Glass-Steagall skal ligge klar til underskrift på Trumps
skrivebord, når han overtager embedet!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 30. december, 2016
Vi befinder os i nedtællingen til afslutningen af Obama-administrationen og begyndelsen af den tiltrædende Trump-administration. Om præcis tre uger finder indsættelsesceremonien for den tiltrædende administration sted. Der er stadig meget, der er uafklaret og usikkert; men verdenssituationen ændrer sig meget hurtigt. Som hr. LaRouche advarede om for mindre end 48 timer siden, så må vi stadig holde øje med Obama; så længe, han beklæder embedet, kan han lave en forfærdelig masse ulykker. Blot i dag forsøgte han, fra sin ferie på Hawaii, at optrappe og fremprovokere en konflikt med Rusland. Han meddelte, at 35 russere vil blive erklæret persona non grata og ville blive udvist af USA under anklage om angivelig spionage; og at der ikke alene ville blive pålagt Rusland flere sanktioner som gengældelse for den såkaldte »russiske hacking«, men at to russiske ejendomsområder, der angiveligt bliver brugt til spionage – et område på Marylands østkyst og et på Long Island, steder, hvor russiske diplomater til USA og Washington D.C. kan bringe deres familier til en hårdt tiltrængt ferie og afslapning – han meddelte, at føderale styrker ville rykke ind og lukke disse områder ned. Jeg er sikker på, at Obama regnede med, at dette ville provokere hans ærke-Nemesis Vladimir Putin til at gøre gengældelse, men Obama blev sørgeligt skuffet. Til trods for, at Sergei Lavrov, Ruslands udenrigsminister, sagde, at de var i deres gode ret til at gøre gengæld, øje for øje, og udvise 35 såkaldte amerikanske diplomater af Rusland som persona non grata og lukke amerikanske feriesteder i Moskva og omegn ned; men i stedet foretog Putin, på klassisk Putin-vis, et judo-træk og gjorde ingenting. Et træk fra Putin side, som generelt erkendes som at udmanøvrere Obama – f.eks. i overskriften i Daily Beast, »Putin udmanøvrerer Obama i spionkrig; Moskva griner ad Obama-administrationens sanktioner og udvisninger som de sidste handlinger af svaghed«. Putin afslørede Obama for det, han er, en ’lam and’; og han nægtede at respondere. I en erklæring offentliggjort på Kremls webside i dag sagde Putin følgende: »Alt imens vi forbeholder os ret til at tage forholdsregler til gengældelse, så vil vi ikke degradere os selv til et niveau af ’køkkendiplomati’. I vore fremtidige skridt på vej imod en genoprettelse af de russisk-amerikanske relationer, vil vi gå frem fra den politik, som Donald Trumps administration forfølger.«
Så dette er en perfekt afslutning og diplomatisk sejr for Putin; og det er på linje med et tweet, der blev udsendt af det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, og som var et billede af en gul and med ordet »lam« skrevet over billedet. Obama og hans hold, selv om de kan skabe en masse ulykker i de resterende tre uger, anses ikke for at være særlig magtfulde mere, af Putin og andre i verden.
Samtidig kan russerne hævde en sand diplomatisk sejr i Syrien. Oven i befrielsen af Aleppo og genoprettelsen af regeringskontrol over en stor del af landet imod ISIS og andre oprørsstyrker, så forhandlede russerne en våbenhvile igennem sammen med Tyrkiet; men uden USA. Foreløbig holder denne våbenhvile. Dette er en meget håbefuld situation og demonstrerer endnu engang, at Obama definitivt har mistet lederskabsrollen i verden¸ og Rusland er en formidabel strategisk leder på verdensscenen, mens denne administration træder tilbage og den nye administration går om bord.
Samtidig har vi en nedsmeltning af det finansielle system; Monte dei Paschi banksituationen kører fortsat videre. Vi har en eksponering til derivater fra hver eneste bank på hele planeten. Enhver af disse – Deutsche Bank, Monte dei Paschi – hvad som helst kunne udløse en nedsmeltning af hele finanssystemet. Hr. LaRouches Fire Love er fortsat de afgørende og særdeles presserende forholdsregler, der må tages i USA. Som jeg sagde, så er intet afgjort, men der er meget, der er muligt. Som I har set i vore diverse udsendelser de seneste dage – Fireside Chat i går, en LPAC e-mail, der blev udsendt i dag, hovedoverskrifter på larouchepac.com hjemmesiden – så er vi engageret i en absolut presserende og afgørende mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen, endnu før den tiltrædende administration indsættes. Dette må være det absolutte top-lovforslag, der lægges på den nye præsidents skrivebord til underskrift. Kongressen kan handle på det, når de træder sammen i næste uge; i modsætning til [senator] McCains meddelelse om, at han vil have høringer om russisk hacking, eller sådan noget. Dette er den afgørende forholdsregel; og vi vil have aktivister, der kommer til Washington, D.C. Vi har allerede afleveret marchordrerne; og vi vil diskutere dette yderligere i aftenens udsendelse.
