The Sun Has Set on the British Empire: Time for a New Paradigm
The Sun Has Set on the British Empire: Time for a New Paradigm
Despite Theresa May’s appeals for a renewed special relationship between the U.S. and a “Global Britain,” the future lies in initiating a new paradigm of great power relationships between the U.S., China, Russia, and India dedicated to the peaceful economic development of the planet. The battle lines have been drawn in the fight over Glass-Steagall. Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin’s opposition to Glass-Steagall has disqualified him from office, and as the true story of his relationship to George Soros is exposed the campaign to deny him confirmation must escalate (see dossier). The eyes of the world are on this fight, as seen in the interview excerpted in tonight’s broadcast with Italian MEP Marco Zanni (full interview here). An insight into the methods of Alexander Hamilton in capitalizing the development of the United States through the creation of a National Bank must be understood in the context of a true understanding of economic value, driven by qualitative leaps in technology and the productive powers of the labor force. Sign the petition and circulate it as widely as possible: lpac.co/trumpsotu
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon! It’s January 27, 2017. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching our weekly Friday evening webcast from LaRouchePAC.com. I’m joined by Jason Ross, a colleague, here in the studio; and, via video, Bill Roberts from Detroit, Michigan who is a member of the LaRouchePAC Policy Committee.
We’re meeting here exactly one week after the inauguration of Donald Trump as the new President of the United States. We’re one week into the new administration. We’ve crafted a show today which we feel is critical in terms of the necessary components of the current fight here in the United States. We will have a presentation by Jason Ross on the Hamiltonian approach to national banking, and the way that we can actually create Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws economic recovery in the United States. We will be hearing from Bill Roberts on the design for a re-employment program to put productive workers back to work, and to train an upcoming generation in the productive skills necessary, modelled in part on the Franklin Roosevelt CCC program.
Before that, we’re going to be hearing an excerpt of an interview with an Italian MEP, Marco Zanni, who was interviewed just yesterday on larouchepac.com by Paul Gallagher, who will be presenting this interview to you shortly.
But let me start with a quick overview of the situation we find ourselves in, and the battle lines around which the current fight for the soul of the United States is being waged. We spoke with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier today. Helga LaRouche’s view was very clear; what she said is that the United States has a choice, an urgent choice, to make right now. The choice is between falling into what Theresa May, the Prime Minister of Great Britain — who came to Philadelphia yesterday and is now today in Washington to celebrate the so-called “special relationship” of the United States and the UK — called for yesterday, which was to “renew the ‘special relationship’ for the New Age” between the United States and what she called a “renewed global Britain.” Or, you could say, she gave a speech on how to make the British Empire great again. So that’s one choice.
The other choice is to follow through on what Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said yesterday in the State Duma, the lower House of the Russian Parliament, on the perspective for a new international paradigm, built around what he called “a tripartite relationship” among the United States, Russia, and China, and what Helga LaRouche was sure to add in there, a four-powers relationship, to include India as well.
To give you an idea of what Sergey Lavrov said yesterday along those lines — this is not being reported in the U.S. media, obviously. He said the following: “We believe that as Russia, the U.S. and China build their relations, this triangle should not be closed or directed towards some projects that could worry other states. [They should be] open and fair. I am convinced that the economic structure of Russia, the U.S. and China is such that there is a great deal of complementarity in the material and economic sphere. As for international security problems, these three countries play a very important role. Russia and China have restrained attempts to introduce confrontational, force-based solutions into world politics. We expect that Donald Trump, who has confirmed his commitment to focus primarily on U.S. [domestic] problems and to abandon interference in the internal affairs of other states, will do the same.”
In response to Sergey Lavrov’s statements, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Minister said the following: “China, Russia, and the U.S. are the leading global powers; and they are the permanent members of the UN Security Council. We have great responsibility for global peace, stability, and development. Therefore, China plans to intensify cooperation with the U.S. and Russia, and to make common contribution to solving the tasks and challenges of the modern world.”
This is precisely what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been calling for, in terms of the United States abandoning 16 years of Bush/Obama policies and entering into the new paradigm, and, finally, joining Russia, China, India in this great powers relationship to bring an end to the British Empire once and for all. We are not interested in a new “global Britain.” We are not interested in “making the British Empire great again.” We are interested in initiating a new paradigm of international relations with the economic development of the entire planet for the good of the entire human race.
