拉鲁什大胆预测美国将会破产

美学者大胆预测美国将会破产
《环球视野》摘自2009年8月7日《环球时报》

温宪　

美国经济学家拉鲁什日前在接受《环球时报》记者专访时发出惊人论断，认为美国将在今年10月爆发一场“总危机”，并彻底破产。

今年87岁的林登•拉鲁什是美国知名政治活动家和经济学家。拉鲁什在美国颇受争议，他曾8次竞选美国总统但遭失败，而且曾数次成功预言世界经济危机。他创建了“拉鲁什运动”和有影响的《行政情报评论》杂志，并经常发表惊世骇俗的言论。

7月30日拉鲁什在接受《环球时报》记者专访时表示， 今年10月2日至10月10日或12日将是美国爆发总危机的时间节点。那时，已完全无望的美国将彻底在政治上破产，并将陷于瓦解进程。他表示，实际上，这一进程现在已经开始。拉鲁什称，“总危机”之所以会发生在今年10月，是因为10月是美国财政年度计划结束之时，到那时危机将会凸现出来。

拉鲁什说，他于 2007年 7月25 日、27日预言美国经济将出现崩溃危机。三天之后，就发生了这场被一些“说谎的人”称为的“次贷危机”。实际上发生的是一场整个国际货币金融体系崩溃的危机，只不过这场危机的爆发点位于整个国际货币金融体系最为薄弱的次贷领域。他将整个危机称之为“温莎城堡的倒坍”。

拉鲁什否认自己是“悲观主义者”。他说，美国有很大的潜力，但美国政府的现行政策“很不好”，“华尔街没有生活在现实世界中，奥巴马总统也没有生活在现实世界。无论如何，美国在今年10月之后不能再继续奉行现行政策。”

在讨论如何应对危机时，拉鲁什说：“整个世界金融体系急需快刀斩乱麻式的改变。美国必须与中国、俄罗斯、印度联手重新建立国际金融信用体系，使其重新运转起来。”“整个美国必须进行破产重组，必须将巨额财政赤字减下来，我们必须改变”，拉鲁什说。

（《环球视野》摘自2009年8月7日《环球时报》）
 

林登·拉鲁什：现行的世界金融体系已经无可救药
———专访美国著名经济学家林登·拉鲁什
：鞠辉    文章来源：    点击数：1776    更新时间：2009-7-25    文章属性：   热 荐  ★★★ 

本报驻美国记者 鞠辉

中青在线－中国青年报　 2009-07-24

他曾9次成功预言世界经济危机，但8次竞选美国总统失败；他曾帮助里根政府谋划拖垮苏联的“星球大战计划”，却因为残酷的政治斗争而沦为阶下囚。他就是美国政界和经济学界的传奇人物———林登·拉鲁什。一个阳光灿烂的夏日午后，记者应邀来到拉鲁什位于华盛顿郊外的乡间别墅，聆听他对世界经济形势的独到见解。

林登·拉鲁什生于1922年，美国知名经济学家和政治活动家，早年曾经推崇马克思主义，后来转而支持美国式的资本主义经济。自1976年以来，拉鲁士曾8次参加总统大选，其中一次是作为美国工党候选人参选，7次是角逐民主党候选人提名，但均未成功。他的研究领域涵盖政治、经济、哲学、历史以及自然科学等各个方面，经常发表惊世骇俗的独特言论。他所创建的“拉鲁什运动”和《行政情报评论》杂志在美国乃至世界很多国家政界和学界颇具影响力。由于拉鲁什自身理念与传统党派观点格格不入，他在美国政坛一直是一位争议性人物。1988年，拉鲁什因涉嫌票据欺诈被判15年监禁，他本人及其支持者相信这是美国历史上史无前例的政治迫害。拉鲁什在政治道路上历经坎坷，但在经济学方面早已功成名就。从上世纪50年代开始，拉鲁什曾对美国经济和世界经济作过9次预言，这些预言无一例外地警告危机即将来临而且都被后来的事实所验证，其中就包括著名的1973年美国经济大萧条和1998年的亚洲金融风暴。与大多数经济学家不同的是，拉鲁什关注的并不是经济数据模型，而是潜心研究资本积累趋势等那些决定未来社会长远发展的物质和文化因素。2007年7月，拉鲁什再次向世界发出预警称，除非美、中、俄、印四国能够联合起来重塑世界金融体系，摆脱金融寡头控制，否则，一场席卷全球的严重经济危机将很快到来。当时正值华尔街一片“涨声”、牛气冲天之际，很多人对这一警告嗤之以鼻，但仅仅一年之后，拉鲁什的预言再次应验。