Men dette er fortsat blot det første skridt i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Hastelove til at redde USA, nu. Det bedste eksempel, vi stadig har, den bedste præcedens, er Franklin Roosevelts første 100 dage; hvad FDR var i stand til at opnå i sine første 100 dage i embedet. Kongressen trådte sammen; han vedtog omgående Bankloven af 1933, erklærede banklukkedag, reorganiserede hele det bankerotte finanssystem og satte Amerika i arbejde igen. Kongressen holdt ikke pause før nøjagtig 100 dage senere; og 100 milepæle i lovgivning blev debatteret, vedtaget og sendt over til Det Hvide Hus til Franklin Roosevelts underskrift, hvilket ændrede historien. Dette er fortsat præcedensen; det er fortsat modellen, og indholdet af disse første 100 dage bør være Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love til USA’s redning.
Jeg giver nu ordet til Jason [Ross], for der er nogle specifikke måder, hvorpå vi kan gå i gang med disse presserende forholdsregler.
WE NEED GLASS STEAGALL SITTING ON TRUMPS DESK
AWAITING HIS SIGNATURE WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE!
LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Dec. 30, 2016
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon! It's December 30, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our final Friday
evening broadcast for 2016 for this year on larouchepac.com. I'm
joined in the studio today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team; and via video by two members of our Policy
Committee — Bill Roberts from Detroit, Michigan (Hi, Bill); and
Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.
Now, obviously we are in a countdown to the end of the Obama
administration and the beginning of the incoming Trump
administration. Exactly three weeks from today is the
inauguration of the incoming administration. There are still
many things that are undetermined and up in the air; but the
world situation is moving very fast. As Mr. LaRouche warned less
than 48 hours ago, you still have to keep your eye on Obama; as
long as he remains in office, he can cause an awful of mischief.
And we saw that just yesterday, in an announcement that came from
Obama while he was vacationing in Hawaii; he attempted to
escalate and provoke a conflict with Russia. He announced that
35 Russian nationals would be declared {persona non grata} and
would be expelled from the United States under supposed spying
charges; and he announced that not only would there be more
sanctions imposed against Russia in retaliation for the so-called
"Russian hacking", but also two Russian estates that are
supposedly being used for espionage purposes — one on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland and one on Long Island, places where
Russian diplomats to the United Nations and to Washington DC can
bring their families for much-needed vacation and rest and
relaxation — he announced that Federal forces would be moving in
to close down those estates. Now, I'm sure that Obama expected
that this was going to provoke his arch-nemesis Vladimir Putin
into retaliatory measures, but Obama was severely disappointed.
Despite the fact that Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of
Russia, said that they would be fully justified in retaliating
tit-for-tat and expelling 35 so-called US diplomats from Russia
as {persona non grata} and closing down US vacation homes in
Moscow and the Moscow suburbs; Putin instead, in classic Putin
fashion, judoed Barack Obama and did nothing. Vladimir Putin, in
a move which is being universally recognized as outfoxing Obama
— for example, in a headline in the {Daily Beast} "Putin
Outfoxes Obama in Spy War ⦠Moscow Laughs Off the Obama
Administration's Sanctions and Expulsions as Feeble Last
Gestures". Putin called out Obama for what he is, a lame duck;
and he refused to respond. In a statement that was put out on
the Kremlin website today, Putin said the following:
"While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we
are not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of
irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy. In our future steps on our
way towards the restoration of Russian-United States relations,
we will proceed from the policy pursued by the administration of
Donald Trump."
So, this is a perfect ending and diplomatic victory for
Putin; and I think this goes along with a tweet that was sent out
by the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is a big picture of a
yellow duck with the word "lame" written over top of it. Obama
and his crew, although they are in the position to cause an awful
amount of mischief in the remaining three weeks, are not being
recognized as all that powerful anymore by Putin and others
around the world.
Now, at the same time, there is a true diplomatic victory
that the Russians can claim in Syria. On top of the liberation
of Aleppo and really restoring government control over a vast
part of the country against the ISIS and other rebel forces,
yesterday the Russians brokered a ceasefire with Turkey; but
without the United States. This ceasefire has, up to this point,
been holding. This is a very hopeful situation, and yet again,
demonstrates that Obama has definitely lost the leadership role
in the world; and Russia is a very formidable strategic leader on
the world stage as this administration exits and as the new
administration comes on board.
At the same time, you've got a meltdown of the financial
system; the Monte dei Paschi banking situation continues to
unravel. We have the exposure of derivatives from every single
bank in the entire planet. Any one of these — Deutsche Bank,
Monte dei Paschi Bank — anything could be the trigger to blow
out the entire financial system. Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws remain
the essential and most urgent measures that need to be taken in
the United States. As I said, nothing is determined, but there
is a lot that is possible. As you've seen on various channels of
our communications over the last few days — the Fireside Chat
yesterday, an LPAC email that went out today, headlines on the
larouchepac.com website — we are engaged in an absolutely urgent
and critical mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the agenda
even before the inauguration of the incoming administration.
This should be the number one bill that is delivered to the new
President's desk for his signature. It could be acted on by
Congress as they come into session next week; as opposed to
McCain's announcement that he's going to have hearings on Russian
hacking, or something like that. This is the critical measure;
and we will have activists that will be coming into Washington,
DC. We've already delivered the marching orders; and we can
discuss that more on the broadcast today.
