Forums

Full Version: GLOBALISATION AND THE GLOBALISTS AGE
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Admin

THE GLOBAL 1% EXPOSING THE TRANSNATIONAL RULING CLASS  

Prof. Peter Phillips and Kimberly Soeiro
Global Research, August 14, 2012


This study asks: Who are the the world’s One percent power elite?
And to what extent do they operate in unison for their own private gains over benefits for the 99 percent?

We examine a sample of the 1 percent: the extractor sector, whose companies are on the ground extracting material from the global commons, and using low-cost labor to amass wealth. These companies include oil, gas, and various mineral extraction organizations, whereby the value of the material removed far exceeds the actual cost of removal.We also examine the investment sector of the global 1 percent: companies whose primary activity is the amassing and reinvesting of capital. This sector includes global central banks, major investment money management firms, and other companies whose primary efforts are the concentration and expansion of money, such as insurance companies.

Finally, we analyze how global networks of centralized power—the elite 1 percent, their companies, and various governments in their service—plan, manipulate, and enforce policies that benefit their continued concentration of wealth and power. We demonstrate how the US/NATO military-industrial-media empire operates in service to the transnational corporate class for the protection of international capital in the world.


The Occupy Movement has developed a mantra that addresses the great inequality of wealth and power between the world’s wealthiest 1 percent and the rest of us, the other 99 percent. While the 99 percent mantra undoubtedly serves as a motivational tool for open involvement, there is little understanding as to who comprises the 1 percent and how they maintain power in the world. Though a good deal of academic research has dealt with the power elite in the United States, only in the past decade and half has research on the transnational corporate class begun to emerge.

Foremost among the early works on the idea of an interconnected 1 percent within global capitalism was Leslie Sklair’s 2001 book, The Transnational Capitalist Class. Sklair believed that globalization was moving transnational corporations (TNC) into broader international roles, whereby corporations’ states of orgin became less important than international argreements developed through the World Trade Organization and other international institutions. Emerging from these multinational corporations was a transnational capitalist class, whose loyalities and interests, while still rooted in their corporations, was increasingly international in scope. Sklair writes:

The transnational capitalist class can be analytically divided into four main fractions: (i) owners and controllers of TNCs and their local affiliates; (ii) globalizing bureaucrats and politicians; (iii) globalizing professionals; (iv) consumerist elites (merchants and media). . . . It is also important to note, of course, that the TCC [transnational corporate class] and each of its fractions are not always entirely united on every issue. Nevertheless, together, leading personnel in these groups constitute a global power elite, dominant class or inner circle in the sense that these terms have been used to characterize the dominant class structures of specific countries.

Estimates are that the total world’s wealth is close to $200 trillion, with the US and Europe holding approximately 63 percent. To be among the wealthiest half of the world, an adult needs only $4,000 in assets once debts have been subtracted. An adult requires more than $72,000 to belong to the top 10 percent of global wealth holders, and more than $588,000 to be a member of the top 1 percent. As of 2010, the top 1 percent of the wealthist people in the world had hidden away between $21 trillion to $32 trillion in secret tax exempt bank accounts spread all over the world.

Meanwhile, the poorest half of the global population together possesses less than 2 percent of global wealth.

The World Bank reports that, in 2008, 1.29 billion people were living in extreme poverty, on less than $1.25 a day, and 1.2 billion more were living on less than $2.00 a day. Starvation.net reports that 35,000 people, mostly young children, die every day from starvation in the world. The numbers of unnecessary deaths have exceeded 300 million people over the past forty years. Farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4 percent from the year before—yet, billions of people go hungry every day. Grain.org describes the core reasons for ongoing hunger in a recent article, “Corporations Are Still Making a Killing from Hunger”: while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control global food prices and distribution.

Addressing the power of the global 1 percent—identifying who they are and what their goals are—are clearly life and death questions.
It is also important to examine the questions of how wealth is created, and how it becomes concentrated. Historically, wealth has been captured and concentrated through conquest by various powerful enities. One need only look at Spain’s appropriation of the wealth of the Aztec and Inca empires in the early sixteenth century for an historical example of this process. The histories of the Roman and British empires are also filled with examples of wealth captured.

Once acquired, wealth can then be used to establish means of production, such as the early British cotton mills, which exploit workers’ labor power to produce goods whose exchange value is greater than the cost of the labor, a process analyzed by Karl Marx in Capital. A human being is able to produce a product that has a certain value. Organized business hires workers who are paid below the value of their labor power. The result is the creation of what Marx called surplus value, over and above the cost of labor. The creation of surplus value allows those who own the means of production to concentrate capital even more. In addition, concentrated capital accelerates the exploition of natural resources by private entrepreneurs—even though these natural resources are actually the common heritage of all living beings.

In this article, we ask: Who are the the world’s 1 percent power elite? And to what extent do they operate in unison for their own private gains over benefits for the 99 percent? We will examine a sample of the 1 percent: the extractor sector, whose companies are on the ground extracting material from the global commons, and using low-cost labor to amass wealth. These companies include oil, gas, and various mineral extraction organizations, whereby the value of the material removed far exceeds the actual cost of removal.

We will also examine the investment sector of the global 1 percent: companies whose primary activity is the amassing and reinvesting of capital. This sector includes global central banks, major investment money management firms, and other companies whose primary efforts are the concentration and expansion of money, such as insurance companies.

Finally, we analyze how global networks of centralized power—the elite 1 percent, their companies, and various governments in their service—plan, manipulate, and enforce policies that benefit their continued concentration of wealth and power.

The Extractor Sector: The Case of Freeport-McMoRan (FCX)

Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) is the world’s largest extractor of copper and gold. The company controls huge deposits in Papua, Indonesia, and also operates in North and South America, and in Africa. In 2010, the company sold 3.9 billion pounds of copper, 1.9 million ounces of gold, and 67 million pounds of molybdenum. In 2010, Freeport-McMoRan reported revenues of $18.9 billion and a net income of $4.2 billion.[xi]

The Grasberg mine in Papua, Indonesia, employs 23,000 workers at wages below three dollars an hour. In September 2011, workers went on strike for higher wages and better working conditions. Freeport had offered a 22 percent increase in wages, and strikers said it was not enough, demanding an increase to an international standard of seventeen to forty-three dollars an hour. The dispute over pay attracted local tribesmen, who had their own grievances over land rights and pollution; armed with spears and arrows, they joined Freeport workers blocking the mine’s supply roads. During the strikers’ attempt to block busloads of replacement workers, security forces financed by Freeport killed or wounded several strikers.

Freeport has come under fire internationally for payments to authorities for security. Since 1991, Freeport has paid nearly thirteen billion dollars to the Indonesian government—one of Indonesia’s largest sources of income—at a 1.5 percent royalty rate on extracted gold and copper, and, as a result, the Indonesian military and regional police are in their pockets. In October 2011, the Jakarta Globe reported that Indonesian security forces in West Papua, notably the police, receive extensive direct cash payments from Freeport-McMoRan. Indonesian National Police Chief Timur Pradopo admitted that officers received close to ten million dollars annually from Freeport, payments Pradopo described as “lunch money.” Prominent Indonesian nongovernmental organization Imparsial puts the annual figure at fourteen million dollars. These payments recall even larger ones made by Freeport to Indonesian military forces over the years which, once revealed, prompted a US Security and Exchange Commission investigation of Freeport’s liability under the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In addition, the state’s police and army have been criticized many times for human rights violations in the remote mountainous region, where a separatist movement has simmered for decades. Amnesty International has documented numerous cases in which Indonesian police have used unnecessary force against strikers and their supporters. For example, Indonesian security forces attacked a mass gathering in the Papua capital, Jayapura, and striking workers at the Freeport mine in the southern highlands. At least five people were killed and many more injured in the assaults, which shows a continuing pattern of overt violence against peaceful dissent. Another brutal and unjustified attack on October 19, 2011, on thousands of Papuans exercising their rights to assembly and freedom of speech, resulted in the death of at least three Papuan civilians, the beating of many, the detention of hundreds, and the arrest of six, reportedly on treason charges.

On November 7, 2011, the Jakarta Globe reported that “striking workers employed by Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold’s subsidiary in Papua have dropped their minimum wage increase demands from $7.50 to $4.00 an hour, the All-Indonesia Workers Union (SPSI) said. Solosa, an official from the union, told the Jakarta Globe that they considered the demands, up from the (then) minimum wage of $1.50 an hour, to be “the best solution for all.”

Workers at Freeport’s Cerro Verde copper mine in Peru also went on strike around the same time, highlighting the global dimension of the Freeport confrontation. The Cerro Verde workers demanded pay raises of 11 percent, while the company offered just 3 percent.

The Peruvian strike ended on November 28, 2011. And on December 14, 2011, Freeport-McMoRan announced a settlement at the Indonesian mine, extending the union’s contract by two years. Workers at the Indonesia operation are to see base wages, which currently start at as little as $2.00 an hour, rise 24 percent in the first year of the pact and 13 percent in the second year. The accord also includes improvements in benefits and a one-time signing bonus equivalent to three months of wages.[xvii]

In both Freeport strikes, the governments pressured strikers to settle. Not only was domestic militrary and police force evident, but also higher levels of international involvement. Throughout the Freeport-McMoRan strike, the Obama administration ignored the egregious violation of human rights and instead advanced US–Indonesian military ties. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who arrived in Indonesia in the immediate wake of the Jayapura attack, offered no criticism of the assault and reaffirmed US support for Indonesia’s territorial integrity. Panetta also reportedly commended Indonesia’s handling of a weeks-long strike at Freeport-McMoRan.

US President Barack Obama visited Indonesia in November 2011 to strengthen relations with Jakarta as part of Washington’s escalating efforts to combat Chinese influence in the Asia–Pacific region. Obama had just announced that the US and Australia would begin a rotating deployment of 2,500 US Marines to a base in Darwin, a move ostensibly to modernize the US posture in the region, and to allow participation in “joint training” with Australian military counterparts. But some speculate that the US has a hidden agenda in deploying marines to Australia. The Thai newspaper The Nation has suggested that one of the reasons why US Marines might be stationed in Darwin could be that they would provide remote security assurance to US-owned Freeport-McMoRan’s gold and copper mine in West Papua, less than a two-hour flight away.

The fact that workers at Freeport’s Sociedad Minera Cerro Verde copper mine in Peru were also striking at the same time highlights the global dimension of the Freeport confrontation. The Peruvian workers are demanding pay rises of eleven percent, while the company has offered just three percent. The strike was lifted on November 28, 2011.

In both Freeport strikes, the governments pressured strikers to settle. Not only was domestic militrary and police force evident, but also higher levels of international involvement. The fact that the US Secretary of Defense mentioned a domestic strike in Indonesa shows that the highest level of power are in play on issues affecting the international corporate 1 percent and their profits.

Public opinion is strongly against Freeport in Indonesia. On August 8, 2011, Karishma Vaswani of the BBC reported that “the US mining firm Freeport-McMoRan has been accused of everything from polluting the environment to funding repression in its four decades working in the Indonesian province of Papau. . . . Ask any Papuan on the street what they think of Freeport and they will tell you that the firm is a thief, said Nelels Tebay, a Papuan pastor and coordinator of the Papua Peace Network.

Freeport strikers won support from the US Occupy movement. Occupy Phoenix and East Timor Action Network activists marched to Freeport headquarters in Phoenix on October 28, 2011, to demonstrate against the Indonesian police killings at Freeport-McMoRan’s Grasberg mine.

Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) chairman of the board James R. Moffett owns over four million shares with a value of close to $42.00 each. According to the FCX annual meeting report released in June 2011, Moffett’s annual compensation from FCX in 2010 was $30.57 million. Richard C. Adkerson, president of the board of FCX, owns over 5.3 million shares. His total compensation in was also $30.57 million in 2010 Moffett’s and Adkerson’s incomes put them in the upper levels of the world’s top 1 percent. Their interconnectness with the highest levels of power in the White House and the Pentagon, as indicated by the specific attention given to them by the US secretary of defense, and as suggested by the US president’s awareness of their circumstances, leaves no doubt that Freeport-MacMoRan executives and board are firmly positioned at the highest levels of the transnational corporate class.

Freeport-McMoRan’s Board of Directors

James R. Moffett—Corporate and policy affiliations: cochairman, president, and CEO of McMoRan Exploration Co.; PT Freeport Indonesia; Madison Minerals Inc.; Horatio Alger Association
Richard C. Adkerson—Corporate and policy affiliations: Arthur Anderson Company; chairman of International Council on Mining and Metals; executive board of the International Copper Association, Business Council, Business Roundtable, Advisory Board of the Kissinger Institute, Madison Minerals Inc.

Robert Allison Jr.—Corporate affiliations: Anadarko Petroleum (2010 revenue: $11 billion); Amoco Projection Company.

Robert A. Day—Corporate affiliations: CEO of W. M. Keck Foundation (2010 assets: more than $1 billion); attorney in Costa Mesa, California.

Gerald J. Ford—Corporate affiliations: Hilltop Holdings Inc, First Acceptance Corporation, Pacific Capital Bancorp (Annual Sales $13 billion), Golden State Bancorp, FSB (federal savings bank that merged with Citigroup in 2002) Rio Hondo Land & Cattle Company (annual sales $1.6 million), Diamond Ford, Dallas (sales: $200 million), Scientific Games Corp., SWS Group (annual sales: $422 million); American Residential Cmnts LLC.

H. Devon Graham Jr.—Corporate affiliations: R. E. Smith Interests (an asset management company; income: $670,000).

Charles C. Krulak—Corporate and governmental affiliations: president of Birmingham-South College; commandant of the Marine Corp, 1995–1999; MBNA Corp.; Union Pacific Corporation (annual sales: $17 billion); Phelps Dodge (acquired by FCX in 2007).

Bobby Lee Lackey—Corporate affiliations: CEO of McManusWyatt-Hidalgo Produce Marketing Co.

Jon C. Madonna—Corporate affiliations: CEO of KPMG, (professional services auditors; annual sales: $22.7 billion); AT&T (2011 revenue: $122 billion); Tidewater Inc. (2011 revenue: $1.4 billion).

Dustan E. McCoy—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Brunswick Corp. (revenue: $4.6 billion); Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (2011 revenue: $1.7 billion).

B. M. Rankin Jr.—Corporate affiliations: board vice chairman of FCX; cofounder of McMoRan Oil and Gas in 1969.

Stephen Siegele—Corporate affiliations: founder/CEO of Advanced Delivery and Chemical Systems Inc.; Advanced Technology Solutions; Flourine on Call Ltd.