采访刚刚开始，已经87岁高龄的拉鲁什便语出惊人：“现行的世界金融体系其实已经崩溃了，无可救药了，从这场次贷危机引发的全球金融危机就可清晰地看到这一点。”按照拉鲁什的理论，当前这场仍在不断恶化的金融危机是自1971年以来美国实行的金融体系的必然产物。拉鲁什认为美国经济必定要发生危机的基本观点是：实物生产不断下降，而虚拟货币数量却不断上升，实体经济和虚拟货币两条曲线一条向下，一条向上，两者产生了巨大的背离，当虚拟货币的数量远远超过实物的数量时，这个世界就要发生灾难。

在拉鲁什看来，从20世纪60年代起美国经济便开始逐步被金融寡头所掌控，美国由此走向衰退，从一个奋发向上、不断开拓的创新型国家变为一个唯利是图的贪婪国度，人人都指望不费力气就可以发家致富，靠剪“外国羊毛”———剥削别国为生。为此，美国不断把自己的危机转嫁于人。然而，从亚洲金融危机开始，这种金融危机的传染性越来越强，破坏力越来越大。“外国羊”都死了，美国怎能再继续靠“剪羊毛”为生呢？

拉鲁什自认有一种重塑西方健康文明的使命，要恢复自文艺复兴以后被歪曲了的西方文明精华，哲学上要恢复柏拉图那种主动探索自然法则的人文精神，理论上要复兴德国科学家黎曼等人创造的“物理经济学”，政策上要恢复富兰克林·罗斯福新政时的办法，管制金融资本，为产业复兴提供低息贷款，重新焕发美国人的创造精神。为此，他不断呼吁各国领导人重新合作，再建新的国际金融货币体系。

拉鲁什赞成中国政府采取的金融管制和经济转型政策。他说，随着上世纪70年代中美建交以及中国实行改革开放政策，中国经济进入了持续30年的快速增长期。拉鲁什认为，中国经济的迅猛发展主要得益于基于成本比较优势的对外贸易，但这种经济增长方式的弊端也非常明显，中国的出口导向型经济严重依赖外部市场，一旦欧美经济出现问题，中国的出口放缓甚至在某些领域出现停滞，必将严重影响中国的整体经济。事实证明，中国经济确实受到了这一轮金融危机的冲击，好在中国坚持资本项目的管制，因而避免了更大损失。

拉鲁什强调，世界经济已经走到了一个十字路口，任何想要挽救旧有国际金融体系的努力都是徒劳的，唯一可行的解决办法就是通过破产重组回归国家信用体系。拉鲁什说，在美国的法律概念中，破产重组的目的是帮助企业解困，现在需要用破产的手段使国家尽快摆脱金融危机的困扰。

按照拉鲁什的建议，美国应该取消因为金融衍生品过度“杠杆化”而造成的大量虚拟债务，并承担合理的债务，从而回归美国首任财长汉密尔顿所设想的国家信用体系，即由国家银行统管全国债务和信贷。而在国际间，则建立一套基于主权国家间平等条约的国际信用体系。通过固定汇率制来确定国际商品价格，通过主权国家间的平等条约提供足够的国际信用。拉鲁什认为，由于美国、中国、俄罗斯、印度是世界上面积最大、人口最多的主权国家，因此这四大国家之间通过协议达成一致将是新的世界经济体系的重要基础。

