Executive Intelligence Review

Questions and Answers

Below is the full transcript of the question-and-answer period of a webcast seminar with Lyndon LaRouche, held in Washington, D.C. on March 21, 2001. See also Mr. LaRouche's opening remarks, and RealAudio archive in English or in Spanish.

Debra Freeman: Lyn, the first question that we have is actually from a Japanese journalist. His question follows: Mr. LaRouche, during this week's visit of our Prime Minister to the United States, he and his party were asked many not-so-friendly questions by the American press, implying that Japan's economic policies were a big cause of the current crisis of the U.S. and global financial markets. Since Japan's policies, which have not, for sure, been good, were mostly insisted upon by the Washington Consensus, and by U.S. investors and the IMF, I wonder if this is very fair.

First, could you please comment on the real cause behind today's market crisis, which all this talk maybe is somewhat covering up?

And, second, could you also tell us what positive role Japan could play, to help create some solutions, or ways to overcome the current world economic problems?

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, the problem with Japan's role, in the world crisis today, goes back, essentially, to the Nixon Administration. That, during the 1970s, Japan was still a high-technology exporter, on long term, largely, to the Third World, so-called. There are two cases, which exemplify that: One was the case of Iran, in the 1970s, and the other was the case of cooperation between Mexico and Japan.

In the first case, the Shah of Iran had reached a general perspective, with Japanese cooperation, to oil-for-technology swaps, under which Iran would become a kind of Japan--an industrialized nation of Central Asia. Japan was told no. The Shah was told no. The Shah was told he would be killed, if he refused to break off the deal. And, he was later killed, by the people who told him to get off it, including Henry Kissinger. Japan backed off.

In the second case, in the case of Mexico, Japan had a long-term agreement--typical of many of its agreements of that period--to export Japan's high technology, especially heavy technology, to developing-sector countries, in return for things like petroleum or raw materials.

So, there were these product-for-technology swaps, under which long-term credit was extended by Japan, for purchase of technology, in return for agreement on raw materials, or something else. For example, soybeans from Brazil: That sort of thing.

The United States said, "No." Now this got nasty about the time that Carter's owner, Brzezinski, got involved as National Security Adviser and general factotum of the Carter Administration. And Brzezinski ordered the Japanese to break off the deal with Mexico, on oil-for-technology. Japan was going to provide steel mills and other things for Mexico, in return for a long-term agreement on export of petroleum to Japan, across the Pacific.

Brzezinski said to Japan: "You will not take Mexico's oil. You will take Alaska oil"! And, that was that.

So, as a result of these kinds of policies, Japan, whose natural interest is, essentially, to find markets, especially with its neighbors. China, if possible. China is extremely important to Japan, even though there are certain difficulties in the China-Japan cooperation. Korea is extremely important in this. Southeast Asia is extremely important. What's happened in the history of Indonesia, since the 1960s, is an example of the problems that arise in this. Southeast Asia in general. What happened to the Philippines? Japan lost a lot of money in the Philippines, when Marcos was overthrown by the United States. This is part of the situation.

So, Japan was put into the position, where the United States, through the 1980s, said to Japan, "Don't export to Third World countries. We are against that. You will now concentrate on markets in Europe and, especially, the United States. So, Japan concentrated on the consumer and related markets in the United States and Western Europe--especially the United States.

Now, in this process, what the United States did, especially since the time of Plaza Accords agreement in New York City, was that Japan was using its yen, in what became eventually the yen-carry trade. Can you imagine a country, which is loaning money--its money--overnight, at about zero percent interest? It's now about zero percent interest, overnight. To big speculators. What do big speculators do? They borrow the money, they borrow the yen; they turn around and use the yen to buy European currencies and dollars, especially. So, therefore, what's happened, is, that Japan has been driving itself into bankruptcy, with a financial policy imposed by the United States, but imposed so that Japan would subsidize the United States.

Now, remember how this works: The United States has been running recently, on a major current account deficit. This is partly a result of our so-called globalization and free trade policies. Therefore, we no longer produce our own products--less and less. We ship the products out to cheap-labor markets overseas. We destroy our own industries, we cut down the incomes of our own people, by shutting down their jobs, in order to bring in cheap goods, from cheap-labor and other foreign markets. The result is that, since we don't earn money any more, or earn much less, we are getting imports from cheap-labor markets, and other markets, on credit!

Where does the credit come from? It comes from places like the yen-carry trade, or the euro-carry trade; where vast subsidies of printing-press money, are poured in, with an inflationary effect, into the world economy, in order to subsidize a U.S. economy, which can no longer maintain its own standard of living on its own earned income! That's what the current account deficit means. And there are some other factors, as well.

So, Japan is being destroyed. And in effect, what the United States government is saying (the nastier types), to countries in Asia, "If you don't do as we tell you; if you buck the IMF, we'll kill you." That is: personal assassinations of heads of governments and states! Or similar kinds of Christmas presents.

That's the way it's run--by muscle. And that's what happened to Japan. Japan is threatened. Japan is told, "You have a security problem. You do as we tell you, or we'll crush you."

That's what the United States said to Colombia. The United States ordered the Colombian government to push drugs, to legalize drugs, and it's destroying Colombia. The United States government is supporting drugs, throughout Central and South America. Why did the Peru government allow the drug pushers to crawl back into power in Peru? Because, the United States government, at the point of a gun--in this case, Madeleine Albright's gun--said, "Do it!" And, Japan is getting the same kind of treatment.

People have to realize that the way that certain people in the United States, especially from the American Tory party types, use things, such as the Justice Department--certain sections of the Justice Department--certain sections of the military--not the CIA, the military--the special warfare division of the military, which does assassinations and things like that, if you want them done. And, going around to various governments in the world, and saying, "You do what we tell you. Or else." Or, as George Bush, the President, would say: "If you don't do what we tell you, there may be consequences." Just like they used to have on death row, in Texas. That sort of thing.

And, that's the problem.

The interest of Japan, and the actual interest of the United States, is for Japan to revive its role as a full-set economy, to play, together with the United States and Western Europe, a key role in supplying--and Korea, as well--a key role in supplying the technology, which is immediately required throughout Eurasia. That's its big market. And, also, to do similar things in other markets of the world, where Japan's products suited for that purpose.

So, Japan should, essentially, be able to reorganize its financial affairs, by a sort of, what we might call the equivalent of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, or whatever needs to be reorganized. And go back to the business that its national interest dictates, if it's allowed to do what's in its national interest. And that is, to find agreements, largely in Eurasia, the biggest market of all; find those agreements; use Japan's potential as a full-set economy; supply a complement of that high technology, which Asia needs to find justice--and the rest of the world, as well.

The problem is, you have a regime in Washington, which is absolutely, hysterically desperate. They say, "We don't care what it costs you" to Japan. "We are not going to change our policy. We are not going to admit, that the United States may be going into a financial collapse. We're not going to admit it. You are going to put your babies up for hock--or whatever else you have to do, to get that last shekel into the United States, to support the Bush Administration's policy! And, if you don't, we'll do something bad to you!"

Look at the case of Mori: Someone in the United States said, "Mori's gotta resign." The Prime Minister. You know, a leading influence in the United States goes to a presumably sovereign country, an ally, a partner: Japan. And says, "We want the Prime Minister fired!" They ran an effort inside Japan, to have him impeached--a government re-call, by vote of confidence. That didn't work. They said, "He should resign anyway"--the U.S. press, from the State Department, and other places. "He should resign. He's going to resign. We predict, he'll resign, tomorrow." He said, "I'm not going to resign."

And they keep doing that! You do that to a country, to which you show respect? Do you think you're winning affection in Japan, by trying to do that to Japan?

Americans should find out what their government is doing. This case of the United States' treatment of Japan: Remember, Japan and the United States, together, are the linchpin of the international financial system. And, the United States wants to club Japan to death?! They're idiots.

That's the problem. There's not a lack of understanding of this in some places in Europe. What I said before, in my remarks: Given the craziness, the idiocy, shown by this current administration (and, all was not perfect before then, as you may know!), that people in Europe, and in the United States, and elsewhere, have got to realize: We have a problem. The stupidity of present U.S. policy must not continue. And, don't tell me that George Bush is President, and he's studied policy.

What about the United States? There's something higher than the Presidency: That's the United States. Maybe powerful people in the United States, together with powerful people in Europe--people of influence; and, with consent and agreement with people in other parts of the world, should descend on Washington, in effect, and say: "Cut this nonsense out! You cut it out." And, if the concert of power, from within the United States, and Europe, and some other countries, is sufficient; so, if the right number of "old boys" get together, and descend on the United States, and they say, "Cut this insanity out," then the insanity will be cut out.

Debra Freeman: The first question is from David Brode [ph], who is from the Western Maryland Central Labor Council, the vice president and COPE director, although he's not here in his official capacity today.

David Brode: Hello Mr. LaRouche. Actually, I'm a sheet metal worker, by trade; I'm a unionist. I'm vice president of a small AFL Labor Council in Western Maryland.

I've met other individual unionists, that are 100% behind you, as I am. And we realize the world situation is as bad as you say it is. One of the reasons I'm here today, publicly (I believe this is a public forum, of sorts); I believe they're out there watching us. They may not admit to their fellow-unionists--maybe a few of them would. I think they're watching us. I'm here to appeal to the upper level AFL-CIO, as well as the International Union leadership to step out on a limb, as I have, and to support you. After all, it is evident that the Democratic Party that exists today, has failed us, has failed the working class. And I hope that the AFL-CIO and the International Union will show the rank and file and the rest of the working class--unrepresented--that organizations not made up, at least somewhat, of blue-collar aristocrats, but of unionists that can, and will lead us, by supporting you and your efforts to introduce FDR policies.

