Khúc Nhạc Tán Tỉnh của Tập Đoàn Tráo Đổi Tiền Bạc : Một Mưu Toan Mới Hình Thành
Mỉa mai vì tiến sĩ Paul Craig Roberts, một lý thuyết gia kinh tế hàng đầu của Mỹ- được coi như là cha đẻ của chính sách kinh tế TRỌNG CUNG (SUPPLY SIDE ECOMOMICS) từng giữ chức phụ tá bộ tài nguyên kinh tế, bỉnh bút của báo giới phố Wall - đã liên tục vạch trần vai trò của cơ phận đầu não kinh tế tài chính của hệ thống chính trị xã hội Mỹ- cơ phận mà ông từng giữ vai trò quan trọng trong đó gần một đời.
Lần này Paul Craig Roberts không chỉ phân tích chính sách kinh tế tài chính với kiến thức và kinh nghiệm của Ông. Ông PCR đã nêu đích danh những tên "tráo đổi tiền bạc" lừa đảo và ăn cắp chính là những quan chức hàng đầu, nào những Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Rubin, Paulson, toàn các bộ trưởng, các tổng giám đốc ngân hàng công cũng như tư (Goldman Sachs), các chuyên gia thuộc cùng một nhóm thay nhau dàn xếp nắm quyền điều khiển kinh tế chính trị cho quyền lợi tập đoàn của chúng, với những tàn phá suy sụp mà quần chúng đa số phải lãnh nhận.
Ông PCR vạch rõ sự cấu kết chặt chẽ giữa bọn tập đoàn tài chính phố Wall, các tổ chức "nghiên cứu" như CFR (Council for Foriegn Relaions), và đám chính trị gia quốc hội, chính phủ đã toa rập với nhau chặt chẽ. Chúng xếp đặt cho nhau vào những chức vụ then chốt- dùng tiền mua bán áp lực các nhân vật quốc hội- viết ra những chính sách chỉ có lợi cho tập đoàn của chúng mà thôi.
Nếu ĐỘC GIẢ LÀ NGƯỜI HAM HIỂU BIẾT có trách nhiệm với tri thức bản thân, hẳn đã đọc và còn nhớ bài nghiên cứu của Michael Snyder "Ai Điều Quản Thế Giới..." (Who Runs The World? Solid Proof That A Core Group Of Wealthy Elitists Is Pulling The Strings - By Michael Snyder, on January 29th, 2013), trong đó bằng chứng cụ thế đã minh chứng rõ rằng:
Bọn Chúng thật sự khống chế cả hai đảng, đặt ra đường hướng chính trị, biến các lãnh tụ đảng thành công cụ, sử dụng đám lãnh đạo các tổ chức tư, và tận dụng mọi thủ đoạn sắp đặt đưa người vào tranh cử các chức vụ công quyền cao cấp – chỉ có các ứng viên như thế mới có thể dễ dàng làm theo những chỉ thị của bọn đại bản bất lương. ( They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.)Và hiện nay, một mưu toan mới vừa hình thành và chúng đang tiến hành: tạo khủng hoảng, gây lo sọ co cụm trong quần chúng và tiến hành chiến tranh- và nhồi nhét hàng ngàn tỉ vào hầu bao riêng tư.
"Nhưng với Summer (và bọn quan chức) thảm cảnh của quần chúng tiêu thụ không phải là vấn đề phải lo. Vấn đề phải giải quyết là làm sao có lợi nhuận cho bọn ngân hàng. Summer có giải pháp, bọn quyền lực hiện hành kể cả kinh tế gia Paul Krugman cũng vỗ tay tán thưởng. Khi nền kinh tế lại chính thức tụt dốc nữa, phải coi chừng!" (But for Summers the plight of the consumer is not the problem. The problem is the profits of the banks. Summers has the solution, and the establishment, including Paul Krugman, is applauding it. Once the economy officially turns down again, watch out.)Sống Chết mặc bay, tiền thày bỏ túi! Dân Chủ Gián Tiếp hay dân chủ xã hội là thế đấy!
nkptc tóm lược
» The Money Changers Serenade: A New Plot Hatches — Paul Craig Roberts
By: pcr3 November 29, 2013 Categories: Articles & Columns Tags: timothy geithner warburg paul craig roberts, 
Print This Article
Print This ArticlePaul Craig Roberts
Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a protege of Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Summers, has received his reward for continuing the Rubin-Summers-Paulson policy of supporting the “banks too big to fail” at the expense of the economy and American people. For his service to the handful of gigantic banks, whose existence attests to the fact that the Anti-Trust Act is a dead-letter law, Geithner has been appointed president and managing director of the private equity firm, Warburg Pincus and is on his way to his fortune.
A Warburg in-law financed Woodrow Wilson’s presidential campaign. Part of the reward was Wilson’s appointment of Paul Warburg to the first Federal Reserve Board. The symbiotic relationship between presidents and bankers has continued ever since. The same small clique continues to wield financial power.