The current battle lines here in the United States, along which this fight for the soul of the United States is being waged, is the fight to reinstate Glass-Steagall as the law of the land in the United States. We continue to circulate the solution, which you can find at www.lpac.co/trumpsotu. This is calling on Donald Trump to commit himself, by the time of his February 28 State of the Union Address, to the full, strict Franklin Roosevelt banking separation, the Glass-Steagall Act — which he called for during the Presidential campaign — by his February 28th State of the Union. We’re exactly one month away and our goal is to achieve 10,000 signatures on that. We steadily are growing, but we need to grow much faster.
This fight is paralleled by the current mobilization which was initiated by Mr. LaRouche on Monday of this week, to deny Steven Mnuchin the nomination as Treasury Secretary of the United States. The express and open opposition by Steven Mnuchin to the reinstatement of the full Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall, which was revealed under questioning by Senator Maria Cantwell a week ago Thursday during his Confirmation Hearing in the U.S. Senate. His opposition should come as no surprise, if you consider the fact that Steven Mnuchin was a direct business partner, for at least 15 years, an associate of none other than George Soros; the avowed enemy of the incoming Trump administration. George Soros, the leading financial supporter of Barack Obama, who personally was very much the reason why Glass-Steagall has not been reinstated over the past eight years. George Soros, who declared his intent at the Davos World Economic Forum, to cause the Trump administration to fail. What better way of causing the Trump administration to fail, than installing a mole inside the Trump administration at the very highest level in the form of Steven Mnuchin?
We’ve got the rap sheet on Soros. This is available on the larouchepac.com website, and it’s the feature of the new edition this week of the Hamiltonian newspaper. Soros, is a leading tool of the British Empire in instigating so-called “color revolutions” around the world and overthrowing governments — exactly what some people fear is being planned by Soros and others for here in the United States against the new Administration.
The connection is very clear to Steven Mnuchin. After Mnuchin worked for 12 years at Goldman Sachs, Mnuchin was recruited by George Soros to work for none other than the Soros Fund Management. He ran SFM Capital, he founded Dune Capital Management, and, in league with George Soros and a gang of other hedge fund [operators], they bought out IndyMac [Independent National Mortgage Corp.] and turned it into what was called OneWest Bank. This is the infamous foreclosure machine. This is getting a lot of attention among certain Democratic Party circles in the United States Senate.
But the story that is not being told, is the connection to George Soros. This Soros story is the true story which must be told. And as I said, this is the front page of the new edition of the Hamiltonian. The full rap sheet is available on the larouchepac.com website. This is got to be circulated to expose the fact that Steven Mnuchin is being set up to be a Wall Street/London/Soros mole, planted at the very highest level of the incoming Trump administration. Without his role exposed, and without his nomination to the Treasury Secretary position denied, there will be no way that we can succeed in creating the kind of LaRouche/Hamiltonian recovery that has been spelled out, starting with a return to the strict Glass-Steagall.
Again, this Glass-Steagall fight is front and center. It’s not just a matter of domestic policy. This is an international fight. This is a fight over the future of the trans-Atlantic nations. Will they continue to be subjects of the British Empire and the City of London/Wall Street apparatus, or will they be freed, liberated, from that apparatus to join this new international paradigm — Russia, China and what must become a tripartite, or four-part relationship, with the United States and India.
People around the world are watching this fight inside the United States as it pans out, hour by hour, a hand-to-hand combat, over reinstating Glass-Steagall in these opening days of the new Presidency.
To give you an example of that, I want to play just a few minutes excerpted from the interview that I mentioned, with Marco Zanni, who’s an Italian Member of European Parliament, a leading voice in support of Glass-Steagall in Europe, and somebody who has worked with the LaRouche Movement, both in Europe and in the United States over the past few years in this fight for reinstating Glass-Steagall. He was interviewed by Paul Gallagher, Economics Editor for Executive Intelligence Review magazine. As you’ll see, when Paul introduces him, he actually came to Washington, DC a little bit over a year ago, to have a series of meetings on the necessity of a return to Glass-Steagall. So, let me play for you a little bit of that interview now.
PAUL GALLAGHER (Video Interview): You were in the United States in the summer of 2015 on these objectives, particularly the Glass-Steagall Act in both the United States and Europe. You met with Congressional staffs and some members of Congress in both Houses. So you have an insight into that. What do you look for in the United States, now?