I think that rank-and-file union membership, out there, is becoming more aware; they're aware of issues like the D.C. General Hospital, the genocide that would take place from the closing of that. They're aware that 98 or so percent of the financial transactions in the world today, have nothing behind them, but profit. And, we need to be led.

I hope that I'm not fantasizing, when I say that I think that there's hope for the labor movement. But, if it's an inert organization, it carries no clout. I know it can carry clout. It has to act, to carry clout.

Thank you.

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you. Thank you, very much.

Debra Freeman: Do you want say anything, Lyn?

Lyndon LaRouche: No. It's good. What can I say? You don't put frosting on a good cake.

David Brode: I'm sorry: My friends back there told me, I missed my point. My point is: I would like to ask you, how do I go about making this happen? I believe that the AFL-CIO, and the unionists of all levels, rank and file and all the way up, realize that there is no one with a plan, except you. I guess, I'm here to ask you, how do I go about trying to make this happen?

Lyndon LaRouche: What I'm trying to do, is to take issues, which are obvious issues, and present them in a form, where they have national and international significance. Not in the way issues are usually done, as single issues and so forth, in the United States. That kind of politics won't work.

Now, for example, look at the D.C. hospital: Particularly with what's happening to the pension plans of unions, today, the question of health care and pensions is crucial. And health care is a deep pocket. So, a case like the D.C. General Hospital, is not simply a Washington case. It's the case of a fight for the general welfare.

Now the labor movement, as it developed, in its new form, under Roosevelt's period, was a key part of the fight for the general welfare. That was the basis for the formation of the Committees of Organization of John L. Lewis, in the '35, and so forth, organization. It was a fight. The idea that the labor movement was not a trade association, but it was a fight of working people, for the general welfare, knowing that the defense of the general welfare is in the interest of all them. So, therefore, you fight for a higher principle, and then come in, having won the principle, to claim your rights under the principle. Whereas, in many American campaigns, people go in and campaign for what they want as their goal; they don't campaign for the principle. And, when they don't get the goal, and they don't get the principle, and they don't get anything. And, the way you get a principle across, is by getting more people to support it, because it means their principle, not just your particular goal.

So, therefore, issues like the D.C. General Hospital, are fighting issues, because they involve the question of national health-care policy; as, in this case, directly involving the Federal government, the Congress, which is in control of the Washington, D.C. area. So, therefore, what is done in D.C., is done to the entire nation, because the agency that does it, is the Congress. And those in Congress, who say, "We go along, to get along, somebody else handles it." The Congress is responsible, as a body for whatever any part of the Congress does! One part of the Congress can not get by, with this committee game! The Congress, as a whole, with its conscience, is responsible for whatever the Congress does.

Now, the second thing, is this question of energy policy: Re-regulation. The labor movement's biggest loss is under Carter--after Phase I and Phase II of Nixon. Deregulation. What destroyed the trucking industry? Deregulation. What happened as a result of deregulation, of the trucking industry? And, of the breakdown of the railroad system? That, towns and cities, which had places of employment, industries, could no longer get equal rates and schedules for the shipment of their goods: their outgoing goods and incoming goods. They were squeezed out of business, because they couldn't get on-time delivery at prices they required.

The result was, the trucking industry was broken. We know what's happened to truckers--it's a nightmare--the whole trucking industry today, as a result of this. The energy question as such--look at what's happening in California--there is no solution except re-regulation. So, the two issues which I put up front--D.C. General, and the question of re-regulation--are issues which involve everybody, and they involve one common principle, the principle of the General Welfare.

What are we up against? All right. What is the problem? We have a Stone-Age majority of the Supreme Court, typified by Scalia; a Stone-Age majority says there is no General Welfare. They say that it's shareholder value, which is the equivalent of slaveholder value. That no one, trade union or anyone, has any rights under that Supreme Court majority, because shareholder value will dictate everything. So therefore, I would say that the way to do this, is to say that we have to have a movement, which is a movement of the revival of the American intellectual tradition, concretized as a fight for the General Welfare, and concretized by mobilization of people throughout the country, on specific problems which typify the fight for the General Welfare, which they can recognize.

As we used to say in the labor movement, "justice for one is justice for everyone." And that's the way you have to direct this.

Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad: Greetings, Mr. LaRouche. How are you? We're in a very important phase of this struggle, as I speak. We're preparing tomorrow, as you know, to go to Capitol Hill, where we've received some encouraging support from a senior Congressman, namely John Conyers of Michigan. He's intervened in this issue, and has agreed to sponsor a Congressional briefing, on the issue of D.C. General Hospital, in the context of the national crisis in health care, especially the public hospital system. We have mobilized, as best we can, and educated the population; so I think in the last six or seven weeks, we've seen a sea-change in the population of the District of Columbia. The issue of D.C. General Hospital has become a topic of conversation at the dinner-table, and ordinary people are becoming somewhat conversant in the issues. We have had candlelight vigils, rallies, lobbying efforts, town meetings, teach-ins of various sorts. And we now see a situation where members of the Financial Control Board are saying things like--in today's Post, it is reported--I believe Francis Smith, on the Control Board, saying things like, "We can't go forward with the Mayor's plan, but then, we can't go back." They're not quite sure what to do.

And then, of course, Saturday, the Washington Post published an editorial, that took up the theme that we've been raising on a number of issues. I think they cited six particular issues, that this plan should not go forward until there are answers to significant issues: such as, the fact that Greater Southeast Hospital cannot possibly be certified as a Level 1 trauma center for at least a year; that there is a plan afoot by the National Capital Planning Commission, that has a land-use for the property where the hospital is now situated, that doesn't include a hospital, or jail, or anything else--it's condos, and hotels, and marinas, and that kind of thing, and perhaps tied to the Olympics. They also pointed out that the area hospitals would be overtaxed if D.C. General Hospital closed. They are looking at the finances of the Doctors Community Healthcare Corp. They raised that whole issue; and today we learned that the Control Board is authorizing additional audits of this company, as well as the HMO that's involved in this deal; and so on, and so forth. They raised very interesting questions.

And so, what I would like your help with, is to try to get an understanding or an interpretation of these events. It seems, in one sense, that the Washington Post is distancing itself from both the Control Board and the Mayor on this issue. And in light of this, what do you think we could do, to help further that chasm, and make sure that at the end of the day, when the dust settles, that we have, in the District of Columbia, a full-service, fully-funded public hospital.

Lyndon LaRouche: It's almost like a military question. You have this problem; it's not a simple problem of a hospital.

The hospital issue is a lawful expression of a much broader problem. If the tiger comes to eat your baby, the problem is not the tiger coming to eat your baby; the problem is the tiger's been loose in the neighborhood too long. The tiger is this group of financier interests, of which Katharine Graham and her father's family trust, or foundation, is a part, which organized in Washington, D.C. a complex of political and financial and legal organizations, which essentially does what these kind of things do. They've got a real-estate scam. It may not be called a scam, but it is a scam. And they set up a succeeding scam, which extends over decades. That's how real-estate swindles work; they take place over decades. They have a plan for the next 20 years they'll do this, and then 10 years after that, they'll do this; and they'll sell it today for such-and-such a price, and we'll get such and such-and-such per year on it. It's all worked out.

Now, the plan for this riverside development is part of that. It also goes, again, with the Southern Strategy. Everybody knows what D.C. Hospital is. They know what the constituency is. And they want them out of Washington, D.C.! This is an old story. They want the African-Americans out of D.C., or at least, greatly reduced, and pushed over into Prince George's County and someplace like that. This is a deliberate policy.

Now, the problem is how you defeat it. When you attack Kathy Graham, you're not doing an injustice, because she is responsible, in a key way, for the policy-structure which is running this. But that's not exactly how it works. She is also the leading figure of an army. Now, you don't eliminate an army by attacking its general; you have to defeat the army. Now, how do you defeat the army? You have to destroy its cohesion. And you have to drop hand-grenades in the foxholes, and things like that.

What is needed is not to go at the big potato alone. Yes, the overall story, the big scandal is there. The swindle on the Southeast is there. The role of Graham and her crowd is there. But if you attack those things, you won't win. If you attack them alone.

You've got to get at the troops. What are the troops? The troops are a mass of people who have joined the army behind this operation. The troops are little this, little that, this association, that association; political action committees associated with these, which buy in politicians, and buy that--so that you find a mess in the community, as we're seeing in the city government of Washington, D.C.--if you can call it a government, since the Control Board took over. What you're seeing is a complex of people, who have each had their little piece of the pie, of interest in keeping that cash-stream in contributions coming, for their candidacies and other projects.

So therefore, what you have to do, is you have to map out, who has joined the army; and you've got to talk to each person, so to speak, in the army, and say, "Uh, Uh, you should quit that army. Because otherwise, you're guilty of this crime, because you are wittingly involved in this crime." In other words, you have to disperse the political forces which stand behind what Katharine Graham nominally has up, and what the Washington Post has stood for. Now Katharine understands that. She understands that she can back off, with an editorial, and make a criticism of the policy--but the army is still marching, her army! The army is all these little people, who've got their piece of the pie, including the Mayor, who's got a piece of the pie; it's his political career! His career was developed in this context.

