JOHN HOEFLE ON THE TRIPLE CURVE

Economist John Hoefle explains LaRouche's updated triple curve. This is how to understand the nature of the present economic breakdown.

THE TRIPLE CURVE. 

Rosa Luxemburg and LaRouche's Triple Curve

The origins of LaRouche's famous triple curve go back to his 1970's study of the work of Rosa Luxemburg. This non-academic approach to econ is crucial to understanding the current breakdown crisis. 

ROSA LUXEMBURG.

Af hverju NEI við Icesave 1. hluti

Hvers vegna ALLIR segja nei við Icesave ruglinu 9. Apríl

Ragnar Þór Ingólfsson, Kristbjörg Þórisdóttir, Þór Saari, Helga Þórðardóttir, Sveinn Tryggvason, Unnur Brá Konráðsdóttir, Sigurður Hannesson, Sigurdís Birna Pétursdóttir og Baldvin Björgvinsson segja hvers vegna þau munu segja NEI 9. apríl 2011.

 

UNSC: Libya No-Fly Zone, NOW !

We have only a few hours left before the Security Council makes its decision. The more people join this campaign, the more powerful our call will be. Please help spread the word -- forward this link to friends and family, and post it on Facebook, and all over.

 http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_3/?cl=982973646&v=8641

LaRouchePAC Interview with John Hoefle the Inter Alpha Banks, part 2 of 2 3 12 2011

Part two of a two part interview on the British Empire's juggernaut known as the Inter-Alpha group of banks. It hasn't just been 40 years of poor policy decisions, as cataloged in the FCIC report, which has brought us to the point of collapse; it has been the intentional policy of the British Monetary Empire to undermine the sovereignty of all nations, the U.S.A. in particular.

 

Dialogue With LaRouche – The Science Behind Glass Steagall

On Thursday, February 10, as extraordinary events were unfolding in Egypt, the American economist and statesman Lyndon H. LaRouche addressed a private gathering of approximately 75 individuals who were gathered in New York City.

The gathering included international representatives from Russia, China, India, Egypt, and Ireland. They were joined by a large group of leading American economists from California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, most of whom comprise what has been referred to as the greater Stanford Group.

Joining Mr. LaRouche was Sky Shields, the leader of his organization's science group (euphemistically referred to here as “the Basement”). The event was moderated by Mr. LaRouche's National Spokeswoman Debra Freeman.]

We begin with Mr. LaRouche’s opening remarks following Freeman’s introduction.

LAROUCHE: Okay. I should say, first of all, I have an associate of mine with me here in the studio, Sky Shields, who is the leader of the science group for our organization, because I thought perhaps that some of the international people, as well as others, would like to hear his response, when questions which might be directed to him, come up. So, he's here in the studio, and he's watching me —I suppose I need watching, or at least some people think so. So, that's it.

Now, I think the topic we ought to consider is this, is we are now, actually, with the rate of hyperinflation inside the United States, and also in Europe, in particular, and in Brazil, also, we have a generally, in the trans-Atlantic region, we're dominated by a rising rate of hyperinflation. There is no sign of any recovery, of the U.S. economy, in sight for the years ahead, as of now. And my view, is, as long as this current President remains President of the United States, there's no chance for the United States to recover, and also for Europe, because if the United States goes down, then, knowing the situation in the British system and other systems, Europe will not survive a collapse of the U.S. economy. We are now actually in a hyperinflation.

There are remedies. But they are remedies which must be chosen. And that's the situation.

MORE: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/17609

Lyndon Larouche's March 10,2011 Webcast Ireland and America p.1

BAD BANKS NOW GO TO HELL

BAD BANKS NOW GO TO HELL

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

March 10, 2011

I had sent the following, quoted message in reply to a question on the matter of cancelling the “bail out” through the urgently needed re-application of the Glass- Steagall law. The same reply, with the following addition included, should be uttered as a general reply to all queries respecting the issue of the implications of the re-application of the Glass-Steagall statute to evade a general breakdown-crisis of the entire U.S.A. system. I add an indispensable suffix to a copy of that previously sent message in reply to that presently unnamed correspondent.

MY REPLY TO THAT CORRESPONDENT WAS:

“Trillions of U.S. dollar-equivalent will be transferred out of the common classification of public debt, thus reducing the obligations of Federal and commercial banking accounts, under present practice, into speculative accounts which are no longer obligations of either the commercial banks or Federal and State governments.

“That means, admittedly, that most of the merchant banking will be plunged out of existence. That will penalize the relatively fewer, but will save the lives of the great majority, and of the existence of our republic itself. So what? The innocent are not obliged to pay gambling debts.

“Those who lose on the account of gambling debts, have no legitimate grounds for complaining. They have already swindled our nation out of much-too-much for too long, and now the swindle has been brought to a much-needed end.

“It saved the United States in 1933. It will save the U.S.A. from an otherwise total destruction, today.”

To that, I now add the following amplification:

That correspondent had included a question of the following type: “Yes, but, what do we do about those trillions of debt?” Therefore, I add the following remarks which were already implicit in my original reply.

The only competent response to that latter question is: “The banks which are not redeemable as returned the form of commercial banks under the original Glass-Steagall Law, will be advised to pay the debt themselves, since those debts are not legitimate debts for Commercial banking institutions in either their form or their character.”

In short, the banks which are now classifiable as commercial banking, are not obliged to pay those actually worthless, essentially speculative debts which do not meet that equivalent of the standard for properly defined commercial debts under our Constitutional system. They are essentially gambling debts incurred at the risk of private bankers outside the legitimate orbit of a commercial banking system, and therefore represent nominal, gamblers’ debts, which should not be considered as debts of the government or the system of commercial banking of our United States.

This, admittedly, will lead to the closing out of the speculative form of gambling debts of the many merchant banking and comparable private institutions which can not redeem these debts by means other that the same standard specified by the Glass-Steagall law. What of it?

That urgently needed reform creates an inconvenience for some people, but not an actual injustice; gambler’s losses may be painful, but that does not make them mandatory obligations of our constitutional system of government. The United States does not pay other people’s gambling debts, or pay off debts which are of a quality equivalent to “investments in ‘Board Walk’” in the board game of “Monopoly.”

Under the system of self-government established as the amplification of our Federal Constitution’s statement of fundamental principle in its Preamble, true wealth and its incurred obligations are expressed by a well-regulated system of credit, not monetary interests, a system of credit focussed on the missions of public credit and the promotion of physically useful investments in that maintenance and increase of the productive powers of labor which are the primary issues of proper concern of the public interest, and, therefore, also, those enterprises which are properly dedicated to intentions which are reasonably considered as contributions to the improvement and maintenance of the physical well-being of the nation, just as under the system of credit established under the original charter of the Massachusetts Bay colony, a charter which has been the original model for a design of government on which the existence of our U.S. republic was based, and which is the distinction of the system of the United States from the monetarist systems of old Europe.

Ours Is a Credit System, Not ...

The cancellation of the effort to compel the Federal Government to pay other people’s gambling debts, is presently the absolute precondition for saving the existence of our United States, and, implicitly, other affected nations of the trans-Atlantic community. If we do not enforce that rule which I have prescribed here, civilization as we have known it will come to an end in the deepest and longest breakdown-crisis in known history. That is the only choice available to nations and their populations at this point in the present world crisis.

Then, and only then, would the United States be able, to return to the Constitutional principles through which our republic has shown, repeatedly, the pathway required to obtain a true, physical economic recovery, per person and per square kilometer of the territory of our United States. Worthless debts in the trillions of dollars-equivalent of Wall Street and kindred forms of gambling debts now, will be simply cancelled or left to prosper, to live or rot according to their own devices. The continued existence of our United States demands that, and the intention of our Federal Constitution also demands it. Do that now, or the world goes to economic Hell on Earth for a generation or more to come.

The economic recovery so arranged, shall be the premise for launching Federal credit for the immediate action required for the “bailing out” of the essential public functions of the respective states of our United States, and for organizing the Federal credit needed for the addition of more than seven millions physically productive places of productive employment. President Franklin Roosevelt was right; his critics were fools, or, in the case of Wall Street tyrants, worse, then, and even more so now.

If that correction were not made, the present world economy were doomed to an almost immediate collapse into a global new dark age extended from the immediate time ahead, to several generations to come, world-wide. That is the fact of the matter; that is the only choice before us in reality. Pass and enforce Glass-Steagall now, or plan to enjoy a short life on the road to an early arrival in planet-wide Hell.

Obviously, in point of fact, the bail-out launched in 2008 was nothing better than a ticket to that Hell to which all “bad banks” should be mercifully delivered, now.

Lyndon http://www.larouchepac.com

COMMENT FROM JOHN HOEFLE ECONOMIST.

From what I've seen Iceland was basically turned from a productive economy into an offshore speculative playground by the British Empire, which looted it and now demand that it surrender its sovereignty to the IMF in return for loans. Loans from the IMF are a trap, which generally works this way: The IMF gives a nation a loan, but the money actually goes to the international banks to which the nation owes money. In reality, the banks get the money and the nations get the debt. Under IMF conditionalities, the nation is unable to pay back that debt--this is often done by forcing the nation to devalue its currency, and since the debt is denominated in dollars or some other foreign currency, the devaluations mean that a larger percentage of the nation's GDP must go to debt service. When the nation is unable to meet its payments, the IMF will make it another loan, with further conditionalities applied, resulting in a greater debt than ever before. Pretty soon, the nation is a debt slave to the international banks.

This process has played out repeatedly in Ibero-America, where nations have paid bank far more than they initially borrowed, yet owe more than ever. This the Venetian method, using financial warfare to bankrupt a nation, lending it money under the guise of helping, and then using more financial warfare to bankrupt it again, until the debt burden becomes so great that it cannot escape. What we here in the States call "loan-sharking" is based upon that concept.

The IMF is not your friend, it is the enforcer for the Venetian debt-slavery system. If you let it in, it will eat you alive.

We believe that the collapse is on, and that it will hit far faster than people imagine. That is part of the reason people are so opposed to the Obama health-care plan--the man who is supposed to be helping them is instead proposing to kill them, while protecting the international banks. The good news is that a political revolt has started, with Congressmen getting verbally battered in their districts on the health-plan issue, so much so that they and the President are basically going into hiding. A sea-change is occurring,now

Horfið á Gunnar Tómasson á : http://www.inntv.is/ 

 

Interview with John Hoefle the Inter-Alpha Banks, part 1 of 2

Part one of a two part interview on the British Empire's juggernaut known as the Inter-Alpha group of banks. It hasn't just been 40 years of poor policy decisions, as cataloged in the FCIC report, which has brought us to the point of collapse; it has been the intentional policy of the British Monetary Empire to undermine the sovereignty of all nations, the U.S.A. in particular. The Inter-Alpha group has been one of the weaponsin this ongoing war.

 

 

More on: http://www.larouchepac.com/

Ann Pettifor and Lee C Buchheit - Europe's Sovereign Debt Crisis

Europe's Sovereign Debt Crisis
14 Jun 2010

About the Event:

Governments across Europe are responding to market concerns over their public debt levels by implementing harsh austerity programmes and formulating unprecedented joint policy actions.

At this seminar, jointly organised by the IIEA and the Law Society of Ireland's EU & International Affairs Committee, an expert panel evaluated the politico-economic context of the current crisis, its implications for the Euro and the EU, and its potential impact on the global economy.

Dietmar Hornung delivered an outlook on European sovereigns which argued that profound and sustained austerity measures were crucial to exiting the current crisis.

Ann Pettifor, deploying Keynesian economic arguments, countered Mr Hornung's perspective, insisting that it was futile to try to bring down debt levels without first investing to ensure economic growth.

Lee C. Buchheit, focusing on Greece, explored scenarios that would demand a "Plan B" and shared his thoughts on what such a plan might entail.