MARCO ZANNI (Video Interview): It’s very difficult to see a lot what the new Administration will do about Glass-Steagall. Looking at what Mr. Trump said, he probably is supporting the sort of new banking regulation that could comprehend also, banking separation and restoring the Glass-Steagall. But at the same time, I’m looking at [the fact that] in a lot of top, senior positions, he’s hiring former investment bankers coming from Goldman Sachs and other investment banks.
Also, the majority of the Republican Congressmen, probably, are not supporting restoring the Glass-Steagall. But if Mr. Trump is convinced that the United States needs a new banking reform, basically sort of a new U.S. Glass-Steagall, I think he can push very, very quickly and very, very easily the Congress, the Republican Party, and all his staff in order to work on this kind of reform.
When I was in D.C. last year, it was very important to me to show how the impact of bare banking regulation could be dangerous for an economy. I showed the example of Italy and of the European Union. So, I asked to US Congressmen and Congresswomen that I met in 2016, to review the Dodd-Frank Act, your banking regulation, because it is very dangerous. There is a provisional bail-in rule also in your Dodd-Frank banking legislation. The effects of the bail-in on the European banking system have been very, very dangerous. If you look at the share price of Deutsche Bank, for example, or of Italian banks, the share price and the stock markets for those banks dropped by, on average, more than 70% from the moment — so from January, 2016 — when the bail-in rule took effect in the European Union.
This rule is very dangerous. You have this rule in Dodd-Frank. It has never been applied, but it could be in some moments; so I think that you need to review the Dodd-Frank legislation. And I think if Mr. Trump will push for this, he can have the support also of a huge part of the Democratic Party, of Bernie Sanders, a lot of Congressmen and Congresswomen that I met during my visit to DC.
GALLAGHER: Well, I should just tell you that LaRouche PAC currently is in a national petition drive. Apparently the first address that Trump makes to the Joint Houses of Congress is going to be February 28th; we’re in a national petition drive, calling on him to promise and propose Glass-Steagall to that session of Congress on the 28th of February — just one month away. Lyndon LaRouche has also called for the rejection of the nomination of Steven Mnuchin, one of those who you referred to, who has been nominated for Treasury Secretary. In his confirmation, [he] came out bluntly against Glass-Steagall; despite the fact that the questioner was reminding him that the President who nominated him had promised Glass-Steagall restoration in the campaign. LaRouche has called for him to be rejected and kept out of the Treasury.
If there’s anything further that you want to get across to people watching this station here in particular, go ahead.
ZANNI: Just one last thing: It’s very good news to know about this petition that you are bringing forward in the US; because the support of the civil society is very important in pushing politicians in doing the right legislation about banks and banking regulations. What about Europe? And what about the new US administration next steps? I hope that the approach that the new US administration is bringing forward towards Europe and the European Union would be very positive for Italy. In order to exit the euro, we need the support of the United States and we need the support also of Russia. So, it’s very important that the new cooperative approach that Mr. Trump has with Mr. Putin, with Russia and with other emerging economies have a positive impact in destroying the construction of the European Union and rebuilding Europe. A Europe based on sovereignty and freedom of nations and a cooperative Europe that could work well and could also cooperate with the United States from one side, and Russia and the Asian region from the other side. So, we need both the sides of the United States and Russia in order to get rid of this imperialist project that is the European Union. So, I hope that Mr. Trump will maintain his approach, will keep this very critical approach that he has with the European Union, with Germany and with Europe. We could have Italy exiting the euro and [inaud; 19:12] Europe rebuilding a new history; a new framework that is based on more cooperation, on more economic growth, and on more jobs and investments. That’s my hope and that’s my appeal to the new US administration.
GALLAGHER: Great. OK; we’ve been talking for the last half-hour with Marco Zanni, a member of the European Parliament.
OGDEN: The full interview is available on larouchepac.com, and on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and we’ve got the link provided for you in the description of this video. So, I’d encourage you to watch the full video; but what Marco Zanni was saying there right at the very end, is the point. How are we going to defeat this system of empire? How are we going to bring down this British imperial system once and for all, and initiate this new era of cooperation between sovereign nation-states for economic development? Really, that’s what the American Revolution was all about in the first place. Forget what Theresa May said at the Republican retreat about the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. The real story of the American Revolution is Alexander Hamilton. Without Alexander Hamilton and the principles of Hamilton, none of these projects can succeed. So, with that said, I want to hand it over to Jason to present a little bit on that subject.
JASON ROSS: Well, the context, when Trump was sworn in on the 20th, already a week before, Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut, had entered a bill — I just wanted to detail, there are several proposals on the table right now in terms of how to finance an infrastructure build-up, a manufacturing build-up, a revitalization of the US economy. There’s a lot of projects that are worthwhile to be pursued; the big question is how are you going to pay for it. A trillion dollars is a lot of money; where is it going to come from? Will it come from the Treasury directly taking on that much new debt by selling Treasury bonds? What kind of interest will it have to pay on those? Is that something that’s sustainable? Frankly, as is gone through in the Frequently Asked Questions on Glass-Steagall and Economics on the LaRouche PAC site, if you start putting out that much via the Treasury, the interest rates are going to go up beyond what they’re at right now; and it won’t really be possible to finance projects at such a high interest rate.
There are a couple of proposals being made otherwise, so Rosa DeLauro, on January 13th, with 73 co-sponsors entered a bill. It’s HR547, it’s for a national infrastructure development bank. Her hope would be that through $50 billion in Federal bonds, and bringing in $600 billion from pension funds and other types of investors, she’d be able to capitalize a bank that could then give loans for infrastructure and purposes like that. Another proposal was made just on Tuesday. Senator Schumer — Democrat from New York — with some other Democratic Senators, made a proposal for $1 trillion; it’s a proposal to make 15 million jobs. He said that he would want to put: $75 billion towards schools; $200 billion towards roads; $100 billion for water treatment systems and water supply systems; $200 billion for public transit — rail and bus; $70 billion for ports and airports; $100 billion for electricity; $10 billion for VA hospitals; $20 billion for broadband; and the remaining $200 billion as a major fund for vital projects like perhaps the Gateway Project — crossing the Hudson between New Jersey and New York.
Now, how did he propose to pay for that? They said that they were going for full Federal funding. That is, not public/private partnerships, but basically through allocations. Where’s that money going to come from? One idea — not that they actually said how they were going to get it — they said cutting loopholes, perhaps, to get more taxes; that’s an awful lot to get. One idea that’s been promoted is the idea of cutting the corporate tax rate in order to repatriate the very large amount of profits that US corporations have made overseas; that they’ve avoided bringing into the US, to avoid being taxed the corporate tax rate on it. So, one idea is to drop that tax rate and offer a special incentive for companies to repatriate their profits, and then use that to finance.
These programs aren’t going to work; and there’s a major flaw in them that is addressed by the Hamiltonian approach. So, just going back to what Hamilton had done as Treasury Secretary, two aspects: One was, he made good on the public debt. He developed a way to make sure the public debt was financed; and by doing that, at the time, turned it effectively into that much circulating capital. That IOUs from the government that were trading below face value because people were unsure whether they’d ever be repaid, by developing taxes to make sure those interest payments could be made, all of those IOUs, all of that public debt became effectively currency; and they could then be used in the economy for loans and that sort of purpose. Hamilton also set up a national bank that was capitalized via this public debt, and then created a currency; national bank notes for the United States, to allow loans to go out to improve the productivity of the nation. It ended up being used in his bank and in the Second National Bank to finance infrastructure projects, to expand manufacturing, loans for businesses to develop and make capital investments, that sort of thing.
What we need to do today, there’s a proposal for a new national bank. This is something Mr. LaRouche has called for — a top-down national banking approach. The specifics on this aren’t necessarily exactly the way it would have to be, but in general, China, for example. China holds over $1 trillion in US Treasuries; they’re not getting a very high rate of interest. The head of the Chinese Investment Corporation has himself said, “Gee, it would be nice to get a better return on these; to invest this in the United States in some way.” So, the way this bank could work would be that holders of Treasury bonds and maybe long-term municipal and state bonds could use those to become stockholders in the bank; put them into the bank. Those stockholders would then be guaranteed a dividend as shareholders; and that dividend would be guaranteed by new or adjusted taxes. Then, the bank, having $1 trillion via this type of means, would be able to offer low-interest loans for specific projects. The bank will be directed by people who actually are familiar with industry. The benefit of this is that instead of issuing $1 trillion in new debt at whatever interest rate that might require, $1 trillion of currently existing Treasury bonds can form the basis for the issuance of new currency at significantly lower interest rates.