So unless you go after the army, and identify the individual members of the army.... For example, you have the case of Sergei Eisenstein, the Russian screen director. He made a famous film on the so-called Potemkin, about the revolt, the insurrection in the 1905 Revolution, of the sailors on the ship Potemkin. Now, there's one scene in that film, which is very famous, and it's famous among art directors, because you have Russian soldiers, in white, coming down the steps of Odessa, of the court: step, by step, by step, by step. The famous scene with the baby carriage there.

Now, the way this was done so effectively, is that Eisenstein got from his people, names of the bit-players in this group of people marching down the steps, the soldiers. And the way he would control the way they marched, by direction, by shouting out and directing with this old-style megaphone, this cardboard megaphone--shouting out the names--"you, you, you"--by name, and thus he would have a grip on the motion within the entire group of bit players who were marching down the steps in this famous film. And this particular scene from that film was rather famous among moviemakers internationally, because of the excellence with which he did that, with very meager resources.

You've got to use the same kind of principle, in dealing with this mess in Washington. An army has been established, around a complex of financial power. You attack the financial power, and you find the army will come to its defense. So, even the army leaders can reduce their exposure, but the army keeps marching forward. Therefore, if you think that you've exposed the leader, and you're going to bring the thing down, you're deluding yourself. The way you defeat an army, is by demoralizing the individual soldiers in it, or getting them to desert or retreat. And, therefore, what you need to do is to have more names of the guilty parties, the foot-soldiers of the army. You may not get all of them. But you've got enough of them to tear the ranks apart. You rout them. And then the leaders are left standing alone, and then they're are defeated. That's the way it's done.

Professor Bondarevsky: I want to ask Mr. LaRouche how he understands the difference between the American position in this infamous document, Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future, where it is stated that Russia will be a very small and zero country. At the same time, the 8th of February, Mr. Tenet made his statement in Congress, saying that Russia is the greatest menace to the United States. So, if Russia is so small and zero, and nobody thinks about it, and it will disappear in 15 years, how can it be, simultaneously, the greatest threat to the United States?

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, obviously, there is always in politics, as your know, Professor, from your long experience, a factor called "insanity" in high places. And this is one of the instances of it. You have a tendency which is very pronounced in the new Bush Administration, particularly when you get to some of the slimier types, like the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and so forth, types. These are people who are not in the real world.

Now, let me be very candid on this one. If there is a war in the Middle East now, it will not be because some factors in the Middle East have control over whether or not there will be a war; there will be a new war in the Middle East, only if Sharon and George W. Bush's Presidency want it. Otherwise, it will not occur. There are no factors--Palestinian violence, this--that issue is not the question. It will occur only as an act of will. Now we had this kind of thing with Hitler, in the famous story about the Nuremberg Rally--"The Triumph of the Will." What you are dealing with is really a government which is not very intelligent. There are some intelligent people in it, but the organism of the government is not intelligent. It's a very bad government. It operates on the basis of "The Triumph of the Will."

Look at the policy of George W. Bush's government in Texas on the death penalty. He says, "No innocent person was ever executed." Well, that's nonsense. When we look at some of the DNA reports, we realize that the whole system of the death penalty is riddled with injustice. And Texas is notorious for its injustice in that system. If you can't find injustice in the Texas judicial system, what else can you find? So, when you have someone who takes the position "It is not possible that there is any mistake in my system. I have decided we are going to do that, therefore it is going to be done."

Now, as Kissinger said, in a moment of candor at the recent Wehrkunde meeting, the Bush Administration's targets are chiefly two: China and Russia. That's it. That's a statement of will--that is not a statement of an issue; not a statement of a conflict. The existence of Russia is not wanted by George W. Bush. Now, maybe George W. Bush's father's brother, Prescott, doesn't want China destroyed, because Prescott Bush has made a lot of money in China over the years--the 1970s, and so forth. But the determination to bomb, destroy, obliterate Iraq is an act of will by a Hitler-like tyrant and mentality. It is not an issue where there's a problem, and you say if I can not work through problems, why shouldn't I defend my interest? Here's the interest; here's what I'm prepared to do for this interest. That's not the issue. The issue of Russia is not the concern. The Bush Administration, at the highest level, ideologically, is determined to obliterate Russia from the map. They would also like to obliterate China from the map. This is a matter of will. It is not a matter of reason.

For example, take the case of China. This whole business about trying to provoke China with a missile buildup, or defense buildup, in Taiwan. Now, that might produce, as you know, a reaction from some sections of the Chinese military, and China might respond, as has happened in the past, with a show of force. But all of us who know what the military realities of the situation mean, that a show of force by the Chinese military in response to a provocation by Washington does not constitute a strategic threat of any significance against anyone. Not at this stage, anyway. There is only one target of significance to the Bush Administration and its friends in London, and that is Russia--because Russia is the only nation on this planet, outside the British monarchy and the United States, which is capable, by national cultural instinct, of leading any kind of coalition for an independent international policy. Russia, if it combines with Western Europe in economic cooperation, and combines--as Primakov has proposed, and now seems to be the trend under President Putin--combines with Japan, with Korea, with China, with India, with Central Asian countries, in cooperation, you have the basis in Western continental Europe, Russia, and parts of Asia, for a vast economic cooperation, which would mean a new power. Not a new power that is going to bomb anybody, but a new kind of political and economic power, which is going to influence the course of life on this planet.

And that is what, for so-called "geopolitical reasons," the same geopolitical reasons that King Edward VII emphasized with Halford MacKinder in trying to break up things like the transcontinental railroad in Russia--this kind of thing. The same moment they want to destroy Russia. They are not seriously concerned about China; they are concerned about Russia. And the instinct of this crowd is to do it. Therefore, the issue, of course, comes down to the present military issue--is 1) Both the United States and Russia have it, despite that both have come on bad times in technology. Both have the capability of an electromagnetic pulse attack on the other, or counterattack. And that's the only serious military issue, from a great power standpoint, on this planet today. So, all the other stuff is just talk.

Question from New York: Mr. LaRouche, yesterday Alan Greenspan insisted that there is a growing interdependence between stock prices and the real economy. As such, he led everyone to believe that another emergency rate cut would take place well before the next meeting of the Fed. Do you think that what he is saying is true, and, if so, isn't this what FDR would have done?

Lyndon LaRouche: The answer is, of course, that Alan Greenspan, I think, has lost it. I had the image that somebody is going to take him up to New York City, put him on a skyscraper, push him off, and then explain to the police that "Atlas Shrugged." Because this fellow is out of business. He no longer has the trust; we find he's being picked upon, not only by John Crudele of the New York Post, but others, who are condemning him, quite justly--but rather belatedly--I must say. The point is, what he said is utter nonsense.

Today, there is no significant correlation between the stock market and the real economy. There hasn't been for a long time. It's just absolute nonsense. A rate cut is absolutely an insane thing. What is needed, is a return to a protectionist policy. The U.S. system is bankrupt. The financial system is bankrupt. The world financial system is bankrupt. We could never, under the existing economy, we could never generate, without collapsing the economy, the rate of payment to pay off the debt which is sitting on top of the world today. Couldn't be done. That means that you are going to come to the point where you put the world through bankruptcy. And, my argument has been: Well, let it be a Chapter 11-style world bankruptcy. The way Roosevelt specified for state and public utilities, back in the 1930s.

What's important today, is to separate the real economy from the financial system. The way you do that--there are several ways--but one of the ways you do it, is that you introduce protectionism and regulation. You do not put out a rate cut. For example, you may have projects. Suppose you want to put up an infrastructure development in the United States. You want to create more employment in the United States--say, in California, or some area. So, as part of your general, overall operation, you set up regulation, a regulation scheme, and you conduit some credit into that specific project, earmarking it for a specific economic result. If you put money into the market--a rate cut in the market--it simply means you're going to build up the bubble. The danger now, of a rate cut, is that we are now in a situation which is analogous in terms of rollover of debt, to Germany in the Summer of 1923. We have reached the point, that the attempt to roll over an existing amount of debt, requires more inflation than the debt you're rolling over. Now, it was precisely that kind of problem which resulted in the explosion of the German reichsmark over the period of, especially, July through November of 1923. The problem which affrights people in Wall Street and elsewhere, is that if you try to get a hyperinflationary--that is, zero-interest rate kind of credit issuance--you are going to generate a hyperinflationary explosion in the U.S. and world economy.

That's what the issue is, of course, in Japan. The issue is, that the null, null overnight interest rate in Japan, falls first upon Japan, threatens to contribute to a process of blowing up the world economy in a hyperinflationary explosion. Just like happened in Germany in 1923. This is insanity. The only solution is not in rate cuts; no monetary theory taught in universities or generally talked about in financial centers, works. It's all nonsense. Forget it. What you have to have, is you have to have the intervention of the government, in cooperation with private agencies which come in, and also are supporting government regulation. You've got to steer credit. We need more credit, but you've got to steer credit into physical things, which are beneficial to the real economy. Forget this financial stuff. It's gone. The Internet is gone. Look, the Nemax practically went out of existence today in Europe, one of these "New Economy," "Third Way" kinds of operations. So, don't think about rate cuts at all. What we need, is that you've got to put the system through bankruptcy reorganization now. And the way to do it is, you've got to get the government convinced it's got to do it. And you've got to get support in the Congress, and we have to do it. We have to have a bank holiday--the whole shebang. And we are going to have to put credit into the system, but the credit is going to have to be regulated, and earmarked. And it's going to have to be a complete protectionist policy put over the entire U.S. economy, and international financial and economic relations. It's the only way we're going to survive. There are no other solutions.