拉鲁什相信，整个亚洲的发展是未来人类文化发展的前沿。而中国是欧亚大陆发展的关键。他说，中国通过30年的高速经济增长实现了跨越式发展，但不可否认的是仍然有大量人口还不富裕，因此要共同制定出一个跨越三代人的目标，通过改善水利、能源等基础设施来提高这部分人的生产能力。中国当然需要转变经济增长方式，由出口导向型转入内需拉动型，因为中国拥有潜力巨大的内部市场，但仅靠中国自身的资本投入远远不够，这就需要其他国家提供大量的有形资本支持。俄罗斯蕴藏着丰富的矿产，可以通过协议向中国提供大量高质量矿产资源，日本可以向中国出口先进技术，韩国等国都发挥各自的作用，这样在亚洲的太平洋沿岸将会形成全世界最大的经济快速增长带，从而带动世界最终走出经济危机。
 
 
七次竞选 屡出惊人之语—访美政坛传奇人物拉鲁什 
2006年05月15日 　来源：文汇报 
 
 

拉鲁什在匹兹堡的庄园中

　　新闻提示

    春暖花开的5月，在美国的朋友指引下，记者从华盛顿驱车来到弗吉尼亚州西北的乡下，拜访了美国政坛上的传奇人物——拉鲁什。今年84岁的拉鲁什自1976年起就参选总统，至今是“七战七败”，但他依然斗志不改。他宣扬世界金融集团试图控制美国和全世界的理论，主张美国必须改造现行制度。除了参加竞选活动，拉鲁什经常发出令人震惊的言论。比如，他至今还坚称“9·11事件”是美国政府操纵的阴谋。有人说他是疯子，有人说他是英雄。这么一位怪人，在美国的政坛是如何生存下来，他的魅力何在？

    在他那位于崎岖山头的别墅内，热情的拉鲁什特意拿出自制的点心和咖啡招待中国的客人。不过，真正让我们“胃口大开”的还是他关于美国经济的奇谈怪论，以及他对自己的竞选经历、人生价值观的看法。当然，这位“著名经济学家”也谈到了对人民币汇率的高见。让人想不到的是，耄耋之年的老人精神矍铄，说起话来思路敏捷，时带幽默。

    竞选美国总统未必一定是大富翁

    “没有显赫的家族背景和雄厚的经济实力，你为什么多次竞选美国总统这个看似不可完成的任务呢？”一见面没多久，记者就毫不客气地向拉鲁什提出了疑问。拉鲁什似乎早有准备，他不急不慢地说，美国总统并不一定是大富翁出身，关键在于你的政治主张有没有吸引力，还有你的个人魅力，包括学识、口才和组织能力。说到这里，他有点得意地笑了笑。在美国，只要你能代表民意，有人支持你，就可以竞选总统，这是美国民主的游戏规则。家境贫寒的林肯总统不就是很好的例子吗？

    “不过，我最欣赏的总统是富兰克林·罗斯福总统。他带领美国走出了经济大萧条的时代，并为防止下一次危机做好准备。”拉鲁什告诉记者，新的经济危机已经到来，美国领导人根本没有采取合理的防范措施，所以他要站出来大声疾呼，唤醒那些沉默的民众，拯救人民于“水火”。

    现状表明美国经济正在破产

    4月27日，拉鲁什在华盛顿发表演讲，主题为“当代世界最大的经济危机”。与布什总统的沾沾自喜、媒体的津津乐道不同，拉鲁什在谈到美国经济的现状时，一再使用“破产”一词，让人印象深刻。拉鲁什跟记者滔滔不绝地讲起了他关于世界经济的一整套理论。他说，世界经济一直受到邪恶的国际金融集团的控制，上世纪初希特勒的上台就是金融集团的阴谋。如今，在犹太人控制的金融集团的操纵下，美国正在失去传统的西方文明的特征，经济正在崩溃。

    面对将信将疑的记者，拉鲁什摆出了他的一系列证据：只要看看周围邻居的生活水平，就知道美国经济糟糕到了什么程度。“我附近的许多人都是中产阶级，现在房价、油价不断上涨，失业的人越来越多，很多人为了维持生计不得不放下尊严，去干不体面的活。”拉鲁什说，现在美国的股票、房地产市场有太多泡沫，贸易赤字越积越高，贫富差距越来越大，说明整个现行的经济体系是失败的。