The board of directors of Freeport-McMoRan represents a portion of the global 1 percent who not only control the largest gold and copper mining company in the world, but who are also interconnected by board membership with over two dozen major multinational corporations, banks, foundations, military, and policy groups. This twelve-member board is a tight network of individuals who are interlocked with—and influence the policies of—other major companies controlling approximately $200 billion in annual revenues.

Freeport-McMoRan exemplifies how the extractor sector acquires wealth from the common heritage of natural materials—which rightfully belongs to us all—by appropriating the surplus value of working people’s labor in the theft of our commons. This process is protected by governments in various countries where Freeport maintains mining operations, with the ultimate protector being the military empire of the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Further, Freeport-McMoRan is connected to one of the most elite transnational capitalist groups in the world: over 7 percent of Freeport’s stock is held by BlackRock, Inc., a major investment management firm based in New York City.

The Investment Sector: The Case of BlackRock, Inc.

Internationally, many firms operate primarily as investment organizations, managing capital and investing in other companies. These firms often do not actually make anything except money, and are keen to prevent interference with return on capital by taxation, regulations, and governmental interventions anywhere in the world.

BlackRock, based in Manhattan, is the largest assets management firm in the world, with over 10,000 employees and investment teams in twenty-seven countries. Their client base includes corporate, public, union, and industry pension plans; governments; insurance companies; third-party mutual funds; endowments; foundations; charities; corporations; official institutions; sovereign wealth funds; banks; financial professionals; and individuals worldwide. BlackRock acquired Barclay Global Investors in December of 2009. As of March 2012, BlackRock manages assets worth $3.68 trillion in equity, fixed income, cash management, alternative investment, real estate, and advisory strategies.

In addition to Freeport-McMoRan, BlackRock has major holdings in Chevron (49 million shares, 2.5 percent), Goldman Sachs Group (13 million shares, 2.7 percent), Exxon Mobil (121 million shares, 2.5 percent), Bank of America (251 million shares, 2.4 percent), Monsanto Company (12 million shares, 2.4 percent), Microsoft Corp. (185 million shares, 2.2 percent), and many more.

BlackRock manages investments of both public and private funds, including California Public Employee’s Retirement System, California State Teacher’s Retirement System, Freddie Mac, Boy Scouts of America, Boeing, Sears, Verizon, Raytheon, PG&E, NY City Retirement Systems, LA County Employees Retirement Association, GE, Cisco, and numerous others.

According to BlackRock’s April 2011 annual report to stockholders, the board of directors consists of eighteen members. The board is classified into three equal groups—Class I, Class II, and Class III—with terms of office of the members of one class expiring each year in rotation. Members of one class are generally elected at each annual meeting and serve for full three-year terms, or until successors are elected and qualified. Each class consists of approximately one-third of the total number of directors constituting the entire board of directors.

BlackRock has stockholder agreements with Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation; and Barclays Bank PLC and its subsidiaries. Two to four members of the board are from BlackRock management; one director is designated by Merrill Lynch; two directors, each in a different class, are designated by PNC Bank; two directors, each in a different class, are designated by Barclays; and the remaining directors are independent.

BlackRock’s Board of Directors

Class I Directors (terms expire in 2012):

William S. Demchak—Corporate affiliations: senior vice chairman of PNC (assets: $271 billion); J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. (2011 assets: $2.2 trillion).

Kenneth B. Dunn, PhD—Corporate and institutional affiliations: professor of financial economics at the David A. Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University; former managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment (assets: $807 billion).

Laurence D. Fink—Corporate and institutional affiliations: chairman/CEO of BlackRock; trustee of New York University; trustee of Boys Club of NY.

Robert S. Kapito—Corporate and institutional affiliations: president of BlackRock; trustee of Wharton School University of Pennsylvania.

Thomas H. O’Brien—Corporate affiliations: former CEO of PNC; Verizon Communications, Inc. (2011 revenue: $110 billion).

Ivan G. Seidenberg—Corporate and policy affiliations: board chairman of Verizon Communications; former CEO of Bell Atlantic; Honeywell International Inc. (2010 revenue: $33.3 billion); Pfizer Inc. (2011 revenue: $64 billion); chairman of the Business Roundtable; National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee; President’s Council of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Class II Directors (terms expire in 2013):

Abdlatif Yousef Al-Hamad—Corporate and institutional affiliations: board chairman of Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (assets: $2.7 trillion); former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning of Kuwait, Kuwait Investment Authority. Multilateral Development Banks, International Advisory Boards of Morgan Stanley, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., American International Group, Inc. and the National Bank of Kuwait.

Mathis Cabiallavetta—Corporate affiliations: Swiss Reinsurance Company (2010 revenue: $28 billion); CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. (2011 revenue: $11.5 billion); Union Bank of Switzerland-UBS A.G. (2012 assets: $620 billion); Philip Morris International Inc. (2010 revenue: $27 billion).

Dennis D. Dammerman—Corporate affiliations: General Electric Company (2012 revenue: $147 billion); Capmark Financial Group Inc. (formally GMAC); American International Group (AIG) (2010 revenue: $77 billion); Genworth Financial (2010 assets: $100 billion); Swiss Reinsurance Company (2012 assets: $620 billion); Discover Financial Services (2011 revenue: $3.4 billion).

Robert E. Diamond Jr.—Corporate and policy affiliations: CEO of Barclays (2011 revenue: $32 billion); International Advisory Board of the British-American Business Council.

David H. Komansky—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Merrill Lynch (division of Bank of America 2009) (2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion); Burt’s Bees, Inc. (owned by Clorox); WPP Group plc (2011 revenue: $15 billion).

James E. Rohr—Corporate affiliations: CEO of PNC (2011 revenue: $14 billion).

James Grosfeld—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Pulte Homes, Inc. (2010 revenue: $4.5 billion); Lexington Realty Trust (2011 assets: $1.2 billion).

Sir Deryck Maughan—Corporate and policy affiliations: Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (2011 assets: $8.6 billion); former CEO of Salomon Brothers from 1992 to 1997 a Chairman of the US-Japan Business Council; GlaxoSmithKline plc (2011 revenue: $41 billion); Thomson Reuters Corporation (2011 revenue: $13.8 billion).

Thomas K. Montag—Corporate affiliations: president of Global Banking & Markets for Bank of America (2011 revenue: $94 billion); Merrill Lynch (division of Bank of America, 2009; 2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion); Goldman Sachs (2011 revenue: $28.8 billion).

Class III Directors (terms expire in 2014):

Murry S. Gerber—Corporate affiliations: executive chairman of EQT (2010 revenue: $1.3 billion); Halliburton Company.

Linda Gosden Robinson—Corporate affiliations: former CEO of Robinson Lerer & Montgomery; Young & Rubicam Inc.; WPP Group plc. (2011 revenue: $15 billion); Revlon, Inc. (2011 revenue: $1.3 billion).

John S. Varley—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Barclays (2011 revenue: $32 billion); AstraZeneca PLC (2011 revenue: $33.5 billion).

BlackRock is one of the most concentrated power networks among the global 1 percent. The eightteen members of the board of directors are connected to a significant part of the world’s core financial assests. Their decisions can change empires, destroy currencies, and impoverish millions. Some of the top financial giants of the capitalist world are connected by interlocking boards of directors at BlackRock, including Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, PNC Bank, Barclays, Swiss Reinsurance Company, American International Group (AIG), UBS A.G., Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, J. P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley.

A 2011 University of Zurich study, research completed by Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, Stefano Battiston at the Swiss Federal Institute, reports that a small group of companies—mainly banks—wields huge power over the global economy.[xxvi] Using data from Orbis 2007, a database listing thirty-seven million companies and investors, the Swiss researchers applied mathematical models—usually used to model natural systems—to the world economy. The study is the first to look at all 43,060 transnational corporations and the web of ownership between them. The research created a “map” of 1,318 companies at the heart of the global economy. The study found that 147 companies formed a “super entity” within this map, controlling some 40 percent of its wealth. The top twenty-five of the 147 super-connected companies includes:

1. Barclays PLC*

2. Capital Group Companies Inc.

3. FMR Corporation

4. AXA

5. State Street Corporation

6. J. P. Morgan Chase & Co.*

7. Legal & General Group PLC

8. Vanguard Group Inc.

9. UBS AG

10. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.*

11. Wellington Management Co. LLP

12. Deutsche Bank AG

13. Franklin Resources Inc.

14. Credit Suisse Group*

15. Walton Enterprises LLC

16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp

17. Natixis

18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.*

19. T Rowe Price Group Inc.

20. Legg Mason Inc.

21. Morgan Stanley*

22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.

23. Northern Trust Corporation

24. Société Générale

25. Bank of America Corporation*

* BlackRock Directors

Notably, for our purposes, BlackRock board members have direct connections to at least seven of the top twenty-five corporations that Vitali et al. identify as an international “super entity.” BlackRock’s board has direct links to seven of the twenty-five most interconnected corporations in the world. BlackRock’s eighteen board members control and influence tens of trillions of dollars of wealth in the world and represent a core of the super-connected financial sector corporations.

Below is a sample cross section of key figures and corporate assets among the global economic “super entity” identified by Vitali et al.

Other Key Figures and Corporate Connections within the Highest Levels of the Global Economic “Super Entity”

Capital Group Companies—Privately held, based in Los Angeles, manages $1 trillion in assets.

FMR—One of the world’s largest mutual fund firms, managing $1.5 trillion in assets and serving more than twenty million individual and institutional clients; Edward C. (Ned) Johnson III, Chairman and CEO.

AXA—Manages $1.5 trillion in assets, serving 101 million clients; Henri de Castries, CEO AXA, and Director, Nestlé (Switzerland).

State Street Corporation—Operates from Boston with assest management at $1.9 trillion; directors include Joseph L. Hooley, CEO of State Street Corporation; Kennett F. Burnes, retired chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation(2011 revenue: $3.1 billion).

JP Morgan/Chase (2011 assets: $2.3 trillion)—Board of directors: James A. Bell retired executive VP of The Boeing Company; Stephen B. Burke , CEO of NBC Universal, and executive VP of Comcast Corporation; David M. Cote, CEO of Honeywell International, Inc.; Timothy P. Flynn , retired chairman of KPMG International; and Lee R. Raymond , retired CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Vanguard (2011 assets under management: $1.6 trillion)—Directors: Emerson U. Fullwood, VP of Xerox Corporation; JoAnn Heffernan Heisen, VP of Johnson & Johnson, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Mark Loughridge, CFO of IBM, Global Financing; Alfred M. Rankin Jr., CEO of NACCO Industries, Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, Goodrich Corp, and chairman of Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

UBS AG (2012 assets: $620 billion)—Directors include: Michel Demaré, board member of Syngenta and the IMD Foundation (Lausanne); David Sidwell, former CFO of Morgan Stanley.

Merrill Lynch (Bank of America) (2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion)—Directors include: Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America; Rosemary T. Berkery, general counsel for Bank of America/Merrill Lynch (formerly Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc), member of New York Stock Exchange’s Legal Advisory Committee, director at Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; Mark A. Ellman, managing director of Credit Suisse, First Boston; Dick J. Barrett, cofounder of Ellman Stoddard Capital Partners, MetLife, Citi Group, UBS, Carlyle Group, ImpreMedia, Verizon Communications, Commonewealth Scientific and Industrial Research Org, Fluor Corp, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs Group.

The directors of these super-connected companies represent a small portion of the global 1 percent. Most people with assets in excess of $588,000 are not major players in international finance. At best, they hire asset management firms to produce a return on their capital. Often their net worth is tied up in nonfinancial assets such a real estate and businesses.

Analysis: TCC and Global Power

So how does the transnational corporate class (TCC) maintain wealth concentration and power in the world? The wealthiest 1 percent of the world’s population represents approximately forty million adults. These forty million people are the richest segment of the first tier populations in the core countries and intermittently in other regions. Most of this 1 percent have professional jobs with security and tenure working for or associated with established institutions. Approximately ten million of these individuals have assets in excess of one million dollars, and approximately 100,000 have financials assets worth over thirty million dollars. Immediately below the 1 percent in the first tier are working people with regular employment in major corporations, government, self-owned businesses, and various institutions of the world. This first tier constitutes about 30–40 percent of the employed in the core developed countries, and some 30 percent in the second tier economies and down to 20 percent in the periphery economies (sometimes referred to as the 3rd world). The second tier of global workers represents growing armies of casual labor: the global factory workers, street workers, and day laborers intermittently employed with increasingly less support from government and social welfare organizations. These workers, mostly concentrated in the megacities, constitute some 30–40 percent of the workers in the core industrialized economies and some 20 percent in the second tier and peripheral economies. This leaves a third tier of destitute people worldwide ranging from 30 percent of adults in the core and secondary economies to fully 50 percent of the people in peripherial countries who have extremely limited income opportunities and struggle to survive on a few dollars a day. These are the 2.5 billion people who live on less than two dollars a day, die by the tens of thousands every day from malnutrition and easily curible illnesses, and who have probably never even heard a dial tone.

As seen in our extractor sector and investment sector samples, corporate elites are interconnected through direct board connections with some seventy major multinational corporations, policy groups, media organizations, and other academic or nonprofit institutions. The investment sector sample shows much more powerful financial links than the extractor sample; nonetheless, both represent vast networks of resources concentrated within each company’s board of directors. The short sample of directors and resources from eight other of the superconnected companies replicates this pattern of multiple board corporate connections, policy groups, media and government, controlling vast global resources. These interlock relationships recur across the top interconnected companies among the transnational corporate class, resulting in a highly concentrated and powerful network of individuals who share a common interest in preserving their elite domination.

Sociological research shows that interlocking directorates have the potential to faciliate political cohesion. A sense of a collective “we” emerges within such power networks, whereby members think and act in unison, not just for themselves and their individual firms, but for a larger sense of purpose—the good of the order, so to speak.

Transnational corporate boards meet on a regular basis to encourage the maximunization of profit and the long-term viability of their firm’s business plans. If they arrange for payments to government officials, conduct activities that undermine labor organizations, seek to manipulate the price of commodies (e.g. gold), or engage in insider trading in some capacity, they are in fact forming conspiratorial alliances inside those boards of directors. Our sample of thirty directors inside two connected companies have influence with some of the most powerful policy groups in the world, including British–American Business Council, US–Japan Business Council, Business Roundtable, Business Council, and the Kissinger Institute. They influence some ten trillion dollars in monetery resouces and control the working lives of many hundreds of thousands of people. All in all, they are a power elite unto themselves, operating in a world of power elite networks as the de facto ruling class of the capitalist world.

