yelamdenu

Je weet dat het seizoen van de uitverkoop is aangebroken als je Jamie Kirchik Obama’s benoemingen op het nationale veiligheidsveld hoort prijzen: “Barack Obama is nog niet eens president, en nu al heeft hij enkele van zijn meeste toegewijde volgelingen aan de linkervleugel van de partij boos weten te krijgen. Dit zou best eens een heel succesvol presidentschap kunnen worden,” gnuift ie.

Kirchik is zo blij als een kind met de nieuwe lichting Obamanieten, die hun ‘graswortels’ al vroeg wisten te verwaarlozen en het buitenlands beleid overlieten aan de pro-oorlogse Clintonvleugel van de partij. Hij houdt zich vooral bezig met zich verkneukelen over het feit dat Joe Lieberman niet uit de Democratische club werd gemieterd, maar waar het meer om gaat is het buitenlandpolitieke standpunt van de partij, dat er nogal rechts-van-het-midden uit begint te zien. (”Rechts”, in dit verband, betekent “neocon”, niet zozeer “authentiek conservatief”, maar ach, dat wist u al.

Lieberman heeft een warm plaatsje in het hart van neocons overal, maar vooral in de redactiegrot van The New Republic, dat ondanks de pogingen om de “nieuwe politiek”-vleugel op te zuigen, vooral bestaat om het vaandel van deze mossige traditie overeind te houden.*

Obama’s persoonlijke interventie ten gunste van Lieberman geeft al een beetje aan waar de Democraten heen gaan als partij aan het bewind, en zijn benoemingen bevestigen dit met sneltreinvaart: niet alleen Hillary Clinton en Robert Gates op buitenlandse zaken en defensie, maar ook generaal-b.d. van de marine, de door zowel de Democraten als de Republikeinen zeer gewilde Jim Jones als nationaal veiligheidsadviseur.

Change you can believe in — want we weten allemaal dat de treurige feiten een “belief” niet in de weg hoeven staan.

*[The New Republic, dat zich voordoet als een “liberal” blad, voert een “Israel first” ideologie en was fel voorstander van de oorlogsmisdaden in Irak, natuurlijk om humanitaire en veiligheidsredenen. Ze betreuren dit nu, d.w.z. de WMD-leugens dan, en hebben van de zaak, naar eigen zeggen, veel geleerd.]

Het is onmiskenbaar een onderdeel van de Amerikaanse cultuur om meer dan Hollanders gewend zijn openbare Veren In Den Reet te stoppen. Maar wie leest wat Obama zoal te vertellen heeft over Lawrence Summers, beoogd coördinator economisch beleid voor het Witte Huis, vraagt zich misschien af of Summers soms al dood is, zoals hij wordt bewierookt. Summers was minister van financiën toen onder Clinton de Glass-Steagall Act om zeep werd geholpen, die in 1933 in het leven werd geroepen om datgene te voorkomen wat nu de wederom heeft bijgedragen aan de financiële ineenstorting.
Obama had dus iets te melden afgelopen week:

“We moeten de beste geesten van Amerika samenbrengen om ons te leiden - en dat is wat ik heb gepoogd te doen bij het samenstellen van mijn economisch team. Ik heb leiders gezocht die zowel een helder oordeel als een fris denkvermogen konden bieden, zowel een diepe ervaring als een schat aan nieuwe ideeën - en vooral, die mijn fundamentele overtuiging delen dat we geen voorspoedig Wall Street kunnen hebben als “Main Street” lijdt; dat wij, in dit land, als een natie, als een volk vallen en opstaan.”

Als dat u net zo ontroert als mij, dan zal het het Obama-effect wel zijn. Deze man zal de have-nots niet in de steek laten!
Dan zijn lofrede op de heer Summers:

