Foundation Delusion

Kneel to hyper wealth, the republic is history.

TOO MANY FOUNDATIONS ARE JUST PLUTOCRATIC EXPLOITATION DEVICES.

Main ideas: All too many foundations further plutocracy. Their nefarious influence spreads far and wide. From the University of Chicago (fief of reducing all to greed, founded by a foundation), to the four decades of American sponsored war in Afghanistan (a devious plot of the 1970s to institute oil procurement in Central Asia). The many foundations of plutocratic type drag society down the road to hell in all sorts of ways, some overt, some covert, and the worst are emotional.

Paying careful attention to emotional distorsion brings a new twist to the school building foundation tied to “Three Cups of Tea”. It should have been “Three Cups of Oil” (surprise, surprise!). I view that foundation’s main mission to be part of a giant cover-up about what has been truly instituted in Central Asia, in the name of American consumer. Indeed, real U.S. policy was the exact opposite.

***

***

Abstract: In my book, plutocracy is the rule of Pluto, not just wealth. Wealth is only one of the characteristics of that God. Invisibility is another. Being underground, under cover still another.

And then, of course there is Hades sie, the Dark Side of the Mind. Plutocrats have many awful tricks. Foundations are one of these tricks. Foundations allow their corporate officers to rule the world ever more, while living like kings and queens ever more, including to enjoy the warm glow of the adorating masses cued by the Main Stream Media (see the Melinda & Barack school show).

But the underground has other tricks. The magazine of the plutocrat Forbes will not talk about his colleague Qaddafi’s 150 billion dollar fortune: that’s friendly, and that is wise (otherwise people would understand what plutocracy really is!).

Qaddafi, of the most powerful sort of plutocrats, the mass murdering plutocrat, hides behind the innocent, preferably masses of children. That helped him to reign 42 years. He learned his lesson well. Once Qaddafi, during one of his invasions of Chad, decades ago, was among his military, like the average dictator, without any women and children to hide behind. He was at a desert air strip. French aircraft came low and fast. Their bombs, slowed down by drag chutes, nearly killed him. Ever since the dictator has been careful  to surround himself with curtains of innocents. 

Qaddafi had been conducting state sponsored terrorism with impunity. In one of his rare appropriate decisions, Reagan bombed his command compound. Qaddafi whined disingenuously that an adoptive “daughter” had been killed. Another trick. Nobody had heard of that daughter before. Qaddafi had been informed by some traitors, within NATO, that 100 American bombers were heading his way. Qaddafi and his entourage fled, with more than half an hour of warning. Qaddafi did not explain why he strangely forgot his beloved daughter-one-had-never-hear-of-before. Maybe he left her behind, as one leaves a goat for a tiger. Most probably she was not his daughter, either. maybe she died somewhere else, in some other way. Tricky, tricky. Recently, dead demonstrators were brought out of storage to be recycled as NATO victims.

As it is, dozens of American plutocrats have taken a well publicized oath to shelter all their money in foundations, calling that philanthropic. See: they should not be taxed, they are already so good, besides supporting the world on their mighty shoulders (and if they smirk,  for your own good too, because you have not worked enough, you have not served hard enough to be able to do that, so they are doing it for you: watch their servants serve in Washington, and be rewarded with fortunes, thereafter).

The blossoming of American foundations is a devious plot to foster, advertize, and protect American plutocracy. Foundations let the hyper wealthy avoid taxes, while allowing them to gather ever more power, with the complicity and collaboration of  the political leadership.

(For another touching aspect of the foundation story, see Obama saving American schools thanks to a few millions from Melinda Gates, apparently a sort of unelected unofficial official who married well. Instead, why does not Obama propose to tax the Gates 50 billion dollars, to get some real money, for American schools? Is somebody looking for a future source of income, thus preserving it carefully for future generations of his own brood? Just asking…)

The scandal of the foundation delusion extends well beyond “Three Cups of Tea” and its sordid entanglement of military policy and propaganda in Afghanistan. The reign of foundations aims at replacing the justice of the republic by the philanthropy of feudalism, part of a cynical, concerted attempt to make the public thing irrelevant, and foster the cult of Pluto and its agents.

And Qaddafi, top plutocrat, and top foundation artist in all this? Is he out for good? Would not that be tragic for plutocracy? For the new foundation of the world on plutocracy? Sure. And that is why, as I write this, American envoys are secretly negotiating with Qaddafi in Mauretania. Not something European philosophers approve of, to put it mildly. But still a new twist in trickery of those who believe that the world ought to be in their pocket.

***

***

USA: A WEALTH OF POVERTY, FRANCE: A POVERTY OF WEALTH?

One constant element of plutocratic propaganda in the USA is the sentence:”Americans are the most generous people in the world“. If one watches Fox News for a few hours, one will encounter that leitmotiv a few times. By that they probably mean that their rich sponsors have given them a lot.

Indeed, this is rather curious: so much generosity, so much poverty! The overall poverty rate climbed in 2009 to 14.3 percent, or 43.6 million people, the Census Bureau said its annual report on the economic well-being of U.S. households in September 2010 (the poverty line is $21,500 for four people). The share of Americans without any health coverage rose to 16.7 percent — or 50.7 million people.

Let’s compare with the usual suspect, the French public thing, the French res publica. The poverty line in France is set higher than in the USA at half of median income (thus would be 25K for 4). The poor seem to be around 6% of the French population… with free health care, free education, subsidized transportation, etc., the French are not poor in the American sense of increasing destitution and decreasing lifespan. The occurrence of poverty decreased in France over 30 years down from 15% (namely the present American levels).

France improved, the USA blatantly regressed, and this durable collapse is worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s (on long time series). 

Why such a contrast between US and French poverty? The USA ought to be much wealthier than France. Like Saudi Arabia, the USA has massive reserves of oil and gas, and France has none. Like Germany, the USA has lots of coal, and France has none. A hint to solve that riddle: in France the hyper wealthy get taxed the most, and that is more than 50%. In the USA, the hyper wealthy get taxed the less, and that is an average of 17%. (France has Arnault, a self made man, nearly as rich as Buffet, and without insider trading! So French billionaires are not suffering too much…)

And that 17% tax for the hyper wealthy does not even take into account the tax dodge of the FOUNDATION ILLUSION.

***

FOUNDATIONS AS ONE MORE WEAPON OF THE PLUTOCRATS:

As a private company which set up “Private Family Foundations” puts it:

“In recent years, several private foundations have gained prominence in the media, and raised public awareness of their causes. Foundations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates, are often created with one philanthropic goal in mind. However, as the grantors often realize, establishing your own foundation can often make smart money sense, as well.

Plus, your last name does not have to be Rockefeller or Getty to start your own.

The Role of the Foundation:

A Private Family Foundation (PFF) is a separate entity, privately funded by you. It is created with the specific purpose of contributing to various charitable causes.

As a distinct, legal entity, The Private Family Foundation:

1. Contributes to a charitable cause and takes a tax deduction, while relinquishing personal control over your gift.

2. Minimizes your estate tax liability.

3. Avoids capital gains tax on the sale of appreciated property contributed to the charity of your choice.

4. Provides continuing employment and activity for your family members.

5. Identifies and preserves your family name for years to come.

Create and Control Your PFF:

Any Private Family Foundation must be created with a charitable “intent.” The Foundation is managed by a trustee or executive director that oversees the Foundation’s investments and distributes the Foundation’s assets.

You can even appoint yourself as the trustee of your own Foundation. This way, you maintain control over the assets contained in the Foundation.”

The Foundation Law in the USA was passed the same day as the Income Tax Law. Need I say more? The point (3) above means that if an individual becomes immensely wealthy through, say, the growth of shares in a company, he can transfer the gigantic profits without having to pay tax. Nor will his heirs have to pay tax. No wonder so many American foundations are rabidly “conservative” (a euphemism for plutocratic propaganda).

Did you ever wonder why so many hyper wealthy Americans set-up “charities” overseas in the most scenic places, and are thus forced to tough it out in the world’s most expensive hotels? (Hint: see which heavenly places the “Melinda and Bill Gates” enjoy when they go rescue Kenyans from mosquitoes!)

Thus we can see that the basic Foundation Law is a sham, a tax shelter for the hyper wealthy one is supposed to adore as if it were the Golden Calf. That is another advantage of the growth of foundations. It incites the commons to admire the hyper wealthy, and view in them heroes whose immense generosity saves the world.   

As foundations are protected from taxation, those devices of the hyper wealth, or the instruments they created, themselves typically tax-free, never stop growing. They are to the American jungle what ever-growing crocodiles are to the Australian swamps. Thus their strident pro-plutocratic propaganda is always louder. (See the Heritage Foundation, which is always careful to put the usual suspect, the French republic, at the bottom of all the classification it makes, and then Heritage is widely quoted in turn by the Main Stream Media of the USA, itself plutocratically owned.)

Then “The Economist” wonders in its April 28, 2011 issue: “Angst in the United States. What’s wrong with America’s economy? Its politicians are failing to tackle the country’s real problems. Believe it or not, they could learn from Europe.”

Really? “The Economist” used to sing the praises of the bloody dictator Pinochet (hey, another plutocrat!) and used to hate European welfare. For that neoconservative magazine to say this, that europe has got it more right, that Europe of the welfare state, the situation has got to be dismal. And so it is. “The Economist” praises welfare models against unemployment, that is massive government programs of retraining found in several countries.

However, “The Economist” does not realize the depth of the sociological problems of the USA. The cult of the foundations, that is, the cult of the Golden calf, is one of them. And that cult keeps on eluding “The Economist”. (Although the magazine has bemoaned the importance of wealth in the access to higher education in the USA.)

The dominance of the society of the USA by unlected, uncontrolled wealth has reduced democracy to shambles and fumes. That is why the white, educated USA is not reproducing anymore (as digging in the Census’s statistics show), making the problem even worse. Which schools would the educated white middle class send their children to? To do what thereafter? To serve the hyper wealthy by becoming valet park attendants?
***

NOT SO FUNNY PHONIES:

Recently the revered Buffet, the USA’s richest financier, has been exposed in a way even American naifs  can comprehend: his closest collaborator, with whom he worked for decades, engaged in a form of massive insider trading (buying for his own account stock he would then get Buffet’s fortune to purchase).

I view Buffet as the world’s greatest insider trader, the ultimate splurger at the financial buffet. But, since its collaborator in this matter was the Bushama administration, and the untouchable puppet master Goldman Sachs, I shall thread lightly for now. The spider web of foundations extends throughout the USA, with poisonous spiders all over. As I said, Buffet connects to Gates. Both connect directly to Obama.

Another who became famous, and even central in the propaganda machine of the plutocracy of the USA, was the author of “Three Cups of Tea”, a required reading at the Pentagon, the entire world was loudly told. That Greg Mortenson, a medic, a sort of mountaineer, discovered and proclaimed that schools were better than bombs. Wow: all America was fascinated, by such Christian secular wisdom, that it broke into applause, and a Greg Mortenson cult grew: one American medic cures the world, teaches the little Muslim girls. How strong is America! And how good! See American money save the world, thanks to American generosity!

It turns out that the whole thing, top to bottom, may be phony (surprise, surprise!) Indeed why not to set-up good schools in the USA first? If education is that important? And why not to impose good schools in Central and South Asia through local government programs? Well, it sounds fishy, does not it? As we will see, the answer is convoluted, but central to the quagmire.

Jon Krakauer was impressed initially, and gave Greg Mortenson $75,000, but then, as he relates in “Three Cups of Deceit“:

Mortenson [used] his phony memoir to solicit tens of millions of dollars in donations from unsuspecting readers, myself among them. Moreover, Mortenson’s charity, the Central Asia Institute, has issued fraudulent financial statements, and he has misused millions of dollars donated by schoolchildren and other trusting devotees. “Greg,” says a former treasurer of the organization’s board of directors, “regards CAI as his personal ATM.”

***

IS CAI SPELLED CIA?

The ramifications are much more sinister than even the astute Jon Krakauer has it. The strategy of the government of the USA is a conspiracy, or it’s not. Pseudo charities such as Mortenson’s are part of an obvious trick to mislead Americans, and others, about the real policies of the government of the USA in Central Asia. (Russia, and now China are also very good at disguising agents as aid workers… something the French don’t need to do, as they have their military in many African countries, when they do not collaborate tightly, as they do with Algeria, Morocco, or say, the Ivory Coast, now that French rockets have cleared said coast…)

The real use of Mortenson’s organization, as far as the thinkers in Washington are concerned, is as a propaganda operation, and a lot of the targets, is the public. The gullible public is in the USA, and South Asia. CAI hides the reality, which is, in its historical whole, the exact opposite of what CAI claims to want to do. Thus Nixon insisted:”I am not a crook!”. American policy is Nixon, writ large (and this is literally true: it’s Nixon and the still influential Kissinger who launched the plutocratic collaboration with the Chinese dictatorship… Nixon also launched HMOs… officially, Carter launched the war in Afghanistan in 1979, but some digging would no doubt excavate Nixon again).

***

HOW CENTRAL ASIAN OIL WAS WON FOR THE WEST:

By having the Pentagon read “Three Cups of Tea” ostensibly, American progressives and American conservatives were led to beleive that the American defense apparatus went according to Mortenson’s credo: “schools, not bombs“.

The progressives felt good, the conservatives, even more so: American charity at its best. Not only are these people trying to kill us, but we keep on building schools for them. American do-gooders got persuaded of the opposite of reality. A first aspect of reality is that there are more American private contractors in Afghanistan than soldiers, and they are not building schools, but making war. Indeed,  the historical reality of American governmental policy is the exact opposite of the Americans-bring-schools-not-bombs myth the CIA, and the CAI, are trying to push.

Historically the Afghan war started when Pakistani intelligence, certainly incited by its boss, American intelligence, organized some primitives and thugs to prevent girls to go to school in Afghanistan. It all started with a  policy exactly opposite to that which is ostnsibly Greg Mortenson’s misson, and that is why Greg Mortenson is such an important cover-up, with sponsors in the highest places. Nothing better for a cover than the exact opposite of what is below.

Why so mean? Why did American intelligence promote an anti-girl policy? Because killing those who taught girls and attacking schools destabilized Afghanistan into civil war, into religious war, and towards a primitive, proto-Islamist state. If you want to rule, start by inciting potential opponents to fight each other. Nothing like religious war.

Some will say: “Wait, there is no oil in Afghanistan, just rare earths, the stuff green cars are made of!” Yes, true. As in the countries occupied by China next door. However, there is a lot of oil and gas, just immediately north of Afghanistan. That area was under Russian lock and key, before American intelligence started its Afghan adventure.

American intelligence knew all too well that Islam was the way to destabilize Central Asia. Destabilizing Aghanistan would gibe the USA a plausible reason to organize a Jihad. A somewhat similar strategy had been used against… France, in Algeria and the Sahara.

It worked then, sort of, against the French, and it worked again, and this time, much better. Mostly secular Afghanistan became a battlefield dominated by the USA, its army, its intelligence agents, its proxies, and a 250,000 strong army of Jihadists. The richest Saudis got a green light to spread money and jihad around, all the way to the Caucasus, and beyond.

This has been going on for four decades, although deliberately ignorant Americans became aware of Afghanistan only in 2001. Not only was Afghanistan destabilized, but so was all of Central Asia, and even the Caucasus. The Jihad spread all the way to London, even New York (distracting, but giving no the excuse to send official armies all over the region!)

Now American oil companies are all over Central Asia, north of Afghanistan, and the Russians are mostly out. Who said the Afghan war was not a great success? (The pathetic Russians were reduced to trying to cut the oil pipelines in Georgia, with their tanks!)

So it is the highest heights of insolence to now have the American Army crowe that it does good because it allows American civilians such as Mortenson to build schools for girls! If Mortenson’s Central Asian Institute did not exist the American oil strategy, the American Central Asian strategy, would have had to institute it. If something exists, look carefully at whom it really profits (and the same goes for foundations!)

***

GENEROSITY FOR REAL:

Governments can be much more generous than individuals. It is a physical fact: a government is much larger, first of all. Secondly a government trying to be generous has a non-profit mission: office holders are not stakeholders. The officers of a government trying to be generous do not go in the best hotels in private jets, as the Gates do. And do not pay themselves hefty salaries to reward their own generosity, as most foundation types do.

A government can make sure that its generosity is not corrupted (there are laws against that, worldwide). And a government can be much more organized too. Besides, a government can enforce generosity, through taxation.

For all the big talk about their generosity, the American hyper wealthy are sucking the USA dry. They are like hyenas with a clamp on the throat of their victims, and they cannot talk.

The government can make sure that those who have it by far the easiest can contribute he most. After all, it’s the overall organization of society which allows them to have it by far the easiest. It is not that the sweat of their brow is a torrent, whereas sweat only pearls on the brow of others. Heroes exist, true, as Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, and zillions of others have pointed out, even before Ramses II’s tremendous non victory at Kadesh in Syria against the Hittites. Everybody agree that the Pharaoh in his electrum chariot, defended by his Greek bodyguard, saved the day.

But most of the greedy who crave power through money are not cut of that heroic cloth. They are more like rats who will do anything to get to the cheese, under the cover of darkness. (And therein a serious cancer, in the mind of our civilization, as  I point out in conclusion.)

Heroism should be encouraged, thus rewarded (although not exactly as in the USSR). But heroes do not lift the world: heroes they are, yes, but Atlases carrying the economy and sociology of the world, no.

***

MISSION CIVILISATRICE, YES, FAKE GOODNESS, NO:

Americans discover that it feels good to instruct the ignorant. Good. But nothing new. The “Mission Civilisatrice” of Nineteenth Century French colonialism was not invented yesterday, and it worked (mostly). All of Senegal was conquered, or, more exactly pacified, by 5,000 Senegalese soldiers led by ten French born officers. Thus out of many local potentates, and seven nations with different languages, one national entity, Senegal, was born. With mandatory public schooling and free health care. Not bad for a country where, in the boondocks, slavery was one of the main industries, a generation before.

Although I smirk at superstition, I recognize that some religious organizations have contributed very positively to the civilizing mission (some Christian, some Muslim). Some of the clergy means the goodness they advocate (and it has nothing to do with the superstition in the name of which it is done).

But peace was also, and mostly, conquered at the point of a (well aimed) gun. In India, the British did, at the point of that well aimed gun, what 35 centuries of Hinduism and 24 centuries of Buddhism had not done. The British took out the murderous infamy of the caste system (a system the abominable Gandhi defended with all his meekness, down to his humiliating assassination).

The British also disrespected violently Indian superstition, by outlawing the  time honored religious tradition to burn the young widows alive with the corpses of their old rich husbands. Actually the Brits pushed their meddling so far as forbidding any burning of widows whatsoever, alive or not. Talk about colonial arrogance!

Overall, except for the occasional holocaust against Neolithic people (in the USA and Australia), the civilizing mission of the West has been pretty effective to foster more advanced civilization (the intellectual trade went both ways: African music spread worldwide, for example). However, this is not what is going in Afghanistan. (It is going on in Libya, though.)

Americans have been victim of plutocratic propaganda, and really believe that their “charities”, these foundations made initially to turn around the estate tax, and other taxes, work. No. If you want charity, institute a 50% tax rate on the well-off, as in Europe, and cut down on the personality cult. Then insist on the generosity of the government.

Government generosity is a splendid success in Scandinavia. After taking great care of their own citizens (generally wealthier than Americans, with much less poverty) those countries give a considerable part of their GDP in true generosity.

In the USA, the much vaunted generosity of Buffet, Gates and company is just a mask for one the most unfair societies in the world, getting even more so every day. Obama and his demoncrats have been kinder to the rich than even his (future) billionaire of a predecessor (by lowering tax rates even more). Just look at how many Americans are in prison, or in serious trouble (parole, etc.) with the justice system: about ten millions. These rates of incarceration are, by far, the highest rates in the world.

Foundations have their place, but not how they are presently set-up in the USA (other countries have other arrangements). The Foundation law ought to be changed, so that foundations cease to be tax shelters, and influence-peddling oppression devices of the hyper wealthy. Obama should learn to avoid the wealthiest tax dodgers, instead of advertizing them as somehow worthy of presidential praise.

***

FOUNDATIONAL DEMONIZATION:

Last, but not least. I have exposed above reasons to disapprove of the grip foundations are having on American (hence World) society. Foundations are tax shelters, they exert undue influence, their replace public policy by private whim, they help buttress the spectacular claim that plutocracy that it is a philanthropy. Foundations incite people to go on their knees and beg the plutocracy as if it were the Golden Calf. The Bible warned us about Golden Calves. And rightly so. 

But there is worse. Foundations select for guidance by the worst. Even if it is guidance for the best, all too often it is guidance by the worst. And no, I am not just alluding to the Qaddafi Foundation.

Selection by the worst? Why? How? Why did parts of mankind ended being led by murderers such as Qaddafi or Hitler? Was that bad luck? not at all. They led the way they did, precisely because they were the worst. Only the worst can commit mass murder to satisfy their ambition, or, even worse, can view mass murder as a worthy ambition. 

There is an ominous connection between extreme ambition, the will to move mountains, and achievements akin to having mountains crumble on the many.

Evil exist in this world, as Obama himself recognized. Evil has a mission: submit the many into oblivion. That mission was evolutionary selected because of its ecological advantage. It leads to the yearning for power; submitting the many feels irresistible.

Hence the obsession some have to gather as much power as possible. (The bell curve of the frequency of unhinged domination was tilted just so by evolution that there are enough of these to insure just enough of whatever is necessary in the human character to provide with, which is also very bad. However, that shift into badness, just so, is adapted to war with sticks and stones, not thermonuclear weapons, and that is why democracies have to be pitiless, but not for the reasons and with the low standards Athens used.)

Those people obsessed by dominating others are going to compose most of the cohort which amasses great fortunes (as the 2011 book on Bill Gates by his closest collaborator, Paul Allen reveals). Should those types lead humankind? Some will mumble that Pericles, although overambitious, was a great political leader, that he inflected civilization the right way. True enough. But Pericles was just the mouthpiece of a number of top philosophers, and he mistreated Anaxagoras enough that the latter embarked on a suicidal hunger strike. Similarly, Caesar, Charlemagne, and many others were moderated by top philosophers.

Now all the plisophy which rules is from Wall Street, finance, oil tycoons, medicine greedsters, in other words, aspects of Pluto.

***

PUBLIC RULE VERSUS PRIVATE WEALTH:

In any case, although most foundations have a political role, be it only by displacing proper public institutions, the fact remains that many, if not most of the influential ones, are intrinsically associated to artists of greed rather than the duty of good.

In a democracy, a republic, the power of elected officials is kept in check, first, by the public. Not so in a society dominated by foundations by the rich, for the rich.

The public, in a true democracy or true republic, also decides which emotions should dominate society, by financing them properly. Not so in a society dominated by foundations by the rich, for the rich.

And this is one difference with europe that “The Economist” should mull over. European powers finance the emotion of care, by financing public health care, or taking care of the unemployed (with income support and retraining: see the Netherlands).

Whereas, in the last thirty years, the political system in the USA, propped by foundations and their creatures (such as the university of Chicago) has financed the financiers, thus fostering the emotion of greed, and what goes with it, the greatest fraud ever conducted (the fake collapse of the financial system in 2008, and its “rescue” by politicians, in the name of the ignorant public, mobilizing much of the power of the American economy, ever since, something the Tea Party tried to understand, before failing to do so, no doubt thanks to its plutocratic sponsors such as the Koch brothers, and something that most of the public does not understand at all, in part because it would be too painful to switch to the revolutionary mode).

Foundations put ever more power in the hands of those who have proven, by their very successful careers, that they are the most obsessed by power, greed, domination and submission. Or in the hands of those who are the most devious (see Krakauer’s book above). Thus public control slips, and so does the enticement and reign of the mind’s noblest emotions. Hence foundations bring humankind ever lower, down the road to hell, the worship of the worst.

In a republic, if one genuinely wants good to be financed, one starts by learning not to kneel to Pluto and its the Golden Calf. One needs better emotional foundation than that.

***

Patrice Ayme

History: The Enemy Of The Chinese Dictatorship

 

Abstract: The "People" Republic of China is the most powerful dictatorship that ever was. Global plutocracy has made China stronger, and uses it pretty much as it used (mostly German) fascism up and during World War Two. As a device to exploit the world further. Time to wake up to the danger at hand, relative to which, cavemen reading the Qur’an literally, are nothing but quaint critters.

Cracking down on the Chinese plutocratic complex ought to do wonders to reinstall the most advanced, bountiful economy where it belongs, in the most advanced democracies.

***

THINKING BY ROTE, OR WHY FASCISM FALTERS:

I sat on a chairlift in the Alps a few days ago next to a young, pretty woman, of Chinese ethnicity, richly dressed and made up. Lin had flown from England that day, with a British friend. She had spent six months in England already, studying economics and international relations, sent by the People’s Republic of China. It was her first time out of China, but her English was perfect. This is one of the world’s tallest chairlift, so I had plenty of time to ask her what she thought of Europe in comparison to China.

She did not bat an eyelash, haughtily declaring that she could not talk about Europe, because she knew Britain, and Britain had absolutely nothing to do with Europe, it was a completely different system. Perhaps obfuscated by this weird statement, the lift stopped, and she screamed. I can understand the proud and powerful lift: more than half of the skiers in French ski stations are British (which means they are truly British ski stations, a jolly entertaining paradox: the French’s worry is that the British, impoverished by the crisis, and the sinking pound, will evacuate the continent, and return to their fog shrouded island).

Her friend tried to reassure her, as we balanced away, one hundred fifty feet off the snow below. He explained to me that it was her first time on a chairlift. Yes, it’s my first day in Europe, she confirmed. Her boyfriend was slightly embarrassed, he suggested delicately that the United Kingdom is often viewed as part of Europe by Europeans. She looked at him as if he was an uncomprehending insect. Two systems: Britain and Europe, like China and Hong Kong. No doubt completely different she had learned by rote, back East.

Now, of course, Britain is part of the European Union, and, however hard the pirates in London finance want to believe that they are from another galaxy, the fact is, British citizens are European citizens, and Britain is just a country within the Union, just as Texas is a state within the other Union (in neither case is there an exit procedure, to the chagrin of some tribal types).

Millions of Brits live mostly in France (an old tradition: Richard, the Lion Hearted, king of England, born, married and dead in France, spent only 18 month in England: he was basically a Frenchman with part of his kingdom on the other side of the Channel).

But back to our Chinese butterfly. She was an excellent representative of the Chinese problem: young, very competent in some ways, completely foolish in others, and seemingly incapable of imagining that there were such concepts as doubt, second opinions, and extremely complex situations.

In contrast, Europe has by far the world’s most intricate political system, the exact opposite in complexity of the simplistic "communist" "People" "republic" in China.

Verily, to believe that France and Britain have completely different systems is less true than believing that Northern and Southern California have completely different systems, because the later two do slightly different things, whereas France and Britain do not.

Countries such as France and Britain are basically undistinguishable except for the climate (as I just pointed out, the old Francois is being displaced by the even older Anglo-Normand, aka English). The reason is that Britain and France came from the SAME most progressive polities, long ago, and have chosen to form another once again in the last two centuries (at the very exact time, 1815, when the British monarch renounced his rightful claim to the French throne).

Already well before Caesar decided to pay a visit to "Britannia", Celtic states thrived on both sides of the Channel, parts of the same Celtic nation, sharing the same language, religion, political system and advanced technologies (in particular tall ocean going ships that neither Greeks nor Romans ever had, obvious ancestors of the ocean going ships of the European Middle Ages, 13 centuries later).

The situation is completely different in China, where completely different ethnicities have been united by the most brutal force.

No terror forces the Europeans together: they belong together naturally, as people do in a big family, united in all ways, now that fascism is out, and social democracy reigns, and plutocracy keeps low enough a profile.

The happenstance of China is completely different. After adopting Marxism, a particularly strident Western European philosophy, and hooking up with global plutocracy, an opposite philosophy, China, balanced between these tow extremes, using both these anti-democratic philosophical engines for propulsion, has come to play a central role in the new world order.

***

PLUTOCRACY LOVES FASCISM SO MUCH, IT BRINGS IT ALONG:

China’s GDP has been increasing by leaps and bounds. Last time we saw this blossoming of apparent wealth it was called Nazi Germany, or Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Nazis stole from the Jews, as some will say that China steals from Tibet (which is full of expensive rare elements crucial in the latest technology).

Although both of Hitler’s and Stalin’s realms were fascist regimes, their origins were completely different. One was more of a cause, the other more of a reaction.

What happened with Stalin was simple: the "Man of Steel" had persuaded his colleagues they had ten years to get ready to resist a war of extermination. As the events proved, he was completely right on that most important point.

So Stalin put the USSR on a socio-economic war footing, and even imposed a military dictatorship, with the most extreme emergency powers. His colleagues grudgingly agreed, except for the chief of the Red Army, Trotsky, who got rewarded with an axe through his skull.

Trotsky was a great general, but Stalin had been the bank robber in chief of the Bolsheviks, for him, killing and stealing people was business (or more exactly "revolutionary contribution", as was the euphemism).

To whip the Soviet Union into shape, Stalin killed even more Soviets than Hitler (at least so he said drunkenly to Churchill, according to Churchill). Since the official Soviet losses in WWII are now up to 28 million dead, this is saying much. No doubt that the Gulag killed more than ten million slaves… But many of these slaves, with their little hands, built great things; canals through the north, roads through Siberian mountains…

The ferocity of the Soviet regime left the Nazis haggard. To hold the front at Moscow, "blocking sections" of the NKVD shot on sight any retreating Soviet soldiers. Prisoners were considered traitors (that meant the death penalty). Officers in the Red Army had the right to shoot their subordinates, no questions asked. Some soldiers were Soviet women, even in the tank forces. Thus motivated, much better than by the profit motive, workers at Stalingrad hopped on tanks they had just built, and rolled into combat, from inside the same factory.

Hence Stalin saved the USSR by half killing it, in his waltz, and lethal embrace, with German fascism. Stalinism was really a special case.

Nazism is therefore of more import, as a cause, in the sense that Stalin was a reaction to the extermination threat that German racism and fascism posed, and was not the origination of the threat.

There was also another factor, subjacent to all the preceding. The Soviet Union had been attacked at birth by plutocrats.

As soon as the USSR was created, the Franco-Anglo-Americans, fresh from their victory over German fascism, helped the "White Russian" army attack the communists. After a few years of this, they failed. This, nevertheless helps to explain the paranoiac nature of the USSR. As far as the Soviets were concerned, they were under plutocratic attack.

Before WWI, the French people had invested enormously in newly democratic Russia, which developed amazingly fast (helping the paranoia of the Prussian generals, who decided upon war in 1912). Understandably, little French savers wanted to recover their investments. That was one of the reasons to throw down the Soviets, who refused to honor this debt (Russia looked into it 70 years later).

In any case, the Soviets felt as if global Western plutocracy was out to get them. And they succeeded to block it, as they took control of the entire Russian empire (and more).

After being blocked by the Soviets, what was global Western plutocracy to do? Was it going to fade away? Hell, no. It is not named pluto-cracy for no good reason: the lord of hell itself is its soul.

Well, Germany was an obvious target and playground for hyper rich plotters. At this point, 1919, a split occurred in plutocratic ranks: France expected a return of German fascism ("in 20 years", Clemenceau had prophesized).

What France wanted was the reconstruction of North-West France, that the retreating imperial German army had devastated, flattening Middle age castles and factories, downing power and telephone lines, flooding the mines (some miles deep), etc. The German fascists refused, preferring to cause hyper inflation, and whine to Anglo-Saxon plutocrats that the big bad French, with their big bad black soldiers were raping them.

As the duplicitous Germans did not send enough telephone poles (!), France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr.

Next the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy intervened, proposing, and enacting, several plans with several American and German individuals who were going to be the greatest promoters of Hitler (the later was on stipend from Henry Ford). The basic idea of the plutocrats was to use Germany to go around the American anti-monopoly laws enacted by Teddy Roosevelt. Nazism was born as a trick to escape American law.

***

DEMOCRACY HAS TO CHOSE WAR IN A TIMELY MANNER:

Global Anglo-Saxon plutocracy built itself a kingdom in Germany, and later pushed for Hitler to lead it. The relationship of France with the USA became terrible by 1934, when it became clear that the USA would support Hitler, come what may. France rearmed massively, and prepared grimly for war, penalizing her economy under the weight of the military effort.

After 1936, French diplomacy succeeded to wrestle Britain progressively out of its Nazi embrace. (It was a long process, because the King, and even Churchill, had been pro-Nazi; the king was abdicated, and Churchill changed his convictions, waking up to his inner French soul, and giving up on Mussolini’s considerable charms).

***

PLUTOCRACY, OR HOW THE AMERICAN CENTURY CAME TO BE:

In 1939, France was at war with the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and American plutocracy. Britain was scrambling to build an army, but was too late. Asked formally to help, the USA refused, pointing at France as an enemy combatant of sorts. A particularly low point for the USA, which brought 70 million dead, a rich price to be paid for the so called American Century.

The American Century was that period when American plutocracy, having getting rid of the British, German and French ones, manu military, was sole owner of the world, but for the impoverished USSR and Maoist China. The American People profited from its so called century, of course, so was not too keen to understand how it all worked.

A renascent Western Europe, under Franco-German leadership, soon started the European Union, and the other part of France, Britain, had to join. When Germany reunited when Eastern Europe freed itself from the Soviet dictatorship, France (Mitterand) requested the Euro, and Germany (Kohl) accepted. A big Germany was OK with France, as long as it was a bigger France.

And here we are. The financial crisis of 2007 was long time coming. Differently from, and more severely than the Great Depression, it was announced by a faltering of the augmentation of real income per capita in the USA (real means once headline inflation, the CPI, and a fortiori real inflation, is taken into account).

***

PLUTOCRACY HAS COME BACK FOR MORE:

Now the spirit of the history I recapitulated above is not found in history books: the global plutocracy makes sure of it. It is actually hilarious how they clean up Wikipedia. But, even for the common, uncurious People, the events of 2008-2009 were revealing: the very rich individuals who had caused the crisis were sent trillions of Dollars and Euros. Normal people were told that there was not enough money to pay for their modest unemployment checks.

Obama, having offered trillions to the richest, most culprit of the rich, informed the baffled people that health care costs had to be contained for the future (when president Palin wants to invade Uzbekistan, and needs plenty of money for that, apparently). Thus, the enraged people of Massachusetts elected some guy even more good looking and naked than Obama was.

As it turned out, the financial crisis of 2007 revealed a great breathing together (con-spirare = together-breathing). Worse: a great synarchy, the greatest synarchy that ever was, came into view.

Indeed, it became clear that the same plutocratic networks and organizations, or even families, that supported German fascism after World War One still pulled the same strings.

One of the most blatant case is the Bush family: Prescott Bush was one of Hitler’s most important collaborators, as he managed, for Hitler, the most important "defense" cartel of Nazism, the American-Silesian corporation.

That was, of course fine as long as American plutocrats were busy stabbing democracy in the back. But, 8 months after Hitler had declared war to the USA, it became an embarrassment. Thus Prescott Bush was made a senator. Now Wikipedia points out that Prescott Bush was never a Nazi. And why would he have become a Nazi? He did not need to become a Nazi anymore than Stalin, long Hitler’s ally, did. Hitler’s was Bush’s employee, not conversely (banks and Wall Street played major, precise role, bringing Hitler in the service of Bush).

***

TRADING WITH FASCISM OUGHT TO BE VIEWED AS HIGH TREASON:

Trade with the Nazis later made the Nazis extremely strong. Without this trade the Nazis would have had nearly no weapons, no fuel, no rubber… and no friends.

Although the Nazis were very friendly to their Anglo-Saxons plutocrats and dictatorial friends in the East (Polish colonels and Stalin, among others), France’s strenuous opposition put them off balance, as she persuaded Britain to return to her roots, as Britain finally understood that she was malignantly manipulated from inside by plutocrats of the fascist type.

China does not have a dedicated country as an enemy, as the Nazis had in France. But it is even worse: the enemy of the Chinese dictatorship is history itself.

China is not a democracy. If China encounters internal trouble it will be tempted to do exactly what the fascists did in Germany in 1914: create an exterior war. Notice: Germany had a figurehead parliament at the time, in 1914, but China presently does not even bother with this fig leaf. It is even more naked than Scott brown (the naked white Obama from Massachusetts).

What does that mean, not being a democracy? It means most people, and their opinions, do not matter. People do not have a mind of their own, on important subject, just as Lin above.

People, instead of being an assembly of varied minds, become just one mind. All ideas are lined up in rows, goose stepping behind a few big ones, and the most important of them all is that the leaders are always right. This idea is explicitly in the Qur’an, and was the key idea of Nazism. Hitler called it the Fuererprinzip/ A double concept: principle of the guide, and guiding principle.

***

WHEN ONLY AN OLIGARCHY DOES THE THINKING, IDIOCY REIGNS:

Hitler was crafty like a fox; but, like a fox, he could be hunted. By late 1940, it became clear that he would not be able to defeat Britain.

An important Soviet delegation was in Berlin, November 12, 1940. It had to flee, with the entire population, in underground shelters, as British bombers shook Berlin, convincing the Soviets that the Nazis were seriously weakened (the Nazis had lost 50,000 elite fanatical soldiers and engineers, just in the Battle of France, and more than 2,000 planes).

This is the central weakness of fascism: a few do all the thinking, others obey and think only according to the thoughts the few on top have determined to be correct. By November 1940 those who thought in Germany could have seen Germany had already lost the war. Instead, Hitler ordered to plan the invasion of the USSR, and the obedient, brainless ants got busy doing so.

So our young Chinese is told that Britain and Europe are two different systems, and she repeats that with utmost seriousness, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. By that token, Tibet, Taiwan, Eastern Siberia, and why not Vietnam were always part of China, and especially the oil of the so called South China sea.

Plutocracy has of course seen in China its new fascist Germany. It uses it in a similar manner.

This time, though, the West has nothing to lose to enforce its civilization and ethics, in a timely manner. It can learn from history, the same causes having the same effects.

If China wants war, better now. Waiting that fascism feels ready to attack is not the optimal approach for democracy.

***

THE TIME TO FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY IS NOW:

In 1914, the fascists felt ready, and attacked. Only the semi miraculous battle of the Marne saved civilization (whatever naïve, plutocratic and aristocratic Bertrand Russell said). In 1939, Britain and France short-circuited the uncanny alliance of Hitler, Stalin, and some powerful American plutocrats; if they had not done so, then, Nazism would have won (the Nazis intended to arm themselves with sophisticated weapons and attack five years later).

Now, of course, it did not happen that straightforwardly. As Hitler formally allied himself with the Soviets, to get supplies he needed, such as oil, he expected to scare France. As far as Hitler was concerned, to reunify the Great 1,000 Year German Reich with Eastern Prussia was only satisfying the legitimate wishes of oppressed German minorities, part of whose heartland was occupied by the inferior Poles. Hitler did not want a world war: he was not ready yet. Five years later, maybe.

But France had no choice. France knew that Hitler was getting all sorts of supplies, even weapons and oil, from the American plutocrats. Attacking the Nazis had been delayed for years, to allay Anglo-Saxons sensitivities and interest. It was either attacking in1939, or waiting until the Nazis were ready to attack, as happened with the Prussian generals in 1914. The Nazi Reich was becoming ever more powerful every day, greatly thanks to its American plutocratic friends.

We are getting to similar crossroads with China: everyday China becomes physically stronger, but indications have been recently that, not only its intellectual progress is not keeping pace, but it is going backwards.

Paul Krugman, now followed by others, including Larry Summers, has argued that the Chinese currency is deliberately pegged to the US Dollar, and since the US Dollar is too low, so is the Chinese currency. Fair enough, but it is mostly the Europeans who ought to complain.

More troubling was China’s circus in Copenhagen, when Obama was treated as a little boy and Europe superbly ignored about doing something against overheating and acidifying the planet.

This was very strange: China is the number one polluter, and decided to make a huge effort in renewables, so it ought to play along. But maybe some of its plutocratic sponsors whispered in the appropriate ears of the Chinese oligarchy that green progress ought to be stopped (how else to explain China’s 180 degrees turn, reminiscent of those that Hitler boasted he could do, since only him took the decisions).

When democracy plays with fascism, it plays with fire. With the negative effects of "globalization" getting uglier everyday, maybe it is time to concentrate trade on the democratic countries (that includes all the Americas, except for Cuba, and all of Europe, apparently all the way to Kamchatka).

But then again, a firm hand could be just what China needs to see the light in a timely manner.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama mentioned that the USA "invented the automobile". How does that relate with the preceding?

This statement is blatantly not true. The first (steam powered) automobiles dating from 1769, as part of a French army program (several were built, and the first car accident occurred). In 1806 a Swiss invented the internal combustion engine (hydrogen-oxygen). In 1895 Peugeot fit the first rubber tires, and Michelin invented the pneumatic tire.

It would seem that the first American automobiles appeared in 1902, made by Mr. Olds. It is hard to find anything having to do with automobiles which was actually invented first in the USA. But it feels good, so the president says it, stoking the jingoistic fires.

Now what is the difference with monolithic thinking from China? Well, the USA is still a democracy, and one can protest when blatant lies arise. Piling up little lies (such as the USA invented everything, say) is mostly grave because it tends to lead to big lies. But big lies can be stopped in a democracy.

For example, the American People got exasperated by all the lies, or unreal craziness of the Obama administration. Lies or craziness such as sending trillions to the banks’ criminals, right away, not questions asked, no strings attached, meanwhile proposing that cost control panels (aka "death panels") should scrutinize Medicare, to save a few measly "billions", in the future. Perhaps. Real harm, savings for President Palin. 

Confronted to this craziness, what did democracy do? Well, it elected the naked white guy in one of the most left wing states of the union, as a calculated insult of the collective subconscious.

Democracy works, fascism does not, and the day fascism understands that, it attacks.

***

REFORMING WORLD FINANCE.

MAKING WORLD FINANCE SANE, EFFICIENT, AND DEMOCRATIC.

The new US government of Barack Obama should push to reform the world financial system. Clearly the old order was not just unsatisfactory, but it outright collapsed. It has also collapsed in a highly unfair way, with some of the richest even profiting from the crash. If the old system is not reformed now, it never will be, because the need to do so will never be as strong (see P/S).

What should the reform of the world financial system be made of? I suggest:

1) Regulate the market of any derivative so that it can act as a damper, not an amplifier of the fluctuations of the market function it is a derivative of (favor commercial operators, limit leverage, etc.). In other words, make sure that the tails do not wag the dogs, as they do now (see P/S).

2) Create MARKET EFFICIENCY and MARKET DEMOCRACY. As long as some operators have full information, and their computers are acting on it in the next microsecond, while most non professional market participants are doing other things, like working, sleeping or day dreaming, not all operators can take action in a fully informed way. In other words, one cannot have an efficient market as long as only a few are informed in a timely manner. We need time to allow most market participants to have equal access to information. In the age of individuals having a lot of their retirement in market equity, we need to make sure that MOST PEOPLE ARE INFORMED BEFORE PRICES MOVE SIGNIFICANTLY.

To do this: get inspiration from the foundations of physics, or from traffic safety. In both cases, there is a SPEED LIMIT (in physics the speed of light). So put a speed limit on any traded security (bond, stocks, currencies, commodities, etc.) by regulating a limit of say 3% a DAY on any security, up or down.

Another way to slow down the frenzy of transactions (which favors manipulators and speculators, and other similar parasites) is to put a not so tiny tax on each financial transaction. Such a Financial Transaction Tax would be most positive on government deficit too. Or one could try a combination of both speed limit and significant transaction cost.

Rich financial types will scream that this would kill “liquidity” (probably thinking allegorically about all the money they need to fill the moats around their castles). They will scream that trading could not occur, etc. But they can be answered, point by point. And the first answer is this: finance as the exclusive wealth making haven of the plutocrats would be over. Finance would now be first in the service of the real economy, and everybody, not the province of plutocracy. Limiting moves per day, or making them costly will limit excessive speculation. Small investors, that is, most investors, would welcome this.

3) The dangerous and abusive non sense of having people in non democratic regimes (China, Middle East, etc.) forcefully save so that their government and plutocrats can lend money to the USA, because Americans do not save enough, should be discouraged. Americans should be incited to save, like everybody else, so they can invest in their own country with their own money. So put high energy taxes in the USA and an Added Value Tax. The AVT recenters the economic activity towards saving, and away from frantic consumption. (In the European Union, the AVT is a minimum of 15%. By law. The British government just momentarily lowered its AVT from 17.5% to 15%, in the hope it will help with the UK recession… But other European countries did not touch theirs.)

4) In the USA, a CEO CLASS has appeared. These people sit on each other’s boards and give each others’ riches and perks. They have helped to transform the USA into a plutocracy: not only do they control Wall Street, but also industry. That allows them in turn to rig the work of politicians, by buying them off with the prospect of future riches. Then they tweak(ed) the tax code to their advantage. Look at the spectacle of ex president Clinton, now an immensely rich man, but not thanks to his past salaries or personal investments from said salaries. Clinton is now reaping the fruits of years of friendliness towards the hyper rich when he was president. The rise of a worldwide plutocracy is an extension of this. Ultimately, just as happened previously in the Imperium Francorum, the empire of the Franks, a feudal regime with lords will replace all democratic pretense. Fighting the plutocracy starts with breaking the CEO class. Putting representatives of unions on the boards (as done in Germany) could be a first step. Of course, for nationalized companies, civil servants should be disseminated in management and boards.

5) Raise taxes on the hyper rich, worldwide, and regulate fiscal paradises. (The largest fiscal paradise, many argue, is the USA itself! If the USA cooperates with the EU, there will be no more fiscal paradises.) Reestablish the financial reforms made to prevent a return of the Great Bubble and Great Depression that followed it (i.e. re-regulate banks stringently, reestablish the up tick rule, etc…).
***

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S 1: The list of proposed changes is not exhaustive: there will be other bits to tidy up. Bretton-Woods anchored currencies on gold. Nixon yanked the dollar out of its gold connection, anchoring currencies on the dollar thereafter. This needs to be looked at.

P/S 2:  In parallel to the financial reform, there should be a reform of the world economy, a reform of globalization, taking into account strategic goods (i.e., the world location of all high tech products, starting with… cars), agricultural subsidies (bad, except in starving areas), carbon emissions, and carefully maintaining strategic imbalances insuring the military domination of the powers that have imposed a rough approximation of peace in the last 63 years. And, of course, and first of all, making sure that the creation of new jobs somewhere does not mean the sheer disappearance of the corresponding, preexisting jobs somewhere else, but, instead the mutation of the later to comparable socioeconomic situations (that conservation law was not formally imposed so far, and would necessitate some new governmental machinery). 

P/S 3: If the world financial system is not changed now, people will get used to being abused by it. Their indignation will fade, they would adapt, and be profusely thankful for the first slightest improvement. We would move towards a return of greater plutocracy, or, in other words, the feudal system. 

P/S 4: In our interpretation of what caused the decline and fall of Rome, the original cause is the unsustainable rise of the Roman plutocracy.

Globalization the wrong way, plus various financial tactics, the most prominent being world wide tax evasion and huge leverage, have allowed the recent apparition of a plutocracy manipulating countries and populations against each other for its own benefit. This is a bit, but on a grander scale, what is going on presently in Russia, where tremendously rich oligarchs float above a miserable population distracted by fun and games like invading Georgia. Thus world financial reform should try to diminish the influence of world plutocracy (Russian plutocrats have a foot, or more, safely in the West, thus escaping the full might of the Russian government, a general tactic of plutocrats everywhere). The Gracchi brothers tried to pass wealth reform in Rome, to break the unbearable ascent of the plutocracy. They were assassinated, with thousands of their supporters.  Rome marched firmly into plutocracy, dictatorship and civil war, for the next six centuries.

P/S 5: To buy and sell with little liquidity would be child’s play in the computer age (it would have been very difficult before it, that is why it did not occur in history). A complex set of rules could allow trades, depending on who wants to do what. When a security is limit down (say) for the day, up-tick trades could be allowed (so investors could buy at limit down; for selling they would have to wait until next day in their place in the queue, considering their trading history; that would severely handicap extremely frequent traders (like “quant” hedge funds), but not the most sedate ones (like the most thoughtful mutual funds)). If the volume of trading is too huge, automatic lotteries could determine who gets in or out. 

P/S 6: Some people (Nobel Laureate Krugman, for example) have clung to the belief that speculation of the futures’ market cannot influence the price of the underlying commodity. That is completely wrong. They tried to hold to that argument as the price of oil futures shot up. Now they have fallen silent. Why? Because something even more grotesque happened. The price of oil in dollars collapsed from $147.5 to $50 in three months without any change in demand or supply (staying stuck around 86 million barrels/day). Two-third down: it was all a question of the futures collapsing, as hedge funds had to de-leverage (under the polite pretext that they anticipated a severe worldwide recession). The oily tail waged the oil dog.

P/S 7: The housing bubble collapse and its associated foreclosures should not have been a big deal for the banks (by themselves they would have just dented profits). Problems, such as the disappearance of some banks’ entire capital, came from the banks’ massive investments in derivatives, some of them unknown not only to regulators, but to the banks themselves. Pluto hides below the ground, in the Dark, indeed.

P/S 8: One of the master ideas of world financial reform is to make finance a slave to the People, and cut off the evil pathways plutocrats have been using to make themselves ever richer, on the back of the People.

Still another possible example of such an evil pathway is the “Carry Trade” where financial operators borrow in a country with low interest rates, just to transfer the capital to a high interest rate country. This has made some plutocrats very rich. It should be looked at very carefully to see if there is enough good in it, or if it should be mitigated, or outright outlawed. At first sight, it defeats the purpose of providing “liquidity” (i.e., money) to the low interest country (the fundamental reason why the interest rates are low there). Such an inquest would not be a wild attack against riches and capital a la Marx: legitimate pathways to get richer who profit the People by motivating exceptional individuals should be encouraged (and would be encouraged even more, since the evil pathways would have been closed, thus funneling more activity and creativity towards what profits to all, and not just a few parasites).