Charlene Gordon [nurse from D.C. General Hospital, D.C. Nurses Association]: Good afternoon. Actually, I'm up here now, you've answered every question I had. But I was deteremined to come up here to see you, and say something to you. And, I do have another question.

I've been working at D.C. General for 18 years--18 good years--and it's been proven through the Joint Commission, which accredits us. Last year, we did a 94--actually we did 100%; they had to take the six points off, because our buildings are old. They're falling apart over our heads. Actually, I'm working sometimes in hazardous conditions: You never know when the ceiling's going to fall. But, that's because they've never given us money, to keep our building refurbished and renovated.

Now, Washington Hospital Center, as good as they are, they only made 91%. And, my God, Greater Southeast, they did even lower than that--84%.

But, our Honorable Mayor wants to squeeze us out.

Now, what you've said to me is quite clear with this Federal City Council, that is not Federal, that doesn't belong to the city, and it's not really a council, from what I see, I'm understanding that they control a whole lot around here. And they make the point of, "Yes, we're going to do something," or "No, we're not." And they decided to take over the area of D.C. General, probably for the property: Because, we're sitting on about 124 acres of good waterfront land, once you clear that water, and change that land on the front--it's going to be beautiful. I understand they want this for the Olympics coming up, in the year 2012. I don't understand why we can't compromise--still have a hospital--because you're going to need one, knowing that the Navy Yard is bringing in 5,000 new jobs. People are going to get sick; you're going to need a hospital in that area.

But, my question to you, is this, after I've stated all this: I don't understand, or it's hard to believe--or, maybe, it isn't hard to believe--that the Federal City Council is doing all this, using our Mayor; and Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is hiding somewhere, never verbalizing or saying anything to us about, say, the hospital; but, yet, when she ran [for D.C. Delegate], we put her in with 180,000 votes, twice the amount that she needed to get in [to Congress] from her next opponent. We, the poor people, helped her do that. So, can you tell me: They're black. What does Federal City Council want with them? If they want to get all the black people out, why are they involved? Or, when they do do this, are they going to get booted over to Anacostia, too, with the rest of us?

Now, with that--and, if they do succeed, how is this going to affect the world health care?

Thank you.

Lyndon LaRouche: Very simply. What you have, is an oligarchical system: You have at the top, the oligarchy, the ruling caste, usually the financiers. Now, they can't run this show, without a whole class of people, called "lackeys." The generic, is "lackeys." Some of the lackeys come with guns, and the authority to use them. Some of them without guns. Some of them come with pencils--or, today, with laptops--or the equivalent. Sometimes they come disguised as bureaucrats. Sometimes they come disguised as politicians of influence, or private organizations of influence. And, so, these guys now have what they consider their personal interest. And their personal interest is their career. And they do what they do, for their career. Somebody controls the money that goes into them. Somebody backs them, and doesn't back somebody else. They owe a favor; they go along to get along. It is corruption! Moral corruption! That's how the system works.

If you can not get the lackeys, a large number of lackeys, to hold the crowd down, you can not control the crowd. Now, a few top oligarchs can not control the system, without their lackeys. And you have to understand the corruption: It's just plain, moral corruption. And, these officials are corrupt.

Now, maybe some of them would like not to be corrupt. I hope we could induce them to stop being corrupt. But, we know that Williams' corrupt. His actions publicly show, he's corrupt. Eleanor Holmes Norton: We know she's corrupt; her actions attest to it. Why she's corrupt, where the money goes: We got a $1,000 check. That's part of it. Capistrano [Catania?] may get more. But, this is only part of it.

The problem is this corruption. And the corruption increases. Why? Well, you've got the loss of Mayor Barry, who was sort of run out a couple of times, and run down, and the city government became a joke. So, the people of Washington, D.C. lost efficient control over government. Then, you had Gingrich, and the Control Board process: Government was stripped. And, this group of people no longer had real power, over real things; they had the power to become lackeys; and to serve as lackeys. And they had to decide: Would they get booted out? Or, somebody would pull a scandal on them, send them to jail, if they didn't go along? Or, just fire them, throw them onto the garbage heap? Or would they go along? If they decide to go along, and protect their careers, and "take care of my family," and "take care of my savings," "take care of my future, to get my child through college." If they want to do those things, they're going to go along! If they're going to go along, the fact that they may have an African-American skin color, does not mean that they have the interests of African-Americans at heart. They may be sensitive on that question, but, when push comes to shove, they've got a more immediate drum they're marching to. And that's what the problem is.

That's why I said, as I answered Dr. Alim Muhammad, is: When people make a mistake, you get a big scandal against big people, you think that's going to bring the corruption down. It doesn't. Because, big people don't start wars without armies. And, armies are organized around lackeys. And, if you can not defeat the lackeys, you won't get at the big people.

And, therefore, the trick is, people are reluctant, if they see a black face sticking in front of them, in Washington, D.C., they're reluctant to say, "Well, this guy is out to kill black people, or Negro Removal." Even though he is. Because, it's not a racial issue, it's a lackey issue. And, the racial issue, are, the people who are racists, who are pushing the policy, who know that's what they're doing. But, it's not something, which is a different category. These are the members of the army. This is the SS, that does the killing. Hitler gives the orders, but without the SS, he can't kill. And, these people have consented, for various reasons, which they could explain to you--family reasons, considerations, old friendships, careers--all this stuff: They decided to become lackeys. And they're on the other side, and they're shooting. They practically threatened to shoot Mayor Williams, when the ministers went to meet with him. And, that's what the problem is.

And, the problem, essentially, therefore, is, that we do not have, really, the army that we need. The army is the organized power of the citizens. What has happened, since we first took up this D.C. issue, in a webcast back in November, which came up in the form of a question, in that connection: There has been a transformation in the fight to save D.C. General, and related issues in Washington, D.C. We saw, with the lobbying session in Congress, by citizens from Washington, D.C., principally, into the Congress, showed that citizens who--say, two months ago, three months ago--could not have carried on the ball on that kind of issue, are now well-aware of what the issue is; they're very articulate; they know what they're talking about; they know more than the Congressmen do, who they're talking to. So, that's good. That's progress. That's the beginning of an army.

But, the issue is, we have to build more of an army. It's a matter of dynamic. Can we keep the thing rolling fast enough, big enough, so forth, so we get all our army moving? But we also--as I said to Dr. Alim's question--you have to, also, identify the lackeys, and get a few of them to desert the enemy army. And, that will help the victory a great deal.

Diane Sare [from New York]: We have a question from the Russian trade representative, who asks about the reduction of the non-tariff barriers for Russian goods in the United States, which was adopted by the WTO, specifically against Russian steel products, chemicals, and fertilizers. He says: The Clinton Administration was pursuing a liberal trade policy. Nevertheless, they had to apply such measures, responding specifically to pressure from the steel industry. What will be the attitude of the Bush Administration in this regard? What should be U.S. trade and investment policy to Russia from the U.S.A.? You hear that there is uncertainty in Russia; however, serious observers tell a different story. Under President Putin's administration, corruption is waning, and central federal power is consolidated. We have a certain economic growth. Not all problems have been solved under Putin, but we have an investment climate more attractive now, than years ago. Does the Bush Administration share this point of view? Will it induce and instigate investment of the U.S.A. into Russia? We are trying to attract investment into Russia, especially from New York City, and we would be pleased to hear the answer to this from Mr. LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, the obvious thing, is, the pattern of the discussions between German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, in Moscow, and other discussions subsequently, is very relevant. Gerhard Schroeder essentially repeated that, this not a Rappallo Plan--well, in effect, it really is. It's in the spirit of Rappallo, and I think Walther Rathenau, if he were alive, today--had he not been killed by a French assassin--would agree.

The point is this: We have this debt problem, between Russia, on the Soviet-era debt, and so forth, and Western Europe, in particular. We have negotiations with the London Club and the Paris Club, in the works.

The general drift is this: That Russia is on the verge of losing these technological capabilites, which it had years ago, as the Soviet Union. The last six years, in Russia, have been catastrophic; skilled people have left; essential industries have shut down, and so forth. And, the question is: Can this be rebuilt?

Now, the agreement of some people in Europe, especially in Germany, was--and, in particular, there's also, of course, some people in France and elsewhere--is that: Why not take the question of the debt, and let's do what was done, in reorganizing debt before? Let's take some of the Russian debt, let's convert that into a credit, inside some kind of financial institution--a banking institution. Let that credit be used, say, by German industries, to go in under an agreement with Russia, a structured agreement, to invest in using Russia's potential--Russia provides infrastructure, and things like that--to build up new industries, inside Russia, using, say, European technology, together with Russian technology; and build a joint enterprise, using this Russian foreign debt, as a credit, under which the Germans can operate, and participate in that credit as a way of investing in Russia.

This would mean, of course, that you would have to have agreements--more agreements (I don't know what was done, so far)--but, obviously, the intention is there, to have these kinds of agreements. There are laws passed in Russia, under which this can occur. And, there's an intent on the part of some in Germany, as in other parts of Europe--I know some Italian sources, some in the European Parliament circles--to do the same thing. This makes sense. And they should have it.

So, I think, that what we should do, of course, is exactly that. If we want to save Russian technological potential, which would be very valuable for Central Asia, and for Far East Asia, we've got to do something very quickly, to put Russia back in business, as a growing, technologically progressing economy, to play this essential role. And, therefore, if we can assist that process, by converting some of the debt into credit, of this sort, and using that to build up partnership between Russian entrepreneurs and foreign entrepreneurs, with the cooperation of the Russian government--that is the way to go.