“… Lawrence Summers als Hoofd van de Nationale Economische Raad… Larry Summers neemt een zeldzame combinatie van vaardigheid, intellect en ervaring met zich mee naar de rol die hij zal spelen in onze regering. Als onderminister, vice-minister, en vervolgens minister van financiën heeft Larry ons geleid door verscheidene internationale financiële crises - en was één van de centrale vormgevers van het beleid dat leidde tot de langste economische expansie uit de Amerikaanse geschiedenis, met recordoverschotten op de begroting, stijgende inkomens en meer dan 20 miljoen nieuwe banen. Hij was een groot voorstander van een reeks aan maatregelen - van belastingvoordeel tot uitgebreide kredietprogramma’s tot financiële consumentenbescherming - die de middeninkomens zeer hebben vooruitgeholpen.
Als een leider van de gedachtevorming heeft Larry ons ertoe aangezet om met de problemen van inkomensongelijkheid en het kleiner worden van de middenklasse de confrontatie aan te gaan, met zijn consistente stellingname dat de sleutel voor een sterke economie een sterke, en groeiende, middenklasse is. Dit idee is de kern van mijn eigen economische opvatting en zal het fundament zijn voor al mijn economisch beleid.
En als één van de grote economische geesten van onze tijd, heeft Larry een wereldwijde reputatie opgebouwd voor zijn vermogen om door te dringen tot de kern van de meest complexe en nieuwe beleidsuitdagingen. Zowel wat betreft onze huidige financiële crisis, als andere dringende economische issues van onze tijd, hebben zijn denk-, schrijf- en spreekwerk de agenda van het debat bepaald. Ik ben blij dat hij aan mijn zijde staat, in zijn kritieke rol van het coördineren van het economisch beleid van mijn regering in het Witte Huis - ik zal zwaar op zijn advies leunen, bij het navigeren van de onverkende wateren van deze economische crisis.”

Obama was helaas niet de enige die een en ander te melden had over deze frisse denker.

Ooit een van Ronald Reagans economisch adviseurs, werd Summers in 1993 onderminister van financiën, die zich met buitenlandse issues bezighield, en later van 1999-2001 minister van dat ministerie. Eerder was hij hoofdeconoom geweest van de Wereldbank. Daar scheef hij o.a. een memo waarin werd uiteengezet dat gezien de lagere levensverwachting van de mensen aldaar, het dumpen van gif in het laagste lonenland economisch beschouwd “onberispelijk” was, en dat men dat “niet uit de weg moest gaan.”
Wel zo eerlijk.
Hij was nog een aantal jaar voorzitter van de universiteit Harvard, waar hij naar verluid gedonder kreeg door bepaalde seksistische opmerkingen. Hij werkt er nu als docent, geeft advies aan Goldman Sachs (het wereldje wordt er niet groter op), en beheert het hedge fund dat de naam “DE Shaw & Company” draagt.
Op de suggestie dat dit heerschap van Obama op Financiën zou mogen gaan zitten, meldde de bekende econoom Michel Chossudovsky:
“Het benoemen van een beheerder van een hedge fund (met banden met het Wall Street financieel establishment) tot minister van financiën komt neer op het aanstellen van de vos als opzichter van de kippenren.”
Summers wordt nu degene die voor Obama in het Witte Huis het economisch beleid gaat “coördineren”, en zit zo weliswaar minder direct met zijn vingers aan de financiële knoppen, maar heeft in die positie toch een ongekende invloed.

Mike Whitney voor GlobalResearch

Obama is nog niet eens ingezworen maar de Wall Street cheerleaders vieren al zijn eerste grote triomf. Volgens de experts in de massamedia maakte de aandelenbeurs een comeback van 494 punten op vrijdag omdat–hou je vast–het werd aangekondigd dat Timothy Geithner zou worden benoemd tot Obama’s minister van financiën.

Timothy wie?

Wat een kolder. Meer dan met wat dan ook had de stijging op de beurs te maken met het kopen van aandelen door investeerders die short waren gegaan, maar laat dat een goed verhaal vooral niet bederven. Maar dan nog, die stijging op de valreep van de NYSE kon een week van bloedbaden niet tegenhouden, waarin de Dow en de S&P 500 nog eens 5 procent naar beneden doken.
Dat betekent niet dat Geithner geen slimme en getalenteerde vogel zou zijn; dat is hij, net als als zijn tegenhanger in het Witte Huis, Lawrence Summers. Maar hij is niet de “change you can believe in”. Als protégé van Henry Kissinger, lid van de Council on Foreign Relations, en met dezelfde politieke opvoeding als minister van financiën (en de facto financieel dictator) Paulson, maakt hij deel uit van dezelfde regentenbroederschap, en heeft een zo goed als identieke kijk op de wereld.

Over the past two weeks, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have faced a sharply deteriorating humanitarian situation as Israel further tightened its closure of the border crossings. Virtually no food, medicine or other vital supplies have been allowed in to the territory that is home to 1.5 million people. The impact of the siege is most directly observed in Gaza’s health sector. Despite desperately needed medication, equipment, supplies, and spare parts, doctors continue to try to save lives and look after their patients at the European Gaza Hospital, one of territory’s largest medical centers.

Dr. Zaki Azzaq Zouq, an oncologist, explained, “There is a widespread shortage of essential medicines which we used to give to patients prior to the blockade. Currently, there are no tools for physicians to treat patients who suffer from lung, stomach, colon or brain cancers.”

The situation is just as dire in Gaza’s other hospitals. Unable to get life-saving treatments close to home, Israel also prevents patients from Gaza leaving the tiny coastal territory to receive medical care. Nael Alfaqawi, 28, has kidney problems, but was denied entry to Israel so he could seek treatment abroad. Instead, he is now being treated at the Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza.

Mr. Alfaqawi said, “When I wanted to travel out of Gaza for treatment, the [Israeli] intelligence personnel asked me to collaborate with them, but I refused. They said, either you collaborate with us or you go back to Gaza. Of course, I refused to comply with them, saying I’m going to die sooner or later, so I returned home.”

An estimated 70 percent of the Gaza Strip has experienced lengthy power outages for the last two weeks as Israel has cut off fuel supplies to Gaza’s only power plant. Hospitals must rely on generators to keep life-saving equipment running.

“We are unable to ensure that we have needed spare parts to provide heating for patients,” said Nihad Swaty, head of the European Gaza Hospital’s maintenance department. “We also have our own sewage processing plant to provide water. The current lack of equipment will lead to the plant’s total collapse and consequently to an environmental crisis at the hospital itself,” he warned.

International agencies and officials, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have condemned the closure as a violation of international humanitarian law and called on Israel to lift the blockade. But there is no sign of relief. Israel has even blocked foreign journalists, who are usually based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, from entering the Gaza Strip.

Read more: http://electronicintifada.net/

Cherrie Heywood, ipsnews.be

Chronic malnutrition in Gaza blamed on Israel

11.15.2008 | The Independent
By Donald Macintyre

Donald Macintyre reveals the contents of an explosive report by the Red Cross on a humanitarian tragedy

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has led to a steady rise in chronic malnutrition among the 1.5 million people living in the strip, according to a leaked report from the Red Cross.

It chronicles the “devastating” effect of the siege that Israel imposed after Hamas seized control in June 2007 and notes that the dramatic fall in living standards has triggered a shift in diet that will damage the long-term health of those living in Gaza and has led to alarming deficiencies in iron, vitamin A and vitamin D.

The 46-page report from the International Committee of the Red Cross – seen by The Independent – is the most authoritative yet on the impact that Israel’s closure of crossings to commercial goods has had on Gazan families and their diets.

The report says the heavy restrictions on all major sectors of Gaza’s economy, compounded by a cost of living increase of at least 40 per cent, is causing “progressive deterioration in food security for up to 70 per cent of Gaza’s population”. That in turn is forcing people to cut household expenditures down to “survival levels”.

“Chronic malnutrition is on a steadily rising trend and micronutrient deficiencies are of great concern,” it said.

Since last year, the report found, there had been a switch to “low cost/high energy” cereals, sugar and oil, away from higher-cost animal products and fresh fruit and vegetables. Such a shift “increases exposure to micronutrient deficiencies which in turn will affect their health and wellbeing in the long term.”

Israel has often said that it will not allow a humanitarian crisis to develop in Gaza and the report says that the groups surveyed had “accessed their annual nutritional energy needs”. But it warned governments, including Israel’s, that “food insecurity and undernutrition, including micronutrient deficiencies” were occurring in the absence of “overt food shortages”.

A 2001 Food and Agriculture Organisation definition classifies “food security” as when “all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”

The Red Cross report says that “the embargo has had a devastating effect for a large proportion of households who have had to make major changes on the composition of their food basket.” Households were now obtaining 80 per cent of their calories from cereals, sugar and oil. “The actual food basket is considered to be insufficient from a nutritional perspective.” The report paints a bleak picture of an increasingly impoverished and indebted lower-income population. People are selling assets, slashing the quality and quantity of meals, cutting back on clothing and children’s education, scavenging for discarded materials – and even grass for animal fodder – that they can sell and are depending on dwindling loans and handouts from slightly better-off relatives.