    “不要相信媒体和政客的报道，那些都不是真实的，”拉鲁什告诉记者，“我们身边人的境遇才是最说明问题的”。他表情严肃地说，美国必须及时改变现行的制度，这也是我站出来竞选总统的原因。如果美国经济崩溃，世界经济也就破产了，到时候对世界都是灾难。

    主张改变现有体制吸引了年轻人

    记者告诉拉鲁什，去年9月的世界首脑大会期间，曾在纽约联合国总部外看到他的支持者打着标语抗议，今年又在华盛顿的白宫外看到他的支持者举着写有他名字的示威标牌，很多都是年轻人。“那么你吸引青年人的魅力在哪里呢？”记者好奇。拉鲁什故作神秘，“其实我的支持者并不算多，在全国也就分布在十几个城市，铁杆（支持者）也就几百人。”

    他接着说道，“这些人确实很多都是年轻人，他们大多是二战后的婴儿潮的后代，因为经历了冷战结束和全球化的时代，传统的价值观日益缺失，而美国的政治经济制度正在破产，导致竞争激烈，生活成本上升，道德观念混乱，加上恐怖主义盛行，政府发动战争，这一切都让他们感到迷茫。由于不满现实生活，一些年轻人吸毒、纵欲或者无所事事，而我理解他们的心声，主张彻底改造经济体系的声音，使他们看到了希望，赢得了他们的支持。”

    人民币升值会加速美国经济崩溃

    拉鲁什是经济学出身，他写过多篇经济著作，其中包括“生产力三角理论”，倡导西欧、东欧和中国为代表的欧亚大陆的经济复兴，有一定的影响力。当记者问他，更喜欢人们叫他经济学家还是政治家时，他想了想说道，“两者兼有吧。在美国，要成为合格的政治家，不能对经济一窍不通，我很幸运，学过经济。”

    拉鲁什对中国的经济状况很感兴趣，在谈到人民币汇率的问题时滔滔不绝，颇有一番自己的见解。他说，美国政府将美中贸易逆差归于人民币汇率的原因，实在是愚蠢而疯狂的想法。如果人民币一下子升值百分之二十，美国经济只会崩溃得更快。中国应该放弃拿庞大的外汇购买美国股票和债券的做法，而是进一步扩大内需，加强中西部的建设，实现共同富裕。“我对中国的经济发展前景感到乐观。”

    可能不参加2008总统选举

    拉鲁什曾经在1976年以工党候选人的身份参加总统竞选，结果输得很惨。之后他加入民主党，先后六次试图以党内候选人身份参选总统，但是每次都是连党内提名都未获通过。可是，老先生依然不屈不挠，屡败屡战，并且始终有一帮子忠实的支持者，他们在全国各地组建了几十个竞选地区总部。尽管美国媒体对拉鲁什的参选活动取笑大于捧场，但也承认他是美国民主选举的一道独特风景线。热闹惯了的拉鲁什是否会在2008年的大选中继续发扬参与精神呢？

    在记者的追问下，拉鲁什透露，他基本上不打算再参加总统竞选。现在，他正在与民主党代表们商议候选人的问题，如果推举的新人让他感到满意，他会全力辅佐。不过，如果推举出来的人让他实在看不过去，他也很难保证不会“威胁”继续参选，给他们施加压力。

    谁会成为下届美国总统？

    “你最看好谁会成为下届美国总统？”

    “在我看来，现在还没有出现一个能够胜任总统的候选人。”也许是挑剔惯了，或者有些自恋，拉鲁什对时下热门的总统候选人希拉里、麦凯恩乃至布什的弟弟杰布都看不上眼。除了对代表大企业主的共和党深表不满外，拉鲁什对民主党当下的情形也有怨言。“民主党需要新面孔，他们必须提出符合实际的政治纲领，解决正在威胁世界的经济危机。可惜的是，很少有人看到这样的危机。”拉鲁什有些失望地摇了摇头。

    虽然身居偏地，却心系尘世。拉鲁什在首都华盛顿成立了以自己名字命名的“政治行动委员会”，并经常出席一些重要的经济和政治论坛，接受记者采访。此外，他还建立了个人网站，随时更新自己的见解。看来，这个几经征战的政治老人是不会轻易离开美国政治的漩涡的。

