Det nuværende, amerikanske infrastrukturnet er en katastrofe. Nær ved halvdelen af landets vejstrækninger er i dårlig eller middelmådig tilstand. Hver dag foretages over 178 millioner rejser over broer med strukturelle mangler. Pålidelige kraftværker nedlægges til fordel for vindmøller, som blot producerer strøm, når de har lyst, hvilket forøger risikoen for strømafbrydelser. Afløbs- og flodkontrolsystemer har hårdt brug for vedligeholdelse. Udover den Nordøstlige Korridor bruges passagertoge meget lidt.

Men en realøkonomisk investering svarende til over ti billioner dollars kunne bringe vores infrastrukturplatform op til et højere realøkonomisk niveau og åbne op for langt mere effektive metoder indenfor industri- og landbrugsproduktion, transport og vandforsyningssystemer.

De efterfølgende sider vil beskrive de hårdt tiltrængte nødvendige projekter i detaljer. Her vil vi tale om hvad infrastruktur rent faktisk er, og om Lyndon LaRouches begreb om infrastruktur-”platformen”.

Infrastruktur er liv

Disse grafer (Se side 40 i pdf-versionen nedenunder) (hver prik er et land) viser hvordan levetid og spædbørnsdødelighed hænder sammen med strømforbrug.

Der findes ikke sådan noget som et rigt land, der har et lille strømforbrug. Og der er ikke sådan noget som et fattigt land, der har et stort. Tilgængeligheden af energi – specifikt elektricitet – er et uundværligt element (sine qua non) for moderne, industriel udvikling. Det er simpelthen ikke muligt at opnå lange levetider og høje produktionsrater uden elektricitet.

Dampmaskinen banede vejen for den industrielle revolution, som muliggjorde at det samme antal arbejdere kunne producere markant mere. Takket være dampmaskinen kunne kul give en hjælpende hånd i produktionsprocessen, og derigennem reducere afhængigheden af udmattende, manuelt arbejde.

Hvordan gøres elektricitet tilgængeligt, effektivt og i vid udstrækning? Et omfattende netværk af kraftværker og transmissionsledninger er nødvendigt – en enorm investering, men en der betaler langt mere tilbage end de fysiske omkostninger.

Det er umuligt at vurdere værdien af et velfungerende netværk af veje, jernbaner eller elektricitet ved at lægge alle værdierne sammen, som kommer hver fabrik eller by til gode. I stedet for gjorde Lyndon LaRouche brug afen indsigt, der var muliggjort gennem Bernhard Riemanns tilgang til de højere transcendentalfunktioner, for direkte at behandle en grundlæggende forandring i et økonomisk stade, som en helhed, gennem introduktionen af højere infrastrukturplatforme – en topologisk-lignende forandring, som skaber en nyt ”infrastrukturfelt” af højere kvalitet.

I 2005 omtalte LaRouche problemet med udlicitering, som ofte skabte finansiel profit, men samtidig realøkonomiske tab:

”Overførslen af produktion fra en nation med veludviklet infrastruktur til en nation med relativt fattige mennesker med en dårligt udviklet infrastruktur, overordnet set, tenderer til at skabe et sammenbrud af planetens fysiske økonomi betragtet som en helhed. Feltets rolle, repræsenteret af grundlæggende økonomisk infrastruktur, er blevet ignoreret, oftest med skæbnesvangre, økonomiske resultater i sidste ende for alle de involverede.”

Overvej udviklingen af USA’s transportnet. Billederne på side 41 (Se pdf-versionen nedenunder) viser hvor langt man kan rejse fra New York City indenfor en hvis tidsperiode. Mellem 1800 og 1830 var området af USA, som kunne nås fra New York indenfor en uge (vist i rødt), blev udvidet enormt. Hvorfor? Se dernæst på situationen i 1857 – man kan praktisk talt se hvordan netværket strækker sig til Midtvesten sammenlignet med manglen på jernbaner længere vest på.

Det nationale jernbanenet – illustreret af den transkontinentale jernbanes fuldførelse i 1869, som blev igangsat takket være Abraham Lincolns bestræbelser – forbandt nationen, og muliggjorde at mere raffinerede produktionsprocesser, som fragtede komponenter til hinanden, kunne finde sted. Varer fra landbruget og industrien kunne nå nye områder, og landområdernes fysiske værdi blev transformeret i kraft af den øgede grad af forbindelse med resten af landet (og gennem havne til resten af verden). Befolkningen,  ligeså, kunne langt nemmere rejse, hvilket skabte en stærkere kulturel forbindelse over de enorme vidder.

Disse kombinerede faktorer skabte et økonomisk stade med større muligheder end før jernbanenettets eksistens (frem for blot mere af det som allerede var muligt).

Miljømæssige risici

Det er fordi vi som menneskehed, i stadig større grad interagerer med det syntetiske miljø, som vi har skabt, at vi ligger mindre under for naturens luner. Dødsfald pr. indbygger, i forbindelse med ekstreme vejrforhold, er omtrent ti gange lavere end de var for hundrede år siden. Er det fordi vejret er blevet bedre? Nej, det er fordi vi har udbygget beskyttelsen mod oversvømmelser, strukturer i stand til at modstå jordskælv, videnskabelig infrastruktur i stand til at forudsige situationer med ekstreme vejrforhold, og transportnet, som kan understøtte sikker evakuering om nødvendigt.

Overvej et eksempel fra den biologiske evolution – varmblodede dyr er i stand til at regulerer deres temperatur, i stedet for at begrænse deres levested eller aktivitet til det, som vejret dikterer. Den endotermiske teknologi (det at være varmblodet) gjorde det muligt for pattedyr at udvide deres potentielle levested ved at forandre deres forhold til deres omgivelser.

Den økonomiske, videnskabelige (og kulturelle) platform, som udviklingen af kontrolleret kernefusion åbner op for, vil medføre et nyt skridt i vores udvikling af et forbedret menneskeligt miljø – hvor afsaltning (af havvand) i, størrelsesorden med landbrugets udbytte vil gøre tørker til et fjernt minde fra den tidlige menneskehed, hvor olie, for eksempel, vil blive gemt til brug som et grundlæggende materiale i plastik.

Infrastrukturens helt særlige rolle

Infrastruktur spiller en unik rolle i økonomi og kræver regeringers særlige opmærksomhed. Det faktum, at infrastrukturens fordele er indirekte og ofte ikke pengeskabende betyder, at der ikke er noget håb for den private sektor (såsom offentlige-private partnerskaber).

Et langfristet, infrastrukturprogram med kapitale investeringer – som det, opnået gennem Franklin Roosevelts brug af Finansselskabet for Genopbygning (Reconstruction Finance Corporation), eller Alexander Hamiltons opretning af Nationalbanken – må erstatte privatiseringens plyndring og den ineffektive, stykvise tilgang, som tynger os ned på nuværende tidspunkt.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Der var de fortsatte provokationer i Mellemøsten, provokationer i Asien, Koreakrigen, Vietnamkrigen – dette var geopolitik med det formål at bevare Det britiske Imperium. Og desværre, med mordet på Kennedy, blev USA en partner i det, man kunne kalde et »anglo-amerikansk geopolitisk imperium«.

Og hvad gik politikkerne ud på? Frihandel, neoliberal økonomi, nedskæringspolitik. Svækkelse af regeringer, svækkelse af ideen om national suverænitet og etablering af institutioner som den Europæiske Union, der ønsker ikkevalgte bureaukrater til at bestemme politikker for det, der plejede at være nationalstater.

Det så ud, som om alt dette kunne ændre sig i 1989, med den kommunistiske verdens fald, med det østtyske regimes kollaps og Berlinmurens fald. På dette tidspunkt intervenerede LaRouche-organisationen meget direkte, for et alternativ til geopolitik. Lyndon LaRouche var blevet fængslet af George Bush, med assistance fra den daværende vicestatsanklager i Boston, Robert Mueller. Men Helga Zepp-LaRouche anførte kampen for det, vi dengang kaldte den Produktive Trekant Paris-Berlin-Wien, og dernæst, så tidligt som i slutningen af 1990, det, der blev kaldt den »Nye Silkevej« eller den Eurasiske Landbro, som et middel til at bringe nationer sammen og overvinde disse kunstige opdelinger, skabt af Det britiske Imperium.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 7. jan., 2018 – Præsident Donald Trumps administration kan ikke miste flere muligheder, hvis den skal udføre den plan, som det amerikanske folk, først og fremmest, valgte Trump til: At få USA ud af evindelige krige i udlandet og genopbygge og genindustrialisere nationen.

Hvis den store skattelettelse til selskaberne er alt, hvad Trump-administrationens økonomiske politik har at byde på, så står præsidenten og nationen over for et forestående finanskrak og endnu en såkaldt »stor recession«, der er meget værre end den foregående. Den enorme selskabsgæld og aktiemarkedsboble, som allerede i et årti er blevet skabt med gratis penge fra centralbanken, og som nu er omgivet at det, analytikere kalder »alt-boblen« med andre, eksploderende gældskategorier, kan ikke klare den mindste, kommende rentestigning. Skattelettelser for selskaberne vil ikke redde denne boble, men derimod blot i højere tempo pumpe den op, indtil den eksploderer. Storbankerne på Wall Street og i London kæmper sig ud af denne gæld ved at genforsikre den – samle den i pakker og sælge den videre – vel vidende, at den ikke kan honoreres. Amerikanske bankers sikring af gæld – selskabs-junkgæld, bil- og kreditkortgæld, studentergæld osv. – er vokset med $1,1 billion, eller 25 %, blot i 2017.

Det Hvide Hus og Kongressen må ganske enkelt trodse Wall Streets gammelkonesnak om Glass/Steagall-loven og genindføre denne lov omgående, for at isolere kommerciel bankpraksis fra denne kasinospekulation, før den eksploderer. Og de må udstede statskredit til ny infrastruktur og et videnskabsprogram som drivkraft for økonomien, og således genopbygge produktivitet og velbetalt, produktiv beskæftigelse.

Men netop heri ligger problemet. Præsidentens møde på Camp David i denne weekend med det Republikanske lederskab, og som angiveligt skulle dreje sig om en 1$ billion stor infrastrukturplan, ser ikke ud til at fremvise den store diskussion eller det store fremskridt. Desperate tåbeligheder kommer frem – som at omdirigere måske $2 mia. i annulleret amerikansk hjælp til Pakistan, til byggeri af veje og broer! – hvilket betyder, at Det Hvide Hus absolut ikke har nogen idé om, hvordan et investerings- og anlægsbudget til infrastruktur kan skabes eller finansieres. Selv hjælpen til genopbygning efter katastroferne i de stater og områder, der er hærget af orkanerne – og som omfatter afgørende infrastruktur til elektricitet og storm-kontrol – er blevet forsinket uden nogen som helst handling i næsten tre måneder.

Og dog vil guvernøren for Vest Virginia, når han på onsdag holder sin tale om Statens Tilstand, bygge på en langfristet forpligtelse på $80 mia., som han har, fra et kinesisk selskab, støttet af en statsejet bank i Kina. Guvernøren af Maryland, der nu gennemfører forundersøgelser til en maglev-linje (svævetog) fra Baltimore til Washington, har en $5 mia. stor forpligtelse fra Japan. Er der tale om en mystisk hemmelighed?

Nej, der er snarere tale om en invitation fra Kina, der virkelig er win-win, til USA om at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet for storslåede infrastrukturprojekter; og en voksende »konkurrence« fra Japan for at bruge sine store kapaciteter for infrastrukturteknologi i og for andre lande, i nogle tilfælde sammen med Kina. Og Rusland og Sydkorea gør det samme med byggeri af avancerede kernekraftreaktorer.

Og der er ligeledes tale om USA’s første finansminister, Alexander Hamiltons metode til kreditskabelse til ny infrastruktur og teknologier til varefremstilling, som er forklaret af Lyndon LaRouche i det 21. århundredes form. Både Kina og Japan anvender disse metoder til statslig kreditskabelse. Tilbuddet om at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet er der, givet af præsident Trumps gode ven, Kinas præsident Xi. Dette forklares fuldt ud i Amerikas fremtid på den Nye Silkevej, som er brochuren om LaRouches »Fire Økonomiske Love«, der uddeles til hele Kongressen.

Den amerikanske præsidents ’Tale om nationens tilstand’ den 30. jan. bliver sidste chance for, at denne win-win-strategi skal komme fra administrationen; og Kongressen må under alle omstændigheder tage dette spørgsmål op og vedtage det som lov. Uden dette, og uden Glass-Steagall, vil vi se den gigantiske Wall Street gældsboble og »finansieringsteknikker« blive pumpet op i endnu mange uger og måneder, indtil den brister ned over den amerikanske økonomi.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump vandrer hen ad Det Hvide Hus’ vestlige kolonnade / 3. jan., 2018.

Leder fra Larouche PAC, 21. juni, 2017 – Med det rette lederskab afviser amerikanere det britisk-ansporede forsøg på at »kuppe« præsident Trump, tvinge ham ud af embedet gennem impeachment, tilbagetrækning eller endda mord, fordi han ønsker samarbejde med Rusland og Kina. Dette kup, der implicerer Obamas efterretningstjenester og FBI-direktør, har drevet det Demokratiske Parti vanvittigt med antirussisk McCarthy-isme imod Trump – og det taber fortsat valg på grund af det.

Med hensyn til anti-Trump-intrigemagernes motivering, lyt blot til den fanatisk nærige, tyske finansminister, Wolfgang Schäuble, der i går angreb Trump i en tale i Berlin:

»Jeg tvivler på, at USA virkelig mener, at verdensordenen ville være lige så god, hvis Kina eller Rusland … simpelt hen fik frie hænder til at dominere de indflydelsessfærer, de har defineret for sig selv. Det ville være enden på vores liberale verdensorden.«

Fuldstændig rigtigt – den »liberale« verdensorden, som afindustrialiserede USA’s økonomi og gjorde den til en rustbunke, og som amerikanerne stemte for at blive af med. De betroede Trump atter at gøre Amerika til en industrimagt, en teknologisk magt, en magt i den nuværende og fremtidige udforskning af rummet. Kongressen – begge partier – skal omgående gå i gang med at genopbygge og erstatte nationens forældede, økonomiske infrastruktur. Samarbejde med Kina, med dets »Bælte & Vej Initiativ«, der er mange gange større end Marshallplanen, kan på dramatisk vis hjælpe, lige fra højhastigheds-jernbanenet og til Månelandinger.

I en tale for USA’s Handelskammers »topmøde« for udenlandsk investering i mandags, sagde finansminister Steven Mnuchin:

»At arbejde med udenlandske investorer vil blive en afgørende del af enhver infrastrukturplan, vi fremlægger.«

Fint. Mange kinesiske ledere af foretagender blandt de 1.200 deltagere ønsker at se Kina investere i byggeri af ny, amerikansk infrastruktur, gennem amerikanske, statslige kreditinstitutioner som de fire, store nationalbanker, der har finansieret Kinas utrolige infrastrukturgennembrud i de seneste tyve år.

Men dernæst sagde Mnuchin:

»Partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og det private er afgørende …«

for byggeri af ny infrastruktur – den mislykkede »liberale verdensorden«. Såkaldte PPP’er (Public Private Partnerships), hvor investeringsselskaber vil have deres kapital tilbage inden for 10 år, og 10-12 % årligt afkast, bygger IKKE nye infrastrukturplatforme.

Et netværk af højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer over hele nationen?

Systemer af sluseporte, der ville have beskyttet New Orleans fra orkanen Katrina, og New Yorks transportsystem fra superstormen Sandy?

Afsaltningsanlæg og vidtrækkende vandføringssystemer til kunstvanding af det vestlige USA?

Baser til menneskelig beboelse på Månen?

PPP’er skaber ikke sådanne ting!

Men det gør statskredit. EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, sagde for et par år siden:

»Vi taler om en investering over mere end én generation. Alle de store projekter, som vi nu behøver, ligesom i fortiden, er projekter, der kræver flergenerationsinvestering. Det er at påtage sig gæld, en gæld, der løber over flere generationer. Og én af de ting, vi må mestre i denne henseende, er, hvad er menneskets natur …

For det første, så er ideen om kredit menneskelig. Det eksisterer ikke for noget som helst, undtagen for mennesket, så vidt vi ved. Vi udarbejder derfor et monetært system, eller et finanssystem, baseret på et system med kredit, hvilket vil sige udviklingen af en person, der videregiver noget, der er til fordel for den næste generation. Og dette er ikke en proces, hvor noget fortsætter; det er en proces, hvor noget udvikles. Og udviklingsenheden er det, vi bør kalde ’kredit’.«

Store projekter ved hjælp af statslig kredit, en gæld, som den næste generation vil kunne »tilbagebetale« ved at bruge infrastrukturen på et højere, teknologisk niveau til at producere og til at leve på et højere, og mere produktivt, menneskeligt niveau. Kun nationer kan skabe den form for kredit, individuelt og gennem internationale udviklingsbanker, som LaRouche har foreslået det i femogfyrre år.

Der er ikke mere tid til at »tale om at bygge en ny infrastruktur«. En nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition til sådan kredit, må skabes nu.

Foto: Finansminister Steven Mnuchin aflægger ed i det Ovale Kontor. (Photo V.P. Mike Pence’s Twitter)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 31. maj, 2017 – Præsident Donald Trump kan være tæt på endnu et betydningsfuldt skift, væk fra »globaliseringens« døde æra – denne gang er det et amerikansk exit fra Barack Obamas nulvækst »Paris-aftale« – og han er fortsat udsat for ubarmhjertige angreb fra efterretnings-staten. Med endnu et stort, tysk medie, der bringer mord på Trump på banen, denne gang Der Spiegel, raser ’globalisterne’ for at blive af med ham.

Men amerikanerne stemte for et fundamentalt skift i økonomisk politik for atter at gøre Amerika til en stor, industriel og teknologisk nation. Og nu bliver truslen mod Trump fra den såkaldte »deep state«, »staten i staten«, måske modsvaret af udfordringen med de dybe huller i vejene, og de dybe, økonomiske huller, som millioner af amerikanere er faldet ned i.