But of course, that remains just the first step in Lyndon
LaRouche's Four Urgent Laws to Save the United States Now. The
best example that we still have, the best precedent, is the first
100 days of Franklin Roosevelt; what FDR was able to accomplish
in his first 100 days in office. The Congress came into session;
he immediately passed the Emergency Banking Act, declared a bank
holiday, reorganized the entire bankrupt financial system, put
Americans back to work. Congress did not leave session until
exactly 100 days later; and 10 landmark pieces of legislation
were debated, passed, and sent over to the White House for
Franklin Roosevelt's signature, which changed the course of
history. So of course, that remains the precedent; that remains
the model, and the contents of that first 100 days should be
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws to Save the United States.
So, with that said, I'd like to hand it over to Jason,
because there are some very specific examples of means by which
we can undertake those urgent measures.
JASON ROSS: Let's also put it in the context of the world. The
US desperately needs an economic recovery, a change in direction.
Think about the world as a whole; there's so much to be done.
Two and a half billion people on the planet don't have access to
continuous electricity; 800 million don't have access to fresh
water; 1.5 billion people don't have access to basic sanitation;
and over 1 billion people don't have access to telephone
capabilities. There's much work to be done, and the United
States is definitely for a large shift.
President-elect Donald Trump has said that he's got big
plans to make America great again; that he wants to spend $1
trillion on infrastructure in the United States over the coming
period. There's a lot that we could learn from China on this.
China, over just the past decade, has built the largest
high-speed rail network in the world. In one decade, it went
from basically nothing, to now being the world's leader. That
network is slated to double its size in the next 1.5 decades to a
level of 40-50,000 kms; about 30,000 miles of high-speed rail.
They're working, through their Belt and Road initiative, with 65
other nations in the region and beyond on cooperative projects;
on rail, energy, transportation, logistics, water, information,
training, expertise, education, a whole slew of projects for
economic cooperation and development that itself will entail
beyond China's borders tens of thousands more kilometers of
high-speed rail. So, how are they financing this? How are they
doing it? China's been spending $1 trillion a year for the past
decade; so the idea of spending $1 trillion in the US to get
everything up to some great standard is far too low.
The other aspect is, how is this going to be financed and
how is it going to be built? How is a $1 trillion going to be
brought to bear for the US economy? Let me read the concluding
paragraph of an op-ed that was published in the {People's Daily}
online of China; an op-ed by Curtis Stone. He wrote:
"Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure upgrades
in America to rebuild the nation and put people back to work. The
problem is how to pay for it and how to do it. China knows how to
fund and carry out serious infrastructure building, and
deep-pocketed Chinese investors want to invest billions more in
America. One way for Trump to realize his plan would be to use
Chinese funds and technology. This would help return some of
Americaâs investment in China back to America for the benefit of
America, and strengthen the bilateral relationship. Trumpâs plan
to rebuild America is bold, but it remains to be seen if he will
be bold enough to do what is best for America."
So, on that, let's think about how China can be involved
here. The need for financing in the US is very great; there is
not a lot of credit available in the way that people think. The
very low interest rates that currently exist, as Paul Gallagher
has explained well in the "Economics Frequently Asked Questions"
section on our website, we can't just sell a bunch of bonds at
low interest rates; the rates will go up. Where is that money
going to come from? Private investors? What's the return? What
this really requires is a totally different way of thinking about
economics. So, let's look at the LaRouche approach — very
briefly — to economics. In his policy document for the US,
called "Four New Laws to Save the USA Now", LaRouche gave four
very primary steps. First, Glass-Steagall, to end the connection
to the outrageously decrepit and collapsing financial system that
we have; it's almost totally divorced from the physical aspect of
economy.
Second, that we need a national banking approach. Now, what
does that mean? Let's think of some examples in US history as to
how a national approach to economy has occurred. If you look at
what Alexander Hamilton did in the early days of the new United
States, he turned the huge liabilities, the huge debts of that
new US and the state governments into something very valuable by
turning that debt into what became the basis for the First
National Bank of the United States; using that debt to become the
basis for a huge amount in loans that were necessary to build the
roads and then later the canals in the United States. To take a
more recent example, Matt had mentioned Franklin Roosevelt as the
best precedent that we have in the United States of late. Look
at what Roosevelt did with the Tennessee Valley Authority, for
example. This is a project that dramatically improved the
economy in the southeast part of the US; in the Tennessee Valley
area that it serviced. The increased productivity in that region
itself more than paid for the cost of the investment of the
project. This was the type of project where it doesn't really
matter whether the money that's spent on building it is paid back
directly; and that's something that private investors would
demand. "Can we build a toll road that we'll be able to get
money back from? Can we upgrade an airport terminal which
charges passenger fees for passing through it, and then we'll pay
back the investment in that terminal at the airport?"
Well, what about the large projects that shape the economy
as a whole; that provide a platform for economic activity?