Now, under those kinds of agreements, it's obvious that we would have to go, properly, to a protectionist system. It is my view that the entire world has to go, to return to a protectionist system, like that of the 1950s, now, like the protectionist system operating, under the IMF, between the United States and Western Europe, for example. We've got to have a protectionist system, now.

Therefore, the question of investment, the question of tariffs, would then come under a general agreement among governments, based on sitting down and negotiating a list of priorities. And, then, setting up tariff agreements in quotas and the tariff rates and price rates, so forth, accordingly. That is, a multi-layered kind of agreement. I think that kind of agreement could be, without U.S. adverse pressure, realized, very soon, between Western continental Europe and Russia, and other countries. And I think that would be been good.

Obviously, the United States should make the same kind of agreement. The problem is, we have a political agenda, an ideological agenda, in Washington, which says, "No."

I'm well aware of this situation, during an earlier time, when I had discussions in Russia with high-level people, who were discussing these kinds of questions, and assessing the situation. The Clinton Administration--President Clinton, himself, to me (my view), seemed sympathetic to these kinds of discussions and negotiations. Al Gore had a different agenda. And, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission worked in a different direction than I thought was useful. And, then, I had a little quarrel with some of the people who were involved, as a result of that sort of thing. I thought we had missed the opportunity in 1996, which was essentially the last real chance to do it easily. Now, it's going to be more difficult: Too much has been lost in the last four years. But, obviously, this is the right thing to do.

At this point, the Bush Administration? No. Absolutely not. However, as I said, the last word is not spoken on this. If a concert of influentials, in Western Europe, and in the United States, go and tell the people behind the Bush Administration, "You guys are nuts! Stop this nonsense! Get sensible!" Then, I think, we could say, it is possible, at this point, that a fundamental shift in the present policy-outlook of the Bush Administration, could be effected under the weight of the kind of crisis which is coming down on it.

You have to realize, that we are at a point, which was shown on the market this week, with the downfall of Alan Greenspan. This thing is over. It's just a question of when, and exactly how. The present world financial system, is finished. The present economic policies of the Bush Administration are finished. The deregulation crisis is going to explode. It can not be stopped. There are many other things, of the same nature. This won't work!

The danger is, as I've said repeatedly--the danger is, that under such a situation, a government, with people like Armitage, and people like that--and Richard Perle--in it, or around it, faced with an impossible economic situation, will act like Hitler. They'll go to crisis management. The most dangerous thing on the scene right now, is the likelihood that the Bush Administration, will fully back Sharon; and, on the pretext of Palestinian resistance, allegedly with Iraqi backing, will then go to some kind of attack--either an Israeli attack or a replay of Desert Storm--attacking Iraq and other countries, on the pretext that Saddam Hussein is backing the Palestinians, who are attacking Israelis.

And that will happen, not because Saddam Hussein does something. Not because there's such an issue. Not because the Palestinians and some people were acting--unprovoked terrorism, or something. But, because Sharon wants it. Sharon said, "Temple Mount" in his address in Washington! The Bush Administration didn't repudiate Temple Mount. Therefore, the Bush Administration, by hosting him for that kind of a speech, and not repudiating it immediately, given the implications of that--means that the Bush Administation is committed to a Middle East general war. Which means that, Iran is also a target.

The danger is, that, under these circumstances, with a desperate regime in Washington, crushed by a financial and economic crisis, which it can not solve, may try to bully the world, into submitting to its will, by going to new kinds of things, as they did in 1990, with Desert Storm; and then, with the Balkan wars, during the course of the post-1992 period, up to the present time.

That's the danger.

But, I would say, in answer to the specific question: At this point, your chances from the Bush Administration, are zero. (Or, virtually zero: They might make some offers; it doesn't mean anything.) Maybe Rumsfeld or O'Neill would know better; but, they might not do it anyway. But, with the kind of crisis we have, the thing to look for, is the possibility that people in Europe, and in the United States, who collectively represent power, behind the scenes, may say: "This nonsense is going to stop." And, in that case, we might get a sensible policy. And, that's why I'm laying out that kind of policy now, and I hope other people are doing it.

Under a sensible policy, yes, the problem you pose can be solved. It can be solved by setting up a protectionist system, for reorganization of world trade and finance; to make specific government-to-government agreements on a multi-level, multi-parity basis, or a multi-nation basis. And, then we can have a rational system, and we can negotiate agreements on specific points. That's the way to go.

At this point, that won't happen. Perhaps, maybe, next Monday, next Tuesday, or whatever. Maybe the point will come, where the boys will march into Washington, to say to George: "No. No. Stop it. It's not going to work."

And, that's our best hope.

Philip Rubinstein [from New York]: Okay. We have a question from an Asian country representative. "Mr. LaRouche claims that the U.S. economic collapse has led to military adventures, thus increasing regional destabilization. What is Mr. LaRouche's theory, on the U.S. government's undertaking a National Missile Defense, which would eventually pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty, undermining U.S. and Russian relations?"

Lyndon LaRouche: First of all, the National Missile Defense, as talked about by people who are associated with it as an option in the Bush Administration--they don't even know, or don't care, what they're talking about. The United States has lost most of the capability they had, to develop a strategic ballistic missile defense system. It doesn't exist. The idea of the rogue state theory, is a lot of nonsense. The Putin response to that, in the offer to Europe, in particular, on cooperation, and the French response to that, today, for example--from France--offering to move in that direction, indicate that there is such a slight danger, that somebody's going to start launching something. Cooperation a number of states could deal with an isolated or minimal kind of threat of that sort.

Global, general purpose, strategic ballistic missile defense, does not exist. As I said before, in answer to Professor Bondarevsky, in his question: The one thing that does exist, as a strategic capability, because we've got a pile of junk in the laboratories--we've got some good things, but generally, our industries have collapsed. We are no longer the kind of superpower we were, back 15 years ago. That's gone. And, Russia, of course, is also gone. And nobody else has it.

What we have, is, we have some little technologies, which enhance what we did have before. And, if a couple of powers, mainly that Russia, and the United States, and some of its allies, wanted to set up a capability, or a new strategic policy, based on EMP effects, using submarine-based launching pads, controlled by submarines of the Kursk type or the Los Angeles type, then that could work! For that effect.

But, this idea of nuclear missile defense, as proposed by people associated with the Bush Administration--that is a horse without wings, that isn't going to fly.

Debra Freeman: This question was submitted by Carlos Gamero of Argentina's Radio LU5: "Mr. LaRouche, is Argentina really going to be able to grow by betting on the same prescription, which was presented yesterday, by the newly named Economics Minister Domingo Cavallo? That is, more convertibility, more government deficits, more debt and ongoing indebtedness. What are the real alternatives that Argentina has? What economic sector should be developed to generate an authentic model of real development?"

Lyndon LaRouche: There are two parts to the answer--that you have to break it down into two different questions. First of all, the intent of the relevant powers today, is the breakup of every existing nation of Central and South America. That's policy. That's the policy, which was already in the works under Madeleine Albright. That's H.G. Wells' policy. The big target right now is Brazil. The fight at this point, which is being run out of London, by the circles of the World Wildlife Fund, there, and others, is to break up Brazil, to chop it up into several groups, like they're doing in Africa. They have a map in the office of Lynda Chalker in London, to destroy all of black Africa, and break it up into small, tiny micro-states. That's an ongoing operation, which U.S. forces, as well as British forces, principally, are operating.

The same intention is for all of South and Central America: Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and so forth--are all doomed to disappear from the political map of the world in the early future. The measures which are taken recently, pushing in Domingo cavallo--remember, this whole operation in Argentina is very close to Henry Kissinger and George Bush, personally. George Bush, Sr.--the father--has had an active hand over the period of the past more than decade, has had a personal hand in Argentina, and many of the policies, such as the Cavallo policy, reflect George's connection with certain people in England, in running this Argentina policy.

The policy, overall, is global, for the whole region. The deliberate intent of the policymakers in Washington and London is the disappearance of every existing nation-state in Central and South America, and of Sub-Saharan Africa; and other parts of Africa are also included,; and some other parts of the world as well. That's the policy.

And the dollarization of Ecuador is part of the policy; the dollarization of Argentina is part of the policy; Domingo Cavallo is a part of the policy, an obvious one. He's been travelling around the world as that. And the next stage is, once Brazil is broken up, then all of the nation-states of Central and South America are doomed to be broken up into fragments, run by various kinds of entities -- no longer governments or nations -- in a short period of time. As is being done in Africa right now, from London, from the office of Lynda Chalker, who is tied to this Cox Committee in the United States Congress, and so forth. These kinds of things. They're up to it.

The question is: What's the policy? Well, my policy is this. Since the world system is bankrupt. And we have to reestablish the authority of the nation-state as sovereign. We have to end globalization as a general policy. The WTO will die of its own weight, because nations are going to pull out of it, rapidly, to the extent that they want to remain nations. They can not live in it, and therefore either they're going to disappear, or they're going to get out of it. China, of course, is dragging its feet, and probably will never enter the WTO, the way things are going now.

So, the nation-state is the foundation. Remember, the nation-state is an institution created in Italy, or out of Italy, in the Renaissance of the 15th Century. It was a completely new kind of institution, which had never existed on this planet before. And the first nation-state was founded, in the reorganization of France under Louis XI. And then secondly, after Louis' death, in England, Henry VII created the second nation-state form in the world: that of England, under Henry VII, which is where the modern nation-state comes from.

