TPP, TTIP, TiSA Target World’s Public Banking Potential.

by Jerry Alatalo

“Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank robbing it than at any other time in my life.”

– WILLIE SUTTON, JR. (1901-1980) Bank robber

 WILLIE SUTTON Bank Robber (photo: pics8imagezone.org)
WILLIE SUTTON
Bank Robber
(photo: pics8imagezone.org)

Alphabet Bank robber Willie Sutton Jr. is inaccurately remembered as saying in response to the question why he robbed banks: “Because that’s where the money is”. Even though he never said those words one can assume he thought them, however it seems his main motive was the thrill and “action” that he became addicted to. Mr. Sutton’s reasons stand in sharp contrast to Goldman-Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein who infamously told a Congressional committee: “I’m doing God’s work”. Then again, perhaps Mr. Sutton and Mr. Blankfein’s motives are similar when it comes to their respective associations with banks.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and now newly-revealed Trade in Service Agreement (TiSA) are the largest trade deals in history, but an acquaintance in America – after asking him his opinion on TPP – responded he had never heard of it. Could the biggest reason the super-secret trade deals (many Americans have no awareness of them – corporate media has not reported on them) became conceptualized and drafted in secret over a period of years have been to shut down existing, and prevent multi-nation establishment of, public banks?

Provisions/legalese in the TiSA published by Wikileaks – which has sadly and ironically become the prime source of TPP/TTIP/TiSA information for elected representatives and citizens around the world – point to a major push at privatization of all public services in signatory nations, so one can logically assert this includes public banks. Because public banking makes obvious sense, and, because public banks would take many billions of dollars out of Wall Street “too-big-to-fail or jail” megabank accounts, it becomes difficult to discount public banking as possibly the main impetus for the trade deals.

A few months ago this writer, after around eight redials, got through on “Brunch With Bernie” – a long-running weekly (Fridays) call-in show on Free Speech TV – hosted by Thom Hartmann and featuring now presidential candidate Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  The topics posed for Mr. Sanders’ consideration and opinion were (1) the decades-old, global, trillion-dollar per year tax haven/evasion industry, and (2) nationalization of the Federal Reserve. Both issues have become the subject of extensive reporting on alternative/internet media for years, however the mainstream/corporate media rarely, if ever, covers them. Both topics are common knowledge to men and women who go on the internet for their news of world events.

Senator Sanders responded to question/topic (1), global tax evasion, but did not say one word in response to topic (2): nationalization of the Federal Reserve. Without being able to read another person’s mind, it is impossible to tell whether Mr. Sanders non-response was intentional or not; he may have become so excited about speaking to an issue he’s concerned about – global tax evasion – that question (2) fell away from his consciousness. Nationalization of the Federal Reserve, if it were ever to come about, would be a world-changing event, of which certainly United States politicians share an awareness. But talking about the subject seems clearly something that is – for Washington elected representatives – “taboo”.

It’s possible that Mr. Sanders non-response on nationalizing the Federal Reserve is intimately related to his desire to remain in the status of alive. In the 1830’s the 7th U.S. President Andrew Jackson reportedly survived an assassination attempt after waging a massive, lengthy fight with Wall Street bankers for control of the nation’s money supply. Jackson won the battle, and America’s money became created by a national public central bank instead of powerful private banking interests. Andrew Jackson said the following in his 1837 Farewell Address:

“The mischief springs from the power the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining… and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations.”

The only state-owned public bank in America is the Bank of North Dakota, established in 1919 in response to Wall Street bankers’ buying up large numbers of foreclosed midwest farms. Many American states are now seriously considering the North Dakota model. In the following talk by former Goldman-Sachs executive in charge of derivatives trading Nomi Prins, she notes that “Wall Street’s main fear (of public banking) is losing control” and that “…even tiny chinking away at their power , it really annoys them, so they see control and power lost”.

