entirety.

However, as I shall make clear in the course of this present report, the fact that a great tragedy now grips this planet, means that the world at large is now being challenged to reply to this menacing reality, by seeking out remedies which could not be found without, first, discovering that the principled character of the deadly issues of the present, must be treated as warnings, that certain kinds of categorical changes in global relations must be recognized, whether those changes are well-liked at present, or not. Insight into such specific, underlying, determining trends must lead us all, secondly, into the discovery and adoption of a relevant higher state of understanding of what is actually the presently needed development of relations among nations, a development which should have been made earlier, but was not, for one reason or another.

So, to define, here and now, those new, higher goals for relations among sovereign nation-states, we must pass through, and round out a series of topics, as preparation for reducing the results of that dialogue into a general conclusion as to needed principle. We must quickly pass through that dialogue, here and now, before attempting to present the needed end-game remedies at an appropriate, later point, as I shall in the course of this present dialogue in its entirety.

As will be made clear, at certain relevant points in this present report as a whole, some of the required topics are by no means simply understood, but they are indispensable if survival of civilization is to be had. In the meanwhile, here, let us take the course of touching on each relevant topic in our stride.

For that purpose, the roots of the principal causes of crises of the planet during 1945-2008, must be situated within what is a fresh, corrected view of the profound change in the relations of the U.S.A. and Soviet Union, from those during the time the foe of British imperialism, President Franklin Roosevelt, led the United States, while he lived, into the opposite direction of relations which were defined in a different direction, under his successor, the President Harry Truman who was a supporter of British and related European colonialism. This change, from Roosevelt to Truman, produced the radically changed U.S. direction in foreign and also domestic relations which we experienced under Truman, and, much worse, under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and the Bushes. This change of U.S. Presidents, and of the U.S.'s shifting choices among new, if temporary, changes in choices of friend and foe, must be seen with respect to the consequent changes, both those which have occurred, and those which should occur, in the essential character of the interaction by the U.S.A. with the past Soviet Union, the present Russia, and other states.

Since Russia's present, post-Soviet role, is of crucial importance in any set of workable remedies for this planet for today, we must begin by reconsidering some among those rarely recognized, but crucial issues, which are tied up, inextricably, with conflicts of strongly held opinions, in assessment of the practical influence of Karl Marx in shaping the past and present policies of practice in and among nations.

This is not a matter of settling "old scores." Many of the issues, including many heated ones of past times and places, have been more diversions of attention from important practical issues, than the actual issues of policy which needed to be resolved. Often, as in the history of nations, it is what you don't know, or refuse to recognize, which kills you. This is the crucial problem which it is my intent to clarify in this report. In such cases, a reflection on the history of the problem at hand, is what is usually required in search of remedies. The aspects of Marx's influence worth considering at length here, are, fortunately, reduced to a few essentials; the others are already merely relics.

What Is Really Wrong with Marx?
For the treatment of that indispensable subject for discussion here, we should begin with attention to the relevant, shared delusion, concerning modern economy, of the German Social-Democrats and V.I. Lenin, in their times. This was the theory, adopted through the credulity of Lord Palmerston's duped British asset Karl Marx, that "Adam Smith was installed as the only paragon of a valid doctrine of political-economy."[11... Such a misguided view of the governing outlook and related role of Karl Marx has proven, that the specifics of Marx's own doctrine have had a significant, auxiliary role in the developments contributing to causing the present world crisis, and have played a significant role in promoting absurd, and essentially diversionary notions of the nature and cause of imperialism. However, those matters of belief were not, in themselves, the primary cause of the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

The cause of the collapse is found in the influence of the ideas, not of Marx as such, but those associated with that impassioned hater of American freedom, Shelburne hack Adam Smith. The collapse must be considered, rather, as being symptomatic of the chiefly other, usually problematic, conditions which allowed the Soviet Union, paradoxically, on the one side, to develop great leadership in the military aspects of economic strategy, on the one hand, but, at the same time, to fail tragically in economy, largely because of Marx's teaching of Adam Smith to socialists.

There is a principled consideration underlying the Soviet economy's systemic inclination to such ironical failure in physical-economic policies, a failure which was rooted in a grave error of epistemology respecting the nature of the distinctive, uniquely creative powers of the individual human mind. It was chiefly for reason of this particular error in Marxist policy generally, substituting the horny hand of labor for that human mind which defines the laborer as human. It was an error expressed in a most extremely decadent, implicitly terminal form in the current customs and related specific mythologies and doctrines of post-1968 trans-Atlantic Liberalism.

That lesson, of that error, from the past, must be grasped, and that very quickly, if a solution is to be found for the onrushing general breakdown-crisis and threatened conditions of warfare inhering in the general economic breakdown-crisis of the world as a whole today.

U.S.A., Russia, and Marx
There are two leading problematic problems arising from the systemic blunders by Karl Marx, which plague discussion of strategy today. There remain problems, some of which are merely blunders which must be simply recognized, and, sometimes, others which must be corrected, if a timely performance is to be expected in what is presently the urgently needed co-operation, as keystone partners, between the U.S.A. and Russia.

The objective to be brought clearly into view, is, briefly this.

The essential fact to be considered in seeking co-operation between the U.S.A. and western and central Europe, is the British disease rooted in that same pro-feudalist, oligarchical legacy of continental Europe which prompted the most far-seeing European leaders to follow the advice of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the advice Columbus read from Cusa's own written words, advice Christopher Columbus adopted, to go across the oceans to find the leverage to remedy the chronic, oligarchical (read, "Venetian") disease of Europe . This was the same advice respecting the United States, which Germany's Otto von Bismarck heeded, in seeking peaceful relations with Russia, during his service as Germany's Chancellor.

However, the most important fact to be considered, is typified by the fact that Russia had been the ally of the United States, not only during the reign of the Empress Catherine the Great, but against the U.S.A.'s enemy Britain, during the period of the U.S. Civil War.

For that same reason, a close relationship had begun to develop between the United States and the government of Russia during the same period as the United States' own struggle for freedom against the British empire which had been founded at the February 1763 Treaty of Paris.

We must never overlook, that during the period of the Soviet Union, Russia never ceased to exist. President Franklin Roosevelt understood this, to such effect that no conflict between Russia and the United States would have been possible as long as Franklin Roosevelt's policy led the U.S. Presidency. The British Empire clearly understood, as did Stalin's government, in its own way, that if Roosevelt lived, the British Empire and the system of British imperialism which reigns, even over the U.S. electoral process now, would have vanished peacefully from the Earth. England would have not only survived, but benefitted from this change, but the British empire not. Communism was never, in itself, a break, but only a remediable source of difficulties in the historic good relations between Russia and the United States.

Presently, the continued existence of a civilized life among nations anywhere on this planet, depends upon an effective return to the long-ranging co-operation between Russia and the United States which had persisted, essentially, from the time of John Quincy Adams' term of U.S. public service in Petrograd, up to the point of the British-steered assassination of U.S. President William McKinley.

The leading issue in this connection, is, once again, the outcome of the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' organization of the 1755-1763 Seven Years War. War, mixed with conflict leading toward wars, between the powers of continental Europe, and between the U.S.A. and some European and other powers, has always been, as Bismarck clearly understood, the strategic cornerstone of the British Empire since the close of the Seven Years War.

The wisest leaders of Russia, whether in its role as a monarchy, or a Communist state, have always understood this fact, more or less clearly. Soviet orientation, as under Khrushchov, Andropov, and Gorbachov, toward alliance with the British Empire against the U.S.A., has always been the road toward ruin of both Russia and the United States. All truly competent and patriotic leaders of the United States have also understood this, if in their own choice of terms, rather than exactly my own.

However, the Communist legacy was no longer a source of existential frictions, as long as President Franklin Roosevelt remained President, or his policy were perpetuated. Now, however, that friction became a significant problem, not because of Communist traditions, but because of the results of President George H.W. Bush's shamefully kissing the foot of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the matter of the terms of Germany's reunification. The source of the remaining problems there has been the British determination to destroy Germany, and also Eastern Europe and Russia, thoroughly, now that Germany was no longer a bastion manning NATO's eastern front.