That institution is typified by the Constitution of the United States. It is the only kind of institution, which can deal effectively with the kind of economic problem, which the planet faces today. This would mean the immediate reestablishment of the absolute sovereignty of each of the nations of Central and South America, as they existed, say, as of 1982.

That should be the policy. Under this policy, then, the authority of the state to have its debts reorganized -- because the whole thing's been unjust since 1971 -- to have its debts reorganized, and have it undertake, as a sovereign act, the rebuilding of its economy; and to make agreements among these nation-states which, through cooperation, enable them to rebuild their economies, using what was called the American System model of Hamilton, Friedrich List and Henry Carey, which is the model used before, to do that. And to have cooperation among sovereign nation-states--mutual security type--of the type which is implicit in John Quincy Adams' proposal for the Monroe Doctrine -- for a community of principle among the nation-states of the Americas. That's the way to go.

Under those conditions, we can do the job. It will be a long, slow job. It will take a quarter of a century to get the job done. But in the meantime, we're rebuilding, and building is better than dying. And that's the way to go.

So, the present system, the present situation, there's no way you can live with it. You're not intended to live with it. You're intended to die with it. The nation of Argentina is intended to die. And, this latest move is simply another step tied to George Bush personally.

By the way, a note on this: The Bush connection to Chavez in Venezuela, is a key part of this. And just trace the map out, know what the connections are, and you'll see exactly what's going on. So, the Bush Administration is committed to the disintegration of the nation-states of the Americas, and their fragmentation, in the same way that Lynda Chalker's office plans to destroy every state in Africa, and chop it up into little micro-states, as they're doing in Congo, right now.

The other thing is: Build the nation-state; let's go back and do what was right, and I think we can do well.

Ken Riposa: You were just talking about South America and Brazil, and I just had a question in particular about Brazil. (I'm a reporter from Inter Press Service Agency.) It's a question about foot-and-mouth disease and the recent sinking of Petrobras, the large oil rig owned by Brazil. And, I was wondering what reporters should look for, with Brazil being a target of the guys who want to open up an entire free-trade zone in South America: I'm wondering if the foot-and-mouth disease is going to be something that reporters should look at as being, maybe, some kind of political football. If someone's going to say, you know, start ringing their hands, and saying, "Hey! Why don't we go down there, now, and maybe destroy some crops down there"; or, "we already have Petrobras is already falling into the sea."

I'm wondering if there's something that reporters should be watching for. Are these just natural disasters, that are happening here, with foot-and-mouth, that's probably going to land in Brazil, sometime soon? With Petrobras, going into the sea? Or, is this something that somebody is going to sort of manipulate and control, to their advantage, to break up Brazil, which is what you were just talking about?

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, first of all the hoof-and-mouth disease, as well as the "Mad Cow" disease: We can say that these are the gifts of Margaret Thatcher. Because it was Margaret Thatcher's policies on these areas, in England, and the influence of Britain on the European Union agriculture policies, which allowed for the spread of these disease.

Now, in the case of hoof-and-mouth disease: Probably the causes, in part, are the conditions inside England--the United Kingdom--which are largely shaped by Thatcher policies, and continued by the present government of Tony Blair. Probably, he was a former follower of Thatcher, and an admirer of Thatcher; he's the Thatcherite of the Labour Party. And, he's proven it, by his deeds. The hoof-and-mouth disease is not, necessarily, a serious disease, and the mass-killing of cattle, in England and in Europe, as opposed to vaccination and other treatments, indicates exactly what's going on. Hoof-and-mouth disease is not necessarily fatal to cattle, nor of course, human beings. Sometimes, some cattle die. But you isolate the cattle, which show the symptoms, and you treat them, you vaccinate them, as you should, and so forth. And most of them will recover. And they will have a fairly good immunization against the same variety of hoof-and-mouth disease, thereafter. So, you don't go, and mass-kill cattle, because they have hoof-and-mouth disease.

What they're doing is obvious, and, they're doing it in Germany. They were doing it in Germany, before the BSE policy was implemented in the way in which it was done: Is that, the policy in the European Union, under the influence of Britain, is, don't vaccinate. And that's how the disease was helped to be spread. So, it was the British policy, imposed upon Europe and imposed upon international institutions, which is responsible for the current panic. It is also British policy, to reduce the meat production of the world, by killing off the herds of the world, as a part of a peculiar British policy. It's an environmentalist policy; it's a green policy, so to speak.

The way to look at it: Hoof-and-mouth disease is an obvious problem; it's well known. Experts in Brazil and elsewhere, understand it perfectly well. It's a well-studied case. There may be some variations in this, which need further study. But, it's not really a reason for a crisis.

The crisis is totally inefficient. If the right things were done, the thing could be brought under control. It is not a crisis.

The crisis, is the use of hoof-and-mouth disease as a pretext for a policy of destroying the food supply of populations, and destroying agriculture. Therefore, wherever the policy is applied--as opposed to the traditional policy for dealing with hoof-and-mouth disease: vaccination, isolation, and so forth; all the things that were done, by agricultural agencies beforehand. Any deviation from that, for mass-slaughter of cattle, because of hoof-and-mouth disease, is what you have to look for: And, that's the killer. That's where the fraud, that's where the swindle is.

On the question of Petrobras, and so forth: Yes. The intent is--and there's a big fight about this now, including in the leading press in Brazil, itself, which is a part of this British international connection--pushing, very much, for policies which would break up Brazil, and break up everything in it. Brazil is the last nation in Central and South America, which has not lost its essential, sovereign integrity. Every other nation lives by sufferance, on such a thin margin of sufferance--it any at all--that it no longer really had sovereignty. So, Brazil is the number-one target for destruction--now. And, this includes the crowd in London, and in the United States, itself--the same crowd. And, the Bush crowd is tied to it.

There's more to it, but we'll have it on the website--the EIR website and so forth--follow-on on this sort of thing. We have a lot of coverage of this, we do, in terms of South and Central America, so, you can get a lot of from that source, as well.

Lucinda Pitt: [Civic League President of Fairwood Homes, in Portsmouth, Virginia]: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Where we live, there are approximately 3,000 people, 5% are elderly. The government body that is in control, has decided to take the land--to purchase the land. We're in an empowerment zone, which has in its funding, $105 million. When the empowerment plan was projected, those of us who were living in the Fairwood Homes area, were supposed to be included. We were not. Now, as it stands, the government and its body has decided to eliminate these 3,000 people, and the elderly, without any place to go.

In the city of Portsmouth, there were approximately four to five different housing units. Between 1974 and 1990, the city of Norfolk and Portsmouth combined together, and destroyed 13 low-income resident housing complexes. So, now Fairwood Homes is one of the two remaining places that people can afford affordable housing. We have written letters to the Attorney General. They have acknowledged the letter--nothing is done. We went to the Senators and Congressmen, and nothing has been done, as of yet. Now, we're in the process of marching on Dr. Falkin [ph], who is the executive director of the Empowerment 2010. She ultimately decides, if we would get any money at all. As it stands now, this woman has not acknowledged any phone calls or letters from us. I would like to know, from you--after hearing of this--what is possible? Do you have any possible suggestions, or anything we could do? Because, as it stands, nobody is willing to help us. The newspapers have even backed off from reporting the stories, as they once were doing. And, it's all controlled, and we know it's controlled. And, I understand everything that you said about getting to the people, and just naming them; but, the main player are partners of Virginia, and nobody--and I mean nobody, because we have had attorneys to try to find out the names of these people. So, we can not fight them, because we do not know who they are.

Lyndon LaRouche: Hm. Well, I think that that can be looked into. I don't have the facts, myself. You've given me a picture, of this--I've got a smell, of what you're talking about.

I think the first thing to do, from our standpoint, is, do some investigation, and find out who is doing what to whom, exactly. Who's behind the figure who's either responding, or not responding on this issue. These kinds of things--you have to do your investigation. Get your facts first. And, you have get some experts on this, or quasi-experts, and get the kind of facts you need to know, to be able to cut this thing into a shape you can do something with it politically. It obviously, needs urgence. I think that one would respond with a certain amount of sense of urgency.

Debra Freeman: Lucinda, we will look into it, and we will get back to you. There are certainly people who can find that our for you.

Peter Janssen: Mr. LaRouche, I've got a question concerning your ideas, concerning this protectionist concept, which you pointed out. What would it mean, in terms of market access for developing nations--particularly in Africa, but also in Mexico, and others--to the U.S. market, and the other major markets, like in Europe and so on? Thank you.

Lyndon LaRouche: Protectionism is an essential part of the principle of the general welfare, as it was developed as a part of the creation of the sovereign form of nation-state.

It works this way: You have two principal areas of economic protectionism. One is the area of infrastructure; that, you can not develop a population, unless you have adequate infrastructure for it. This means things like transportation systems, water systems, power systems, sanitation systems; and, also means things such as schools, and whatnot. So, these are the things which are required, in an area, for economic activity and for life. If you have an area that's not developed, then your productivity collapses and you have no chance. If the area is developed, then your same efforts can be productive.

So, therefore, the function of the state is to set up an arrangement under which these things are built and maintained, either by government, or by private industries, which works under regulation by government, and is protected by government--called protectionism.