Moreover, this 1 percent global elite dominates and controls public relations firms and the corporate media. Global corporate media protect the interests of the 1 percent by serving as a propaganda machine for the superclass. The corporate media provide entertainment for the masses and distorts the realities of inequality. Corporate news is managed by the 1 percent to maintain illusions of hope and to divert blame from the powerful for hard times.

Four of the thirty directors in our two-firm sample are directly connected with public relations and media. Thomas H. O’Brien and Ivan G. Seidenberg are both on the board of Verizon Communications, where Seidenberg serves as chairman. Verizon reported over $110 billion in operating revenues in 2011. David H. Komansky and Linda Gosden Robinson are on the board of WPP Group, which describes itself as the world leader in marketing communications services, grossing over $65 billion in 2011. WPP is a conglomerate of many of the world’s leading PR and marketing firms, in fields that include advertising, media investment management, consumer insight, branding and identity, health care communications, and direct digital promotion and relationship marketing.

Even deeper inside the 1 percent of wealthy elites is what David Rothkopf calls the superclass. David Rothkopf, former managing director of Kissinger Associates and deputy undersecretary of commerce for international trade policies, published his book Superclass: the Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, in 2008. According to Rothkopf, the superclass constitutes approximately 0.0001 percent of the world’s population, comprised of 6,000 to 7,000 people—some say 6,660. They are the Davos-attending, Gulfstream/private jet–flying, money-incrusted, megacorporation-interlocked, policy-building elites of the world, people at the absolute peak of the global power pyramid. They are 94 percent male, predominantly white, and mostly from North America and Europe. These are the people setting the agendas at the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, G-8, G-20, NATO, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. They are from the highest levels of finance capital, transnational corporations, the government, the military, the academy, nongovernmental organizations, spiritual leaders, and other shadow elites. Shadow elites include, for instance, the deep politics of national security organizations in connection with international drug cartels, who extract 8,000 tons of opium from US war zones annually, then launder $500 billion through transnational banks, half of which are US-based.

Rothkoft’s understanding of the superclass is one based on influence and power. Although there are over 1,000 billionaires in the world, not all are necessarily part of the superclass in terms of influencing global policies. Yet these 1,000 billionaires have twice as much wealth as the 2.5 billion least wealthy people, and they are fully aware of the vast inequalities in the world. The billionaires and the global 1 percent are similar to colonial plantation owners. They know they are a small minority with vast resources and power, yet they must continually worry about the unruly exploited masses rising in rebellion. As a result of these class insecurities, the superclass works hard to protect this structure of concentrated wealth. Protection of capital is the prime reason that NATO countries now account for 85 percent of the world’s defense spending, with the US spending more on military than the rest of the world combined. Fears of inequality rebellions and other forms of unrest motivate NATO’s global agenda in the war on terror. The Chicago 2012 NATO Summit Declaration reads:

As Alliance leaders, we are determined to ensure that NATO retains and develops the capabilities necessary to perform its essential core tasks collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security—and thereby to play an essential role promoting security in the world. We must meet this responsibility while dealing with an acute financial crisis and responding to evolving geo-strategic challenges. NATO allows us to achieve greater security than any one Ally could attain acting alone.

We confirm the continued importance of a strong transatlantic link and Alliance solidarity as well as the significance of sharing responsibilities, roles, and risks to meet the challenges North-American and European Allies face together . . . we have confidently set ourselves the goal of NATO Forces 2020: modern, tightly connected forces equipped, trained, exercised and commanded so that they can operate together and with partners in any (emphaisis added) environment.

NATO is quickly emerging as the police force for the transnational corporate class. As the TCC more fully emerged in the 1980s, coinciding with the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), NATO began broader operations. NATO first ventured into the Balkans, where it remains, and then moved into Afghanistan. NATO started a training mission in Iraq in 2005, has recently conducted operations in Libya, and, as of July 2012, is considering military action in Syria.

It has become clear that the superclass uses NATO for its global security. This is part of an expanding strategy of US military domination around the world, wherby the US/NATO military-industrial-media empire operates in service to the transnational corporate class for the protection of international capital anywhere in the world.

Sociologists William Robinson and Jerry Harris anticipated this situation in 2000, when they described “a shift from the social welfare state to the social control (police) state replete with the dramatic expansion of public and private security forces, the mass incarceration of the excluded populations (disproportionately minorities), new forms of social apartheid . . . and anti-immigrant legislation. Robinson and Harris’s theory accurately predicts the agenda of today’s global superclass, including

—President Obama’s continuation of the police state agendas of his executive predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush;

—the long-range global dominance agenda of the superclass, which uses US/NATO military forces to discourage resisting states and maintain internal police repression, in service of the capitalist system’s orderly maintenance;

—and the continued consolidation of capital around the world without interference from governments or egalitarian social movements.

Furthermore, this agenda leads to the further pauperization of the poorest half of the world’s population, and an unrelenting downward spiral of wages for everyone in the second tier, and even some within the first tier. It is a world facing economic crisis, where the neoliberal solution is to spend less on human needs and more on security. It is a world of financial institutions run amok, where the answer to bankruptcy is to print more money through quantitative easing with trillions of new inflation-producing dollars. It is a world of permanent war, whereby spending for destruction requires even more spending to rebuild, a cycle that profits the TCC and its global networks of economic power. It is a world of drone killings, extrajudicial assassinations, and death and destruction, at home and abroad.

As Andrew Kollin states in State Power and Democracy, “There is an Orwellian dimension to the Administration’s (Bush and later Obama) perspective, it chose to disregard the law, instead creating decrees to legitimate illegal actions, giving itself permision to act without any semblances of power sharing as required by the Constitution or international law.”

And in Globalization and the Demolition of Society, Dennis Loo writes, “The bottom line, the fundamential division of our society, is between, on the one hand, those whose interests rest on the dominance and the drive for monopolizing the society and planet’s resources and, on the other hand, those whose interests lie in the husbanding of thoses resources for the good of the whole rather than the part.”

The Occupy movement uses the 1 percent vs. 99 percent mantra as a master concept in its demonstrations, disruptions, and challenges to the practices of the transnational corporate class, within which the global superclass is a key element in the implementation of a superelite agenda for permanent war and total social control. Occupy is exactly what the superclass fears the most—a global democratic movement that exposes the TCC agenda and the continuing theater of government elections, wherein the actors may change but the marquee remains the same. The more that Occupy refuses to cooperate with the TCC agenda and mobilizes activists, the more likely the whole TCC system of dominance will fall to its knees under the people power of democractic movements.

Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and president of the Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored.

Kimberly Soeiro is a sociology student at Sonoma State University, library researcher, and activist.

Special thanks to Mickey Huff, director of Project Censored, and Andy Roth, associate director of Project Censored, for editing and for important suggestons for this article.




Admin

VENEZUELA’s VICTORY OVER WALL STREET

Tony Cartalucci
http://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuelas-...ll-street/

Venezuela looks to have effectively outmaneuvered Western designs to overthrow national sovereignty, but many challenges lay ahead.

Venezuela has provided the world with a successful model to counter the subversive methods of Wall Street and London in their bid to overthrow yet another nation-state to be rolled into their global collective. However, many have noted that President Hugo Chavez is a flawed leader, with flawed policies – many of which run contra to concepts of personal freedom and liberty.

Image: President Hugo Chavez soundly defeated US-backed opposition, despite a coordinated propaganda campaign, and millions of US State Department dollars utilized to manipulate the elections. Venezuela still faces many challenges.

While this could be said about virtually any politician, the fact is that despite President Chavez’ flaws, he has posed a substantial obstacle to Western ambitions across South America, and has consistently opposed Western machination across the world.

It has been pointed out however, that President Chavez is heading a political movement very similar to the highly criticized, Wall Street proxy, Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand – that is, using populist policies to build a reliable voting bloc to stay perpetually in power. In many aspects this is true, though Venezuela’s policies are sustainable, and a direct result of nationalizing the oil industry, while Shinawatra of Thailand simply took money out of state coffers while attempting to further privatize and sell-off to foreign multinationals, Thailand’s vast resources.

Also, political and economic policies are erroneously viewed by many as “sides” one is either on or against. In reality, the global elite see them simply as tools, and their use dictated not by personal preference or ideology, but by utility given any specific circumstance. Whether one is “good” or “bad,” when they are presented with boards that must be nailed together, they pick a hammer. Likewise, when a nation must be unified against a large, capable political opposition – political machines, populism, and socialist policies are generally used.

It is difficult to see what other effective method President Chavez could have used against the West in organizing the Venezuelan people against the collective corporate-financier interests arrayed against them and the substantial foreign subversion President Chavez has faced throughout his political career. Boards needed to be nailed together, and President Chavez elected to use a hammer. He is succeeding, and as his political structure is hammered together, taking a more distinct and stable form, it will soon be time to take out other tools to further refine it.

Ensuring A Stable, Enduring Structure

As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez consolidates his position, it will be important to move beyond the populist policies required to win over people in the face of concerted efforts by foreign-funded opposition to win them over. In “Free Markets & Socialism: An Alternative View,” it stated:

Socialist handouts are tools. Like any tool they are only as good as the people using them. While the intentions of socialist medicine, welfare, education and so on seem noble, in reality they are primarily used by self-serving crooked politicians as bribes handed out in exchange for the voting public’s servile dependency on a particular political agenda. Generations of voting blocs have been created using socialist handouts in just this fashion. Pragmatic solutions are never seriously pursued because pragmatic, permanent solutions – while alleviating entirely any particular social problem – would undermine the real purpose of the handouts, namely, building a dependent, servile voting bloc.

However, let us imagine socialist handouts for a particular social problem such as medical care applied in the context of a temporary stop-gap measure. While people are subsidized for care, the commitments are temporary and voluntary only to prevent people from dying without proper treatment. Meanwhile, investments are put into education and biomedical technology with specific benchmarks and time frames in mind. Simultaneously, barriers such as crippling “intellectual property rights” and monopolizing business practices are eliminated to allow real competition to flourish.

By increasing the supply of trained practitioners and biomedical engineers through improved education, and advancing biomedical technology past current levels of precarious scarcity the price for medical care will drop accordingly. With monopolies eliminated, real progress can be effected. If a particular company has a viable, affordable treatment for cancer, no established monopoly will be able to lobby Washington to regulate it out of business to protect their particular racket. Similar solutions could also easily be applied to the inadequate, antiquated, parasitic oil and car industries as well.

We should look around society today and take stock in industries and commodities we take for granted. We do not kill one another over the last chicken leg or leaf of lettuce nor do many people go without basic food. This is not because we have mastered subsidizing socialist handouts to feed our populations, rather we have developed agricultural technology that allows us to create an affordable market nearly anyone can benefit from under normal circumstances.

Likewise, medical technology and other essential industries can and must be advanced to where the market price is affordable to all. This will not happen with socialist handouts or monopolizing regulations in place. It will happen with improved education and healthy competition within the markets, where the only protection given is the rights of entrepreneurs big and small to pursue their trade without being hindered by monopolistic practices. In the meantime, it is sensible to transition away from total, permanent (and pandering) socialist solutions and move toward temporary stop-gaps until this is achieved.

It should be understood that the concept of a “free market” described above does not refer to absolute economic anarchy. For instance, should Venezuela elect to pursue more permanent, technological solutions to problems currently subsidized, they would not by necessity “open their markets” to foreign multinationals and crippling “neoliberalism.” In many ways the West already observes truly “free markets,” or economic anarchy where giant corporations are free to do anything they wish, including wage massive, global wars in pursuit of their interests. The constricting laws and regulations many well-intentioned free-market advocates abhor, have been imposed by these unhindered, anarchical corporations, not by a “socialist government.” What these advocates perceive as a “socialist government” is in fact an interface created and controlled by unhindered, unregulated, unaccountable corporate-financier interests.

Image: Building things, making things, technological and scientific progress moves forward the frontier of human knowledge and makes all that follows in its wake more accessible and affordable to the average person. The next step of any genuine socialist movement aiming to meet the immediate needs of the people, is to empower the people through education and technology with the means to develop permanent technological solutions to replace what should be only temporary government-dependent subsidies. Socialism as a final end, is but another system of control.

For Venezuela, the threat of foreign subversion is still very real. There is a very real global network of subversion maintained by the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London, forming the foundation of modern imperialism. For President Hugo Chavez to move on to the next step, to put down the hammer and begin using more articulate tools, he would have to effectively communicate these intentions to his support base and ensure that the Venezuelan people are aware of the dangers and payoffs of pursuing the next step.

Finally, as a growing front of nations begin to rise up against Western global hegemony and the “Washington Consensus,” it is important that people around the world prevent an identical, but opposing global order to take its place. Global governance by any name, administered by any nation, or group of nations, is unnecessary and only serves to subvert national, local, and individual sovereignty. A mulipolar world where the mutual respect of national sovereignty, and the primacy of the nation-state is it’s foremost principle, is what we the people of the world should not only demand of our representatives, but should work on a daily basis locally to achieve.











Admin


MONEY LAUNDERING AND OFFSHORE FRAUD FOR THE RICH, ECONOMIC AUSTERITY FOR THE POOR

Julie Lévesque
Global Research, November 02, 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/money-laund...or/5310347

Offshore banking is the elephant in the global economic room which the political and financial elite is trying to hide from the public view. While imposing austerity measures on hard working citizens, they are well aware that astronomical amounts of money are secretly held in offshore banks, thus lost in taxes. Where is that money from? What is it for?

Drug cartels, fraud, tax evasion and money laundering are common answers to those questions. Despite this reality and even in this era of fiscal austerity, the question world leaders avoid is: why is secret banking still allowed? Are they capable of putting a term to it but unwilling to do it because of the benefits it provides? Clearly.

Every once in a while a robber baron will serve as a scapegoat to give a pale illusion of justice to the common man. Although they deserve to be penalized, the corrupt banking system which allowed them to operate remains inviolate and its flaws are never questioned. Offshore banking is not a parallel banking structure. It is at the heart of the banking system. All major banks have offshore subsidiaries.

R. Allen Stanford is one of the white collar criminals serving time for running a “massive Ponzi scheme camouflaged as a bank [Stanford International Bank (SIB)] that sold some $7 billion in self-styled ‘certificates of deposit’ and $1.2 billion in mutual funds”:

[SIB’s chief financial officer James] Davis told the Justice Department that “his boss had been stealing from investors for decades while paying bribes to regulators and even performing blood oaths never to reveal his secrets.”

