Kerran vielä: The Cook Plan

Jotta uudemmatkin vierailijat olisivat tietoisia siitä minkälaisia talousmalliratkaisuehdotuksia USA:ssa on esitetty viime aikoina. Tässä Richard C. Cook selittää oman mallinsa mihin kuuluu perustulo ja uudet julkisten yhteisöjen pankit. Haastattelijana Richard Corbett.

A veteran economic analyst and former Project Manager at the U.S. Treasury, Richard C. Cook joins us to discuss his "Cook Plan" to resuscitate the economy. We also discuss monetary reform and his new book We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform. For more information please visit his website: http://www.richardccook.com/

Richard C. Cook on Monetary Reform and Economic Democracy

Maailman rahauudistusliikkeen suurin jokavuotinen tapahtuma on American Monetary Institute´n syyskuinen konferenssi Chicagossa, USA:ssa. Kokous kerää laajan asiantuntijakaartin ja satamäärin kiinnostuneita ympäri maailmaa.

Tässä Richard C. Cook´in viesti kokoukselle ja lukijoilleen.

The world’s most important gathering of monetary reformers takes place each year in Chicago at the American Monetary Institute’s annual conference. This year’s event takes place September 24-27 at Roosevelt University.

Chairing the conference is Stephen Zarlenga, AMI director and author of the landmark book “The Lost Science of Money.” For information and the list of speakers, including monetary economist Michael Hudson, see the AMI website at http://www.monetary.org/2009schedule.html.

Muutama poiminta tekstistä, ja osa poiminnoista suomeksi käännettyinä:

It is not difficult to come up with methods to solve today’s economic crisis through monetary reform. Many of us are doing it. The key, as I have been writing for the past several years, is to treat credit as a public utility, not the private property of the world’s financial elite.

Ei ole lainkaan vaikeata keksiä erilaisia menetelmiä joilla tämän päivän talouskriisi päihitetään rahauudistuspoliittisin keinoin. Moni meistä pohtii näitä ratkaisuja juuri nyt. Avain kaikkeen, kuten olen kirjoittanut useita jo vuosia, on pankkiluoton tarkastelu yhteiskunnallisena peruspalveluna kuten sähkö, vesi, viemäröinti, jätehuolto - eikä minkään finanssieliitin yksityisenä omaisuutena.

If we truly adhered to this concept, we would be able to see that a debt-based monetary system, where money only comes into existence through bank lending, can succeed only in isolated circumstances when a growth bubble outpaces the ability of the public to pay interest charges for the privilege of having money to spend and thereby to survive.

Jos todellakin seuraisimme näitä linjoja, kykenisimme huomaamaan että velkaperusteinen rahajärjestelmä, missä raha vain syntyy pankkien lainana, toimii vain eristetyissä olosuhteissa missä kasvukuplan kasvuvauhti tuottaa enemmän kuin mitä yleisö maksaa korkoina siitä että saavat rahaa kulutaakseen ja näin ollen selviämään hengissä.

*

So, in the face of the current world horror, what chance do monetary reformers have to be heard?

The answer, I believe, is that we are being heard. My mind goes back to 2003, only six years ago, when Stephen Zarlenga came to my office at the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington, D.C., where I had booked him to give a presentation based on his book, The Lost Science of Money. Later I worked with Steve on his first draft of the American Monetary Act. The time came when Steve and I began to meet with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, briefing him and others in Washington on monetary ideas.

So much has happened since then. So many more people have become aware of the evils of the debt-based monetary system. We have seen Congressman Ron Paul ignite a national wave of revulsion against the Federal Reserve System. There is now even hope that the American Monetary Act might be introduced on the floor of Congress.

*

Without monetary reform there can never be economic democracy. But with it perhaps the chief cause of war can be eliminated: the unjust distribution of wealth among people and nations, where some get far too much and many get nothing.

Ilman rahauudistusta emme voi saavuttaa taloudellista demokratiaakaan. Mutta näiden yhteisvaikutuksella voitaneen jopa hyökkäyssodan päasiallinen syy eliminoida.

I strongly support the American Monetary Act, the movement for a basic income guarantee, and proposals supporting citizens’ dividends such as those of the Social Credit movement or the ones already in place through programs like the Alaska Permanent Fund. But even if such measures are not immediately implemented, the effort to promote them serves the purpose of educating millions of people.

*

Our present responsibility is getting the word out that there is indeed a far better way to do things and that real change is possible. That money and credit can empower people, not just enslave them. That debt is unnecessary when credit is viewed as a public utility. That technology when properly distributed can free people for higher intellectual and spiritual pursuits, not just eliminate jobs and force millions of people into bankruptcy and starvation.

*

I believe in the family of man and the responsibility of man to be a good steward of the earth and the environment. I believe financial tyranny has done its best to destroy these values. But I see an upsurge of desire and commitment among people for a new day, a truly democratic society, and a life on earth that is organized and conducted sanely, compassionately, and wisely.

Those who attend such events as the American Monetary Institute’s 2009 conference understand all this. Together we will continue to work toward our ideals, no matter what disasters may intervene. It will take time and hard work, but we and those who come after us will prevail.

© 2009 by Richard C. Cook

Richard C. Cook: Miten USA:n perustulo voitaisiin rahoittaa

Richard C Cook: How To Finance the National Dividend.

Total debt in the U.S. today is around $60 trillion. If interest is 4% that’s $2.4T out of a $14T GDP. $2.4T is a figure curiously almost identical to my proposed National Dividend.

Eli suomeksi, se sama summa joka nyt menee pankeille korkoina voitaisiin sen sijaan siirtää kansalle kansallisosinkona tai "perustulona". Turha tulla sanomaan ettei siis rahaa perustuloon olisi. Kukaan ei koskaan väitä ettei ylisuurienkin velkojen hoitamiseen olisi varoja. Siihen löytyy aina rahaa.
Suomalaiset ekonomistitkin ovat julkisesti ja suurieleisesti todenneet että velkaa ei tarvitse koskaa maksaa pois.

No - oikeasti olen sitä mieltä että julkisyhteisöjen velat ovat meille kaikille täysin turha rasite.
Enkä ole tässä yksin tätä mieltä. Jokainen järkevästi ajattelevan luulisi olevan samoilla linjoilla.

Ja niistä pääsee eroon jos haluaa. Nykypoliitikot eivät halua eroon veloista - vaikka vaalien alla yrittävät antaa sellaisen kuvan meille. Suomessa on (nyt) ilmiselvää että Sampo-pankin (ja muidenkin pankkien ja rahoitusyhtiöiden..?) kädestä syövän Kokoomuksen ja Kataisen poliittinen linja on aina ensin pankkien asiamiehenä oleminen. Pankkejahan pitää kovasti nyt "pääomittaa" sanoi Katainen ...(Wahlroosin kirjoittamaa käsikirjoitusta lukiessaan televisiossa?)

Kokoomus "työväen puoluena" oli viime vaaleissa sikäli osuva mainoslause että onhan Kokoomus varmistamassa että "työväki" eli pankkien lypsylehmät maksavat korkojaan jatkossakin. Hiljan 100.00 euroon korotettu talletustakuukin oli tavallaan sekin Kokoomuksen vastalahja Suomen pankeille, vai ?

Palataksemme Cookin artikkeliin, tässä ote:

If the idea of printing it and giving it away is politically unacceptable, then you can have the government sell “dividend bonds” to the central bank, which bonds are kept in a vault somewhere, with the bank distributing the dividend. Or it can be done through the Treasury.

The only difference from current practice is that with the National Dividend, you give the money directly to the people rather than routing it through the government or the banks; today the government spends much of it on the horror of the military-industrial complex; banks skim the cream through interest on lending.

With a National Dividend paid directly to the people, this money immediately goes into circulation at the local level and produces many more jobs and much more economic growth than through the other routes. So it becomes, in practice, self-financing. It also pays down debt, reduces net interest payments, and results in more savings than at present.

***

How to finance the National Dividend, which would be somewhere in the range of $2-$3.5T U.S., depending on whether it is taxed and if there is an allowance for children.

Eli Richard C. Cook ehdottaa näin jokaiselle aikuiselle n 1000 dollaria kuussa perustarpeisiin. Voucherit eivät kelpaisi lottoamiseen, tupakkaan, olueen eikä viinaan. Ja jos pankkien rahoittamien poliitikoiden on vaikea niellä se että valtio painaa ja levittää voucherit sellaisenaan, yksi kiertotie olisi se että ne maksettaisiin vastineena valtion nollakorkoisia "osinko-obligaatioita" vastaan. Näin kansallisolinko on nimellisesti "laina". Osinko-obligaatiot voidaan pitää piilossa jossain holvissa vaikka tuomiopäivään asti.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/how-to-finance-the-national-dividend-by-richard-c-cook/

Rahan hallinta saatava takaisin julkiselle sektorille

Päivitys: Daryl Bradford Smith haastattelee tässä Adrain Salbuchia Argentiinan kohtalosta joutua riistofinanssin hampaisiin. Hyödyllistä tietoa jokaiselle joka haluaa ymmärtää mitä finanssikriisi oikeasti on...

*

Adrian Salbuchi julkaisi jälleen asiaa kahdella videolla. Tällä kertaa hän puhuu sodasta, vallasta ja rahasta. Rahaa on kohta lajia - julkista korotonta aitorahaa - ja yksityistä korollista pankkiluottoa. Hän varoittaa petollisista "asiantuntijoista" jotka aina kiljuvat INFLAATIOTA ! (aina kun jokin valtio on tekemässä asiat oikein ja pyrkii nostamaan julkisen rahan osuutta)

Rahalla on neljä omainaisuutta: vaihdonväline, kulutuksen siirto ajassa, säästäminen, luototus.
Korko on suurempi ongelma kuin moni tajuaa.

Salbuchi puhuu myös siitä miten 120 miljooonan tieprojekti voidaan toteuttaa julkisella rahalla.

Minulle uusi tieto: Argentiinan provinssit loivat paikallisen velkakriisin aikana omaa rahaansa.

Loppulausahdus: Meidän tulee ajaa pankkiloiset pois ja ottaa omat valtiomme takaisin haltuumme! Rahan hallinta on se mikä ratkaisee kuka on vallassa. Oma visioni on että talousdemokratia-liike voisi olla se joka muistuttaa tästä tärkeästä asiasta - miksikö - no siksi ettei yksikään muu puolue tee asialle mitään.

Salbuchi - Global Meltdown: What we Can / Should do

Describes what needs to be done regarding the Financial Meltdown. Put the financial system in its proper place and bring Health to the Economy. All based on the Argentine experience of having suffered systemic collapses, hrperinflation and the gross corruption of wanton speculation.

Osa 2.

Describes practical example of how Finance and Economy can be put back straight again. To do this, we need to apply good Common Sense, which means not listening to the "experts" anymore...

*

Lisäys: Poiminta Richard C. Cookin uusimmasta artikkelista "Why Monetary Reform?"
Global Research sivustolla. Cook toteaa että rahapoliittinen uudistus on ainoa keino saavuttaa taloudellinen demokratia tässä maailmassa joka on hajoamassa palasiin.

With today’s worldwide economic crash, the plan is moving to its latter stages. The cabal works through the world financial system, with the world’s central banks like the Bank of England and Federal Reserve playing major roles and the Bank of International Settlements in Basel , Switzerland , at the top. They maintain control by assuring that every bit of currency used in the world derives at some point through a debt owed to a bank. That’s why it’s called a debt-based monetary system.

The alternative is to treat credit as a public utility, not the private property of the banking system. I explain how to do this in my new book, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform (Tendril Press, 2009). The book is an edited version of articles published on the internet from January 2007 through January 2008 and is a compendium of ideas from the growing monetary reform movement that is the only hope for real economic democracy in a world that is falling to pieces.

Muutama sana Richard C. Cookin videoista

Edelliset kaksi postausta ovat sisältäneet linkit kuuteen videoon, joissa Richard C. Cook esittelee ratkaisunsa Yhdysvaltain - sekä muun maailman talouden pelastamiseksi. Tajuan tietysti että useimmille Richard on täysin tuntematon kasvo - ja moni, joka ei osaa englantia kovin hyvin, ehkä turhautuu kun postauksissa ei ole montaakaan sanaa suomea.

Haluan kuitenkin perustella edelliset kaksi postaustani toteamalla että tällä erää Richard C. Cook on maailman talousdemokraattisen liikkeen johtava "puolueideologi". Lisäksi itselläni on pieni osa siinä että Richard C. Cook tässä videosarjassaan puhuu C. H. Douglas´ista, social credit´istä sekä economic democracy´stä. Douglashan oli se joka jo 1920-luvulla loi y.m. käsitteet.

Social credit on suomeksi "julkinen yleishyödyllinen luototus" - ja tämän vastakohta on nykyinen yksityispankkien luototus. Economic democracy puolestaan, taloudellista demokratiaa tai talousdemokratiaa - ja vastakohta yksityisten pankkien nykyinen taloudellinen oligarkia.

Richard C. Cook esittelee kuudessa videossaan laajan ratkaisun, jolla nykyisistä talousongelmista päästään. Ilmaisu "credit as a public utility" voitaisiin kääntää suomeksi - luototus julkisena palveluna. Tällä tarkoitetaan sitä että luotto ja luototus todellakin voidaan katsoa ihmisen perusoikeudeksi, koska ilman tätä kukaan ei tule toimeen nykymaailmassa.

Cookin filosofia on siis se että ihminen tarvitsee, puhtaan veden, ravinteikkaan ruoan, vaatteiden ja kodin lisäksi myös ostovoimaa - eli rahaa tai luottoa. Vanhakantainen tarkastelutapa on toisenlainen - eli perinteisesti on katsottu että ostovoiman saamiseksi on oltava töissä 8-16, viitenä päivänä viikossa - muuten ei kuulu saada ruokaa pöydälleen.

Cookin järkeily osoittaa meille - kuten jo Douglas aikanaan osoitti, että modernin teknologian myötä täystyöllisyys on mahdoton asia saavuttaa - koska tuottavuus on kasvanut joka vuosikymmen samaa tahtia kuin työvoiman tarve on vähentynyt. Ihmiskunnan perushuolto toimii mainiosti murto-osalla kokonaistyövoimasta.

Cookin ehdottamiin ratkaisuihin kuuluu rahavallan palauttaminen kansallisvaltioille - pankeilta.
Tämä tarkoittaa käytännössä "Greenbacks-tyyppinen rahan liikkeellelasku"- Benjaminen Franklinin ja Abraham Lincolnin mallien mukaan. Franklinin-aikaisessa Amerikassa, siirtomaahallitus laski liikkeelle "colonial scrip"- nimistä velatonta, korotonta paperirahaa jonka myötä Amerikan Siirtomaat kehittyivät huimaa vauhtia 1770-luvulla - kunnes brittikuningas George III, Rothschildien painostuksesta kielsi siirtomaiden omat rahat.

Lincoln vuorostaan painautti 450 miljoonan edestä omaa korotonta, velatonta ns greenbacks-dollaria - joilla korollinen pankkiluototus taitavasti kierrettiin. On myös osoitettavissa että Lincoln poistettiin Rothschildien toimesta. Tästä tietysti kiistellään - kuten aikanaan mainilan laukauksistakin.

Cook ratkaisee kansalaisten uhkaavan kurjuuden, laajan työttömyyden ja ostovoimapulan "with a dividend based economy" - eli osinkoperusteisella talousmallilla. Valtio tai valtion valtuuttama taho jakaa kansalaisille korotonta, velatonta rahaa kuukausittain. Perustelut ovat varsin kohtuulliset - enkä voi nähdä mitään syytä miksi malli ei voisi toimia. Tietysti suomalainen luterilainen ajattelutapa "työ-on-velvollisuus"- "se joka ei paina otsa hiessä ei myöskään syö" muodostaan suuren paradigmaongelman monelle.

Nykyinen talouskriisi kaikkine sivuilmiöineen on kuitenkin vanhan paradigman kuolema. On aika tajuta tosiasiat ja nähdä valo tunnelin päässä.
G-20 maiden johtajien kokous Lontoossa yrittää tietysti jatkaa vanhaa paradigmaa joka vie suoraan tuhoon - kuten tchekkipääministeri rohkeasti totesi. G 20 johtajat ovat kuitenkin pitkälti pankkivallan rahoittamia edustajia - eivätkä uskalla muuta kuin jatkaa toivotonta elvytystä. Nykyinen elvytys on mitä röyhkeintä ryöstämistä - maailmanhistorian suurinta tulonsiirtoa pienelle finanssieliitille joka itse luo elvytysrahan kirjanpitoviennein. Näin G 20 maiden edustajat velkaannuttavat omia valtioitaan ja näiden kansalaisia jopa sadoiksi vuosiksi koska nykyisten talousmallien mukaan valtiot joutuvat maksamaan elvytysvelkapääoman moninkertaisena velkapääoman korkoina seuraavien vuosikymmenten aikana. Laskin hiljan että
Suomi, jolla 56 mrd euroa valtionvelkaa, on maksanut korkoina 65 mrd pelkästään 1990-2008 välisenä aikana.

Cook on siis luonut ratkaisumallin jolla sairaalloinen mieletön velkaatuminen voidaan katkaista - ja velasta päästä kokonaan irti. Kysyn siis - kuka järkevä ihminen voisi olla tätä vastaan?

Keskustellaan enemmän Cookin ajatuksista kommenttiosiossa.

VIDEO: The Solution to the Economic Crisis. Credit as a Public Utility: Parts 2-6

Tulin toisiin ajatuksiin ja laitan sittenkin esille Richard C. Cookin koko videosarjan. Koen että tämä helpottaa katsomista. Jos katsot että sinulla ei ole aikaa katsella kaikkia niin katso ainakin viimeisen osan.

Tässä nro 2.



Part Two of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “The Federal Reserve System: The Bankers Take Over...all » Part Two of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “The Federal Reserve System: The Bankers Take Over” Written and Produced by Richard C. Cook Summary: President Lincoln’s Greenback system worked but was undermined and replaced by the financiers who got Congress to pass the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864, then the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The United States now became a nation dominated by the financial elite, the banks, and a debt-based monetary system. Consequently, the 20th Century was one of constant cycles of inflation and deflation resulting in the economic chaos we see today.

*

Tässä nro 3.



Part Three of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “The Collapse of the Financial System” Writ...all » Part Three of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “The Collapse of the Financial System” Written and Produced by Richard C. Cook Summary: The collapse we are seeing today began in the financial system, not the producing economy. The crisis started with the housing bubble which the Federal Reserve created by cutting interest rates and then brought own by raising them. The trigger of the 2008 bank meltdown was refusal by European banks to purchase any more “toxic” U.S. debt based on mortgages and sold as securities. Now, with the decline in equity values, the burden of debt in our economy has grown even larger. Thus a renewal of bank lending will not solve the problem, while the economic stimulus program of the Obama administration is likewise insufficient to restore economic health.

*

Tässä nro 4.



Part Four of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “What is Credit and Who Should Control It?” Wr...all » Part Four of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “What is Credit and Who Should Control It?” Written and Produced by Richard C. Cook Summary: Fractional reserve banking is the process by which banks create credit out of thin air. But despite abuses of the system, credit is still a crucial part of modern economics. An enlightened concept of governance would view credit as a public utility. This means that government must take back the control of credit from the private financiers.

*

Tässä nro 5.



Part Five of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “The Gap Between Prices and Income” Written and Produced by Richard C. Cook Summary: One of the most important and least understood concepts in modern economics is the existence of a gap between prices and purchasing power. This gap results when a portion of prices must be set aside as business and private savings. The money is then used by the financial system for lending and speculation. Keynesian economics takes control of some of the savings through government deficit spending but is still a compromise with control of the economy by the financiers. In fact Keynesian economics has helped cause the collapsing debt pyramid. A better system would be to provide consumers with a National Dividend as a way to monetize the continuous appreciation of the producing economy.

*

Tässä nro 6. eli viimeinen osa:



Part Six of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “The Greenback and National Dividend Solutions”...all » Part Six of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “The Greenback and National Dividend Solutions” Written and Produced by Richard C. Cook Summary: The U.S. should convert to a system where the money supply is created by the federal government by being spent into circulation without government borrowing or taxation as was done with the Greenbacks. The Federal Reserve should no longer be a bank of issue. Additionally, a National Dividend should be paid directly to the people. The “Cook Plan” calls for the initial distribution of vouchers in the amount of $1,000 a month plus a new system of community savings banks. Greenbacks combined with a National Dividend will create a non-inflationary democratic currency and transform the economy of the United States.

Richard C. Cook: Credit As Public Utility (part 1.)

Tuliterä sarja videoita, jotka esittävät Richard C. Cookin ideat, siitä miten valtion tulisi toimia, jotta rahapolitiikka olisi demokraattista ja kansalaisten etujen mukaista. Tänään rahapolitiikka on yksinmaan pankkien etujen mukaista. Aika on nyt oikea muutoksille.

Part One of Six Parts: Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis “Our Early Political Leaders Warned Us Against the Banking Interests” Written and Produced by Richard C. Cook Summary: Early U.S. statesmen, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson worked to free the nation from control by the bankers who had been behind the establishment of the First and Second Banks of the United States. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln implemented a true democratic currency by spending Greenbacks directly into circulation without borrowing from the banks. These measures allowed the U.S. to develop for much of the 19th century largely free from bankers’ control. By the end of the century, this had changed, and the bankers were taking over.

Richard C. Cook is a former U.S Treasury analyst who also worked in the Carter White House and for NASA and writes on public policy issues. His new book is We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform (Tendril Press 2009). His website is www.richardccook.com. He is a member of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network and has been an adviser to Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the American Monetary Institute. Purchase the DVD at Richard C. Cook’s website

*

Videosarjan toiset viisi osaa voit nähdä tästä klikkaamalla.

Click here for the four remaining videos by Richard C. Cook

Richard C. Cook: USA:n Talous - Suunniteltu Romahtamaan

Tässä uusin artikkeli Cook-pajalta:

Richard C. Cook: The US Economy - Designed To Fail

But neither President Obama, nor his Democratic supporters or Republican antagonists, should feel badly about what is happening. This is because the system they have been given to work with was designed to fail. The U.S. was saddled long ago with a debt-based monetary system, whereby the only way money can be introduced into circulation is through bank lending.

It was the system that was instituted in 1913 when Congress gave away its constitutional power over money creation to the private banking industry by passing the Federal Reserve Act.

It was then that the catastrophe we are now facing became inevitable. It took nearly a century to get here but it finally happened.

Suomeksi voimme todeta Cookin muistuttavan kaikki siitä tosiasiasta että kenenkään amerikkalaisen puoluepoliitikon ei tulisi tuntea syyllisyyttä siitä mitä on tapahtumassa.

Tämä siksi että rahajärjestelmä joka amerikkalaisille annettiin oli suunniteltu romahtamaan.

USA varustettiin aikanaan tarkoituksellisesti tällä velkaperusteisellä rahajärjestelmällä missä kierrossa tarvittava raha yksinomaan syntyy velkaantumalla yksityiselle pankkijärjestelmälle.

Vuorenvarma alamäki alkoi vuonna 1913 kun kongressia huiputettiin hyväksymään Federal Reserve Act muutama päivä ennen joululomia. Tällä varmistettiin se - että nykyinen katastrofi ennen pitkää toteutuu. Tähän meni vajaa vuosisata, mutta se tapahtui vihdoin.

Toteasin että Suomen kohdalla tilanne on aivan sama - valtionvelkamme on alunperinkin tarkoitettu mahdottomaksi maksaa takaisin pankeille. Ja jos käy niin että velka hupenee liikaa kuten oli käydä 1989 kun valtionvelkaa oli enää vajaat 10 mrd euroa - huolestuneet riistopankit järjestävät asian: Suomelle "yllättävä" pankkikriisi - ja hups - velkaa on taas sopivan paljon.
Näin on ilmeisesti menetelty kaikkialla maailmalla. Jos joku uhkaa poiketa ruodusta - sitä maata rokotetaan agressiivisesti.
Talousdemokraattinen puolueen tarkoitus on herättää ihmisiä tajuamaan tätä - ja vastustamaan sitä. Nykyiset puolueet eivät tee mitään asialle, vaan tuntuvat valitettavasti olevan pankkiirien juoksupoikia.

Kuvittele uusi tilanne eduskunnassa - uusi kahtiajako "taloudellista vapautumista ajavat voimat vastaan nykyiset pankkiripuolueet.

Lue koko Cook-artikkeli

Richard C. Cook : the Cook Plan kahden minuuutin esittelyssä

Toistoa ehkä, joo - mutta - tätä sanomaa sietääkin toistaa. Sääli vaan että tuuli häiritsi kuvaushetkellä - mutta niinhän siellä taloustuulet muutenkin puhaltavat. Vai kuvaisiko talousmyrsky paremmin tilannetta.



Richard C. Cook proposes "A Bailout for the People: Dividend Economics and the Basic Income Guarantee." Cook is a former analyst for the U.S. federal government. His book on monetary reform "We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform" is available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at www.richardccook.com

Cook's proposals are based on what he calls "Dividend Economics." He cites as an example the annual citizens' stipend under the Alaska Permanent Fund. Through what he is calling the "Cook Plan," he is advocating a tax-free per capita payment of $1,000 per month through vouchers to be used for the necessities of life such as housing, food, and transportation. The vouchers, once redeemed, would be used to capitalize a new national network of community savings banks that would lend at low interest rates to revitalize local and regional economies.

Tässä vielä linkki videolle missä Alex Jones haastattelee samaista herraa - tosin syyskuussa 2008. Aiheena USA:n velkaantuminen ja samalla muutama sana Georgian elokuisesta hyökkäyksestä Etelä-Ossetiaan.

Tässä vuorostaan linkki uudistettuun The Cook Plan aineistoon.

Uusin uutinen - ja ikäävämpi sellainen, on että Richard C. Cook on uhattu murhata. Tästä syystä hänen esiintymisensä New Yorkissa 27.2 2009 on peruttu.

Due to a death threat against monetary reform advocate Richard C. Cook, a Town Hall meeting scheduled to be held on February 27, 2009, as part of President Barack Obama's "Organizing for Change" initiative, has been canceled. Cook had been asked to speak at the meeting and present his program called "Bailout for the People" that he has been advocating as a solution to the economic crisis.

Viimeistään nyt huomaa että "rahapoliitiikan uudistukset" on vaarallinen työkenttä - ainakin jos se saavuttaa ison yleisön.

Syksyn tärkein kirja

Tässä olisi kirja jonka soisi Suomen kansanedustajille jaettavaksi pakolliseksi joululukemiseksi.
Valitettavasti sisältöluettelo ei ole saatavissa.

Silti jokainen joka on katsonut Richard C. Cookin kirjoituksia kautta viime vuosien tietää että tämän kirjan lukeminen ei tuota pettymyksiä.
Social Credit - yhteiskunnallinen luototus on tärkeä teema - samoin economic democracy - taloudellinen demokratia. Tämän vastakohta on nykyinen oligarkia ja usurokratia (laillistettu koronkiskonta). Näistä tulisi päästä irti. Sopiva aika on nyt. Kirja on siis todella ajankohtainen. Ajattelin hankkia laatikollisen.

Kirjan esittely alkaa näin:

We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform
By Richard C. Cook

Is the Monetary System Too Sick to Fix?

No, but it will take work to untangle the mess in which the U.S. and its citizens are immersed. Monetary reformer and futurist Richard C. Cook was a government analyst who retired after 32 years of service. For 21 years, he worked with the U.S. Treasury, analyzing financial programs and teaching courses. He reveals…

• How to reform the broken monetary system.
• Why the public infrastructure must be rebuilt.
• The way to create income security for all people.

In his visionary approach, Richard C. Cook warns that we could be facing chaos in the streets and a total breakdown of society. Worse, U.S. citizens risk the loss of their core liberties—the Bill of Rights. The alternative is sustainable living through genuine monetary reform.

Talouskriisin ja tulevaisuuden ratkaisu (englanniksi)

Olen juuri saanut luettua haastattelun missä Richard C Cook selittää miten talousdemokratia voidaan toteuttaa hallitusti ja oikeudenmukaisesti - ja ilman inflaatiota. Tämä on tavallaan jatkoa The Cook Plan ajatuksille. Julkaisin siitä oman blogipostauksen jokunen viikko sitten. Pettymyksekseni vain yksi lukija kommentoi. No oli miten oli tässä lisää - ehkä tämä tällä kertaa menee paremmin jakeluun. Olen itse ainakin nyt melko varma siitä että "tässä se on" - tässä ratkaisu on esitetty selkeästi, analyyttisesti ja perustellusti - ja mitä parasta ilman ekonomistien ammattislangia.

Tässä se osa haastattelua missä niin sanotusti mennään asiaan. Melko pitkä juttu kieltämättä - mutta sitä tärkeämpi. Ja lupaan että aion suomentaa tämän haastattelun pääkohdat. (kunhan ehdin)

(RC) Richard C. Cook is the author of Challenger Revealed, and the forthcoming, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform. His work is widely disseminated on the Internet.

(GC) Gary Corseri has published novels and poetry collections, had plays produced on Atlanta-PBS and elsewhere, and has performed at the Carter Presidential Library. His work is widely disseminated on the Net.

GC: You don’t have an economics background, but you’re a whistle blower on the economy and the way our economic system works. How do you have credibility in economics?

RC: It just happened that I ended up in NASA … Well, after NASA, it just so happened that I ended up in the Treasury Department—the heart of the beast. I spent 21 years there studying the economic system of the US government—the financial system. I had a lot of time on my hands. I was a pretty good analyst and I could do what they wanted me to do pretty readily. So, I studied in depth. If you look at it going back to colonial days and the history coming out of England—the history of how the governments operated–corporate finance is a big part of Western history. These corporate financial systems really were developed through the Roman Catholic church. Western financial systems came out of the medieval papacy. They were the ones with the money—and they put together a very good system of public finance that has carried down through today.

GC: I’ve got to ask you—where do the Jews come into this? Because many people think it’s all controlled by the Jews.

RC: In medieval days, because the Church prohibited usury, the Jews became the ones who did the dirty work—handling finances for the Pope and the King. Having no religious prohibitions against finance and usury, the Jews became the financial class of Europe. They also became the gold merchants who were the first ones to practice fractional reserve banking. People would place their gold with the gold merchants who would then issue certificates against it, and then they would issue certificates against gold that they didn’t really have—the issuance would exceed the actual reserve.

GC: Fractional reserve is the idea that a bank can lend more than it actually has. Ten times or more. Isn’t it 30 times these days?

RC: It depends on what the reserve requirement is. Today it’s fairly low. … Anyway, that whole system came out of the Middle Ages … When William of Orange came over with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, he brought people with him who set up the Bank of England. The Bank of England has been the model for Central Banks to this day! It was created to loan money to the British government to fight its wars. That’s the model that we have today … it’s the system of our Federal Reserve when it was put in place in 1913. …

At Treasury, we worked very closely with the Fed. The Fed is the fiscal agent for the US Treasury. So, I learned about the Fed and how it worked in the trenches at Treasury. By the time I was getting ready to leave Treasury—around 2002/2003, I began to delve into the monetary reform movement that had existed in the US for a very long time, but which I had just begun to study in some detail. At the Carter White House, I had begun to learn about the British Social Credit Movement which came out of Britain in the 1920s and ‘30s as kind of the first monetary reform movement in the Western world. And all of this fit together in my mind around 2002-3, and I began to post some articles on the Internet under a pen name—though I still worked for Treasury. I also had gotten to know Stephen Zarlenga, the director of the American Monetary Institute, and I advised him on writing his monetary reform legislation—the American Monetary Act that he has in his brief to members of Congress. I also met Dennis Kucinich when he was running for President in 2004, and I gave some briefings to Dennis on US monetary history.

GC: Does Kucinich favor your monetary system?

RC: In fact, in the article I’m writing now, I note that Dennis just came out with a 16-point economic program—and one of the points focuses on the American Monetary Act on which I worked with Zarlenga.

GC: What’s the gist of it?

RC: It’s rather complex … but it starts with nationalizing the Federal Reserve system. Anyway, I never went to grad school in economics, but I learned monetary economics as a practitioner and a student of it in Treasury. I retired in January, 07, and that month I published the Challenger book. Then, I thought, What do I do now? Well, I’d written these Internet articles, I had my briefings for Kucinich, I had another article that I wrote that I posted at Global Research in January, and I thought, well, this is another book!—so I guess I’ll write a monetary book now. It turned out that Global Research, headed by Michel Chossudovsky up in Montreal, really liked my work. So, I had an outlet, and I became one of his chief economics writers. By April, I had digested the Social Credit ideas–based on the “dividend concept” that the way you release money into circulation is through a citizen’s dividend, not through bank-lending, which is the basic idea of the Alaska Permanent Fund. Well, by April, 2007, I had posted an article at Global Research titled, “An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform” because I felt very strongly that we were heading towards a collapse.

GC: And you foresaw this last year?

RC: Yes. … I continued to write these theoretical articles for the next two or three months. Then, in June, based on all of that plus signals I was getting from the Washington Post (which I call the newsletter of the financial elite), I posted an article entitled, “It’s Official: The Crash of the US Economy Has Begun.” That was 07. And, I can tell you, people who began to follow my writing at that time saved themselves a lot of money! I know people who started to get out of the stock market then.

GC: So … why didn’t you let me know?

RC: (Laughs …) Anyway, suddenly, I was now being called the whistle-blower on the US economy! I just had this compulsion to lift up the rocks and see what’s under them.

GC: And you’re looking at the slimy, crawling things. … You remind me again that autodidacts are among my favorite people … because they’re not “institutionalized,” they’re looking at things from the outside, and often are the best truth-tellers. That’s what you were doing at NASA—and now you’re doing it in the economic field. … So, you’ve done the research going back to the Middle Ages and how we’ve evolved this crazy system. You probably go back to colonial times—Hamilton setting his system up, and back to 1913 and the Federal Reserve. You’ve no doubt studied the Great Depression. … So, where are we now? We hear that we’re in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression; others say this could be worse because it’s now global. Where are we in your analysis? And then we’ll get to “The Cook Plan.”

RC: I think we’re at the beginning of a terrible global depression, a terrible collapse. The problem is not just that the economic indicators point to that. The leading indicator in economics is purchasing power; that is, how much money do members of the economy have to purchase the necessities of life, and where do they get that money? Obviously, one way you get purchasing power is through your job—you earn it; another way is through dividends; another is capital gains; another is to borrow it. An increasing amount of purchasing power, not just for our nation, but for people around the world, has been through borrowing. So, if there’s a collapse in lending—it isn’t just that you can’t get a loan and you need to postpone some purchases; for many people, that means that you can’t live. If you’ve been living off your home equity loans, for example, and that’s gone, what’s going to replace it? Right now, we’re seeing not just a failure of the monied powers—because they’re so over-leveraged—we’re seeing a collapse of purchasing power among the people of the world. If that purchasing power can’t be replaced—the purchasing power that has entered the economy through lending over the past 10, 20, 30 years—where’s it going to come from? There’s no other source of purchasing power; so people can’t pay their mortgages or their utility bills, or buy food. If that happens on a global basis … and the credit economy isn’t filling the gap anymore because they realize that the loans they’re putting out aren’t going to be repaid—that’s the big problem. It’s not that the credit isn’t available because banks and governments can create as much credit as they want. Just off of ledgers. They can conjure up as much money to lend as they want to. The problem is paying the loans back. If people don’t have the money to pay the loans back, where’s it going to come from?

GC: And the housing crisis precipitated all of this?

RC: It was the trigger. It was the spark that lit something that was ready to blow up.

GC: Because a lot of these people were dependent on home equity loans, they’re using their houses as their credit cards, and then the value of their houses declines, and the banks don’t want to extend more credit—is that the way these dominoes have fallen?

RC: Well, yeah, but there are other twists and turns. For example, when the dot.com bubble burst in 2001—that was the Clinton bubble—it was created deliberately; that’s why Clinton looked so good because he made it all the way to 2000 on that bubble. His Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, engineered that bubble by pulling in huge amounts of foreign capital. When that bubble crashed and George W. Bush was sitting there looking at a long-term recession/depression at the beginning of his term and he was in the process of the first tax-cut for the rich in March of 01—he’s wondering what to do (the Bush Administration). They’ve given away money to the rich and they’re going to fight some really big wars. So, where’s the money coming from? In walks Alan Greenspan. Now, I’ve documented that once Bush became president, Greenspan’s visits to the White House rapidly accelerated. Greenspan began lowering interest rates and that began to free up capital for mortgage lending. People found they could much more easily get money to buy houses. But, also in 2001, I had a long interview that I conducted with a mortgage broker who told me that at that time the word came down through the mortgage industry to start falsifying applications for mortages; to start lying about the applicants’ income. One of my contacts who was borrowing money to buy a house at that time told me that on the mortgage applicant’s income—they would write in a number that was considerably above her real income.

GC: Where do you think word was coming down from? Ultimately from Greenspan?

RC: And Bush. The Bush administration and Greenspan. There was collusion between the Bush White House and the Federal Reserve.

GC: Did they know exactly what they were doing?

RC: Exactly.

GC: They had to finance their wars, make up for the tax cuts to the wealthy. …

RC: It was the economic engine of 2001 to 2006. You know, when Eliot Spitzer–just before he had to resign–he came out with a report that said when he was the attorney general in New York, he and the other attorneys general of the state decided that he had to crack down on mortgage fraud. They were prevented from doing so by a regulation that was put out at that time by the US Treasury Department. There’s also a report about Washington Mutual—it was on ABC of all places … all of their risk analysts who had prevented WM from getting caught up in these bad loans were suddenly told to stop—stop monitoring. The word was passed down: start lending at a much higher rate than before. Now, there’s no way these actions can be done without the regulators knowing it … without the Federal Reserve knowing. At some point, the whole system became a fraud to produce the economic engine for the Bush administration.

GC: And did they not know that there would be a reckoning at some point?

RC: What really triggered the collapse? Well, we say that at some point the sub-prime mortgages simply became untenable. But, what triggered that? It was triggered by two things: One is that part of the lending that was done was through these adjustable rate mortgage escalators where your rate was good for two or three years and then you suddenly find yourself paying $1,000 more each month. Borrowers were told, don’t worry, the value of the house will keep rising and you can sell your house and make some money. So, the fraud was built in not only by falsifying income, but through these adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) that were time-bombs in the system. Allan Greenspan was behind that; he told people these ARMS were fine. Then, knowing that the ARMS were going to explode, the Fed under Greenspan began to raise interest rates in 2006. He started the bubble and then he blew it up.

GC: To protect the assets of the wealthy?

RC: We don’t quite know yet.

GC: And what about inflation and purchasing power? Doesn’t that kick into this also?

RC: Inflation came through the house values.

GC: And the wealthy hate inflation, right? Because it spoils the value of their assets.

RC: The inflation was in housing assets, and the wealthy were the lenders; so they didn’t care. Because once the plug is pulled and these houses are in foreclosure—and we’re over 4 million now since 2006—it’s the wealthy who come in and buy these houses at the crash prices.

GC: Those who have liquid assets.

RC: Yes … or the banks. The banks now own millions of houses.

GC: You talk about a “gap” … and you don’t mean the clothing store. … What is the gap between prices and purchasing power?

RC: This is the whole theory of Keynsian economics. (I learned a lot more about it on my own than I would have learned in college.) Basically, the problem in modern economics is poverty in the midst of plenty. You would think, with modern industrial methods, you could produce enough for everybody. For decades and longer, people would talk about the “leisure dividend”—everything could be mechanized to produce wealth, people won’t have to work so hard, they’ll have more time off … and it just never happened. Poverty in the midst of plenty has plagued our world ever since the Industrial Revolution really got rolling. Keynes set out to explain the problem. I’ll try to make it simple. … Everything that you produce has a price attached to it. You’re going to charge whatever you need to cover your costs and make a little profit. Profits are not high. In most industries, profits run somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. Part of that is paid in dividends and part is saved. The part that is saved is called “retained earnings.” Retained earnings are a necessity. Because of entropy—or the Law of Diminishing Returns. The idea is that, when you produce something, you’re producing at an efficiency rate that can’t be maintained indefinitely. Because, everything you buy, you’re buying at the best price you can get … but, over time, it gets more expensive because the easy stuff to sell comes first; but, over time, you’re going to incur more costs when you sell it. For example, when you hire people to work for you, you’re going to hire the most capable people and they’ll be the most productive. If you hire more people, they’ll probably need more training or are less capable—so you’ve got a Law of Diminishing Returns—your costs are going to rise. So, in order to cover those cost increases, you need to hold back payment (as retained earnings). That means that the money you pay out—that’s the purchasing power of the community; so the prices that the community is going to pay are always going to be higher than the purchasing power. That’s the gap, that’s the gap that I write about.

GC: And the savings–

C: That’s in the bank. And the bank generally lends for asset purchase, not investment. It’s a storage function, it’s not a capital investment function. In fact, in the last 30 years there’s probably been no growth at all in capital investment in the United States. All of the money that’s gone into the banks has gone into asset appreciation—because they make money on capital gains; that’s the chief source of wealth in our modern banking system—capital gains, which means inflation. At any rate, there’s this gap between prices and purchasing power. Keynes said that the whole system can collapse back to purchasing power, but then you’ll develop another gap and the whole system will keep ratcheting down—and that’s called a depression. During the Great Depression, there wasn’t purchasing power in the system to buy what was produced at the price that had to be charged in order to assure the continuation of the process.

GC: Again, there’s something systemic here … in the entropy. Is there any way around this?

RC: Keynes’ solution was to fill the gap by government debt—by pump-priming. Beginning in the 1930’s, we see Roosevelt running government deficits to fund things like job creation, the civil conservation corps, Works Progress Administration—that type of thing. He also used it to capitalize the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which began to lend at very low rates of interest into the private sector and into state and local governments and into the hands of farmers. Roosevelt essentially took over the credit creation function of government, he took it from the banks. The New Deal was created by government deficit financing. Additionally, he had very high marginal tax rates. The rich paid through the nose during the New Deal. … All of this really took off during World War II. The borrowing there shot up to the highest level we’ve ever had. Even today, we’re not that high, though we may get there in the next year or two! Now, another way you can fill the gap is through a positive trade balance. Because if you’ve got money coming into your system because we’re selling more stuff than we import—that becomes income. So, every nation wants to use trade—and that’s why you’ve got trade rivalries—

GC: Beggar your neighbor.

RC: Exactly. And, of course we saw that before World War I when Britain was fighting a trade war with Germany. After World War II, the US had a tremendous surplus in our balance of trade, which we lost in the 60’s and 70’s. So that was another thing that floated the economy. Still another way to close the gap is through economic growth. Because if you can outgrow your gap or outspend it through the velocity of money you can close it. And, you can close the gap through inflation! If you’ve got $100 in debt and you inflate the currency so it’s only worth $80, then it’s easier to pay off. So, inflation has been a bedrock of government fiscal policy since the 30’s. Why does the government have a cost of living every year for social security and for federal employees? Not to keep up with inflation, but to create inflation. Because its cumulative. Even if inflation is only 3 or 4 percent a year, you’re going to create an exponential curve; so, that’s one reason why—yeah, we may have just given away $750 billion to the banks, but we’re going to inflate the currency so much, we’ll get back $200 billion by the time we’re done … Another thing inflation does—and we saw this with the alternative minimum tax—it drives people into a higher tax bracket. … Now, one other thing about the gap—the gap was known when Keynes was writing, and the Social Credit Movement in Britain knew about it fifteen years earlier. Their solution was to fill the gap through dividends. Because the theory is that the gap is going to exist no matter what you do; but you modify it in some way. That’s what borrowing does in today’s system. You borrow money to modify retained earnings.

GC: Now we’re getting deeper into this. … So, monetizing the gap … I have to admit I’m getting a little fuzzy here … I had a conversation with Stephen Shafarman a month or so ago and he explained some of this, but I wondered: Here’s a government which will not finance universal health care, does not invest in education, and yet, Shafarman and you are proposing that this government will give us $1,000 a month for every adult and $500 a month for every child … where’s the money coming from? I thought money was about having some kind of tangible asset behind it—gold or a house, some kind of collateral. And therefore you could say that more money means more value in the asset. But your proposal is based on something else. You’re saying, print the money and give it to everyone. What am I missing?

RC: We’re not talking about money, we’re talking about credit. Credit is the producing potential of an economy. It’s a way of calling forth production. For example, if I give you—and this is why I’m doing it through vouchers, not cash payments because I don’t want people to take their cash and buy lottery tickets—it’s not productive. But if I give you a voucher, let’s say it’s for $10—let’s say it’s a food stamp. You can take that to the market place, and people will raise food because they’ll get $10 from you. That becomes an incentive for them to produce. What you’re doing when you introduce money into circulation this way, you’re monetizing future production—in response to that, people will do something they didn’t do before. This is the way a huge part of the US economy functioned during the 19^th century. Gold and silver were monetized then at a ratio of 12 to 1, gold to silver. The government didn’t buy gold and silver and turn it into coins. The government ran a mint. In that mint, people who owned gold or silver—they brought it into the mint, and the mint would then take your gold and they’d stamp it into coins. And the mint would give it back to you—it was a free service. Now, you had a bag of gold bullion and now you have a hundred dollars in gold coins. You then go and spend that into the economy; and because you have gold now and you’re spending it, that incentivizes production; a whole system of production builds up because now there’s something of value that can be earned. This was why, for example, the California Gold Rush became such a spur to production in the US. … This was why the new cyanide process of extracting gold ore around 1900 was such a tremendous economic boon for the world—because it called forth production. It’s the same reason why the mining of gold and silver by the Spanish in the Americas in the 1500s brought into existence the modern productive economy. Because they were bringing gold and silver back. The government didn’t create that. It was brought back as a monetary commodity, and now suddenly people began to produce and produce and produce. The dividend is exactly the same principle. …

GC: Something you said turned a light on in my head. This phrase: “monetizing future production”. … These vouchers represent the future, they are a stake in the future! I’m going to give you this voucher and you’re going to spend it and this is going to call forth future production. So, how come we’re not already doing that?

RC: Because the banks control the system. The banks would rather loan you the money and extract interest from you than give you a voucher. For example, if you go down to U Street here in D.C., and you see the urban blight; if you began to hand out vouchers to the people who live there that place would be transformed—probably in a few months. It would be based on small business, you would have food products coming in, you would have a lot of new things being done. … This actually happened during the 70s when the community services administration was introducing grants into the inner cities to vitalize the local economy. But, as the 70s progressed, and all of those social programs were killed—that’s when the center cities fell back into the poverty that we see today. And when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in the early 70s to a tremendously high level and killed off our producing economy, they did the same to the inner cities by withdrawing a source of credit that had begun to fuel commerce in those areas and had begun to transform our urban landscape.

GC: So, the banks have been making money on the system as it exists. But, now, the banks are in trouble. They’ve come to the taxpayers for a bailout … to perpetuate the whole system.

RC: The banking system is a parasite that is killing the host.

GC: And, this goes back to the Middle Ages. … You’re talking revolution, aren’t you?

RC: Yeah.

GC: And you’re talking real socialism. And maybe you can get into this a little bit because I think Americans are extremely confused about what socialism is. So, we hear this banter on right wing talk radio about how we’re becoming a socialist country because our government is involved in helping the banks, and taking over A.I.G. and so forth. But I say that’s more about National Socialism—which is what Hitler was all about. Or about Corporatism which is what Mussolini called his system—and it’s really Fascism, but you never hear the right using that term. What you’re talking about, I call it socialism with a small “s.” It’s real socialism that helps people where they live; helps them with the essentials and leads to survival and a thriving community.

RC: These right wingers should read Article One of the Constitution. Article One says that Congress shall regulate interstate commerce. It also says that Congress shall coin money and establish the value thereof. That Congress has not just the right, but the duty to regulate the economy, to regulate the monetary system. To what end? Well, then you go back to the Preamble of the Constitution—

GC: “To insure domestic tranquility”—

RC: “and promote the general welfare.” The people who wrote the Constitution knew that to promote the general welfare, Congress—the elected representatives—had to have the right to regulate interstate commerce and to coin money and establish its value. That’s what we’ve thrown away! For the sake of this right-wing, market nonsense that has totally failed and that has produced a catastrophe.

GC: And it works by creating bubbles, bursting bubbles, creating another bubble. …

RC: The banks really began to take over the economy in a big way in the 70s. That was the transition decade.

GC: When we went off the gold standard?

RC: That opened the door to unlimited inflation of money through the petro-dollar, and allowed the dollar to become the world reserve currency. But, also, interest rates began to climb, began to burst, in the 70s. By the end of the Volker recession interest rates were over 20 percent, which destroyed the US producing economy—and that was deliberate. From then on, every period of economic growth in this country has been a bubble!

GC: What you’re calling the “producing economy,” I’ve heard called the “real economy,” as opposed to the financialized economy.

RC: The guy who’s really defined this best is Dr. Michael Hudson. The producing economy is where people like you and I go to work every day and make stuff. The financial economy is money that’s leant into circulation or that is manipulated for profit without any productive value being created. Hudson calls it the FIRE economy—finance, insurance and real estate. The FIRE economy has killed the producing economy.

GC: As we start our last tape, I want to thank you for this tutorial! There’s a lot more we can talk about, but I’m hearing “time’s wing’d chariot” at my ear, so as we move towards the fire exits, let me ask you, since you’re talking revolution, What are you going to do when they come after you?

RC: (Laughs …) I really don’t think about that. I just do what I feel I’m supposed to do.

GC: It’s your moral commitment. …

RC: Yeah.

GC: You did mention that you studied comparative religions at William and Mary, so this is an important part of who you are. And, along those lines, you’ve also thought about what kind of future communities we might be living in in the US in twenty years. …Tell me about your vision of the future.

RC: Well, you can look at it in one of two ways, I think. One is economics that’s based upon the trickle down philosophy that we got starting with the Reagan years, which was that the rich will invest and produce, and the wealth that comes through that will somehow pass down into the hands of working people through jobs. And that whole idea of a top-down economy is not new; this was essentially what medieval feudalism was all about when the rich lived in their manors and had moats around their castles. (Of course, we see that today with our gated communities!) And the poor just fended for themselves. I think we’re going in that direction now. I think our culture is increasingly aristocratic, increasingly about passing wealth to the rich. We’ve seen this before in history, and we’re seeing it now. …And no better means of doing that has ever been invented than bank finance, where, through the magic of compound interest, I don’t work anymore but my money works for me; all the wealth of the community is sucked upward through that vortex up to the hands of the people at the top.

The other way is approaching it from the bottom up. It’s giving people who work for a living the ability not only to survive but to flourish. And to do that, there must be a way of providing access to people in the community for wealth creation—for savings, for investment. Why should we do that? Basically, I believe in the concept that all men are created equal, we’re all equal in the eyes of God, and that every human being has a right to live on this earth and to take part in the life that is possible to us through the opportunity to manifest our potential. I’m a democrat with a small “d,” and I think that those periods of history where that has been possible have been the times when America has truly been a great nation.

GC: When were those times?

RC: One was after 1800, when, through the Louisiana Purchase, the whole West was opened up and people were free to go out and establish a farm or a business. We opened ourselves up to immigration to people from all around the world and I think a tremendous force was unleashed for opportunity, for achievement and for genius that we haven’t had since then.

GC: That’s a long time back!

RC: I think the New Deal was that. My family were New Dealers. My parents got their education through New Deal programs. I got mine through the National Defense Education Act; programs were available so that students from the working or middle class could become part of our social life, part of our economy. And, those days are ending. Increasingly, the only students who can go to college are those who have money or can mortgage their futures with these tremendous student loans—and even those loans are disappearing with the credit crisis. I believe that the true genius of the human race can be unlocked from the bottom—from ordinary people being given the opportunity to fulfill their God-given destiny. I think that, essentially, for me, this is what the teaching of Jesus was about. The best economics is the one based on the principle of doing unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. You don’t rob from your neighbor, you give to your neighbor. And I believe our present economic system is robbing from our neighbor. Taking what belongs from them, and essentially enslaving your neighbor into working not for him and his posterity and his family, but for you—because you’re the one who is living off the fat of the land through your compound interest, your financial lending system and all that comes with it.

GC: I agree with you, but let me play devil’s advocate. What I hear, more and more, is that we can’t afford this; because we have to compete with China, India. How can we possibly compete? They have so many more people; they can work so much cheaper. So, how does your system make sense in this emerging world market?

RC: We don’t have to compete with anybody. The reason that China and India appear so competitive is that they’re so poor to begin with. They’re able to throw millions of laborers into making our Christmas tree ornaments! For them to grow from abject poverty to where a portion of them are approaching middle class status looks like great economic growth. And because they’re willing to work so cheaply they can under-price us—if we’re dependent upon a competitive market place in order to earn the money that we need to keep our economy afloat because we’re so in debt to ourselves or our banking system that we can’t produce at that same level of efficiency. Now, a dividend-based economy … well, take farming for example: right now our family farm is dead; a family farm can’t afford to compete in the market place. But, if we were able to monetize our farming economy through dividends where you had the vouchers I’ve been talking about and you could take them down to the farmers’ market, if you could feed money into the system from that source—that would allow people who can’t afford to farm today to begin farming again. …

So, the only reason you have these competitive relations between nations is because you have a global economy based upon top-down bank-financing which ultimately is usury and ultimately sucks the cream off the top of the productive system for the benefit and profit of the bankers, the bond-holders, the interest holders—and it impoverishes everyone else. Essentially you’ve got a bunch of starving people in China competing against a bunch of starving people in India competing against a bunch of people who soon are going to be starving in America to get that slight edge in order to allow a top-down, debt-based monetary system to live off the fat of the land. Once you get rid of that system and introduce currency at the grass-roots level, you create a whole new economic paradigm that will change everything.

And, you’re right.It’s a political revolution … because the only reason we don’t do that today is because of the increasing power in the hands of the financiers and the politicians they own.

GC: So how are we going to overturn this system? What’s it going to take? A Russian revolution? 20 million dead?

RC: Actually, the Russian revolution was a bankers’ revolution. Lenin and Trotsky were financed by Rothschild and Rockefeller and the big New York banks. Actually, the Romanovs did not have a central bank, the way there was a Federal Reserve or a Bank of England. The Russian economy was being financed by indigenous land banks out in the Russian countryside that would lend based on land mortgages at very little rates of interest. That was creating what was becoming one of the strongest economies in the world. And the Bolsheviks essentially made an agreement with the bankers in the West: if you finance us, we’ll put a central bank in Russia that you will own—and that’s exactly what happened. And Russia afterwards became dependent on Western banking and commerce. In fact, one of the biggest supporters of the growth of Russian industry under Stalin was the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers were granted leases in the Baku oilfields around the Caspian—

GC: Oh man!

RC: Yeah, it’s all very. … So, the kind of revolution I’m talking about is a monetary revolution that would place purchasing power directly in the hands of the people for them to spend as they wish at the local level. Then, once you begin to produce in that way, you do create a certain level of savings, and that savings can then capitalize true capital markets where people pool their resources and savings. We don’t have true capital markets anymore—that kind of pooling of resources by average people where they can make investments. What we have instead is speculators buying stocks on margin or buying whole companies through equity purchases on margin where 90-95%–or more–of capital used in the system is bank leveraging; it’s speculative money that has polluted and poisoned the capital markets.

GC: I understand what you’re saying about a peaceful monetary revolution. But … they’re not going to turn it over to you and to me.

RC: The people have to demand it!

GC: They’ll shoot us in the streets!

RC: I don’t have an answer for this. I can see in the last two years a big change in the number of people who have begun to see things in this way and to identify the banking and financial systems as the root of the problem. I think Ron Paul had a lot to do with it. He’s introduced legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve system. And, the Libertarians, as misguided as some of their solutions are—like, for example, the idea of returning to the gold standard, which is just a red herring—at least they have the idea that the people are capable of running their own affairs without government oversight or interference. That’s one reason I like the Alaska Permanent Fund so much. During the 70s when they were setting this up, the state government wanted to take these royalties from the oil companies and then distribute them to the people through social programs, etc. And there was an outcry among the people: Just give us the money and we’ll decide how to spend it! There was no reason to go through the government bureaucracies and then disburse the money to the people through means testing, etc. The Alaskans had a referendum, and now every year a cash payment is made to every resident there. This last year the payment was $3,269 per resident. Now, if you’re in a household with 4 people, you’re making $13,000 cash, a substantial amount of money that Alaskans have given to them to do whatever they want! There’s no reason why we can’t do that—or even more—for every resident of the United States. And that’s what we should be demanding. People shouldn’t be going up to Congress for more social programs. … When Bush gave out the $600 rebate during the second quarter of 2008, that’s one of the few right things he ever did. That’s what prevented the economy from going into recession during the second quarter. Even that piddling amount. We’ve got substantial movement in this country through the Basic Income Guarantee movement, through Shafarman’s movement, we’ve got the same thing in Europe; we have countries in Latin America which are moving in this direction. There is awareness that can be built on. But at some point the current has to tip in favor of the people over the banks. Who will run the economy of the world—the people who work and hope and sweat and have aspirations, or is it the banks that suck the life out of every economy they’ve ever been associated with? At a certain point people just have to say they’ve had enough. One way or another that’s happening. A lot of people are defaulting on their credit card debts, for example. My daughter was paying over 28% on her cards. She can’t pay it anymore. She doesn’t have the money. They’re gonna kill the economy; they’re gonna kill people who can’t continue to work to support the financial controllers. Something has to change. And if they drive the country into a collapse—and they will—then at some point, people who have the ability to say no are going to have to do it. Through whatever means is available.

GC: You think it’s imminent, or will they manage to pull themselves out again?

RC: I can’t see the system being rescued. Because it’s spread globally. The credit system has collapsed because people cannot pay their loans any more. I mean, if we have a winter where the grocery stores can’t put food on their shelves, people will be starving in this country. There’s already 35 million who are “nutritionally deprived”—the term they use nowadays. Food stamps applications are growing tremendously. Surplus food has declined. Something’s gotta give. This could become tragically serious in one to two years. Unless something is done to revitalize the local, producing economies.

GC: I think we’re especially vulnerable in the winter months.

RC: We could see real starvation coming in the next one to two years. The current level of population in the US exists because of our industrial economy. If that economy collapses, so will our population.

GC: Which has more than doubled in our lifetime.

RC: Yeah. The people who run our government understand the dangers, but they don’t know how to fix it because they’ve been taken over by this cancer which is the financial system.

GC: Maybe they understand, but they’re so vested in it, they’re like the people at NASA—they don’t want to stop it.

RC: I think that’s fair.

GC: Well, on that grim note, I guess we can wrap this up. Now, to go even deeper into this, the good folks ought to read your forthcoming book. The title was?

RC: WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS: THE HOPE OF MONETARY REFORM.

GC: And the press?

RC: Tendril Press.

GC: Thank you very much, Rick. You’ve given us a lot to ponder—and to act on!

Richard C. Cook is the author of Challenger Revealed, and the forthcoming, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform. His work is widely disseminated on the Internet.

Talouskriisi: vaihtoehtoisia ratkaisuja ?

Uutiset toitottaa meille samaa sanomaa koko ajan: pankkeja pitää pelastaa, pankeille pitää sysätä lisää pääomaa, pankkeja pitää "pääomittaa" talletustakuut nostaa jne. Ekonomistit - tarkoittaen valtavirtasellaiset - neuvovat jokainen vuorollaan meitä hyväksymään yhä suurempia "pelastuspaketteja" ja saarnaavat "roskapankkiratkaisun" puolesta.

Näin satoja miljardeja uutta fiat-lainarahaa vyöryy pankeille tässä, sanoisiko epätoivoisessa hätäpääomittamisessa. Yhdysvaltain 700+ miljardin dollarin ohella myös Iso-Britannia, Saksa , Ruotsi ja moni muu maa tekee samat ratkaisut.

Media kertoo kyllä hajaäänistä siellä täällä (lähinnä USA:ssa) - mutta se välittää meille hyvin mustavalkoisen kuvan: joko ollaan 100% pankkien pelastamisen takana tai sitten ollaan 100% tätä vastaan. (esim. Marcy Kaptur, Brad Sherman)
Jos ollaan tätä vastaan niin se käytännössä tarkoittaa että halutaan "markkinavoimien" ratkaisevan tilanteen.(esim Ron Paul) Tämä taas vuorostaan sitä että pankkien annettaisiin mennä konkurssiin - kuten oikeaoppisessa markkinataloudessa pitää käydä. Seuraukset myönnetään vaikeiksi kansalaisille kummassakin tilanteessa. Kansalaiset menettävät paljon ostovoimaa ja velkaantuvat kummassakin tilanteessa.

Tosin ekonomistien ajamat pelastuspaketit sosialisoivat menetykset kaikkien viattomienkin kansalaisten kannettaviksi, kun taas pankkikonkurssit lähinnä veisi sijoitukset niiltä joilla on ollut ylimääräistä rahaa investoida pankkiosakkeisiin tai muuten vaan halua riskeerata varansa. Talletustakuut suojaavat tavallisen rivikansalaisten mahdollisten säästöt.

Minusta olisi ilman muuta oikeudenmukaisempaa että ne joilla on ollut ylimääräistä investoida osakkkeisiin tuomitaan nämä ylimääräiset menetettäviksi pankkien konkurssissa. Ovathan nämä osakkeenomistajat tienanneet valtavia omaisuuksia viime aikoina. Luonnollisesti juuri nämä tahot joilla on osakkeita toisaalta ovat ne joilla on taloudellista valtaa ja sananvaltaa
vaikuttaa ja lobbata sen puolesta että tappiot sosialisoitaisiin kaikkien kannettaviksi. Oli miten oli silti ihmettelen sitä että ongelman ratkaisuun olisi vain nämä kaksi vaihtoehtoa.

Mutta eikö siis todellakaan ole olemassa mitään muita ratkaisumalleja kuin roskapankkit ja talletustakuun nostaminen? Eikö todellakaan ole vaihtoehtoisia ja jopa parempia toimintamalleja? Onko tällaisia muita ratkaisumalleja edes pohdittu? Uutisten mukaan ei ole.

Tämä on kuitenkin väärää tietoa. Toisenlaisiakin mahdollisia ratkaisuja on mietitty erilaisissa asiantuntijapiireissä. Toisenlaisia ratkaisuja on olemassa. Jostain syystä media vaan ei välitä meille tietoa näistä. Liittyisiköhän se siihen että median omistajilla on oma lehmä ojassa? liityisiköhän se siihen että median omistajilla lie laajalti pankkiosakkeita? Syöttääkö media meille siis tavallaan pankkituki-propagandaa? Uskoisi että "public service-tyyppinen" media kuten BBC tai YLE olisi riippumaton finanssioligarkiasta ja että näiden taloustoimittajat osaisivat tuoda julki muuta kuin finanssioligarkian ratkaisumallit. Taloustoimittajat näyttävät kuitenkin olevan liian suoraviivaisia ajattelultaan - eivätkä osaa katsoa tilannetta luovasti. Korjatkaa toki jos olen väärässä.

Pankkeja voi siis vain pelastaa ja rahoittaa suunnalta: ylhältä alas.

Eräs vaihtoehtoisen talousmallin asiantuntija nimeltä Richard C Cook ehdottaa vastakkaista mallia - alhaalta ylös. Alhaalta ylös tarkoittaa rahaa ruohonjuuritasolle - rahaa tavallisille rivikansalaisille - sinulle ja minulle.

Eikä Cook ei ole ainoa joka tuo julki tällaista ratkaisumallia vaan:

• Samaa ehdotti jo Clifford Hugh Douglas 1920-luvulla.
• Samaa ehdottaa koko laaja "social credit-liike" jonka rippeita löytyy edelleen erilaisissa puolueissa niin Kanadasta, Uudesta Selannista, Etelä-Afrikasta kuin Australiastakin.
• Samaa ja vähän muuta ehdottaa British Money Reform Party.
• Samaa ehdottaa American Monetary Institute ja sen johtaja Steven Zarlenga
• Sama ehdotus ja paljon muita hyviä ideoita löytyy American Monetary Act-nimisessä lakiehdotuksessa.

Tässä Richard C Cook´in laatima tuore ratkaisumalli joka on poimittu hänen blogiltaan Dandelion Salad (voikukkasalaatti):

An entirely new paradigm is needed. This can be provided through dividend-based economics like the Alaska Permanent Fund, the 2008 tax rebate stimulus, and the basic income guarantee (negative income tax) discussed during the 1960s and 1970s.

Following is the “Cook Plan”:

1. Non-taxable vouchers should be issued at the rate of $1,000 per month per adult and $500 per month per child which may be used for food, housing, fuel, communications media, utilities, and educational services provided at outlets within the U.S. Distribution of vouchers may be delegated to state and local governments.
2. Vouchers will be deposited by service providers and vendors only in a new network of local chartered savings banks—one for each county in the U.S. Deposits will be made to the bank in the county of the local point-of-sale.
3. Banks will lend locally at zero-percent interest using voucher deposits as capitalization. The banks may create loans at a 1:10 reserve ratio with borrowers paying administrative fees only. Borrowers must provide a 20% down payment as collateral or purchase default insurance at 2% of the loan principal.
4. Lending will be made only to business entities, including family or commercial farms, operating from an established location within the county.

This system will create a grassroots “bottom-up” economic infrastructure to parallel the “top-down” Federal Reserve System which is collapsing. Transfers between local savings banks and the banks of the Federal Reserve System will be denominated in U.S. dollars with vouchers redeemed within the banking system.

The system could be implemented within a matter of weeks through seed-money provided by the federal government. It could be replicated by any other nation.

It is requested that readers give this plan the widest possible distribution.

Copyright 2008 by Richard C. Cook

Menen tähän Cookin ehdotukseen tarkemmin jossain seuraavassa blogipostuksessa, mutta totean että hänen ehdotuksensa on radikaalilla tavalla erilainen. Ilmeisesti niin erilainen ja poikkeuksellinen ettei se miellyttäisi nykyistä finanssioligarkiaa.

Sub-prime pelleily olikin "pure old Bushonomics "

Pakko vielä tästä kirjoittaa koska itselleni tämän myötä valkeni yhtä ja toista. Toivottavasti sinullekin. Tässä ensin lyhyt ote Richard C Cook´in uusimmasta jutusta joka on otsikoitu: Grand Larceny on a Monumental Scale

What has not been reported is that the Bush administration turned these acts of reckless lending into a national program of mortgage fraud. Soon after George W. Bush became president in 2001, meetings at the White House between Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and administration officials became more frequent. According to mortgage industry insiders I have interviewed, direction soon began to come down from the banks to mortgage brokers to falsify borrower income information to allow them to qualify for loans that were otherwise out of reach.

Eli talousoppiin" Bushonomics" sisältyi jo vuonna 2001 suunnitelma huijata viranomaisia ja tuputtaa slummien köyhille "oman omistusasunnon luksusta". Ihmisten tulot ilmoitettiin asuntojobbareiden toimesta liian suurina jottei kukaan haistaisi palaneen käryä lainajärjestelyissä. Tässä Bush itse äänessä vuonna 2002:



Tähän sotkuun liittyy vielä viime talven Eliot Spitzer-juttu. Spitzerhän joutui eroamaan New Yorkin osavaltion kuvernöörin paikalta kun paljastui että hänellä oli avioliiton ulkopuollella jotain seksiyhteyksiä.

Cook toteaa Spitzerin kirjoittaneen: In a February 14 article in the Washington Post written before he resigned, New York governor Eliot Spitzer wrote:

"In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

Eli suomeksi ja lyhyesti Bush-hallinnon valtiovarainministeriö esti kaikin keinoin osavaltioiden yrityksiä vaikuttaa oman lainsäädäntönsä avulla uhkaavaan asuntolainapommiin. Jopa osavaltioiden kuluttajansuojalakien avulla yritettiin vahvistaa asuntolainaajien asema suhteessa jättipankkeihin. Mutta onnistumatta siinä. Bush-hallinto esti kaiken. (ja järjesti Spitzserille ansan ja paljasti Spitzserin lehdistölle sopivaan aikaan)

Loput jutusta on melko surullista joten jätän kääntämättä. Tässä herkkupalat englanniksi:

Why did the Bush administration do this? The only possible answer is that it had every intention of producing the housing bubble, one that had the effect of not only inflating the cost of homes and real estate but also pumping billions of dollars of borrowed cash into the economy through mortgage and home equity loans.

What is happening is that the Bush administration is engineering a massive raid on the Federal treasury to pay off the people within the financial industry who have been operating the housing scam because the politicians told them to do it. This is hush money.

What happens next?

Well, it is already happening. In the post-bubble era there will be no more economic engines for the American economy. A long term recession and depression are inevitable, and they are expected by those in the know. In fact, there has been a plan in the works for a very long time to bring down the U.S. economy, and it will be happening over the coming months.

This is why the government is also preparing to implement martial law, or something close to it, in case public unrest breaks out. We will likely also see a clampdown on free speech, the right to protest, and use of the internet. Federal facilities are being prepared all around the country to backstop state prisons and local jails that are already bursting at the seams.

This is the plan, so people need to begin to take whatever measures they can to cut their cost of living, get out of debt, and protect themselves and their families.

Poimintoja Richard C Cookin uusimmasta artikkelista

Richard C Cook: Global Finance Capitalism is “Functionally Bankrupt": Could An American Nationalist Party Make a Difference?

Tässä varsin pitkä artikkeli mistä olen poiminut mielenkiintoisia kohtia. Yritän pikaisesti kääntää osan näistä suomeksi. En pyri täydellisyyteen tässä koska minunkin elämässä pitää olla muutakin kuin tekstin kääntämistä suomen kielelle. Vaikeat sanat ovat minullekin vaikeita.

Uuden poliittisen liikkeen tulisi olla sopivan kansallismielinen ja uudistaa kansakuntaa korvaamalla kansainvälisen finanssieliitin valta puolueella joka ajaa kansalaisten taloudellista hyvinvointia.

Any political party that seeks to make a difference must have a strong nationalistic orientation and be dedicated to reforming the nation by replacing the power of the global financial elite with a party based on the welfare of the people as expressed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Tällainen liike voi joko ottaa ohjakset jo olemassa olevalta puolueelta tai muodostaa uusi puolue missä yhdistyy ruohonjuuritaso toiveet ja tarpeet sekä eräänlainen uuden yhteiskunnallisen johtoportaan tuki. Tällaisen puolueen olisi mahdollista toteuttaa todellisia uudistuksia. Näistä voisi luetella esimerkiksi seuraavia:

This movement could either be one that takes over the existing Democratic Party or a new party that combines the appeal of the Third Parties with a new element of elite support. The platform of such an American Nationalist Party could represent real “change” and should include such features as the following:

Kansallistetaan konkursissa oleva rahajärjestelmä, finanssijärjestelmä sekä pankkijärjestelmä. Myös energiateollisuus tulee kansallistaa yhteisen edun nimissä. Valtionvelasta pääseminen vaatii että valtio tulee asettaa konkurssiin tai samantapaiseen järjestelyyn Kansalaisille tulisi myös välittömästi ryhtyä jakamaan perustuloa - kansallisosinkoa.

Perustulo vaatii toimiakseen 10.000 euron vuotuista tasoa aikuista kohden. Jokaisesta lapsesta ehdotetaan n 3500 euron lisäystä. Nämä toimenpiteet voidaan katsoa muodostavan eräänlaisen taloudellisen vallankumouksen. On luonnollista että moni pitäisi y.m. toimenpiteitä sosialismina ja asettuisi näitä vastaan pelkästään jo siksi. Tosiasiassa kuitenkin mikä tahansa teollinen talous vaatii toimiakseen että vastuu jaetaan julkisen ja yksityisen sektorin välillä. Tämä jako on tehtävä jotta paikallinen talous selviäisi.

Nationalize the bankrupt U.S. monetary, financial, and banking system. Nationalize the energy industry, including oil. Place the U.S. national debt under bankruptcy reorganization. Institute an immediate annual citizens’ dividend, similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund, of $12,000 per legal adult resident and $4,000 per child. These four elements alone would constitute a Second American Revolution. Of course some would call this a socialist agenda and oppose it solely on those grounds. But the fact is that any modern industrial economy must be a mixture of public and private sector activity. And it must be done if the U.S. economy is to be saved.

Se rajoittamaton finanssikapitalismi mikä meillä tänään on ei lainkaan ole mitään vapaata markkinataloutta. Se on talous missä rikkaat omistavat hallinnon, yksityistävät luonnonvaroja ja sähkönjakelua joka kuuluisi olla kaikkien yhteisomistuksessa. Samat tahot ostavata rahallaan haluamansa poliittisen johdon ja järjestävät niin että tavalliset ihmiset mit' kasvavissa määrin ovat velkaantuneita ja köyhiä.

What we have today with unbridled finance capitalism is not a free economy at all. It is one where the rich own the government, privatize resources and utilities that should be part of the societal commons, pay with bribes and campaign contributions to get the political leadership they want, and put ordinary people increasingly into debt and poverty.

Kansallisen edun nimissä rahakannan hallinnon ja muun luototuksen hoitaisi maan hallinto itse infrastruktuurin rahoittamisella sekä kansallisosingolla (perustulolla). Energiateollisuus tulisi kansallistaa koska kaikenlainen julkinen ja yksityinen toiminta on riippuvainen energiasta toimiakseen.

Under a program with a nationalistic agenda, the money supply would be issued by the government through payments for services, infrastructure financing, and a citizens’ dividend. The energy industry should be nationalized, because every public and private activity depends on energy for its functioning.

Tämä puolueohjelma pyrkisi korjaamaan tämän päivän suurinta talousongelmaa. Se vuorostaan on laajalle levinnyt ostovoiman puute joka teollisuusyhteiskunnassa kansallistulo ei riitä peittämään tuotannon hintoja. [ CH Douglasin teoreema jolla kansalaispalkka perusteltiin jo 1920-luvulla. Tässä on useita eri kohtia joissa voidaan osoittaa että toimiva talous vaatii tuekseen kansalaispalkkajärjestelmän jotta velkaantumista ei pääse syntymään]

This agenda would address the number one economic problem that faces the the U.S. today. This is the wholesale collapse of consumer purchasing power due to the fact that in an industrial economy earned income is always insufficient to match the prices of production. The main reason is that prices must include enough savings—retained earnings—for technological innovation to counter the rate at which resources are used up. A secondary problem is the export of millions of well-paying manufacturing jobs overseas and the destruction of labor unions as a political force.

Social Credit-liike tunnisti näitä hintojen ja ostovoiman välisisiä epäkohtia. Suomeksi social credit voidaan kääntää yhteiskunnalliseksi luototukseksi. Erotus hintojen ja ostovoiman välillä täytetään korottomalla yhteiskunnallisella luototuksella eikä kuten nyt - korollisilla pankkilainoilla. Koko velkapyramidi joka nyt tuhoaa talouksia ympäri maailmaa johtuu nimenomaan tästä rakenteellisesta valtaisasta pankkilainuksesta. [95-98% rahoista läntisissä talouksissa on tällaista pankkilainaa]

This conundrum of an endemic gap between prices and purchasing power was identified decades ago by the British Social Credit movement which understood that the gap could be filled by monetizing savings through a citizens’ dividend. Instead this gap is filled by bank lending, which is the underlying cause of the gigantic debt pyramid that is destroying the U.S. economy.

On olemassa yksi poliittinen puolue joka on onnistunut osoittamaan tätä ongelmaa ja se ei ole kotimainen puolue vaan Uus-Seelannissa olevan Democratic Party for Social Credit of New Zealand. (ktso www.democrats.org.nz/)

The one political party which today has identified this problem and has a platform to meet it is not a U.S. party. It is the Democratic Party for Social Credit of New Zealand. (See www.democrats.org.nz.)

Puolueen perustana on toteamus: "modernin pankkitoiminnan kehitys on johtanut siihen että valtiot ovat menettäneet vallan luoda suurimman osan omista rahoistaan. Nykyinen lmaailmanlaajuinen äntinen talousjärjestelmä perustuu velkaan.

The party platform states: “Development of modern banking has resulted in nations losing the power to issue most of their own money. The present economic system, worldwide, is based on debt” Among its platform provisions are:

Tämän puolueen ohjelmassa on mm: yhteiskunnallisen luototuksen talousjärjestelmä mikä perustuu kansalaisosinkoon ja kuluttujahintatukiaisiin; perustulo riippumatta siitä onko töissä tai ei; apurahoitusta ja korottomia lainoja julkisille hankkeille; vahva julkinen terveydenhuoltojärjestelmä; oikeudenmukaiset säännöstöt ja kohtuullinen yritysverotus; oikeudenmukainen verotusjärjestelmä joka perustuu rahansiirtoihin; julkisrahoitteinen koulutus ilman opintolainoja; julkisomisteiset kansalliset luonnonvarat; kansallinen asunto-ohjelma.

Näitä malleja voisi soveltaa mille tahansa kansakunnalle toteaa Richard C Cook. Yhdysvaltoja varten hän vielä suosittelee julkisrahoitteiset vaalit kaikilla tasoilla.

A social credit economy based on a citizens’ dividend and consumer price subsidies; A guaranteed basic income regardless of employment status; Grants and interest-free loans for public works and community projects; A strong public health system; Fair regulations and reduced compliance costs for business; A fair tax system based on a financial transactions tax; Publicly-funded education with no student loans; Full public ownership of strategic assets; and A national program of public housing. If the U.S. adopted these policies, along with national single-payer health insurance and public financing of all federal, state, and local elections, an entirely new type of economic and monetary system would come into existence.