Now, someone is going to have to pay for this. Therefore, generally this comes from the tax revenues of government. Governments raise the money to ensure, together with private funds, that the money flow is adequate to maintain this infrastructure. Since the nation needs it, you do it. It's like if you have an army: So, you build an army to win--not to lose wars, but win wars. It costs a certain amount of money; you get the money, you've got the army. Infrastructure's the same problem: It's the army in defense of the nation.

Then, there's the private sector: Agriculture. For example, if you're going to develop a crop. Some crops take three years, to cycle a crop, once the land is prepared. Developing a herd of cattle, may take from 15 to 25 years to develop a viable, self-sustaining herd. Other things take time. Factories have to be able to function. People have to have enough in wages to live on--physically. Forget the money part. It's what they have physically, to live on, the get the education, to get the care, and so forth, that they need. Therefore, you have to protect the wage level; therefore, you will produce a protection on prices, on the things they produce--to protect them. So that the producers will get enough payment for the product, so the people can be taken care of who're doing the producing.

That's a protectionist system.

Then, you start tariff barriers, which ensure that your industries in your country, as a sovereign country, are able to grow at a point that they're not yet able to compete on the open market with the producers of foreign countries. The argument is: They come in and say, "Well, you're being cheated. Your government protects you. Your prices are too high. You could always make things much cheaper, if you weren't paying protection prices for this." This was the old "fair trade"/"free trade" argument in the United States, in the 1960s, and even in the 1950s--the same argument.

So, therefore, the idea is to provide the protection to allow the things to grow, that must grow, to provide a healthy economy. In dealing with state-to-state relations, what you do, is, you say: "Well, we are all committed to each other's welfare. That is, we all recognize the right of each nation to its general welfare. Therefore, what we will do, rather than trying to compete, radically, randomly, let us agree to cooperate. You will let us protect our prices on certain things, and you will protect your prices on certain things. We will have a division of labor in international--."

The idea is, to have the people, the total population of each nation, making it. Now, they may not have everything that they want, produced in their own country. Generally, it's not possible, these days. But, they will have a full-set economy, which will be theirs, and that will be protected. The other nation's department will have the same right. And, then, you work out trade agreements.

We did that all the time, back in the postwar period, for example. Under Roosevelt, after Roosevelt; we did it in the 1950s, under the old IMF system--we had the old GATT system--the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So, we set up trade agreements, tariff agreements, we had agremeements on credit to subsidize countries, with low-interest loans, to be able to develop industries, and we would protect them; and cooperate with governments to do so.

So, protectionism, is actually protecting the general welfare. That people can not grow, if they're working as slaves. What we have today: Look, in the United States, you have free trade: What do you have? Unemployment. The United States is no longer producing its own goods. The result of not producing our own goods, is, we have lost jobs, inside the United States. We've lost productive capacity, in the United States, in order to get goods more cheaply from virtual slave-labor, from our standpoint, abroad.

So, we hurt ourselves, and we hurt them, those abroad.

We need that kind of protection system, now, to get back to what worked before Nixon and his racist Southern Strategy took over the U.S. economy, back when he was running for President, back in '66-'68.

George Ripley [Americans for Social Justice]: Good afternoon, sir. You've spoken earlier about the need for American sense of mission, and you've spoken about the need for a movement. You've spoken about the sources of power, which I think are corporatized, and right now, in Congress, the meetings in the Senate for the next two weeks will be taken up with the debate over campaign finance reform.

A lot of your organization's efforts are to publish materials that are educational for the people of the country. Have you put out any papers and tracts on the issue of campaign finance reform; the issues of the corporate control of our democracy? And, do you intend to do so? Have you thought of getting involved with that?

Lyndon LaRouche: We've got a good deal of touching on things. We haven't done, I think, a comprehensive business on campaign reform, as such. But, we've looked at this, obviously, over the years. And, generally, it's pretty much a mess.

Many of the proposed reforms, are as bad as the things that they propose to replace. They don't get at the gut of the thing. The point is, that we have a situation, which--the recent election's a good example this. And we have done something on this. We will do more on it. Specifically on this point.

Looking at the question of representative government: What happened in the last election? The Presidential election? How much money was spent; where did it come from? What was the actual campaigning? Who was campaigning?

What you had is, you had these billions of dollars going into a Presidential campaign, where there was no engagement in ideas, with the citizens; there was no political organization of significance at the base. We don't have the party clubhouses any more. So, that, in general, the campaign reform, as it was done in the 1970s and so forth, has been a big failure. There may have been some features of it, which were useful, and served some useful purpose. But, the whole concept was mistaken, because, the essence of politics is participation. The essence is to have the citizen participate in the process of deliberating the policies of government, primarily. Of the institutions of government; of the selection of candidates. Which means, there has to be a challenging process. In the old times, you had the clubhouses, which was specifically the sin--remember, the reform movement started in New York, in the 1960s, when Eleanor Roosevelt became angry about some things that happened in New York to her, in the Tamany Hall election. And, the idea was, the clubhouses were corrupt.

But, then, what we got was something more corrupt than the clubhouse system. Because it meant, there was no participation, active participation, of the voters. In the old system, you had the clubhouses were controlled, by private bosses. But, you didn't have a situation, where you hadn't a club structure, or a party club structure, in which the citizens actually had a place where they could go and be heard and have some influence. And, to me, the reality of politics, is to get the citizen back into politics, actually; to get them to participate on a regular basis--I mean, it may not be a weekly meeting, or something, but a regular basis, of participating and forcing people to come to them, to present their case to them. To present their case to them.

Politicians should not be out doing what they're doing. I was stuck with having to do it, because that's the way it works. Politicians should actually be able to go to constituency organizations, which are prepared to receive them, and to engage in an exchange of ideas and concepts and facts. So, that you are in the process of creating an informed electorate, by a sense of the political candidates and representatives of policies appearing before bodies, and having this kind of discussion.

So, my concern is that. You had a fake election. The issues were not discussed; the candidates did not know them. Look at the so-called official debates. They were a farce! Reporters asked questions in a completely rigged system, beforehand; there is no give-and-take, there is no real discussion! This talk about American democracy, is a farce! The thing is politically rigged. And, that issue, of campaign reform, is what I'm concerned about personally, and it's what my associates are concerned about, personally. That particular question. Many of the details, the mechanics, we don't get so much involved in. But, that question, and can you come up with something that addresses that, then, we're interested in it.

Sharif Hidayat [University of Maryland]: Thank you, Mr. LaRouche. You have mentioned several times about Indonesia, in your opening speech. As we observed, many Indonesian people are frustrated with the new government, and the political leaders, who show little care for people's concerns and the general welfare. Democracy and the implications of democracy are frequently used by politicians as an excuse to disregard people's concerns and economic development. My question is: Do you have any specific comments for Indonesian leaders, as well as Indonesian people, on what action can be taken to accelerate economic development, while building and encouraging a democratic system? Do you think that the Bush Administration will push the Indonesian administration to focus their efforts on economic development?

My second question is: The condition of many industries in the United States are fairly different from that in developing countries. As you have mentioned, even in the United States, human cattle phenomena and the need for re-regulation are clearly observed. My question is: Do you have any suggestion to the governments of the developing countries, on what kind of globalization, what kind of deregulation, and what kind of privatization should be promoted, in order to avoid the same mistake of United States? Thank you.

Lyndon LaRouche: Okay. First, on the question of the overall problem of political representation in Indonesia: During the war, President Roosevelt announced to Churchill and others, that the intention of the government of the United States, was that, at the end of the war, the power of the United States would be used, with its friends who agreed with this, to immediately end all colonial government, in all parts of the world; specifically, the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French colonialism. That was Roosevelt's policy. Churchill was at all pleased by that.

At the end of the war, after Roosevelt had died, Truman immediately supported the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French, in retaking, re-colonizing, the world. Among the victims of this, was Indonesia, which during the period of the Japan occupation, had built an organization, to establish national sovereignty. The result was a colonial war, fought by the Dutch government, with British and American backing, to try to impose recolonization on Indonesia, as had been done in Indochina, and elsewhere.

So, in this process, you had a movement, which developed, which became known as the Non-Aligned Nations Movement. And, you had a famous conference, called the Bandung Conference, at which Zhou Enlai of China, and Nehru, and others, and so forth--and Yugoslavia's Tito--were involved. So, at that point, you had nation-state consciousness developing among the so-called non-aligned nations, or developing nations. And, the aspiration to combine their efforts as a kind of political strength, even though they represented governments of different social and political systems--which is a point to understand--as Indonesia had, intrinsically, a somewhat different social and political system, than you would find in Indochina, and so forth, and so on.

But, they understood that they had to work together, to achieve common purposes for different countries, with different systems. This process was broken up, in the 1960s, as a part of the process, which led, of course, to the coup/countercoup, and so forth, in Indonesia. And, in the process, the entirety of this effort, of the early-1960s, was broken up.

Then, with the crushing of Japan's role, as a full-set economy participant, in the development of parts of Asia, you have a dislocation and chaos in the development of these countries. So, the problem was, that the environment in which these countries were living, after 1965-66, under the conditions of the U.S. policy in Vietnam, the intervention into Vietnam; under those conditions, true rights of governments of this region, to determine their own fate, their own destiny--didn't exist. The way everyone existed, including Indonesia, was by consent of certain foreign powers. And they would negotiate with a sense of patriotism, or whatever, to negotiate with foreign powers to get the conditions to do things that they felt they ought to do.

And, therefore, the entire development of the region, was destroyed.

The same thing happened to the Philippines. The Philippines was a successful project, when MacArthur was involved in it. Then you had Marcos, who eventually moved in later, as a product of the same process. And, then, he was ruined. And then, he was finally overthrown.