Read more at normanfinkelstein.com

Hoe meer rijkdommen worden geconcentreerd aan de top van de economische pyramide, en hoe meer banken kunnen worden geconsolideerd tot slechts een kleine marktbepalende top, des te “stabieler” zullen markten zijn. Dat is de neoliberale economische doctrine die wordt gebruikt om de aankoop door de Federal Reserve van waardeloze hypotheken, waardeloze obligaties, en het puin van de misgelopen gokpraktijken met het verzekeren van derivaten door de verzekeraar AIG.

Je kunt slechts concluderen dat minister van financiën Paulson het Congres willens en wetens heeft misleid, toen hij op 12 november zei dat de regering een betere manier had gevonden om het cadeau aan de bankiers van de banken naar de kredietmarkten te laten doorsijpelen, dan door hun slechte leningen op te kopen. Dat is precies wat de regering heeft gedaan, maar dan via de Federal Reserve, voor de volle prijs, en in het geheim. Niet onder het oog van het Congres, niet volgens het plan van Financiën, dat het Congres had goedgekeurd onder meer markt-georiënteerde voorwaarden, met de bedoeling het “belang van de belastingbetaler” te beschermen. De Federal Reserve waardeert waardeloze hypotheken tegen de hoge fantasieprijzen waartegen de banken, AIG en andere instellingen ze had gekocht, en behoedt ze zo voor het hoeven nemen van hun verlies. Hedge funds en speculanten die waardeloze verzekeringen van AIG hadden gekocht werden gecompenseerd, zodat gokkers in het Wall Street casino geen verliezen hoefden op te lopen.

Terwijl de Fed zich daarmee bezig houdt kan Financiën zich richten op zijn eigen cadeautjes: het opkopen van bankaandelen ver boven de marktprijs (zoals de prijs betaald door investeerders als Warren Buffett voor aandelen Goldman Sachs), tegen voorwaarden die de banken de gelegenheid geven hun gang te gaan: dividend uitkeren aan aandeelhouders, of hoge uitkeringen voor het topmanagement uitbetalen, in plaats van het helpen van hypotheekschuldenaren. “Ik denk niet dat de overheid geld zou moeten stoppen in omvallende instellingen,” verzekere Kashkari, Paulsons adjudant, het Congres. Hij legde uit dat zonder nog meer regeringscadeaus het redden van AIG, Fannie Mae en Freddie Mac tevergeefs zou zijn geweest. Volksvertegenwoordiger Dennis Kucinich’ slotopmerking tegen Kashkari was, “Het statement dat u net hebt gemaakt, zal u de rest van uw carrière achtervolgen.”

Lees het hele artikel (Engels) van de financieel econoom Michael Hudson op Counterpunch.org

Michael Hudson is één van Amerika’s belangrijkste economen en financieel analisten. Hij schreef o.a. Superimperialism. Kijk ook op http://michael-hudson.com/.

Hieronder ziet u het US Empire Political Preference Diagram, een onmisbare tool bij het begrijpen van de (Amerikaans-keizerlijke blik op de) wereld.

In bepaalde gevallen zeer bruikbaar als antigif tegen mainstream-media-propaganda.

Source: New York Times online

Example of religious crossover in Hungary: apparently Christians were quite happy with this Ottoman mosque design in Pécs; it needed only minimal adjustments to transform into a church.

Godsdienstvrijheid bestond tot de 16e eeuw nergens behalve in de islamitische wereld. Het was intiem verbonden met de profetenleer van de Koran, een unieke leerstelling die verklaart dat God profeten stuurde naar elk ander volk op aarde en moslims voorschrijft deze alle te respecteren. In Europa was men in de veronderstelling dat verlossing enkel en alleen kon worden bereikt door Christus, en bovendien enkel en alleen door de ene, ware kerk. Al vanaf het Byzantijnse rijk gold dientengevolge de huiveringwekkende regel ‘één rijk, één godsdienst’, die hier voor zoveel ellende heeft gezorgd. 

Het ligt op zich voor de hand: waar het idee godsdienstvrijheid verscheen in Europa, is het vanzelfsprekend te onderzoeken of dit gebeurde onder invloed van de Islam. Toch wordt tolerantie meestal beschouwd als een exclusief product van een secularistische Franse Revolutie. Deze vond echter pas plaats in 1792, ging gepaard met een massamoord op katholieken, en heeft sindsdien eerder gestaan voor een onderdrukking van religie dan voor godsdienstvrijheid, getuige de oproepen die nu nog klinken voor het verbieden van hoofddoekjes in naam van de Franse laïcité.

De Nederlandse en de islamitische godsdienstvrijheid zijn van een ander, vrijer karakter. Ik heb de vraag over islamitische invloed op Nederland uitvoering onderzocht in het tijdschrift Al-Islaam: de Gouden Eeuw. Nederland verklaarde zich in 1568 met Ottomaanse steun onafhankelijk van het Spaanse Rijk, nota bene scanderend de leuze Liever Turks dan Paaps. De Republiek der Nederlanden stelde in 1579 godsdienstvrijheid in met de Unie van Utrecht.

Lees verder op Spiritual Change

by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research
Most Serious Economic Crisis in Modern History

The October 2008 financial meltdown is not the result of a cyclical economic phenomenon. It is the deliberate result of US government policy instrumented through the Treasury and the US Federal Reserve Board. 

This is the most serious economic crisis in World history. 

The “bailout” proposed by the US Treasury does not constitute a “solution” to the crisis. In fact quite the opposite: it is the cause of further collapse. It triggers an unprecedented concentration of wealth, which in turn contributes to widening economic and social inequalities both within and between nations. 

The levels of indebtedness have skyrocketed. Industrial corporations are driven into bankruptcy, taken over by the global financial institutions. Credit, namely the supply of loanable funds, which constitutes the lifeline of production and investment, is controlled by a handful of financial conglomerates. 

With the “bailout”, the public debt has spiraled. America is the most indebted country on earth. Prior to the “bailout”, the US public debt was of the order of 10 trillion dollars. This US dollar denominated debt is composed of outstanding treasury bills and government bonds held by individuals, foreign governments, corporations and financial institutions. 

“The Bailout”: The US Administration is Financing its Own Indebtedness

Ironically, the Wall Street banks –which are the recipients of the bailout money– are also the brokers and underwriters of the US public debt. Although the banks hold only a portion of the public debt, they transact and trade in US dollar denominated public debt instruments Worldwide. 

In a bitter twist, the banks are the recipients of  a 700+ billion dollar handout and at the same time they act as creditors of the US government. 

We are dealing with an absurd circular relationship: To finance the bailout, Washington must borrow from the banks, which are the recipients of the bailout.

The US administration is financing its own indebtedness.

Federal, State and municipal governments are increasingly in a straightjacket, under the tight control of the global financial conglomerates. Increasingly, the creditors call the shots on government reform.  

The bailout is conducive to the consolidation and centralization of banking power, which in turn backlashes on real economic activity, leading to a string of bankruptcies and mass unemployment.    

Will an Obama Administration Reverse the Tide? 

The financial crisis is the outcome of a deregulated financial architecture. 

Obama has stated unequivocally his resolve to address the policy failures of the Bush administration and “democratize” the US financial system. President-Elect Barack Obama says that he is committed to reversing the tide: 

“Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people.” (President-elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008, emphasis added)

The Democrats casually blame the Bush administration for the October financial meltdown. 

Obama says that he will be introducing an entirely different policy agenda which responds to the interests of Main Street:

“Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of men and women all across Main Street. Tomorrow you can choose policies that invest in our middle class and create new jobs and grow this economy so that everybody has a chance to succeed, from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor, from the factory owner to the men and women who work on the factory floor.( Barack Obama, election campaign, November 3, 2008, emphasis added) 

Is Obama committed to “taming Wall Street” and “disarming financial markets”? 

Ironically, it was under the Clinton administration that these policies of “greed and irresponsibility” were adopted. 

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act (FSMA) was conducive to the the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. A pillar of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place in response to the climate of corruption, financial manipulation and “insider trading” which resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash. 

Bill Clinton signs into law the  Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, November 12, 1999

Under the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, effective control over the entire US financial services industry (including insurance companies, pension funds, securities companies, etc.) had been transferred to a handful of financial conglomerates and their associated hedge funds.  

The Engineers of Financial Disaster

Who are the architects of this debacle? 

In a bitter irony, the engineers of financial disaster are now being considered by President-Elect Barack Obama’s Transition Team for the position Treasury Secretary:   

Lawrence Summers played a key role in  lobbying Congress for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. His timely appointment by President Clinton in 1999 as Treasury Secretary spearheaded the adoption of the Financial Services Modernization Act in November 1999. Upon completing his mandate at the helm of the US Treasury, he became president of Harvard University (2001- 2006). 

Paul Volker was chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the l980s during the Reagan era. He played a central role in implementing the first stage of financial deregulation, which was conducive to mass bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, leading up to the 1987 financial crisis.   

Timothy Geithner is CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is the most powerful private financial institution in America. He was also a former Clinton administration Treasury official. He has worked for Kissinger Associates and has also held a senior position at the IMF. The FRBNY plays a behind the scenes role in shaping financial policy. Geithner acts on behalf of powerful financiers, who are behind the FRBNY. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Jon Corzine is currently governor of New Jersey, former CEO of Goldman Sachs. 

Larry Summers (left) and Timothy Geithner

At the time of writing, Obama’s favorite is Larry Summers, front-runner for the position of Treasury Secretary. 

Harvard University Economics Professor Lawrence Summers served as Chief Economist for the World Bank (1991–1993). He contributed to shaping the macro-economic reforms imposed on numerous indebted developing countries. The social and economic impact of these reforms under the IMF-World Bank sponsored structural adjustment program (SAP) were devastating, resulting in mass poverty.  

Larry Summer’s stint at the World Bank coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the imposition of the IMF-World Bank’s deadly ” economic medicine” on Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and the Balkans. 

In 1993, Summers moved to the US Treasury. He initially held the position of Undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs and later Deputy Secretary. In liaison with his former colleagues at the IMF and the World Bank, he played a key role in crafting the economic “shock treatment” reform packages imposed at the height of the 1997 Asian crisis on South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia. 

The bailout agreements negotiated with these three countries were coordinated through Summers office at the Treasury in liaison with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions. Summers worked closely with IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer, who was later appointed Governor of the Central Bank of Israel. 

Larry Summers became Treasury Secretary in July 1999. He is a protégé of David Rockefeller. He was among the main  architects of the infamous Financial Services Modernization Act, which provided legitimacy to inside trading and outright financial manipulation. 

Larry Summers and David Rockefeller

“Putting the Fox in Charge of the Chicken Coop”

Summers is currently a Consultant to Goldman Sachs and managing director of a Hedge fund, the D.E. Shaw Group,  As a Hedge Fund manager, his contacts at the Treasury and on Wall Street provide him with valuable inside information on the movement of financial markets. Under the helm of Larry Summers and as a direct result of the financial meltdown, the D. E. Shaw Group made record profits. At the end of October 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, the D. E. Shaw Group announced $7 billion in revenue, a 22 percent increase over the previous year, “with nearly three times more cash on hand than a year ago” (2theadvocate.com, 31 October 2008).

Putting a Hedge Fund manager (with links to the Wall Street financial establishment) in charge of the Treasury is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. 

The Washington Consensus

Summers, Geithner, Corzine, Volker, Fischer, Phil Gramm, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Rubin, not to mention Alan Greenspan, al al. are buddies; they play golf together; they have links to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg; they act concurrently in accordance with the interests of Wall Street; they meet behind closed doors; they are on the same wave length; they are Democrats and Republicans. 

While they may disagree on some issues, they are firmly committed to the Washington-Wall Street Consensus. They are utterly ruthless in their management of  economic and financial processes. Their actions are profit driven. Outside of their narrow interest in the “efficiency” of “markets”, they have little concern for “living human beings”. How are people’s lives affected by the deadly gamut of macro-economic and financial reforms, which is spearheading entire sectors of economic activity into bankruptcy.  

The economic reasoning underlying neoliberal economic discourse is often cynical and contemptuous. In this regard, Lawrence Summers’ economic discourse stands out. He is known among environmentalists for having proposed the dumping of toxic waste in Third World countries, because people in poor countries have shorter lives and the costs of labor are abysmally low, which essentially means that the market value of people in the Third World is much lower.  According to summers, this makes it far more “cost effective” to export toxic materials to impoverished countries. A controversial 1991 World Bank memo signed by of Chief Economist Larry Summers reads as follows (excerpts, emphasis added):

DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP

“‘Dirty’ Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the Less Developed Countries? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality…. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I’ve always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. [the demand increases when income levels increase]. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand…. “

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/summers.htm 

Summers stance on the export of pollution to developing countries had a marked impact on US environmental policy: 

In 1994, “virtually every country in the world broke with Mr. Summers’ Harvard-trained “economic logic” ruminations about dumping rich countries’ poisons on their poorer neighbors, and agreed to ban the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD [developing] countries under the Basel Convention. Five years later, the United States is one of the few countries that has yet to ratify the Basel Convention or the Basel Convention’s Ban Amendment on the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries. (Jim Valette, Larry Summers’ War Against the Earth, Counterpunch, undated) 

The 1997 Asian Crisis: Dress Rehearsal for Things to Come

In the course of 1997, currency speculation instrumented by major financial institutions directed against Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea was conducive to the collapse of national currencies and the transfer of billions of dollars of central bank reserves into private financial hands. Several observers pointed to the deliberate manipulation of equity and currency markets by investment banks and brokerage firms. 

While the Asian bailout agreements were formally negotiated with the IMF, the major Wall Street commercial banks (including Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and J. P. Morgan) as well as the “big five” merchant banks (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney) were “consulted” on the clauses to be included in the Asian bail-out agreements. 

The US Treasury in liaison with Wall Street and the Bretton Woods institutions played a central role in negotiating the bailout agreements. Both Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, were actively involved on behalf of the US Treasury in the 1997 bailout of South Korea: 

[In 1997] “Messrs. Summers and Geithner worked to persuade Mr. Rubin to support financial aid to South Korea. Mr. Rubin was wary of such a move, worrying that providing money to a country in dire straits might be a losing proposition…” (WSJ, November 8, 2008)

What happened in Korea under advice from Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers et al, had nothing to do with “financial aid”. 

The country was literally ransacked. Undersecretary of the Treasury David Lipton was sent to Seoul in early December 1997. Secret negotiations were initiated.  Washington had demanded the firing of the Korean Finance Minister and the unconditional acceptance of the IMF “bailout”. 

A new finance minister, who happened to be former IMF and World Bank official, was appointed  and immediately rushed off to Washington for “consultations” with his former IMF colleague Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer. 

“The Korean Legislature had met in emergency sessions on December 23. The final decision concerning the 57 billion dollar deal took place the following day, on Christmas Eve December 24th, after office hours in New York. Wall Street’s top financiers, from Chase Manhattan, Bank America, Citicorp and J. P. Morgan had been called in for a meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also at the Christmas Eve venue, were representatives of the big five New York merchant banks including Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney. And at midnight on Christmas Eve, upon receiving the green light from the banks, the IMF was allowed to rush 10 billion dollars to Seoul to meet the avalanche of maturing short-term debts. 

The coffers of Korea’s central Bank had been ransacked. Creditors and speculators were anxiously awaiting to collect the loot. The same institutions which had earlier speculated against the Korean won were cashing in on the IMF bailout money. It was a scam. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Recolonization of Korea, subsequently published as a chapter in The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003.) 

“Strong economic medicine” is the prescription of the Washington Consensus.  “Short term pain for long term gain” was the motto at the World Bank during Lawrence Summers term of as World Bank Chief Economist. (See IMF, World Bank Reforms Leave Poor Behind, Bank Economist Finds, Bloomberg, November 7, 2000) 

What we dealing with is an entire ” old boys network” of officials and advisers at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, the Washington Think Tanks, who are  in permanent liaison with leading financiers on Wall Street. 

Whoever is chosen by Obama’s Transition team will belong to the Washington Consensus.    

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act

What happened in October 1999 is crucial. 

In the wake of lengthy negotiations behind closed doors, in the Wall Street boardrooms, in which Larry Summers played a central role, the regulatory restraints on Wall Street’s powerful banking conglomerates were revoked “with a stroke of the pen”.  

Larry Summers worked closely with Senator Phil Gramm (1985-2002),chairman of the Senate Banking committee, who was the legislative architect of the  the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, signed into law on November 12, 1999 (See Group Photo above). (For Complete text click US Congress: Pub.L. 106-102). As Texas Senator, Phil Gramm was closely associated with Enron. 

In December 2000 at the very end of the Clinton mandate, Gramm introduced a second piece of legislation, the so-called Gramm-Lugar Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which paved the way for the speculative onslaught in primary commodities including oil and food staples. 

“The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus “protect financial institutions from overregulation” and “position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century.” (See David Corn, Foreclosure Phil, Mother Jones, July August 2008)

Phil Gramm was McCain’s first choice for Secretary of the Treasury. 