And with connections and generous pay-outs to U.S. politicians going back more than a decade, 65% of which went to Democrats including our “change” president, Allen Stanford was plugged-in.

Evidence also suggests he may have gotten an assist covering his tracks from regulators and U.S. secret state agencies, including the CIA [...]

Allen Stanford did business the American way; he swindled depositors and then siphoned-off the proceeds into a spider’s web of offshore accounts.

The indictment charges “it was part of the conspiracy that Stanford … and others would cause the movement of millions of dollars of fraudulently obtained investors’ funds from and among bank accounts located in the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere in the United States to various bank accounts located outside of the United States … in order to exercise exclusive control over the investors’ funds.”

Auditors learned that funds were moved through Stanford-controlled accounts to offshore banks, including HSBC in London, Bank Julius Baer in Zurich and eight others; banks which have figured in past money laundering or tax-avoidance scandals. None have been charged with an offense in connection with the affair. (Tom Burghardt Financial Fraud, The Laundering of Drug Money and the CIA, Antifascist Calling… August 4, 2010.)

Out of willful blindness, the troika – the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund – inflicts draconian measures on many Europeans, while letting a “vast offshore industry [operate] out of sight and mind”. The same cannot be said for press freedom and whistleblowers, which are closely monitored:

Greek magazine publisher Costas Vaxevanis faces charges of violating state privacy laws. Potentially he faces two years in prison.

Press freedom and whistleblowing should be inviolate. Not in today’s corrupt money controlled world [...]

A [...] recent Tax Justice Network (TJN) USA report [...] estimates up to $32 trillion of hidden and stolen wealth stashed largely tax-free secretly.

“The Price of Offshore Revisited” reveals what super-rich elites want concealed. Governments let them avoid taxes. Societal costs are huge. Ill-gotten gains are free to make more of them. Only ordinary people pay what they owe. Many pay too much [...]

Hot Doc magazine editor Vaxevanis was arrested for publishing the “Lagarde List.” In 2010, French authorities gave it to Athens. At issue is investigating 2,059 wealthy Greeks with secret HSBC Swiss accounts. (Stephen Lendman, Greek Whistleblower: Billions in Secret Offshore Bank Accounts, October 31, 2012.)

Seeing poverty and inequalities rise dramatically due to budget austerity crafted and ordered by the banking industry, some European nations raise the specter of separatism:

Recent months have seen one example after another of gains for parties advocating the creation of new, small states in Spain, Belgium, Italy, Scotland and elsewhere in Europe.

The growth in support for such tendencies has been fuelled by the savage cuts and austerity measures being imposed by central governments on the instructions of the troika—the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund—at the behest of the banks and global speculators. But the exploitation of legitimate social grievances does not mean that the political beneficiaries represent the interests of the broad masses who are being exploited. (Chris Marsden, Austerity and Political Balkanization: The Rise of Separatist Agitation in Europe, October 30, 2012.)

F. William Engdahl warns that the same kind of “ austerity measures paved the way to the III Reich” and insists that the banks are “the source of the problem”:

The EU governments have shied away from any resolute action on the banks involved in the dodgy lending in the first place during the financial bubble years. Those banks remain the source of the problem. There is no lending going on to the real economy, and that`s the root cause of the 25 per cent unemployment in Spain and Greece and elsewhere across the EU. Until that problem with the banks is addressed, we’re not going to see economic recovery. To treat it only as a sovereign debt crisis is grabbing the tale of the elephant and calling it a snake. (F. William Engdahl, Germany Enforces Same Austerity that Paved Way to 3rd Reich, October 30, 2012.)

With the recent images of the brutal Spanish police state in mind we have to wonder if following the corrupt banking industry diktats is a very ruinous ride on the highway to totalitarianism.

Admin

GOLDMAN SACHS GLOBAL COUP D’ETAT

Thom Hartmann, Sam Sacks – via Truth-Out Nov 27, 2012
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=61146

When the people of Greece saw their democratically elected Prime Minister George Papandreou forced out of office in November of 2011 and replaced by an unelected Conservative technocrat, Lucas Papademos, most were unaware of the bigger picture of what was happening all around them.

Similarly, most of us in the United States were equally as ignorant when, in 2008, despite the switchboards at the US Capitol collapsing under the volume of phone calls from constituents urging a “no” vote, our elected representatives voted “yes” at the behest of Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen and jammed through the biggest bailout of Wall Street in our nation’s history.

But now, as the Bank of England, a key player in the ongoing Eurozone crisis, announces that former investment banker Mark Carney will be its new chief, we can’t afford to ignore what’s happening around the world.

Steadily – and stealthily – Goldman Sachs is carrying out a global coup d’etat.

There’s one tie that binds Lucas Papademos in Greece, Henry Paulsen in the United States, and Mark Carney in the U.K., and that’s Goldman Sachs. All were former bankers and executives at the Wall Street giant, all assumed prominent positions of power, and all played a hand after the global financial meltdown of 2007-08, thus making sure Goldman Sachs weathered the storm and made significant profits in the process.

But that’s just scratching the surface.

As Europe descends into an austerity-induced economic crisis, Goldman Sachs’s people are managing the demise of the continent. As the British newspaper The Independent reported earlier this year, the Conservative technocrats currently steering or who have steered post-crash fiscal policy in Greece, Germany, Italy, Belgium, France, and now the UK, all hail from Goldman Sachs. In fact, the head of the European Central Bank itself, Mario Draghi, was the former managing director of Goldman Sachs International.

And here in the United States, after Treasury Secretary and former Goldman CEO Henry Paulsen did his job in 2008 securing Goldman’s multi-billion dollar bailout, he was replaced in the new Obama administration with Tim Geithner who worked very closely with Goldman Sachs as head of the New York Fed and made sure Goldman received more than $14 billion from the bailout of failed insurance giant AIG.

What’s happening here goes back more than a decade.

In 2001, Goldman Sachs secretly helped Greece hide billions of dollars through the use of complex financial instruments like credit default swaps. This allowed Greece to meet the baseline requirements to enter the Eurozone in the first place. But it also created a debt bubble that would later explode and bring about the current economic crisis that’s drowning the entire continent. But, always looking ahead, Goldman protected itself from this debt bubble by betting against Greek bonds, expecting that they would eventually fail.

Ironically, the man who headed up the Central Bank of Greece while this deal was being arranged with Goldman was – drumroll please – Lucas Papademos.

Goldman made similar deals here in the United States, masking the true value of investments, then selling those worthless investments to customers while placing bets that those same investments would eventually fail. The most notorious example was the “Timberwolf” deal, which brought down an Australian hedge fund, and which Goldman Sachs banksters emailed each other about, bragging, “Boy, that Timberwolf was one shitty deal.”

This sort of behavior by Goldman helped inflate, and then eventually pop, the housing bubble in the United States. The shockwave then ran across the Atlantic, hitting Europe and turning Goldman’s debt-masking deal with Greece years earlier sour, thus deepening the crisis.

All of these antics should have brought about the demise of Goldman as well, but with their alumni in key policy positions on both sides of the Atlantic, Goldman not only survived, it flourished.

As the DailyKos sums up, “The normal scenario usually involves helping a nation hide a problem and sell its debt until the problem blows up into a bubble that bursts in a spectacular way…Goldman Sachs then puts their ‘man’ into a position of power to direct the bailouts so that Goldman gets all its money back and more, while the nation’s economy gets gutted.”

For years, tinfoil hat crazies who’ve bookmarked Glenn Beck’s websites and often appear as “experts” on Fox so-called News have warned us about a one-world government (here, here, and here). The latest threat, according to them, is Agenda 21 and the creation of a Soviet-style world authority that will confiscate private party everywhere, redistribute wealth to developing nations, and force us all to live by new global laws that sacrifice our national sovereignty. It’s totalitarian governments and not transnational corporations that we should be afraid of, they warn.

But when the tinfoil hat is removed, you can see that a sort of one-world government has already been established in a far more subtle form, through the rise of Goldman Sachs and their colleagues in the Wall Street elite.

A million questions arise when looking at what’s happening around the world. But many of these questions can be answered, once it’s acknowledged that Goldman Sachs alumni have executed a global coup d’etat.

Why are the working people of Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy suffering under austerity and being asked to sacrifice their pensions, their wages, and their jobs when, after five years, it’s clear these policies are only making these nations’ debts even harder to pay off?

It’s because Goldman Sachs is sucking the last remaining wealth out of those nations to recoup whatever failed investments they made before the Crash.

Why have thousands of homeowners in the United States turned to suicide, domestic violence, and even mass murder when faced with home foreclosure, when a simple solution like re-writing mortgages, which FDR did successfully during the Great Depression, could put an end to the bloodshed and misery?

It’s because re-writing mortgages would force banks like Goldman Sachs to take a hit. And thanks to the game they’ve created, they actually make more money when a home they own is foreclosed on.

Why, despite mountains of evidence, have banksters at Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street institutions not been thrown in jail for defrauding customers, manipulating LIBOR interest rates, and throwing thousands of Americans out of their homes illegally in a massive robo-signing scandal?

It’s because we have a two-tiered justice system in which those in power, like Goldman Sachs executives, get a slap on the wrist when they steal $50 billion, but people like you and me go to jail for stealing a 7-11 Slurpee.

Now does it make sense why Wall Street was bailed out and Main Street was sold out?

In this post-crash world, where agents of Goldman Sachs have infiltrated key positions of power all around the world, we must all fundamentally re-understand how we view the global economy and just how much effect our democratic institutions have on this economy.

We no longer have an economy geared to benefit working people around the world; we have an economy that’s geared to exploit working people for Goldman Sachs’ profits. Trader Alessio Rastani told the BBC in September before Goldman’s Lucas Papademos was installed as Greece’s Prime Minister, “We don’t really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it…Personally, I’ve been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.” Rastani continued, “When the market crashes… if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.”

And as we’ve seen over the last decade, Goldman Sachs knows exactly what to do. They’ve had the right plan set-up, and it’s nothing short of a global coup d’etat.

As Rastani bluntly told the BBC, “This is not a time right now for wishful thinking that governments are going to sort things out. The governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.”

Admin

GOLDMAN SACHS' GLOBAL COUP D'ETAT
Tom Hartmann and Sam Sackse
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12996-...oup-de-tat#

Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos in his office at the Presidential Palace in Athens, Greece, January 16, 2012. (Photo: Eirini Vourloumis / The New York Times) When the people of Greece saw their democratically elected Prime Minister George Papandreou forced out of office in November of 2011 and replaced by an unelected Conservative technocrat, Lucas Papademos, most were unaware of the bigger picture of what was happening all around them.

Similarly, most of us in the United States were equally as ignorant when, in 2008, despite the switchboards at the US Capitol collapsing under the volume of phone calls from constituents urging a “no” vote, our elected representatives voted “yes” at the behest of Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen and jammed through the biggest bailout of Wall Street in our nation’s history.

But now, as the Bank of England, a key player in the ongoing Eurozone crisis, announces that former investment banker Mark Carney will be its new chief, we can’t afford to ignore what’s happening around the world.

Steadily – and stealthily – Goldman Sachs is carrying out a global coup d’etat.

There’s one tie that binds Lucas Papademos in Greece, Henry Paulsen in the United States, and Mark Carney in the U.K., and that’s Goldman Sachs. All were former bankers and executives at the Wall Street giant, all assumed prominent positions of power, and all played a hand after the global financial meltdown of 2007-08, thus making sure Goldman Sachs weathered the storm and made significant profits in the process.

But that's just scratching the surface.

As Europe descends into an austerity-induced economic crisis, Goldman Sachs's people are managing the demise of the continent. As the British newspaper The Independent reported earlier this year, the Conservative technocrats currently steering or who have steered post-crash fiscal policy in Greece, Germany, Italy, Belgium, France, and now the UK, all hail from Goldman Sachs. In fact, the head of the European Central Bank itself, Mario Draghi, was the former managing director of Goldman Sachs International.

And here in the United States, after Treasury Secretary and former Goldman CEO Henry Paulsen did his job in 2008 securing Goldman’s multi-billion dollar bailout, he was replaced in the new Obama administration with Tim Geithner who worked very closely with Goldman Sachs as head of the New York Fed and made sure Goldman received more than $14 billion from the bailout of failed insurance giant AIG.

What’s happening here goes back more than a decade.

In 2001, Goldman Sachs secretly helped Greece hide billions of dollars through the use of complex financial instruments like credit default swaps. This allowed Greece to meet the baseline requirements to enter the Eurozone in the first place. But it also created a debt bubble that would later explode and bring about the current economic crisis that’s drowning the entire continent. But, always looking ahead, Goldman protected itself from this debt bubble by betting against Greek bonds, expecting that they would eventually fail.

Ironically, the man who headed up the Central Bank of Greece while this deal was being arranged with Goldman was – drumroll please – Lucas Papademos.

Goldman made similar deals here in the United States, masking the true value of investments, then selling those worthless investments to customers while placing bets that those same investments would eventually fail. The most notorious example was the “Timberwolf” deal, which brought down an Australian hedge fund, and which Goldman Sachs banksters emailed each other about, bragging, “Boy, that Timberwolf was one shitty deal.”

This sort of behavior by Goldman helped inflate, and then eventually pop, the housing bubble in the United States. The shockwave then ran across the Atlantic, hitting Europe and turning Goldman’s debt-masking deal with Greece years earlier sour, thus deepening the crisis.

All of these antics should have brought about the demise of Goldman as well, but with their alumni in key policy positions on both sides of the Atlantic, Goldman not only survived, it flourished.

As the DailyKos sums up, “The normal scenario usually involves helping a nation hide a problem and sell its debt until the problem blows up into a bubble that bursts in a spectacular way…Goldman Sachs then puts their ‘man’ into a position of power to direct the bailouts so that Goldman gets all its money back and more, while the nation's economy gets gutted.”

For years, tinfoil hat crazies who’ve bookmarked Glenn Beck's websites and often appear as “experts” on Fox so-called News have warned us about a one-world government (here, here, and here). The latest threat, according to them, is Agenda 21 and the creation of a Soviet-style world authority that will confiscate private party everywhere, redistribute wealth to developing nations, and force us all to live by new global laws that sacrifice our national sovereignty. It’s totalitarian governments and not transnational corporations that we should be afraid of, they warn.

But when the tinfoil hat is removed, you can see that a sort of one-world government has already been established in a far more subtle form, through the rise of Goldman Sachs and their colleagues in the Wall Street elite.

A million questions arise when looking at what’s happening around the world. But many of these questions can be answered, once it’s acknowledged that Goldman Sachs alumni have executed a global coup d’etat.

Why are the working people of Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy suffering under austerity and being asked to sacrifice their pensions, their wages, and their jobs when, after five years, it’s clear these policies are only making these nations’ debts even harder to pay off?

It’s because Goldman Sachs is sucking the last remaining wealth out of those nations to recoup whatever failed investments they made before the Crash.

Why have thousands of homeowners in the United States turned to suicide, domestic violence, and even mass murder when faced with home foreclosure, when a simple solution like re-writing mortgages, which FDR did successfully during the Great Depression, could put an end to the bloodshed and misery?

It’s because re-writing mortgages would force banks like Goldman Sachs to take a hit. And thanks to the game they’ve created, they actually make more money when a home they own is foreclosed on.

Why, despite mountains of evidence, have banksters at Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street institutions not been thrown in jail for defrauding customers, manipulating LIBOR interest rates, and throwing thousands of Americans out of their homes illegally in a massive robo-signing scandal?

It’s because we have a two-tiered justice system in which those in power, like Goldman Sachs executives, get a slap on the wrist when they steal $50 billion, but people like you and me go to jail for stealing a 7-11 Slurpee.

Now does it make sense why Wall Street was bailed out and Main Street was sold out?

In this post-crash world, where agents of Goldman Sachs have infiltrated key positions of power all around the world, we must all fundamentally re-understand how we view the global economy and just how much effect our democratic institutions have on this economy.

We no longer have an economy geared to benefit working people around the world; we have an economy that’s geared to exploit working people for Goldman Sachs' profits. Trader Alessio Rastani told the BBC in September before Goldman’s Lucas Papademos was installed as Greece’s Prime Minister, “We don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it…Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.” Rastani continued, “When the market crashes... if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.”

And as we’ve seen over the last decade, Goldman Sachs knows exactly what to do. They’ve had the right plan set-up, and it's nothing short of a global coup d’etat.

As Rastani bluntly told the BBC, “This is not a time right now for wishful thinking that governments are going to sort things out. The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.”
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.


Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling Project Censored Award winning author and host of a nationally syndicated progressive radio talk show. Follow him on Twitter at @Thom_Hartmann.

Sam Sacks is a Progressive Commentator and former Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill. He is currently the Senior Producer of The Big Picture with Thom Hartmannairing weeknights at 7PM EST on RT and Free Speech TV. Follow him on Twitter at @SamSacks.


LIST OF GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEES IN THE WHITE HOUSE
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q4...ite-house/

Washington. At best, it’s considered a revolving door for powerful individuals between Wall Street and the White House. At worst, it’s an economic coup that has been successful in infiltrating and subverting the United States federal government. What is it? The multi-national global banking syndicate known as Goldman Sachs. And more and more, its employees and the federal government’s employees are becoming one and the same.

In this Raymond Balze painting from the 1850's, Jesus chistises the 'money changers' in the Temple, and by doing so, a major tenent in the Christian faith is born.

Goldman Sachs and the White House

The following list was compiled by Nachumlist.com and published in May 2012. With a new Obama administration taking control after the first of the year, the below names will change somewhat. Many of the current White House staff and paid advisers will go back to their Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs. While new Wall Street power players, many of the same individuals from previous Presidential administrations, will take their place.

What follows is a list of Goldman Sachs employees and paid agents who have moved over to positions in the Barack Obama White House. The second list below includes many additional Goldman Sachs employees who were hired by the Bush administration and were hold-overs into President Obama’s first term. The third and final list reflects the Goldman Sachs individuals who have moved on to positions at other global or foreign governments and institutions.

The Money Lenders

As we can see, and federal and state election disclosures confirm, Goldman Sachs has little or no loyalty to either the Republicans or the Democrats. The global bank is a major partner in administrations from both parties, contributes to both parties, and some would argue, controls both parties. This battle between the citizens of a country against the self-serving power and influence of the global banking cartel is not new. In fact, it’s been going on since Biblical times when Christianity banned ‘usury’ – the charging of interest on loans or debts.

For a detailed and historical recap, read the Whiteout Press Special Report, ‘The Illuminati’.

The following two historical quotes sum up the eternal struggle that still goes on today:

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” – Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790.

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.” – James Madison, 4th President of the United States.

Showing that this eternal struggle - between those cursed with a sickness of unquenchable greed versus those they prey upon – is alive and well even today, the following list presents many of today’s individuals who’ve left their multi-million dollar positions at Goldman Sachs to take a powerful and influential roll inside the White House.

Naming Names – The List

*Note: A number of the below names reference 'The Hamilton Project', a Brookings Institute owned political and policy think tank and advisory organization.

From Nachumlist.com (May, 2012), listed in alphabetical order:

Goldman Sachs Personnel in the Barack Obama White House

Lael Brainard: Brainard is the United States Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the administration of Obama.

Gregory Craig: Former White House Counsel, Recently hired by Goldman Sachs.

Thomas Donilon: Deputy National Security Adviser (despite having a career that is mostly involved with domestic politics). Donilon was a lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers and made almost $4 million representing meltdown clients including Penny Pritzker (of Chicago) and Goldman Sachs.

William C. Dudley: President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, partner and managing director at Goldman Sachs and was the firm’s chief U.S. economist for a decade.

Douglas Elmendorf: Obama Director of the Congressional Budget Office in January 2009, replaced Furman as Director of the Hamilton Project (Note that the Hamilton Project was funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs).

Rahm Emanuel: Obama Chief of Staff, on the payroll of Goldman Sachs receiving $3,000 per month from the firm to “introduce us to people", in the words of one Goldman Sachs partner at the time.

Dianna Farrell: Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst.

Stephen Friedman: Obama Administration: Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman 1990-94; Director 2005).

Michael Frohman: Robert Rubin’s Chief of Staff while Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and an Obama “head hunter” according to “Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team” in the New York Times.

Anne Fudge: Appointed to Obama budget deficit reduction committee. Fudge has been the PR craftsman for some of America’s largest corporations. She sits, according to the Washington Post, as a Trustee of the Brookings Institution within which the Hamilton Project is embedded.

Jason Furman: Directed economic policy for the Obama Presidential Campaign, served as the second Director of the Hamilton Project after Peter Orszag’s departure for the Obama administration.

Mark Gallogly: Sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory council. He is also, according to Wikipedia, currently a member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Timothy Geithner: Secretary of the Treasury, former President of the New York Fed. a former managing director of Goldman Sachs.

Gary Gensler: Obama Administration: Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance.

Michael Greenstone: The 4th Director of the Hamilton Project. Just as attorney Craig went from advising Obama to defending Goldman Sachs against the SEC complaint, Greenstone has used the revolving door to go from an Obama economic adviser position to one of the Goldman Sachs outlets - in this case its think tank embedded in the Brookings Institution and funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin. All 3 previous Directors of the Hamilton Project work in the Obama administration.

Robert Hormats: Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group.

Neel Kashkari: Served under Treasury Secretary Paulson (a former Goldman Sachs CEO) and was kept on by Obama after his inauguration for a limited period to work on TARP oversight. Former Vice President of Goldman Sachs in San Francisco where he led Goldman’s Information Technology Security Investment Banking practice.

Karen Kornbluh: (Sometimes called "Obama’s brain") Obama Ambassador to the OECD. Was Deputy Chief of Staff to 'Mr. Goldman Sachs', Robert Rubin.

Jacob "Jack" Lew: The United States Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. According to Wikipedia, Lew sits on the Brookings-Rubin funded Hamilton Project Advisory Board. He also served with Robert Rubin in Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Director of OMB.

David Lipton: Now on Obama’s National Economic Council and the National Security Council. Lipton worked with Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner on the US response to the Asian financial crisis of the 1990’s. MergeFoundations reports that Lipton worked closely with Robert Rubin.

Emil Michael: White House Fellow. Former investment banker with Goldman Sachs.

Eric Mindich: Former chief strategy officer of New York-based Goldman Sachs, started Eton Park in 2004 with $3.5 billion, at the time one of the biggest hedge-fund launches ever. .....Hank Paulson Tipped Off The Goldman-Led "Plunge Protection Team" About Fannie Bankruptcy 7 Weeks In Advance (2007): Goldman operative Eric Mindich in the hierarchy of the Asset Managers' committee of the President's Working Group on Capital Markets, better known of course as the PPT (in 2009).

Philip Murphy: Obama Administration: Ambassador to Germany. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Head of Goldman Sachs, Frankfurt.

Barack Obama: Obama owes his career to Goldman Sachs which was not only his biggest financial contributor when he ran for the Presidency, but was also his biggest contributor when he ran for the US Senate.

Peter Orszag: Obama Budget Director. Founding director of the Hamilton Project, funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin. Wikipedia indicates that Robert Rubin, Goldman’s ex-CEO, was one of Orszag’s mentors.

Mark Patterson: Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Lobbyist 2005-2008; Vice President for Government Relations.

Mark Peterson: Chief of staff to Timothy Geithner. Goldman Sachs Vice President and lobbyist.

Steve Ratner: The shady billionaire financier who Obama appointed as his “car czar” and who resigned after it was revealed that his company, the Quadrangle Group, was apparently involved in “pay to play” for a billion dollars or so of New York State pension funds, and was under possible indictment by the New York AG and the SEC. Sits on the Advisory Council of the Goldman funded Hamilton Project.

Robert Reischauer: A member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission from 2000-2009 and was its Vice Chair from 2001-2008. He too sits on the Hamilton Project’s advisory board.

Alice Rivlin: Obama named Alice Rivlin to his so-called Deficit Reduction Commission.

James Rubin: Son of Robert Rubin. Served as a 'headhunter' for Obama per the New York Times article, "Rubin Proteges Change Their Tune as They Join Obama’s Team".

Gene Sperling: Advisor to Timothy Geithner on bailouts. Sperling paid by Goldman Sachs for one year of consulting work.


Adam Storch: Obama Managing Executive of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement. Former Vice President in the Goldman Sachs Business Intelligence Group.

Larry Summers: Obama chief economic adviser and head of the National Economic Counsel. Worked under Robert Rubin at Goldman Sachs.

John Thain: Obama Administration: Advisor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Former Goldman Sachs Title: President and Chief Operating Officer (1999-2003).

Goldman Sachs personnel in the George W. Bush White House

Joshua Bolten: Bush II Administration: White House Chief of Staff (2006 – 2009). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Executive Director, Legal & Government Affairs (1994-1999).

William C Dudley: NY Federal Reserve: Current President/CEO. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Managing Director – 2007.

Edward C. Forst: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson 2008. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Co-head of Goldman’s investment management business.

Stephen Friedman: NY Federal Reserve: Former Chairman of the Board – 2009. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director 2005-).

Gary Gensler: Bush II Administration: Undersecretary of the Treasury (1999-2001) and Assistant Secretary, Treasury (1997-1999). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance.

Reuben Jeffery III: Bush II Administration: Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department (2007–2009). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Managing Partner, Paris until 2002 Security Investment Banking Practice.

Dan Jester: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson 2008. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Deputy CFO.

Neel Kashkari: Bush II Administration: Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, Treasury (2008 – 2009). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice President, Goldman Sachs San Francisco; led Information Technology Security Investment Banking Practice.

Eric Mindich: Former chief strategy officer of New York-based Goldman Sachs. Started Eton Park in 2004 with $3.5 billion.

Henry Paulson: Bush II Administration: Secretary of the Treasury 2006 - 2009. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chairman and CEO (1998-2006).

Robert Rubin: Bush II Administration: Secretary of the Treasury 1995-1999. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman (1987-1990).

Robert Steel: Bush II Administration: Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Treasury (2006 – 2008). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman – 2004.

Steve Shafran: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson 2008. Former Goldman Sachs private equity business in Asia until 2000.

Kendrick R. Wilson III: Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson 2008. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chairman of Goldman’s financial institutions groups.

Robert Zoellick: Bush II Administration: United States Trade Representative (2001-2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005-2006), World Bank President (2007 -). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, International (2006-07).

Other Noteworthy Global Appointees

Mark Carney: Current Title: Governor, Bank of Canada. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Managing Director Goldman Sachs Canada until 2003.

Mario Draghi: Current Title: Governor of the Bank of Italy (2006- ). Former Goldman Sachs Title: European Deputy Chairman/Partner until 2006.

Edward Liddy: Current Title: AIG CEO. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman 1990-94; Director 2005- ).

Duncan Niederauer: Current Title: Chair/CEO NYSE. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Managing Director – 2007.

Romano Prodi: Current Title: Prime Minister of Italy (1996-1998 and 2006-2008) and President of the European Commission (1999-2004). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Paid adviser/consultant 1990 – 1993.

Massimo Tononi: Current Title: Italian Deputy Treasury Chief (2006-2008). Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner 2004 – 2006.

Malcolm Turnbull: Current Title: Federal Leader, Liberal Party of Australia. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner (1998-2001).

David Watson: Current Title: Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England. Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chief European economist.

The above list of names and their descriptions is reprinted in its entirety from Nachumlist.com.

Admin

THE TOWER OF BASEL : SECRETIVE PLANS FOR THE ISSUING OF A GLOBAL CURRENCY

Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issuing our global currency

Ellen Brown
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-tower-o...ency/13239


In an April 7 [2009] article in The London Telegraph titled “The G20 Moves the World a Step Closer to

a Global Currency,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote:

“A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.

“‘We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,’ it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.


“In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing’. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”

Indeed they will. The article is subtitled, “The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.” Which naturally raises the question, who or what will serve as this global central bank, cloaked with the power to issue the global currency and police monetary policy for all humanity? When the world’s central bankers met in Washington last September, they discussed what body might be in a position to serve in that awesome and fearful role. A former governor of the Bank of England stated:


“[T]he answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). . . . The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”1

And if the vision of a global currency outside government control does not set off conspiracy theorists, putting the BIS in charge of it surely will. The BIS has been scandal-ridden ever since it was branded with pro-Nazi leanings in the 1930s. Founded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1930, the BIS has been called “the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world.” Charles Higham wrote in his book Trading with the Enemy that by the late 1930s, the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias, a theme that was expanded on in a BBC Timewatch film titled “Banking with Hitler” broadcast in 1998.2 In 1944, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton-Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS, following Czech accusations that it was laundering gold stolen by the Nazis from occupied Europe; but the central bankers succeeded in quietly snuffing out the American resolution.3


Modest beginnings, BIS Office, Hotel Savoy-Univers, Basel


First Annual General Meeting, 1931

In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley revealed the key role played in global finance by the BIS behind the scenes. Dr. Quigley was Professor of History at Georgetown University, where he was President Bill Clinton’s mentor. He was also an insider, groomed by the powerful clique he called “the international bankers.” His credibility is heightened by the fact that he actually espoused their goals. He wrote:

“I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960′s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. . . . [I]n general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

Quigley wrote of this international banking network:


“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”

The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The statement echoed one made in the eighteenth century by the patriarch of what would become the most powerful banking dynasty in the world. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791:

“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Mayer’s five sons were sent to the major capitals of Europe – London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Naples – with the mission of establishing a banking system that would be outside government control. The economic and political systems of nations would be controlled not by citizens but by bankers, for the benefit of bankers. Eventually, a privately-owned “central bank” was established in nearly every country; and this central banking system has now gained control over the economies of the world. Central banks have the authority to print money in their respective countries, and it is from these banks that governments must borrow money to pay their debts and fund their operations. The result is a global economy in which not only industry but government itself runs on “credit” (or debt) created by a banking monopoly headed by a network of private central banks; and at the top of this network is the BIS, the “central bank of central banks” in Basel.

Behind the Curtain

For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel. It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates. In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building has been described as “an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor.” It quickly became known as the “Tower of Basel.” Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force.4 It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.

The BIS is now composed of 55 member nations, but the club that meets regularly in Basel is a much smaller group; and even within it, there is a hierarchy. In a 1983 article in Harper’s Magazine called “Ruling the World of Money,” Edward Jay Epstein wrote that where the real business gets done is in “a sort of inner club made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat” – those from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England. Epstein said:


“The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments. . . . A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system.”

In 1974, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created by the central bank Governors of the Group of Ten nations (now expanded to twenty). The BIS provides the twelve-member Secretariat for the Committee. The Committee, in turn, sets the rules for banking globally, including capital requirements and reserve controls. In a 2003 article titled “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” Joan Veon wrote:


“The BIS is where all of the world’s central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them. . . .

“When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world’s monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.”5

The Controversial Basel Accords

The power of the BIS to make or break economies was demonstrated in 1988, when it issued a Basel Accord raising bank capital requirements from 6% to 8%. By then, Japan had emerged as the world’s largest creditor; but Japan’s banks were less well capitalized than other major international banks. Raising the capital requirement forced them to cut back on lending, creating a recession in Japan like that suffered in the U.S. today. Property prices fell and loans went into default as the security for them shriveled up. A downward spiral followed, ending with the total bankruptcy of the banks. The banks had to be nationalized, although that word was not used in order to avoid criticism.6

Among other collateral damage produced by the Basel Accords was a spate of suicides among Indian farmers unable to get loans. The BIS capital adequacy standards required loans to private borrowers to be “risk-weighted,” with the degree of risk determined by private rating agencies; and farmers and small business owners could not afford the agencies’ fees. Banks therefore assigned 100 percent risk to the loans, and then resisted extending credit to these “high-risk” borrowers because more capital was required to cover the loans. When the conscience of the nation was aroused by the Indian suicides, the government, lamenting the neglect of farmers by commercial banks, established a policy of ending the “financial exclusion” of the weak; but this step had little real effect on lending practices, due largely to the strictures imposed by the BIS from abroad.7

Similar complaints have come from Korea. An article in the December 12, 2008 Korea Times titled “BIS Calls Trigger Vicious Cycle” described how Korean entrepreneurs with good collateral cannot get operational loans from Korean banks, at a time when the economic downturn requires increased investment and easier credit:


“‘The Bank of Korea has provided more than 35 trillion won to banks since September when the global financial crisis went full throttle,’ said a Seoul analyst, who declined to be named. ‘But the effect is not seen at all with the banks keeping the liquidity in their safes. They simply don’t lend and one of the biggest reasons is to keep the BIS ratio high enough to survive,’ he said. . . .

“Chang Ha-joon, an economics professor at Cambridge University, concurs with the analyst. ‘What banks do for their own interests, or to improve the BIS ratio, is against the interests of the whole society. This is a bad idea,’ Chang said in a recent telephone interview with Korea Times.”

In a May 2002 article in The Asia Times titled “Global Economy: The BIS vs. National Banks,” economist Henry C K Liu observed that the Basel Accords have forced national banking systems “to march to the same tune, designed to serve the needs of highly sophisticated global financial markets, regardless of the developmental needs of their national economies.” He wrote:


“[N]ational banking systems are suddenly thrown into the rigid arms of the Basel Capital Accord sponsored by the Bank of International Settlement (BIS), or to face the penalty of usurious risk premium in securing international interbank loans. . . . National policies suddenly are subjected to profit incentives of private financial institutions, all members of a hierarchical system controlled and directed from the money center banks in New York. The result is to force national banking systems to privatize . . . .

“BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. . . . The IMF and the international banks regulated by the BIS are a team: the international banks lend recklessly to borrowers in emerging economies to create a foreign currency debt crisis, the IMF arrives as a carrier of monetary virus in the name of sound monetary policy, then the international banks come as vulture investors in the name of financial rescue to acquire national banks deemed capital inadequate and insolvent by the BIS.”

Ironically, noted Liu, developing countries with their own natural resources did not actually need the foreign investment that trapped them in debt to outsiders:


“Applying the State Theory of Money [which assumes that a sovereign nation has the power to issue its own money], any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation.”



When governments fall into the trap of accepting loans in foreign currencies, however, they become “debtor nations” subject to IMF and BIS regulation. They are forced to divert their production to exports, just to earn the foreign currency necessary to pay the interest on their loans. National banks deemed “capital inadequate” have to deal with strictures comparable to the “conditionalities” imposed by the IMF on debtor nations: “escalating capital requirement, loan writeoffs and liquidation, and restructuring through selloffs, layoffs, downsizing, cost-cutting and freeze on capital spending.” Liu wrote:

“Reversing the logic that a sound banking system should lead to full employment and developmental growth, BIS regulations demand high unemployment and developmental degradation in national economies as the fair price for a sound global private banking system.”

The Last Domino to Fall

While banks in developing nations were being penalized for falling short of the BIS capital requirements, large international banks managed to escape the rules, although they actually carried enormous risk because of their derivative exposure. The mega-banks succeeded in avoiding the Basel rules by separating the “risk” of default out from the loans and selling it off to investors, using a form of derivative known as “credit default swaps.”



However, it was not in the game plan that U.S. banks should escape the BIS net. When they managed to sidestep the first Basel Accord, a second set of rules was imposed known as Basel II. The new rules were established in 2004, but they were not levied on U.S. banks until November 2007, the month after the Dow passed 14,000 to reach its all-time high. It has been all downhill from there. Basel II had the same effect on U.S. banks that Basel I had on Japanese banks: they have been struggling ever since to survive.8

Basel II requires banks to adjust the value of their marketable securities to the “market price” of the security, a rule called “mark to market.”9 The rule has theoretical merit, but the problem is timing: it was imposed ex post facto, after the banks already had the hard-to-market assets on their books. Lenders that had been considered sufficiently well capitalized to make new loans suddenly found they were insolvent. At least, they would have been insolvent if they had tried to sell their assets, an assumption required by the new rule. Financial analyst John Berlau complained:

“The crisis is often called a ‘market failure,’ and the term ‘mark-to-market’ seems to reinforce that. But the mark-to-market rules are profoundly anti-market and hinder the free-market function of price discovery. . . . In this case, the accounting rules fail to allow the market players to hold on to an asset if they don’t like what the market is currently fetching, an important market action that affects price discovery in areas from agriculture to antiques.”10

Imposing the mark-to-market rule on U.S. banks caused an instant credit freeze, which proceeded to take down the economies not only of the U.S. but of countries worldwide. In early April 2009, the mark-to-market rule was finally softened by the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB); but critics said the modification did not go far enough, and it was done in response to pressure from politicians and bankers, not out of any fundamental change of heart or policies by the BIS.

And that is where the conspiracy theorists come in. Why did the BIS not retract or at least modify Basel II after seeing the devastation it had caused? Why did it sit idly by as the global economy came crashing down? Was the goal to create so much economic havoc that the world would rush with relief into the waiting arms of the BIS with its privately-created global currency? The plot thickens . . . .

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.

NOTES

1. Andrew Marshall, “The Financial New World Order: Towards a Global Currency and World Government,” Global Research (April 6, 2009).

2 Alfred Mendez, “The Network,” The World Central Bank: The Bank for International Settlements, http://copy_bilderberg.tripod.com/bis.htm.

3 “BIS – Bank of International Settlement: The Mother of All Central Banks,” hubpages.com (2009).

4 Ibid.

5 Joan Veon, “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” News with Views (August 26, 2003).

6 Peter Myers, “The 1988 Basle Accord – Destroyer of Japan’s Finance System,” http://www.mailstar.net/basle.html (updated September 9, 2008).

7 Nirmal Chandra, “Is Inclusive Growth Feasible in Neoliberal India?”, www.networkideas.org (September 2008).

8 Bruce Wiseman, “The Financial Crisis: A look Behind the Wizard’s Curtain,” Canada Free Press (March 19, 2009).

9 See Ellen Brown, “Credit Where Credit Is Due,” www.webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php (January 11, 2009).

10 John Berlau, “The International Mark-to-market Contagion,” OpenMarket.org (October 10, 2008).



Admin

TECTONIC PLATES SHIFTING IN WORLD POWER STRUCTURE ARE SIGNS OF A NEW WORLD ORDER

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/20...rld-order/


Something has just happened which got hardly any attention in the media, but which is very important.   The recent setting up by China of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank may not seem likely to excite the passions, but it should.   For this is clearly an intention by the big Asian powers to challenge the World Bank and the IMF which have been the cornerstone of Western (for which read US) domination of the global economy since Bretton Woods in 1944 and the main deliverers of the so-called ‘Washington consensus’.   It is equally significant that several of Washington’s European allies, led by Britain, have signed up to become founding members of the new bank, despite vigorous US  lobbying to stop them joining.  France, Germany and Italy have also now joined up, and Australia and South Korea are also now thought likely to join.   This unprecedented desertion of the US approach by its key allies has left Washington scrambling to recover from a major setback.   But the immediate signs are that it’s not succeeding.

Jack Lew, the US Treasury secretary, has been forced to go to Congress to plead with the Republican majority to drop their opposition to IMF reforms which would give China and other emerging powers a greater voice in the Fund.   He stated that if the reforms were not accepted when “our international credibility and influence are being threatened”, there will be “a loss of US influence and our ability to shape international norms and practices”.   Republican intransigence may well block the Obama team’s initiative.

So why did the UK, which usually kowtows to all US demands and was recently described by a Beijing thinktank as “America’s thug for hire”, step out of line?   Following Lew’s line that the US is concerned that the new bank will not live up to the ‘highest global standards’, Osborne said the UK was joining up to ensure that the bank was ethical, transparent and efficient (!).   How he has the gall to utter such platitudes in the light of a decade of monstrous corruption by Britain’s Big 4 banks is beyond satire.   But of course such weasel declarations have nothing to do with the truth.   The most obvious reason is that Osborne wanted to make the City of London a prime offshore financial centre for China and the renminbi.   Whether Osborne succeeds in the light of still raw Chinese memories of the opium wars, the history of gunboat diplomacy and the legacy of Britain’s ‘unequal treaties’ and colonial subjugation in China, is another matter.

There are good reasons for the proposed World Bank reforms.   Presently China has just 3.8% of voting rights though it control 16% of global output.   The rules and norms that have governed international relations since the 1940s were made in Washington’s image , and unsurprisingly China objects to norms made then which still allow the US to police Asian waters vital to China’s interests.   Even if reform is blocked in the US Congress for the present, in the medium term it is inevitable.   A recognition of the real reasons for that by the West, as opposed to empty platitudes, would be helpful and the best way to ensure that this major transition in world affairs is carried through with least disadvantage to the old US-UK powers.


WHEN NEO-LIBERALISM IS PHASED OUT SO SHOULD THE IMF AND WORLD BANK
http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/20...d-bank-be/

We are constantly being told that 2014 is the centenary of the start of the First World War, but rather less – or indeed nothing at all – is being made of the fact that this year is also the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the IMF and World Bank.   That is more than a pity because both these institutions are redolent of the Washington Consensus, the darker side of US foreign policy, and the domination of the Western countries over the former colonies and the emergent economies, all of which are now under profound challenge and being forced to give way to new structures of power.   And as neo-liberalism has become increasingly volatile and toxic under the impact of financialised capitalism over the last three decades, it has become more and more clear that a new model of global governance is needed that fits these new constellations of power.   It would also be helpful if Labour, which has so far concentrated exclusively on domestic issues, could extend its reach by highlighting how its domestic vision of the realignment of corporate power should apply also within the world community.

Certainly the record of the IMF and World Bank has been abysmal.   They have consistently supported corrupt and dictatorial regimes so long as they served Western interests – in the Congo, Rwanda, Indonesia, Philippines, Tunisia and Egypt.   They used their resources and power to undermine and destroy outbreaks of democracy – Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Allende in Chile, and many others.   When countries, despite the efforts of the IMF and World, nevertheless gained their independence in the 1950-60s, they forced these fledgeling independent states to repay the odious debts contracted by the previous authoritarian and corrupt regimes.

They continued to provide financial back-up to countries like apartheid South Africa and Portugal in their suppression of the countries and races they controlled whether in Africa or the Pacific.   In terms of the environment and climate change, they overwhelmingly backed the fossil fuel industries and multinational exploitation of indigenous resources in the newly independent developing countries.   The World Bank financed projects that flagrantly violated human rights such as the enforced displacement of populations in Indonesia.   And their signature policy, the liberalisation of capital flows, has paved the way for the current industrial-level tax avoidance, extensive corruption, and abrupt flight of capital that is so badly damaging emerging markets.

So what should be done?   What is needed is an alternative to the World Bank that allows regionalised banks in different continents, particularly in the South, to supply very low interest loans or grants to emerging economies on condition that they observe strict social, employment and environmental standards and respect fundamental human rights.   Equally the IMF should be transformed to its real mandate to ensure currency stability, replace its neoliberal dogma with a genuine developmental model, and coordinate international action to crack down on tax havens and tax avoidance in all its forms.


DEBT MOUNTAINS EVERYWHERE ARE RAPIDLY PRECIPATING NEXT FINANCIAL CRASH
http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/20...ial-crash/


The big problem, the very big problem indeed, for capitalism at its present stage is that demand is flat or falling.   That underlying pattern has existed for the last 40 years since the demand for continent-wide reconstruction after the Second World War gradually petered out in the 1970s.   Thereafter the flatness of demand was to some extent hidden by the acceleration of global arms expenditure in the Cold War as well as by the world-scale development in technology applying to cars, planes and computers.   The unipolar power of the US as the world’s hegemon plus the paucity of technological breakthroughs with worldwide industrial application have left a growing vacuum of demand sufficient to power a global capitalism that depends on it.   That comparative vacuum which was met by the enormous explosion of debt in the 1990-2000s, and which led directly to the global financial crash of 2008-9, is once again being met by the huge expansion of debt which cannot conceivably be sustained long-term.

The one relatively bright spot last time round was China.   Its growth rate fell, but was still strong by Western economy standards.   Now however China is joining other nations propelled by debt-fuelled growth.   Total bank and other-financial lending in China hit almost 200% of GDP in 2012, well on the way to doubling since the 125% level in 2008.   Moreover the debt is growing twice as fast as the economy.   That kind of debt-laden growth can survive for some time, but sooner rather than later will hit the buffers because the level of debt cannot be paid down.

Next, Europe.  Lombard Research has found that EU banks are more or less insolvent and only survive because of Draghi’s famous commitment to do ‘whateve it takes’ to preserve the euro.   That has meant providing unlimited liquidity to the EU banks.   This again is not a long-term tenable position because the EU banks’ liabilities exposure is 350% of EU GDP (compared, say, to only 80% for US banks in relation to US GDP).   Moreover the eurozone banks are not only highly leveraged, but are still expanding their balance sheets and making little effort to recapitalise.

Then there is what the Director of Financial Stability at the Bank of England has termed “the biggest bond bubble in history”.   This is the flip-side of the government pumping £375bn of electronic money (QE) into the UK economy over the last 4 years.   If that colossal bubble were to deflate in a rapid or disorderly fashion – signs of which were apparent when Bernanke at the US Federal Reserve indicated he might begin to reduce the QE stimulus – the consequences would be catastrophic.   What makes these risks even worse is the further bubble created by Osborne’s insane help-to-buy mortgage guarantee scheme.

What is needed, but no political leader will talk about, is not the further magnification of already gigantic financial bubbles, but rather the release of the suppressed demand caused by decades of squeezing wages and the ideological taboo at the centre of neoliberal capitalism against any use of Keynesian demand stimulus.

Admin

NEOCONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY “SUPPORTS US FINANCIAL AND MILITARY POLITICAL IMPERIALISM"

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and The Saker
http://www.globalresearch.ca/neoconserva...sm/5438481



I had been wanting to interview Paul Craig Roberts for a long time already. For many years I have been following his writings and interviews and every time I read what he had to say I was hoping that one day I would have the privilege do interview him about the nature of the US deep state and the Empire. Recently, I emailed him and asked for such an interview, and he very kindly agreed. I am very grateful to him for this opportunity.

The Saker

The Saker:  It has become rather obvious to many, if not most, people that the USA is not a democracy or a republic, but rather a plutocracy run by a small elite which some call “the 1%”.  Others speak of the “deep state”.  So my first question to you is the following.  Could you please take the time to assess the influence and power of each of the following entities one by one.  In particular, can you specify for each of the following whether it has a decision-making “top” position, or a decision-implementing “middle” position in the real structure of power (listed in no specific order)

Federal Reserve
Big Banking
Bilderberg
Council on Foreign Relations
Skull & Bones
CIA
Goldman Sachs and top banks
“Top 100 families” (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Dutch Royal Family, British Royal Family, etc.)
Israel Lobby
Freemasons and their lodges
Big Business: Big Oil, Military Industrial Complex, etc.

Other people or organizations not listed above?

Who, which group, what entity would you consider is really at the apex of power in the current US polity?

Paul Craig Roberts: The US is ruled by private interest groups and by the neoconservative ideology that History has chosen the US as the “exceptional and indispensable” country with the right and responsibility to impose its will on the world.

In my opinion the most powerful of the private interest groups are:

The Military/security Complex
The 4 or 5 mega-sized “banks too big to fail” and Wall Street
The Israel Lobby
Agribusiness
The Extractive industries (oil, mining, timber).

The interests of these interest groups coincide with those of the neoconservatives. The neoconservative ideology supports American financial and military-political imperialism or hegemony.

There is no independent American print or TV media.  In the last years of the Clinton regime, 90% of the print and TV media was concentrated in 6 mega-companies.  During the Bush regime, National Public Radio lost its independence.  So the media functions as a Ministry of Propaganda.

Both political parties, Republicans and Democrats, are dependent on the same private interest groups for campaign funds, so both parties dance to the same masters.  Jobs offshoring destroyed the manufacturing and industrial unions and deprived the Democrats of Labor Union political contributions. In those days, Democrats represented the working people and Republicans represented business.

The Federal Reserve is there for the banks, mainly the large ones.The Federal Reserve was created as lender of last resort to prevent banks from failing because of runs on the bank or withdrawal of deposits.  The New York Fed, which conducts the financial interventions, has a board that consists of the executives of the big banks.  The last  three Federal Reserve chairmen have been Jews, and the current vice chairman is the former head of the Israeli central bank. Jews are prominent in the financial sector, for example, Goldman Sachs.  In recent years, the US Treasury Secretaries and heads of the financial regulatory agencies have mainly been the bank executives responsible for the fraud and excessive debt leverage that set off the last financial crisis.

In the 21st century, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have served only the interests of the large banks.  This has been at the expense of the economy and the population. For example, retired people have had no interest income for eight years in order that the financial institutions can borrow at zero costs and make money.

No matter how rich some families are, they cannot compete with powerful interest groups such as the military/security complex or Wall Street and the banks.  Long established wealth can look after its interests, and some, such as the Rockefellers,  have activist foundations that most likely work hand in hand with the National Endowment for Democracy to fund and encourage various pro-American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in countries that the US wants to influence or overthrow, such as occurred in Ukraine.  The NGOs are essentially US Fifth Columns and operate under such names as “human rights,” “democracy,” etc.  A Chinese professor told me that the Rockefeller Foundation had created an American University in China and is used to organize various anti-regime Chinese.  At one time, and perhaps still, there were hundreds of US and German financed NGOs in Russia, possibly as many as 1,000.

I don’t know if the Bilderbergs do the same.  Possibly they are just very rich people and have their proteges in governments who try to protect their interests.  I have never seen any signs of Bilderbergs or Masons or Rothchilds affecting congressional or executive branch decisions.

On the other hand, the Council for Foreign Relations is influential.  The council consists of former government policy officials and academics involved in foreign policy and international relations.  The council’s publication, Foreign Affairs, is the premier foreign policy forum.  Some journalists are also members. When I was proposed for membership in the 1980s, I was blackballed.

Skull & Bones is a Yale University secret fraternity.  A number of universities have such secret fraternities.  For example, the University of Virginia has one, and the University of Georgia.  These fraternities do not have secret governmental plots or ruling powers.  Their influence would be limited to the personal influence of the members, who tend to be sons of elite families.  In my opinion, these fraternities exist to convey elite status to members.  They have no operational functions.

The Saker:  What about individuals?  Who are, in your opinion, the most powerful people in the USA today?  Who takes the final, top level, strategic decision?

Paul Craig Roberts:  There really are no people powerful in themselves.  Powerful people are ones that powerful interest groups are behind.  Ever since Secretary of Defense William Perry privatized so much of the military in 1991, the military/security complex has been  extremely powerful, and its power is further amplified by its ability to finance political campaigns and by the fact that it is a source of employment in many states. Essentially Pentagon expenditures are controlled by defense contractors.

The Saker:  I have always believed that in international terms, organizations such as NATO, the EU or all the others are only a front, and that the real alliance which controls the planet are the ECHELON countries: US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand aka “AUSCANNZUKUS” (they are also referred to as the “Anglosphere” or the “Five Eyes”) with the US and the UK are the senior partners while Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the junior partners here.  Is this model correct?

Paul Craig Roberts: NATO was a US creation allegedly to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion.  Its purpose expired in 1991.  Today NATO provides cover for US aggression and provides mercenary forces for the American Empire.  Britain, Canada, Australia, are simply US vassal states just as are Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the rest.  There are no partners; just vassals.  It is Washington’s empire, no one else’s.

The US favors the EU, because it is easier to control than the individual countries.

The Saker:  It is often said that Israel controls the USA.  Chomsky, and others, say that it is the USA which controls Israel.  How would you characterize the relationship between Israel and the USA – does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog?  Would you say that the Israel Lobby is in total control of the USA or are there still other forces capable of saying “no” to the Israel Lobby and impose their own agenda?

Paul Craig Roberts:  I have never seen any evidence that the US controls Israel.  All the evidence is that Israel controls the US, but only its MidEast policy.  In recent years, Israel or the Israel Lobby, has been able to control or block academic appointments in the US and tenure for professors considered to be critics of Israel.  Israel has successfully reached into both Catholic and State universities to block tenure and appointments.  Israel can also block some presidential appointments and has vast influence over the print and TV media.  The Israel Lobby also has plenty of money for political campaign funds and never fails to unseat US Representatives and Senators considered critical of Israel.  The Israel lobby was able to reach into the black congressional district of Cynthia McKinney, a black woman, and defeat her reelection.  As Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “No American President can stand up to Israel.”  Adm. Moorer could not even get an official investigation of Israel’s deadly attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.

Anyone who criticizes Israeli policies even in a helpful way is labeled an “anti-Semite.”

In American politics, media, and universities, this is a death-dealing blow.  You might as well get hit with a hellfire missile.

The Saker:  Which of the 12 entities of power which I listed above have, in your opinion, played a key role in the planning and execution of the 9/11 “false flag” operation?  After all, it is hard to imagine that this was planned and prepared between the inauguration of GW Bush and September 11th – it must have been prepared during the years of the Clinton Administration.  Is it not true the the Oklahoma City bombing was a rehearsal for 9/11?

Paul Craig Roberts: In my opinion 9/11 was the product of the neoconservatives, almost all of whom are Jewish, Dick Cheney, and Israel.  Its purpose was to provide “the new Pearl Harbor” that the neoconservatives said was necessary to launch their wars of conquest in the Middle East.  I don’t know how far back it was planned, but Silverstein was obviously part of it and he had not had the WTC for very long before 9/11.

As for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, US Air Force General Partin, the Air Force’s munitions expert,  prepared an expert report proving beyond all doubt that the building blew up from the inside out and that the truck bomb was cover.  Congress and the media ignored his report.  The patsy, McVeigh,  was already set up, and that was the only story allowed.

The Saker:  Do you think that the people who run the USA today realize that they are on a collision course with Russia which could lead to thermonuclear war?  If yes, why would they take such a risk? Do they really believe that at the last moment Russian will “blink” and back down, or do they actually believe that they can win a nuclear war?  Are they not afraid that in a nuclear conflagration with Russia they will lose everything they have, including their power and even their lives?

Paul Craig Roberts: I am as puzzled as much as you.  I think Washington is lost in hubris and arrogance and
is more or less insane.  Also, there is belief that the US can win a nuclear war with Russia.  There was an article in Foreign Affairs around 2005 or 2006 in which this conclusion was reached.  The belief in the winnability of nuclear war has been boosted by faith in ABM defenses.  The argument is that the US can hit Russia so hard in a preemptive first strike that Russia would not retaliate in fear of a second blow.

The Saker:  How do you assess the current health of the Empire?  For many years we have seen clear signs of decline, but there is still not visible collapse.  Do you believe that such a collapse is inevitable and, if not, how could it be prevented?  Will we see the day when the US Dollar suddenly become worthless or will another mechanism precipitate the collapse of this Empire?

Paul Craig Roberts:  The US economy is hollowed out.  There has been no real median family income growth for decades.  Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman used an expansion of consumer credit to take the place of the missing growth in consumer income, but the population is now too indebted to take on more.  So there is nothing to drive the economy.  So many manufacturing and tradable professional service jobs such as software engineering have been moved offshore that the middle class has shrunk.  University graduates cannot get jobs that support an independent existence.  So they can’t form households, buy houses, appliances and home furnishings.  The government produces low inflation measures by not measuring inflation and low unemployment rates by not measuring unemployment.  The financial markets are rigged, and gold is driven down despite rising demand by selling uncovered shorts in the futures market.  It is a house of cards that has stood longer than I thought possible.  Apparently, the house of cards can stand until the rest of the world ceases to hold the US dollar as reserves.

Possibly the empire has put too much stress on Europe by involving Europe in a conflict with Russia.  If Germany, for example, were to pull out of NATO, the empire would collapse, or if Russia can find the wits to finance Greece, Italy, and Spain in exchange for them leaving the Euro and EU, the empire would suffer a fatal blow.

Alternatively, Russia might tell Europe that Russia has no alternative but to target European capitals with nuclear weapons now that Europe has joined the US in conducting war against Russia.

The Saker:  Russia and China have done something unique in history and they have gone beyond the traditional model of forming an alliance: they have agreed to become interdependent – one could say that they have agreed to a symbiotic relationship.  Do you believe that those in charge of the Empire have understood the tectonic change which has just happen or are they simply going into deep denial because reality scares them too much?

Paul Craig Roberts:  Stephen Cohen says that there is simply no foreign policy discussion.  There is no debate.  I think the empire thinks that it can destabilize Russia and China and that is one reason Washington has color revolutions working in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. As Washington is determined to prevent the rise of other powers and is lost in hubris and arrogance, Washington probably believes that it will succeed.  After all, History chose Washington.

The Saker:  In your opinion, do presidential elections still matter and, if yes, what is your best hope for 2016?  I am personally very afraid of Hillary Clinton whom I see as an exceptionally dangerous and outright evil person, but with the current Neocon influence inside the Republican, can we really hope for a non-Neocon candidate to win the GOP nomination?

Paul Craig Roberts:  The only way a presidential election could matter would be if the elected president had behind him a strong movement.  Without a movement, the president has no independent power and no one to appoint who will do his bidding.  Presidents are captives.  Reagan had something of a movement, just enough that we were able to cure stagflation despite Wall Street’s opposition and we were able to end the cold war despite the opposition of the CIA and the military/security complex.  Plus Reagan was very old and came from a long time ago.  He assumed the office of the president was powerful and acted that way.