Det rapporteres, at Trump-administrationen midt i juni til Kongressen vil cirkulere et udkast til amerikanske investeringer i ny, økonomisk infrastruktur og anmode om, at der vedtages love om det hen over sommeren. Og endnu, mens den investering, Trump vil anmode om, synes at blive stadig mindre end de $1 billion, han talte om under sin valgkampagne, så bliver modforslag fra Demokraterne stadig større.

På vegne af den Demokratiske Progressive Gruppe og valgkreds og fagforeningsgrupper, der støtter dem, fremlagde henved et dusin Demokratiske kongresmedlemmer den 25. maj et krav – i form af en kongresresolution, ikke lovgivning – om mere end $2 billion i direkte, statslig infrastrukturinvestering hen over 10 år, med betragtelig fokus på højhastigheds-jernbaneprojekter og nye projekter for vandveje og vandkontrol. Dette fulgte i kølvandet på et lovforslag om $1,25 billion som statsbevillinger til ny infrastruktur over kun fem år, introduceret af kongresmedlem Brian Higgins (D-NY).

Der er to faktorer, der fremmer disse forslag: det alarmerende sammenbrud af offentlig infrastruktur i større byer og stater; og så entusiasmen hos dem, der kender til Kinas utrolige Bælt & Vej-infrastrukturplatforme og de offentlige tilbud fra Kina og Japan om at investere i en opbygning af infrastruktur i USA.

Beijings Bælt & Vej Forum den 14.-15. maj var en forbløffende succes. Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der gav en præsentation om »Verdenslandbroen« under topmødet og i årtier har arbejdet på spiren til dette Bælt & Vej-initiativ, beskrev forummet som at deltage i udformningen af verdenshistorien til det bedre. Lyndon LaRouche, ophavsmanden til ideen fra 1989 og fremefter, sagde i dag: »Vi har etableret noget på globalt plan, og det er godt.«

Kinas udstedelse af produktiv kredit for at styrke andre nationers økonomier så vel som sin egen, har været unik i verden i et årti, og en politik, der både er konfuciansk og i Hamiltons tradition. Politikken i traditionen efter Hamilton mærkes i Amerika som et potentiale.

En sigende artikel i Asia Times den 29. maj havde titlen, »OBOR: Hvordan infrastruktur overtrumfer politik«. Den lægger ud med at diskutere Japans »overraskende« vending mod Kinas initiativer, Bælt & Vej og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Men dernæst, efter en gennemgang af viften af projekter for jernbaner, havne, elektricitet osv. i mange asiatiske lande, vender artiklen sig mod USA.

»For USA er Kinas OBOR-initiativ blevet en multidimensional udfordring, der påvirker nationale anliggender, såvel som international politik. Kinas fokus på multilaterale udviklingsprojekter har fremhævet et ubehageligt, nationalt spørgsmål for Trump: den amerikanske, civile infrastrukturs affældige tilstand, og Kongressens modstand mod at bevilge de nødvendige midler til at gøre noget ved det … Amerikas næststørste by, Los Angeles, er indbegrebet af Amerikas smuldrende infrastruktur. På trods af, at byen håber at sikre sig rettighederne til at være vært for 2024-Olympiaden, holdes byen tilbage pga. dens gennemhullede veje med trafikpropper, et aldrende telekommunikationssystem og manglen på pålidelig, offentlig transport. Borgmester Eric Garcetti kom endda med en dybtfølt bøn til Trumps transportminister, Elaine Chao, om at forcere en pakke på $1,3 mia. til byens undergrundsbane – men det står ikke klart, om administrationen vil føje ham.

»Garcetti går måske til Kina for investering.«

Det viser sig, at Kinas største producent af togvogne, CRRC Corp., allerede bygger 64 nye togvogne til Los Angeles’ undergrundsbane, og også til andre byer. Dette er kontrakter, der er udbudt til selskaber: men Kinas præsident Xi og ledere af statsbanker har gjort det klart, at Kina selv kunne investere i kreditydelse til store, nye infrastrukturplatforme, såvel som at være med til at bygge dem; det samme gælder for Japan.

Dette fordrer en statslig, amerikansk kreditinstitution. Ved de Progressive Demokraters begivenhed, understregede EIR-repræsentanter over for de tilstedeværende behovet for en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, som den centrale kilde til kredit, der kan gøre disse projekter mulige.

Foto: Shenzhen-strækningen af Guangzhou-Hongkong Højhastigheds-jernbanen under konstruktion. Maj, 2011. (Foto: Alancrh / wikimedia commons / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. marts, 2017 – I sine taler mandag ved et møde i Kentucky og tirsdag for møder for det Republikanske Parti, understregede præsident Donald Trump, at han har til hensigt at lede landet til en tilbagevenden til det »Amerikanske Økonomiske System«. Efter meget kvalificerede iagttageres skøn »mente præsidenten det virkelig« begge gange – han ønsker at vende tilbage til den faktiske, økonomiske politik, der blev ført af Alexander Hamilton og George Hamilton, Henry Clay og Abraham Lincoln: det »Amerikanske System«.

Er Trump den præsident, der kan føre USA tilbage til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System? Det er stadig ikke afgjort og afhænger også af landet – af os, af jer. Bør vi vende tilbage til det? Absolut.

Med enkelte undtagelser ved de fleste amerikanere, og andre landes borgere, ikke længere, hvad det Amerikanske Økonomiske System var. Det blev defineret af Abraham Lincolns økonom Henry C. Carey, for eksempel, som det »Amerikanske System«, i direkte modsætning til det »Britiske System« med frihandel.

De samme briter, der, i løbet af det seneste år, har stået bag McCarthy-kampagnen for at miskreditere Donald Trump og drive ham ud af Det Hvide Hus.

»Få ram på Trump«-McCarthyismen er britisk, fordi Trump – efter årtiers katastrofal »globalisering« og afindustrialisering – ønsker at vende tilbage til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. Og han erkender fordelene ved fred, ved at standse Bush’ og Obamas endeløse krige, og ved at samarbejde med Rusland og Kina for at stoppe det.

Et »dossier« fra britisk efterretning om Donald Trump, produceret for Hillary Clinton, var således begyndelsen på at forvandle det Demokratiske Partis lederskab til en McCarthy-hob, på jagt efter »russere«, der lurer bag hver søjle i Det Hvide Hus.

Det Amerikanske Økonomiske Systems grundpiller var:

1) beskyttelse og støtte af amerikansk produktion således, at USA kunne blive den storslåede, producerende nation, det blev;

2) en konstant promovering og opbygning af den mest moderne, nationale infrastruktur, af de samme grunde – de transkontinentale jernbaner, det nationale hovedvejssystem, Apollo-Måneprojektet; og

3) et kreditsystem, baseret på national (statslig) bankpraksis, som den store finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, havde opfundet.

I dag vil dette sige at lukke Wall Streets kæmpekasinoer ved at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven; at etablere en nationalbank i traditionen efter Hamilton, til infrastruktur og varefremstilling; at investere billioner i ny infrastruktur af den højeste, teknologiske standard; at udvikle fusionskraft, vende tilbage til Månen og det dybe rum med menneskelig kolonisering og udvikling.

Dette er, hvad EIR’s stiftende redaktør, økonom i det Amerikanske Systems tradition, Lyndon LaRouche, for nylig har udviklet som »Fire Love« for at redde den amerikanske økonomi.

Det Amerikanske System betød også Monroe-doktrinen – at det unge USA ville gøre alt, der stod i dets magt, for at holde de britiske og franske finansimperier ude af de amerikanske kontinenter, så alle disse kontinenters nationer kunne udvikle deres økonomier og indgå gensidige handelsaftaler, til fælles fordel.

I dag vil det Amerikanske System sige at koble sig til Kinas Nye Silkevejsinitiativ, hvor 60 nationer er i færd med at indgå sådanne aftaler inden for et »win-win«-paradigme.

Schiller Instituttet og EIR er i færd med at opbygge en stor, international konference i næste måned i New York City for at bringe Trumps USA ind i dette nye paradigme, hvor det »Amerikanske System« kan blomstre.

Præsident Trumps forståelse af det Amerikanske System i dag er elementær, men alvorligt ment. Jo flere amerikanere, der ved, hvad det skulle betyde, og handler på det, desto bedre chancer er der for, at det Britiske Systems »globaliseringsæra« vil slutte under hans præsidentskab.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump modtager en NASA-flyverjakke tirsdag, den 21. marts, 2017, efter at have underskrevet ’NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017’ i det ovale værelse i Det Hvide Hus i Washington, D.C.  

»At værdsætte og stimulere det menneskelige intellekts aktivitet ved at mangedoble områderne for foretagsomhed, gennem hvilke en nations rigdom kan fremmes.«

– Alexander Hamilton (11. jan., 1757 – 12. juli, 1804).

»Sammenhængen mellem intellektets opdagelser og forøgelsen af arbejdskraftens produktive evne, er kernen i Det amerikanske, økonomiske System. Det, jeg har præsteret, er at vise, at det er muligt at forudsige rent matematisk raterne af den forøgede, fysisk-økonomiske vækst, som vil blive resultatet af en faktisk anvendelse af en specifik form for intellektuel produktion af ny teknologi. På denne baggrund har jeg været i stand til at levere et nyt, stærkere, videnskabeligt bevis for de grunde til, at Hamiltons Amerikanske System fremmer depressionsfri, økonomisk vækst, og grunden til, at Adam Smiths doktrin altid vil føre en nation ud i nye katastrofer.«

– Lyndon LaRouche, »In Defense of Alexander Hamilton«, 1987.

Læs hele Lyndon LaRouches artikel her:

http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 30. oktober, 2016 – I sidste uge fremførte kandidat Donald Trump et direkte krav om gennemførelse af det 21. Århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov samtidig med, at han udstedte en ligefrem advarsel om, at Hillary Clintons sindssyge dæmonisering af Vladimir Putin og hendes krav om militær konfrontation med Rusland og Syrien allerede har bragt verden til randen af atomkrig. Hvad så siden Trumps motivation er, så har dette placeret de spørgsmål, som med Lyndon LaRouche er blevet internationalt fastlagt, i centrum for den amerikanske, politiske krise.

I dag responderede LaRouche til dette skift under en diskussion med sine medarbejdere, ni dage før det amerikanske præsidentvalg:

»Trump er kommet ud med Glass-Steagall. Han fremlagde argumentet. Desuden hader han Hillary Clinton og foragter Barack Obama. Trump har et enormt ego, og det betyder, at han ønsker at gøre noget stort og vigtigt. Men alt dette betyder, at der er noget, vi potentielt kan arbejde med. Dette betyder, at det vigtigste er det, som vi må sige den til kommende administration om det, der må gøres. Det faktum, at Trump støtter Glass-Steagall, er nu en fastslået kendsgerning, og dette er et sted at begynde, men kun et sted at begynde. Vi forstår, hvad der må gøres, overordnet set, for at vedtage en politik i Hamiltons tradition for at redde USA. Det er, hvad der virkelig tæller. Og dette budskab giver genlyd.«

Situationen i USA er fuld af dæmonisering og frygt i takt med, at amerikanske familiers levestandard i hastigt tempo kollapser, og i takt med, at borgerne ikke ser noget håb i valget.

LaRouche bemærkede:

»Situationen her er så rådden, at det giver anledning til stor bekymring. Den typiske, amerikanske borger har ingen stolthed eller tro på sig selv. Der findes ingen pragmatiske løsninger. Der findes intet i USA, med undtagelse af det, vi stiller krav om som presserende løsninger, og som begynder med Glass-Steagall, men dernæst fortsætter med en omgående lancering af massive kapitalinvesteringer af statslig kredit til infrastruktur og andre projekter, for at styrke økonomiens produktivitet som helhed. Dette betyder en genoplivelse af et statsligt, nationalt banksystem efter Hamiltons principper. Sådan skal det være.«

»Der er en reel fare for afslutningen af civilisationen. Der findes ingen andre muligheder end afgørende handlinger, af den art, som jeg har forklaret i mine Fire Økonomiske Hovedlove. Det er den virkelige proces.«

Disse Fire Hovedlove begynder med Glass-Steagall, sammen med en tilbagevenden til et Nationalt Banksystem i Hamiltons tradition, som middel til at udstede kredit til realøkonomien, der som sin spydspids og drivkraft har videnskab, med udvikling af fusionskraft og en genrejsning af NASA og rumforskning og rumfart.

»Vi er på vej ind i noget, vi aldrig før har set – lige nu«,

sagde LaRouche.

»Der findes ingen vilje inden for det transatlantiske område til at handle for at løse nogen af disse problemer. Det er i Eurasien, at vi finder den reelle indsats. Det er dér, de store initiativer finder sted. Putin gør vigtige ting, men han er også bevidst om sin egen positions svaghed, og han medregner dette i sine beslutninger og handlinger.«

Det er presserende nødvendigt at dumpe Obama, men tiden er knap. Vi må omgående, nu, såvel som også dagen efter valget, handle på det skift, som Trumps initiativ har skabt, uanset udfaldet af valget – at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og det fulde LaRouche-program for at genindføre en politik efter Hamiltons principper. 

»Jeg tror, vi kan sige, at vi befinder os ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt i verdenshistorien, og ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt for vores nation. I løbet af de seneste uger, som I har kunnet følge på LaRouchePAC’s webside, har vi mobiliseret en national mobilisering for at sætte hr. Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske program på dagsordenen, under betegnelsen ’De Fire Hovedlove; de Fire Nye Love til USA’s økonomiske genrejsning’, og disse love er baseret på Alexander Hamiltons fundamentale principper og hans arbejde med at etablere en videnskab om økonomi, der opbyggede USA. Vi har lanceret en kampagneside for mobilisering, og jeg vil direkte fremhæve, at det er vores dagsorden at bringe det amerikanske folk ind i denne mobilisering for at gøre jeres forståelse af, hvad det er for økonomiske principper, som Hamilton skabte, dybere; og hvad det er, som hr. LaRouche har inkorporeret i disse Fire Love.«

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 28, 2016

ALEXANDER HAMILTON'S VISION & LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
ESSENTIAL TOOLS TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's October 28, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our Friday
evening webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio
tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and we have via video, Kesha Rogers, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, former candidate for the United
States Congress and United States Senate, joining us from
Houston, Texas.
        I think it can be said that we are at a very dramatic
turning point in world history and a very dramatic turning point
for our nation.  Over the last several weeks, as you've been
following the LaRouche PAC website, we have mobilized a national
mobilization to put on the agenda Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's economic
program; this is under the name of "The Four Cardinal Laws; the
Four New Laws for the Economic Recovery of the United States",
and it's grounded in the fundamental principles of Alexander
Hamilton and his work establishing a science of economics which
built the United States.  We have launched a mobilization page,
and I'll say right up front that our agenda is to bring the
American people into this mobilization to deepen your
understanding of what the economic principles are that Hamilton
created; and what Mr. LaRouche has embodied in these Four Laws.
        This is not something which is only important for the
national stage; but this is shaping a paradigm shift which is
currently ongoing on the international stage.  We saw two weeks
ago the dramatic shift, the realignment of the Philippines with
President Duterte's trip to China; saying that he is realigning
his country with the ideological flow of the Eurasian allied
countries that are now creating a new economic paradigm.  And we
saw this expressed very clearly in a speech that Russian
President Vladimir Putin gave at the 2016 annual Valdai
international discussion club proceedings.  We'll get into some
of the details of that, but Putin's emphases are very clear, and
I think they include some of the subjects that we will be
discussing here tonight.  Number one, the danger of the
NATO/Obama posture which has now brought us perilously close to
the outbreak of World War III; a war that nobody is seeking on
the Russian side, as Putin made very clear.  And also, the urgent
necessity of an entirely new economic paradigm to bridge the gap
between a small number of very wealthy Wall Street speculators
and a very large number of poverty-stricken, not only people, but
also nations; and to bring technological progress to all, and to
have that be the paradigm for relations among nations.
        So, we'll get into those subjects, but I think first and
foremost, the issue of Glass-Steagall; the necessity of shutting
down what is now clearly the bankrupt Wall Street regime, and
what has to necessarily follow after that.  The Hamiltonian Four
Laws that Mr. LaRouche has specified, I think is now very clearly
on the agenda.  So, I'm going to ask Jeff to just start with a
quick briefing of some of the matters that we've discussed with
Mr. LaRouche over the last 24 hours, and then we can proceed with
a discussion of the implications of these developments.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Matt.  I think that there are
four or five things that I would really highlight in terms of
significant new developments just in the time since last Friday's
broadcast.  Number one, as Matt indicated, President Putin
delivered a very powerful speech at the closing session of the
Valdai conference that took place this week in Sochi, Russia.
There were representatives there from all over the world,
including at least a number of people there from China.  I think
what President Putin did was not so much break new ground, but
make very clear that Russia and he himself are fully committed to
moving ahead with the collaboration with China, with the other
BRICS countries on bringing about a new paradigm of relations
among nation-states; based on a policy of clear war avoidance
built around cooperative economic investments in great projects
— including major advances in science, including the advancement
of man's mastery over space.  So, Putin in a certain sense,
reinforced what we saw at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou in China;
what we saw at the BRICS heads of state summit meeting more
recently in Goa, India.  So, Russia is all-in on that, and he
made the point very clearly, that the collapse of the Western
financial system is the principal factor driving the world
towards an extraordinarily dangerous situation, where you could
have an outbreak of world war — even thermonuclear world war —
as the result of provocative actions born of desperation.  I
think that whole picture is one element of what's really changed
in this last week.
        Now, I spent the last 48 hours — Wednesday and Thursday of
this week — attending an annual conference in Washington, DC of
the National Council on US-Arab Relations.  There were about 1000
people there, and it was widely attended by the diplomatic
community, particularly the Arab diplomatic community; by the US
business sector that deals with the Gulf States.  At the very
closing of the conference, Thursday evening, there was a
concluding keynote presentation by General David Petraeus —
formerly the head of the Central Command, formerly the Director
of the CIA.  He made a very bold set of proposals that
unfortunately dovetailed very precisely with the kinds of things
that have been coming out of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton
campaign throughout this Presidential election.  What General
Petraeus called for was both the creation of safe zones inside
Syrian sovereign territory, the creation of a no-fly zone over a
large portion of Syrian territory, and he called for the United
States to use both sea-based and air-based cruise missiles to
knock out the Syrian air force.  Now, he very cavalierly said of
course this brings on the danger of a war with Russia; but he
brushed that aside, saying, Vladimir Putin responds to power, and
responds to serious threats to use power.  Therefore, in the face
of these kinds of actions, Putin will back down.
        Now, we're talking about American and Russian air assets
engaging in a very limited theater of action, where we've so far
avoided a major incident that could have led to general war
because of a deconfliction agreement that fortunately still
remains in force between the US-led coalition on the one side,
and Russia on the other.  But what's being proposed here is a
complete overturning of that policy.  We know that this is
exactly what Hillary Clinton is calling for in her own
Presidential campaign speeches.  There have been recent studies
presented on behalf of the Clinton campaign by the Center for a
New American Security and the Center for American Progress, that
go almost as extremist as General Petraeus' statements.
Basically, the war danger cannot in the least underestimated; and
the fact is that President Putin — in his Valdai speech — was
very clear about that danger.
        Now, on the larger issue of the immediacy of the blow-out of
the financial system of the trans-Atlantic region, everybody is
really on the edge of their chairs over the fact that the US
Department of Justice and Deutsche Bank are still parrying around
back and forth and have not reached a decision yet on a proposed
14 billion euro fine for Deutsche Bank's criminal activity during
the mortgage-backed securities crisis leading into the 2008
blow-out.  Deutsche Bank is on the edge of collapse; it's widely
acknowledged.  The major German financial press, led by
{Handelsblatt}, writes about this virtually every day.  We know
that the Italian banking system is also on the verge of a
blow-out with 360 billion euro in non-performing debt on the
books of the larger Italian banks.  So, it is absolutely true
that we're on the precipice of a potential financial blow-out far
worse than Lehman Brothers in 2008.
        It's in that context, that I think it's very important to
take note of the fact that earlier this week, Donald Trump
delivered a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, in which he
explicitly called for the implementation of a 21st Century
Glass-Steagall.  He also warned that if Hillary Clinton is
elected President, the chances grow enormously that we will be
facing World War III at some point very soon; and he cited the
Syria events that I've already talked about as a kind of a key
element of that situation.  Many people are scratching their
heads and saying, where did this from in terms of Trump suddenly
coming out for Glass-Steagall?  It's only 12 days before the
Presidential election that this speech came out.
        I had the opportunity to someone who's been involved in
Washington politics as a kind of insider for a very long time;
and his view was that he was expecting something like this to
come out of the Trump campaign, out of Donald Trump.  It could
have been more effective if it had happened in September, but
whether he's being opportunistic or whether he genuinely means
it, the fact is that the Glass-Steagall issue has now been
basically re-infused into the Presidential elections at a
critical kind of countdown moment before November 8th.  And
there's really no downside to that.  Whatever the outcome of the
election, Glass-Steagall is an essential policy issue that must
be implemented immediately.  It's the first step of Mr.
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws for how to carry out an economic
recovery; and Mr. LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws on based
explicitly on the four key reports to Congress by Alexander
Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury.  So, we're
reaching back for policies that have a long-time proven track
record of success.  Donald Trump didn't just simply blurt out
"Let's have Glass-Steagall."  By accounts of people who closely
watched that speech down in Charlotte, this was the most
thoroughly composed and well organized speech of his entire
Presidential campaign.  The next morning, in a TV interview with
Fox, Wilbur Ross, who is one of a group of "billionaires" who are
key economic policy advisors to Trump, basically reinforced the
point that Trump had made the day before in Charlotte.  This is a
bit of an exchange between Fox News' Maria Bartolino and Wilbur
Ross:
        BARTOLINO:  Donald Trump yesterday called for a 21st Century
version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that requires the
separation of commercial and investment banking.  Talk to us
about this, because we all know what Dodd-Frank has done to the
financial services sector; and lending has become tougher.
That's become one of the issues for this economy.  Tell me about
the 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall.