If these projects — say, a national high-speed rail network — these are the types of projects that are going to take years to really bring about and get operating in a full way; they’re not going to make an immediate payback. They’re not going to generate funds immediately; some projects possibly are though, through user fees. So, how do you finance them? The important aspect on this is, via this new tax that would be proposed, given that the tax wouldn’t be directly related to funds that come in from the projects; it’s a way of financing or paying for projects based on the overall growth of the economy. So, using the example of the Tennessee Valley Authority, it sold bonds, it paid them back; it made good on its payments. But even indirectly, just through the increased income tax that came in from the region of the country that benefitted from the TVA; indirectly the cost of the TVA was paid back through the increased productivity of the nation.
So, when we’re thinking about the kinds of projects that are going to transform the economy as a whole, the payback is in an indirect sort of way. It can be in an indirect kind of way. Let’s think about what some of those projects could be. When you think about the way the human species has developed over time, it’s not smooth; it’s occurred in jumps. The number of people that have lived on the planet has changed in dramatic ways due to very specific changes in the technologies available to us. The development of agriculture; the discoveries in health and industry; the Renaissance; the creation of science itself. These are the things that drive the human species forward. As an aspect of that, we fundamentally transform our relationship to the physical world. One example is through our use of power. This [Fig. 1?] is a chart that you may have seen several times. This is the power available in the United States during the history of our country. You can see two things: One is that up through the killing of Kennedy, the power used per person increased from below 4 kilowatts per capita at the beginning of the nation, up to about 12 or so at its peak. So, more power being used; greater intensity of energy. The second aspect is that the type of power has changed; wood was replaced by coal, which could not only do all the things that wood could — like getting hot, and by being turned into coke, be used in metallurgy the way charcoal could. But coal also had the added benefit of either being a tremendous amount of it and not having to remove trees, which could serve other purposes like building furniture and houses. Oil and natural gas; oil allowed for internal combustion engines — a new type of technology.
Fission — the power of the nucleus — never really was exploited to its full potential. But the power of the nucleus allows us to totally transform what we do; and go out into the stars with nuclear-powered rockets. Technologies we just haven’t worked out; we just haven’t implemented. The discovery of controlled nuclear fusion — these are things we need to work on.
So, one aspect is that we’ve changed our power sources. We’ve also changed our relationship to the physical world. This [Fig. 2?] is a chart over the past 50-60 years of rare earth production. These are very special elements on the periodic table; as their name suggests, they’re reasonably rare. Their use in the economy has only come about relatively recently. They’re used in electronic components, in magnets, phosphors for screens — computer screens, phone screens; they’re used in metallurgy for very unique applications. This is something where we’ve simply transformed our relationship to nature; to this spectrum of materials that we use in nature. The greatest step forward to be made, is the mastery of fusion. This is the inside of a tokomak [Fig. 3?], a kind of nuclear test machine; and one of the potential ways that we’re going to be able to develop the immense power of putting small atoms together to get far more energy out even than today’s current nuclear plants, which offers a much better way moving forward for space travel, for rocket propulsion, for the ability to really get around inside the inner Solar System.
So, these kinds of jumps in what we’re capable of, that’s the backbone of what economics is as a human science. When we think about the ways of implementing this in the United States, some of the projects are somewhat simple. Some might say that crossing the Bering Strait isn’t the simplest of projects; but it’s reasonably straightforward. This is an engineering project that we know how to build; it might present a few unique challenges given its length and given the not so hospitable climate in the area. But this is the kind of project that deserves investment; linking the world together in this way. A national high-speed rail network. If we were to build in phases, 20,000, 40,000 miles of high-speed rail, we’ll transform the way that we move about inside the country; we’ll transform the productivity and the value of whole regions of the nation. And of the productivity and potential value of the nation as a whole, as China has seen from building its high-speed network, about half the trips now are generated trips; it’s people going places they just would not have gone, had this high-speed rail network not been built. Meeting other people; actually getting around inside their country. The same thing that we can have here. Moving goods more efficiently; moving people more efficiently; and just simply having connections that don’t [currently] exist.
A water management approach to the continent; taking on the drought that’s been challenging and causing quite a bit of trouble in the south and southwest of the United States; west of the United States. The ability to use desalination directly from the ocean, if needed; to get water from the Pacific and make it available. To move water along the continent as a longer-term project; to continue with studies about transforming water in the atmosphere; of inducing rainfall; of changing weather patterns. These are the kinds of broad-scale projects that aren’t simply repaving a road and removing the potholes. These are the kinds of projects that mean that we are really going to develop a whole new potential as an economy.