So, this kind of process goes on.

So, we talk about policy toward these countries, and their democracy, and so forth. We have to recognize that, the idea of democracy is an illusion, when foreign great powers, or combinations of great powers, actually are able to dictate the policies which are allowed by the government of the nation. Then democracy means very little. It may mean something to have the freedom to discuss, and so forth, but the power actually to shape the future of one's own nation, is denied that nation. That has been the problem. For example: When Indonesia got into a mess in the raids by U.S.- and British-based Tiger Funds, in 1997, the decision was made to break up Indonesia! The decision by the powers, to break it up! So, what do we talk about the condition in Indonesia today? Operations are run by Portuguese and other foreign sources, to help break the country up! Where's the right? Where's democracy in Indonesia, in those conditions?

So, the first thing, is that we must recognize that this is the historically determined problem. We must recognize that you have to create an environment, a power environment, in which nations actually do have the right, to make the significant policies that determine their national future; which they've been denied, in effect, for all this period, because Roosevelt's dream was never realized.

We should realize it now.

Now, on the question of globalization: What we're going to have to have, is two things--or, three--two basic things. But, essentially, the ASEAN Asian Monetary Fund, which has been proposed by people in Japan and elsewhere, as adopted by the ASEAN Plus 3 group in the Chiang Mai meeting, and the followup on that--this is a regional direction, which I think is extremely positive for the region. If we can get a development process going, in the entire region, with cooperation among the nations, we can bring an element of stability and nation-building or nation-rebuilding, into the area. The cooperation among the bigger powers, essentially, China, Japan, and so forth, Korea--and cooperation, also, from India; that is, a neutralization of any conflict along the East India-East Asia-South Asia connections, is essential to this.

Under those conditions, I see the only option, is to utilize that kind of agreement on policy, to say, "Let us, in reorganizing the global system, let us base it on the idea of the sovereign nation-state."

What we need is a conference--I would desire, when you put it in the context of what I proposed earlier--this U.S.-Europe-Eurasia cooperation.

Now, the international financial system is presently bankrupt. Hopelessly bankrupt. Nothing could save the present financial system, in its present form. There is no reform, no remedy could fix it. It's bankrupt!

Now, system itself, is not an autonomous system; it's created by the power of governments. If the governments, which own the system, meet, to deal with the bankruptcy of the system, they can create a new system. Now, under emergency negotiations, to create a reorganization of the international monetary system, under the power of nation-states, we can create a conditionality, which provides for the reconstitution of sovereign nation-states in this region. It's the only way, we're going to do it. It's the only way it will work. And, so, therefore, I think, the first thing: There must be sovereign nation-states. International agencies, or international concerts of power, must provide the guarantees, the protection for the ability of a nation, such as Indonesia, to say, "Okay. We are now going to have a Constitutional reform, within the new system, where we will now be able to function as a true, sovereign nation-state. And we're going to start rebuilding our economy as a nation, on that basis." Then, it's up to the Indonesians.

But, we've got to get, I think, as a precondition, knowing the history of the problem, of colonialism to the present, as I just indicated--the history of the problem, as such--we need that kind of policy-agreement, as a framework, where we can go to a nation and say, "We now give you your rights to function as a nation-state. We will give you cooperation, to function as a sovereign nation-state. You now have to do it for yourself."

Under those conditions, finally, the nation will have the right to choose. And, everything else becomes a practical problem, from that point on.

State Representative Erik Fleming [Mississippi]: Good afternoon. I guess my question is going to be more local, as far as the state governments are concerned, in this financial crisis. Our current situation in Mississippi, is that we still have a projected growth, not as much as the so-called economists said it was going to be, but at least we're not running into a situation like Tennessee, where they have to imagine that they found $500 million last year.

I guess my question is: but, next fiscal year, we're not going to be so lucky. So, what would be your assessment on what state legislators need to be doing in order to prepare for that, as far as putting together budgets, putting together programs and services, and so on? And what kind of defense plan do we need to have, and in essense, what kind of offensive plan do we need to have to start recovering, after that point?

Lyndon LaRouche: I think we're looking at: We have to look at an estimate of, in the course of the next 12 months, a probable 30% collapse across the board in the real economy, differentially, in different parts of the country. So, what we have before us, is, in a sense, an impossible situation. I mean, 4%, 5%, 10%, 15% and so forth, people will find a way to squeeze it out, and stretch it out a bit. But when you're talking about an order of magnitude of 30% or more, or even 50%--and we're in that kind of situation. When you look at how much of the income of the nation, the reported GNP, is fake, like a lot of these things are essentially fake--like the Internet was a fake. The Y2K bubble was a big fake. Real estate speculation was a big fake. All of these things: Financial services were largely a big fake. A lot of these, in the 1960s on, a lot of make-work was built into the system. There were jobs which were not needed; they performed no function, but they performed a social-political function of managing the economy by creating categories of employment, which really had no function, but were a way of exerting social control, influence, and so forth.

When you take an economy like ours, in which the base of the economy, the agricultural, industrial, infrastructural base, is actually a shrinking portion of the total economy, and you collapse that economy, the bubble economy, which exists on a highly leveraged basis, you're not talking about recession; you're not talking about depression; you're talking about a depression of the kind that Europe faced in the immediate postwar period, at the end of the war. So therefore, to go along with this situation, is impossible. To accept the policy of the present administration in Washington, or the present Congress, is impossible. The only way we can deal with this problem effectively, in that magnitude, is on the Federal level, and also the international level. I know how to do it, on the Federal and international level. It can be done. But we have to get the political clout in the nation's capital to do that. I'm sure that if the United States adopts a sane policy, which it doesn't have now, that the power of the United States, and the desire for sanity from the United States, would mean that we could probably have a pretty clear shot at doing whatever we came up with, that was sensible to deal with this kind of problem, and there are things therefore we could do.

But, the problem is, we've got to say: We can not allow this situation to continue in this direction. We can't wait for next year. This means that we've got to--.

Look, Erik, for example: What's going to happen? Look what's happened this week. You are looking at, essentially, a bottomless depression, right now. This crash, what happened with, yesterday, with this poor, unfortunate Alan Greenspeak, or whatever his name is, eh? This poor fool, out there with his half-percent interest-rate cut: The poor fool, he's gone. It's over. What was the result of this half-percent interest-rate cut. Boom! The bottom fell two stories, the floors fell through! And they're on the way to the basement. Who know what'll happen tomorrow. They may bounce it up a little bit, bounce it down -- doesn't mean a thing. This is going down, and it's going down fast! By May of this year, by April this year.

See, Japan is now in a crisis. Why? Because this is the end of the Japan fiscal year. March. Japan represents a key part; the Japan yen represents a key part of the world monetary system, the world financial system: That's why Washington was so freaked out about Japan, about Mori. That Japan wouldn't commit suicide to save George Bush, that George Bush might go down. We're in that kind of situation. We don't know exactly what's going to happen, on what date. We know which direction things are going, and the general tempo of that direction. I would say, past this Summer, we're not looking at, how do we deal with the situation. We're looking at what amounts to a revolution in policy. Otherwise we're not going to make it.

So therefore, I think the key thing is, yes, it's important to look at this question the way that you pose it. But I don't think there are any solutions in that area. I think what we need, is, we need we need essentially, as a fundamental change in Washington, to say that, FDR in 1933 was right. And remember that Herbert Hoover, after Roosevelt won the election in November, remember that Roosevelt at that time, didn't become inaugurated as President until March. Practically 68 years ago, today. That close. So, in that period, from the November election and the March inauguration of Roosevelt, the Hoover Administration, outgoing administration, engaged in very significant measures of cooperation with the incoming Roosevelt Administration, to put together the elements of the recovery program, certain elements.

We're now in a situation where you've got to say, "Well, let's look at, as if George Bush had just lost the election; and we've suddenly decided to accelerate the next election, and he just lost it." In that case, what would we do? Or maybe George Bush, still as the President, has to do the same thing. Maybe George Bush has to do what Herbert Hoover did with Roosevelt, at the point that Roosevelt was coming in as the next President, when a lot of actions were taken, which were elements of the recovery program, put into effect in the early part of the Roosevelt Administration, including the Bank Reorganization Act, and so forth. All these things were prepared for by these kinds of negotiations.

We're now at the point, where either this government changes its ways, and adopts the lessons of the Hoover-Roosevelt cooperation in early 1933, to take the initial emergency actions which redirect the direction of the economy, to begin to deal with this crisis. Because, what we can do, in that case, the way we can deal with this, with a state problem, is the old way: You create a public authority with a credit authority; you've got a section of the country that's in a disaster. What do you do? You take a project which you have, which you know is there, it's sound. It's needed. You put the project into effect, in order to stimulate that local, state economy. And, in that way, you're able to pull things together and get the state through it. That's what we have to do. That's the only way we're going to be able to deal with these problems, is do it the Roosevelt way, or learn the lesson of what Roosevelt did, and adapt to that: Federal projects, Federal agencies, using the power of credit of the Federal government, under a reorganization scheme, to make sure that the credit is a line of credit--not money, a line of credit--is going to the financial system, like it went to RFC, under Roosevelt, Reconstruction Finance Corporation, is going into the areas to work for earmarked purposes, worked out with state authorities, to make sure that state stays in business. And that's the way it's going to work. But, we have to have a change in government, or the heart of government, to do that. And that's what I'm working on.

Subscribe to EIR