        Ross was absolutely clear and familiar with what Trump was
referring to the night before.  He said:
        ROSS:  Well, the banks.  It isn't so much that they're too
big; it's that they're too complex.  Too complex and too
complicated internally.  Think about how much the big banks —
you have to know every geography in the world; you have to know
every kind of obscure kind of product in the derivatives market.
That's an awful big menu for anybody to absorb.  We think it
might be better for the banks to stick to lending, and instead of
making more restrictions on lending, make it easier for them to
make loans.  Think about it.  When you were suing banks every day
for the loans that they've made the day before, it's not the way
to encourage them to make new loans.  They're making banks
gun-shy.

        And she asks, "Are you saying there should be more
separation?"

        ROSS:  I think the more important thing is sensible
regulation rather than just regulation for the sake of
regulation.  When you think about it, with all these fines over
sub-prime lending, can you name a single person who was ever
dispossessed from a house that didn't actually have a mortgage,
wasn't delinquent on it and deserved to be foreclosed?  There
isn't one case where that's been proven, so it's punitive
regulation, it's punitive law enforcement rather than anything
very sensible.

        This was clearly not just simply a stab in the dark. We
don't know whether this is a serious commitment to the policy.
But we do know that there is mass popular support for
Glass-Steagall. That's why it wound up in the platforms of both
the Democratic and Republican Parties. We know there was a fight
inside the Hillary Clinton campaign, in which a number of her key
advisors urged her to also come out and support Glass-Steagall,
which she refused to do. The Bernie Sanders supporters, the
Elizabeth Warren supporters, those who are mainstay voters for
the Democratic Party, are as adamant about the need for
Glass-Steagall as some on the Republican side.
        So, the issue is that this now squarely on the table. It's
the final ten days before the Presidential elections, and so
therefore, now is the moment for this issue to be driven home,
forcefully, and for Congress to take this up as their first order
of business when the return after the November 8th elections,
regardless of the outcome. The mandate is there. It's now a
fundamental issue in the Presidential debate in these closing
days. Again, whether Trump is serious about this, or this was a
political stunt, nevertheless, the issue has been injected very
substantially into the final moments of this Presidential
campaign, and there's no downside to that having happened.

        OGDEN: Mr. LaRouche's ideas are very powerful, and they
stand on their own. Mr. LaRouche has not responded to the change
of the time. He has been very, very clear for years, on the
{urgent} necessity of Glass-Steagall, and has forecast that we
would in fact reach this point again. Deutsche Bank is blowing
out. It's worse than Lehman 2008. The fact that Glass-Steagall
was not reinstated, as Mr. LaRouche called for, immediately
following the 2008 crash, is what has brought us to this point.
Kesha was involved in a high-profile Senate campaign, several
high-profile House campaigns. Other members of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee also ran for federal office four, six years ago,
on a Glass-Steagall platform, and made that the definitive
national issue. To the extent that there's been any serious
discussion in this Presidential campaign, it has been around the
question of Glass-Steagall. This was brought up in the Democratic
debates by two candidates — Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders also
brought it up; Hillary Clinton said, "No!"
        This is now the {defining} question. And as you said, Jeff,
what this shows is that there is {overwhelming} popular support:
both Party platforms. Now you have a situation in which the
reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is virtually hegemonic. It would
be tragic were the Congress not to take the immediate action to
reinstate this — do not wait for the inauguration — immediately
after returning to Washington. Glass-Steagall has got to be
reinstated, because if we wait, and Deutsche Bank or one of these
other banks blows out, I guarantee you, we are in a far worse
situation that we were, even in the Crash of 2008.
        So I think the defining question is there. The necessity for
the depth of the Hamiltonian principles — which Mr. LaRouche has
made very clear — stand on their own. It's not a question of has
somebody validated Lyndon LaRouche; the question is Lyndon
LaRouche's ideas stand on their own, and have been the defining
questions, and have now reached the point where it's undeniably
hegemonic, and the point of no return is coming very soon, unless
these ideas are acted on.

        STEINBERG: Let me throw something else in on this. I think
there's an important lesson to be learned from the
just-concluded, successful fight over the summer into September,
around first, the release of the 28 pages from the original Joint
Congressional Inquiry into 9/11; and then what followed after
that, with the overwhelming House and Senate override of
President Obama's veto of the JASTA Bill, the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. As was the case for some time with
JASTA, the issue is that once it was going to come to a vote,
there was no question that there was overwhelming support for it.
There was a political mobilization. LaRouche PAC led that fight,
along with the families and survivors of 9/11, and others as
well, to make sure it was actually brought to a vote. The same is
true of Glass-Steagall right now. There's got to be a groundswell
of pressure on the leadership of the House and Senate, to bring
it to a vote.
        I have no doubt whatsoever that given all of the factors
that we've been discussing, that if a vote were allowed to be
taken, say on November 14-15, whatever it is the day that the
House and Senate return to Washington for the beginning of the
"lame duck" session, that should be on the table. It should be
brought to the full floor of the Senate and the House. The bills
exist in both Houses. The language is compatible. This could be
done in a very short period of time. If you look at the way that
the JASTA vote proceeded just before the recess, the whole thing
took place in the course of {one day}. There was a morning vote
and debate in the House. It went immediately to the Senate in the
afternoon; because the leadership recognized that the American
people {demanded} that this happen. There was a mobilization.
There was a sense of timing. And there is no reason in the world
that the same thing can't happen before the middle of next month
with respect to Glass-Steagall.
        As Matt just said, and as Thomas Hoenig, [vice chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] has been arguing for
years, Glass-Steagall has to be put in place {before} the
blow-out, because once you get that blow-out, Congress will be
stampeded by Wall Street and London into another bail-out, and
you're going to be off to the races. It's going to be a disaster.
        This is something where the will of the American people has
to be heard. That's the context in which we're looking at the
fact that Trump chose at the last moment to inject Glass-Steagall
into his campaign rhetoric for the final countdown days before
the election.

        KESHA ROGERS: Yes. I think it's important to understand that
LaRouche "drew the line in the sand" a long time ago. He set the
standard of the Glass-Steagall representing the first step to
bringing down Wall Street, this financial speculation, and the
continued protection and defense of Wall Street, of this British
imperial system of the City of London, meant the death of the
nation and society as a whole, because we're seeing what this is
doing to impact the United States through the continued economic
collapse that's devastating the entire nation, the rate of
increase in poverty. This has all been a product of Wall Street's
total destruction of our nation.
        And so, this fight for Glass-Steagall — LaRouche has led it
in the highest terms possible, because it represents a saving of
the American people. It's the identity of what has to shape the
future for this nation. I think it's really important that, as
we've continued to have discussions with Mr. LaRouche — the
Policy Committee and others — he defined very clearly that the
issue at hand is, what is going to be necessary and the standard
set for creating a standard by which credit is defined. And this
is what he has gone back to, with implementing the Hamiltonian
standard for the United States and for the world with his Four
Laws. Representing the context by which we can instill in the
American people a standard of economic value which is not based
on money, not based on the idea that you can just pump money into
small infrastructure projects here and there. But he made very
clear that you have to have an international program based on the
principle of a credit policy as Alexander Hamilton understood —
and this is why he has been very emphatic; that the American
people have to read, master and understand the works of Hamilton
today as never before. This is what Franklin Roosevelt
understood. People are adopting and taking up the policy for
restoring Glass-Steagall which LaRouche has made a household
name. Franklin Roosevelt really understood the enemy. He
understood that this house of cards of Wall Street was crumbling,
it had to be brought down; just as LaRouche understands today.
Many people who've put their name on the docket for
Glass-Steagall have been called by Wall Street "Public Enemy
Number One," and so forth.
        How do we really look at this, from the standpoint of what
we're dealing with a population that has lost a sense — and Mr.
LaRouche really captured this today, very profoundly — of their
own mind; the ability of their own mind to actually know how to
fight this enemy and know how to create the future which they so
desperately desire and need? What you really see right now is
that they're being given an opportunity to participate in
something very profound and unique. If we look at what's being
presented by LaRouche's policies being adopted throughout the
world right now, the standard that's been set in China. The
standard for the future that's been set in Russia to defy and to
deny this policy of thermonuclear war and destruction. Of going
after the future and the youth of the nation, that the
international standard that's being set right now for a program
based on these Hamiltonian principles, can {clearly} be seen by
what China is doing and actually representing for a total
revolution, total renaissance for generations to come, in the
standards they're setting with their space program.
        Because when Mr. LaRouche said you have to have an
international program that defines an economic standard of value,
of credit, in this nation and across the planet, that's the first
thing to look at. The fact that China just launched a new
initiative, a total breakthrough putting them front and center
stage in the development of their space program; when Obama has
continued to kill the space program with the egregious budget
cuts, with the turning over our space program to the private
sector in the United States. The policy to continue to bail out
Wall Street financial speculation instead of actually giving a
national mission, as Kennedy understood was absolutely important,
is something that can no longer be tolerated.
        The inspiration is the crucial key at hand right now. People
have lost faith and confidence and inspiration in this nation, in
the system of this nation, because it has become a system of
gambling, of debt, and it has gone away from the principles which
were defined by our US Constitution. So when you look at the
inspiration you're seeing from China, with the just launching of
their spacecraft with two tyconauts from China, the Shenzhou-11
to dock with the Tiangong-2 space lab, what we have now seen
China do is to actually create an international process of
collaboration and development. Just as they've offered for the
United States to cooperate, in a win-win strategy for the Silk
Road, which nations around the world are taking up. This is
defining a new standard of value and wealth.
        Now, what's the standard in the United States? Jeff can say
more on this, because he just did a presentation that I would
encourage people to look at on the website. It's death. The drug
overdoses.  If you don't have a policy of inspiration for your
youth and for the nation, what are people going to turn to?  What
is going to be the standard and value and the understanding of
the creativity, the creative potential of their own minds?  I'll
just say, before I got on this discussion, I was speaking to a
lady 40 years old; she has a 23-year old son who she's paying
thousands of dollars to get him off of drug overdoses from
prescription medicines and pills.  Three of his friends who she
knows very closely just died within the last year of drug
overdoses from heroin.  First starting with painkillers, then
finding this heroin, just as you said, Jeff.  Because people have
been denied a future that they can have a sense of their truly
human identity; that they have a purpose and reason to live.
Wall Street can and must be brought down, because the fight that
was won with JASTA was just the beginning.  If we don't finish
off this policy of the British Empire and the Saudis funding of
terrorism and funding of drug epidemics in the United States
coming from Afghanistan, the drug trafficking, everything we've
been seeing as the destruction of this nation, then we won't have
a nation.  We're seeing that very rapidly take place; this dark
age has to be stopped.
        I think a lot of people are understanding that LaRouche is
giving them an opportunity for life and for determining and
fighting for a future.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I do want Jeff to say more about that
interview, that short statement that he posted on the website.
Let me just underscore what you just said; I think it's
extraordinarily important.  People lack the confidence in their
own mind; they lack the confidence in their own ability to
positively imagine and create and define a future.  What comes in
the void of that?  It's anger, it's fear, it's demoralization.
Our job is to give people their dignity back.  We have to give
them the confidence in themselves as meaningful human beings.  I
think that was very clearly demonstrated with what we
accomplished — the Schiller Institute along with the Foundation
for the Revival of Classical Culture — with this extraordinary
series of concerts over the weekend of the 15th anniversary of
September 11th in New York City.  This was a presentation of
Mozart's {Requiem} and four African-American spirituals at four
different venues across New York City and New Jersey.  The
confidence and the dignity that gave to people, including people
who were engaged as you said, Jeff, in the fight, the victorious
fight to declassify the 28 pages and to pass the JASTA bill and
override the White House's veto, I think speaks directly to that
point.
        Coincidentally, there's one very short passage in this
speech that Putin gave at the Valdai discussion which says almost
exactly what you just said, Kesha.  He said, "It is very clear
that there is a lack of strategy and a lack of ideas for the
future.  This creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct
impact on the public mood.  Sociological studies conducted around
the world show that people in different countries and on
different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak.
This is sad.  The future does not entice them, but rather,
frightens them."
        So, our job is to create a potential for a future which
entices the creative dignity of people and allows them to escape
this — as you eloquently said — dark age of drug overdoses,
death, and depression.

        STEINBERG:  I think it's important to also take note of the
fact that just in the past two weeks, millions of American
households have received word that their Obamacare health
insurance premiums are going up by 20%, 30%, 50%, in some cases I
know of directly, 70-80%.  The administration was facing a
torrent of news coverage admitting that Obamacare was finished.
Insurance companies are pulling out of the pools, and Obama came
out with this completely vacuous, lying statement claiming he'll
create some kind of a federal pool so that people can get
reasonably-priced health insurance.  The fact of the matter is,
at the very outset of this whole business, Obama shut the door on
expanding Medicare for all; shut the door on any other
formulation of a single-payer plan.  The cutbacks in the amount
of money being spent on health care has meant that by Hill-Burton
standards — in other words, the physical requirements; how many
hospital beds, how many doctors, how many nurses, what kinds of
specialty care have to be made available — the physical
infrastructure of health care has collapsed under Obama, as
people are finding their rates skyrocketing through the ceiling.
Obama personally came out with another lie to cover for the
reality of what he created; namely claiming that the premium
increases for most people will be covered by increases in
taxpayer subsidies.  But what he failed to say was that the only
people who qualify for those subsidies are people who are living
at or below one and a half times the poverty rate.  So, anybody
in the middle class, anybody even barely above that 1.5 times the
poverty rate is out of luck; and they're being confronted with a
choice — health care vs. housing; health care vs. food; in many,
many cases health care vs. whether you can get your kids a
college education.  So, you've got that phenomenon that's staring
the American people in the face; it's the collapse and
disintegration of Obamacare, which is what Lyndon LaRouche warned
about and forecast all the way back in 2009 when this thing was
first started.
        Then you've got the second phenomenon.  Remember that
President Obama, during his initial campaign for office back in
2008, basically distanced himself from the Bush-Cheney Iraq war,
but took full ownership of the Afghanistan war; which he called a
war of necessity as opposed to a war of choice.  Well, we're now
eight more years into it, and the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime last week came out with a report that Afghanistan —
under US and NATO occupation — has produced a bumper crop of
opium; up 43% to 4800 tons of pure opium produced this year.  We
know the consequences of that; cheap heroin is flooding onto the
streets of the United States in every community, not just
inner-city ghetto areas, but middle-class suburbs, rural areas.
There is not a county in the United States that is not
experiencing an opioid epidemic; and that's not our words, those
are the words of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention —
"epidemic".
        You've had a major increase every year under Obama of deaths
by opioid overdoses.  It goes hand-in-glove with the shutdown of
the health system, the flooding of the country with illegal
drugs, the refusal of the Obama administration, number one, to
crack down on HSBC — the British Opium War bank that was caught
by the United States Senate as the number one drug-money
launderer for the Latin American drug cartels.  Nothing was done;
a slap on the wrist.  They've even violated the deferred
prosecution agreement, but we hear nothing about the
consequences.  Secondly, the big pharmaceutical companies and the
major drug distribution companies are flooding the black market
with oxycontin and other opioids.  This is also being done under
the watchful eye of the Department of Justice that has refused to
prosecute big Pharma and these big drug distribution companies
for the same argument that they make why they won't prosecute and
criminally jail major bankers; they're too big to jail.  The
too-big-to-fail banks, the giant pharmaceutical companies that
are pumping out these opioids; they are above the law, at least
under the policies of the Obama administration.
        So, you've got a track record of death, destruction, and
despair emanating from the policies of the White House for the
past eight years.  Now we are at a crisis point, a social and
economic crisis, a crisis of the morale of the population; yet
there are clear and obvious solutions to all of these problems.
It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out that Glass-Steagall
and the other core principles put forward by Mr. LaRouche, which
are a revised version of the core ideas on which this economy of
this great nation was built in the first place, under the
leadership of Alexander Hamilton.  So, these things {can} be
done.  One of the biggest obstacles is the fact that the collapse
of the health care system, the mass opioid addiction that's been
basically allowed to occur as an Opium War against the American
population, has reached the point where it's created a morale
crisis.  And that's got to be reversed.
        Matt just referenced the impact of the concerts
commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that took
place in the greater New York City area the weekend of September
11th.  Those kinds of things can be replicated everywhere.  We
can turn the situation around very quickly.  We can end the
scourge of Wall Street and the City of London; we can end these
wars.  You've got with Russia, with China, with India, with the
other countries in Asia — Japan, Southeast Asia; they're all
coming together around a new economic paradigm that's built on
cooperation among nations for great projects across a vast area.
The United States desperately needs to get in on this; and
President Xi Jinping's standing invitation, delivered to
President Bush face-to-face, still stands.  The United States
should join in and become part of this World Land-Bridge process;
and if you do that, then the folly of these continuing wars and
this confrontation with Putin and Russia become very obvious.
It's completely ludicrous.  We can move on and participate in
this alternative paradigm which is right there; it's not a
theoretical, it's not something in abstraction.  It's going on
every day of the week across all of Eurasia down into Africa.
China is building a trans-continental railroad across South
America.  The plans for that railroad were in place in the 1870s,
when American rail engineers who worked on the transcontinental
railroad in the United States, went down to Peru, and went down
to Brazil, and were working on those projects.  The time is long
overdue for the United States to get on board on something that
we, as a nation, forged as key concepts back during a better
period in our history.

        ROGERS:  And what you're dealing with is a cultural
transformation.  I just wanted to add that this is not something
that is up to people "Oh, this is a problem I'm having in my
family.  The drug overdose or something that I have to deal
with."  You have people who have health care premiums that are
going up to $1500-2000 per month, and then they're spending
thousands of dollars to get their kids and loved ones off of
these drugs, and you have no help from society because the
society is completely degenerating.  It's only going to be
through a cultural transformation based on the beauty that was
exemplified and continues to be exemplified by what we're
representing with these {Requiem} concerts in New York; with a
commitment towards a revival of truly Classical culture.  One
person I was talking to, who was going through such a crisis, was
saying it would just be so beautiful and so important if you can
come into my area to sing; because these people desperately need
beauty.  It's not going to just take each individual; but as
Putin recognized, you have to have a total transformation of the
culture.  I was just thinking at the very end, that Matt you
brought up a few quotes earlier of this speech, and I don't want
to read long quotes; but I think this captures what we were just
discussing very well.  At the very end of Putin's speech at
Valdai in Sochi, he said: "In short, we should build the
foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development.  And of course, it is
necessary to continue a broad-based discussion of our common
future, so that all sensible and promising initiatives are
heard."
        This is absolutely what has to be the standard of the United
States right now; shaping that future that must be brought into
existence.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I would recommend people read some more
extensive excerpts of this speech; it's very all-encompassing.
But at the same place where he said what you just cited, he
called for a Marshall Plan to rebuild the war-torn areas —
especially in the Middle East and North Africa; but a Marshall
Plan type of approach.  He called for a New International
Economic Order, which would make the fruit of economic growth and
technological progress accessible to all.  He celebrated the
joining together of the Eurasian Economic Union with the New Silk
Road, the One Belt, One Road policy of China, to create an
integrated Eurasian space where these kinds of massive
development projects can take place, as Jeff just cited.  He said
that the major question, the principle, has got to be how do you
develop human potential?  He said, "An important task of ours is
to develop human potential.  Only a world with ample
opportunities for all, with highly-skilled workers, with access
to knowledge, and a great variety of ways to realize their
potential, can be considered truly free.  Only a world where
people from different countries do not struggle to survive, but
lead full lives, can be stable."
        I would recommend going back and reading some of the
excerpts from Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures",
because he makes exactly the same point.  He says it's only a
world where the diverse talents of the various of your society
can be developed to their fullest potential through the
application of technology, and the availability of this on the
widest possible scale, that you can create the future potential
for the creative labor, not just the manual labor, but the
creative labor of your labor force, of your workforce, of your
citizenry, which increases the potential population density of
your nation; increases the productive powers of that labor force,
and improves the quality of the lives of all.  And only a society
like that can be defined as truly free.  In Hamilton's time, it
was the fight against slavery; it was the fight against the
manual, bestial labor of the African slaves imported to the
southern states of the United States.  In our time, it's the
fight for a Hamiltonian policy in the present period; and I think
we just keep coming back to the point.  This is the Four New Laws
of LaRouche; this is the principle of Alexander Hamilton.  It is
happening on the international stage, as Jeff said.  The One
Belt, One Road policy from China; this new economic paradigm;
these are taking place every single day.
        The defining question is:  Will the United States join that
New Paradigm?

        STEINBERG:  It's ironic that one of the cornerstones, in
light of what's going on in the real guttural side of this
Presidential campaign, one of the cornerstones of Hamilton's
concept in the "Report on Manufactures" was immigration; mass
immigration.  His policy was, bring 'em in; we'll educate them;
we'll make productive American citizens out of them, no matter
where they come from.  That idea that there's always a shortage
of precious creative labor.  I think it's another point very much
worth reflecting on; rather than thinking about walls and things
like that.  He just said, we've got to bring more people in here;
because we've got productive work for them to do to build a
nation.

        OGDEN:  Right; apropos.  I just want to read the one section
from the Putin speech where he says this specifically.  He says,
"We cannot achieve global stability unless we guarantee global
economic progress.  It is essential to provide conditions for
'creative labor' and economic growth at a pace that would put an
end to the division of the world into permanent winners and
permanent losers."
        On that note, I want to just announce to people that
{Executive Intelligence Review} is putting out a republication of
the four economic reports of Hamilton.  These will be available
in book form, hopefully coming up the beginning next week.  It's
titled, {Alexander Hamilton's Vision}, and it's a republication
of these four central economic reports; the "Report on Public
Credit", the "Report on Manufactures", the "Report on National
Banking", and Hamilton's argument "On the Constitutionality of
the National Bank".  As an appendix to that book, we also include
the full text of Mr. LaRouche's new economic laws.  That is also
the headline of a special double edition of the {Hamiltonian}
which came out at the beginning of this week — "The Four New
Laws to Save the USA Now!"  This is edition 10 of the
{Hamiltonian}, and included in this is also an elaboration of
some of the principles of the "Report on Manufactures", which I
wrote up; "The LaRouche-Hamilton Science of Physical Economy",
and there's also an article on the background of Alexander
Hamilton's fight against slavery and his establishment of a new
political order for the United States through the founding of
this science of economics.  There's also a very entertaining
cartoon which was drawn by a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee, Dave Christie, called "Obamandias" based on
"Ozymandias" which was a famous sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
So that's available on the LaRouche PAC website.
        So, I think we have definitely defined the fact that we are
at a turning point in the history of this country and the history
of the world.  This is certainly not business as usual; and the
hegemony of the principles that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table
as the urgent steps to create an economic recovery for this
country now, has certainly been demonstrated very clearly.  It's
our job to continue to draw people towards the mobilization page
on the LaRouche PAC Action Center; this is
actioncenter.larouchepac.com/four laws.  You can sign up directly
on that website; you will receive an email, you will become part
of our national network of activists.  You can participate in the
weekly activists calls that we hold every Thursday night — our
Fireside Chats.  You can submit reports of activities that you've
engaged in.  You can have all of the background material
available there — Hamilton's four economic reports are linked on
that page — and you can become part of this movement which is
clearly defining world history.
        So, thank you very much, and I'd like to thank both Jeff and
Kesha for joining us here today.  Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Thank you and good night.

INKL. SÆRTRYK AF ARTIKLEN 'NYT KREDITSYSTEM'. 

Lyndon LaRouche udtalte følgende til LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi den 17. oktober, 2016, med henvisning til præsidentvalget:

Der er en politik: Alexander Hamiltons politik, som den udtrykkes nu, i moderne form; det er, hvad vi vil have. Brug mit navn for at understrege Alexander Hamiltons navn som den person, der bør være den retningsangivende person for hele nationen. Jeg kan udrede det klart; det kan jeg gøre – jeg ved, hvordan det skal gøres. Det gør de fleste mennesker ikke; de hænger fast i fortolkninger.

Han var den ledende skikkelse i amerikansk historie, i dens tidligste del. Og i det tyvende århundrede har jeg været en ledende skikkelse i USA. Jeg siger nu, at Alexander Hamiltons lov, udtrykt i det følgende, i mine Fire Love, er det, der må gøres for nationen.

Vi har allerede politikken nedfældet, for vi har loven, der blev fremsat i mit navn for mere end to år siden. Dette er den lov, som bør være den retningsangivende lov, der bestemmer loven for USA som sådan.

Sig Alexander Hamilton; og Hamiltons lov og præstationer er de ting, vi peger på – dernæst bruger vi, hvad jeg har gjort, for lidt over to år siden. Jeg definerede [disse love] på ny, hvilket ingen anden person har gjort, undtagen i mit navn. Det er sådan, man skal se på det.

Det, jeg sagde, er meget enkelt. I 2014 fremlagde jeg en sag, den politiske sag, for USA’s folk. Det var, hvad jeg gjorde. Ingen anden havde gjort nøjagtig, hvad jeg gjorde. Men jeg har imidlertid ingen garanti for at løbe omkring på ubestemt tid. Pointen er simpelt hen at få en politik, en politik, der i dette tilfældet har eksisteret, og dette skal fremlægges som politikken. Det er ikke et spørgsmål om personer som sådan, det er et spørgsmål om at fastslå politikken. Det, jeg gjorde for over to år siden, er nøjagtig, hvad politikken bør være. Hverken mere eller mindre.

Jeg var den person, der fastlagde de »Fire Love«. Og jeg fremsætter disse love som en korrektion, for at korrigere og fjerne de fejltagelser, som er blevet opretholdt eller indført. Og som er fejltagelser. Med andre ord, så er det politikken, der er taget under overvejelse. Og politikken har en tilhænger. Jeg er den eneste, der udfærdigede erklæringen om Alexander Hamiltons love, som jeg fastlagde dem for over to år siden. Og denne proces trodser alle de former for miskmask, som på det seneste har været i valgprocessen. Punktum.

Jeg har her fremlagt en erklæring. Denne erklæring har sin egen, unikke karakteristik. Det er denne fremgangsmåde, der kunne vinde sagen. Det væsentlige er, at USA blev grundlagt på love, der blev skabt af Alexander Hamilton. I den nylige periode af mit liv har jeg været en ledende person med hensyn til at fremlægge dette princip. Man må udtrykke det på en meget ligefrem måde. De love, som vi ønsker at have, er de reformlove, som jeg introducerede på vegne af Alexander Hamilton. Det er måden at gøre det på. Og dette kunne være en lov, som alle nationer kan tage op og anvende.

Ideen var, at Alexander Hamilton var den person, der fastlagde det princip, som USA’s love bør hvile på. Og det blev ved navn fremlagt af mig, i den lov, som jeg introducerede for at blive praktiseret som sådan.

Jeg har instrueret kandidatemnerne i det argument, at Alexander Hamiltons program, som defineret i en fornyet form – at det er det, der må introduceres. Så enkelt er det. Planeten har brug for retningslinjer med hensyn til lov. Denne lov må anses for at være den retningsangivende lov, som er Alexander Hamiltons politik, som jeg har tilrådet nationen at praktisere. Det er en løsning, som vil virke.

NYT KREDITSYSTEM

Denne artikel er et særtryk af et indlæg fra Schiller Instituttets valgavis nr. 16, efteråret 2013. 

Grundlaget for et samfunds udvikling er ikke penge, men kredit. I det unge USA sørgede finansminister Alexander Hamilton for etableringen af et kreditsystem, så det valutafattige og gældsplagede USA kunne opbygge sin realøkonomi. På afgørende tidspunkter i USA’s historie er man gået tilbage til et sådant kreditsystem for at få nationen på ret kurs.

Danmark kunne på lignende vis skabe billig, rigelig kredit til investeringer i infrastruktur og samfundsøkonomien.

Efter at vi gennem en Glass/Steagall-banksanering har ophævet statens forpligtelse til at indfri bank- og finansverdenens spillegæld for hundrede af mia. af kr. – og fjernet denne gæld fra bankernes regnskaber – vil de tilbageværende værdier i bankerne ikke være tilstrækkelige til at skabe den nødvendige kredit, som økonomien behøver for at fungere. Vi må derfor skabe en ny kilde til kredit. Det kan ske ved en overgang fra det nuværende monetære system til den form for kreditsystem, der, under ledelse af det unge geni Alexander Hamilton, var den afgørende kilde til USA’s transformation fra en samling gældsatte kolonier til en supermagt. Det var det amerikanske kreditsystem, der, på trods af, at det undervejs blev saboteret en stor del af tiden, sikrede USA’s overlevelse og udvikling. Genindførelsen af dette kreditsystem er ikke blot en absolut nødvendighed, hvis USA skal overleve i dag, men er også et vigtigt forbillede for Danmark og Europa, hvis vi ønsker en lys fremtid, der ikke er afhængig af private finansinteresser og finansmarkedernes velvilje, men som i stedet giver os og andre nationer suverænitet og den frie vilje til at bestemme vor egen skæbne. Det amerikanske kreditsystem er dog en af de bedst bevarede hemmeligheder i såvel offentligheden som den økonomiske faglitteratur i dag, og vi vil derfor i det følgende give et indblik i afgørende aspekter af systemet og de perioder, hvor det, med stor fremgang som resultat, har været anvendt i amerikansk historie.

USA’s første nationalbank 

Inden for rammerne af et kreditsystem som det, USA’s første finansminister Hamilton satte i værk i USA’s tidlige år, er finanssystemet knyttet til den fysiske økonomi og gør det derved muligt at styre nationens opbygning med sigte på den fremtidige velstand og produktion. Dette gjorde det muligt for de amerikanske kolonier at sikre USA’s faktiske økonomiske uafhængighed, da man havde vundet kampen for sin politiske løsrivelse fra

Det britiske Imperium, i stedet for blot at have politisk uafhængighed af navn. For de amerikanske, grundlæggende fædre betød national suverænitet ikke blot evnen til at drive udenlandsk aggression tilbage og sikre de nationale grænser; det krævede etableringen af et økonomisk system, der var i stand til at sikre den fortsatte udvikling af nationen og dens befolkning ved at begunstige stigningen i arbejdskraftens produktive evne gennem en nationalbank. Allerede i 1781, før krigens slutning, skrev Hamilton til Robert Morris, den finansielle tilsynsførende for Den kontinentale Kongres, og forklarede sin idé: »En Nationalbanks tilbøjelighed er at forøge offentlig og privat kredit. Industri forøges, vareudbuddet mangedobles, landbrug og håndværk blomstrer, og heri består statens sande rigdom og fremgang. Den forvandler begge parters rigdom og indflydelse til en kommerciel kanal til gensidig nytte, der må tilbyde fordele, der er uvurderlige; der mangler et omsætningsmiddel, som denne plan yder gennem en form for skabende evne, der konverterer det, der således skabes, til et reelt og virkningsfuldt handelsinstrument. Det er udelukkende gennem en nationalbank, at vi finder bestanddelene til en sund, solid og gavnlig kredit med sikkerhed i værdipapirer.« Ved Uafhængighedskrigens slutning var den nyligt etablerede nation bankerot. En stor del af koloniernes fysiske økonomi var blevet ødelagt af kampene, og både den nationale regering og staterne befandt sig i en gældsklemme. Alene renterne på den totale gæld beløb sig til mere end hele den indkomst, der forudsås at stå til rådighed for den føderale regering. Akkumuleringen af denne gæld, oven i den fysiske ødelæggelse, frembød en bister udsigt for den nyligt uafhængige nation og en umiddelbar trussel om landets disintegration, eller endog generobring. Det var umuligt for den nye nation, med den utilstrækkelige magt, som var bevilget Kongressen i Konføderationens Lovparagraffer, at etablere et kreditsystem for at fremme en voksende nationaløkonomi med henblik på at honorere gælden. Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington og andre af USA’s grundlæggere var enige om, at en ny forfatning var påkrævet, som gav den nationale regering magt til at fuldføre de mål, der var skitseret i Uafhængighedserklæringen. Idet han som finansminister anvendte den nye forfatnings magt, omsatte Hamilton sin idé om kredit i praksis, som således gjorde det muligt at løse den tilsyneladende uløselige krise, hvor USA kun havde en masse gæld i stedet for det guld og sølv, der normalt var grundlaget for en valuta. Han udtænkte en plan for at sætte nationens aktive kapital fra landbrug og industri i arbejde, ved at skabe et finanssystem og en valuta, der var baseret på den fremtidige produktion, snarere end på guld, sølv og monetaristisk gæld. Hamilton arrangerede overførslen af de forskellige koloniernes gæld til det føderale regnskab og forenede den således som en samlet national gæld samtidig med, at han skabte muligheden for, at den kunne honoreres ved at blive knyttet sammen med kredit til nye fysiske investeringer. Begrebet gæld blev således redefineret som værende ikke blot monetaristisk gæld, men gæld blev en del af en proces, gennem hvilken investering i fremtiden skabte nye kilder til rigdom og hermed midlerne til at tilbagebetale denne investering – med andre ord: Det blev en gæld til fremtiden i stedet for en gæld til fortiden. Under Hamiltons kreditsystem blev den nationale gæld til en kapitalpulje, på grundlag af hvilken man kunne investere i opbygningen af den fysiske økonomi. Det, der kunne have været en forbandelse, blev til en velsignelse. Hamiltons system etablerede det princip, at økonomiens og valutaens værdi blev fastsat på baggrund af den produktivitet, der fremkom ved den fremtidige effekt af kreditten, snarere end de akkumulerede værdier fra fortiden. Benjamin Franklins hensigt om en papirvaluta, der var i overensstemmelse med den produktive omsætning, blev virkeliggjort gennem nationalbankens brug af en kreditvaluta. Det essentielle princip i kreditsystemet var ikke anvendelsen af pengesedler i stedet for guld og sølv, men snarere, at man førte en politik for udviklingen af hele den nationale økonomi, hvor den samlede nationaløkonomis produktive evne derfor understøttede valutaen, da valutaen blev en afspejling af den fremtidige økonomiske vækst.

Fysisk produktivitet

Hamilton skrev i sin »Rapport om Produktion« fra 1791 til Kongressen om virkningerne af sit system: »Det nye system fungerer som en ny kraft til industrifremstilling; det har, inden for visse rammer, en tendens til at forøge den reelle rigdom i et samfund, på samme måde som penge, som en driftig landmand låner til investering i forbedringer af sit landbrug, sluttelig vil tilføre ham reel rigdom.« Hamiltons kreditbaserede valuta satte hele landets aktive kapital i bevægelse. Idet han reflekterede over det system, som han havde konstrueret, skrev han i sin endelige »Rapport om Offentlig Kredit« i 1795: »Offentlig kredit … er en af hoveddrivkræfterne bag nyttig foretagsomhed og lokale forbedringer. Som erstatning for kapital er det lidt mindre nyttigt end guld og sølv, inden for landbrug, handel, produktionsvirksomhed og håndværk … En person ønsker at gå i gang med at opdyrke et stykke land; han køber på kredit, og med tiden betaler han købsprisen med produkterne af den jord, som hans arbejdskraft har forbedret. En anden etablerer sig inden for handel; med en kredit med sikkerhed i hans retskafne karakter søger han, og finder ofte, midlerne til, med tiden, at blive en rig handelsmand. En tredje starter en forretning som fabrikant eller håndværker; han er dygtig, men har ingen penge. Det er ved hjælp af kredit, at han bliver i stand til at skaffe værktøjet, materialerne og selv det udkomme, som han behøver, indtil hans virksomhed har forsynet ham med kapital; og selv da skaffer han, fra en etableret og for øget kredit, midlerne til at udvide sine foretagender.« I Hamiltons »Rapport om Produktion« stadfæstede han det essentielle, økonomiske princip som et fysisk system for produktivitet. Den primære værdimåler er ikke kapital, men de intellektuelle evner, som forøger arbejdskraftens produktive evne. Ligesom Winthrop, Mather og Franklin før ham anskuede Hamilton ikke valuta som rigdom i sig selv, men som regeringens forfatningsmæssige forpligtelse til at fremme videnskabelig opfindsomhed og iværksætterånd. Målet for kreditsystemet var ikke at producere med det formål at få penge, men at bruge kredit som middel til at øge arbejdskraftens produktive evne. Nøglen til Hamiltons løsning var hans enestående forståelse af, at sand rigdom ikke findes i penge. Som han fastslår det: »Produktionen forøges, vareudbuddet mangedobles, landbrug og produktionsvirksomhed blomstrer, og heri består statens sande rigdom og fremgang.« Det var dette, og kun dette, der gav USA’s papirvaluta en kreditfunktion.

John Quincy Adams

På trods af succesen med kreditsystemet i USA’s første år, lykkedes det efterfølgende for de private finansielle interesser, med centrum i Det britiske Imperium, der afskyede denne konkurrent til deres magt over økonomien, at få svækket kreditsystemet og dets tilførsel af kredit til opbygning af den nationale velstand. Da den første nationalbanks charter udløb i 1811 blev det ikke fornyet, og selv om en ny nationalbank blev etableret i 1816, så kom USA’s økonomiske genrejsning først, da Nicholas Biddle blev chef for nationalbanken i 1823. Biddle var glødende tilhænger af Hamiltons idéer og arbejdede under ledelse af økonomen Mathew Carey på at genoprette USA’s valuta og fysiske økonomi efter spekulationens hærgen. Under hans ledelse af nationalbanken, som tidligere under Hamiltons, indgik man fremtidsorienterede kreditaftaler snarere end at omsætte den fremtidige, potentielle rigdom til penge til nutidige betalinger. Det var Biddles princip at beskytte og nære økonomiens langsigtede virksomhed, snarere end at tillade den at blive offer for krav om omgående betaling, især betaling i guld og sølv. Landets økonomi blev i stand til at vokse i forhold til sin potentielle produktionsevne, snarere end gennem kunstig kontrol. Under Biddles embedstid fremmede

Banken, hvad der skulle vise sig at blive en af de mest teknologisk eksplosive perioder i amerikansk historie. I 1824 gennemførte formanden for Repræsentanternes Hus, Henry Clay, en lov om beskyttelsestold for at beskytte amerikansk produktion, sammen med General Surveying Act (Loven om landopmåling), som bemyndigede anvendelsen af personel fra den amerikanske hær til bygning af civile ingeniørprojekter. Med disse love på plads, og med Biddle som bankens leder, var jorden gødet for John Quincy Adams, der blev valgt som præsident i 1825. Før 1820 var der ikke en eneste jernbane, kun få kanaler, en jernindustri, der var brudt sammen, ingen moderne fabrikker af betydning, ingen udnyttelse af dampkraft til industriformål, kun maskiner af træ i fabrikkerne og stort set ingen offentlige skoler. John Quincy Adams’ præsidentskab forandrede alt. Man begyndte at bygge kanaler og veje i forceret tempo, hvilket åbnede for bosættelser i den vestlige del af Amerika. Kulminer blev udbygget med byområder, hvilket skabte de store industribyer i Midtvesten. Jernindustrien blev genfødt under toldbeskyttelse, efter mere end et århundredes undertrykkelse siden lukningen af Saugus-jernværket. Tusinder af kilometer af jernbaner blev bygget, med ingeniører fra militærakademiet i West Point som konstruktører af den store Baltimore- og Ohio-jernbane. Seks andre jernbanelinjer blev ligeledes planlagt og udarbejdet. Finansieringen og planlægningen af disse foretagender blev koordineret med føderale, delstats- og lokale myndigheder og USA’s nationalbank, der fremmede og styrede hele det nationale program og koordinerede både den offentlige og private, finansielle investering i infrastruktur og industri. Efterhånden som mere landbrugsjord blev opdyrket, flere fabrikker blev etableret og flere transportnetværk til transport af landbrugsvarer og kul til fabrikkerne blev fuldført, steg mængden af bankkredit, der kunne sættes i omløb, proportionelt, idet den først fordobledes og siden tredobledes i løbet af dette årti. Under kreditsystemets korrekte funktion forvandledes betydningen af gæld. Delstaternes gæld for infrastruktur var ikke længere blot en monetaristisk forpligtelse, men blev betalt af den fremtidige udvikling af industrier. Den gæld, der skabtes til forbedringer i landet, og personlig gæld inden for landbrug og produktion, var ganske enkelt en del af den voksende økonomi under kreditsystemet. De stater, der havde påtaget sig stor gæld for kanaler og veje, planlagde udviklingen af jern- og kulindustrier og nye transportveje for de nye landområders produktion. Disse nyligt udviklede landområder og industrier langs med infrastrukturvejene forøgede indtægterne til op imod ti gange mere end den oprindelige investering.

Påtvungen monetarisme

På trods af den utrolige fremgang under denne genetablering af kreditsystemet lykkedes det Det britiske Imperium, ved hjælp af den yderst effektive britiske agent Aaron Burr og en effektiv brug af pressen, samt en del-og-hersk-praksis i det politiske liv, at skabe et katastrofalt skifte i USA’s udvikling. Burr fik etableret en alliance mellem slaveejer-interesserne i syd og finanskredsene under ledelse af Martin Van Buren i nord. Denne alliance fik, ved brug af effektiv populisme, Andrew Jackson indsat som præsident. Under Jackson-administrationen blev der iværksat en intens kampagne for at forære alle statens værdier til forskellige interessegrupper, og efterfølgende brugte man alle lovlige og ulovlige midler for at få stoppet nationalbanken og dens velstandsskabende vækstpolitik. Jackson-administra-tionens tiltag lykkedes med at få kollapset kreditsystemet og fremprovokerede »Panikken i 1837«, som ledte til en årelang depression. »Markedslovene« fortrængte det almene vel. Den efterfølgende Van Buren-regering krævede betaling af gæld i nutiden, uanset de fremtidige omkostninger og spildet i fortiden. Gyldige kreditaftaler blev angrebet som ødselhed og årsag til krisen på trods af, at krisen i virkeligheden var skabt med overlæg af dem, der havde styret Jackson-regeringen. Kredit blev erstattet af nedskæringer som middel til at berolige »markedet«, med gældens »rigtige« niveau bestemt på basis af et monetært snarere end et fysisk grundlag. Man prædikede den falske doktrin, at markedet selv ville frembringe det rette udbud og den rette efterspørgsel af produktion uden et overordnet program for nationsopbygning. Snarere end at blive hyldet som en stor Demokrat og »en mand af folket«, bør Jacksons brutale ødelæggelse af nationalbanken ses som et af de største forræderier, der er begået i USA’s historie.

Abraham Lincoln

Da Abraham Lincoln blev præsident i 1860, var der, aftenen før sydstaternes løsrivelse, ikke færre end syv tusind forskellige valutaer i omløb i USA – en nation, der var håbløst splittet, og hvor Hamiltons forfatningsmæssige føderation næsten var gået tabt. For at redde Unionen var det nødvendigt at genoprette det nationale bank-system. Med de private New York-bankers tiltag for at afskære strømmen af indtægter til finansministeriet ved at ophøre med at købe statsobligationer og blokere for aftaler om udenlandske lån, kom finansministeriets pengesedler i miskredit, hvilket forårsagede en blokering af tilgængelig kredit. For at udmanøvrere denne finansielle krigsførelse imod nationen og finansiere den krig, der skulle redde republikken, etablerede Lincoln en ny, national kilde til kredit. Legal Tender Act (Loven om Lovligt Betalingsmiddel) fra 1862 bemyndigede udstedelsen af »USA’s pengesedler« (eller »greenbacks«) med det formål at »finansiere USA’s varierende gæld«. Med Kongressens vedtagelse af denne lov tog regeringen atter kontrol over den nationale valuta. Lincolns økonomiske rådgiver Henry Carey gjorde forbindelsen til den tidligere nationalbank tydelig, idet han i 1868 skrev: »USA’s na-tionalbank gav os ikke en møntvaluta; dens sedler var gangbare næsten pga. samme grundlæggende hypotese, der har gjort de udstedte, lovlige betalingsmidler (under Legal Tender Act) anvendelige.« Lincoln tredoblede statsudgifterne for at finansiere krigen, idet han udstedte 450 millioner i greenbacks. Samtidig gik han i gang med at fjerne de tusinder af separate – og ofte falske – valutaer gennem en reorganisering af national bankpraksis. En stribe love konverterede delstatsbanker til nationale, forenede, lovregulerede enheder, der tillod koordineringen af et nationalt banksystem, som kunne udstede national kredit. Dette landsdækkende banksystem blev grundlaget for genetableringen af en enkelt valuta og genindførte således den af forfatningen bemyndigede føderale kontrol over nationens valuta og finansforhold. Således lykkedes det faktisk for Lincoln at få princippet om offentlig kredit og om en national bank til at genopstå. Men systemet med national kredit kom, som tidligere under Jackson og Van Buren, atter under angreb fra den efterfølgende Andrew Jackson-regering. Finansminister Hugh McCulloch, i samarbejde med den britiske agent og Lincoln-desertør David Wells, indskrænkede helt unødvendigt Lincolns legale betalingsmiddel, i modstrid med industriens faktiske formåen og behov. Den efterfølgende økonomiske krise i 1870’erne, såvel som alle de efterfølgende kriser, som f.eks. efter mordet på præsident McKinley, i perioden 1929 – 1932 samt i dag, forårsagedes af den overlagte ødelæggelse af industriøkonomien og det dermed forbundne kreditsystem.

Franklin Roosevelt

Mordet på Lincoln blev efterfulgt af mordene på to andre nationalistiske præsidenter, James Garfield i 1881 og William McKinley i 1901. Arven efter Hamilton gik atter tabt, og under præsident Wilson blev ethvert tilbageværende levn efter et nationalt banksystem erstattet af det forfatningsstridige føderale banksystem, Federal Reserve. Langtidsinvesteringer i nationens fremtidige udvikling blev i stigende grad fortrængt af en kultur med hasardspil og vild spekulation. Denne boble eksploderede i krakket i 1929, der markerede den værste depression, som nationen nogen sinde havde stået overfor. Aftenen før Roosevelts indsættelse var arbejdsløsheden på over 20 %, to tredjedele af staterne havde truffet nødforanstaltninger for at lukke deres banker, og industriproduktionen var det halve af, hvad den havde været før krakket. Man kan lære en afgørende lektie af Franklin Roosevelts tilnærmelse til kreditprincippet under USA’s første na-tionalbank. Roosevelt var nødt til ikke blot at reorganisere bankerne, men også etablere et princip om kredit, som ellers ikke eksisterede. Hans regering reorganiserede bankerne, ikke for bankernes skyld som sådan, men for at gøre dem i stand til at operere i den nye sammenhæng med princippet om kredit, som han tilsigtede, med en plan for »Kreditinstitutioner for Industri«, der sluttelig blev til den udvidede Reconstruction Finance Corpora-tion (RFC). Roosevelt anvendte RFC, der var blevet skabt under Hoover for at indfri finansielle institutioner, som et surrogat for en nationalbank, idet han udvidede den kraftigt til sluttelig at yde kredit for, hvad der svarer til en billion dollars i nutidige tal. RFC og lignende tiltag fremskaffede finansieringen til de store projekter på Roosevelts tid, der gennemførtes af sådanne institutioner som Public Works Administration, Works Progress Administration, Rural Electrification Administration og Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), som sammenlagt gav beskæftigelse til millioner af amerikanere og dramatisk for øgede nationens produktive evne gennem forbedringer i adgangen til elektricitet, navigation, landbrugsuddannelse, ferskvand og transport. Disse projekter kunne ikke være blevet finansieret ved at tage lån og sælge obligationer i et klima med alvorlig økonomisk depression. Regeringen greb snarere ind for at sikre, at projekter, hvis fysiske, produktive resultater mere end ville opveje omkostningerne ved deres konstruktion, ikke blev forhindret på grund af manglen på tilgængelig kapital, der var nødvendig for deres gennemførelse. RFC-udlån og TVA-lån blev både direkte tilbagebetalt, og kom også indirekte mangefold tilbage gennem statens øgede skatteindtægter, som et resultat af den forøgede produktivitet. Ved at kanalisere kredit over til specifikke projekter var Roosevelt i stand til at sikre, at kredit gik til projekter, som ville give indtægter, snarere end blot at give statslån og hjælp til banksektoren generelt, som præsident Hoover havde gjort det. Roosevelt opnåede et fungerende kreditsystem, hvor en stigende mængde af finanssystemet var knyttet til realøkonomien snarere end til bankerne. De fysiske fremskridt opbyggede den industrielle styrke, der senere gjorde det muligt at imødekomme den omfattende forsyningsmæssige logistik, der var nødvendig for at vinde Anden Verdenskrig. Det ville ikke have været muligt uden Roosevelts tilbagevenden til den amerikanske tradition for et nationalt kreditsystem.

Kreditsystem i dag

USA’s økonomi er i de fem årtier, der er gået siden mordet på præsident Kennedy i 1963, blevet lagt i ruiner gennem et skifte fra en national strategi for økonomisk udvikling og promovering af videnskab og teknologisk fremskridt, til en politik, hvor private finansinteresser får lov til at diktere den økonomiske udvikling. Det har nået punktet, hvor Detroits nylige bankerot blot er symbolet på, hvad der venter mange andre byer og delstater. Ligeledes er USA som nation fanget i en gældsfælde, som man kun kan komme ud af, hvis man genindfører Glass-Steagall og vender tilbage til sit oprindelige kreditsystem, som man har gjort det på afgørende tidspunkter gennem de seneste 230 år. Men USA er ikke det eneste land, der lider under årtiers monetaristisk dårskab. Det gør størstedelen af den vestlige verden også – Danmark inklusive. Vi må derfor lære af det amerikanske kreditsystem, så vi kan skabe vor egen version af det og dermed sikre, at vi tager magten over vor skæbne ud af hænderne på finansverdenens private finansielle interesser og lægger den tilbage, hvor den hører hjemme: I hænderne på folkevalgte politikere og institutioner, der er underlagt vor nationale kontrol, og som har til formål at sikre det almene vel for såvel os i dag, som for de mange generationer, der forhåbentlig vil følge efter.

Skab kreditter gennem Nationalbanken

Det danske folketing bør vedtage en ny lov, der bemyndiger Nationalbanken til at udstede op til 500 milliarder kroner i nationale kreditter[1], der udlånes til en rente, der kun marginalt overstiger den nationale inflation. Kreditterne kan udlånes til følgende kategorier af projekter:

 1) Større infrastrukturprojekter.

Det kan være statsejede, brugerbetalte broprojekter, som f.eks. bygningen af Femern Bæltforbindelsen, Kattegat-forbindelsen og Helsingør/Helsingborg-tunnelen. Det kan også være motorveje, jernbaner eller magnettogbaner, samt hospitaler og læreanstalter.

 2) Opbygning af højteknologisk potentiale.