That's the sort of thing where you look at the nation as a unique
economic actor that's able to finance investments whose payback
isn't direct in the way that a private investment would be; but
comes back in the sense of "Did we improve the productivity of
the nation as a whole in a way that makes the project
worthwhile?" That's what we saw with the creation of the
railroads in the United States, for example. This was something
that wouldn't have happened without the government support that
it got to build the Transcontinental Railroad. The payback was
that we had a connected economy; we had a whole country. We had
definitely the improvements that made it worthwhile have done
that.
So, if you think about that today, to get away from
project-by-project — does it pay for itself? Is it worth it? —
and to think about how do we institute in the U.S. a higher
platform of technology in our infrastructure: are we building a
high-speed rail network? Are we building power generation of the
highest energy-flux density? Or are we building solar panels? Are
we investing in fusion technology, to make that breakthrough in
our knowledge of the atom and nuclear processes that will
transform our relationship to materials, to energy, in a way that
will be far more profound than the development of the steam
engine? These are the kinds of things: the space program — what
are the {drivers} of our human identity as a species that goes
beyond and that develops? And I think maybe to start a discussion
on it, here on the program — I don't have everything to say
about it — but this also raises the issue of the culture in the
population. In other words, what expressions, culturally, do we
have of what it is to be a person; of what it is to live in a
society; of our relations among each other? What is the kind of
culture that's commensurate with going to space, with developing
fusion, with developing our economy, with becoming better human
beings, and how do we bring that culture into being? I think that
that's a very major question. It's not one that addressed quite
as directly as, say, national banking or financing of a national
high-speed rail network, but is just as important. I think that's
something to take up here.
BILL ROBERTS: Yeah, I would say this, what you've just touched
on, Jason, is the real question of sovereignty of nations to
participate in the development of mankind, to free themselves
from the diktats of this dying trans-Atlantic financial system.
That really is sort of the crux of the entire shift that we're
experiencing right now.
Just to mention a few things on this: Yesterday, in an
interview that Bashar al-Assad did with the Italian newspaper,
{Il Giornale}, he identified that the issue in the Syrian war,
was that Syria wanted to make a sovereign decision on the
development of both oil pipelines, but also railroad lines
running east-to-west through Syria; rather than Syria simply
being sort of a passing-through point of oil pipelines from
Qatar, north-to-south. Of course the east-to-west route — for
those of you who are familiar with our plan, the Phoenix Project
for Aleppo and the Integration of Syria, the proposals that the
Schiller Institute has made for the integration of Syria into the
New Silk Road; this is designed to make Syria an energy hub, an
industrial hub, and sort of restore Syria's ancient tradition as
an important step along the New Silk Road.
This is the implication of Vladimir Putin's intervention
into Syria to crush the terrorists in that area. This was the
same question with respect to Japan's recent decision to resume
its historical role as a country that is not going to be part of
an offshore, trans-Atlantic financial system, but it going to be
a "machine" for the development of the interior of Asia. Japan
had made this decision against the interests of what's
historically been the attempt by the United States to try to
prevent Japan from negotiating a peace treaty with Russia over
the remaining islands in dispute from World War II. So, Japan
made this decision as a sovereign nation, and was really prompted
to do so by Vladimir Putin, who made the issue directly that
Japan had to make a sovereign, independent decision.
I would say in the United States, the question of the Trump
Presidency and the United States Government being able to address
the horrid conditions of the American population, and uplift,
both culturally and in terms of the physical standards of life,
depends upon the immediate reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
Number one, because if Glass-Steagall is not reinstated before
the crash that is looking very likely to happen soon in the
European banking system, hits, there will be more bail-outs; and
this will further increase the death-rates of Americans. But also
number two, as both Matt and Jason were just discussing, the
United States has to make a serious commitment to providing
massive financing, and mobilizing our workforce, to build
entirely new platforms of infrastructure. That's not going to be
possible without a credit system; and that will not be possible
without the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. That may require, as
this recent {People's Daily} article points out, in certain cases
that may mean that China will come in and build certain aspects.
They may be better suited to build high-speed rail systems, for
example. We've seen the problems [inaud; 22:09]. We've seen the
problems with [California Governor] Jerry Brown's program on the
West Coast with high-speed rail. Perhaps we should just set up a
Chinese initiative for doing this.
Our sovereignty today, ironically, does not mean
isolationism. I don't know that Donald Trump thinks that it does;
I don't think he does. But in many cases, what the New Paradigm
has meant is that certain countries have made breakthroughs in
certain areas. Certainly we have in the United States. We should
look at {all} the potentials that exist for cooperation: the
space program, medicine, certain aspects within the machine-tool
sector that we still have — in the same way that this was
considered by Kennedy when he placed the science centers, the
space program centers, in the more-backwards, southern part of
the United States. Or when FDR placed the Oak Ridge facilities,
the "secret city" that developed the Manhattan Project outside of
Knoxville, Tennessee. Or like the Russians are doing, currently,
in their plans to have Rosatom invest in building a new science
city for the development of nuclear science, in one of the
poorest cities in South America, La Paz, [Bolivia] which has
basically been the center of a drug-production economy. These are
some of the things that we're going to continue to be filling
out; but these are the issues behind the immediate necessity of
Glass-Steagall, that every American has to know the ABCs of.
MICHAEL STEGER: Yeah, that's great! There are just a couple
of things I'd like to touch on. One is the Putin situation,
because as Bill just indicated, the whole situation
internationally seems to have been greatly shaped by Vladimir
Putin. If anyone were to watch some of the news alerts, the {New
York Times} and the entire political establishment of the United
States was taken off guard, significantly. As Matt indicated,
Obama had clearly expected his nemesis, Putin, to have the
strong-man response. The {New York Times}, at 6:00 Eastern Time,
sent out a message indicating they [the Russians] are going to go
for a "massive retaliation. Thirty-five people evicted." This was
blasted out on the internet airwaves. Within just two hours, the
{New York Times} had to report a "head-spinning turn of events,"
in terms of the fact that not only did Putin not retaliate, as
Matt indicated, but I believe he invited all of the U.S.
diplomatic corps to the Kremlin to celebrate the New Year and
Christmas!
The way Putin has shaped this process — and we were
reflecting on this here this morning — that it was just a little
over a year ago, the end of September 2015, that Russia formally
entered into the Syrian conflict on the side of Assad against the
terrorists. It was just November of last year, just a little over
a year ago, when a Turkish fighter jet shot down a Russian
fighter jet. It was then last Christmas — in that entire holiday
period — when we on the verge of what could have been a
break-out of nuclear war. The tensions were incredibly high. The
rhetoric was incredibly high. And what we had in the White House,
Obama, is now on full display in its psychotic kind of pettiness.
So the way that Putin has shaped this process — and it's
worth situating the recent events — that not only did we have
this display of psychosis by Obama. There was also the
assassination of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov.
This came just a few days after Obama had made an illicit threat
against Russia, which Mr. LaRouche had captured very
specifically. This meant that Obama was looking to kill, and kill
people of significance. And then you had the assassination of
Ambassador Karlov by someone tied to what looks to be some kind
of Western intelligence-coordinated network. And then, it's not
yet clear what happened, there's much speculation, but
regardless, there's the unfortunate loss of the Alexandrov
Ensemble (the Red Army Chorus).
As we speak, we're in Manhattan at the Russian Consulate,
singing Russian patriotic songs, as well as American songs. I'd
like to read a section of a leaflet that Helga Zepp LaRouche
wrote on this occasion for our chorus outside the Russian
Consulate. This is just a small taste of it, which will be
released in its entirety today, following that event. She says:
"Let me therefore share with you the idea that in addition
to rebuilding the Alexandrov Ensemble, which they intend to do,
thousands of Alexandrov choruses be established, in schools all
over Russia, to honor the heroic contribution of Russia in the
liberation of Syria, and at the same time, broaden the uplifting
effect of choral singing to the young generation."
I think that proposal stands out as the quality of idea and
initiatives that can now be taken; that there is unfolding a new
paradigm. There's a paradigm of win-win, or almost as Putin
displayed today, of turn the other cheek. We're not going to go
tit-for-tat. We're not going to descend into kitchen-level
politics. We're going to rise to a higher level, of a discussion
of mankind and the collaboration towards world peace and global
development. Nothing better expresses that than what's developed
in Syria, and the collaboration of Russia, Turkey, and Iran to
consolidate that. This really has been the work of Putin, and
this last year has really been shaped by Vladimir Putin more so
than anyone else.
Now, the question is: how do we respond to this in the
United States? That's the onus upon us today. As Matt indicated,
the financial crisis around Monte dei Paschi and the other major
trans-Atlantic banks, are clearly at a point of breakdown. I
would ask people just to reflect upon, look at the electoral
maps. Some of this has been done by various studies after the
election, where they saw the kind of vote turnout for Trump
happened the greatest in areas that had been hit the hardest by
the drug epidemic, the suicides, the unemployment levels.
If you look at the demographic condition of the country
today, it is defined by the insanity of our financial and
economic system. The financial bubble that has been run,
perpetually, really going back even since the early '90s, and we
saw it then regained after the dot.com blow-out with the housing
bubble. Then the blow-out of the housing bubble only accelerated
even further towards what is an entirely just fictitious
financial derivative scheme, with almost {no} benefits, even
monetarily or financially, to the population of the United
States.
What you see is limited pockets, small specific areas. The
New York City area; the Washington, DC area, major Dulles airport
area; San Francisco and the Bay area; certain key pockets where
the financial bubble that Obama has pumped up and has called his
"Obama recovery". This was the dominant area where you saw the
votes come in against Trump and for this Obama program. But more
importantly, you saw the reaction, the rebellion against Obama
and this Bush-Obama legacy, came from a majority — 80% to 90% of
the land area of the country, and a good majority of the
population; whether they voted for Bernie Sanders or they voted
for Donald Trump, they voted against this Obama-Bush tyranny. A
majority of the American people have been left out and forgotten;
they have become the forgotten men and women of the country, as
Franklin Roosevelt characterized them in the Great Depression.
It is the question of, how do you bring together the entire
country? Because we're looking for an economic development that
is based on physical reality, not on some fictitious financial
numbers; you can't forecast an economy based on the financial
numbers that are presented today — they're all lies. Let alone
Obama's recovery, but even notions of financial success; it's all
lies. The physical reality is, the United States is crumbling;
it's in horrible disrepair. It's not just our infrastructure, or
our manufacturing capabilities; it's our cultural level of our
society, it's the educational orientation. It's the sense of
optimism; it's the productive skill set and sense of integrity
and confidence in the ability to produce something of
significance that has been crushed and taken away from our
population.