    两个小时很快过去了，告别拉鲁什之前，记者和他打赌，如果半年内美国经济没有出现大崩溃的局面，我们还会再来跟他要个说法。拉鲁什再次露出神秘的微笑，“相信我吧，美国经济已经在崩溃。”

    为求安全 搬至郊区

    拉鲁什的家位于匹兹堡附近的一个很偏僻的山头上，那是一个很大的庄园。门口的道路蜿蜒曲折，不熟悉道路的人还真不容易找上门来。在山脚下的大门口，钢筋栅栏的两侧水泥柱子上端坐着两只黑色的铁狗，造型栩栩如生，颇有几分威严，摄像头就安在上面。车进了大门，顺着山坡再上行几十米，就到了他的建筑群。除了一栋大房子外，院子里还有专门的修车库和好几间木屋，当中是一个小型的水池。院子里停放了六、七辆小汽车，都不是什么好车。后来一打听，拉鲁什雇了好几个保镖，加强他的安全。

    拉鲁什这么担心人身安全，不是没有道理。由于经常发表不满政府的言论，拉鲁什的确遇到了不少麻烦。他告诉记者，美国政府官员和他的政敌都很忌恨他，千方百计想搞掉他，联邦调查局曾经策划过对他的暗杀。上世纪80年代末到90年代初，拉鲁什曾经因涉嫌诈骗资金被判入狱，他始终认为这是别人有意设计对他的迫害。对于这段经历，他引用支持者的话说，“这是美国失败的政治制度的见证”。此后，他不得不处处加以小心。记者问他，搬到这么偏远的地方安家，是不是感到安全了呢？拉鲁什点了点头，无奈地说，“至少我可以安静地思考我的战略。”

    频频出席各种场合，四处宣扬政治主张，他的竞选资金来自哪里呢？拉鲁什的家庭是传统的鞋业大亨，但他父母去世多年，留下的家业不大。不过，他于1977年再婚，其年轻的德国妻子的背景不为人知。当记者询问活动经费的来源时，拉鲁什有点轻描淡写。他说，竞选的费用主要靠支持者的捐助，至于自己的生活来源，“我不停地写文章，作演讲，有时还写书，对我这么一个老家伙来说，维持生活不需要太多的钱。”

    人物简介 永久的总统候选人

    拉鲁什全名林登·赫姆利·拉鲁什，1922年9月8日出生于新罕布什尔州的罗切斯特，他是美国非常活跃的政治活动家和一些跨国界组织如“核聚变能基金”的创始人。他最著名的头衔就是美国总统“永久的候选人”。

    拉鲁什是美国政坛有争议的传奇人物，他学经济出身，出过多本专著，曾经做过管理顾问、经济专栏作家，1944年至1946年在印度和缅甸服过军役。他还做过记者，曾在里根政府时期当过政府顾问等职务。拉鲁什于1976年开始竞选美国总统，之后他以民主党身份参加了历次总统大选。在1992年的北达科他州和2000年的密歇根州曾赢得初选胜利，其他竞选经历都以失败告终。

    1988年拉鲁什因阴谋罪、逃税等罪名被判15年监禁，后于1994年被释放。不过，这一点也不影响他的竞选努力，反而使他赢得了更多的支持者，前司法部长克拉克对拉鲁什的遭遇表示了同情。

    拉鲁什认为，一个类似于20世纪30年代大萧条的经济危机正在悄悄到来，他的责任就是要制止这场危机，拯救美国和世界经济。

    目前，84岁的拉鲁什仍在从事政治活动，他是美国《信息评论杂志》的主席兼编辑。（牛震）
 

THE DEATH OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

Lyndon LaRouche

Sept. 8, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the kind of problem we face.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DEATH OF THE ‘BRITISH’ EMPIRE

Lyndon LaRouche

Sept. 8, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DEATH OF THE ‘BRITISH’ EMPIRE (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the reality of the US economic disaster:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

×  WYZXWK.COM

您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！

欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号