At this point, the connection between public banking’s beneficial superiority for governments of all sizes – from city to county to state and national – and TPP/TTIP/TiSA provisions that effectively block increased presence of public banks comes more clearly into view. Many will remember signs held by men and women during the Occupy movement reading “End the Fed”. TPP/TTIP/TiSA could be compared to the Monsanto toxic product Roundup/glyphosate used for killing all plant life but for the Roundup-ready crops, making it unnecessary to devote huge labor costs on weed removal. The three massive trade deals destroy the growth of public banks (weeds) before they grow stronger, spread and become thus more difficult to manage, while leaving the status-quo, Wall Street banks (Roundup-ready crops) the only remaining financial “life-form” in the trade zones (farms).

Suggesting that absolute destruction of public banking’s real, beneficial potential is the top-tier concern of those who own the world’s largest megabanks and central banks is not meant to discount  other segments of public services targeted for privatization: Postal services, electricity generation, telephone, internet infrastructures etc., water/wastewater facilities/plants, waste disposal, schools and colleges, healthcare and health facilities, public employee pension funds, and so on. The assertion here is that public banking ranks as a “tier-one” concern for the forces behind creation of TPP/TTIP/TiSA, while the remaining public services and institutions – albeit very important ones – are for the creators of these trade deals “tier-two” concerns.

Public banks, of all current public/government services, would more negatively, directly affect the élite .01% who’ve been on the receiving end of world record wealth inequality by decreasing their power and control. In their perspective public banking – if not stopped, but instead “snowballs” from local, state, regional, then nationalization of the Federal Reserve and private central banks globally – means the possible loss of every government/public account from their mega-bank corporations to public-owned financial institutions.

In a very real sense, the creators of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and Trade in Service Agreement are attempting to prevent a positive, inequality-diminishing global condition equal to “the meek inheriting the Earth”.

In the following videos former Wall Street insider executive and author of “All the President’s Bankers” Nomi Prins talks about public banking, while Co-director of PopularResistance.org/attorney Kevin Zeese gives an excellent description of TPP/TTIP/TiSA. Ms. Prins’ talk is from January 2015 at a public banking conference in Colorado, while Mr. Zeese’ interview is from a few days ago.

Their combined message provides a valuable, clear perspective on major global events occurring in 2015.

****

(Thank you to argusfest at YouTube)

—-

(Thank you to TheRealNews at YouTube)

Advertisements

Canada Public Bank Reformer: Private Bank Execs Asked Me ‘Where Are You Going With This?’

by Jerry Alatalo

FedOn the topic of public banking, found an excellent talk posted by the Canadian group COMER (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) on their new YouTube channel. COMER members initiated the legal challenge to the Bank of Canada which has a chance to prevail and transform Canada’s monetary system.

Visit www.comer.org for a wealth of articles on monetary reform, and more information on what could become a world-changing event in international finance.

During a conference organized by COMER in January 2015, one of the speakers was a City of Toronto council member and public bank advocate Ms. Kristyn Wong-Tam. Her experience began when her and other members of the Toronto City Council participated in a survey answering the question “What can be done about Toronto’s financial crisis?” Ms. Wong-Tam describes how – after she suggested a public bank for Toronto – she became engaged in a discussion with one of a local newspaper’s reporters and eventually wrote a 1,200-word essay, which was then published.

The article raised a few eyebrows according to Ms. Wong-Tam, and illustrated both lack of citizens’ awareness of the benefits of public banking along with the need for education. She described first meetings with finance managers for the City of Toronto to talk about establishing a public bank, and their – coming from either non-awareness of the concept or stubborn unwillingness to change – telling her “we don’t need a public bank… we can already borrow at competitive rates… but is this even legal?”

She told the audience that people need to begin strongly advocating for public banking by spreading the word, commenting on national on-line websites, and explaining the good financial management aspects to friends and relatives in their areas. In her estimate, the ongoing COMER challenge in the courts to the Bank of Canada and establishing public banks across the country are part of a very important issue – possibly the most important issue – for Canadians.

Interestingly, Ms. Wong-Tam shared with the audience that after publication of her op-ed article she began making a good number of contacts with people requesting to talk with her – including investment bankers operating off-shore, professors of law and economics, among others who told her, “you’re on the right track… keep going”. In sharp contrast, she talks about private bank executives from some of the largest financial institutions trying to find out “where are you going with this?” and “how far are you going?” Giving evidence of how much resistance from the private banking sector will come forth for serious public bank advocates, she describes the answers she gave while acting “uninformed” about the finance concept: “Oh, I don’t know. I’m just asking a question. I really don’t know the answer, maybe you can help me out”.

She then gives encouragement to members of COMER for their legal case against the Bank of Canada and advocates for public banking in the room by reinforcing her experience, telling the audience: “you’re on the right track”.

Finally, Ms. Wong-Tam shares her experience related to Canada’s postal service and an 800-page study on ways to sustain the national organization by diversification of revenue, in particular establishing postal banking. She said she experienced astonishment to find 701 pages of the 800-page completed report had become redacted, leading her to ask “what are you hiding?” She suggested redaction of 88% of the government report was close to or actually an act of treason, similar to poisoning a public water supply.

She again stressed in closing remarks her belief that educating the public on public finance reform is an important task, and that citizens of Canada must become “involved in this crucial issue”.

****

(Thank you to Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) at YouTube)

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad On Surviving The Next Global Financial Crisis.

365-1

Comment:

Dr. Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia for 22 years, shares his important, profound insights on becoming informed how Malaysia during his leadership became the target of financial speculators/abusers – and the need for governments to tightly regulate systemic risk financial transactions like those that brought down the global economy in 2008.

A university trained practicing medical doctor before entering politics, then attaining the highest office in his native country, Dr. Mohamad shares his intriguing experience where medical training gave him the tools to protect Malaysia’s people and economy from international financial, economy-destroying predators. The lessons he presents are important ones for peoples and nations around the Earth.

Putting  a description to Mahathir Mohamad’s address in another, more astonishing way, what he says about the world’s financial system has never become shared with the American people by any elected representative on the floor of the United States Congress nor by any President of the United States.

**********

Cross-posted on March 25, 2015 from www.perdana.org.my

PERDANA LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION

CEO FORUM 2014 – 24th SEPTEMBER 2014
CLOSING KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY TUN DR. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD
FOURTH PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA and HONORARY PRESIDENT,
PERDANA LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION

*******
I know a little about crisis management before I became a Prime Minister. This is because as a doctor, we come across many crises. Because of our work, people come with very critical conditions. This is when they are in crisis and the duty of a doctor is to handle this critical condition, in other words, to handle this crisis.

A doctor has an advantage in crisis management. This is because our medical course consists of instructions which we should use to handle a medical crisis that comes before us. We have been told that the way to manage a crisis is to be systematic. When a doctor is faced with a crisis, he spends a little bit of time to find out what is actually the crisis. Without knowing what a crisis is all about, you would not know how to handle it. In this matter, he needs to accept the truth and not deny the reality.

The first thing to do is, he needs to understand what the patient is suffering from and to do this, it begins with the history of the sickness. The history holds a lot of information on the sickness. He has to ask the
patient how the problem started, what are his feelings, whether he has a temperature, running nose, diarrhea and such to find out what the problem is about.

This is the preliminary stage of handling a crisis. He has to go through the process of getting the history and once you obtain the history, you cannot deny the facts. You do not kid yourself and say that maybe the illness is not that severe and the patient is in no danger of dying.

In handling a crisis, you must face the facts and get the correct data. Once you have all the data on the crisis, you are well on the way to diagnosing what is ailing the patient, the economy or the country. Get as much data as possible and categorize them if you can.

The next stage is for the doctor to examine the patient. Examination means putting your hands on the body of the patient, listening to his heart and his lungs to determine his illness. Following that, we do a lab test, which involves sending samples to the lab to be analyzed, to grow the bacteria, etc. With the information we have, we come nearer to a diagnosis. Of course, nowadays, we have X-Rays, CAT Scans and all kinds of new appliances which give you more information on what the patient is suffering from. Putting all these information together and maybe consulting with others, we can arrive at a conclusive diagnosis and from then on, the next question is the medication to prescribe.

There will be choices of treatment – a surgical procedure, oral medication or intravenous drugs. This was what I was taught in medical school. When I became a Prime Minister, I found this systematic procedure of gathering information very useful in order to deal with a crisis which is not tangible, and of course, a classic one is the 1997/98 Asian Financial Crisis.

I am neither a finance man nor a banker, so of course, I needed to read up a lot in order to understand the briefings given by the officers concerned. You can be briefed on a lot of things but if you do not understand the subject, it is not going to be very useful. So I read up on banking and finance and I began to understand a little bit about finance. I do not have investments. I do not have a single cent in the stock market nor do I dabble with investments in any company. I therefore had to learn a lot about these things to understand what was happening to the country.

Sure enough, I got the history and the background of the crisis that the country was facing. I gathered as much data as possible about the situation. I had numerous briefings. With this, I can be considered to have thoroughly examined what was happening to the finances and the economy of the country, why we were going through the recession, what were the wrong things we had done or maybe what were the wrong things that other people had done. I was able to reach some conclusions and refined the conclusion further on how the crisis could be managed. You can see that the procedure is akin to a doctor diagnosing a patient.

If you ask me about leadership in crisis management, I cannot advise you to become a doctor because it would be too late. I would advise you to learn the methods of the doctors. They go through a set of procedures which leads to their ability to recognize and diagnose problems, and subsequently prescribe the treatment. The treatment, of course, is another problem to solve.

In the crisis of 1997/98, I had great difficulty in understanding the situation because I knew very little about finance and banking. I was shocked to find out that banking involves lending money that you do not have, and that once the money is lent out, it becomes the banks’ assets. You have nothing, you lend nothing and it becomes your assets. If anyone wants to do business, banking is the best business.

Well, all banks operate this way; I am not blaming them. I think there is a need to create money, because if we depend only on the money issued by the government, it would not be enough. Therefore the banks themselves, in a way, create money.

Of course, when banks lend you money, it is frequently money they do not possess. While they do have some money, such as the capital invested in the bank, deposits in the bank and other assets, the amount of money the bank lends often exceeds the amount of money the bank has. So they need to create money. This is a very powerful instrument. How much money can you create? I read a book that says banks can lend up to 10 times the amount of deposits with the bank. Which means somebody lends you RM1million, you can lend out RM10million. That is good business. But then the banks ask, ‘Why not 11 times, or 20 times?’ So they created a new term called leveraging.

Leveraging is lending money that you do not have. That is the advantage of the banks: they can practically lend an unlimited amount of money. The hedge funds and currency traders then take advantage of the ability to borrow almost unlimited amounts of money from the banks. This is what I learnt. I believe this was the way things were.

Because how can the traders have so much Ringgit (Malaysia’s currency) to sell which previously they did not seem to have? I subsequently discovered that they actually did not have the money. What they did was to borrow Ringgit from the banks to buy or sell. The banks can lend a lot of money to them because the banks can create money. So the hedge funds and currency traders had at their call almost any amount of money.

The idea is this: someone deposits RM1 million with you and you can then lend out RM10 million, RM20 million or RM30 million (30 times more). If you have RM1 million and you want to invest RM1 million directly, your capital is only RM1 million. But if you invest through hedge funds or with currency traders at the banks, the RM1 million becomes RM30 million. Obviously, if you invest RM30 million, you will get 30 times more profits and dividends than you would if you had invested RM1 million. That is why people want to invest through hedge funds and at times, the currency traders, too. They were able to have a lot of money with which to play and when you have a lot of money to play with, the game changes in your favour.

When you buy specific shares repeatedly, the value goes up and when you sell the shares repeatedly, the value goes down. Obviously, you can keep on buying shares to push the price up, and then, when the shares are highly valued, dump the stocks and make a lot of money. When you dump the shares, somebody else will have to carry the burden of shares which have depreciated. The hedge funds stood to gain a lot and the spoils were divided between the funds and their investors. That was how it worked.

The traders had no money. They were creating money to buy or sell the Ringgit. They did not have a cent. Money comes in many forms. It comes as a cheque. When you borrow RM10milllion from a bank, they do not give it to you in cash because you will have difficulty taking the cash out from the bank. They only enter the figure that they lend to you and you can withdraw from your account whenever you like. There is no cash involved. And when you pay the bank, the bank merely writes down a credit that you have paid such an amount. Actual cash is not necessary. You just write cheques. Today we have credit cards and all kinds of new money which is not created or printed by the Government. Money today takes many forms and allows itself to be manipulated.

Currency traders raise money this way. They depress our currency by selling it. When it is at a low enough value, they start buying. The currency will then appreciate and they make money out of the appreciation. It is a very simple system of impoverishing other countries. I learnt about this and I got very annoyed and angry. I thought it was unfair for traders like George Soros to do this to a country that was just coming up. When they devalued our currency by 50 percent, we became poorer. If we had RM1 million, the million became worth only RM500,000 in terms of purchasing power. They were impoverishing us in a way that was grossly unfair.

I needed to understand the mechanism completely. So I read a lot. When we are faced with a sick person and you want to restore him to good health, how do you do it? We have to administer medicine and sometimes chop off a limb or other nasty things, but you have to do it to manage the crisis.

So, how did we manage the crisis? The traders were selling and buying the Ringgit. Obviously if they could not sell or buy our Ringgit, they could not play around with it. How did we stop them? Fortunately our Central Bank is very powerful. It could direct the banks operating in Malaysia that no transaction in our currency would be approved if the money deposited or withdrawn was not for a legal purpose. If the transaction was to suppress the value of the Ringgit, the transfer between the buyer and the seller would not be allowed. Once we stopped that, we could stop them from playing around with our currency.

You have to know what is ailing the economy. By understanding this, we could prescribe the medicine to reverse the situation. If the traders were selling, we stopped them from selling. If they were buying, we stopped them from buying. Once we did that, the disease was practically cured.

The European financial crisis could not be resolved after eight years because the governments in Europe have rejected history; they rejected the information that they received and they remain in a state of denial. When it was pointed out to them that the financial market is being manipulated to the advantage of the manipulators who make tonnes of money, they were not prepared to declare this is wrong or illegal. Some people make a lot of money through manipulation and perhaps this is maintained so that some people can continue to make a lot of money. The financial market does not have many spin-offs or small supporting industries. You do not need even one supporting party for a RM10 million transaction in the financial market if it is just a speculative transaction. You do not need transport, nor insurance, nor workers, nor machines to carry the money. It is done by electronic transfer.

The result is that the financial market does not support the economy and does not create jobs. This is unlike manufacturing or providing service in hotels which need a lot of workers. When you do real business, many people will benefit from it. Financial businesses do not benefit anyone other than the speculator who may make or lose a lot money. It is just a small group of people (in America they are concentrated on Wall Street) that is making tonnes of money. A financial business does not create any jobs and help anyone other than its owners and investors. If you refuse to accept this fact, you would not be able to solve a financial crisis.

If you have a RM10 million manufacturing business, you need to employ a lot of people and create spin-off supporting industries. If you do not have any spin-off industries, you do not create any jobs. But in the financial market, a RM10 million transaction does not create jobs nor does it have supporting industries; it would not help the economy improve. You have to accept that the financial market does not help the economy. You may have a lot of money but only you benefit and other people do not benefit. If the people do not benefit, there will be unhappiness everywhere.

There is book entitled, ‘The Disparity of Income in the United States’ by Paul Krugman which says that 1% owns the economy and 99% do not benefit from the economy. This economy is created by the financial industry. There is a great deal of wealth disparity in the US today and it is causing a lot of social problems.

If you admit that the financial market does not result in job creation for the economy, then you have to admit that the financial market is wrong. The solution is to go back to real business. What is real business? You can borrow money because you have an idea to manufacture something which you think people want to buy. Maybe you take profits of say 5% or 10% at the most. But that is good business because your industry creates jobs and supporting industries. People will have money to buy products and when people have money to buy, your products can be sold and the money turns around in the society and enriches everyone.