In terms of what it means to finance these things, the importance is in understanding what value is; and I think this is the real central key problem in economics. Lyndon LaRouche has identified in his economic textbooks and his writings over decades, that a real definition of economic value, of the creation of wealth, comes in those activities that speed the increase of the potential population density of the human species. A physical measure of value; not what the market thinks something is worth, but a real metric that lies outside of what people seem to care about at the moment. This makes it into a real science.
The major aspect of that is that the value of everything in an economy lies in relation to how it is acting to bring about a future of that sort. And I think that via the capital budgetting approach made possible through a national bank of the type that we’re proposing, in part via the indirect nature of its financing, via a tax that isn’t on projects financed by the bank specifically; but in a more general way to make these finances possible. And then also to capitalize, to benefit from the overall increase in productivity of the nation. It makes sense to think about investments paying for themselves. Some of them pay directly — a business expands and makes greater profits. But when it comes to the economic platform, the infrastructure that the country as a whole relies upon, these benefits — the benefits of science, of the space program, of going to the Moon. Going to the Moon generated incredible profits for the nation; incredible development for the nation by opening up new types of manufacturing and new technologies. But it wasn’t NASA that made the money; the whole economy benefitted, and not only in a monetary type of way.
If we get away from public/private partnerships, if we get away from the idea that we’re going to have some kind of deal to repatriate profits overseas — which might in part be a good idea; but the real concept behind credit, as opposed to money, is the difference between thinking about value lying in what it creates for the future, versus what the market thinks something is worth today.
OGDEN: I think that overview, in terms of a principled approach to the way that Mr. LaRouche has for years discussed exactly how you would return the United States to this Hamiltonian system. It’s not something which is obscure in any form. If you look at the history of the United States, every time we have thrived as a nation, it’s been because we’ve applied this Hamiltonian outlook. It’s a unique outlook; it’s what is called the American System of economics. It was applied repeatedly to great success. Abraham Lincoln had a deep understanding of this; Franklin Roosevelt did as well. Franklin Roosevelt understood that without reorganizing a banking system which had gone completely wild, you wouldn’t be able to use the powers of the Federal government to create these kinds of productive investments; it would have just all gone off into speculation. That was the essential principle why Glass-Steagall was the first step that Franklin Roosevelt took. What Roosevelt — very similarly to the situation we have now — recognized that it was a situation where monetary regulation alone was not going to bring the US economy back to life. You had a generation at that time which was literally called the “Lost Generation”; no skills, demoralized. Many of them had witnessed the horrors of World War I; pessimism was rampant. Franklin Roosevelt recognized that the greatest mobilization necessary was a peacetime mobilization to upgrade the skill levels and capability of a population in order to turn a demoralized, depressed population into a population which had the productive powers of labor necessary to rebuild the United States.
So, I’m going to invite Bill to just give a little bit of an insight into how we need to apply that kind of thinking to the situation today.
BILL ROBERTS: Actually, just thinking about what Jason was going through, as far as the difference between all of these proposals that are being made right now in terms of financing infrastructure, versus Hamilton’s conceptual approach to this problem. I think it becomes pretty obvious why Hamilton did not want the credit lending of the country to be dependent for financing on an annual Congressional budgetary appropriations process. At first glance, as you’ve been developing here, the reason is fairly obvious; it’s a long-term process of lifting the entire cultural, economic platform of the country up to a higher level.
What does this mean? What are we talking about here? We’re talking about a generational process. As Franklin Roosevelt had to do, you have to take an entire region, you have to take an entire generation, and you have to transform this population to be able to assimilate new technologies. In Franklin Roosevelt’s case, he had to take a group of 3 million young people who had no access to gainful employment, and integrate them into the productive workforce. This is a big challenge for us today. Roosevelt’s administration had many projects which reflected this Hamiltonian principle of transforming entire regions; if you look at the Rural Electrification Administration, the monetarists argued that you could never get the payback even close to what would be required to spend all this money to bring electricity out to the remote areas. In the REA, and the TVA, they brought in a kind of educational process of training people to use the machinery to find better ways to utilize this new economic platform to increase productivity.
This is the Hamiltonian approach. When Hamilton says “To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.” What’s Hamilton talking about here? He’s arguing for the importance of the promotion of manufactures to increase the productive powers of labor within the economy; and he’s arguing that you want to get a lot of different types of manufacturing, of industry. Why? What is this about? When someone takes on a challenge of creating something in the economy, if someone becomes a machine-tool operative, if you have a new invention that is dedicated to saving labor and making your whole economy more productive, you don’t get the answers. It’s not like sitting down and taking a math course; it’s creative. You have to solve problems; you have to figure out what is the best way you’re going to be able to do something. Hamilton argued that by getting a manufacturing economy, by essentially creating a machine-tool sector for the country, you are provoking the mind to create new inventions; you are stimulating the mind, you are challenging the mind to be creative and to think of the best way that you can, using what’s available, to do something new.
This is where the real problem is today. You have a youth generation, the 29-30-year olds who have become adults during this period of the Bush and Obama Presidencies — the lost generation. Out of 40 million young people, you probably have half of them unemployed right now in this country; and you have another whole section of them that, because they live in areas where blue collar employment was the available good-paying jobs and a lot of that has been shut down, they don’t have gainful employment. You’re really talking about a generation that, because of the degeneration of culture, the collapse of education, you’re talking about a generation which doesn’t have an experience which is anything close to productive employment. For those of you who talk a lot to people like contractors, they’ll complain that it is really tough to find young people who can do a day’s work without having to be told every little thing to do. There’s not really much of a productive culture; because there’s not much of a human identity and human character in young people that have grown up under this disaster called the Bush and Obama Presidencies. There’s not a creative identity, but there’s not even really a productive identity that comes from having a connection to both the past in terms of what made it possible for you to be meaningfully employed; and the connection to the future in terms of how what you’re doing is actually creating the basis for a future generation to be even better and more capable in their work than you were. It’s just lacking.
So, in that sense, we have a lot of things that we need to build. The American Society of Civil Engineers has said that just to rebuild our infrastructure, we need several trillion dollars of investment. The head of the Chinese Sovereign Wealth Fund has pegged the requirements for bringing our infrastructure up to a modern level, he pegged it at $8 trillion. So, there’s plenty of work to be done. I think what the challenge is going to be, is to integrate a young workforce into building the high-speed rail systems, the various necessary infrastructure projects in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did this with the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) approach. You’re going to have certain young people who are going to have an affinity for receiving training, developing their skills; but I think for a lot of the young people who have had no work, or are addicted to drugs, or the close to 1.5 million that are incarcerated right now, the real challenge is that they have to be brought into the sort of work which can begin to establish the framework upon which you build a higher economic and cultural platform again. Roosevelt did this with the CCC by employing about 3 million young people. He did not want hand-outs; it’s not just a question of getting people a paycheck. The challenge today is to really think about this generation in terms of how we can actually reverse the damage and build back up the capability in the sense of identity that comes from an honest day’s work. The dividends are going to be in the future; the dividends are going to be in terms of actually restoring a human cultural identity. Of course in the longer-term, we’re going to need an educational system that makes young people aware of what their mind is, through discovery, through Classical music.
But we have a potential win-win situation. The Chinese want to invest the Treasury notes to get a Hamiltonian financing of infrastructure. We need to put these young people to work so they know what it means to be part of a human culture; and I think this is a very good example right here of win-win collaboration. You kill two birds with one stone. As I said, the dividends are going to be in the long-term payoff of getting the basic requirements, not for a monetary profit, but meeting the cultural, physical economic needs to have the process that Hamilton describes, and that Jason described of increasing the productive powers of labor through raising the whole economy up to a higher potential level of productivity.
OGDEN: You wrote something which is going to be included in the new pamphlet that LaRouche PAC is working on putting together right now, which spells out some of this Civilian Conservation Corps approach; and you conclude with exactly that point. This is a win-win potential. If you have a generation — millions of Americans — who literally are now entering adulthood, and their entire experience has been Bush and Obama; this is an emergency situation for the United States. Go back to what Mr. LaRouche was doing in 2008, 2007, where he was organizing what remained of the skilled machine-tool operators in Detroit, in the Midwest, and what has now become the Rust Belt; or you could call it the Heroin Belt. He said at that time — 8, 9, 10 years ago — if we don’t salvage these skills and put them to work training a new generation, it is doubtful that we can rebuild the United States. We are now a decade out from that; and it’s an urgent situation. If you put this in the context of the entire discussion, the opportunity for the United States to join the New Silk Road, to do what China has done in lifting 700 million people out of poverty; and creating out of the ruins of the Cultural Revolution in China, merely a generation ago, the leading economic engine driver of the world economy right now. Not doing that just on the basis of China alone, but doing it on the basis of saying, “We are going to radiate this development to the world; we’re going to bring the New Silk Road, we’re going to bring this development project not only to surrounding countries, but we’re going to bring it to the heartland of Africa. We’re going to bring it to the nations of South and Central America; we’re going to build a trans-oceanic canal across Nicaragua; we’re going to connect these great oceans.” This is a development program which is sweeping the world; and it’s at this point in history that this choice is now on the table in the United States: Are we going to join a new era of development internationally with this Russia-China-India-United States four-power alliance approach; or are we going to allow ourselves to be sabotaged and infested by this failed system? Are we going to allow this Wall Street-City of London system to drag us down?
ROSS: Just to add one thing on what China has been doing, sometimes China gets a little bit of flak; at least from foolish people. They say, “Yeah, China’s doing great, but they’re just catching up. Big deal! They’re building things that aren’t new; they’re just finally doing it.” That’s just not true. When you keep in mind that China is not building what it already could have done, but is moving humanity as a whole forward through things like their space program. They’re about to have a first for mankind. They’re doing the sample return mission this year; they’re going to the far side of the Moon next year. First ever. Their work on fusion; the East Tokamak has been setting records. They’ve got a super-conducting tokamak; we can’t say the same. This is a really unique thing for what it is in the world; that’s wonderful. You’ve got the development of an in-country ability to produce high-speed train systems. You’ve got more than one different approach for maglev trains in China. So, the next levels of technologies are being worked on, those next potential scientific breakthroughs in fusion, for example; you’ve got the potential for these things being made. Just to wrap it up, just to pull that concept together. You have to always be setting the stage for that next level to say that you’re really fully developing your economy and potential.
OGDEN: That’s the secret of Hamilton; it’s the future acting on the present, driving the present. Any investment you make which will have that kind of result 10, 15 years down the line, you know is going to create the potential for not just a quantitative, but qualitative change in terms of growth of the economy. That’s the unique insight that Mr. LaRouche has brought to the table in terms of an economic science; and maybe in future broadcasts, we can come back to that. Jason was telling me beforehand, about exploring the Riemannian aspects of Mr. LaRouche’s approach to these qualitative leaps in economic potential.
So, I’d like to conclude the broadcast by returning to the mobilization. Tomorrow, the Manhattan Project town hall event will be focussed around this national campaign to stop the Mnuchin nomination in the United States Senate, and to force the reinstatement of the strict, Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall banking separation. There will be a special activist call devoted to working out the marching orders for going into next week; which will take place on Sunday afternoon. Those of you who are part of our regular email list will receive more information on that. That’s an incentive to become part of our email list if you’re not already. Next week, there will be a delegation that will be coming into Washington, DC with this campaign in mind from up and down the East Coast. But as Paul Gallagher stressed on the Fireside Chat discussion last night, we need to be flooding Congress with calls — especially the Senate — saying Mnuchin cannot be allowed to become the Treasury Secretary, because he is expressly opposed to the only measure which will save the US economy from total disaster; which is the reinstatement of the strict Glass-Steagall banking separation. I guarantee you that has an effect when it comes in to Washington. Let me put up one more time the link to the petition. This is lpac.co/trumpsotu; and this remains the centerpiece of our mobilization. We need to get thousands of more signatures on this over the next month, before the State of the Union takes place. So, this is not a matter of just yourself signing it. If you haven’t signed it, of course you need to; but we need to be engaging organizations across the country. We know that certain trade unions are already opposing the Mnuchin nomination, which is very good; but they also need to be coming onboard with the campaign to reinstate Glass-Steagall. Circulate this to trade union leaders, to other organizations; and encourage them to circulate it to their membership. Let’s build a snowball effect behind this Glass-Steagall petition campaign.
Thank you to Jason for joining me here in the studio; and thank you to Bill, for joining me via video. You can access the full interview with Marco Zanni through the link which is provided in the description to this video; and also by subscribing to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel. We encourage you to watch that video in full; and to please participate in this campaign over the next coming days.
Thank you very much; please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and good night.