So, Mr. LaRouche — as Jason indicated — presented Four
Laws; and those four laws really start with the fourth law, which
is an immediate commitment towards the restoration of a space
program which has been laid out in detail by Kesha Rogers, and
the fusion program. The initial first step on these four laws to
initiate this kind of science-driver program is Glass-Steagall;
because Glass-Steagall ends this financial cult, this financial
bubble. And it integrates that part of the country which has
been forgotten into the conception of our economy and of our
society. And we're going to take the entire nation and take it
upwards. There's no longer going to be fly-over areas of the
country; there's no longer going to be these provinces on the
outskirts of our economy. We're going to look at the entire
productivity of our nation; and most importantly, the
productivity of our people. The greatest sham of Obama's
recovery is the fact that you have 100 million people not in the
workforce; not involved or engaged in any kind of economic
activity. Many of them are on painkillers, and out of work or on
disabled lists. We've got to bring this entire part of the
country into the economy immediately; in the areas which increase
the productivity per capita of the nation as a whole.
So, we've got to move on Glass-Steagall. As Matt said, it
should be on Trump's desk the day he comes into office on January
20th. Congress comes back into session next Tuesday; they're
sworn in. That's mostly a reception day. There will be some
activities Wednesday and Thursday, and then they'll be in session
again the following week. We have reports from this morning that
Obama has the gall to go to Capitol Hill next Wednesday to meet
with Senate and House Democrats. This, of course, is the party
he's crushed and destroyed. I'm sure he will browbeat or worse,
the Democratic members of Congress. So, we will definitely have
a presence in Washington, DC; we will have {Hamiltonian} issues
distributed throughout New York City and throughout Washington.
We are definitely asking people to participate in a full-scale
mobilization. That doesn't mean just Congress; Congress will be
available for meetings not this coming week, but likely the next
week. The bigger question is to get to Democratic clubs, state
legislators, union leaders, other activists, other writers, other
people who have advocated and promoted Glass-Steagall. We should
set the country on fire around this notion that Glass-Steagall is
not something to support; it's not something showing that you are
on the right side of things. Glass-Steagall must be passed; it
must be passed quickly, because we have a lot more work to do in
2017 than to simply deal with the insanity of this financial
crisis.
We're asking people to mobilize as much as possible; and
have in mind how much work we have to do to rebuild the country's
infrastructure, its manufacturing, and most importantly, rebuild
the minds of the coming generations — which is really the most
important work any of us can participate in doing. So, that's
the mobilization LaRouche PAC has set forth. The email went out
today, and we're asking everyone to participate.
OGDEN: Well Michael, what you're describing is the kind of
policy revolution that Franklin Roosevelt ushered in, in his
first few days as President in 1933. Of course, he was
inaugurated in March; the inaugurations back then used to happen
in March, not January. But it's that first 100 days, as we've
said, that remains the kind of model; and unfortunately, there
are very few people in the United States for whom that historical
accomplishment of Franklin Roosevelt remains something from their
living memory. It's our job to educate and remind people of what
Franklin Roosevelt was able to accomplish. Now, I don't think
any of us are assuming that this is something that's going to
happen by itself; this is why we are mobilizing. This is why we
are saying, in the countdown to this inauguration, it's our job
to set the agenda. And at the same time that we're doing that
domestically, you really do have the winds of history are blowing
in from around the world. There's a shifting global dynamic
which is forcing a change in the United States, as Jason
referenced with that article in {People's Daily}; the role that
China can play with the One Belt, One Road policy in transforming
the economic potential of the entire planet and the strategic
changes that are coming out of Russia. But with that said, it is
always very useful to go back and review what Franklin Roosevelt
did in his entire administration; it's almost something you could
not discuss in abbreviated form — from the beginning of his
first term into his fourth term, with the victory in World War
II. But if you just take those first 100 days and quickly review
what he was able to accomplish, that's the kind of urgent
revolution in policy that is needed right now in the United
States around these four LaRouche economic laws.
So, let me just very quickly list what Roosevelt was able to
accomplish. Of course, this was not unilateral actions from the
White House by any means. This was done by a willing and
cooperative Congress, who recognized the urgency and the
emergency of reversing the economic despair and disintegration
that the entire nation was experiencing. But, as I said, from
the very first day of his administration, he passed the Emergency
Banking Act; which reorganized all of the banks across the entire
country, declared a banking holiday, audited these banks, and
allowed them to open under completely new standards. He passed
the Government Economy Act — slightly less important — but it
eliminated certain waste that was in government; he also passed
the Volstead Act, which temporarily suspended the rules of
Prohibition — that was popular. He passed the Farm Credit Act,
which was very important; this refinanced farm mortgages across
the country. Farmers who were unable to keep their farms open
because they couldn't pay their mortgages and their farms were
being foreclosed; this was a very big story in Iowa and the
heartland states. In fact, there were vigilantes who were
standing up to sheriffs, saying "We will not let you foreclose on
our farms." This resolved that situation, and also provided
operating funds for farms across the country at very low interest
rates; to keep the food on the plates of the American people. He
established the Homeowners' Loan Corporation; this provided
relief for struggling homeowners across the country, and in fact,
actually directly assumed one-sixth of all the mortgages in the
country from homeowners who were struggling to pay their
mortgages.
He provided within the first 100 days a half-billion dollars
in 1933 dollars in unemployment relief; which was administered by
Harry Hopkins. That was greatly expanded in the following months
after the first 100 days. Here's a very important one which
we've been discussing a lot lately: He established the CCC, the
Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided training and
employment for unskilled youth from across the entire country to
build public works projects and conservation projects. Over six
years, this ultimately employed {3 million} young people in the
United States. As Jason mentioned earlier, within the first 100
days, he established the Tennessee Valley Authority — the TVA;
this was passed through law and shovels were hitting the dirt
within five weeks. This transformed one of the most backward
parts of the entire United States in Tennessee and Kentucky and
the neighboring states.
To address what had caused the Great Depression in the first
place, FDR passed the Truth in Securities Act — an important
element; and then, of course, as we've been discussing, passed
the Glass-Steagall Act. This required banks to immediately
divest within a certain amount of time, all of their securities
operations; and established the FDIC, which created the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation protections for the average
American depositing their savings in commercial banks. Then he
created the National Industrial Recovery Act, which — among many
other things — guaranteed collective bargaining for unions,
greatly increased the union membership across the United States,
and made available $3.3 billion in 1933 dollars; that's $50
billion dollars in today's dollars in public works financing.
That's the first 100 days; and Congress did not leave
session. Congress did not go home from the day that Franklin
Roosevelt was inaugurated until the day they left, exactly 100
days later. That's the kind of policy revolution that has to
happen in the United States; and it will only function if it's
carried out according to the principles underlying LaRouche's
Four Economic Laws.
STEGER: That's great, Matt. I think it's important to
indicate and let people know that LaRouche PAC also has two other
initiatives. One is a new pamphlet coming out, which will
highlight this kind of economic program based on Lyn's Four Laws.
It looks at how is it possible in the most effective way to
increase the productivity of the American people and that we as a
nation build our own recovery. We build ourselves out of this
economic rot that we have been plunged into.
The other initiative, which maybe Jason can say more on, is
going to be an educational initiative to the American people a
sense — especially members within the Trump administration — of
how real economics is. Because Lyndon LaRouche has been the
leading economic thinker for the last 50 years on the planet, let
alone the United States. He has forecast some of the most
significant events in the course of that 50 years; and he is the
leading figure from the standpoint of real physical economics and
scientific advancement. I know Jason is part of that, so maybe
he can say more on that as well.
ROSS: Sure. Economics is a pretty funny subject because
it's one that so many people get so wrong. One that specifically
so many experts get so wrong. If you look at the Society of
Professional Economic Forecasters and you look at how good their
forecasts have been over the last 50 years, they're not getting
any better. You'd say that's a science that really isn't
improving, is it — economic forecasting. It's because it's not
treated as a science. There is so much ideology and there's so
much just plain old stupidity about looking at measures that are
based on money, rather than a physical understanding of what
makes economy possible. So, we're going to be preparing and
presenting a series, a number of pedagogical discussions; some
tools to help think about how an economy really functions,
drawing on Lyndon LaRouche's decades of experience as an economic
writer and forecaster — as a remarkably accurate one. We will
have these things available, like some of the concepts that he
brings up frequently; like what is energy flux density in an
economy. I know that I made a video on that recently, and
there's much more to say than could fit in a short summary video
that touched on it only briefly. Or, other concepts, like
capital intensity, and the concept of an economic platform, which
is not something to get into detail right now on. But a
reconceptualization of what many people think of as just
infrastructure and public works, and how to think about that as a
mediating a relationship of a society and the physical world
around them and within that society itself; in the way that
Vladimir Vernadsky, for example, looks at the human species in
terms of what is the power of cognition? How does that transform
the relationship of the human species to the planet and to the
biosphere in a way that is unlike any purely biological species?
What is the physical power of cognition? How can we measure that
as geologists, as biologists, as economists? So, definitely more
coming on that.
OGDEN: The central theme in Mr. LaRouche's Four Economic
Laws document is the necessity to increase productivity — per
capita and in terms of the productivity of the labor force. As
we've discussed, going back to Alexander Hamilton, this is really
the root of economic science. In the "Report on Manufactures",
Hamilton's theme is how do manufactures and technology and
industry increase what would otherwise just be the raw labor
force of the population. It has a multiplier effect.
One thing going back to Mr. LaRouche's Four New Economic
Laws document, one point that he makes is that this is not just
an option — as we've said before; but this is an absolute
necessity. Not just because of the urgency of the collapse, but
also because of the nature of our nation. Alexander Hamilton was
the founding economic genius of the country, founding father of
our system of economics; but he was also one of the central
authors of the United States Constitution. He made a very
explicit point of putting the clause in there which is the
General Welfare Clause; which not only gives permission to the
United States Federal Government to act in the general welfare of
the United States — this was used as the reason behind the
constitutionality of the National Bank — but it also mandates
that this is part of the responsibility of the Federal
government. This is what gives it legitimacy; that it {must} act
in the interest of the general welfare of the American people.
