Obama's Plan To Privatize
Liebman Of Harvard, Top Economics Advisor To Obama,
Wants To Privatize Social Security - Just Like The Sinister Bush Plan
Resoundingly Rejected In 2005. Benefits Cuts And Higher Payroll
Taxes Are Also On Obama's Agenda.
Barack Obama -
First Jewish President
By James Petras
12-13-8 .....Think about it: Not
only do the Zionists
and their embedded clones rule the White House,
they also have the political apparatus
(left, liberal, center and right) to silence, insult,
witch hunt and isolate any critic of their agenda,
their organizations and of the State of Israel.
When confronted by a critic the entire apparatus
brays in unison about 'anti-Semitism'
and follows up with severe civil sanctions...
Obama's Plan To
Jeffrey Liebman Of Harvard, Top Economics Advisor To
Wants To Privatize Social Security - Just Like The
Sinister Bush Plan Americans
Resoundingly Rejected In 2005. Benefits Cuts And Higher
Taxes Are Also On Obama's Agenda.
By Webster Tarpley
supported partial PRIVATIZATION of the government-run
retirement system, an idea that is rejected by many
Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for so-called
"personal investment accounts" that Bush promoted in 2005.
"Liebman has been
open to private accounts," said Michael Tanner, a Social
Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a think
tank in Washington that advocates "free markets" and often
Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick plan to loot Social Security also
promises raising regressive payroll taxes, cutting benefits,
or a combination of both.
PEOPLE AND RETIREES THAT OBAMA AND HIS CLIQUE OF WEALTHY
ELITIST BACKERS WANT TO TAKE THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY
ECONOMIC ADVISER DAVID CUTLER ARGUES THAT HIGH HEALTH
CARE COSTS ARE ECONOMICALLY DESIRABLE
adviser who targets health care is David Cutler, a
Harvard economist. Cutler wrote an article for the New
England Journal of Medicine in 2006 asserting that "The
rising cost ... of health care has been the source of a
lot of saber rattling in the media and the public
square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits
advocates improving healthcare through financial
incentives, meaning that he wants to increase cash flow
into the hands of rapacious pharmaceutical and insurance
* OBAMA'S TOP
ECONOMICS GURU: AUSTAN "THE GHOUL" GOOLSBEE SKULL AND
BONES ALUM, FRIEDMANITE CHICAGO BOY,
FANATICAL FREE TRADE GLOBALIZER
Barack Obama's top
economics adviser is a member of the super-secret Skull &
Bones society of Yale University (Class of 1991), of which
George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and failed elitist John
Kerry are also members. Goolsbee is widely reported to have
told Obama not to back a compulsory freeze on home mortgage
foreclosures to help the struggling middle class in the
current depression crisis, as demanded by former candidate
John Edwards. Hillary Clinton has advocated a one-year
voluntary freeze on foreclosures. Obama has offered
counselors to comfort mortgage victims as they are
dispossessed, citing the "moral hazard" of protecting the
public interest from Wall Street sharks.
George Will, in an
October 2007 Washington Post column saluted Goolsbee's
"nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues
like globalization and income inequality; he "seems to be
the sort of fellow -- amiable, empirical, and
reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic
president, if such there must be," wrote the arch-oligarchical
Austan Goolsbee (Obama's
likely Secretary of the Treasury): "I'm
a University of Chicago economist and no one is ever
going to be more in favor of open markets and free trade
than an economist, so you would presume I'd be for anything
that has the words 'free trade agreement' in it and all I'll
tell you is this: I do believe there's no one more in favor
of open markets than me . . ."
reactionary Yale alum gushed: ". . .voters who usually lean
Republican should take a second look at Obama ... Although
some of his centrist economic prescriptions may disenchant
liberals who distrust the benefits of globalization,
Goolsbee said economic data indicate that free trade leads
to higher wages."Goolsbee
is almost certainly the unnamed advisor Paul Krugman refers
to when he scores Obama's stimulus plan as "disreputable".
Goolsbee is a bitter opponent of a single-payer system, and
has attacked Michael Moore's movie Sicko on this issue.
Krugman: "The Obama
campaign's initial response to the latest wave of bad
economic news was, I'm sorry to say, disreputable: Mr.
Obama's top economic adviser claimed that the long-term
tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what
we need to keep the slump from "morphing into a drastic
decline in consumer spending." Hmm: claiming that the
candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally
proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting
measure - doesn't that sound familiar?...Mr. Obama came out
with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health
care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his
stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other
Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right. " (NYT, Jan.
DON'T BE FOOLED BY
OBAMA'S SOARING RHETORIC CHECK OUT HIS RIGHT-WING ADVISORS
- STOP OBAMA IN THE POTOMAC PRIMARY MARYLAND, VIRGINIA,
AND DC FEBRUARY 12
Highlighting and links to "The Chicago boys and the Chilean
'economic miracle'" Were added by
Gnostic Liberation Front.
The Chicago boys
Chilean 'economic miracle'
SUMMARY: So what was the record for
the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per
capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's
per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993,
however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin
American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the
Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan
call this an "economic miracle."
Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create
a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs.
Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of
morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up
society according to your ideals.
The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in
Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989,
a government team of economists trained at the University of
Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as
was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare
and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing
trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution
and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the
far-right's most hated institution: democracy.
The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's
economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America,
alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once
all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's
growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any
Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe.
The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than
in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of
the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations,
Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin
America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by
suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign
of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending
Chile as a huge success story. In 1982, Milton Friedman
enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator)
because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a
matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle." (1) However,
the statistics below show this to be untrue. Chile is a tragic
failure of right-wing economics, and its people are still paying
the price for it today.
history of Chile and the "Chicago boys"
Unfortunately, Chile has been the site of revolution and
experimentation for over 30 years now. From 1964 to 1970,
President Eduardo Frei led a "revolution in liberty." From 1970
to 1973, Salvadore Allende embarked on a "Chilean road to
socialism." From 1973 to 1989, General Augusto Pinochet and his
military regime conducted a "silent revolution" (so-called
because the free market quietly brought about drastic social
change). After 1990, Chile has returned to democracy, but it
will be a long time recovering from its experiments.
Chile's main export to the world is copper, and the United
States has long held a keen interest in it. By the 1960s, U.S.
companies had invested so heavily in Chile's copper mines that
they owned most of them. When the conservative reformer Eduardo
Frei became president in 1964, he attempted to nationalize the
copper mines, but to no avail — he met stiff resistance from the
In 1970, Salvadore Allende became the first Marxist to be
democratically elected president in the Western hemisphere. In
the course of his sweeping socialist reforms, he nationalized
not only the copper mines but banks and other foreign-owned
assets as well. Along with the redistribution of land under land
reform, these actions deeply antagonized Chile's business
community and right wing. It is now a matter of historical
record that the CIA helped organize their opposition to Allende.
A massive campaign of strikes, social unrest and other political
subversion followed. In September 1973, the CIA helped General
Pinochet launch a military coup in which Allende was killed. The
Pinochet government claimed he committed suicide; his supporters
claimed he was murdered.
The new government immediately began privatizing the businesses
that Allende had seized, as well as reversing his other
socialist reforms. But Pinochet did not have an economic plan of
his own, and by 1975 inflation would run as high as 341 percent.
Into this crisis stepped a group of economists known as "the
The Chicago boys were a group of 30 Chileans who had studied
economics at the University of Chicago between 1955 and 1963.
During the course of their postgraduate studies they had become
disciples of Milton Friedman, and had returned to Chile
completely indoctrinated in free market theory. By the end of
1974, they had risen to positions of power in the Pinochet
regime, controlling most of its offices for economic planning.
The arrangement was a new one in the history of governments.
Although Pinochet was a dictator, he turned the economy over to
the Chicago boys, and his only role was to suppress political
and labor opposition to their policies. This arrangement was
presented to the Chilean people as the removal of politicians
and politics from the nation's affairs. Instead, technocrats
with Ph.D.'s would run the economy according to the best theory
available. Those theories, of course, were the "neoliberal"
theories of Milton Friedman. Rational science would decide
policy — not political slogans and muddled democracy.
In March 1975, the Chicago boys held an economic seminar that
received national media attention. Here they proposed a radical
austerity program — "shock treatment," they called it — to solve
Chile's economic woes. They invited some of the world's top
economists to speak at the conference, among them Chicago
professors Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. Unsurprisingly,
they gave the proposal their highest praise. The plan called for
a drastic reduction in the money supply and government spending,
the privatization of government services, massive deregulation
of the market, and the liberalization of international trade.
This was not solely the Chicago boys' plan. It was also
formulated by the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, who made the program a precondition for future loans to
Chile. The IMF and World Bank would make similar conditions of
other developing nations around the world, but none would
implement their program as thoroughly and completely as Chile.
Interestingly, the World Bank now holds Chile up as an example
to be emulated by the rest of the Third World. Considering
Chile's huge debt and interest payments to the World Bank, it is
not difficult to see why. The debt, devastation, inequality and
exploitation that the IMF and World Bank bring to Third World
countries in the name of "neoliberal development" is another
story in itself. Brazil and Peru are two other notable examples
— but Chile remains the worst.
Shortly after the 1975 conference, the Chilean government
initiated the Economic Recovery Program (ERP). The first phase
of shock therapy was reducing the money supply and government
spending, which succeeded in cutting inflation to acceptable
levels. However, it also caused unemployment to rise from 9.1 to
18.7 percent between 1974 and 1975, a figure on par with the
U.S. Great Depression. Output fell 12.9 percent — making this
Chile's worst recession since the 1930s. (2)
Meanwhile, to prevent the political consequences of such a
shock, the Pinochet regime began cracking down on potential
opposition leaders. Many just "disappeared." The human rights
violations of the Pinochet regime will be reviewed below, but,
suffice to say, workers "accepted" this austerity program at
By mid-1976, the economy began recovering, and from 1978 to 1981
it achieved what the Chicago boys called the "Economic Miracle."
During this period the economy grew 6.6 percent a year. (By
comparison, the U.S. economy usually grows 2.5 percent a year.)
The Chicago boys lifted nearly all restrictions on foreign
direct investment, creating an "almost irresistible package of
guarantees for the foreign investor" with "extraordinarily
permissive" treatment. (3) Foreign investment and loans came
pouring into Chile, with loans alone tripling between 1977 and
1981. (4) Of the 507 state enterprises set up before or during
Allende's presidency, the Chicago boys would eliminate or
privatize all but 27. (5)
Defenders of the Chile experiment point to the "Economic
Miracle" as proof that it worked. But here we should remember an
important economic rule of thumb: the deeper the recession, the
steeper the recovery. Quite often the recovery only gets an
economy back to where it was before. Perhaps the clearest
example of this is the U.S. Great Depression. Note the giant
loss and growth numbers:
U.S. Gross National Product, by President
% Change in GNP
The economy grew an
astonishing 14 percent in 1936 — the strongest peacetime year in
U.S. history. But does that mean that people were enjoying
champagne and caviar during the Great Depression? Of course not.
The economy was simply making up lost ground. Likewise, the U.S.
recessions of 1980-82 were the worst since the Great Depression,
and these were followed by an unusually strong seven-year boom:
the so-called "Reagan years."
What's going on here? Two economic concepts are useful to
understand this phenomenon. The first is that the economy grows
in the long run, as both the population expands and each worker
produces more per hour, thanks to improving technology and
efficiency. This long-term growth experiences mild swings in the
form of recessions and recoveries, of course. But if the economy
grows in the long run, then deep recessions are going to be
followed by even steeper recoveries.
The second concept is the distinction between actual
productivity and potential productivity. "Potential"
is a somewhat misleading term, since it implies something
imaginary, but this productivity does indeed exist. Potential
productivity reflects our nation's productive capacity (in the
form of our workers, factories, etc.). Actual productivity
reflects how much of that capacity is actually being used. For
example, a factory may have the potential to turn out 3,000 cars
a month. During a recession, however, its actual productivity
may fall to only 1,500 cars a month. Actual growth would
occur if the factory returned to a full capacity of 3,000 cars.
Potential growth would occur only if a second factory
During a recession, actual productivity drops as millions of
workers are laid off and factories sit idle. But all the
potential productivity is still there. During a recovery, actual
productivity climbs closer to its potential, as millions of
laid-off workers return to empty factories. This gives the
appearance of growth — and we should note that this type of
growth is relatively quick and easy to achieve. But what happens
when all the workers have returned? Then any further growth will
have to involve potential growth — that is, the construction of
factories and the birth of new workers. As you might imagine,
this type of growth is considerably more difficult to achieve.
So this is all that happened that during Chile's "Economic
Miracle" — laid-off workers returned to their old jobs. When you
take both the recession and recovery into account, Chile
actually had the second worst rate of growth in Latin America
between 1975 and 1980. Only Argentina did worse. (6)
And even then, much of Chile's growth was artificial or
fictitious. Between 1977 and 1981, 80 percent of Chile's growth
was in the unproductive sectors of the economy, like marketing
and financial services. Much of this was speculation attracted
to Chile's phenomenally high interest rates, which, at 51
percent in 1977, were the highest in the world. (7)
Chile's integration into the world market would leave it
vulnerable to world market forces. The international recession
that struck in 1982 hit Chile especially hard, harder than any
other Latin American country. Not only did foreign capital and
markets dry up, but Chile had to pay out stratospheric interest
rates on its orgy of loans. Most analysts attribute the disaster
both to external shocks and Chile's own deeply flawed economic
policies. By 1983, Chile's economy was devastated, with
unemployment soaring at one point to 34.6 percent — far worse
than the U.S. Great Depression. Manufacturing production plunged
28 percent. (8) The country's biggest financial groups were in
free fall, and would have collapsed completely without a massive
bail-out by the state. (9) The Chicago boys resisted this
measure until the situation became so critical they could not
possibly avoid it.
The IMF offered loans to help Chile out of its desperate
situation, but on strict conditions. Chile had to guarantee her
entire foreign debt — an astounding sum of US$7.7 billion. The
total bailout would cost 3 percent of Chile's GNP for each of
three years. These costs were passed on to the taxpayers. It is
interesting to note that when the economy was booming,
profitable firms were privatized; when those firms failed, the
costs of bailing them were socialized. In both cases, the rich
were served. (10)
After the IMF loans came through, the Chilean economy began
recovering in 1984. Again, it saw exceptionally high growth,
averaging about 7.7 percent a year between 1986 and 1989. (11)
But like the previous cycle, this was mostly due to actual
growth, not potential growth. By 1989, the GDP per capita was
still 6.1 percent below its 1981 level. (12)
So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between
1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13)
In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600
in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to
only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse
in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And
defenders of the Chicago plan call this an "economic miracle!"
Aggregate statistics are somewhat better. Between 1970 and 1989,
Chile's total GDP grew a lackluster 1.8 to 2.0 percent a year.