Opbygning af produktionssektorer i Danmark, der gør brug af ny teknologi og derigennem skaber et potentiale for øget fremtidig højteknologisk eksport. Det kan f.eks. være opbygningen af en dansk produktion af kernekraftværker, fusionskraftværker eller anden produktion, der involverer kernefysisk forskning og rumforskning. Forskning og produktion af brintbiler og brændselscelleteknologi. Udviklingen af nye keramiske materialer, superledere, nanoteknologi etc.

 3) Kredit til nye anlægsinvesteringer i industri og landbrug.

Nationalbanken vil udstede kreditterne og udbetale dem, efterhånden som de behøves for opbygningen af de forskellige projekter. Projekter af type 1 vil have en tilbagebetalingstid på op til 30-50 år. Disse lån vil administreres direkte af Nationalbanken. Lån af type 2 og 3 vil administreres gennem de lokale banker på vegne af na-tionalbanken. Kunder, der måtte ønske lån af type 2 og 3, retter henvendelse til deres lokale pengeinstitut, der sammen med kunden laver en plan for projektet. Banken sender så en ansøgning til en kreditkomité under Nationalbanken, der bevilger lånet.

Den lokale bank kan også tilbyde en pakkeløsning, hvor nationalbankkreditten suppleres med en kredit fra det lokale pengeinstitut på kommercielle vilkår. Det lokale pengeinstitut holder øje med projektet og sørger for udbetaling af lånets rater, efterhånden som projektet skrider frem. Det lokale pengeinstitut administrerer også tilbagebetalingen af lånet. Disse lån vil have en tilbagebetalingstid på 3 – 20 år, alt efter projektets omfang. Som modydelse for det lokale pengeinstituts arbejde betaler kunden et halvt procentpoint over nationalbankens udlånsrente, der tilfalder pengeinstituttet.

Alle vore valgaviser/kampagneaviser kan læses her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/nyheder/publikation/kampagneavis/

Læs Alexander Hamiltons originale rapporter her: https://larouchepac.com/20161013/alexander-hamiltons-four-economic-papers

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. oktober 2016 – I denne uge finder der intense møder mellem europæiske og amerikanske, politiske og militære ledere sted i hele Europa, møder, hvor man diskuterer og planlægger krige – krige i Syrien, i Irak, i Yemen og i Ukraine. Det underliggende grundlag for alle disse forhandlinger er Obamas og Londons hektiske bestræbelser på at få støtte til krig mod Rusland og Kina. Europæiske regeringer og/eller ledende institutioner yder i stigende grad modstand mod dette vanvid, men Obama og hans forsvarsminister Ash Carter er i færd med at planlægge provokationer, som kunne kickstarte en irreversibel proces hen imod krig, og således true selve civilisationen med et atomart holocaust.

Og dog er det således, at det store flertal af verden ser hen til Kina, Rusland og Indien, der i sidste uge mødtes med deres BRIKS-partnere Brasilien og Sydafrika i Goa, Indien, hvor de kickstarter, ikke krig, men global udvikling, med højhastigheds-jernbaneprojekter, der forbinder nationer gennem en Verdenslandbro; hvor de underskriver aftaler om opbygning af kernekraft og anden infrastruktur og andet samarbejde omkring rumforskning; og hvor de løfter de mange millioner mennesker i Asien, Afrika og Sydamerika, der er ramt af fattigdom, op til en menneskelig levestandard sådan, som Kina har løftet 700 millioner sjæle op af fattigdom.

Hvilket paradigme vil afgøre menneskehedens fremtid? Den vil, et langt stykke hen ad vejen, blive afgjort af USA. Samtidig med, at krigspartiet mobiliserer sine kræfter, og i takt med, at det uafvendelige kollaps af Deutsche Banks derivatmættede aktiver spreder panik i det vestlige finanssystem, så undertrykkes Obamaadministrationens ødelæggelse og befolkningens had til Obama og hans klon Hillary Clinton kun delvist af det pornografiske klovneshow, som præsidentkandidaterne opfører, eller som de syge medier promoverer.

Valg til regering, som det forudsås af Amerikas grundlæggende fædre, handlede om mere end at vælge politiske repræsentanter – de udgjorde en periode, hvor intelligente mennesker adresserede og opdragede borgersamfundet omkring de fundamentale principper for naturlig lov og den mission, nationen spiller for verdens fremtid. Det er grunden til, at Lyndon LaRouches præsidentkampagne hen over tre årtier har haft en dyb og varig indvirkning på nationen, på trods af relativt få stemmer, og på trods af konstante angreb fra regeringens og mediernes side.

Aldrig i denne nations historie er kandidater blevet så udskældt af befolkningen, som i det aktuelle valg, selv om ingen af kandidaterne i mange tilfælde var kvalificeret til stillingen. Befolkningen har kun ét valg – at stemme for principper, og at mobilisere borgersamfundet til fordel for LaRouches ideer, hans Fire Love baseret på Alexander Hamiltons gennemgribende opdagelser, samt en genindførelse af klassisk musik og kultur.

Som Friedrich Schiller sagde, så må vi alle på én og samme gang være patrioter for vore nationer og verdensborgere. På denne måde kan borgere i alle nationer være med i den ærefrygtindgydende opgave, at omstøde Amerikas deroute ned i et britisk imperiehelvede, og bringe denne engang så storslåede nation ind på linje med paradigmet for menneskeligt fremskridt.

Hvad ville Hamilton have gjort? Find ud af det. 

Foto: Den russiske præsident og udenrigsminister Lavrov diskuterer med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry. December 2015. (Foto: kremlin.ru).                

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. oktober, 2016 – Den amerikanske præsidentvalgkamps fornedrede tilstand ligger som en tung sten og tynger brystet af, ikke alene det amerikanske folk, men af verden som helhed. Amerikanere rapporterer, at de har »valgstres« i sådanne ekstreme grader, som ellers kun forårsages af de værste tilfælde af økonomisk kollaps og krig.

Medierne, med al deres »meningsløse støj og voldsomme fagter«, demoraliserer bevidst amerikanere med hensyn til deres lands fremtid. De driver med fuldt overlæg deres repræsentanter til at skjule sig i dybe, partiske rævegrave – de samme repræsentanter, der, for blot lidt over en måned siden, var i stand til at forenes i en stor sejr over saudisk/britisk støtte til islamisk terrorisme og nedkæmpe præsident Obamas forsøg på at blokere eller nedlægge veto imod Loven om Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Sponsorer af Terrorisme, JASTA.

Det, som nationen og verden har brug for, er at »vælge principper«: Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske principper, på hvilke denne nation blev grundlagt.

Hamiltons økonomiske principper er på ny givet udtryk i Lyndon LaRouches, fra 2014 og fremefter udviklede, »Fire Love til USA’s Redning«. De udtrykker naturlig lov, anvendt på økonomi.

Dette er i realiteten et internationalt spørgsmål; verden må nødvendigvis vedtage Hamiltons arbejder, og LaRouches Fire Love, sådan, som Kina er begyndt at demonstrere. De transatlantiske landes forskellige »Deutsche Banker«, billedligt talt, er klar til at sprænge det Londoncentrerede finanssystem gennem en nedsmeltning, og til at sprede en fattigdom, værre end den, krakket i 2008 var skyld i. Truslen om kollaps fører nu til trusler, der kommer fra Obama og briterne, om krig med Rusland.

Det, som vil være i stand til at forhindre dette, er genoprettelsen af økonomisk fremskridt og produktivitet i hele verden. Det var, hvad Alexander Hamiltons principper – på enestående vis – udrettede lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. Som USA’s første præsident George Washington i et brev fra 1793 bemærkede, så syntes virkningen af Hamiltons politik »at være et mirakel«, der løftede de nye Forenede Stater ud af bankerotten og til hastig investering og vækst.

Nu anvender LaRouches Fire Love atter Hamiltons principper.

Amerikanske borgere bør indskrive Lyndon LaRouches navn på stemmesedlen ved præsidentvalget for genvedtagelsen af Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske principper således, som LaRouche på ny har udlagt dem.

»Jeg indskriver LaRouche og Alexander Hamilton; lad os få nationen til at vælge de rigtige principper« vil skære igennem de af rædsel slåede spørgsmål, amerikanere stiller hinanden med hensyn til den forestående valgdag. Den eneste mulighed, som USA, og verden, har for at overleve, frembydes af Hamiltons principper, som disse udlægges af LaRouches Fire Love. Så træf da beslutning om fremtiden.

»Det er ikke livets formål at leve, så længe man kan.

Det er livets formål at skabe en fremtid for menneskeheden.«

Lyndon LaRouche – maj, 2015.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. oktober, 2016 – På netop samme tidspunkt, som BRIKS-landenes statsledere mødtes i Goa, Indien, for at planlægge samarbejdet om et nyt paradigme for statsligt samarbejde om store projekter, udsendte præsident Obama vicepræsident Joe Biden for at levere en direkte trussel mod Rusland. Søndag morgen lovede Biden på NBC TV, at USA ville gennemføre et hemmeligt cyberangreb mod Rusland, hvor Obama valgte tid og sted. Russiske regeringsfolk, herunder præsidentens talsmand Peskov, har fordømt disse trusler i de skarpeste vendinger og kalder det den mest direkte trussel om krig siden Cubakrisen i 1962.

Disse trusler kommer fra en præsident Obama, der allerede har utallige menneskers blod på hænderne, gennem sine tirsdags-»dræbermøder« og den uophørlige drone-krigsførelse, som udføres på mange kontinenter – alt sammen uden nogen forfatningsmæssigt lovlig godkendelse fra Kongressen. Nu er USA åbenlyst engageret i koalitionens krigsførelse mod Yemen, på vegne af saudierne, hvor de udfører artilleribeskydning imod Yemen fra amerikanske flådeskibe i Golfen, netop, som verden viger tilbage fra de åbenlyse saudiske krigsforbrydelser, hvor de går efter civile i bombe-razziaer i Yemens hovedstad Sanaá.
Og det er denne Obama-administration, der beskylder Rusland for krigsforbrydelser i kampen for at fravriste al-Qaeda dets kontrol over dele af den syriske by Aleppo – og som igen truer Moskva med sanktioner. Udenrigsminister John Kerry var i London i søndags, efter to dages møder i Lausanne, Schweiz, om krigen i Syrien, hvor han mødtes med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov og udenrigsministre fra Saudi-Arabien, Tyrkiet, Qatar, Forenede Arabiske Emirater, Iran, Irak og Jordan. Han og den britiske udenrigsminister Boris Johnson kom ud fra deres møde i London med løfter om at indføre nye sanktioner mod Rusland – medmindre de stopper deres angreb på al-Qaeda.

Obama viderefører den tyranniske arv, der er forbundet med to tidligere Bush-præsidenter, inklusive den George H.W. Bush, som fik Lyndon LaRouches fængsling banket igennem i en hast i det, som den tidligere amerikanske justitsminister (1967-69) Ramsey Clark har kaldt det største tilfælde nogensinde af politisk motiveret anklage på baggrund af falske beviser. Politikkerne under de to Bush-administrationer, og som er blevet endnu værre under Obama, har drevet USA ud i bankerot, udslettet den smule, der var tilbage af det amerikanske sundhedssystem, og kastet millioner af husstande på fattigdommens og den kroniske arbejdsløsheds skrotplads. 93,5 millioner amerikanere i den arbejdsdygtige alder er ikke engang talt med i arbejdsstyrken! Netop i denne måned har 1,8 millioner amerikanske husstande modtaget standardbreve med posten, der informerede dem om, at deres Obamacare-præmier stiger med 50-70 %, alt imens deres dækning er blevet beskåret. Selv tidligere præsident Bill Clinton var fornuftig nok til offentligt at kalde dette »det mest sindssyge, han nogensinde har set«.
Obama og hans britiske herrer og saudiske partnere er i virkeligheden dem, der er bankerot. Det er deres transatlantiske finanssystem, der er færdigt. Som Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede søndag under samtaler med kolleger, så er den britiske økonomi totalt nedbrudt. De er desperate for at lange ud efter og fremsætte trusler imod Rusland og Kina i håb om, at deres løgne vil få fremdrift. De er bankerot, men farlige.
Kendsgerningen er, at der findes klare løsninger, begyndende med afsættelsen af Obama og den omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Hele den globale derivatboble, der beløber sig til mere end en billiard dollars, må annulleres. Når disse indledende skridt er gennemført, kan en økonomisk genrejsning omgående lanceres ved at benytte Hamiltons metoder, som det for nylig er blevet præciseret i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love.

Det første skridt i alt dette er, at førende borgere opgiver deres frygt og tager lederskabet i at bringe Dræberen Obama til fald og igangsætte den økonomiske genrejsning, begyndende med Glass-Steagall. De seneste sejre, hvor Obama er blevet tvunget til at frigive de 28 sider, der fordømmer det saudiske monarki som ophavsmændene til angrebene d. 11. september, samt Kongressens vedtagelse af JASTA-loven, illustrerer den magt, der kan udløses gennem en koncentration af patriotiske kræfter. Det faktum, at Obamas veto af JASTA blev underkendt med et overvældende, tværpolitisk flertal i begge Kongressen huse, er en kraftfuld påmindelse om, at det store flertal af amerikanerne hader Obama og alt, hvad han har gjort og står for. Saudierne forsøger at skjule det knusende nederlag, som de og Obama led i kampen om JASTA, ved at spendere $100 millioner på lobbyvirksomhed, i forsøg på at fjerne den skete skade. De er dømt til at mislykkes.
Det, der nu er afgørende, er, at det samme niveau af mobilisering af førende borgere, der var aktive i JASTA-sejren, opretholdes og rettes mod Obama og gennemførelsen af Glass-Steagall og andre foranstaltninger.
Et afgørende træk for JASTA-sejren var Schiller Instituttets kors fire opførelser af Mozarts Rekviem i New York City-området på 15-års dagen for angrebene den 11. september. Det indsprøjtede en vital dimension af kulturel optimisme gennem forestillingernes skønhed – på et tidspunkt, hvor den desperate britiske fjende forsøger at begrave enhver kilde til optimisme gennem det pornografiske show, der kaldes præsidentvalgkampen 2016.
Uanset udfaldet på valgdagen, vil nationen og verden som helhed stadig være konfronteret med disintegrationen af hele det britiskkørte, transatlantiske finanssystem og truslen om krig og kaos. Løsningerne for at forhindre dette kollaps er forhånden, og det er førsteprioritet på dagsordenen. Det er kilden til styrke for at overvinde vore medborgeres frygt og opnå en hårdt tilkæmpet sejr. Det kan gøres.

Foto: Den indiske premierminister, Shri Narendra Modi (midten) i BRIKS-ledernes familiefotografi ved BRIKS-topmødet i Goa, Indien, 16. oktober, 2016. [brics2016.gov.in]

Hr. LaRouche har leveret den klare recept, såvel som løsningen. Vi begyndte at forklare dette sidste fredag med vores særlige webcast med Paul Gallagher (dansk: Glass-Steagall: Det presserende første skridt); men vi er gået videre med at forklare dette spørgsmål. De Fire Økonomiske Love efter Hamilton, som Lyndon LaRouche udarbejdede for næsten to år siden, og som begyndte med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, men som omfatter en recept, der er en meget præcis og videnskabeligt funderet fremgangsmåde for, hvordan man totalt skal reorganisere og genoplive ikke alene USA’s økonomi, men også skabe et helt nyt, økonomisk paradigme for det transatlantiske system, i harmoni med det, der allerede stråler ud fra Eurasien. I sammenhæng hermed har hr. LaRouche prioriteret de fire, økonomiske rapporter, som blev skrevet og forelagt Kongressen af vores første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, i 1790’erne ved selve den amerikanske republiks fødsel. Disse fire rapporter er: »Rapporten om statslig kredit«; »Rapporten om statslig bankvirksomhed«; »Argumentet for forfatningsgrundlaget for Nationalbanken«; og »Rapporten om varefremstilling«. https://larouchepac.com/20161013/alexander-hamiltons-four-economic-papers

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 14, 2016

HAMILTON'S FOUR REPORTS AND LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
BASIC NECESSITIES FOR MANKIND'S CONTINUED EXISTENCE

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it is October 14, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the
studio today by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and we're joined via video by Kesha Rogers from Houston,
Texas; and Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.  Both
of whom are leading members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        Now, I just want to begin our broadcast here today by
re-emphasizing exactly what Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing
every single time we've spoken to him this week.  That it cannot
be said enough that the American people scored a major victory
against Obama with the defeat of his treasonous veto of the JASTA
bill and the overwhelming veto override that was delivered as the
final act of the United States Congress before they left for
their districts.  This only demonstrates what the American people
are capable of when they overcome whatever fear, whatever
intimidation has come from this Barack Obama administration; and
we can see that it's been a force for seven and a half years to
try to intimidate the American people out of taking their country
back and acting in their own self-interest.  But Obama's decision
to ally with the British-Saudi treason terror faction and to veto
this JASTA bill, demonstrated who he was; it demonstrated his
true colors.  And the American people drew a line in the sand and
said, "Enough is enough!  No more of this."
        You can look at what has happened in the weeks following
that event.  We are now directly involved through missiles and
bombing in the war in Yemen; this is the decision by Barack Obama
to become involved in yet another unnecessary foreign war.  We
are siding with the genocide and war crimes of the Saudi regime
there in Yemen.  The lies and the propaganda that are coming out
of the Obama White House against Russia, and the actions that
Russia is taking in alliance with the Syrian government in
attempting to defeat ISIS and the terrorists in Aleppo are
unprecedented; along with the completely unfounded propaganda and
lies about so-called Russian cyber warfare and hacking and all
the rest.
        You can see the utter denial of the fact that we are right
on the verge of a complete blow-out of the entire trans-Atlantic
financial system.  All you have to do is read the headlines of
the major financial press to see that even {they} are admitting
that Deutsche Bank is more leveraged than even Lehman Brothers
was at the time of its collapse; and that Deutsche Bank could, in
fact, be the next Lehman.
        So, all of these three items combined should show you, as we
emphasized earlier this week on the Policy Committee show on
Monday, that you would have to be completely out of your mind not
to see how close we are to the combined threat of a complete
blow-out of the financial system and the very real threat of the
eruption of a nuclear war.  Even Mikhail Gorbachov is saying we
are closer to a Third World War than we have ever been before.
This is the remaining months in office that Obama has.
        What Mr. LaRouche has delivered as the prescription, as the
solution, is very clear.  We began to elaborate this last Friday
during our special webcast with Paul Gallagher; but we've
continued to elaborate this question.  The four Hamiltonian
economic laws, drafted by Lyndon LaRouche almost two years ago,
which begin with the re-institution of Glass-Steagall, but
contain a prescription which is a very precise and scientifically
grounded approach to exactly how to completely reorganize and
revive not only the United States economy, but to create an
entirely new economic paradigm for the trans-Atlantic system in
accord with what's already emerging out of Eurasia.  In
conjunction with this, Mr. LaRouche has put a premium on the four
economic reports that were written and submitted to Congress by
our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, in the 1790s at
the very birth of the United States republic.  These are:  the
"Report on Public Credit"; the "Report on National Banking"; the
"Argument for the Constitutionality of the National Bank"; and
the "Report on Manufactures".
        So, as a key component of our show today, Ben and I in
conjunction with Kesha and Michael are going to elaborate a
little more on what is the contents, what is the substance of
those reports from Alexander Hamilton; and then, how do they
translate today in the four economic laws of Lyndon LaRouche,
with a major emphasis on how a breakthrough in terms of man's
exploration of space and everything that that entails in terms of
the great economic leap and scientific revolution for mankind, is
the application of the Hamiltonian principle for today.
        But before we get to some of that more detailed discussion,
I think we should just revisit a couple of the urgent points in
terms of the current mobilization.  The channeling of the spirit
of the JASTA victory into the mobilization for the re-institution
of Glass-Steagall and the proceeding toward the entirety of the
four LaRouche economic laws.