The only real problem of the Marxist legacy in the relationship between Russia and the U.S.A. presently, is the failure to clarify the systemic errors which the British ties have fostered as the kind of rapacious carpet-bagging, typified by the phenomenon of thieving, London-linked, ex-Communist Russian billionaires, or the British Empire's George Soros, and others, which ran rampant throughout the post-Soviet 1990s, and still burrows from within today. Communist economic policy was a failure, if not by any means, but for the reasons given by the vultures of the existentialist and otherwise pro-fascist Congress for Cultural Freedom. Much more could be said on that; we have said enough here, so that the general idea of the matter should be reasonably clear.

However, for as long as certain actual errors of Marxist dogma are not recognized, the mistakes of the economic policy of the Soviet period are still hung, like the a]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106222-g-20s-done-time-to-recheck-buy-signals?source=feed#comment-307052 307052
This is a farce, and it's intended to be a farce. Nothing significant was going to be decided. There will be innuendo and attempts to corrupt the situation as much as possible, especially by the British side. And the British side, as usual, is looking for handouts from everybody else. They want a bail-out.

The British always set these things up: You've got to debate this; you've got to debate that.' It's all bullshit. The British deployment policy is: make sure that nothing works.

I think we ought to express unbridled contempt for such a farce.

Iin the run-up to the Nov. 15 summit of the G-20

* British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told journalists on his flight from London to the U.S., that he expects the summit to support a sharply increased role for the IMF* in global surveillance, a return to the long-stalled Doha round of world free trade talks, and the establishment of a supranational "college of supervisors" to oversee all banks internationally. Brown is scurrying around to impose this agenda, meeting before the summit with Russian President Medvedev, Japanese Prime Minister Aso, and Brazilian President Lula, as well as with Nobel economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. Most significantly, Brown's financial and foreign policy advisers will hold talks with Obama's envoys to the conference, Madeleine Albright and Jim Leach.

* Japanese Prime Minister Aso will call for doubling the current $340 billion in IMF funds, and will offer $100 billion from Japan. The Saudis may also offer to pony up funds for the IMF.

* German Chancellor Angela Merkel will propose increased transparency and controls "for all kinds of financial products," including derivatives, to be managed through an upgraded IMF.

* Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for "greater inclusivity in the international financial system [and] the need to ensure that the growth prospects of the developing countries do not suffer," but he stressed "the need to avoid protectionist tendencies." His Finance Minister P. Chidambaram likewise warned that "the crisis should not be an excuse to go into a protectionist cocoon."

* French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced on Thursday that "I am leaving for Washington to explain that the dollar... can no longer claim to be the only currency in the world," while the daily Le Figaro warned that "Sarkozy has already planned to create some incidents during the sessions if the U.S. comes out being completely closed off from the European proposals." Sarkozy has also used his position as rotating president of the EU, to get seats at the summit for Spain and Holland.

* Russian President Dmitri Medvedev stated that the summit will be inconclusive, but that he supports holding "without any extra red tape, and fairly soon," a follow-on summit on the financial system. "We need a full-scale, adequate response to the problems, not simply a collection of declarations, handshakes and photo ops, but rather an action plan." After talking about categories like "transparency," "early-warning procedures," and lowering trade barriers, he included something with more potential: "Elimination the imbalance between the volume of the mass of all kinds of various financial instruments that are issued, and the real returns on investment on the programs they are related to." If that point were truthfully pursued, it would lead to the guts of the crisis: the derivatives bubble.

*IMF = International Mother F*ckers

]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:30:23 -0500
This is a farce, and it's intended to be a farce. Nothing significant was going to be decided. There will be innuendo and attempts to corrupt the situation as much as possible, especially by the British side. And the British side, as usual, is looking for handouts from everybody else. They want a bail-out.

The British always set these things up: You've got to debate this; you've got to debate that.' It's all bullshit. The British deployment policy is: make sure that nothing works.

I think we ought to express unbridled contempt for such a farce.

Iin the run-up to the Nov. 15 summit of the G-20

* British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told journalists on his flight from London to the U.S., that he expects the summit to support a sharply increased role for the IMF* in global surveillance, a return to the long-stalled Doha round of world free trade talks, and the establishment of a supranational "college of supervisors" to oversee all banks internationally. Brown is scurrying around to impose this agenda, meeting before the summit with Russian President Medvedev, Japanese Prime Minister Aso, and Brazilian President Lula, as well as with Nobel economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. Most significantly, Brown's financial and foreign policy advisers will hold talks with Obama's envoys to the conference, Madeleine Albright and Jim Leach.

* Japanese Prime Minister Aso will call for doubling the current $340 billion in IMF funds, and will offer $100 billion from Japan. The Saudis may also offer to pony up funds for the IMF.

* German Chancellor Angela Merkel will propose increased transparency and controls "for all kinds of financial products," including derivatives, to be managed through an upgraded IMF.

* Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called for "greater inclusivity in the international financial system [and] the need to ensure that the growth prospects of the developing countries do not suffer," but he stressed "the need to avoid protectionist tendencies." His Finance Minister P. Chidambaram likewise warned that "the crisis should not be an excuse to go into a protectionist cocoon."

* French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced on Thursday that "I am leaving for Washington to explain that the dollar... can no longer claim to be the only currency in the world," while the daily Le Figaro warned that "Sarkozy has already planned to create some incidents during the sessions if the U.S. comes out being completely closed off from the European proposals." Sarkozy has also used his position as rotating president of the EU, to get seats at the summit for Spain and Holland.

* Russian President Dmitri Medvedev stated that the summit will be inconclusive, but that he supports holding "without any extra red tape, and fairly soon," a follow-on summit on the financial system. "We need a full-scale, adequate response to the problems, not simply a collection of declarations, handshakes and photo ops, but rather an action plan." After talking about categories like "transparency," "early-warning procedures," and lowering trade barriers, he included something with more potential: "Elimination the imbalance between the volume of the mass of all kinds of various financial instruments that are issued, and the real returns on investment on the programs they are related to." If that point were truthfully pursued, it would lead to the guts of the crisis: the derivatives bubble.

*IMF = International Mother F*ckers

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106222-g-20s-done-time-to-recheck-buy-signals?source=feed#comment-307046 307046
What the communique did, after only a five-hour meeting of about thirty delegations, was embed each little, separate slogan or issue in the jello, but only as words, slogans and issues, without commitment or expectation . For example, the communique promises that "we will use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand," and then adds "as appropriate." It doesn't say what "colleges of regulators" are, or what powers they will have, if any, but calls on major global banks to meet them for "comprehensive discussions."

Typical are such ringing, inspirational declarations as this one: "Authorities should insure that financial institutions maintain adequate capital in amounts necessary to sustain confidence."

This is all bullshit. There's no seriousness in this piece of disgusting incompetence. They're going to have a great deal of trouble trying to prevent a runaway crash Monday and Tuesday. Because, this bullshit can go on, but it's not something you can sell. They probably will pump up the greatest bloating of the market they ever did. Expect that from them.

The one thing the statement did that was useful, was to pin the crisis on George W. Bush, saying that its "root causes" occurred "earlier this decade," that is, under his Administration - the greatest collapse in history has occurred under George Bush's Administration. This event is the George Bush burial society. It nominates George Bush as the worst President in history, excepting the outright traitors. The collapse is the fruit of a Bush-league President. The idea of this son-of-a-bitch getting encomiums and going out, is disgusting.
]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:22:06 -0500
What the communique did, after only a five-hour meeting of about thirty delegations, was embed each little, separate slogan or issue in the jello, but only as words, slogans and issues, without commitment or expectation . For example, the communique promises that "we will use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand," and then adds "as appropriate." It doesn't say what "colleges of regulators" are, or what powers they will have, if any, but calls on major global banks to meet them for "comprehensive discussions."

Typical are such ringing, inspirational declarations as this one: "Authorities should insure that financial institutions maintain adequate capital in amounts necessary to sustain confidence."

This is all bullshit. There's no seriousness in this piece of disgusting incompetence. They're going to have a great deal of trouble trying to prevent a runaway crash Monday and Tuesday. Because, this bullshit can go on, but it's not something you can sell. They probably will pump up the greatest bloating of the market they ever did. Expect that from them.

The one thing the statement did that was useful, was to pin the crisis on George W. Bush, saying that its "root causes" occurred "earlier this decade," that is, under his Administration - the greatest collapse in history has occurred under George Bush's Administration. This event is the George Bush burial society. It nominates George Bush as the worst President in history, excepting the outright traitors. The collapse is the fruit of a Bush-league President. The idea of this son-of-a-bitch getting encomiums and going out, is disgusting.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106059-is-hyperinflation-on-the-horizon?source=feed#comment-306592 306592 Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:36:49 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106059-is-hyperinflation-on-the-horizon?source=feed#comment-306445 306445 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:32:42 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/105868-bush-s-peculiar-wall-street-speech?source=feed#comment-306341 306341 "History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much. Our aim should not be more government, it should be smarter government. The answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market system."

Bush is an idiot! We all know it. Being an idiot is the highest rank he has been able to achieve. He has done more to destroy the U.S. than any recent avowed enemy. We're getting rid of him as President, so why doesn't he just shut up? People voted for Obama to get rid of him. If he had any brains he would shut up. The fact that he does not shut up, proves that he has no brains.

]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:40:29 -0500 "History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much. Our aim should not be more government, it should be smarter government. The answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free market system."

Bush is an idiot! We all know it. Being an idiot is the highest rank he has been able to achieve. He has done more to destroy the U.S. than any recent avowed enemy. We're getting rid of him as President, so why doesn't he just shut up? People voted for Obama to get rid of him. If he had any brains he would shut up. The fact that he does not shut up, proves that he has no brains.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106059-is-hyperinflation-on-the-horizon?source=feed#comment-306330 306330
This is a hopeless collapse, in terms of the present system. No mere reform of this present system, will save the planet. The nearest event comparable to this, in all European civilization's experience, occurred in the 14th Century, with the general collapse, called a "New Dark Age," in which the entire system of Europe collapsed. The number of villages collapsed by one-half, the population of Europe collapsed by one-third, and it took several decades before even the beginning of civilization returned.

The crisis we have today, worldwide, is of a similar form: A great financial bubble, which has been growing at a great rate, while the rate of net physical production per capita, has been collapsing. This system is doomed in its present form. And there is no minor reform, there's no monetary reform that could save this system. We are headed for an absolute, total collapse of the planet, unless a change is made. There is no hope, for any remedy, within the framework of what's called a monetary system. But rather, as I shall emphasize here, the alternative is the establishment of a credit system, to replace the present monetary system.

The Crucial Role of the United States
Now, the model for the credit system lies in the United States, historically. If you study the U.S. Constitution and the peculiarities of the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to those of Europe, our system of government has no resemblance in essentials, to any European system of government. European systems of government are essentially parliamentary systems, not federal systems. There are reforms in European states, which have moved in the direction of a Presidential system. The best example of an attempt in that direction was Charles de Gaulle, as President of France, in his Fifth Republic. There was a serious attempt to establish a nation-state system in Europe, by de Gaulle. But since that time, there has been no successful effort, to establish a true nation-state system, as opposed to a parliamentary system.

Therefore, the United States has a crucial significance in this, and without a crucial role by the United States, which seems extremely difficult right now, because of the present Presidency and so forth—without the United States, there is no hope for avoiding what will be a plunge into a new dark age, resembling that which occurred in Europe, which occurred in the 14th Century. That's the situation we face. No simple reform, no adjustment, no monetary agreement, nothing of that sort will work.

There are, however, very specific measures, of agreements among governments which could change the system, could change it without anything too radical, but it would get us through.

Now, the first thing that has to happen is, in practice, is that unless there's an agreement of a certain type among the United States, Russia, China, and India, we have reached a condition, where it would be impossible to save the world from a collapse, a worldwide collapse. The form would be this: It would be the change of the present world monetary system, the elimination of the present world monetary system, to replace it by a credit system, which is consistent with the principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution. Remember that our Constitution, and our Presidential system, was not based on a parliamentary system; it was not based on a monetary system. It was based on what's called a credit system.

The difference is obvious to all of you: You have two types of systems in the world today, of any significance. One, there are credit systems: A credit means that the money issued by a government, is issued by a government, in the name of the government, and is backed by the promises of the government to support the credit. This credit, under law, can then be monetized and supply a money currency as well as credit for development.

This is distinct from a monetary system. A monetary system represents a system of money, which is outside government, but which may or may not have agreement with government. European systems, today, are not credit systems, they are monetary systems. The monetary system, which is tied to the IMF, today, and has been since 1971, 1972—that period—the monetary system is what is collapsing. The monetary system is collapsing, because it is tied, specifically now to the credit bubble, the derivatives bubbles. And this is what's collapsing. There's no possibility at this stage any longer, of saving the monetary system in its present form. That is, a reform made internal to the monetary system will not work. It's too late. We could have done something in that direction, back a year ago, July a year ago, back in 2007. The system is so rotten today, that it would not be possible, especially the changes that have been made by the U.S. and other governments, in the recent months, are so radical, that it would be impossible to reform this system. You have to completely overhaul it and revolutionize it.

But, our American System allows us to do that, under our Constitutional system in our history.

A Four-Power Agreement
Now, what we have to do is, is establish a power bloc, to force through a change among nations. Western Europe, despite the fact that there are positive elements, as the case of [Economics Minister Giulio] Tremonti in Italy, or some efforts on the part of [President Nicolas] Sarkozy in France; there are some initiatives in the direction of useful reforms. There are desires for useful reforms from other parts of the world. But the requirement here, is to have a sufficiently powerful agreement, to force through the reforms in a timely fashion. This can only occur by an agreement among the United States, Russia, China, and India. If the United States, Russia, China, and India function as a bloc, other countries will join them, and we can force through the reform. In my view, without that particular agreement, it would be impossible to ram through the reform, politically, at this time—not in time. We might eventually agree to it, but it would be too late. We need change now: The world system is collapsing at such a rate, now, that we do not have years to play with. We do not even have many months to play with. By the end of the year, we must be in the direction of making some kind of reform, in this direction.

Now, what it means, is this: As those of you from China know, and other countries, the change in the system, especially since 1971 and 1972 on, the change was a change in the relationship of China, from the United States to China and other countries. The change was essentially to what is called "globalization": to move production out of Europe and the United States, and to move it into countries which have low per-capita incomes: in other words, cheap labor. And thus production, and infrastructure, were moved out of the United States, and increasingly out of Europe, especially after 1989-1990, into other countries, Third World countries in particular, which operate at a cheap-labor price. Today, most of the production of the world depends critically, on a margin of production in these countries, which are the export countries, which replaced European production, U.S. production, and so forth.

So therefore, at this point, you have two things: First of all, the system is collapsing. Now, by the nature of the system, it means that the countries which were used as substitutes for production from Europe and the United States, for example, are now collapsing, because the purchases from other countries are collapsing, as in the case of China, where the collapse of China is a potential time-bomb for the entire planet. Because if the collapse of China's exports continues at the present rate, this will be a time-bomb for the entire system; and some people understand this. Therefore, the unity of four powers, the United States—which has a certain special power—Russia, China, and India, represents a bloc that can force through reforms of the type that are needed.

A Credit, Not a Monetary System
What is required is this: We have to eliminate the monetary system, by a credit system. A credit system is not some mysterious thing. It's essentially something which is traditional to the United States in particular. European systems today, are monetary systems: that is, despite agreements with government, money is controlled by agencies outside government. This is a characteristic of parliamentary systems—not a true Presidential system, but a parliamentary system. And thus, money exists independently of the control of government, although with agreement with government, but nonetheless, under the control of outside agencies: international, financial agencies, which actually control the monetary system, control and regulate the money, and government plays, less and less, a role in the control of money, in control of the monetary system. This is characteristic in Europe, particularly since 1989-1991, in which the control over money, with the Maastricht agreements and similar kinds of agreements, Europe has absolutely no control over its own monetary supply: It's controlled by outsiders, largely through London, and through things like the oil price market.

So therefore, the creation of a credit system to replace a monetary system, is where the solution lies. There's no way to save this monetary system in its present form. It's so full of junk, with the financial derivatives far in excess of a quadrillion dollars in claims, against the nominal size of the actual production of nations, it is impossible to reform this monetary system in its present form. You have to put the monetary system, itself, through bankruptcy. You will have to wipe out the greatest portion of nominal monetary assets in the world today! Cancel them! Because the system as a whole is hopelessly bankrupt.

Now, what do you do in that case? Well, what you do for a monetary reform to a credit system, you use the U.S. Constitution. Because of our Constitution, we can create, as Roosevelt did that formally, we can create a credit system. To replace a monetary system.

Now, what you do under this case, and with agreement with the United States, and its Constitution, with Russia, China, and India, it can be done. What you do, is you say, we put all the claims which are equivalent of monetary or credit claims in two piles. One pile we call "monetary." That's the manure pile. The other we call the "credit" pile. Now under the U.S. Constitution, money, when the Constitution is followed, is created only by the will of the government. It is done by the Executive branch of government, with the consent of the House of Representatives, and things flow from that. This credit being issued, is also authorized for monetization: So, the credit can be issued as loans for projects, or international loans, and part of it can actually be monetized, under the condition under which it was uttered. Particularly, if we had a national banking system, which we don't have presently, we could convert the Federal Reserve System, which is bankrupt, into a national banking system, as Hamilton proposed. Then it would do that, automatically. We do need a national banking system in each country. That doesn't mean they're the only banks, but it does mean you use a national banking system to control the relationship between government and the banking system as a whole, in general.

Put the System Through Bankruptcy Reorganization
If you do that, then you do a bankruptcy reform: You take the hopelessly bankrupt system—we're talking about quadrillions of dollars of claims, of monetary claims, especially as located in these speculative markets of derivatives and related kinds of things—we have to wipe most of this off the books! It can never be paid. It was foolishness, it was a lie, it was done largely since 1987, under Alan Greenspan's insanity. This we have to wipe out.

What do you do? You have to protect those things which are productive, and are necessary for the government and necessary for the population. Therefore, you create a pile called the "credit pile." What you do, is you take every obligation, and every asset, which is valuable to society, currently, or necessary and meritorious—you take the monetary value of that, and you assign that to the creation of credit, government credit, a credit system. And you leave the remainder to rot.

Then, at that point, you enter into agreements, with governments—and this is where the relationship of the United States, Russia, China, and India occurs; there are many ramifications to this thing—under the case, what we do first of all, is you create among these governments, and others who will join them, you create a credit system to replace the present monetary system. That doesn't mean that every nation is involved immediately; it means these nations and others who wish to join, will join immediately. Now, we enter into an agreement which amounts to a revival of the Bretton Woods system. What we do, therefore, is, we create a credit system, as an international system, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. And we issue credit, by agreement among these countries, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. We then proceed, to expand world production, involving these countries, through the new credit system, leaving the useless money, the useless claims, to rot.

In doing that, two things happen, particularly with these countries involved, because the future of the planet, economically, is concentrated in Asia, where the greatest single concentration of population and the need for growth exists. The other area, which has a similar character, is Africa. Now, Asia and Africa are also two areas, which contain a lot of the raw materials assets required for the development of production in the world.

Therefore, if this part of the world develops, several things happen: First of all, you have in China, and you have in India, and other countries in Asia, you have a tendency where 60-70% of the population is essentially destitute, because of the present structure of prices, prices paid. A small part of the population of these countries, varying from case to case, has, shall we say, a modern standard of living, a modern ability to produce. A great part of the population remains outside! While there's infrastructure development in China, it is not sufficient to compensate, for example, for these needs. The development of resources for developing raw materials, that is, mineral raw materials, is not sufficient. The raw materials, the minerals, lie there in the ground, but you just can't extract them, you have to develop these resources. And you have to mobilize the flow of this into the expansion of production to include that: India, China, are typical of this—but also all of Asia.

You have a parallel situation in Africa. Africa is one of the larger repositories of raw materials, necessary for humanity in the coming period. But under the present conditions, with the lack of infrastructure, you can not develop those raw materials! So therefore, what you have, is a part of the world, over 40% of the world in Asia, essentially, and a large part in Africa, and you have comparable situations in South America, where you have large resources, which are undeveloped, which could be developed, but the infrastructure development needed, has not occurred yet.

The Challenge of Development
So therefore, we have not only the question of a reform of a monetary system, to prevent a collapse of the system; we have the challenge now, of taking these areas of development, which involve large raw materials deposits, at the same time, a very large part of the population—and a large part of the population of the world is living at substandard conditions, with no immediate prospect of significant improvement—therefore, the frontier of humanity, for centuries yet to come, involves this thrust of development. It means, then, a reversal of the present tendencies in Europe and in North America, away from becoming post-industrial societies, toward playing a key supporting role in freshly generating technologies which will support this development in Asia and in Africa, and also similarly, in South America. But South America's much closer to the United States, and so forth, has largely a European cultural population, and therefore, dealing with that is much different than it is in dealing with other parts of the world which have a different cultural heritage.

So therefore, there are two things involved: First of all, is to mobilize a section of the planet, which can be mobilized, which has to be mobilized—Russia knows it needs to mobilize! Russia is facing an existential crisis, not as severe as China's right now, but it's an existential crisis. They can not simply continue to function the way they're going. Changes are required. China knows that a change is required, from the present situation. India is less unstable in some respects than China, because its characteristics are different, but all of Asia is in this condition. Africa's in a known condition. The problem in South America, even though it's a different part of the world, and has different characteristics, is similar.

So therefore, we have to think not merely about a monetary reform, or a credit reform: We have to think of a credit reform in terms of a mission-orientation, of a system of sovereign nation-states, globally, for an extended period to come. Automatically, in this kind of process, if you have this agreement of the type I've indicated, among the four leading nations, and those who join them immediately, you will go immediately to a gold-denominated, fixed-exchange-rate system. So you will begin to operate in one part of the world, even if the rest of the world has not yet joined; you'll be operating under treaty agreements, among a bloc of nations, a powerful bloc of nations in these terms. And you're moving back in the direction we have to get, to solve these problems: a fixed-exchange-rate system.

What we would do, probably, and I would do in the United States, if I had my druthers, is take the Federal Reserve System, which is now bankrupt; the Federal Reserve System is hopelessly bankrupt. I say it: It's true. Merely, the axe has not the head off, yet, but it's gone! What you have to do, is put it through bankruptcy reorganization. Now, since it has a Federal government relationship, which the Federal government has to deal with, you simply do what Alexander Hamilton would have done, and intended to do, had he had his choices, despite Andrew Jackson—and convert the Federal Reserve System, as a set of assets, and use the power of government by an Act of Congress, and the Executive branch, to convert it into a National Bank. That does not mean it's the bank that controls everything in the banking system. You are going to restore the private banks, the state banks, and the Federal banks, the chartered banks. But you need a vehicle interfacing between government and the Treasury Department, and the private part of the banking system, to mediate the handling of long-term agreements, and the handling of other things which are done on behalf of both government interest and on the part of the institutions.

So, if we create this seed crystal, of these four nations, and others who join them, we now can have, any time we decide to do it—if the President of the United States says, to the President of Russia and to the President of China, and to the government of India, and some other countries: "Let's make this agreement!", the United States has Constitutionally, the Constitutional apparatus and the authority, to do this! So we don't have to worry about what somebody in England says, or some other part of the world says—if these countries agree, on a certain mission-orientation, to act now, we can start a process toward a recovery of the planet as a whole. And once we start that process, we then can go on to the major business of getting other parts of the world involved in it. But we need to make a break.