And {all} of the American people, not just sections; not just the
coasts or the big cities, but all of the American people. This
is a point that Mr. LaRouche makes in one very short sentence in
that Four Economic Laws. He says: "The ceaseless increase of the
physical productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits
for the General Welfare, are a principle of Federal law which
must be a paramount standard of achievement of the nation and of
the individual." So, the word "law" is in the title of this
document; and Mr. LaRouche is asserting that this increase in
productivity is included under the idea of the General Welfare,
and is a central principle of what we should understand as
Federal law under our Constitutional republic.
It was recently stated in a similar way in the white paper
that was put out by the Chinese government; where they declared
that development is an inalienable human right. The same way
that we talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as
being inalienable rights, the Chinese, who have lifted 750
million people out of poverty in their country, were declaring
that development itself is an inalienable human right. I think
this is an important understanding of what the responsibility of
government itself needs to be; and this central principle of
economic science — understanding what it means to, and how one
proceeds to increase the physical productivity of one's labor
force for the benefit of the General Welfare as a whole.
STEGER: I think that captures the New Paradigm.
OGDEN: OK, wonderful. I do want to say that I really
appreciate Bill being on, and I think increasingly we need to
return to some of the questions that Mr. LaRouche was directly
involved in, in Detroit and Michigan and Ohio and some of these
Midwest areas. What you brought up, Michael, about there are no
fly-over states; we should no longer have the word "Rust Belt" in
our vocabulary. The question is, how are we going to take the
skills that are inherent in these machinists and former
machinists and skilled workers in that region — who are now in a
state of real despair and increasing mortality — and put them to
work again for the development of the country. So, you can say
something about that now, but Bill, I think we should also
revisit that maybe in some of our future shows; and have that be
part of our countdown to the new Presidency.
ROBERTS: Yeah, sure. It's a real challenge. This is the
subject of what Marcy Kaptur took up in a recent op-ed, when she
said the Democratic Party has to do some "soul-searching" is the
way that she put it. But really, it's not soul-searching; we've
got to define what the commitment is going to be to the American
population and all of the American population. It's a real
challenge; I think much more so than what Franklin Roosevelt had
to face. Part of it is what we didn't get into so much today —
the deep cultural degeneration process that has left young people
without very much of a sense of character or identity. You
mentioned the CCC program of the past; [that] had to be tailored
to address — and Franklin Roosevelt himself was very personally
involved in crafting that program, which he saw as being
absolutely critical if the nation was going to have a future.
So, I agree; this is going to have to be something we put a lot
of thought and effort into how to make that shift upward in
productivity that is so required today immediately, but also for
the future, for the long-term.
OGDEN: Great. Well, thank you very much. Thanks, Bill;
thank you, Michael; thank you, Jason. I would recommend reading
the op-ed that Jason referenced at the beginning of the program;
this was in {People's Daily}. I know when we spoke with Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche earlier today, Helga put a major premium on
that op-ed. We, of course, encourage you to participate as fully
as you can in this mobilization to immediately not build support
for Glass-Steagall, but immediately make Glass-Steagall law. So,
as Michael said, the marching orders are available; we sent out
an email to the entire LaRouche PAC email list today. If you're
not yet a subscriber to that email list, you need to sign up
immediately. We're going to have marching orders such as that as
we count down the next 21 days, the three weeks until the new
administration; and we're not going to stop there. So, please
subscribe to the email list and please subscribe to our YouTube
channel as well.
Thank you all for watching today, and Happy New Year to you!
I think we all can look forward to a 2017 full of a lot of
potential; and it's our job to realize that potential. Thank you
and good night.
Programmet med nationerne i Ét bælte, én vej [OBOR], der inkluderer både – der er to komponenter i Kinas projekt i denne henseende; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, med nationerne vist i blå farve, og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej i orange farve. Tilsammen refererer Kina til dette på kinesisk som initiativet med »Ét bælte, én vej«; på engelsk ofte blot kaldt initiativet for Bæltet og Vejen. Med hensyn til det potentiale, som dette har, er her blot nogle af tallene: 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer i Kina, alle bygget inden for det seneste årti – mere end i resten af verden tilsammen; et titals billioner af dollars i direkte investering i nationerne i området; en forøgelse af kontrakter om tjenesteydelser på over 33 % i løbet af blot ét år langs Bæltet og Vejen; Kinas Eksport/Importbank har udestående engagementer i flere end 1000 projekter og har for ganske nylig underskrevet aftaler om omkring 500 nye projekter i nationerne langs Bæltet og Vejen. 
Kina er i færd med at udbygge 150.000 stipendier, som tilbyder uddannelse til 500.000 eksperter til uddannelse i Kina; har etableret 500 Konfucius-institutter i hele verden; har initieret flere end et dusin økonomiske samarbejdszoner; frihandelsaftaler, og er i øjeblikket engageret i flere end 40 energiprojekter – inklusive omkring 20, der lige er blevet etableret i år i Bæltet og Vejens nationer.