That is real business. Real business is a business of producing things and providing services that people need or want so that you make money and in the process, a lot of other people will benefit especially the workers. But in a financial transaction, there are no jobs created and there is no spin-off industry. We must recognise this and to turn around the economy, we need to reduce or stop such activities and regulate the financial industry.

When they were devaluing the Ringgit, we thought it was wrong. They should not play around with our Ringgit and make us poor. We were told that this was freedom, that it was the right thing to do because it made profits. When the same calamity strikes their own country, they readily admit that the financial market contributes much less to the economy than the real business of producing goods and services. When it comes to leadership and crisis management, the first is to examine what caused the crisis. There must be a cause as crises do not happen by themselves.

In the case of the 1997/98 crisis, some people were manipulating money. When you abuse any system, you are going to get bad results. The banking system is good because it creates the capital that you need to make the economy grow. However, if it is abused by allowing banks to create unlimited amounts of money then it leads to a lot of problems faced by the world. We see that happen during this (2008/2009) financial crisis. Banks are very secretive. They do not want to reveal what they are doing and how much money they are making.

During the crisis in England, banks paid bonuses when they were still making losses. Even if they caused the losses, the top executives still got their bonuses. This is not right. Governments must be prepared to step in. You need to abolish this practice. The pressure comes from the very rich who has more influence on the Government than the ordinary man in the street. You need strong leadership to stand up to the pressures coming from these very rich people in order to legislate or limit the abuses. It is not to limit the function of the banks but to limit the abuses of the banking system. By all means create capital and money because we need the money but do not ever go beyond the limit.

If you are a strong leader, you can say that to the banks and the banks will eventually have to agree. You can inform the people that it is the banks that are causing all the problems. The number of bankers is far less than the number of voters in any country and if you pay attention to voters’ needs, you will get more support from the voters than if you play to the tune of the bankers.

For a leader to manage a crisis, he needs to be strong, forceful, willful and determined. He needs to take action even if it is unpopular with certain groups. Leaders who do not want to take action will never be able to handle a crisis.

To take action, the leader need to understand the way a crisis is to be handled. The way to understand is to go through the procedures a doctor goes through in order to reach a diagnosis and eventually provide the medicine. Leaders today cannot be good at politics only but need to also be good in finance and economics, otherwise, the leadership would not be effective. Good leadership can only come from people who are knowledgeable. You cannot have a good leader who is dumb or who is just good at being popular but cannot handle a crisis.

If I had the privilege of being a dictator (and I was accused of being one), it would be easy to solve a crisis. I would just line the men up against the wall and shoot them. Of course I could not do that. I had to find other ways of solving the crisis and this required me to be educated on the subject matter, to understand the ailment and handle it systematically. We have to be educated – not just the leaders but people at large – because otherwise, people may select leaders based on his hairdo or face and then discover that the leader is not able to handle crises.

Today’s world is very complicated. We not only have to manage our own country but also our relationships with our neighbours and even people who are far away. Previously it was very simple: Malaysia was like an island. Today, everybody is looking at Malaysia. Even detaining people under the ISA is regarded as bad. We only detain people, we don’t kill them. Today people are passing judgment on absentee criminals and sending drones to kill the criminal. This is worse than our record of just detaining people. At least the detainees are still alive. For a leader to deal with a crisis, whether financial, economic or political, the process is similar to how a doctor treats his patients. Know what the crisis is about, gather data, have a proper assessment of strengths and weaknesses, use your strengths to counter your weaknesses and you have solved the crisis.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Question 1 (Peter)
I have been in Malaysia since 1997 and I know exactly what happened at that time. I had watched you for a long time and admired you for your ability to stay focused and for sticking to your guns. You have always done things your way. Whenever I hear the song ‘My Way’ by Frank Sinatra, I always think of you, Tun Mahathir.

The question is ‘How do you, in the face of adversity, make the ultimate decision?’ All your decisions are highly visible. When you get it right or wrong everybody sees it. There were also many experts around. How did you arrive at your decisions? Was it all analysis or were there intuition and gut-feel involved?