The American Presidential System
Now, we have, of course, a new President-elect of the United States, and provided he lives—I understand there are some threats to his life—the prospects don't seem good on the surface from his behavior, but if forces like that combine, the way the American Presidential system works, the President of the United States will be shaped by the approach to such an agreement. Sometimes a President determines the way the U.S. government goes, sometimes he does not. Sometimes he dominates, in a bad way. Sometimes he dominates in a good way. But our system is not a system of a President; it is a Presidential system, in which the entirety of the Federal government is essentially a Presidential system in its character. And the other branches of government are essentially auxiliary to our control-mechanism, which determine and shape the Presidency.

But if the United States Presidency decides to move in that direction, the forces of the Presidency can control the President of the United States. And therefore, the President of the United States will be inclined and steered to do useful things, for the sake of the United States and for its allies. So that's what's required.

If we do that, then we can deal with other parts of the world, which eagerly join. The problem now, is the attempt to pick off one country at a time, to agree with this—the kind of negotiations that are occurring between London and Sarkozy of France, is completely hopeless! Nothing good can come out of this! It's absolutely useless. And the results we'll see, in the coming meeting [the Nov. 15 G-20 meeting—ed.], will be terrible results. They'll be inconsequential; it'll be chaotic. No solution will be presented! Something may be presented and called a "solution." But, calling a pig a person does not make it human. This will not work.

Nothing presently planned, by the coming meeting, will do any damned good, at all—but will only make things worse. Only a reform of the type I've described, is within sight as a feasible change in the system.

What I've said, also implies that we would go away from a floating-exchange-rate system, not only to a gold-reserve system, or a regulated system of the type that Roosevelt prescribed in 1944, as opposed to what Truman did after 1945: What Truman did, what was done under Truman, was not Roosevelt's intention. Remember, that Franklin Roosevelt's intention was to eliminate all imperialism, to get rid of colonialism, and to use the vast economic power we had assembled in the war, to build up other countries, through a partnership to eliminate colonialism, and to establish a system of nation-states on this planet.

Truman was different: Truman was actually an enemy, a political enemy of Franklin Roosevelt. He belonged to a different faction, an opposing faction. Roosevelt died. Truman took over—in a sense, Winston Churchill took over. And if President Roosevelt, who had intended to eliminate colonialism throughout the planet, through a process of development, was replaced by a President who cooperated with the British to restore colonialism—as in the case in Indochina, as in the case in Indonesia, and so forth and so on, around the planet.

So what happened under Truman, was not the actual intention of Roosevelt. If we go back to 1944, at Bretton Woods—against Keynes! Keynes was a fascist and an imperialist! That's frankly what he was; his famous 1937 General Theory, published in Berlin, in which he said his system would work better in Nazi Germany than it would in a free country. He was right. The Keynesian system was adapted to a colonial/imperial system, and we functioned under a monetarist system, with imperialistic characteristics, especially since 1971 to the present time: It's been one of our big problems.

So, going back to the Roosevelt intention, of 1944-early 1945, with a reform of this type, does give us an answer. This means that we have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system; we have to have a hard-currency system; it means we have to have a lot of regulation of prices. You can not have free, floating prices. Because, if you're not covering the costs of production, by undercutting prices, so that you try to produce below the cost of production, you're not going to have development.

The World Needs Infrastructure
This also means, that this will not work without a very large-scale investment in basic economic infrastructure. For example: Take the case of Asia, North Asia.

North Asia is a repository, part of Russia, but North Asia in general; the Siberian area and below, is a repository of concentration of raw materials which are necessary for the development of Asia as a whole. But you just can't go in there, and get those raw materials; you have to have a system of development, which develops the territory in which the raw materials lie. You can't just go down and dig them out. You have to have a system, and Russia used to have a system of that type, under the old Russian system, in infrastructure, in minerals. And therefore, to develop this area, you require large-scale, modern transportation systems; you need power systems, which means nuclear power systems, and so forth; otherwise you can not develop these territories. This means developing magnetic levitation systems in place of rail systems, restoring rail systems where they fit the bill, and all other kinds of infrastructural development which are necessary for high-technology investment and production. Without that, we can not accomplish our mission.

Therefore, we have to have very large-scale international agreements on creation of credit, for large-scale infrastructure projects, of especially international interest. You can do nothing in Africa, without a large investment in basic economic infrastructure: mass transportation, power, water management, and so forth. These countries, given freedom—true freedom—could tend to develop themselves. But! Without large-scale infrastructure, which they're not equipped to develop, they couldn't launch that kind of development.

This means, also, the world itself, at large, requires a return to large-scale rail or magnetic levitation transportation systems, which we've been destroying in the post-war period. It means other kinds of development of that type.

It means also, a new tariff system, a protectionist system, which guarantees to each nation, that its investment in production, which everybody has supported, presumably, is going to be protected in price. We can not have a low-price economy. The problem in China, for example, is, the prices at which China is able to have an export market, the prices are too low! You can not maintain China's population with those prices. And the reason this was done, was to lower the price of production below the cost of production! So we moved production out of Europe, and out of North America, we moved it to prices below the actual, physical cost of production, considering the capital investment in technology. Therefore, you take and dump on China and other countries, you dump an export market for them, but then you don't allow them to earn enough to support their entire population in development. The same thing happens in Africa. The same thing has happened in South America and Central America, in recent periods, mainly since the 1970s.

So we need these kinds of reforms, now! And that's the direction we have to go in. That's the option.

Billions Are Already Imperiled
If we're not willing to move in the direction I've indicated here, in these remarks so far, today, then, I tell you, that the situation for humanity on the planet as a whole is worse today, than it was in Europe in the 14th Century, in the onset of what was called the New Dark Age. We have over 6.5 billion people living on this planet today. With the present conditions, much of that population is already imperiled: the question of food supplies, alone, problems of disease and related things; the food crisis is grave on this planet, today, as many of us know: Without an increase in productivity, physical productivity, which means a change in these conditions, and the introduction of protectionist conditions, we're going to have a holocaust. We now have between 6.5 and 7 billion people on this planet: If we don't do something now, we're going to end up, in a couple of generations, with about 1 billion, or less.

So, we have an existential crisis on this planet. The present monetary system, the present systems, especially since 1968-71/72, the net physical output of the United States, since 1968, since the fiscal year of '67-'68—the net physical output per capita of the United States has been continually shrinking! There has been no net physical growth, per capita, per square kilometer, in the United States since fiscal year '67-'68.

You have a similar condition, but a worse condition, in Europe today, especially in Germany: In Germany, the most obvious collapse has occurred.

So, if these reforms are not made, with the goal of a protectionist system, which ensures that long-term investment is promoted and encouraged, and technological progress and the investment that goes with it, is encouraged, we are headed—right now—for a new dark age! Not some time down the line. What has happened, at an accelerating rate, since the end of July of 2007, has already been a run into a crisis.

One of the problems here, is that every economist who engages in forecasting has failed, in this entire period. They failed in the long term, but they've also failed, in particular in the past year and a half. Every economist in the world, that I know of, has been generally incompetent in forecasting, during this period. Incompetent, particularly—you have people who are publishing reports to the effect that this crisis will soon be over. It will never be over! Without this reform I've indicated, it will never be over! Life on this planet is headed for a dark age, unless the kind of reforms I've indicated occur now. There is no other solution. And any forecaster who says differently, you know is incompetent.

And that's why I say—I return to it—the key to a reform, as I see it today: There's no possibility of a necessary reform, unless you reach agreement of the United States, Russia, China, and India. If those countries agree on the general directions I indicate, and are prepared to act in that direction, other nations will join them—obviously, Japan will join them, automatically! Korea will automatically join them! Other countries will immediately join them, because they're part of the same system, the East Asian system. That whole area of East Asia, Northern Siberia, the area around Korea, the same thing—these are areas that have immediate potential for very significant development! And these countries, given the chance, will leap to that, and take advantage of that.