That was slower than most other Latin American countries, and
slower than its own record in the 60s. (16)
With the economy booming in 1988, however, the government felt
it safe to honor a requirement of its new constitution: a yes-no
vote confirming the presidency of General Pinochet for another
eight years. But the government's confidence turned out to be
self-deluded, and Pinochet lost the vote. This called for
another set of more open elections in 1989. The fragmented
opposition united to defeat Pinochet, who was replaced by
Patricio Aylwin, a moderate candidate from the Christian
Democratic party. However, Pinochet remains as head of the
military. Today democracy is restored in Chile, but a
laissez-faire culture persists, and many social programs
(like social security) remain privatized. Chile's economic
course seems to have been permanently altered.
The deterioration of labor
Chile's erratic economy
and ultimately slow growth are not the worst legacy of the
Chicago boys. The standard of living for workers crumbled under
the Pinochet regime. In fact, this is a truly horrific part of
By all measures, the average worker was worse off in 1989 than
in 1970. During this period, labor's share of the national
income fell from 52.3 to 30.7 percent. (17) Even during the
second boom (1984-89), wages continued to fall. The following
index shows the decline in both average and minimum wages:
of real wages, revised index, 1980-87 (in percent) (18)
By 1989, Chile's poverty
rate was 41.2 percent, one-third of them indigent or desperately
poor. (19) Shanty towns known as poblaciones grew around
Santiago and other major cities, kept alive by las comunes,
or soup kitchens. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40
percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this
had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. (20)
Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing
increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite
the government's boast that the new economy would solve
Meanwhile, the wealthy were raking it in. The following chart
shows how the richest 20 percent of society enlarged their share
of the pie at the everyone else's expense. (Note: the "first
quintile" represents the poorest 20 percent of society, the
"fifth quintile" the richest 20 percent. The percentage numbers
here represent the share of national goods consumed by that
by Household Quintiles (percent distribution) (22)
inequality also became the worst on the continent. In 1980, the
richest 10 percent took in 36.5 percent of the national income.
By 1989, this had risen to 46.8 percent. By contrast, the bottom
50 percent of income earners saw their share fall from 20.4 to
16.8 percent over the same period. (23)
Income was not the only thing that concentrated in the hands of
the few; so did production. Once the Chicago boys deregulated
the market, oligopolies rapidly formed in virtually every
sector. The chart below shows how many large export firms
controlled what percentage of their industry:
Concentration in the Export Sector by Main Industry, 1988
# of firms
How did such extreme
inequality come about? It was part of an intentional policy
to keep unemployment as high as possible. (25) Widespread
unemployment has the effect of driving down wages, as unemployed
workers compete for a limited number of jobs, accepting even
sub-poverty wages to get them. Many promoters of the "free
market" forget — or probably exploit — the fact that the labor
market is like any other market: dictated by the laws of supply
and demand. To see how this works, imagine a land where the
supply of workers perfectly matches the employers' demand for
them, and everyone gets paid $10 an hour. What happens if we add
a few more workers to this economy? Economist Paul Krugman
"The way that a
freely functioning labor market ensures that almost everyone
who wants a job gets one is by allowing wages rates to fall,
if necessary, to match supply to demand…" (26)
And the more unemployed
workers we add to this economy, the more wages fall. An example
of this correlation can be seen in the U.S. recession of 1982,
when unemployment nearly hit 11 percent in the fourth quarter,
and real hourly wages fell nearly 50 cents from three years
before. The flip-side to this example is the 1980s
"Massachusetts Miracle," when unemployment fell to a
phenomenally low 2.7 percent, and McDonald's began offering
twice the minimum wage ($7 an hour) trying to attract workers.
In Chile, high unemployment was part of a deliberate policy,
encouraged by the IMF and World Bank, to depress wages. During
the crisis of 1975, the unemployment rate hit 18.7 percent. But
even through the booms and busts that followed over the next ten
years, the unemployment rate still averaged 15.7 percent. This
was easily the worst in all Latin America. (28) The result of
this policy was that wages fell, companies became more
profitable, and inequality grew extreme. As might be guessed,
such high unemployment also reduces a nation's productivity,
which is largely why Chile's growth record compared so poorly to
How did the Chicago boys accomplish this war against workers
without the people rising up in revolt? The answer lies in
Pinochet's reign of terror.
Pinochet's crimes against humanity
From the very start of
his rule, General Pinochet moved to suppress all opposition. He
banned all other political parties, suspended labor unions, and
cracked down on all dissidents to his regime. During his 16
years in power, his repressive apparatus executed at least 1,500
activists, exiled 15,000 others, and imprisoned, tortured,
assassinated, or caused the "disappearance" of countless
thousands more. (29) According to one human rights group, the
Pinochet regime was responsible for 11,536 human rights
violations between 1984 and 1988 alone. (30)
As time went on, however, Pinochet did a most unusual thing for
a dictator: he dissolved his own regime. Not only did he give
total control of the economy over to the Chicago boys, but he
eventually returned a growing share of political freedom to the
people as well. Once his totalitarian power was secure in the
late 70s, he legalized labor unions and political parties once
more, albeit under oppressive limitations and controls. And he
agreed to a new constitution that would eventually require a
plebiscite on his rule, and even democratic elections.
Does the fact that an oppressive military regime enabled the
Chicago boys' to carry out their experiments somehow invalidate
their results? Not according to Milton Friedman:
"I have nothing
good to say about the political regime that Pinochet
imposed. It was a terrible political regime. The real
miracle of Chile is not how well it has done economically;
the real miracle of Chile is that a military junta was
willing to go against its principles and support a
free-market regime designed by principled believers in a
free market. The results were spectacular. Inflation came
down sharply. After a transitory period of recession and low
output that is unavoidable in the course of reversing a
strong inflation, output started to expand, and ever since,
the Chilean economy has performed better than any other
South American economy.
"In Chile, the drive for political freedom, that was
generated by economic freedom and the resulting economic
success, ultimately resulted in a referendum that introduced
political democracy. Now, at long last, Chile has all three
things: political freedom, human freedom and economic
freedom. Chile will continue to be an interesting experiment
to watch to see whether it can keep all three or whether,
now that it has political freedom, that political freedom
will tend to be used to destroy or reduce economic freedom."
However, Friedman is
pessimistic that Chile's economic freedom can last under
democracy. He notes elsewhere that "while economic freedom
facilitates political freedom, political freedom, once
established, has a tendency to destroy economic freedom." By
Friedman's lights, democracy should kill Chile's free-market
reforms. One gets the impression Friedman would consider the
experiment an unqualified success had the regime never existed.
It is interesting to note, however, that the anti-labor reforms
enacted by the Chicago boys would have never been tolerated in a
democracy (and in fact weren't, when the time came). The
suppression of opposition to the Chicago program thus allows us
to see how it would work in an uncompromised form.
Deregulation and pollution
Chile is a country of 15
million people, but 5 million of them live in Santiago, its
capital city. Chile's free market means there is a distinct lack
of anti-pollution laws, either for industry or commuters. And as
a result, Santiago has become desperately polluted. In 1992,
Santiago had the fifth worst air pollution of any city in the
world, with levels three to four times higher than the upper
limits recommended by the World Health Organization. (32)
Part of Santiago's problem is that it is ringed by mountains, so
air pollution gets trapped in the city. However, that's all the
more reason why public officials should have recognized the
folly of indiscriminate polluting and passed the needed
pro-environmental laws a long time ago.
Some 150 industries in Santiago emit 100 times the pollution
recommended by particulate norms. Only 30 percent of the city's
600,000 cars have catalytic converters. Due to a lack of public
works programs (and an equal lack of business interest), the
city has nearly 600 miles of dusty, unpaved roads. The result is
a thick, purplish smog that literally chokes the city. (33)
The cost has been horrendous, translated into unusually high
mortality and sickness rates for Latin America. Santiago
hospitals are swamped with over 2,700 infants a day brought in
needing oxygen masks. Chile's College of Physicians has the
called the situation a crisis, and authorities have set up a
system of "pre-emergency" and "emergency" alerts. In a typical
pre-emergency alert, authorities restrict traffic, physical
exercise and industrial activity. The World Bank estimates that
Santiago's current pre-emergency level is 18 percent more deadly
than states of alert in Los Angeles and Europe. But until very
recently, Chile's government has been unwilling to enact any
serious pro-environmental legislation. In 1996, Dr. Ricardo
Tulane quit the College of Physician's environmental committee
in protest, accusing the government of doing too little to meet
the crisis. (34)
The Chilean journal Apsi reports:
"The liquid that
emerges from the millions of faucets in the homes and alleys
of Santiago have levels of copper, iron, magnesium and lead
which exceed by many times the maximum tolerable norms. [The
lands that] supply the fruits and vegetables of the
Metropolitan Region are irrigated with waters that exceed by
1000 times the maximum quantity of coliforms acceptable.
[This is why Santiago] has levels of hepatitis, typhoid, and
parasites which are not seen in any other part of the
The problem is not
limited to Santiago. Half the country has become a desert under
misguided industrial and environmental policies. A study by the
Central Bank of Chile estimates that by the year 2025, Chile's
native forests will have disappeared at current rates of
extraction. (36) The Bank also reports that out of nine fish
stocks off the Chilean coast, only one (sardines) has increased
between 1985 and 1993. Five are in dramatic decline, having
fallen between 30 and 96 percent. (37)
Chicago economist Ronald Coase, you may recall, won a Nobel
prize for a theorem explaining how markets can resolve
externalities like pollution. Chile — the Chicago boys' own
experiment — strongly suggests otherwise.
Chile's privatized pensions
One of the most
trumpeted "successes" of Chile's economic miracle is the
privatization of its public social security system. It's most
vocal supporter is Chilean economist José Piñera, who was once
Pinochet's Minister of Labor, and therefore one of the most
hated men in Chile. Today he is an international salesman of
sorts, selling other nations on the idea of Chile's retirement
program. Journalist Fred Solowey writes:
"In his speeches
and articles, Piñera credits the Chilean pension model with
producing just about everything short of the second coming
of Christ: pensions that are 40-50 percent higher than under
Social Security; security for the old; lower costs due to
the 'fact' that the private sector is much more efficient
than the public; a rate of savings rivaling that in an Asian
'tiger' economy; and even the end of class conflict in
co-chairman of a $2 million war being waged against U.S. Social
Security by the Cato Institute. Their goal is to privatize the
program along Chilean lines. Converts to their cause include
Newt Gingerich, and, apparently, Time magazine. In a
cover story entitled "The Case for Killing Social Security,"
Time included a sidebar on "How Chile Got it Right." (39)
The operative word here is right, as in right-wing —
Time's article quotes all the usual conservative think
tanks, but not a single dissenting voice.
The Chilean retirement system is only a success to those
companies who are pulling down outrageous profits from it. For
the working people of Chile, it is a disaster in the making.
According to SAFP, the government agency which regulates the
private pensions, 96 percent of the known work force were
enrolled in the private pensions as of February, 1995, but 43.4
percent of the account owners were not adding to their funds.
Perhaps as many as 60 percent do not contribute regularly. Given
the rising poverty in Chile, it is not difficult to understand
why. Unfortunately, regular contributions are necessary to
receive full benefits.
By 1988, about one fourth of Chilean workers were contributing
enough to make the program's minimum benefits: $1.25 a day! (40)
Critics charge that only 20 percent of the contributors will
actually receive good pensions.
Worse, much of the plan's supposedly higher benefits are
projected from the surging economic growth rates of the late
80s. But this growth followed a deep economic depression in
1983, and was bound to be high for many years following. Now
that actual growth has caught up to potential growth, the
Chilean economy is slowing down. The pensions are therefore not
going to be as profitable as their cheerleaders claim.
When the current system was created in the early 80s, the
government gave the people their choice: stay in the public
program, or start contributing to private pensions. Over 90
percent of the people switched over to the private plan. This
was carried out, however, under a mixture of threats, coercion
and short term incentives. Many employers simply switched their
employees' plans for them. The cash-starved public also received
short-term pay increases by switching to private pensions,
whereas the cost of the public programs went up for those who
stayed in them.
"With the information I now have," says Cecilia Prado, a 17-year
public employee, "I never would have switched. Under a
democratic government they never could have imposed it on us.
And if they ever passed a law allowing people to go back, there
would be a great exodus." (41)
What many defenders of Chile's current program do not reveal is
that under the old public plan, workers received not only
pensions, but health care, low-interest housing loans from
pension funds, and many other benefits. And that program covered
75 percent of all Chileans. When the private pensions went into
effect, all these other services were dropped. As a result,
Chile's "welfare pensions" for the desperately needy quickly
rose 400 percent — up to the legal limit.
It is also extremely telling that when Pinochet introduced the
program, his army and police were allowed to keep their own
generous public plans. The private plans that were suitable for
the masses apparently weren't good enough for those in charge of
There are many more aspects to this unfolding disaster, but to
chronicle them all here is impossible. Suffice to say, selling
Chile's "success" to America is the ultimate con job.
A common defense
of the Chicago experiment is that Chile's "prosperity [was] was
born of pain." (42) However, the pain continues even today.
Although Chile's economy is growing at a healthy pace today, it
still lags behind most of Latin America. Much of the development
is environmentally unsustainable. Inequality and poverty remain
extreme. Furthermore, much of the country's industry is now
foreign-owned — meaning that profits do not stay in Chile, but
are shipped to other countries. Chile continues to have one of
the highest foreign debts in the world, and therefore continues
to serve as the poster child for the IMF and World Bank. In the
U.S., Chile is on the fast track to becoming the fourth member
of NAFTA — for motives one might easily guess.
Another defense of the Chicago experiment is that the conditions
were not right, thus its apparent failure. Most objectionable is
Pinochet's oppressive military regime. But it is unclear how his
political policies would have adversely affected the Chicago
boy's economic policies -- if anything, he allowed them to carry
their plans out. If unregulated capitalist markets can only be
imposed on workers by terror, then this is an argument that we
should look for other, more humane economic alternatives.
A third defense is that the experiment was not a failure at all,
but a rousing success. Usually these sort of apologetics are
based on manipulative interpretations of the business cycle. The
most common is to look to the incredible booms of the late 70s
and late 80s — while ignoring the events responsible for them,
namely, the deep depressions that happened prior.
At present, democracy seems to have reversed the tide of market
tyranny, although big business still has undue influence with
the government. The restoration of public life in Chile,
therefore, will probably be a long, slow and agonizing struggle.
2. Jose Arellano, Politicas Sociales y Desarrollo: Chile,
1924-1984 (Santiago: CIEPLAN, 1988), p. 19.
3. Business Latin America, March 30, 1977, p. 103.
4. Andres Sanfuentes, "Los Grupos Economicos: Control y
Politicas," Coleccion Estudios CIEPLAN no. 15, (Santiago:
CIEPLAN, December 1984), p. 119.
5. Fernando Dahse, Mapa de la Extrema Riqueza (Santiago:
Editorial Aconcagua, 1979), pp. 175-179.
6. James Petras and Fernando Ignacio Leiva with Henry Veltmeyer,
Democracy and Poverty in Chile: The Limits to Electoral
Politics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), p. 27.
7. Oscar Munoz, Chile y su Industrializacion (Santiago:
CIEPLAN, 1986), p. 259.
8. Petras, p. 33.
9. Ibid., p. 29.
11. Juan Gabriel Valdes, Pinochet's Economists: The
Chicago School in Chile (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), p. 265.
12. Ricardo Ffrench-Davis, The Impact of Global Recession and
National Policies on Living Standards: Chile, 1973-87
(Santiago: CIEPLAN, 1988), pp. 13-33.
13. Cited in Noam Chomsky, Year 501 (South End Press,
1993), Chapter 7: "World Orders Old and New: Latin America
Segment," 15/17. http://www.americas.org/archive/year/year-c07-s15.html
14. World Bank, World Tables 1995.
17. Petras, p. 34.
18. Patricio Meller, "Revision del Proceso de Ajuste Chileno de
Decada del 80," Coleccion Estudios CIEPLAN no. 30,
(Santiago: CIEPLAN, 1990), p. 44.
19. Petras, p. 34.
20. Alvaro Diaz, El Capitalismo Chileno en Los 90: Creimiento
Economico y Disigualdad Social (Santiago: Ediciones PAS,
1991), statistical appendix.
21. Excerpt from FoodFirst by Joseph Collins and John Lear.
Chile's Free Market Miracle: A Second Look. http://www.web.net/comfront/miracle.htm.
22. Programa de Economia del Trabajo, Informe Anual
(Santiago: PET, 1990), p. 192.
23. Diaz, pp. 58-9.
24. Analisis, no. 238, August 1-7, 198, p. 31.
25. Andres Sanfuentes, "Chile: Effects of the Adjustment
Policies on the Agricultural and Forestry Sector," CEPAL
Review no. 3 (Santiago: United Nations, December 1987), p.
26. Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1994) p. 124.
27. For average hourly real wages (Total private industry, 1982
dollars), see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID:
eeu00500049; for Massachusetts example, see Paul Krugman, p. 41.
28. Petras, p. 26.
29. Calculations by Chile's Commission of Human Rights, reported
in Petras, p. 20.
30. Calculations by CODEPU (Comite Nacional de Defensa de los
Derechos del Pueblo), reported in Fortin, September 23,
31. Milton Friedman, "Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political
Freedom," Address at the Smith Center - A Conservative Think
Tank at Cal State Hayward. November 1, 1991 http://www.sbe.csuhayward.edu/~sbesc/frlect.html.
32. WHO/UNEP (1992), World Bank (1992), other World Bank
33. Andrea Mandel-Campbell, "Anger grows over Chilean capital's
smog: Respiratory ailments rise," Miami Herald, Thursday,
September 12, 1996.
35. Apsi, Chile, July 1990 (LANU, Sept. 1990).
36. Cited in Sara Larrain R., "Winning in the Global Economy:
Chile's Dark Victory," PCDForum Column #79, The
People-Development Centered Forum, June 1, 1996.
37. A copy of the Central Bank report was leaked to the Santiago
newspaper La Nacion and published in the Latin
American Weekly Report, September 12, 1996.
38. Fred J. Solowey, "Retiring the Chilean myth: Privatized
pensions bring social insecurity," Focus, November 5,
39. Time, March 20, 1995.
40. Joseph Collins and John Lear, Chile's Free-Market Miracle
(Food First Books, 1994).
Goolsbee: U. of Chicago neoclassicist and
Cutler: Harvard economist who believes
that high health costs are good for the
Liebman: another Harvard economist and
former Clinton adviser who favors
privatizing social security
night I was on my stationary exercise bike
watching early MSNBC news coverage of the
New Hampshire primaries prior to vote totals
being reported. The pundits were falling all
over each other in praise of Barack Obama’s
campaigning skills. I was especially struck
by Tom Brokaw’s describing the Black
candidate as “A thoroughbred who has broken
away from the pack,” a perfect encapsulation
of the idiotic horse race character of these
Despite the intense
rivalry between Obama and Hillary Clinton,
they both are cut from the same mold, namely
the Bill Clinton presidency. In his
to the Democratic Party convention titled
“The Audacity of Hope”, Obama adopted the
bipartisan, centrist pose perfected by
Hillary’s husband during his regime:
pundits, the pundits like to
slice-and-dice our country into Red
States and Blue States; Red States for
Republicans, Blue States for Democrats.
But I’ve got news for them, too. We
worship an “awesome God” in the Blue
States, and we don’t like federal agents
poking around in our libraries in the
Obama’s speeches are rather thin on
substance, you have to extrapolate their
meaning from sentences such as the
following, which occurred in the same 2004
Now, don’t get me wrong. The people I
meet — in small towns and big cities, in
diners and office parks — they don’t
expect government to solve all their
problems. They know they have to work
hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go
into the collar counties around Chicago,
and people will tell you they don’t want
their tax money wasted, by a welfare
agency or by the Pentagon.
welfare was gutted long ago, we can only
presume that this reference was meant to
establish Obama’s belt-tightening fiscal
outlook. Although it is not widely
understood, Obama is pretty much committed
to the neoclassical economics outlook of his
home-town University of Chicago. Since
becoming Senator, he has relied on the
advice of a professor named Austan Goolsbee,
who calls himself “a centrist, market
economist” (Washington Times, July 16,
Goolsbee has been a
columnist for Slate.com and the NY Times, as
well as a standup comedian. His economics
are not meant as a joke, as I understand it.
His columns are written very much in the
same vein as fellow U. of Chicago
neoclassical economist Steven Levitt’s “Freakonomics,”
examining everyday problems such as “Why
you get stuck for hours at O’Hare.”
Most are fairly uncontroversial except for
the swipe he took at Michael Moore’s “Sicko”,
whose single-payer recommendations violate
his free market principles.
adviser with a particular interest in health
care is David Cutler, a Harvard economist
who was also an adviser to Bill
Clinton–surprise, surprise. Cutler wrote an
article for the New England Journal of
Medicine in 2006 asserting that “The rising
cost … of health care has been the source of
a lot of saber rattling in the media and the
public square, without anyone seriously
analyzing the benefits gained.”
to show the good side of rising costs,
Cutler and a group of other economists
defend the idea that a powerful and
profitable medical industry can serve as an
engine of economic growth in the USA as the
wretched Gina Kolata reported in the August
22, 2006 NY Times.
2030, predicts Robert W. Fogel, a Nobel
laureate at the University of Chicago
Graduate School of Business, about 25
percent of the G.D.P. will be spent on
health care, making it ”the driving
force in the economy,” just as railroads
drove the economy at the start of the
Other economists agree.
have to spend our money on something,”
says Robert E. Hall, a Stanford
a paper published in The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Dr. Hall and
Charles I. Jones of the University of
California, Berkeley, write: ”As we get
older and richer, which is more
valuable: a third car, yet another
television, more clothing — or an extra
year of life?”
David Cutler, an economist at Harvard,
calculated the value of extra spending
on medicine. ”Take a typical person aged
45,” he said. ”They will spend $30,000
more over their lifetime caring for
cardiovascular disease than they would
have spent in 1950. And they will live
maybe three more years because of it.”
this is why they call economics the dismal
science. It should be noted in passing that
the aforementioned Robert W. Fogel was the
co-author with Stanley Engerman of “Time on
the Cross”, a book that argued that slaves
actually had it pretty good under the
plantation system. His latest book is titled
“The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death,
1700–2100: Europe, America, and the Third
World” that posits a “technophysio
evolution” that is filled with Panglossian
enthusiasm about capitalism’s ability to
bring prosperity to the developing world.
University adviser to Obama is Jeffrey
Liebman, a Harvard economist who co-authored
a paper on the feasibility of privatizing
social security when he was an adviser to
Bill Clinton. Apparently, the momentum
toward adopting such a proposal was halted
after the Monica Lewinsky affair put the
president on the defensive. Liebman has
co-authored a book on social security
“reform” with Martin Feldstein, another
Harvard economist who was–appropriately
enough–the chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisors under Ronald Reagan. In an
article titled “The
Rich, the Poor, and the Economists”
that appeared in the January 2002 Monthly
Review, Michael Yates notes the following:
Before he became Reagan’s chief
economist, he [Feldstein] was an expert
on the economics of social security. In
published papers, he claimed to have
empirically demonstrated that the social
security system in the United States
inhibited savings. Since savings are the
source of capital investment, the
implication of his research was that the
social security system also reduced
investment and thereby reduced the
growth rate of the economy, since
investment is the engine of economic
Feldstein’s work fit nicely into the
growing conservative movement which
arose after the post World War Two boom
came to an end in the early 1970s. The
Keynesian economics that was gospel
during my college years was giving way
to a return to the pre-Keynesian theory
that “freely” operating markets (free
from the poison of government control
and regulation) were the only solution
to all economic problems. Led by the
famous “Chicago Boys,” especially Milton
Friedman, the anti-Keynesians carried
the day in the economics profession and
still do. No wonder, then, that when
Ronald Reagan became president, he
tapped Feldstein to chair the Council.
For years, Reagan had been railing
against social security from his General
Electric radio pulpit. Now here was an
economist who could lend professional
credence to Reagan’s reactionary views.
Social Security would be a tough nut to
crack. It was an extremely popular
program, run with great efficiency and
effective in sharply reducing poverty
among the elderly.
There was just one problem. Feldstein’s
research was fatally flawed. Two staff
economists at the Social Security
Administration asked Feldstein for his
supporting data. After three years of
repeated requests, he sent the data to
them. When they tried to use Feldstein’s
numbers to replicate his results,
however, they could not. They uncovered
an error in the computer program
Feldstein had used, and when they
corrected the error, the results were
exactly the opposite of Feldstein’s.
That is to say, the social security
system actually encouraged savings and,
according to Feldstein’s cherished “free
market” theory, facilitated capital
formation and economic growth. (For more
on this, see “‘Superstar’ Feldstein and
His Little Mistake” in Dollars & Sense,
Dec. 1980, pp. 1-2 and the citations
One imagines that the
average primary voter in Iowa or New
Hampshire has not even the slightest clue
that Obama is carrying around such baggage.
For most of them, the mantras of “change”
and “hope” are supposed to be sufficient to
earn their vote, at least that was what was
expected in New Hampshire. In utter defiance
of the media coronation of Obama, Hillary
Clinton was the choice of the people in this
miserable, economically stagnant New England
state. The World Socialist Website, whose
political insights are sometimes undermined
by their boilerplate calls for building
revolutionary parties (i.e., their own) has
a rather astute
for Clinton’s victory:
outcome of the Democratic primary
suggests that Clinton benefited from a
growing concern among working class
voters over the state of the US economy.
Clinton was the only candidate to raise
the growing danger of recession in
Saturday’s televised debate, and exit
polls showed that the economy was the
number one issue of those who turned out
to vote, whether they cast a Democratic
or a Republican ballot. A staggering 98
percent of those who voted in the
Democratic primary said they were “very”
or “somewhat” worried about the economy.
Clinton ran ahead of Obama in the
working class industrial city of
Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest, and
there were significant class and
economic distinctions between their
voters. Clinton led Obama by sizeable
margins among those with family incomes
less than $100,000 a year, among union
members, among those without college
degrees, among those who felt that the
state of the US economy is poor, and
among those with children in the home.
Her largest margin was among single
Perhaps the most striking distinction
between Clinton and Obama voters
concerned feelings about their family’s
economic futures. Those who said their
families were “getting ahead” backed
Obama by 48 to 31 percent. Those who
said their families were “falling
behind”—a much larger group—voted for
Clinton by 43 to 33 percent.
course, they will eventually be disappointed
in a Clinton presidency because her economic
program and his are virtually identical. In
considering the “differences” between the
two, I am reminded of what Fred Halstead
used to say when he was running for
president on the Socialist Workers Party
ticket exactly 40 years ago: “Whoever wins
the election, the American people will end
up the losers.”
BRZEZINSKI SEIZING CONTROL
OVER US POLICY
IN SLOW-MOTION CREEPING COUP
By Webster G. Tarpley
Washington DC, Feb. 23 -- Events of the past few days indicate
that the Zbigniew Brzezinski faction of lunatic Russia haters
have now won the upper hand inside the secret councils of the
Anglo-American finance oligarchy, displacing the hitherto
dominant George Shultz-neocon faction. Although George Bush and
his cronies still occupy the White House, the policies that are
being carried out are coming from the Brzezinski left CIA
machine. Brzezinski has returned to public prominence in recent
months due to his role as top establishment controller for the
Obama campaign. But Brzezinski is not waiting for the outcome of
the November elections to take over key parts of the US
government. Brzezinski and his left CIA allies are already
moving to assert their strategy, even as the neocons and their
characteristic obsessions are moved to the back burner. The
probability of an attack on Iran or Syria is declining, even as
the danger of confrontation with Russia, China, and Pakistan –
all much more dangerous targets to trifle with – increases
The independence of Kosovo has opened a new crisis front in
Eastern Europe, with the potential for very nasty complications
in regard to Russia. This is the essence of the Brzezinski
anti-Russian policy. Kosovo independence is of course a flagrant
violation of all existing norms of international law, most
notably the Helsinki CSCE treaty of 1975 which finally put an
end to World War II by declaring that all borders in Europe were
to be considered final unless and until any changes had been
agreed through mutual consultation of the interested parties.
Since the Serbian government in Belgrade is vehemently opposed
to Kosovo independence, the unilateral actions of the US,
British, and NATO are the very essence of international anarchy.
The new regime in Kosovo goes far beyond the usual kleptocracy
of NATO puppets favored by Brzezinski and his circles. The new
regime in Kosovo is essentially the terrorist KLA, an
organization devoted to gun-running, drug-running, and
trafficking in human slaves. The KLA is a Balkan version of Al
Qaeda, and both are wholly owned creations of the CIA and
British intelligence. With Kosovo independence, the US, British,
and NATO stand ready to use armed force to defend the right of a
terrorist gang to assert sovereignty over a segment of modern
Europe. The criminal obscenity of this policy could hardly be
greater, but for Brzezinski all methods are legitimate provided
that they increase tension with Moscow, and in that respect
Kosovo independence is already a glowing success.
2. US EMBASSY,
attack on the US embassy in Belgrade, Serbia by gangs of drunken
students is a classic Brzezinski operation. The tactic of having
an incensed rent-a-mob of swarming adolescent patsies attack the
US Embassy in order to gin up a crisis is one of Zbigniew’s
signature specialties. During the time that Brzezinski was
running the foreign policy of Trilateral puppet Jimmy Carter,
there were bloody attacks on the US embassies in Pakistan and in
Afghanistan, both countries that featured prominently in
Brzezinski’s arc of crisis theory. Most famous of all was of
course the attack on the US embassy in Teheran, Iran, which led
to the taking of hostages and the huge international crisis
which helped to doom the Carter administration to extinction at
the polls. If US diplomats or State Department personnel are
taken hostage anywhere in the world in the weeks and months to
come, this must be attributed to Brzezinski.
3. SPACE WARFARE:
The shooting down by the Pentagon of a US satellite over the
Pacific is a very provocative military stunt designed to
intimidate both Moscow and Beijing, who happened to be
Brzezinski’s immediate targets. This reckless and irresponsible
action has raised the specter of an uncontrolled arms race
reaching into outer space.
Zbigniew Brzezinski himself, fresh from addressing a retreat of
House Democrats in Williamsburg Virginia, is now in Syria at the
head of a RAND Corporation delegation. The purpose of this
mission should not be construed as peace in the Middle East,
although some foolish observers may read it in that way.
Brzezinski’s goal is immediately to lessen Russian influence in
Syria, including the closing of certain naval facilities that
the Russian navy has maintained in that country. In the longer
run, Brzezinski would like to turn both Syria and Iran into
components of the ring he means to forge around Russia for the
purpose of the strategic encirclement of that rival superpower.
Zbigniew’s argument against the neocons is, why attack Iran and
Syria, when you can turn them into kamikaze stooges, play them
against Russia, and get rid of all of them that way? Europe and
China are destined to play similar anti-Russian roles in
5. BUSH IN
President Bush may not know what he is doing on his current
visit to five African countries, but Zbigniew Brzezinski knows
exactly what the mission is. The Brzezinski policy is to foment
destabilization and chaos in Africa under the auspices of the
new United States African command (US-AFRICOM), all for the
purpose of driving the Chinese out of Africa. As Zbigniew
announced on November 30, 2007 in the Washington Post, he
intends to cut off Chinese access to oil, other energy sources,
and strategic raw materials on the African continent. Since the
Anglo-Americans control the Persian Gulf by direct military
occupation, this is tantamount to a policy of driving the
Chinese in on Eastern Siberia. Brzezinski believes that if the
Chinese cannot get their oil from Africa, they will be forced to
attempt the military seizure of Russia’s oil wells in the Far
East, where there is much oil and very few Russians. Both Moscow
and Beijing know exactly what Brzezinski is doing in this
regard. This is the kind of harebrained scheming by Lord Astor,
Lady Astor and Sir Neville Chamberlain which helped to bring
about World War II. The idea then was to play Hitler against
Stalin and get rid of both of them that way. When that blew up
in the faces of the British, the result was World War II. This
time, it may well be thermonuclear World War III.
6. CIA UNILATERAL
KILLINGS IN PAKISTAN:
Back in July 2007, Obama attracted much unfavorable attention
when he announced his plan to bomb targets inside Pakistan
without reference to the government of that country. He was
vigorously criticized by Bush, McCain, and Mrs. Clinton. Obama
turned out to be a bigger warmonger than Bush himself, since the
tenant of the White House said that it was absolutely essential
to work with the government of Pakistan against terrorism, and
not humiliate them unnecessarily. Now it turns out that Obama’s
puppet master Zbigniew Brzezinski is more powerful than Bush on
this issue. The Washington Post of Tuesday, February 19 revealed
that a CIA Predator drone aircraft had attacked the Pakistani
town of Mir Ali, killing a certain Abu Laith al-Libi, supposedly
a leading figure of the al Qaeda patsy organization. The big
news was that this time around, the CIA had not sought approval
from the government of Pakistan. President Musharraf, weakened
by the CIA destabilization of his country that is now ongoing,
was only notified of the operation once it was underway, meaning
that he was not even consulted in advance. Thus, the aggressive
policy put into Obama’s mouth by Zbigniew Brzezinski has become
operational US policy, regardless of what the lame-duck Bush had
to say about this issue last summer. Pakistan is now being
targeted because of President Musharraf’s strategic
understanding with China. Brzezinski intends to strip the
Chinese of all their traditional allies as part of his campaign
to smash the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and any other
foci of resistance inside Eurasia against Anglo-American
7. FALL OF
The European government most friendly to Russia and most
reluctant to follow Brzezinski’s lead into confrontation was the
Italian regime of Romano Prodi. Italy had launched a program of
large-scale economic cooperation with Moscow, much of it
mediated through the Italian oil company ENI, a perennial
outsider and rival of the Anglo-American cartel. Underpinning
the cooperation between Italy and Russia was a far-reaching
rapprochement between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox
Church aiming at forms of ecumenical dialogue with obvious
overtones of political and economic cooperation. This dialogue
between the Roman Pope and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is
something Brzezinski abhors. A few weeks ago, Prodi was
overthrown through the actions of a Quisling political faction
centered on the Bank of Italy. The other European governments,
most notably Mrs. Merkel in Germany, and Sarkozy in France, are
currently in the pocket of the Anglo-Americans. The British
regime of Gordon Brown has of course taken the lead in fomenting
confrontation with Russia through such transparent provocations
as the Litvinenko-Berezovsky affair and the recent flap about UK
subversive activities in Russia conduited through the British
Council, supposedly a cultural exchange organization, but in
reality a very aggressive arm of MI-6, which is now being
expelled from Russia. The policy being imposed by Brzezinski is
by its origins a London policy.
MOVES TO ELIMINATE OBAMA’S COMPETITION
The campaign of scandal revelations against Senator John McCain
in the New York Times suggest that the banking establishment is
determined to remove all obstacles that might impede the March
of Brzezinski’s puppet Obama to the White House. In addition,
Arizona Republican Congressman Rick Renzi, a McCain ally, has
just been indicted on charges of extortion, wire fraud and money
laundering in an alleged scheme to profit from a land deal.
Renzi is an honorary co-chairman of McCain’s presidential
campaign. At the same time, the controled corporate media
continue to cover up the explosive revelations of Larry
Sinclair, which have now been covered on numerous web sites and
in the supermarket tabloid, The Globe. Since Karl Rove already
knows all about these scandals, Democratic primary voters need
to know about them too – otherwise they risk choosing a
candidate so thoroughly compromised as to be unelectable.
Obama is an intrinsically weak candidate, who might well be
defeated even by McCain in a normal election, especially given
the overwhelming suspicion about Obama among Latino, Asian, and
Catholic voters. The motivation of the New York Times smear
campaign against McCain by his former admirers and backers is to
eliminate any serious contenders who might hinder the new
Messiah between now and November.
This is not the first time that the intelligence
community-police state apparatus has had to intervene decisively
to provide assistance to the faltering ambitions of their
puppet, Obama. During his quest for a seat in the United States
Senate from Illinois in 2004, Obama received a scandal boost not
once but twice. Obama’s opponent in the Illinois Democratic
senatorial primary of March 2004 was Marson Blair Hull, a
wealthy securities broker who spent $28 million on television
advertising and was heavily favored to defeat Obama in that
primary. But Hull’s campaign was torpedoed by a barrage of well
timed media charges that he had abused his former wife. Hull was
therefore obliged to drop out of the race.
After Hull had been eliminated, Obama still had to face his
Republican opponent in the November general election. Here his
adversary was Jack Ryan, an investment banker from Goldman
Sachs. Ryan had divorced his wife Jeri in 1999, and the case was
sealed at their mutual request. Suddenly the Chicago Tribune and
WLS television began undertaking mighty exertions to get these
divorce records made public, even though they involved a dispute
about child custody. On June 22, 2004, Los Angeles Superior
Court judge Robert Schneider released the court documents in
question. They revealed an accusation by Jeri Ryan against her
husband, now Obama’s political competitor, to the effect that
Jack Ryan had induced her to frequent sex clubs in a number of
locations, and had attempted to coerce her into sexual
intercourse in the presence of third parties. Judge Schnider’s
decision was all the more extraordinary because it was made in
the face of the direct opposition by both parties to the
divorce, and bore on a Family Court matter that is normally kept
vigorously secret. It was as if some totalitarian invisible hand
were intervening in favor of the beleaguered Obama candidacy. At
this point Jack Ryan was compelled to abandon his candidacy at
the urging of Dennis Hastert, then Speaker of the House. By now
the Illinois Democratic Party appeared to have gotten the
message that Obama enjoyed divine protection, since they did not
nominate a serious candidate to oppose him in the November
election. Instead, they brought in a carpetbagger and well known
windbag in the person of Allan Keyes of Maryland, who
predictably went on to lose to Obama by the most lopsided margin
in Illinois political history.
This process also recalls the 1988 elimination of top Democratic
contender Gary Hart through a sex scandal. Hart’s prospective
opponent was Bush the Elder, another intrinsically weak
candidate favored by the CIA who needed police state assistance
top make it to the White House. Gary Hart was knocked out of
contention by a scandal involving Donna Rice, with whom Hart had
been embroiled with the help of underworld figure Don Aronow, an
ally of the Bush family. With US missiles about to be installed
in Poland under the direct supervision of Ian Brzezinski, the
Pentagon’s top man for Eastern Europe, the world is demonstrably
moving towards a US – Russian superpower confrontation with
unmistakable thermonuclear overtones. The one missing ingredient
in this pattern is a suitable demagogue in the White House who
can make an appeal for national mobilization in this crisis,
including quite possibly a restoration of the military draft,
planeloads of body bags, and a dimension of economic sacrifice
and tax increases which Bush never proposed. This is the role of
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s puppet and Manchurian candidate, Obama.
The anointed one can still be prevented from carrying out the
Brzezinski-Soros plan to seize the Democratic presidential
nomination through the domestic equivalent of a color revolution
or people power coup.
The dynasty we need to worry about at this point is neither the
Clintons nor the Bushes. The main concern today is an extension
of the Brzezinski dynasty. Zbigniew Brzezinski, founder of the
Trilateral Commission, member of the Council on Foreign
Relations, and RAND Corporation operative, personally selected
Carter as president of the United States in the mid-1970s. The
resulting 1977-1981 Brzezinski Trilateral administration was an
unmitigated catastrophe, leading to two decades of severe
political reaction from which this country has not recovered.
Given the ongoing breakdown crisis of the Anglo-American banking
and currency systems, another Brzezinski administration would
pose the threat of thermonuclear war with Russia in an
infinitely more acute form than in the 1970s. After a few months
of Zbigniew Brzezinski running the show, the era of Bush and the
neocons might begin to look like the good old days. It is still
possible to avoid this nightmare by timely action.
THE OBAMA DECEPTION
Baseless, Ignorant And Hateful By Michael Hoffman
...Let's be real. Ending Israeli hegemony and being
genuinely fair to the Arab nation of peoples which
the Orthodox rabbis denominate as "Amalek,"
would require a revolutionary break with Holocaustianity,
the universal, de facto state religion of the Western world...
by Edgar J. Steele 4-22-09 ....I want to like Obama.
In fact, I still do ... personally.
After all, he is just so ... likeable.
Problem is, things are happening on his watch
that continue to fracture America and, in fact,
seem to be accelerating her plunge into
the political, social and economic abyss....
Barack Obama - Crime Boss By Stephen Lendman
...Since taking office, Obama, wittingly or otherwise,
has headed the largest criminal enterprise
in history - the mass looting of national wealth
to enrich his Wall Street benefactors.
He assembled a rogue economic team of
Clinton/Robert Rubin retreads - to fix the
current crisis they engineered...
State of the Revolution
A Report to the American People
by Edgar J. Steele
March 18, 2008 ....Ok. So President Obama
a State of the Union address this year.
That doesn't mean I can't respond anyway
with the second annual edition of my take
on The State of the Revolution.
Though this year's report contains tons
of new information, I will, however, repeat
certain salient portions of last year's report....
Barack Obama -
First Jewish President
By James Petras
12-13-8 .....Think about it: Not only do
and their embedded clones rule the White House,
they also have the political apparatus
(left, liberal, center and right) to silence, insult,
witch hunt and isolate any critic of their agenda,
their organizations and of the State of Israel.
When confronted by a critic the entire apparatus
brays in unison about 'anti-Semitism'
and follows up with severe civil sanctions...
The Last Shout
By Mike James in Germany
November 29, 2008 ....America has just elected an
aligned with the principles of British Fabianism,
to be their president for at least the next four years.
McCain would have been no different;
for the Zionists and the State of Israel,
who control America, stacked their cards
to ensure for themselves
a satisfactory outcome either way....
you can believe in:
For the worse
Digging the Hole Deeper by Dr. Diego Rodriguez
.......CUTTING OFF INCOME
There’s also been plenty of pressure
on the income (revenue) side:
“The U.S. economy fell into a recession last spring
and will contract sharply this quarter as more than
200,000 workers per month are added to the rolls
of the unemployed, a survey said on Monday. “....
Israeli Who Will Run
the Obama White House Written by Christopher Bollyn
06 November 2008
...Rahm Emanuel, who is named after a
Lehi (Stern Gang) terrorist named Rahamim Cohen,
and David Axelrod have been working together
since 1984 when they teamed up to help
Paul Simon (Mr. Bowtie) defeat Sen. Charles Percy (R-Ill.)
These two Zionist extremists were not working for
reform in Illinois; their only agenda was to defeat
the incumbent Sen. Percy because of his senior position
on the Foreign Relations Committee
and his outspoken criticism of Israel...
11-6-8 ...The first twenty-four hours
are now history,
and the first indications are that there are
surprises waiting for those that 'believed,'
perhaps too soon; in the literal application
of Obama's implied promises for real change
that already seems to be imperiled.
The message from around the world lies
in the hope that Obama will begin
to encourage peace and end the foreign
policies that have destabilized so much
of the world today. Here are some excerpts
from a round-table discussion
on Democracy Now this morning...
The Bankers 9/11
10-8-8 The US - now world - financial
has given nations a golden opportunity,
but will they seize it,
asks Eric Walberg
Theft America By Stephen Lendman
.....The result of unfettered capitalism's fatal flaw
- unbridled greed in a rigged system that rewards
the few at the expense of most others.
First an explanation of how it works.
Free-wheeling, "free market" Chicago School
fundamentalism the way economist Milton Friedman
championed it in his 1962 book
"Capitalism and Freedom" and taught it
to students for decades....
by Edgar J. Steele
June 27, 2008
Even the most ardent of Barack Obama's supporters
generally will confess to a small, nagging
(dare I say niggling?) doubt about the object of their ardor.
Similarly, even Obama's most vocal opposition stops
and stares just a bit overlong when they see him speaking.
What an odd situation.
The Old Guy
DEALING WITH IT.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama says we should talk about race.
He thinks that will help him. It won't.
Most of us have spent a lifetime
absorbing the lesson that seeing
what we see automatically makes us racist.
Do you want to talk about it? Do you? Really?