Under the FSMA new rules – ratified by the US Senate in October 1999 and approved by President Clinton – commercial banks, brokerage firms, hedge funds, institutional investors, pension funds and insurance companies could freely invest in each others businesses as well as fully integrate their financial operations.

A “global financial supermarket” had been created, setting the stage for a massive concentration of  financial power. One of the key figures behind this project was Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, in liaison with David Rockefeller. Summers described the FSMA as “the legislative foundation of the financial system of the 21th century”.  That legislative foundation is among the main causes of the 2008 financial meltdown. 

Financial Disarmament

There can be no meaningful solution to the crisis, unless there is a major reform in the financial architecture, implying inter alia the freezing of speculative trade and the “disarming of financial markets”.  The project of disarming financial markets was first proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1940s as a means to the establishment of a multipolar international monetary system. (See  J.M. Keynes, Activities 1940-1944, Shaping the Post-War World: The Clearing Union, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Royal Economic Society, Macmillan and Cambridge University Press, Vol. XXV, London 1980, p. 57). 

Main Street versus Wall Street

Where are Obama’s “Main Street appointees”? Namely individuals who respond to the interests of people across America.  There are no labor or community leaders on Obama’s list for key positions. 

The President-elect is appointing the architects of financial deregulation. 

Meaningful financial reform cannot be adopted by officials appointed by Wall Street and who act on behalf of Wall Street.  

Those who set the financial system ablaze in 1999, have been called back to turn out the fire. 

The proposed “solution” to the crisis under the “bailout” is the cause of further economic collapse. 

There are no policy solutions on the horizon.

The banking conglomerates call the shots. They decide on the composition of the Obama Cabinet. They also decide on the agenda of the Washington Financial Summit (November 15, 2008) which is slated to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a new “global financial architecture”. 

The Wall Street blueprint has already been discussed behind closed doors: the hidden agenda is to establish a unipolar international monetary system, dominated by US financial power, which in turn would be protected and secured by US military superiority.  

Neoliberalism with a “Human Face”

There is no indication that Obama will break his ties to his Wall Street sponsors, who largely funded his election campaign. 

Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bill Gates’ Microsoft are among his main campaign contributors. 

Warren Buffett, among the the world’s richest individuals, not only supported Barak Obama’s election campaign, he is a member of his transition team, which plays a key role deciding the composition of Obama’s cabinet.  

Warren Buffett

Unless there is a major upheaval in the system of political appointments to key positions, an alternative Obama economic agenda geared towards poverty alleviation and employment creation is highly unlikely. 

Barack Obama. November 7 Press Conference.
Joe Biden (far left), newly appointed chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (far right). Photo: Charles Dharapak

What we are witnessing is continuity. 

Obama provides a ” human face” to the status quo. This human face serves to mislead Americans on the nature of the economic and political process. 

The neoliberal economic reforms remain intact. 

The substance of these reforms including the “bailout” of America’s  largest financial institutions ultimately destroys the real economy, while spearheading entire areas of manufacturing and the services economy into bankruptcy.

Frank du Mosch, van de NCRV, gebruikte in zijn beschrijving van het presidentsschap van de Verenigde Staten de term “het hoogste ambt van de aarde”.

Het hoogste ambt van de aarde??
De president van de Verenigde Staten is de opperbevelhebber van het grootste leger op aarde. Dat is de enige werkelijke basis van de Amerikaanse macht. God helpe ons als dat gelijk wordt gesteld aan het “hoogste ambt”. Het zou een goed idee zijn als onze wereld überhaupt nooit één “hoogste ambt” zal kennen.

Luister hier naar een interview op het onafhankelijke Amerikaanse radiostation KPFA met de econoom Michael Hudson.

In een notedop hoort u hoe de wereldeconomie momenteel in elkaar zit. Hudson verwondert zich over de ultra-rechtse economische ideologie van o.a. Europa, dat gelooft in de mythe dat armoede rijkdom is, en dat (in zijn woorden) gehersenspoeld is door de neoliberale (Chicago) economische ideologie.

Eén van de grootste fouten van individuele Europese landen is naar zijn overtuiging de rigide voorwaarden van het Europese monetaire stelsel, dat armoede in stand houdt, doordat het verrechtste Europa gelooft in armoede als motor voor een gezonde economie.