Answer:
A person who leads must accept that he has no monopoly on wisdom. He needs people around him to inform him of the real situation and he must check on the information given because sometimes the information is not necessarily good for the leader but good for the informant. You must find out if the information is true or an attempt to seek endorsement. Listen to a lot of people and read a lot. Maybe there is some intuition involved, but mostly it is because of the careful weighing of facts in a situation.

In a short period of 20 years, I had to handle many crises. For some of them, I failed. I was trained as a doctor. When I was in Alor Star, I handled an ectopic pregnancy in which the mother and the baby died. The husband thanked me anyway. I had to make a choice and I decided to operate. It turned out to be a bad decision. You cannot always make good decisions. Some decisions are good, some are bad. I learnt from my own bad decision and also the bad decisions made by other people. A Japanese asked if Malaysia still has the ‘Look East’ policy. I said “Yes, we still do because we want to learn from the wrong decisions you made!”

I got through 22 years and I did not get kicked out, but I kicked myself out. (smiles)

Question 2 (Dr Ghazali (Islamic Development Bank))
Since the crises of 1997/98 and 2008, many people do not seem to acknowledge that the rules of the game have changed. People want a new sense of domination or control be it political, economic, technical or even cultural domination. How much do our leaders want to understand that either they are contributing to human civilisation or they are destroying human civilization? For 22 years you tried very hard to tell the world that ‘Prosper thy neighbour’ is a fundamental value, that humanity is premier to our own longevity. Today’s crisis is, in a way, due to competitiveness but it destroys humanity in the long run.

My question is, do we want to survive, be secure or succeed?

Answer:
On the slogan ‘Prosper thy neighbour’, well, normally it is ‘Beggar thy neighbor’ but we discovered that if you make your neighbours rich, you become richer. It is better to prosper our neighbours than to make them poor. When our neighbours become rich, we become richer. As a trading nation, when you make people prosperous, they can buy more from you. Therefore, when you prosper your neighbours, you become more prosperous. When your neighbor is having some trouble, that trouble can spill over to you. That is why we adopted this slogan of ‘Prosper thy neighbor’ and we had benefitted much from the implementation of this philosophy.

There are people who think about domination and control because they are not able to manage the problems they face in their own country. If a country is a great producer of weapons, one of the ways to get
prosperous is to sell weapons. But if you sell weapons that people are not using, then they would not renew their orders. You are coming up with new versions of weapons that are more efficacious and you want people to use the weapon so that they will need to replenish. If you instigate wars between them and they use the weapons, then the weapon industry will grow.

Just imagine a peaceful world with no war, that would be dull. There would be no need for weapons. Weapons inventors and manufacturers will have no jobs. So, they need to stimulate crises and wars so that they can prosper by selling weapons. We wish for wars to end so that we do not waste money buying weapons. Despite the financial crisis, the world is still spending trillions of dollars buying weapons. It is a waste of money to buy weapons that we do not use; weapons do not give returns. In our case, we want to see our world at peace and prosperous.

At one time China was isolated because it was regarded as an aggressive country. They became very poor. Once they realised they needed to be at peace with their neighbours, they derived a lot of benefit from the peace. Look at China today. It has become prosperous because the Chinese do not need to produce things that kill people but instead produce things for people to enjoy at cheap prices.

Malaysia does not need to control anything outside our country. We only need to control things in our own country because if we don’t, some of us will go to Syria to join ISIS.

Peace brings much more dividends than war. War does not bring any profit or dividend.

During the last war, victors became poor and losers became rich. Look at Germany and Japan, they became very rich. I think it may be better to lose a war than to win a war.

Question : Rizal (MTEM)
This morning we were told very convincingly by a panel of experts that a crisis will happen as soon as two to five years from now. Do you think that the current leadership is equipped to survive the next crisis? If not, what is your recommendation?

Answer:
This is what I would call a loaded question! I do not want to comment on this. Otherwise, people will say, “This guy thinks he is the only one who knows how to deal with a crisis!”