But without that kind of reform, without that orientation, without agreements where we can create large masses of new credit—that is, under a credit system, while junking the old monetary system—if we can't do that, there's no chance for humanity at all. And anyone who forecasts differently is wrong, and dangerously wrong.

If we don't make this kind of reform now, we're not going to have a decent planet to live on for some time to come.

]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:28:11 -0500
This is a hopeless collapse, in terms of the present system. No mere reform of this present system, will save the planet. The nearest event comparable to this, in all European civilization's experience, occurred in the 14th Century, with the general collapse, called a "New Dark Age," in which the entire system of Europe collapsed. The number of villages collapsed by one-half, the population of Europe collapsed by one-third, and it took several decades before even the beginning of civilization returned.

The crisis we have today, worldwide, is of a similar form: A great financial bubble, which has been growing at a great rate, while the rate of net physical production per capita, has been collapsing. This system is doomed in its present form. And there is no minor reform, there's no monetary reform that could save this system. We are headed for an absolute, total collapse of the planet, unless a change is made. There is no hope, for any remedy, within the framework of what's called a monetary system. But rather, as I shall emphasize here, the alternative is the establishment of a credit system, to replace the present monetary system.

The Crucial Role of the United States
Now, the model for the credit system lies in the United States, historically. If you study the U.S. Constitution and the peculiarities of the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to those of Europe, our system of government has no resemblance in essentials, to any European system of government. European systems of government are essentially parliamentary systems, not federal systems. There are reforms in European states, which have moved in the direction of a Presidential system. The best example of an attempt in that direction was Charles de Gaulle, as President of France, in his Fifth Republic. There was a serious attempt to establish a nation-state system in Europe, by de Gaulle. But since that time, there has been no successful effort, to establish a true nation-state system, as opposed to a parliamentary system.

Therefore, the United States has a crucial significance in this, and without a crucial role by the United States, which seems extremely difficult right now, because of the present Presidency and so forth—without the United States, there is no hope for avoiding what will be a plunge into a new dark age, resembling that which occurred in Europe, which occurred in the 14th Century. That's the situation we face. No simple reform, no adjustment, no monetary agreement, nothing of that sort will work.

There are, however, very specific measures, of agreements among governments which could change the system, could change it without anything too radical, but it would get us through.

Now, the first thing that has to happen is, in practice, is that unless there's an agreement of a certain type among the United States, Russia, China, and India, we have reached a condition, where it would be impossible to save the world from a collapse, a worldwide collapse. The form would be this: It would be the change of the present world monetary system, the elimination of the present world monetary system, to replace it by a credit system, which is consistent with the principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution. Remember that our Constitution, and our Presidential system, was not based on a parliamentary system; it was not based on a monetary system. It was based on what's called a credit system.

The difference is obvious to all of you: You have two types of systems in the world today, of any significance. One, there are credit systems: A credit means that the money issued by a government, is issued by a government, in the name of the government, and is backed by the promises of the government to support the credit. This credit, under law, can then be monetized and supply a money currency as well as credit for development.

This is distinct from a monetary system. A monetary system represents a system of money, which is outside government, but which may or may not have agreement with government. European systems, today, are not credit systems, they are monetary systems. The monetary system, which is tied to the IMF, today, and has been since 1971, 1972—that period—the monetary system is what is collapsing. The monetary system is collapsing, because it is tied, specifically now to the credit bubble, the derivatives bubbles. And this is what's collapsing. There's no possibility at this stage any longer, of saving the monetary system in its present form. That is, a reform made internal to the monetary system will not work. It's too late. We could have done something in that direction, back a year ago, July a year ago, back in 2007. The system is so rotten today, that it would not be possible, especially the changes that have been made by the U.S. and other governments, in the recent months, are so radical, that it would be impossible to reform this system. You have to completely overhaul it and revolutionize it.

But, our American System allows us to do that, under our Constitutional system in our history.

A Four-Power Agreement
Now, what we have to do is, is establish a power bloc, to force through a change among nations. Western Europe, despite the fact that there are positive elements, as the case of [Economics Minister Giulio] Tremonti in Italy, or some efforts on the part of [President Nicolas] Sarkozy in France; there are some initiatives in the direction of useful reforms. There are desires for useful reforms from other parts of the world. But the requirement here, is to have a sufficiently powerful agreement, to force through the reforms in a timely fashion. This can only occur by an agreement among the United States, Russia, China, and India. If the United States, Russia, China, and India function as a bloc, other countries will join them, and we can force through the reform. In my view, without that particular agreement, it would be impossible to ram through the reform, politically, at this time—not in time. We might eventually agree to it, but it would be too late. We need change now: The world system is collapsing at such a rate, now, that we do not have years to play with. We do not even have many months to play with. By the end of the year, we must be in the direction of making some kind of reform, in this direction.

Now, what it means, is this: As those of you from China know, and other countries, the change in the system, especially since 1971 and 1972 on, the change was a change in the relationship of China, from the United States to China and other countries. The change was essentially to what is called "globalization": to move production out of Europe and the United States, and to move it into countries which have low per-capita incomes: in other words, cheap labor. And thus production, and infrastructure, were moved out of the United States, and increasingly out of Europe, especially after 1989-1990, into other countries, Third World countries in particular, which operate at a cheap-labor price. Today, most of the production of the world depends critically, on a margin of production in these countries, which are the export countries, which replaced European production, U.S. production, and so forth.

So therefore, at this point, you have two things: First of all, the system is collapsing. Now, by the nature of the system, it means that the countries which were used as substitutes for production from Europe and the United States, for example, are now collapsing, because the purchases from other countries are collapsing, as in the case of China, where the collapse of China is a potential time-bomb for the entire planet. Because if the collapse of China's exports continues at the present rate, this will be a time-bomb for the entire system; and some people understand this. Therefore, the unity of four powers, the United States—which has a certain special power—Russia, China, and India, represents a bloc that can force through reforms of the type that are needed.

A Credit, Not a Monetary System
What is required is this: We have to eliminate the monetary system, by a credit system. A credit system is not some mysterious thing. It's essentially something which is traditional to the United States in particular. European systems today, are monetary systems: that is, despite agreements with government, money is controlled by agencies outside government. This is a characteristic of parliamentary systems—not a true Presidential system, but a parliamentary system. And thus, money exists independently of the control of government, although with agreement with government, but nonetheless, under the control of outside agencies: international, financial agencies, which actually control the monetary system, control and regulate the money, and government plays, less and less, a role in the control of money, in control of the monetary system. This is characteristic in Europe, particularly since 1989-1991, in which the control over money, with the Maastricht agreements and similar kinds of agreements, Europe has absolutely no control over its own monetary supply: It's controlled by outsiders, largely through London, and through things like the oil price market.

So therefore, the creation of a credit system to replace a monetary system, is where the solution lies. There's no way to save this monetary system in its present form. It's so full of junk, with the financial derivatives far in excess of a quadrillion dollars in claims, against the nominal size of the actual production of nations, it is impossible to reform this monetary system in its present form. You have to put the monetary system, itself, through bankruptcy. You will have to wipe out the greatest portion of nominal monetary assets in the world today! Cancel them! Because the system as a whole is hopelessly bankrupt.

Now, what do you do in that case? Well, what you do for a monetary reform to a credit system, you use the U.S. Constitution. Because of our Constitution, we can create, as Roosevelt did that formally, we can create a credit system. To replace a monetary system.

Now, what you do under this case, and with agreement with the United States, and its Constitution, with Russia, China, and India, it can be done. What you do, is you say, we put all the claims which are equivalent of monetary or credit claims in two piles. One pile we call "monetary." That's the manure pile. The other we call the "credit" pile. Now under the U.S. Constitution, money, when the Constitution is followed, is created only by the will of the government. It is done by the Executive branch of government, with the consent of the House of Representatives, and things flow from that. This credit being issued, is also authorized for monetization: So, the credit can be issued as loans for projects, or international loans, and part of it can actually be monetized, under the condition under which it was uttered. Particularly, if we had a national banking system, which we don't have presently, we could convert the Federal Reserve System, which is bankrupt, into a national banking system, as Hamilton proposed. Then it would do that, automatically. We do need a national banking system in each country. That doesn't mean they're the only banks, but it does mean you use a national banking system to control the relationship between government and the banking system as a whole, in general.

Put the System Through Bankruptcy Reorganization
If you do that, then you do a bankruptcy reform: You take the hopelessly bankrupt system—we're talking about quadrillions of dollars of claims, of monetary claims, especially as located in these speculative markets of derivatives and related kinds of things—we have to wipe most of this off the books! It can never be paid. It was foolishness, it was a lie, it was done largely since 1987, under Alan Greenspan's insanity. This we have to wipe out.

What do you do? You have to protect those things which are productive, and are necessary for the government and necessary for the population. Therefore, you create a pile called the "credit pile." What you do, is you take every obligation, and every asset, which is valuable to society, currently, or necessary and meritorious—you take the monetary value of that, and you assign that to the creation of credit, government credit, a credit system. And you leave the remainder to rot.

Then, at that point, you enter into agreements, with governments—and this is where the relationship of the United States, Russia, China, and India occurs; there are many ramifications to this thing—under the case, what we do first of all, is you create among these governments, and others who will join them, you create a credit system to replace the present monetary system. That doesn't mean that every nation is involved immediately; it means these nations and others who wish to join, will join immediately. Now, we enter into an agreement which amounts to a revival of the Bretton Woods system. What we do, therefore, is, we create a credit system, as an international system, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. And we issue credit, by agreement among these countries, as a fixed-exchange-rate system. We then proceed, to expand world production, involving these countries, through the new credit system, leaving the useless money, the useless claims, to rot.

In doing that, two things happen, particularly with these countries involved, because the future of the planet, economically, is concentrated in Asia, where the greatest single concentration of population and the need for growth exists. The other area, which has a similar character, is Africa. Now, Asia and Africa are also two areas, which contain a lot of the raw materials assets required for the development of production in the world.

Therefore, if this part of the world develops, several things happen: First of all, you have in China, and you have in India, and other countries in Asia, you have a tendency where 60-70% of the population is essentially destitute, because of the present structure of prices, prices paid. A small part of the population of these countries, varying from case to case, has, shall we say, a modern standard of living, a modern ability to produce. A great part of the population remains outside! While there's infrastructure development in China, it is not sufficient to compensate, for example, for these needs. The development of resources for developing raw materials, that is, mineral raw materials, is not sufficient. The raw materials, the minerals, lie there in the ground, but you just can't extract them, you have to develop these resources. And you have to mobilize the flow of this into the expansion of production to include that: India, China, are typical of this—but also all of Asia.

You have a parallel situation in Africa. Africa is one of the larger repositories of raw materials, necessary for humanity in the coming period. But under the present conditions, with the lack of infrastructure, you can not develop those raw materials! So therefore, what you have, is a part of the world, over 40% of the world in Asia, essentially, and a large part in Africa, and you have comparable situations in South America, where you have large resources, which are undeveloped, which could be developed, but the infrastructure development needed, has not occurred yet.

The Challenge of Development
So therefore, we have not only the question of a reform of a monetary system, to prevent a collapse of the system; we have the challenge now, of taking these areas of development, which involve large raw materials deposits, at the same time, a very large part of the population—and a large part of the population of the world is living at substandard conditions, with no immediate prospect of significant improvement—therefore, the frontier of humanity, for centuries yet to come, involves this thrust of development. It means, then, a reversal of the present tendencies in Europe and in North America, away from becoming post-industrial societies, toward playing a key supporting role in freshly generating technologies which will support this development in Asia and in Africa, and also similarly, in South America. But South America's much closer to the United States, and so forth, has largely a European cultural population, and therefore, dealing with that is much different than it is in dealing with other parts of the world which have a different cultural heritage.

So therefore, there are two things involved: First of all, is to mobilize a section of the planet, which can be mobilized, which has to be mobilized—Russia knows it needs to mobilize! Russia is facing an existential crisis, not as severe as China's right now, but it's an existential crisis. They can not simply continue to function the way they're going. Changes are required. China knows that a change is required, from the present situation. India is less unstable in some respects than China, because its characteristics are different, but all of Asia is in this condition. Africa's in a known condition. The problem in South America, even though it's a different part of the world, and has different characteristics, is similar.

So therefore, we have to think not merely about a monetary reform, or a credit reform: We have to think of a credit reform in terms of a mission-orientation, of a system of sovereign nation-states, globally, for an extended period to come. Automatically, in this kind of process, if you have this agreement of the type I've indicated, among the four leading nations, and those who join them immediately, you will go immediately to a gold-denominated, fixed-exchange-rate system. So you will begin to operate in one part of the world, even if the rest of the world has not yet joined; you'll be operating under treaty agreements, among a bloc of nations, a powerful bloc of nations in these terms. And you're moving back in the direction we have to get, to solve these problems: a fixed-exchange-rate system.

What we would do, probably, and I would do in the United States, if I had my druthers, is take the Federal Reserve System, which is now bankrupt; the Federal Reserve System is hopelessly bankrupt. I say it: It's true. Merely, the axe has not the head off, yet, but it's gone! What you have to do, is put it through bankruptcy reorganization. Now, since it has a Federal government relationship, which the Federal government has to deal with, you simply do what Alexander Hamilton would have done, and intended to do, had he had his choices, despite Andrew Jackson—and convert the Federal Reserve System, as a set of assets, and use the power of government by an Act of Congress, and the Executive branch, to convert it into a National Bank. That does not mean it's the bank that controls everything in the banking system. You are going to restore the private banks, the state banks, and the Federal banks, the chartered banks. But you need a vehicle interfacing between government and the Treasury Department, and the private part of the banking system, to mediate the handling of long-term agreements, and the handling of other things which are done on behalf of both government interest and on the part of the institutions.

So, if we create this seed crystal, of these four nations, and others who join them, we now can have, any time we decide to do it—if the President of the United States says, to the President of Russia and to the President of China, and to the government of India, and some other countries: "Let's make this agreement!", the United States has Constitutionally, the Constitutional apparatus and the authority, to do this! So we don't have to worry about what somebody in England says, or some other part of the world says—if these countries agree, on a certain mission-orientation, to act now, we can start a process toward a recovery of the planet as a whole. And once we start that process, we then can go on to the major business of getting other parts of the world involved in it. But we need to make a break.

The American Presidential System
Now, we have, of course, a new President-elect of the United States, and provided he lives—I understand there are some threats to his life—the prospects don't seem good on the surface from his behavior, but if forces like that combine, the way the American Presidential system works, the President of the United States will be shaped by the approach to such an agreement. Sometimes a President determines the way the U.S. government goes, sometimes he does not. Sometimes he dominates, in a bad way. Sometimes he dominates in a good way. But our system is not a system of a President; it is a Presidential system, in which the entirety of the Federal government is essentially a Presidential system in its character. And the other branches of government are essentially auxiliary to our control-mechanism, which determine and shape the Presidency.

But if the United States Presidency decides to move in that direction, the forces of the Presidency can control the President of the United States. And therefore, the President of the United States will be inclined and steered to do useful things, for the sake of the United States and for its allies. So that's what's required.

If we do that, then we can deal with other parts of the world, which eagerly join. The problem now, is the attempt to pick off one country at a time, to agree with this—the kind of negotiations that are occurring between London and Sarkozy of France, is completely hopeless! Nothing good can come out of this! It's absolutely useless. And the results we'll see, in the coming meeting [the Nov. 15 G-20 meeting—ed.], will be terrible results. They'll be inconsequential; it'll be chaotic. No solution will be presented! Something may be presented and called a "solution." But, calling a pig a person does not make it human. This will not work.

Nothing presently planned, by the coming meeting, will do any damned good, at all—but will only make things worse. Only a reform of the type I've described, is within sight as a feasible change in the system.

What I've said, also implies that we would go away from a floating-exchange-rate system, not only to a gold-reserve system, or a regulated system of the type that Roosevelt prescribed in 1944, as opposed to what Truman did after 1945: What Truman did, what was done under Truman, was not Roosevelt's intention. Remember, that Franklin Roosevelt's intention was to eliminate all imperialism, to get rid of colonialism, and to use the vast economic power we had assembled in the war, to build up other countries, through a partnership to eliminate colonialism, and to establish a system of nation-states on this planet.

Truman was different: Truman was actually an enemy, a political enemy of Franklin Roosevelt. He belonged to a different faction, an opposing faction. Roosevelt died. Truman took over—in a sense, Winston Churchill took over. And if President Roosevelt, who had intended to eliminate colonialism throughout the planet, through a process of development, was replaced by a President who cooperated with the British to restore colonialism—as in the case in Indochina, as in the case in Indonesia, and so forth and so on, around the planet.

So what happened under Truman, was not the actual intention of Roosevelt. If we go back to 1944, at Bretton Woods—against Keynes! Keynes was a fascist and an imperialist! That's frankly what he was; his famous 1937 General Theory, published in Berlin, in which he said his system would work better in Nazi Germany than it would in a free country. He was right. The Keynesian system was adapted to a colonial/imperial system, and we functioned under a monetarist system, with imperialistic characteristics, especially since 1971 to the present time: It's been one of our big problems.

So, going back to the Roosevelt intention, of 1944-early 1945, with a reform of this type, does give us an answer. This means that we have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system; we have to have a hard-currency system; it means we have to have a lot of regulation of prices. You can not have free, floating prices. Because, if you're not covering the costs of production, by undercutting prices, so that you try to produce below the cost of production, you're not going to have development.

The World Needs Infrastructure
This also means, that this will not work without a very large-scale investment in basic economic infrastructure. For example: Take the case of Asia, North Asia.

North Asia is a repository, part of Russia, but North Asia in general; the Siberian area and below, is a repository of concentration of raw materials which are necessary for the development of Asia as a whole. But you just can't go in there, and get those raw materials; you have to have a system of development, which develops the territory in which the raw materials lie. You can't just go down and dig them out. You have to have a system, and Russia used to have a system of that type, under the old Russian system, in infrastructure, in minerals. And therefore, to develop this area, you require large-scale, modern transportation systems; you need power systems, which means nuclear power systems, and so forth; otherwise you can not develop these territories. This means developing magnetic levitation systems in place of rail systems, restoring rail systems where they fit the bill, and all other kinds of infrastructural development which are necessary for high-technology investment and production. Without that, we can not accomplish our mission.

Therefore, we have to have very large-scale international agreements on creation of credit, for large-scale infrastructure projects, of especially international interest. You can do nothing in Africa, without a large investment in basic economic infrastructure: mass transportation, power, water management, and so forth. These countries, given freedom—true freedom—could tend to develop themselves. But! Without large-scale infrastructure, which they're not equipped to develop, they couldn't launch that kind of development.

This means, also, the world itself, at large, requires a return to large-scale rail or magnetic levitation transportation systems, which we've been destroying in the post-war period. It means other kinds of development of that type.

It means also, a new tariff system, a protectionist system, which guarantees to each nation, that its investment in production, which everybody has supported, presumably, is going to be protected in price. We can not have a low-price economy. The problem in China, for example, is, the prices at which China is able to have an export market, the prices are too low! You can not maintain China's population with those prices. And the reason this was done, was to lower the price of production below the cost of production! So we moved production out of Europe, and out of North America, we moved it to prices below the actual, physical cost of production, considering the capital investment in technology. Therefore, you take and dump on China and other countries, you dump an export market for them, but then you don't allow them to earn enough to support their entire population in development. The same thing happens in Africa. The same thing has happened in South America and Central America, in recent periods, mainly since the 1970s.

So we need these kinds of reforms, now! And that's the direction we have to go in. That's the option.

Billions Are Already Imperiled
If we're not willing to move in the direction I've indicated here, in these remarks so far, today, then, I tell you, that the situation for humanity on the planet as a whole is worse today, than it was in Europe in the 14th Century, in the onset of what was called the New Dark Age. We have over 6.5 billion people living on this planet today. With the present conditions, much of that population is already imperiled: the question of food supplies, alone, problems of disease and related things; the food crisis is grave on this planet, today, as many of us know: Without an increase in productivity, physical productivity, which means a change in these conditions, and the introduction of protectionist conditions, we're going to have a holocaust. We now have between 6.5 and 7 billion people on this planet: If we don't do something now, we're going to end up, in a couple of generations, with about 1 billion, or less.

So, we have an existential crisis on this planet. The present monetary system, the present systems, especially since 1968-71/72, the net physical output of the United States, since 1968, since the fiscal year of '67-'68—the net physical output per capita of the United States has been continually shrinking! There has been no net physical growth, per capita, per square kilometer, in the United States since fiscal year '67-'68.

You have a similar condition, but a worse condition, in Europe today, especially in Germany: In Germany, the most obvious collapse has occurred.

So, if these reforms are not made, with the goal of a protectionist system, which ensures that long-term investment is promoted and encouraged, and technological progress and the investment that goes with it, is encouraged, we are headed—right now—for a new dark age! Not some time down the line. What has happened, at an accelerating rate, since the end of July of 2007, has already been a run into a crisis.

One of the problems here, is that every economist who engages in forecasting has failed, in this entire period. They failed in the long term, but they've also failed, in particular in the past year and a half. Every economist in the world, that I know of, has been generally incompetent in forecasting, during this period. Incompetent, particularly—you have people who are publishing reports to the effect that this crisis will soon be over. It will never be over! Without this reform I've indicated, it will never be over! Life on this planet is headed for a dark age, unless the kind of reforms I've indicated occur now. There is no other solution. And any forecaster who says differently, you know is incompetent.

And that's why I say—I return to it—the key to a reform, as I see it today: There's no possibility of a necessary reform, unless you reach agreement of the United States, Russia, China, and India. If those countries agree on the general directions I indicate, and are prepared to act in that direction, other nations will join them—obviously, Japan will join them, automatically! Korea will automatically join them! Other countries will immediately join them, because they're part of the same system, the East Asian system. That whole area of East Asia, Northern Siberia, the area around Korea, the same thing—these are areas that have immediate potential for very significant development! And these countries, given the chance, will leap to that, and take advantage of that.

But without that kind of reform, without that orientation, without agreements where we can create large masses of new credit—that is, under a credit system, while junking the old monetary system—if we can't do that, there's no chance for humanity at all. And anyone who forecasts differently is wrong, and dangerously wrong.

If we don't make this kind of reform now, we're not going to have a decent planet to live on for some time to come.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106059-is-hyperinflation-on-the-horizon?source=feed#comment-306325 306325
At the same time,we are seeing a temporary collapse of costs of key commodities, such as gasoline. The reason for the price collapse is that world trade and world production have collapsed. The global real economy is crumbling, in most parts of the world. Production is falling, need for raw materials and manufactured goods is crumbling, as people lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their homes.

So we are witnessing two simultaneous developments: Hyperinflation on an unprecedented scale, in the financial realm, and a collapse of physical production worldwide, causing a fall in commodity prices. This is an explosion, not a crash, and that is plain to see. Only dummies could miss the true significance of the current phase of this systemic disintegration process.

]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:13:45 -0500
At the same time,we are seeing a temporary collapse of costs of key commodities, such as gasoline. The reason for the price collapse is that world trade and world production have collapsed. The global real economy is crumbling, in most parts of the world. Production is falling, need for raw materials and manufactured goods is crumbling, as people lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their homes.

So we are witnessing two simultaneous developments: Hyperinflation on an unprecedented scale, in the financial realm, and a collapse of physical production worldwide, causing a fall in commodity prices. This is an explosion, not a crash, and that is plain to see. Only dummies could miss the true significance of the current phase of this systemic disintegration process.

]]>