The Saker:  What about the armed forces?  Can you imagine a Chairman of the JCS saying “no, Mr President, that is crazy, we will not do this” or do you expect the generals to obey any order, including one starting a nuclear war against Russia?  Do you have any hope that the US military could step in and stop the “crazies” currently in power in the White House and Congress?

Paul Craig Roberts:  The US military is a creature of the armaments industries.  The whole purpose of making general is to be qualified to be a consultant to the “defense” industry, or to become an executive or on the board of a “defense” contractor.  The military serves as the source of retirement careers when the generals make the big money.  The US military is totally corrupt.  Read Andrew Cockburn’s book, Kill Chain.

The Saker:  If the USA is really deliberately going down the path towards war with Russia – what should Russia do?  Should Russia back down and accept to be subjugated as a preferable option to a thermonuclear war, or should Russia resist and thereby accept the possibility of a thermonuclear war?  Do you believe that a very deliberate and strong show of strength on the part of Russia could deter a US attack?

Paul Craig Roberts: I have often wondered about this.  I can’t say that I know.  I think Putin is humane enough to surrender rather than to be part of the destruction of the world, but Putin has to answer to others inside Russia and I doubt the nationalists would stand for surrender.

In my opinion, I think Putin should focus on Europe and make Europe aware that Russia expects an American attack and will have no choice except to wipe out Europe in response.  Putin should encourage Europe to break off from NATO in order to prevent World War 3.

Putin should also make sure China understands that China represents the same perceived threat to the US as Russia and that the two countries need to stand together.  Perhaps if Russia and China were to maintain their forces on a nuclear alert, not the top one, but an elevated one that conveyed recognition of the American threat and conveyed this threat to the world, the US could be isolated.

Perhaps if the Indian press, the Japanese Press, the French and German press, the UK press, the Chinese and Russian press began reporting that Russia and China wonder if they will receive a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington the result would be to prevent the attack.

As far as I can tell from my many media interviews with the Russian media, there is no Russian awareness of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Russians think that there is some kind of misunderstanding about Russian intentions.  The Russian media does not understand that Russia is unacceptable, because Russia is not a US vassal. Russians believe all the Western bullshit about “freedom and democracy” and believe that they are short on both but making progress.  In other words, Russians have no idea that they are targeted for destruction.

The Saker:  What are, in your opinion, the roots of the hatred of so many members of the US elites for Russia?  Is that just a leftover from the Cold War, or is there another reason for the almost universal russophobia amongst US elites?  Even during the Cold War, it was unclear whether the US was anti-Communist or anti-Russian?  Is there something in the Russian culture, nation or civilization which triggers that hostility and, if yes, what is it?

Paul Craig Roberts: The hostility toward Russia goes back to the Wolfowttz Doctrine:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

While the US was focused on its MidEast wars, Putin restored Russia and blocked  Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran.  The “first objective” of the neocon doctrine was breached.  Russia had to be brought into line.  That is the origin of Washington’s attack on Russia.  The dependent and captive US and European media simply repeats “the Russian Threat” to the public, which is insouciant and otherwise uninformed.

The offense of Russian culture is also there–Christian morals, respect for law and humanity, diplomacy in place of coercion, traditional social mores–but these are in the background.  Russia is hated because Russia (and China) is a check on Washington’s unilateral uni-power.  This check is what will lead to war.

If the Russians and Chinese do not expect a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington, they will be destroyed.
WELCOME TO THE MODERN FEuDal  SYSTEM

[Image: picture?folder=default0%2FINBOX&id=14875...rbdkob9ajb]
 
MY SHORT BUT THOROUGH AND WHOLLY ACCURATE HISTORY OF THE BAD DEEDS OF THE LAST FOUR FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMEN AND FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DURING EACH OF THEIR TENURES. -- Dick Eastman February 19,2017

Let's take them one by one -- and on the way you will learn all the tricks of Central Bank theft from the real domestic economy of nations with all-borrowed money supplies and monetary authorities who serve the moneyed interests at the expenses of everyone else.

I. Janet Yellen (Fed Chair 2014-present) In the midst of the present real economy's deflationary depression, she is increasing the Fed's discount rate for lending to banks making it more expensive and risky to lend near the limit the reserve requirement permits -- final effects fewer loans outstanding (less money in consumers' hands) and a bigger "outflow" of interest payments to banks which is pure deflation since during deflation, those collecting interest gain from not spending or lending the interest because just sitting idle their bonds and idle money deposits in deflation gain in purchasing power, giving them a windfall as the prices of things they buy (homes put on the market for rental properties, bankrupt businesses, privatized public lands and utilities going on the market.) Yellen and her colleagues are determined to prevent a new president from "making American great again" by further restricting consumer purchasing power through deflation, through tight bank lending of national money supply. 


II. Ben Bernanke (Fed Chair 2006 - 2014): This Fed Chairman also served the bond holders and cash balance holders of the world by creating deflation -- to the point of letting the M1 money supply (our checking deposits and dollar bills in the public's hands) actually shrink in quarters prior to the 2008 default crisis which was caused by that shrinkage of buying power, hiring power, tax paying power and, especially, mortgage-paying power of households, businesses and government. He did all of this deflationary damage -- but he talked a good talk -- about helicopter money being needed -- but his strategy and Fed Policy to remedy the deflation crisis -- misnamed a bubble crisis -- truth is, the economy is an airship in need of reflation, not a bubble that gets too much money and bursts, what really happens is the deflation hollows out the economy -- but as I was saying, Bernanke talked a good fight -- but his "solution" for the deflationary spiral -- which he would never exactly name as such -- was for the Fed -- actually Timothy Geithner who was then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which does all of the Federal Reserves swapping of bonds for cash (open market sale of bond by the Geithner NYFRB) with the bond holding super rich) and of swapping cash for bonds (the NYFRB buying bonds -- especially bad securitized (bad) mortgage loans from those who bought them -- bailing out the creditors -- CALLED QUANTITATIVE EASING -- protecting creditors from default by buying the bad IOUs from them -- BUT THIS MONEY THE INTERNATIONAL RICH GOT FOR THEIR BAD SECURITIZED MORTGAGE AND OTHER SECURITIES BROUGHT LOW BY DEFLATION IS MONEY THAT NEVER TOUCHED THE REAL ECONOMY WHERE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WERE SUFFERING FROM STILL-ONGOING DEFLATIONARY SPIRAL. THE MONEY WAS HELD IN IDLE DEPOSITS OR USED FOR BUYING REAL ASSETS AROUND THE WORLD -- IT WAS NOT SPENT ON AMERICAN PRODUCTS OR INVESTMENT IN NEW INFRASTRUCTURE OR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY IN THE US, BUT ONLY TO BUY UP PROPERTIES THAT THE PEOPLE WERE FORCED TO SEEL BECAUSE OF MIDDEL-CLASS DEFLATIONARY DEPRESSION THAT WAS INTENSIFIED BY CHAIRMAN BERNANKE AND NYFRB PRESIDENT GEITHNER. 


III. Alan Greenspan (Federal Res Chair 1987 - 2006) : This Fed Chairman too served the bond holders and cash balance holders rather than the people in the real domestic economy -- buy keeping the national economy on the tightest possible purchasing power rations. Always bear in mind that under the monetary and lending system begun with the Bank of England after the Jew funded glorious revolution of 1688, the Bank, given to usurers by William III so that he could pay for his war with France --- we now live in a country where the entire money supply the economy runs on is borrowed money -- that is, it is a loan deposit created by the bank always along with a co-created debt obligation to pay back to the bank a much greater amount, an amount equal to all obligations for paying principal plus compound interest. When the money supply is loans co-created with a debt obligation to repay the loan amount plus more (the interest) over future months and years we have this pattern. The loan comes first -- which reflates the economy -- the deposits created by the loan continue permanently until someone one gets it deposited in his bank account and then uses it to pay interest and principal -- which is deflation for the real economy. So first the loan which reflates, then the loan payments which deflate the economy and continues deflating it even below the level where it was before the loan was received -- which is when the defaults begin. So when this system is kept going for a while the deflation eats more and more through bankruptcies, through firms distressed and forced merge or be bought out in hostile takeovers by the big cash owning lending class - so that during Greenspan's watch more assets left the hands of the middle class and went to the rich than happened after Wall Street crash of October 1929 and the resulting deflationary depression known as the Great Depression. And when the people were starving and being ruined by Greenspan's tight money policy -- how did he replenish the money supply? He forced people to loose equity on their houses, to swap equity (ownership) in their homes for cash to pay their mounting credit card debt and bank debt -- "refinancing" they called it, but it was robbery -- because the lending class had the Federal Reserve Bank self-regulatiors -- and Congress and the state legislatures set up banking -- sign off on a system where home buyers must pay interest first and principal toward the end of the loan payment schedule stipulated in the loan agreement. That means that every time a family refinanced -- they lost all of the interest payed up to that date with very little equity of their own -- so that with the new refinancing -- which horribly complete replaced 2nd mortgages which were not being pushed in the billions of phone calls people were receiving offering them to "refinance at the new lower rate Greenspan was giving them." But Greenspan was really replenishing money supply draining away in interest payments -- but having home owners restart their payments all over again with the same amount of principal to be paid but the front loaded interest having to be paid all over again. And it was a slow death of many cuts -- because Greenspan replenished the money supply but cutting interest a fraction of a percent at a time -- so that over a long period the refinancing and the people's loss of their front-ended interest payment would continue -- borrowing money at the cost, not only of new interest to be paid which was only a tiny tiny bit lower but because all of the interest they had paid counted for nothing. That was Greenspan's contribution to the American economy -- he kept us on starvation rations of purchasing power while continuously robbing us of home ownership (our equity in the homes were were buying) -- a great transfer of assets from the people to the Money Power. Unearned income for the lending class -- while giving the rich a tight money advantage so that their bonds and dollar deposits (held inoffshore banks) would not loose in purchasing power.


IV - Paul Volker (Fed Chair 1979 - 1987): This monster of a Fed Chairman, started hurting us when he held the job Geithner would hold years later. As President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank Volker single handedly created the double digit INFLATION of the Carter years -- robbing all of the savings and purchasing power the people accumulated from the "go-go" easy money years of Kennedy, to the big deficit-financed spending for war and the Great socialist Society of Lyndon Johnson to the well-managed economy under Nixon (who took us off the gold standard internationally and was inerested in domestic industrial production -- the last American president -- until Trump -- to be so. But Volker at the NYFRB flooded the lending class with cash at a time when quantitative easing still filtered into the real economy -- and so Volker at the NYFRB while having the Fed pay cash for securities -- actually did send too much money chasing too few goods -- double digit deflation THAT ROBBED THE PEOPLE OF THEIR SAVINGS FROM THE 1960'S AND EARLY SEVENTIES WHICH WERE CONSIDERABLE -- AND THAT INFLATION BROKE THE BACKS OF THE SAVINGS AND LOAN COMPANIES WHICH USED TO PAY THREE PERCENT TO DEPOSITORS WHILE CHARGING 6 PERCENT TO HOME BUYERS FOR LONG TERM LOANS (15 YEARS, 30 YEARS ETC.) BUT OF COURSE S & L'S COULD NOT SURVIVE WHEN INFLATION WAS DOUBLE DIGITS AND INTEREST RATES FOR LOANS ALSO DOUBLE DIGITS. And so Paul Volker created the inflation which robbed the middle class of saved purchasing power (like Germans who had war bonds and savings were robbed by the victors after WWI) -- and then what happened. Well while this great robbery was going on their was a patsy Fed Reserve Chairman set up as a figurehead to take the blame -- his name was Miller -- but then after the people were robbed of their savings and after the banks took possession of the best of the S & Ls and their remaining assets and after deregulation of banking was forced by the crisis created for Savings and Loans -- allowing Wall Street investment banks to buy up commercial banks and to go into commercial banking but also, the phony and lethal "fix" to allow remaining S & L's to buy very high interest paying but super risky "junk bonds" - for building shopping malls in the middle of deserts in the hope that "shoppers will come if we build" etc. AND IT WAS THEN THE BANKERS' PRESIDENT JIMMY "CFR" CARTER APPOINTED THIS VERY SAME INFLATION CAUSER PAUL VOLKER TO BECOME THE NEW FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN -- AND VOLKER IMMEDIATELY REVERSED THE DEFLATION POLICY HE CARRIED OUT AS PRES. OF THE NYFRB AND BEGAN TO RAISE THE DISCOUNT RATE -- WHICH MEANT BIG CUTS IN LENDING -- BIG CONTRACTION OF LOANS OUTSTANDING WHICH MEANS BIG DEFLATION, BIG LOSS OF PURCHASING POWER AND HIRING POWER AND DEBT-PAYING POWER AND TAX COLLECTION. In short Volker went from quantitative easity inflation making at the NYFRB to loan contracting via discount rate increases as Fed Chairman -- which made any success for the new Reagan Administration impossible. -- Trump Administration take note please!!!!!! It was Paul Voker who created the double-digit inflation crisis -- which moved the country from building homes and cities and infrastructure -- to junk bonds building junk -- rewarding the very opposite of entrepreneurship -- because if an investment was too sensible it would not have the risk premium to give it the high interest rate that S & L/s and other lending institutions locked into long term loans at only 6% were getting -- and so not only were savings robbed but the nation was robbed of the investments in itself that he needed and had always gotten in the past. Volker created the crisis with inflation, and "cured" it with deadly deflation -- and the middle class has been on starvation rations of money ever since -- to be managed by Greenspan as described above, followed by Bernanke and the great big stroke of the big deflation that caused the debt crisis that led to the further cleaning out of Americans of their assets as collateral is seized as deflation leads to default and bankruptcy and liquidation and resale to the Moneyed elite who buys up the dead remains of our enterprises starved to death by deflation of money in people';s hands.
And that this morning is my note on who the people are you see in this picture -- which Facebook reminded me I sent out two years ago. I hope all six people who read this will "like" it -- but more than that save it somehow -- because I am not a published author and no website picks up what I write -- and because the people need to know the truth in bare outline. How can you escape the snares of the devil unless you know these devils' devices?


If you understand and agree -- then, please, for the love of country and of people -- speak up. They may let your voice travel a lot further than they have ever let mine.
 

Sincerely yours,


Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
February 19, 2017
Every man is responsible to every other man.
HOW THE TRUMP REGIME WAS MANUFACTURED BY A WAR INSIDE THE DEEP STATE 
Nafeez Ahmed
A systemic crisis in the global Deep System has driven the violent radicalization of a Deep State faction
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/....ldwkngkxb
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16