        BEN DENISTON:  Plenty can be said, but I would just
emphasize — you said it already, but I think given the state of
our nation today; and I hate to mention the elections, but this
is really a form of psychological warfare.  This is not an
election; this is a Jerry Springer episode, this is insane.  But,
as Matthew cited, look at what we did with JASTA.  That did not
require either of these candidates to do anything on that; that
was an action demonstrating the institutions of the United
States, the republican system of the United States.  The
integration between the work that we've been leading and the work
the 9/11 victims' families have been leading on the ground,
working with various institutions, various regions of the country
as a totality came together and slammed Obama, slammed the
British, slammed these degenerate Saudis on this issue; in spite
of the insanity leading the Presidential election process.  So,
that's the spirit we need to take right now to the current
Glass-Steagall fight.  This financial system is collapsing; as
was said, you can see that in any major press at this point.
There is no solution left in the monetarist framework the way
these guys are playing it.  Bail in; bail out; QE; they've been
playing these games for years now, and they're reaching the end.
This can't keep going; we need a reorganization of the system.
If we're not going to have a Presidential candidate who's going
to take the lead on that, that doesn't matter; we need to make it
happen.  We're not going to wait 'til after the election; we're
not going to wait for one of these ridiculous fools to take the
lead on this.  We're going to make it happen.  That's what we did
with JASTA; that happened.
        So, people who are cynical out there — we did it!  That
happened.  It can happen again, and it needs to happen again.
Glass-Steagall is going to completely cut off Wall Street; this
is going to be a massive revolution in the United States, a
massive shift of power in the United States away from the
interests of Wall Street and international finance back to the
sovereignty of the United States.  It is the necessary
indispensable first step for opening up this full recovery
program.  But I think people need to have the urgency of getting
this through now.  Again, don't let your friends, your
associates, the people you're talking to, fall into this cynical
pessimism; which is really being pushed at this point, with the
Jerry Springer show — aka these debates.  These things can
change; we can get these laws through.  There's already huge
momentum around the country on Glass-Steagall; there's growing
recognition of LaRouche's Four Laws as the necessary next steps.
So, I think the message to take away at this critical time is go
out and move!  This is the time to make this happen.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Yeah, I think that's right.  I think it's
important to take a look at a couple of things in the context of
this Hamilton question. Because it was about two years ago that
Mr. LaRouche launched the Manhattan Project with the key focus of
Alexander Hamilton at the foundation of that, as well as a
commitment towards a Classical renaissance.  And what we saw in
the process of these last two years, was the mobilization of a
key part of the American population — the New York City area;
because of the questions of Glass-Steagall and of Wall Street
implicitly, and the question of 9/11.  There was a mobilization
of that population around an optimistic vision of the country,
both through Hamilton's policies, really the foundation of
Hamilton setting forth the most advanced conception of human
economy as a scientific practice that has been conceived yet.
Mr. LaRouche said this  himself, that what he took as the Four
Laws was essentially a patenting of what Hamilton had set forth
in these documents.  Both the power of the Federal government,
and the means and mechanisms by which you can develop and foster
a perpetual growth of the human species.  But I think it's also
important — because I think this is something that too many
Americans overlook, either voluntarily, but more so
involuntarily, because of the black-out in the media; that in
June of 2014, we saw consolidated what Xi Jinping had put out as
an international policy at the end of 2013, which was the New
Silk Road perspective.  In June 2014, that was consolidated by
the BRICS; and largely what we've seen, given the attempts to
undercut Brazil and South Africa, but we've seen an increasing
level of coordination and collaboration between Russia, China,
and India, that has fundamentally shifted world history.  We are
talking about a fundamentally new economic system; one that looks
at the very policy Mr. LaRouche laid out beginning in the 1970s.
At the core of that, is the question of an International
Development Bank; or what the BRICS have entitled the New
Development Bank.  Or as a LaRouche-Hamiltonian conception of a
new international credit system; that is there.
        Now, not only is that economic perspective there; it is
recruiting nations like Japan, the Philippines, Australia,
Canada.  Many nations joined the Asia Infrastructure Investment
Bank; nations like Egypt, and Iran.  But there is also a very
clear strategic component; we see this specifically in Syria.  We
see what Russia has done to confront Obama's war agenda.  Then
the coordination between Russia and China, India, and increasing
numbers of other nations throughout Eurasia.  This is a unique
opportunity for the American people to create a new Presidency
that looks to realign with Russia, China, and these major
nations.  All of the propaganda against Putin, all the attacks,
the lies, the mass of lies against Putin coming out of the Obama
operation right now in the Presidential election is a mass
cover-up of what really exists for the American people; which is
a chance to go back to a LaRouche-Hamilton perspective in
economic policy in the United States with very key collaborators
internationally.  That really is shaping the intervention we made
around JASTA, both the Manhattan Project and this Russia-China
intervention.  The BRICS is larger, but those nations most
specifically.  We really have a unique opportunity to shut down
this London-Wall Street financial system, which for 50-60 years
and longer, essentially, but since the end of World War II has
been a mass genocide program in Africa, in South America.  Forced
sterilizations; imposed famines; scientific frauds like global
warming, the ozone layer, or human overpopulation; all of these
things have been concocted as ways of undermining and destroying
the human economic growth potential.
        And we now see a potential today to change that.  An
intervention by the American people like we saw with JASTA,
around this LaRouche-Hamilton perspective is absolutely key.  But
I think this global perspective is essential to that, to
understanding why we can be so optimistic today.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I think that if you go and look at what was
presented last week, Paul Gallagher presented a clear picture in
terms of the proximity of the complete breakdown of this
financial system; and the causes for that, the reason for that.
The insanity of 0% interest rate QE bail-in, bail-out regime that
has reigned since 2008; but really since the repeal of
Glass-Steagall in 1999.  The fact that what would be a productive
economy has been completely drowned and suffocated by a shark
tank — as he characterized it — of this just robbery, looting,
criminal practices and complete insanity as it reigns in terms of
economics.  The fact that Mr. LaRouche is on the scene, and has
for 50 years what has now been adopted in part by several major
nations on this planet — I think most clearly evidenced by the
policies of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New
Silk Road projects coming out of China.  We have the ability to
bring Alexander Hamilton's principles to bear on this current
situation.  The vacuum of leadership in the face of this total
meltdown of the financial system gives us a great opportunity for
optimism.  In fact, through reasoned leadership of the type that
was exerted in the midst of this fight for JASTA, but which was
really a fight against the entire imperial apparatus that has
dominated this country since 9/11; you can in fact create a
policy revolution of a type which has not been seen for a long
time, especially since John F Kennedy with his commitment to the
space program.  But really not since Franklin Roosevelt in the
full extent of that kind of economic approach.
        I think we should revisit these four economic principles of
Mr. LaRouche before getting a little bit more deeply into the
content of the Hamilton economic reports. We begin with [No.1]
the principle of Glass-Steagall, re-instituted exactly as
Franklin Roosevelt did it. It proceeds directly from there, that
through a restored actual commercial banking system in which you
have the Treasury of the United States restored to its original
intended role, as Alexander Hamilton created it; the power of the
Presidency, as Abraham Lincoln demonstrated very clearly through
his use of the Greenbacks and also his national banking bills of
1863 and 1864, can reorganize this banking system, from the top
down, to restore it to its original intent; that it should be
used for the productive investments of productive enterprise in
the United States and the improvement of productive enterprise.
        But that's not enough! What you have to have from that
standpoint, is [No. 2] a scientifically-grounded and principled
understanding of how credit, through the mechanisms that were
provided by Alexander Hamilton, must be directed to {increase}
the productive powers of your labor force. [No. 3] What are the
specific projects? What are the specific investments? What are
the specific cutting-edge discoveries that must be pursued that
in a scientifically provable and knowable way that will increase
the productive powers of your labor force, both individually and
as a whole? And that has to be defined from an understanding, as
Mr. LaRouche has uniquely developed it, of the principle of
energy-flux density, not a one-to-one labor power, as manual
labor per individual member of your society, but the application
of technology and ever-higher forms of technology, to create the
increases of productive powers of labor, upon which progress in
your society depends.
        And then, No. 4, what are the specific future-oriented
drivers that express the unique character of man? What makes man
different from a beast? How is mankind, as Vernadsky would define
it, a unique and distinct species, distinct from all other forms
of animal and other kinds of life? And, what is our imperative,
as that sort of species? I think it is no better expressed than
in the space program, as it was conceived and elaborated, as
Kesha has emphasized, by Krafft Ehricke, who Mr. LaRouche
directly mentions in that "Four Economic Laws" paper of two years
ago.
        So, that was elaborated on the webcast last week. We've got,
I think, a little bit more specificity for especially that third
economic law, but I think between what Ben and I have, and then
the discussion with Kesha and Michael, you can see the resonance
between what Mr. LaRouche is addressing in these four economic
laws, and what Alexander Hamilton originally laid out in the
content of those four economic reports that he drafted to
Congress in the 1790s.

        BEN DENISTON: You had some quotes from those reports that
you want to read?

        OGDEN: Sure, we can start with that.

        DENISTON: Okay.

        OGDEN: Let me bring up on the screen the first slide from
these Hamilton reports. [Slide 1] I'm going to focus mainly on
the "Report on Manufactures." This was written in December 1791,
but, as I mentioned earlier, this is merely one out of four, and
in the "Report on Manufactures," actually, Hamilton refers
repeatedly to his other three reports, "On the National Bank,"
"The Defense of the Constitutionality of the National Bank," and
"On the Public Debt," or, "On the Public Credit."
        I think the "Report on Manufactures" is a very important and
useful place to start, because it really is nothing less than the
study of the science of how the human mind, through its
application by means of technology, can in fact increase the
potential population density of any given economy or any given
nation. This is the way that Mr. LaRouche came at this, but in
fact it's very much demonstrated and laid out, explored, in an
exploratory way, in this "Report on Manufactures."
        Quickly, the context of the "Report on Manufactures" — you
could really call it Hamilton's "Defense of Manufactures," in the
context of what was becoming a prevailing but fraudulent
argument, coming from circles such as Thomas Jefferson circles
and others. That the United States, as a new nation, should
merely be an agrarian economy, an agrarian economy in one form or
another — landlords and peasants — or just an infinite
extension of agricultural lands westward, and just depend on the
product of the soil as the driver of the economy. Hamilton said,
this is false, this is a fraud, this must be addressed, and he
wrote the "Report on Manufactures" to address this.
        What Hamilton elaborates is that in fact an economy which is
dependent merely on agriculture will be able to support far less
people at a far lower standard of living and a far lower density
of population, than an economy which also includes manufacturers,
science, technology, and the application of that, through
technology. A kind of argument generally used, said that anybody
who was not farming and was doing something else, like
manufacturing, would be producing less food, and so we would have
fewer people; we would be able to support fewer people. Hamilton
destroys this argument, saying in fact that it's the other way
around: the more division of labor that you have, if two people
are just doing agriculture, they can only support themselves. If
instead one of them is engaged in agriculture and one in
manufacturing, not only can they support the two of them, but
they can support themselves and others.
        Let me go back to that first slide, with that quote.
Hamilton says, the purpose of this report is "to evince that the
establishment and diffusion of manufacturers have the effect of
rendering the total mass of useful and productive labor in a
community greater than it would otherwise be." So, you can see,
he's very clear in what the purpose of this study is.
        Next slide. [Slide 2] He says "It may be inferred that
manufacturing establishments not only occasion a positive
augmentation of the produce and revenue of the society, but that
they may contribute essentially to rendering them greater than
they could possibly be without such establishments." So, without
the use of manufacturing, the ability of the economy would be
lesser than it would be with manufacturing establishments.
        He says there are seven reasons for this. I'm not going to
elaborate all seven, but you can see on the screen on the next
slide [Slide 3] the seven reasons he has listed: "(1) The
division of labor." I touched on that briefly. "(2) An extension
of the use of machinery." We'll elaborate on that a little bit
more. "(3) Additional employment to classes of the community not
ordinarily engaged in the business." "(4) The promoting of
emigration from foreign countries." That's an apropos point. "(5)
The furnishing greater scope for the diversity of talents and
dispositions which discriminate men from each other." We'll touch
on that a little bit more. That's an important one. "(6) The
affording a more ample and various field for enterprise." And
"(7) The creating in some instances a new, and securing in all, a
more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of the
soil." This one is actually often overlooked, but Hamilton says
this is the most important one, and I think it will be
appropriate for what Ben's going to get into.
        Let me elaborate just a couple of these ones. We're going to
take a look at No. 2: "An extension of the use of machinery."
Here's what Hamilton says about that. This is the next slide.
[Slide 4] Alexander Hamilton says, "The employment of machinery
forms an item of great importance in the general mass of national
industry. 'Tis an artificial force brought in aid of the natural
force of man; and, to all the purposes of labor, is an increase
of hands; an accession of strength,{unencumbered, too, by the
expense of maintaining the laborer}. He's saying you have an
increase of hands, almost artificial labor, and you don't need to
feed that labor.
        Next slide. [Slide 5] [Hamilton continues,] "May it not
therefore be fairly inferred, that those occupations, which give
greatest scope to the use of this auxiliary, contribute most to
the general stock of industrious effort, and, in consequence, to
the general produce of industry?" So, that's the use of machinery
in manufacturing.
        Let's take a look at the next slide. [Slide 6] This is where
he elaborates the point [No. 5] "As to the furnishing greater
scope for the diversity of talents and dispositions, which
discriminate men from each other." He says, "It is a just
observation, that minds of the strongest and most active powers
for their proper objects fall below mediocrity and labor without
effect, if confined to uncongenial pursuits. And it is thence to
be inferred, that the results of human exertion may be immensely
increased by diversifying its objects. When all the different
kinds of industry obtain in a community, each individual can find
his proper element, and can call into activity the whole vigor of
his nature. And the community is benefitted by the services of
its respective members, in the manner, in which each can serve it
with most effect."
        Next slide please. [Slide 7] He continues, "If there be
anything in a remark often to be met with — namely that there
is, in the genius of the people of this country, a peculiar
aptitude for mechanic improvements, it would operate as a
forcible reason for giving opportunities to the exercise of that
species of talent, by the propagation of manufactures."
        OK; next slide. [Slide 8] In this one, he's elaborating his
point [No. 6] about "affording a more ample and various field for
enterprise." This is quoted, but I think it's very important. He
says, "To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind,
by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least
considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation
may be promoted."
        Next slide. [Slide 9] He continues, "Even things in
themselves not positively advantageous, sometimes become so, by
their tendency to provoke exertion. Every new scene, which is
opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself, is
the addition of a new energy to the general stock of the effort."
        Next slide. [Slide 10] He continues, "The spirit of
enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be
contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety
of the occupations and productions, which are to be found in a
society. It must be less in a nation of mere cultivators, than in
a nation of cultivators and merchants, less in a nation of
cultivators and merchants, than in a nation of cultivators,
artificers and merchants.
        Next slide. [Slide 11] I want to put special emphasis on
this one, because I think it opens up the point that Mr. LaRouche
was exploring in his Four Laws paper about physical chemistry.
Alexander Hamilton says under this one [Point No. 7], the heading
of "As to the creating, in some instances, a new, and securing in
all a more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of
the soil." Hamilton says, "This is among the most important of
the circumstances which have been indicated. It is a principal
mean, by which the establishment of manufacturers contributes to
an augmentation of the produce or revenue of a country, and has
an immediate and direct relation to the prosperity of
agriculture."
        Next slide. [Slide 12]  "It is a principal mean by which the
establishment of manufactures contributes to an augmentation of
the produce or revenue of a country."
        Next slide [Slide 13] After elaborating a little bit why
it's advantageous to have a domestic market rather than just
depending on foreign markets for your produce and products, he
says:
        "It merits particularly observation that the multiplication
of manufacturies not only furnishes a domestic market for these
articles which have been accustomed to be produced in abundance
in a country; but it likewise creates a demand for such as were
either unknown or produced in considerable quantities.  The
bowels as well as the surface of the Earth are ransacked for
articles which were before neglected.  Animals, plants, and
minerals acquire a utility and value which were before
unexplored."
        Then, jumping forward quite a bit, I just wanted to go to
Hamilton's conclusion of the entire paper, after discussing
public credit and national banking. [Slide 14]  He says:
        "In countries where there is a great private wealth, much
may be affected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic
individuals.  But in a community situated like that of the United
States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private
resource.  In what can it be so useful as in promoting,
prompting, and improving the efforts of industry?"
        So, just before Ben picks it up, I just want to emphasize
that what Alexander Hamilton is exploring, is the science of how
the human mind can increase the productive powers of labor and
through that, by means of the application of technology and
principles that were hitherto unexplored or undiscovered, can
increase the potential population density of a nation or an
economy.  I think this seventh point, which he puts the most
premium on, is the role that manufactures can play in spurring
the discovery of resources that we didn't even know were
resources before.  What had been previously considered just rocks
or otherwise, become the most valuable resources — minerals,
fuels, coal, oil, uranium; the most valuable resources for your
economy.  I think Alexander Hamilton would be particularly
excited if he knew about the potential of the Moon to be mined
for a resource that I'm sure they did not have any conception of
in 1791 — helium-3 — as a source of fuel for nuclear fusion,
for example.  So, I just wanted to give a little bit of actual
content of Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures; and maybe
we can use that to contextualize a little bit of what Ben's going
to present here.

        DENISTON:  People should know, we are making these — in
their totality — available on the LaRouche PAC website.  This is
admittedly some pretty heavy material for some of our viewers,
but this is really what's needed right now.  I would just
emphasize looking where we are in the United States right now,
and again, a lot of people know Glass-Steagall needs to happen; a
number of people have a sense of having some sovereign control
over our money supply.  But what Hamilton understood and what
LaRouche understands, is what is the science of growth.  You can
have sovereign control of your money, you can cut off destructive
speculation like Wall Street; you can throw that in the trash.
But how do you create growth?  How do you actually create a more
productive economy in totality?  That is what Hamilton
understood; that a true credit system can facilitate these
increases in the productive power of labor.  That's what the
American people need to understand right now; that's what we have
a chance of joining internationally with what's going on around
the world.  But it's going to require that the United States
return to our understanding of these core principles.  I wanted
to just take a second and pull a little bit out of what Mr.
LaRouche defined as his Third Law in his policy document; and
just go through a couple of historical examples to put a little
bit more of a picture on this relation of the actual
understanding of the productive powers of labor and the critical
role that Mr. LaRouche has defined in his work furthering
Hamilton's own understanding to a new degree.  Mr. LaRouche's
work on what he defines as "energy flux density".
        But if we can go back to the slides, I have the full quote
of Mr. LaRouche's Third Law up there.  [Slide 15] Again, the
policy document as a whole is available on our website.  I just
wanted to read this and then go through a couple examples.
Again, the First Law being Glass-Steagall; the Second Law being a
national banking system, as Hamilton had defined.  And then he
presents a Third Law with this national banking system:
        "The purpose of the use of a Federal credit system, is to
generate high-productivity trends in improvement of employment
with the accompanying intention to increase the physical economic
productivity and the standard of living of the persons and the
households of the United States.  The creation of credit for the
now urgently needed increase of the relative quality and quantity
of productive employment must be ensured this time once more, as
was done successfully under President Franklin Roosevelt or by
like standards of Federal practice used to create a general
economic recovery of the nation, per capita.  And for rates of
net increases in productivity and by reliance on the essential
human principle which distinguishes the human personality from
the systemic characteristics of lower forms of life; the net rate
of energy flux density of effective practice.  This means
intrinsically a thoroughly scientific, rather than a merely
mathematical one; and by the related increase of energy flux
density per capita and for the human population when considered
as each and all as a whole.  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 the
individual."
        I think really, again, illustrates Mr. LaRouche's work
furthering this scientific understanding of economy really rooted
in the work of Hamilton and those who continued this American
System tradition; but applying a new scientific understanding to
it.  If we go to the next slide [Slide 16], I wanted to highlight
a study that was done under Mr. LaRouche's direction back in the
'80s.  Mr. LaRouche has a long history of trying to educate the
American people and institutions about real economics.  I thought
this was just one example, but I think it may be a helpful,
specific case study to try and put some depth to the idea of the
productive powers of labor and the relation of energy flux
density to the productive powers of labor.
        So, what do we mean by that?  This is one expression of
that; this is a measurement of the productivity of iron
throughout the history of the United States up to 1975.  Iron
being by weight the most-used element by mankind as a whole.
Obviously, it's the main component of steel, so this is a major
part of any modern economy, is iron production.  This is a rather
fascinating study, where Mr. LaRouche said, don't just look at
tons produced; don't just look at people employed.  Look at the
relation between productivity — how productive is your average
laborer producing iron — and energy flux density; what's the
actual energy density per time used in the actual manufacturing
process of blast furnaces?  If you examine this historically, you
get this very fascinating and clear demonstration of what Mr.
LaRouche is talking about in terms of energy flux density and
productivity.  You see a consistent increase in the tons produced
per average iron worker per year in this case is the actual
number being used; measured against the energy flux density of
the production process.  The energy per area, per time; so the
concentration and density of energy used in the blast furnaces to
produce this iron.  And you see a dramatic, many-fold increase in
how productive each individual worker is as a direct function and
relation of the increasing energy flux density of the productive
process.
        More interesting, you see this kind of comes in successive
waves; and each of these waves is associated with — you'll get a
rise for a certain period, and then the productivity increase
will tend to level off.  Then, you'll get a new technological
revolution; you'll move to a higher energy density fuel, for
example.  Moving into better forms of coal was one example of
this; types of coal that have more energy per mass, per weight.
Or moving to coke — a derivative of coal that can operate at
higher temperatures and enable higher production rates.  Or
moving to higher technologies in the more recent period of
injection of pure oxygen into the process to create even more
heat and a more intense productive process.  There are various
technologies associated with each of those steps; you have
increases in technology, increases in the energy density of the
fuel producing the process.  You can kind of measure that
together as expressed in energy flux density; and you can see
that to really understand progress — but also these qualitative
shifts in progress; these leaps that occur, these are the kind of
metrics we want to look at.
        When you talk about this idea of — it's not a question of
the number of people you have employed; it's a question of what's
the capability of your labor force to produce the goods needed at
higher rates or efficiency, etc.  So, I think it's just one
useful case study to give some concept of the relationship
between the productive powers of labor and energy flux density.
It doesn't show it in this graphic, but as I think many of our
viewers wouldn't be surprised, these metrics have gone down
significantly since 1975; since we really settled into a
post-industrial economy which has led us to this collapse process
— the abandonment of this real industrial, forward-oriented
economic policy.
        If we go to the next graphic [Slide 17], it's just another
illustration of the same thing from the same study; but it's also
just interesting to note that with each of these successive
leaps, you also get higher rates of productivity per amount of
energy.  So, this is literally the productive output of iron per
amount of energy put in.  This idea that energy as a scalar value
in and of itself means something is not true.  The amount of
energy you're using does not necessarily tell you what your
economy can do, how productive you can be; but it's an issue of
energy flux density.  Higher energy flux densities, the same
amount of energy measured in just scalar, quantitative terms
becomes much more productive; because you're employing it with
higher technologies and at higher energy flux densities.
        This is just one example.  Similar studies can be done in
various sectors of the economy; but this is the type of process
that enables the productive section of your economy to continue
to — as Mr. LaRouche said in the concluding section of this
Third Law:  "[T]o continue this process of ever increasing the
productivity and ability of your labor force to produce more
goods, higher quality goods, that are needed to support society."
Those are the metrics that we need to understand that the credit
must facilitate and go to.
        I just wanted to highlight one other illustration of this
energy flux density issue, but on a national scale.  If we return
to the slide [Slide 18], you can also see this in terms of the
economy as a whole.  This is a study that we developed in the
Basement Team looking at the history of the United States;
looking at what you could consider one metric for the energy flux
density of the nation as a whole.  Now, we're looking at the use
of power per capita; not just what any one individual uses, but
everything that goes into all forms of transportation,
manufacturing, agriculture.  You take the net energy investment
in totality across the entire nation, average it per capita.
Then here we have it divided by power sources.  You can clearly
see the history of the growth of the United States very clearly
expressed in the increasing energy flux density of the nation.
You clearly see the Great Depression illustrated by a significant
drop in the energy flux density — measured in per capita terms
— of the nation.  You see a dramatic rise in Franklin
Roosevelt's mobilization coming out of the New Deal programs into
the World War II mobilization; you clearly see that reflected in
this graphic.  What's the next dramatic rate of increase?  Well,
it's certainly associated with Kennedy's space program, starting
there in the early '60s you see a dramatic leap in rate of
increase of energy flux density of the nation as a whole.
        Then what do you see since then?  This leveling off and
collapse, which is directly associated with the collapse we're
seeing now today in the United States; expressed in these
physical metrics.  You see that what should have been an
explosion of nuclear fission power was suppressed to just that
tiny, red segment there.  If you could see it — you might not be
able to at all — there's a little green tiny layer on the very
top there which is wind, solar, geothermal all combined.  So, if
you think you're going to support the US economy on Green
technologies, you're living in a fantasy.  All of the massive
subsidies and investment and propping up these things has barely
done anything to contribute to our actual net energy flux density
for our country as a whole.
        This is where we are today; this is one expression of the
collapse.  This is the process we have to reverse.  Maybe just to
illustrate one last example, I think it's really worth comparing
this with the next graphic [Slide 19]; which was the forecast by
the Kennedy administration in the '60s.  It was forecast that
this process would increase; and the next major component would
be the rapid expansion of nuclear fission power.  You'd get this
interesting process of these waves of fuel sources being used and
then surpassed as society moves to the next level.  The gray on
the far right, if you haven't read it yet, that's mostly
wood-powered; in very early times, wood was the main energy
source.  That was superseded by coal, as you can see in the
brown.  That began to fall off as other fossil fuels — namely,
gasoline, diesel, and natural gas — became a major component of
the economy.  As you can see, under a healthy orientation, it was
understood in the early '60s by the Kennedy administration, that
that should then fall off, and we should see a rapid expansion of
nuclear fission power as the next wave.  So, this is what a
healthy growth process would have looked like.  This is the kind
of process we need to return to; and as Mr. LaRouche says,
increasing the energy flux density of the nation, of the
productive powers of labor, of the labor force, these are the
kinds of metrics we need to be looking at.  Today, that means
fusion power.  It's not illustrated in the graphic here, but if
we're going to overcome those 30-40 years of stagnation, if we're
going to overcome the dramatic collapse in the productive
capabilities of our labor force; we can't just continue what was
done before.  As you've seen in all these historical examples, we
need to go to the new leaps in technology, the new leaps in
energy flux density, to drive the greatest increase in the
productive capabilities of the labor force.
        Then you have a system that will work; then the Four Laws
will work.  Now, a national bank will work; now, Glass-Steagall
will work, because it will facilitate this physical growth
process.  As we've talked about, this means fusion power, this
means the space program.  It's no accident that in those graphics
we were looking at, the period of the space program is very
clearly expressed in both of those; driving the increase in the
productive powers of labor, even in industries not seemingly
related to the space program.  But you see that driver program
reflected in this iron production, for example; you see it
reflected in the totality of the national energy flux density.
        Which brings us to Mr. LaRouche's Fourth Law; a fusion drive
program.  As he's increasingly emphasized, that is truly
integrated with a real space program.  So that has to be the
front end of a recovery program.  That'll come with all kinds of
things:  rebuilding our infrastructure; rebuilding the national
transportation system; power systems; all kinds of soft
infrastructure.  But it has to be understood as unified around
this increase of your productive capabilities; that's how an
economy works.
        That's what Hamilton understood, as Matthew showed us.
Smash the idea that we should be just agrarian, or should we be
manufacturing?  If you take people away from the other — a
complete lack of understanding of the synergistic relation of
actual human revolutions in technology; revolutions in the very
nature of mankind's relation to the environment more generally,
which are driven by real creative discoveries, creative thought,
real unique human growth.  This is the message, the unifying
conception that the American people need to understand and rally
around, if we're going to get out of the mess we're in now.  It's
not going to come from any form of monetarist jiggering of the
system; it has to be rooted in a real understanding of the true
science of human growth, of human progress.
        I know that might be a lot to throw at our viewers today,
but this is the historical challenge that we're facing.  We have
it in our history; we have it in Hamilton; we have in Lincoln; we
have it in Franklin Roosevelt.  We have it in a more developed
form than even them, with Mr. LaRouche's work.  But it's on us to
bring this to bear now as the revolution needed in the United
States.

        ROGERS:  Before we close out, let me just add one principle
from the standpoint that the underlying principle at the
foundation and at the core of Hamilton's four Reports and
LaRouche's Four Laws gets right at the heart of formation of our
US republic and the formation of Union as Hamilton saw it.  It is
what is defined directly in the US Constitution, but more
directly in the Preamble to the Constitution; the idea that
Hamilton was instrumental in developing.  This conception that
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare, and
secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of
America."  What's at the core of that is the principle of the
General Welfare; which is directly under attack right now by the
actions of Obama.  That is explicitly shown in the attacks on not
only the General Welfare of the nation, but attacks on this very
principle of the increase of the productive powers of your
society, and on the creative and productive powers of the human
mind.  You can see this most explicitly in the insane recent
announcement by President Obama advocating the United States go
to Mars under the direction, should we say, and direct support of
private industry.  But in a recent conference President Obama was
in — the White House Frontiers conference — the key person he
was there with was a man by the name of Atul Gawande.  This is a
person who's been promoting the idea that the population doesn't
need health care, we need to cut healthcare; we need to kill off
more people.  That's what's at the core of the attack on the
General Welfare of our nation, is this idea of population
reduction — killing off of the population.
        When you look at what it was that was understood by
Alexander Hamilton on this question of advancing the productive
powers of labor, that was most directly expressed over a century
later after the death of Alexander Hamilton, with the birth of a
great pioneer by the name of Krafft Ehricke.  Krafft Ehricke's
understanding of the increase in the formation of a more perfect
union and the productive powers of labor, came with the
understanding that it was not until mankind left the confines of
one small planet — Earth — and actually went out into the far
reaches of our Solar System and developed the Solar System.  He
called explicitly for developing the Solar System through the
increase in the productivity of society, the increase of
manufactures, and the increase of everything that Ben just went
through very thoroughly in his remarks.
        I think what we get back to again, which was very clearly
understood by Alexander Hamilton, as Mr. LaRouche in the
foundation of his policies on physical economy, and by Krafft
Ehricke, is at the heart of this is the conception of, and the
principle of, the human mind.  The human mind in the power of
reason.  What I wanted to do is just read a quick quote from
Krafft Ehricke on this conception of the reasoning of the human
mind at the foundation of this very principle of what increases
the productive powers of labor in our society — or throughout
our universe.
        He says:  "We are cosmic creatures by substance; by the
energy on which we operate, and by the restless mind that
increasingly metabolizes information from the infinitesimal to
the infinite.  And on the infrastructure of knowledge, pursues
its moral and social aspirations for a larger and better world
against many odds.  Through intelligences like ourselves, the
universe — and we in it — move into a focus of
self-recognition.  Metal ore is turned into formation-processing
computers, satellites, and deep space probes; and atoms are fused
as in stars.  I cannot imagine a more foreboding, apocalyptic
vision of the future than a mankind endowed with cosmic powers,
but condemned to solitary confinement on one small planet."
        He goes on to take the principle which Alexander Hamilton
had defined in his four Reports, in his Report on Manufacturing,
and applies that to the development of space; particularly to the
development of our sister body, the Moon.  He says that the
manufacturing and the development of the process which would
organize the increase of society, the formation of a more perfect
union, off of the planet, would actually start with the
development of the Moon.  And he says:  "Lunar industry should be
viewed as an organism that over time evolves to progressively
more complex capabilities and generates sufficiently strong
foundations for expansion.  Lunar industry must be broad-based
and diverse if it is to last.  The need for economic feasibility
and early returns will require a skillful interplay between
market, consumer-oriented products and services, and
infrastructural investments such as transportation, energy, and
surface-space installations that expand food production and
diversity in industrial productivity."
        So, I think what is essential to understand is that
Hamilton's conception was not something that was confined to one
period in time, one period of history.  It wasn't confined to one
planet.  It was actually organized — as was later understood by
Krafft Ehricke — to the idea that man cannot be confined to one
planet.  If we are going to truly form a more perfect union, we
have to get off the Earth and develop the entirety of the Solar
System and universe we live in.  And only the human mind can do
that.

        OGDEN:  Well said. I think Hamilton would concur with that
one.  We can only encourage to do your own reading of these four
Hamilton Reports; and as Ben said at the beginning of the show,
we did make those four available on the LaRouche PAC website.
There's a big picture of Hamilton; you can click on it.  It's got
links to the four separate reports by Hamilton; each one is a
nicely formatted pdf.  You can print them out and read them on
your own.  I would also just emphasize that
larouchepac.com/fourlaws is the place where you can find
LaRouche's paper from close to two years ago, as you can see on
the screen.  This contains the four principles of LaRouche.  Put
those two together, and I think if you can do the work, we can
create the educated citizenry that's necessary to put these
policies into practice.
        So, the urgency of the mobilization for Glass-Steagall
absolutely persists; we are right on the cusp of a complete
meltdown of this financial system.  The Glass-Steagall
mobilization is one which must be generating the kind of activity
that we had during the JASTA mobilization.  That victory rendered
the Obama regime impotent.  Don't fall for the bluster and the
intimidation; don't give in to the fear that the Obama
administration is attempting to project right now.  We had a
revolution in this country with the override of the JASTA veto;
and it's a completely new situation.  If we maintain that kind of
sense of victory and urgency, we can continue to make some very
incredible breakthroughs.
        I'd like to thank Ben; thank you, Kesha; thank you, Michael.
Please stay tuned.  Obviously, we're going to just elaborate
these discussions much more in the days to come.  Thank you very
much, and good night.

Vi skal have ændret den økonomiske politik, inden vi får en global gentagelse af den fascisme, Europa gennemlevede i 30’erne. Vi må stoppe EU-dikterede nedskæringer, bankunion, bankhjælpepakker i form af bail-out og bail-in og i stedet iværksætte en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og et opbygningsprogram for realøkonomien.

Vi skal have en moderne version af den anti-fascistiske politik, som præsident Roosevelt gennemførte i USA, og som formåede at bringe USA ud af depressionen – uden at den amerikanske befolkning måtte ofre deres frihed eller liv.

Schiller Instituttet fremlægger denne moderne version af Roosevelts program i denne kampagneavis som det program, som Schiller Instituttets Venner går til valg på i København og Århus.

Download (PDF, Unknown)