Managing a country now needs more skills and knowledge than in the past. In the past, you only had to deal with politics, but now you need to deal with finances, economy and many other things. Unless you can handle all these things properly, you are going to mess up. I think we have a good chance that the present leadership in five years’ time will tell the whole world that we are not going your way.

THE END

**********

Elizabeth Warren Denies Janet Yellen Obfuscation.

by Jerry Alatalo

Alphabet C-SPAN televised part of the U.S. Senate committee meeting with Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen today. The topic of a possible Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of the Fed came up, and Chair Yellen produced an audit recently conducted on the Fed’s books by Deloitte & Touche, one of the “Big Four” accounting firms. It is worth noting that the “Big Four” accounting firms have for decades been heavily involved in the global tax haven/evasion industry.

Ms. Yellen held the Deloitte audit binder up more than once when the topic of a GAO audit came up, and her response was that an audit by the GAO would not be good because it would “politicize” the Fed’s operations and prevent Fed actions to meet its mandates of increasing employment and controlling inflation. She used the example of Fed Chair Paul Volcker in the 1970’s, and how he would have been somehow unable to take the steps he did to fight 20% inflation if such a GAO audit occurred during that time.

One has to wonder how a GAO audit would get “in the way” of any Federal Reserve operations whatsoever, or “politicize” the central bank with negative consequences. Ms. Yellen’s opening statement to the committee was typical of former Fed chairs Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and the rest going back to 1913 when the Federal Reserve system began with passage of the Federal Reserve Act signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. Trillions of dollars in quantitative easing is part of the “accommodative” mode chosen by Fed top management after the economic crash of 2007-8. The Fed chair assures senators she still focuses on its mandate from the government: increased employment and 2% inflation targets.

Those two mandates were referenced time and again in Ms. Yellen’s opening remarks and in answers to questions posed by senators on the committee. The discussion back and forth between her and senators seemed like people asking softball questions and receiving softball answers. No senator asked if the Federal Reserve should become nationalized as a government (people) owned public utility, and if that wasn’t more beneficial for the nation’s economy and its citizens. No senator asked Ms. Yellen “who actually owns the Federal Reserve?”, or “who are its major shareholders?”

Watching Fed chairs address lawmakers has become an experience in continuing disappointment upon seeing elected leaders basically kneeling before the “financial wizards” running the monetary affairs of the United States. One wonders if those elected leaders are aware that the founders of the country fought the British solely to escape from financial tyranny, and that the founders fought to control monetary creation power on behalf of the people – against the King of England.

A significant number of states, counties and cities are looking seriously into establishing public banks to keep money inside their regions and locales instead of giving it in large quantities to Wall Street banks in the form of high interest payments, fees, and questionable, often-complex, losing investments. As states come to entertain the idea of public banking, it is worth remembering that nations can also establish a public bank. The late British political leader Tony Benn was integral in establishing public banking in that nation; the banks were operational and successful until Margaret Thatcher came to power and abolished them. A number of countries around the world operate large public banks.

So, the idea of public banking never received any attention during today’s senate meeting with Ms. Yellen. This is understandable when one considers the enormous amount of campaign contributions going to politicians from the financial industry and Wall Street too-big-to-fail/prosecute banks. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts pressed Ms. Yellen on the issue of leaks which allow people to profit greatly on market transactions, and the Fed’s opinion of Dodd-Frank provisions. What is refreshing about Ms. Warren’s interaction and questioning of Ms. Yellen is her disciplined intent to not allow the Fed chair to go off on evasive, distractive tangents of obfuscation.

In the over hundred years since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, unfortunately the American people have become the financial victims of people who believe that furtherance of their own interests and maintaining immeasurable power and control over the nation’s monetary system relies to a large extent on the concept: “baffle them with bullshit”. Thankfully, leaders like Elizabeth Warren fight for the people against those who use all the tricks in the legal, accounting, public relations and finance books to maintain enormous power and privilege.

It is worth noting that C-SPAN cut to the floor of the Senate approximately thirty seconds into Senator Warren’s time for questioning of Janet Yellen. Was it just a coincidence?

Perhaps.

****

(Thank you to Lord Rothschild ( 🙂 ) at YouTube)