Geithner’s career is illustrative. In the 1980s, Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates. In the mid to late 1990s, Geithner served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary. Under Rubin and Summers he moved up to undersecretary of the Treasury.
From the Treasury he went to the Council on Foreign Relations and from there to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). From there he was appointed president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he worked to make banks more profitable by allowing higher ratios of debt to capital, thus contributing to the financial crisis.
Geithner arranged the sale of the failed Wall Street firm of Bear Stearns, helped with the taxpayer bailout of AIG, and rejected saving Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy in order to create the crisis atmosphere needed to more fully subordinate US economic policy to the needs of the few large banks.
Rubin, a 26-year veteran of Goldman Sachs, was rewarded by Citibank for his service to the banks while Treasury Secretary with a $50 million compensation package in 2008 and $126,000,000 between 1999 and 2009.
When a person becomes a Treasury official it is made clear that the choice is between serving the banks and becoming rich or trying to serve the public and becoming poor. Few make the latter choice.
As MIchael Hudson has informed us, the goal of the financial sector has always been to convert all income, from corporate profits to government tax revenues, to the service of debt. From the bankers standpoint, the more debt the richer the bankers. Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Geithner, and now banker Treasury Secretary Jack Lew faithfully serve this goal.
The Federal Reserve describes its policy of Quantitative Easing — the creation of new money with which the Fed purchases Treasury debt and mortgage backed securities — as a low interest rate policy in order to stimulate employment and economic growth. Economists and the financial media have parroted this cover story.
In contrast, I have exposed QE as a scheme for pumping profits into the banks and boosting their balance sheets. The real purpose of QE is to drive up the prices of the debt-related derivatives on the banks’ books, thus keeping the banks with solvent balance sheets.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal (“Confessions of a Quantitative Easer,” November 11, 2013), Andrew Huszar confirms my explanation to be the correct one. Huszar is the Federal Reserve official who implemented the policy of QE. He resigned when he realized that the real purposes of QE was to drive up the prices of the banks’ holdings of debt instruments, to provide the banks with trillions of dollars at zero cost with which to lend and speculate, and to provide the banks with “fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed’s QE transactions.” (See: www.paulcraigroberts.org )
This vast con game remains unrecognized by Congress and the public. At the IMF Research Conference on November 8, 2013, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers presented a plan to expand the con game.
Summers says that it is not enough merely to give the banks interest free money. More should be done for the banks. Instead of being paid interest on their bank deposits, people should be penalized for keeping their money in banks instead of spending it.
To sell this new rip-off scheme, Summers has conjured up an explanation based on the crude and discredited Keynesianism of the 1940s that explained the Great Depression as a problem caused by too much savings. Instead of spending their money, people hoarded it, thus causing aggregate demand and employment to fall.
Summers says that today the problem of too much saving has reappeared. The centerpiece of his argument is “the natural interest rate,” defined as the interest rate at which full employment is established by the equality of saving with investment. If people save more than investors invest, the saved money will not find its way back into the economy, and output and employment will fall.
Summers notes that despite a zero real rate of interest, there is still substantial unemployment. In other words, not even a zero rate of interest can reduce saving to the level of investment, thus frustrating a full employment recovery. Summers concludes that the natural rate of interest has become negative and is stuck below zero.
How to fix this? The way to fix it, Summers says, is to charge people for saving money. To avoid the charges, people would spend the money, thus reducing savings to the level of investment and restoring full employment.
Summers acknowledges that the problem with his solution is that people would take their money out of banks and hoard it in cash holdings. In other words, the cash form of money provides consumers with a freedom to save that holds down consumption and prevents full employment.
Summers has a fix for this: eliminate the freedom by imposing a cashless society where the only money is electronic. As electronic money cannot be hoarded except in bank deposits, penalties can be imposed that force unproductive savings into consumption.
Summers’ scheme, of course, is a harebrained one. With governments running huge deficits, who would purchase bonds at negative interest rates? How would pension and retirement funds operate? Would they also be subject to an annual percentage confiscation?
We know that the response of consumers to the long term decline in real median family income, to the loss of jobs from labor arbitrage across national borders (jobs offshoring), to rising homelessness, to cuts in the social safety net, to the transformation of their full time jobs to part time jobs (employers’ response to Obamacare), has been to reduce their savings rate. Indeed, few have any savings at all. The US personal saving rate is currently 2 percentage points, about 30%, below the long term average. Retired people, unable to earn any interest on their savings from the Fed’s zero interest rate policy, are being forced to draw down their savings in order to pay their bills.
Moreover, it is unclear whether the savings rate is an accurate measure or merely a residual of other calculations. With so many people having to draw down their savings, I wouldn’t be surprised if an accurate measure showed the personal savings rate to be negative.
But for Summers the plight of the consumer is not the problem. The problem is the profits of the banks. Summers has the solution, and the establishment, including Paul Krugman, is applauding it. Once the economy officially turns down again, watch out.
This column first appeared as a Trend Alert, Trends Research Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment