PROUT

PROUT
For a More Progressively Evolving Society

Monday, March 18, 2013

Cooperatives: Alternative Economic Structures and Business Enterprises


Alternative Economic Structures and Business Enterprises
By Dieter Dambiec

The basic reason for having cooperatives as a form of economic enterprise in an economy is to help people work together and move forward in a collective way.  Cooperatives are considered to be the best form of economic enterprise because they are capable of seeking a balanced adjustment between collective spirit and individual rights.  Dieter Dambiec summarizes Prout's views on cooperatives.

Cooperation means getting things done with collective effort.  The benefit  of cooperatives is that they combine the wealth and resources of many  individuals and harness them in a united way.  To help achieve this,  however, cooperatives should be structured so that individual interest  does not dominate collective interests.  Individual dominance can  adversely effect the welfare of different social groups and the  environment.  

Essence of cooperatives
Cooperatives as a form of economic enterprise involve getting things done between free human beings with: 
(i) equal rights; 
(ii) equal human prestige (and mutual respect for each other); 
(iii) equal locus standi (eg, legal standing) so that everyone's welfare  is considered.  

This is called "coordinated cooperation" and is needed for equilibrium  and equipoise in social life.  A socio-economic system should be based on  coordinated cooperation not subordinated cooperation.  

"Subordinated cooperation" involves people doing something individually  or collectively, but at the same time keeping themselves under other  peoples' supervision or control.  This can degenerate the moral fabric of  an enterprise and should be avoided when structuring cooperative business enterprises.

More evolved than communes
A collective economic enterprise that lacks coordinated cooperation as  its primary mode of functioning is a commune or communist system.  It ends up being based on subordinated cooperation and the predominant  relationship is that of supervisor and supervised or master and servant.   According to Prout founder P.R.  Sarkar, these relationships are ultra  vires to the psychological needs of the human mind and retard progressive movement.  

Such systems force production down, not increase it.  This is because  workers do not feel oneness with their job, nor do they have freedom to  express all their potentialities.  Communes or collectives in communist  countries were not cooperatives.  They were simply production distribution mechanisms under a regimented system of control.  

The major distinctions between communes and cooperatives are: 
(i) Communes lack personal ownership; this is one reason for their  failure.  Without a sense of personal ownership people do not work hard or care for property.  Suppression of personal ownership sentiments results in sluggish production and psychic oppression.  In cooperatives, to  compare, there is personal ownership, subject to social limitations on  concentration of wealth but also part of a mechanism to ensure  progressive increase in everyone's living standards. 
(ii) Communes lack a proper incentive system, which discourages  individual initiative by talented people.  The result is that people do  not work hard.   
(iii) Organisational behaviour and outlook in communes tends to be  materialistic and the imposed leadership crude and unsophisticated.

More responsible than capitalism
Cooperative economic enterprises must also avoid becoming capitalist in  nature.  A key feature of capitalism is the import of raw materials from  other countries or regions in order to manufacture finished products.   Cooperatives must not encourage this form of economic imbalance.  An  economy based on cooperatives must develop its own raw materials through research so that cooperatives are not dependent on foreign raw materials.

For example, apple orchards (raw materials), sericulture, apple  processing, packaging, transportation and marketing should all be  regarded as part of the farming industry of a region and function as  cooperatives.  

However, in capitalism raw material producers like farmers, timber  growers, fishing fleets, etc.  have to sell their produce immediately  through large commodity exchanges or multinational companies in order to pay off loans for irrigation, seeds, labour, equipment, etc.  Because  capitalist enterprises control markets for these raw materials, producers  often sell at lower prices than they could get under other arrangements.   A good example of the squeeze on primary producers' income by capitalist enterprises can be seen in the steep decline in wool prices in Australia over recent years.  Commodity exchanges and multinational corporations act as or dominate raw materials markets to the detriment of their suppliers.

In a cooperative system, raw materials producers like farmers would not  be faced with the same financial pressures, and so not be forced to sell  produce immediately after harvesting at sub-market prices.  By advancing  money to individual farmers, cooperatives will allow farmers to better  control the conditions of sale and thus enjoy more financial security.

A properly conceived and structured cooperative should be capable of: 
(i) determining how much to sell;  
(ii) determining the most favourable time to sell in order to get the  best price; 
(iii) fixing the price of its own produce within certain price limits.   In this way cooperatives will get the profit which is presently taken by  middlemen and profiteers in the capitalist system.  

In a cooperative farmers sell their produce to the cooperative at a rate  fixed by the cooperative.  When the market price is reasonable the  cooperative sells the aggregate.  The farmers then receive their  percentage of the profit, which will be proportional to the amount of  their land shareholding in the cooperative.  At least this can be an  initial arrangement.  

Membership requirements
Cooperative members have to be local people who, by virtue of their  established residence, can make a commitment to the cooperative and the region it services.  Therefore the problems of a floating population and immigrant labour which may disturb the economy by increasing the  availability of labor will not occur in a cooperative system.  The  requirement of a worker's or shareholder's longer term commitment to the  cooperative means there is no scope for floating labourers to be  cooperative members.  Elimination of immigrant labour will also protect  the social life of the cooperative from possible adverse social  influences created by mobile populations.  

Anyone who wishes to be part of the socio-economic life of a region,  however, can settle there and become a member of local cooperatives.  

Unemployment
Sarkar further states that in the cooperative system unemployment will be solved.  This is because as production increases the need for more human resources and for the construction and operation of more facilities will also increase.  Educated people can be properly employed as skilled  workers.  There will also be a need for tractor drivers, labourers,  cultivators, etc.  who as cooperative members will naturally do this work.   In times of economic downturn everyone's labour will be proportionately  reduced so that no one suffers the stigma of being unemployed.  In this  way economic downturns will always be short and temporary.  

Sarkar is confident that cooperatives will solve the unemployment problem and states that in the cooperative system there should be no compulsory date for superannuation.  People should be free to work as long as they like providing their health permits.  This is in contrast to some government policies which encourage older people to retire in order to make room for younger people.  Following is a look at other aspects of  Sarkar's cooperative concept.  


Workforce composition
All groups in the cooperative workforce will benefit from the  cooperative's profits.  The members of a cooperative will be composed of: 
(i) shareholders - who receive salaries for their work plus a return on  their shares; 
(ii) non-shareholders or labourers - who enjoy stable employment and  favourable wages.

Non-shareholding labourers can be further categorized into those who are: 
(i) permanent labourers - who get bonuses and premiums (dividends) as  incentives besides their wages; and  
(ii) casual or contract labourers - who only get wages for their labour.  

Labourers or workers also include those who are engaged in cooperative  management.  They will be entitled to draw dividends and salaries on the  basis of their membership in and services they render to the cooperative.  

This structure allows cooperatives to develop a proper incentive system  so that individual initiative by talented people is encouraged.  An  incentive system should ensure that intelligent people are not forced to  do work which is unsuitable for them, or be paid the same wages as  ordinary workers.  If skilled workers get paid more than unskilled workers  there will be an incentive for all to become skilled and work harder.  In  this way the cooperative will encourage the educational and skill  upgrading of its members.  

In addition, workers who give the greatest service to the cooperative  should get the greatest bonuses.  Bonuses should be paid in proportion to  wage rates and should reflect both the skill and productivity of the  worker.

Shareholder composition
Members who purchase shares in a cooperative should have no power or  right to transfer their shares without the permission of the cooperative.   Such a pre-emptive right allows existing shareholders to determine the  basis of membership, and prevents capitalist entrepreneurs from  purchasing large numbers of shares in a cooperative and speculating in  the market.  Speculative activity can easily lead to a depression and this  will of course effect the cooperative.

Shares can however be inherited.  The shares of cooperative members  without descendants simply pass on to their legally authorised  successors, who become members of the cooperative if they are not already members.  Different countries have different systems of inheritance, so the right of inheritance should be decided according to the system in vogue.  In western common law countries if someone inherits shares in a business enterprise and does not want to become a member of that enterprise, existing shareholders simply buy that person out.  Presumably the same reasoning can be applied to cooperatives.  Following this arrangement will help cooperative members avoid litigation.  

Because cooperative members will be from the same vicinity they will all  know each other, so there should be no difficulty in deciding who should  be able to buy such shares due to ignorance about potential shareholders.

Disadvantaged persons can also benefit from the cooperative system.  A  widow, disabled worker or minor can all own shares and derive an income  based on the number of shares they own.  Therefore even if as cooperative members are unable to work, they will still be entitled to an income from cooperative profits.  Establishing such a structure on a large scale should be able to do away with the welfare state mentality prevalent in capitalist societies.

Dividend distribution
In a cooperative system there will be no preference shares.  Today  preference shares are used by some financial institutions as a substitute  for debt investments (ie., loans to businesses).  Preference shares really  mean that a lender in the guise of a shareholder has first grab at co-op  dividends and therefore co-op profits.  Such investors should become  ordinary shareholders like other co-op members and share proportionately  in the success (or perhaps otherwise) of the co-op.

Cooperative management
Cooperative members should elect a board of directors from amongst the  cooperative members.  The position of director should not be honorary.   Directors must be moralists.

The board decides the amount of profit to be divided amongst members,  ie., the dividend to be paid to each shareholder.  However, not all profit  should be distributed in the form of dividends.  Some should be kept or  used for: 
(i) reinvestment, purchasing capital items or repair and maintenance;  
(ii) increasing the authorised capital of existing shareholders; 
(iii) deposit into a reserve fund to be used to increase the value or  rate of dividends in years when production is low.  This also ensures that  shareholder capital is not adversely affected.

Farmer cooperatives
All people have the right to be guaranteed minimum requirements such as  food (including water), clothing, housing, education and medical care.   These basic requirements should be cooperatively produced because they are essential collective requirements.

The importance of food means there has to be maximum and safe utilisation of agricultural land.  The best way to achieve proper organisation of agriculture is on a cooperative basis, as will be seen.

Land is very important in the psychology of farmers so a proper  cooperative system has to be built up to give farmers a sense of  ownership of their land and permanent usufructuary rights to the land  while it is managed cooperatively.  This will also give a better outturn.   The cooperative system has to be psychological and subtle so that farmers do not feel adversely affected or insecure.  

This can be achieved by farmers pooling their land in cooperatives and  keeping records of their shares based on the size of their individual  land holdings.  In this way many small plots can be merged and boundaries for adjoining lands broken down, removing needless division of land into small individual holdings.  This allows for an increase in the area of land available for cultivation, benefiting farmers collectively.

Small plots are also detrimental because farmers have to lease their land  to someone who can cultivate it as an aggregate, as in the share cropping system.  This results in lower (if any) return to the farmer.

In the cooperative system there is also great scope for agricultural  research and development into new ways to better utilize and prolong the vitality of land.  The ill effects of chemical fertilizers, which are  common in individual farming and relatively unavoidable because of lack  of individual capital, could be minimized or eliminated.  

Phase-wise socialisation
Sarkar's theory also advocates the gradual socialisation of all  agricultural land according to a phase-wise plan.  Socialisation does not  mean nationalisation or loss of an ownership interest as in the commune  system.  

A main objective of socialisation is to ensure that everyone's economic  needs can be met (particularly by having enough purchasing power to get access to the basic necessities of life).  It also ensures that there is  maximum utilisation and rational distribution.  Another objective of  socialisation and the phase-wise process is to allow for individual  psychic expansion, with a consequent change in collective psychology, so as to create a more congenial social environment in which people learn to think for the collective welfare rather than for their own self-interest.  

Four Phases

In the first phase all uneconomic land holdings should be taken over by  cooperative management for the benefit of those who own the land.  

In the second phase all landowners should be requested to join the  cooperative system.  

In the third phase there should be rational distribution of land and  redetermination of ownership.  It appears that in this phase questions  such as the excessive concentration of wealth are to be fully addressed  after having instilled in people's minds the purpose and practice of  cooperatives.

In the fourth phase conflict over land ownership should disappear.   Therefore after land has been vested in the cooperative and ownership of shares determined (as well as a proper policy of distributions of  dividends to shareholders and wages to workers determined), conflicts  amongst landowners and landless rural workers will no longer exist.

Initial stages
In the initial stages (phases 1 and 2) agricultural cooperatives can be  formed by farmers consolidating their lands into a cooperative and having  shares in the consolidated holding in proportion to the amount of land  they put into the cooperative.  For example:  

Farmer
Hectares
Shareholding %
A
5
10
B
10
20
C
15
30
D
20
40
Total
50
100

Adjustments to this simple structure will be required where the number of  shares has to be allocated to take into account the productivity of the  land.  For example, if a farmer has 20 hectares of land of which 10  hectares are highly productive and 10 hectares are of low productivity,  the share allocation to that farmer should take into account the  differences in productivity accordingly.  

Profits from crop sales by the cooperative should be shared in proportion to: 
(i) the number of shares each shareholder has in the cooperative; and 
(ii) the labour rendered for crop production.   In this way farmers receive profits according to the number of their  shares in the cooperative and their labour.  

The system is flexible so that landowners who do not want to work in the  cooperative will still have their land included in the cooperative and be  considered cooperative members.  They will get shares based on the size  and productivity of their land but if they do not want to work they will  not be entitled to wages.

Producer cooperatives
Cooperatives which are strictly agricultural, in Sarkar's system, should  sell their produce to producer cooperatives, which in turn can  manufacture a wide variety of consumer goods.  

Raw materials which are of non-farming origin, such as limestone for the  production of cement, should also be processed by producer cooperatives.  

Thus, producer cooperatives need to be formed for agro industries, agrico industries and non-agricultural industries.  

The total profit of such cooperatives should be distributed amongst the  workers and members of the cooperative according to their individual  capital investment (shares) in the cooperative and the service (labour)  they render to the production and management of the cooperative.

Farmer-producer cooperatives
Farmers in agricultural cooperatives may also create producer  cooperatives to produce items for various industries.  Thus, some  cooperatives may function as both farmer and producer cooperatives.  

Farmer cooperatives which also function as producer cooperatives have the opportunity of increasing their profitability in various ways.  For  example, producer cooperatives functioning with agricultural cooperatives  could produce rice as well as oil from the husks.  

Consumer cooperatives
Consumer cooperatives will distribute consumer goods to members of the  public at reasonable rates.  These cooperatives should be formed by  persons having an interest in selling goods to the public (ie., not  hoarding), and will share profits according to the standard criteria of  individual labour and capital investment (shares).  

Consumer cooperatives will be supplied by both agricultural and producer  cooperatives.  For example, agricultural or producer cooperatives which  produce cotton or silk thread will sell the thread to weaver cooperatives, which can produce cloth using the appropriate or latest technology.  Weaver cooperatives will in turn supply consumer cooperatives that sell the cloth to the public.  

Commodities which do not go directly from agricultural cooperatives to  consumer cooperatives will be produced by producer cooperatives.  These  non-farming commodities should be compulsorily produced by producer  cooperatives.  

This arrangement will prevent artificial shortages or the non-supply or  unavailability of essential goods and commodities.  This can cause  suffering to ordinary people who have little means for circumventing  these problems.

This structure also ensures there is no accumulation of essential  commodities by capitalists for the purpose of maximizing profits, or  price inflation in essential commodities.  If the distribution of  essential commodities is done through consumer cooperatives linked with  producer cooperatives, middlemen and profiteers will be eliminated.  

Service cooperatives
These are special cooperatives which should be formed by people involved  in service-type industries, such as doctors.

Satellite cooperatives
PROUT advocates the formation of many small satellite cooperatives to  supply various items to large producer cooperatives.  For example  different parts of a motor car can be locally manufactured in small  cooperatives (and even carried out at home as cottage industries).  The  main function of the producer cooperative will be assembly.  This has two  benefits:  
(i) large cooperatives will not require many labourers, minimizing labour  unrest; and  
(ii) labour costs will be reduced, keeping the cost of commodities low.

Electronic commerce and digi-cash will make it easier to establish  cottage industries because links can be made electronically between  various satellite coops, avoiding many costs and delays potentially  arising from decentralized production.

The question of transportation of goods or parts still needs to be  addressed.

The state and cooperatives

Taxation
Taxes, levies, excise duties, etc.  should be paid collectively by the  cooperative, not individuals.  This frees individuals from financial  pressure and economic exploitation through personal taxation systems.  

The primary source of taxation revenue in a PROUT system would appear to be at the point of production.  This makes sense in that enterprises which make first use of resources have a social responsibility to ensure proper utilisation and rational distribution; taxation imposes some restraint to ensure this responsibility is carried out.

Trademark regulation
A useful device that can stop black-marketing or the sale of stolen goods  is trademark law.  Laws can be passed which prevent the sale of goods  without the producer co-op's trademark.  Thus, if black marketeers try to  sell any clothing without trademarks, they can be caught easily.   Trademarks specifying cooperative ownership will also help the public  support the cooperative movement.

Essential commodities
Commodities can be divided into three categories: 
(i) essential commodities, like rice, pulse, salt, clothing, etc.  People  are willing to borrow money to buy these; 
(ii) demi-essential commodities, like oil, antiseptic soap, shoes etc.;  and  
(iii) non-essential commodities, like luxury goods.  

The number of items of essential commodities should be continually and  progressively revised and expanded with changes in time, place and  preferences.  These revisions should be made by the government and not by the board of directors of a particular cooperative.  What is considered a demi-essential commodity today may be treated as an essential commodity tomorrow.  Demi-essential commodities which may be affected by artificial shortages, causing suffering to common people, should be produced by producer cooperatives.  The production of luxury goods can be left in the hands of the private sector.  Essential commodities or services of a non-farming nature which require large capital investment, like the railway system, should be government managed.  

During shortages of non-essential commodities ordinary people will thus  not be affected.  

Pressure groups
Farmers in agricultural cooperatives should be able to exert collective  pressure on local, state or federal governments for different benefits  and facilities.  For example, government assistance may be needed to  develop an irrigation infrastructure.

Scientific advancement
As science advances, cooperatives will develop and manufacture a great  variety of commodities from synthetic raw materials.

Socio-economic units lacking sufficient supply of raw materials will have  to manufacture synthetic raw materials.  Suppose a unit or region lacks an  adequate supply of fodder to feed its cattle, sheep, etc.  Will it import  fodder from another unit or region?  No, it should manufacture artificial  fodder instead.  Similarly, it takes a substantial volume of cotton to  produce one "dhoti" (the traditional garment worn by men in northern  India).  To transport large amounts of cotton also requires much energy,  and so if it is not readily available, synthetic fabric can be produced  instead.

Thus through the cooperative system human society will progress with  accelerating speed, ushering in a new revolution in science and causing  the intellectual capacity of human beings to increase.  Every nook and  corner of natural and human potential will be properly used.  In this way  progress and development can be maintained in every field of life.  

To encourage common factors and discourage all fissiparous factors in the  physical realm, human sweetness is required.  The best expression of human sweetness in the socio-economic world is the cooperative system.

Dieter Dambiec practices law in Australia and New Zealand.  




Wednesday, March 13, 2013

What would your city look like with Beijing's air pollution? Use this smog simulator


by Matt Berger
Marketplace Radio



A cloud of pollution three times the size of Californiablanketed China last month that was so dangerous residents were warned to stay indoors and avoid outdoor activities.  Many locals reported visibility so poor that buildings down the street were obscured.  Images of Beijing covered with murky brown air were a startling reminder of how rising pollution from factories and automobiles can spoil the air in that industrializing nation.   
beijing air qualityIn cleaner cities around the globe, those images of Beijing -- like the one at left -- served as an effective tool for understanding what it's like to live and breathe Beijing-quality air.    
Marketplace's China correspondent Rob Schmitz has been covering China's bad air for years (today on Marketplace he reports on theeconomic boom of bad air) and notes that on bad days the visibility is, at most, 50 feet to 100 feet in front of you.  
The U.S. Embassy in Beijing, which tracks the tiny toxic particles that cause the sky to turn dark, known as PM2.5 particles, reported levels last month that were off the charts -- topping out at 755 on the air quality index (AQI), a system of measurement that officially maxes out at 500.  
Simulating smog
We wondered what other cities around the globe might look like under these pollution conditions, so we built a simple simulator to illustrate.  Using side-by-side photos of Beijing to calibrate our not-so-scientific "obscurity filter," we applied the tool to photos of some major cities around the globe.  Play around with the sliders below to see what these cities might look like with a Beijing-level air quality index.  
Visibility an indicator
The science backs this up, according to Sam Atwood, a spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, one of 35 districts in California that monitors air quality to comply with state and federal requirements.  He explained that the PM2.5 particulates that pollute the air directly correlate with visibility.  
"Essentially, these very tiny particles absorb and scatter light coming from the sun," Atwood said.  
Another pollutant, nitrogen oxide, is known for creating the whiskey-brown haze.  And moisture also reduces visibility and enhances particulates, making the air look more polluted than it actually is, Atwood added.  
"We focus on PM2.5 because that’s the size of particle that the federal government now sets its health standard by," he added.  "The very tiniest of them can even pass through the lung tissue into the blood stream.  That’s why PM2.5 has been associated with a wide-range of health effects, including thousands of premature deaths every year in California."  
Here's a look at how some other cities might look like with the haze we see in Beijing and Shanghai.  Want to see what your city might look like under a toxic cloud of pollution? Tweet us a photo @MarketplaceAPM.  

Photo Credits: Baltimore courtesy Daniel Ewald via Twitter; San Francisco by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images; New York by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images; Beijing by Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images; Paris by Eric Piermont/AFP/Getty Images; Toronto via Twitter
Find this and other Sustainability presentations from Marketplace HERE  

PROUT's social, economic, and political paradigm is progressively homeostatic, positively affecting every realm of life, both for humans and all other life forms conjugating the mysteries life on this magnificent planet.  
Explore PROUT further.





Saturday, March 9, 2013

CIA Head Sworn In On Draft Constitution WITHOUT Bill of Rights

Posted on March 9, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Stunning Symbolism

The government has absolutely shred the Bill of Rights in the last decade or so.
As such, it is fitting that Mr. Brennan specially requested that he be sworn in on a draft of the Constitution lacking the Bill of Rights.
A draft which doesn’t even begin with the famous preamble we all know and love:
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ….
But rather starts with:
We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity….
That has a very different tone from the final version of the Constitution. And again, this version has noBill of Rights.
Here’s the actual draft Brennan swore in on, courtesy of the National Archives (click any image for larger view):
The handwriting is that of George Washington.
Washington was a brave leader (but a terrible general). More importantly, he was one man … and the whole idea of the Bill of Rights is that the people have inalienable rights – e.g. no deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law – which cannot be taken away by any leader … including the president or the head of the CIA.  
This post originally appeared here.


Friday, March 8, 2013

US Plots Conquest of Venezuela in Wake of Chavez' Death

Chavez, Beyond the Caricatures


By Tony Cartalucci

March 07, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - (LD) - US corporate-financier funded think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), declared in its "post-Chávez checklist for US policymakers," that the US must move quickly to reorganize Venezuela according to US interests.  Upon its checklist were "key demands":  

  • The ouster of narco-kingpins who now hold senior posts in government 
  • The respect for a constitutional succession 
  • The adoption of meaningful electoral reforms to ensure a fair campaign environment and a transparent vote count in expected presidential elections; and 
  • The dismantling of Iranian and Hezbollah networks in Venezuela 

In reality, AEI is talking about dismantling entirely the obstacles that have prevented the US and the corporate-financier interests that direct it, from installing a client regime and extracting entirely Venezuela's wealth while obstructing, even dismantling the progress and geopolitical influence achieved by the late President Hugo Chavez throughout South America and beyond.   

The AEI "checklist" continues by stating:  
Now is the time for US diplomats to begin a quiet dialogue with key regional powers to explain the high cost of Chávez’s criminal regime, including the impact of chavista complicity with narcotraffickers who sow mayhem in Colombia, Central America, and Mexico.  Perhaps then we can convince regional leaders to show solidarity with Venezuelan democrats who want to restore a commitment to the rule of law and to rebuild an economy that can be an engine for growth in South America.
 
Of course, by "Venezuelan democrats," AEI means Wall Street-backed proxies like Henrique Capriles Radonski and his Primero Justicia (Justice First) political front, two entities the Western media is already gearing up to support ahead of anticipated elections.  


West Has Positioned Proxies to Strip Venezuela to the Bones After Chavez' Passing

Primero Justicia (Justice First) was co-founded by Leopoldo Lopez and Julio Borges, who like Radonski, have been backed for nearly a decade by the US State Department.  Primero Justicia and the network of foreign-funded NGOs that support it have been recipients of both direct and indirect foreign support for at least just as long.  



Image:  US State Department document (archived) illustrating the role National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-funded NGOs play in supporting US-backed opposition figures in Venezuela.  The US regularly fails to transparently list who is included in extensive funding NED provides opposition groups in Venezeula, so documents like this give a rare glimpse into the names and dynamics actually involved.  As was suspected, NED money is going into networks providing support for current presidential candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski.   In this particular document, NED-funded Sumate's legal trouble is described in relation to its attempted defense of Radonski.  At the time this document was written, Radonski was in jail pending trial for his role in facilitating the 2002 US-backed failed coup against President Hugo Chavez.  The document may still be online at the US State Department's official website here.  


All three co-founders are US educated - Radonski having attended New York's Columbia University (Spanish), Julio Borges attending Boston College and Oxford (Spanish), and Leopoldo Lopez who attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (KSG), of which he is considered an alumni of (and here).  

The Harvard Kennedy School, which hosts the notorious Belfer Center, includes the following faculty and alumni of Lopez, co-founder of the current US-backed opposition in Venezuela:

John P. Holdren, Samantha Power, Lawrence Summers, Robert Zoellick, (all as faculty), as well as Ban Ki-Moon ('84), Paul Volcker ('51), Robert Kagan ('91), Bill O'Reilly ('96), Klaus Schwab ('67), and literally hundreds of senators, ambassadors, and administrators of Wall Street and London's current global spanning international order.  Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (KSG) is clearly one of several universities that form the foundation of both creating corporate-financier driven globalist-international policy, as well as cultivating legions of administrators to execute it.  
To understand fully the implications of Lopez' education it helps to understand the leadership and principles guiding Harvard's mission statements, best exemplified by KSG' Belfer Center, which to this day, lends its public support to Lopez and his Primero Justicia opposition party.   


Image: John P. Holdren (bearded, left), an advocate for population reduction through forced sterilization overseen by a "planetary regime," is just one of many "colorful" characters to be found within the halls of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government from which Primero Justicia co-founder Leopoldo Lopez of Venezuela graduated.  To this day, KSG provides forums in support of US-backed opposition bids at seizing power in Venezuela.


Named after Robert Belfer of the Belco Petroleum Corporation and later, director of the failed Enron Corporation, the Belfer Center describes itself as being "the hub of the Harvard Kennedy School's research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy." Robert Belfer still sits in as an International Council Member.   

Belfer's director, Graham Allison provides an example of self-serving corporatism steering US policy.  He was a founder of the Trilateral Commission, a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a consultant to the RAND Corporation, Director of the Getty Oil Company, Natixis, Loomis Sayles, Hansberger, Taubman Centers, Inc., and Belco Oil and Gas, as well as a member of the advisory boards of Chase Bank, Chemical Bank, Hydro-Quebec, and the shady International Energy Corporation, all according to his official Belfer Center bio.   

Other questionable personalities involved as Belfer alumnus are Goldman Sachs, CFR member, and former-World Bank president Robert Zoellick.  Sitting on the board of directors is CFR member and former Goldman Sachs consultant, Ashton Carter.  There is also former director of Citigroup and Raytheon, former Director of Central Intelligence and CFR member John Deutch, who required a pardon by Clinton to avoid prosecution over a breach of security while fumbling his duties at the CIA.  Meanwhile, Nathaniel Rothschild of Atticus Capital and RIT Capital Partners, Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve, and former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff all serve as Belfer Center's "advisers."  

Last but not least, there is John P. Holdren, also a Council on Foreign Relations member, science adviser to both President Clinton and President Obama, and co-author with Paul Ehrilich, of the now notorious "Ecoscience." When Holdren isn't brand-building for "Climate Disruption," he is dreaming of a Malthusian fueled totalitarian global government that forcibly sterilizes the world's population.  He feared, erroneously, that overpopulation would be the end of humanity.  He claimed in his hubris filled, fact deficient book, "The No Growth Society," that by the year 2040, the United States would have a dangerously unsustainable population of 280 million he called "much too many."  The current US population is over 300 million, and despite reckless leadership and policies, it is still sustainable.   

One could argue that Lopez' education is in his past, independent of his current political activities, however, the interests driving the agenda of the Belfer Center are demonstrably still backing his Primero Justicia party's bid for seizing power in Venezuela.  Lopez, Radonski, and Borges are to this day still receiving substantial funding and support through NGO networks funded directly by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy, and is clearly favored by the Western press.  Furthermore, the CFR, Heritage Foundation, and other corporate-financier driven think-tanks have all come out in support of Radonski and Primero Justicia, in their bid to "restore democracy" American-style in Venezuela.   

With Chavez' passing, the names of these opposition figures will become mainstays of Western reporting ahead of anticipated elections the West is eager to have held - elections the West is well positioned to manipulate in favor of Lopez, Radonski, and Borges.   

Whatever one may have thought about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his policies, he nationalized his nation's oil, forcing out foreign multinational corporations, diversified his exports to reduce dependency on Western markets (with US exports at a 9 year low), and had openly opposed corporate-financier neo-imperialism across the globe.  He was an obstruction to Western hegemony - an obstruction that has provoked overt, depraved jubilation from his opponents upon his death.   

And while many critics are quick to claim President Chavez' policies are a "failure," it would be helpful to remember that the US, on record, has arrayed its vast resources both overtly and covertly against the Venezuelan people over the years to ensure that any system outside the West's sphere of influence inevitably fails.   

Dark Days Ahead.   

Dark days indeed lay ahead for Venezuela, with the AEI "checklist" foreshadowing an "uprising," stating:  

As Venezuelan democrats wage that struggle against chavismo, regional leaders must make clear that Syria-style repression will never be tolerated in the Americas.  We should defend the right of Venezuelans to struggle democratically to reclaim control of their country and its future. Only Washington can make clear to Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Cuban leaders that, yes, the United States does mind if they try to sustain an undemocratic and hostile regime in Venezuela.  Any attempt to suppress their self-determination with Chinese cash, Russian arms, Iranian terrorists, or Cuban thuggery will be met with a coordinated regional response.   

US military contractors and special forces had been caught operating in and around Venezuela.  Just as there were warning signs in Syria years before the 2011 conflict began, the US' intentions of provoking bloodshed and regime change in Venezuela stretch back as far as 2002.  Just as Syria is now facing a Western-engineered proxy war, Venezuela will too, with the AEI already declaring US plans to wage a Syria-style proxy war in South America.  

The AEI also reminds readers of the West's faux-human rights, "economic development," and "democracy promotion" racket Hugo Chavez had ejected from Venezuela and displaced across parts of South America, and the West's desire to reestablish it:  
US development agencies should work with friends in the region to form a task force of private sector representatives, economists, and engineers to work with Venezuelans to identify the economic reforms, infrastructure investments, security assistance, and humanitarian aid that will be required to stabilize and rebuild that country.  Of course, the expectation will be that all the costs of these activities will be borne by an oil sector restored to productivity and profitability.  
Finally, we need to work with like-minded nations to reinvigorate regional organizations committed to democracy, human rights, anti-drug cooperation, and hemispheric solidarity, which have been neutered by Chávez’s destructive agenda.   

As the US openly funds, arms, and backs Al Qaeda in Syria, conducts global renditions, operates an international archipelago of torture dungeons, and is only now wrapping up a decade of subjugation and mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan that is still claiming lives and jeopardizing the future of millions to this day, it is difficult to discern just who the AEI's target audience is.  It is most likely those who can read between the lines - the corporate-financier vultures waiting for the right moment to strip Venezuela to the bone.   

The fate of Venezuela lies in its people's hands.  Covert destabilization must be faced by the Venezuelan people, while the alternative media must do its best to unravel the lies already being spun ahead of long-planned operations in "post-Chavez Venezuela." For the rest of us, we must identify the corporate-financier interests driving this agenda, - interests we most likely patronize on a daily basis, and both boycott and permanently replace them to erode the unwarranted influence they have used, and will continue to use against the Venezuelan people, as well as people across the globe.   


Find this article here.  


Evaluating the Legacy of President Hugo Chávez From One PROUT Worker's Perspective



Hugo Chavez with article author

President Hugo Chávez dedicated his life to the poor people of Venezuela.  He transformed their lives and transformed their country.

On March 6, the day after his death, I spent 11 hours waiting with friends to pay my respects as his body was slowly transported through the city.  It took much longer than expected, as hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets and the giant stadium where the procession ended to get a glimpse of the passing casket.  The crowds sang and clapped along with popular songs about “El Comandante”, shouting:  "Chávez lives, the struggle continues!"  "The people united will never be defeated!" “I am Chávez!”  When the body finally arrived at night in the National Military Academy for viewing, the line of people waiting was almost two kilometers (one mile) long!

Why did so many people go?  Why were they willing to wait so long?  And instead of being a somber occasion with everyone dressed in black, why did so many wear bright red T-shirts, or headbands with the national colors, and why were they singing and shouting slogans?

Venezuela is an example of a country that seems to have undergone a class change through a nonviolent electoral process.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hugo Chávez, a career military officer, organized 130 officers and nearly 900 soldiers, approximately ten percent of the Venezuelan military, to attempt a military rebellion in 1992 to overthrow dictator President Carlos Andrés Pérez and end his reign of corruption, censorship and abuse of human rights.  Though they failed, Chávez became a popular hero.  After two years in prison he received amnesty, starting an electoral campaign among the poor that won him the presidency at the end of 1998.  As of December 2012, his coalition has won 16 out of 17 national elections due to his successful consciousness-raising and politicization among the masses.

The capitalist-led opposition attempted a military overthrow of Chávez in 2002 with U.S. government knowledge and support; yet two days later the masses and the military united and brought him back from the island naval base where he was held prisoner.  After that, Chávez became much more strident in his rhetoric about class warfare against the oligarchy, calling them “squalids.”  Socialist and military values have influenced the masses to a great extent in terms of participatory democracy, grassroots communal councils, the new national police force and other initiatives.

The heads of the Venezuelan Central Bank and economic ministry are not bankers, but revolutionaries, orchestrating government buyouts of key industries at an accelerating rate, with more than 200 expropriations of private enterprises in 2010 alone.  Chávez has announced that he is committed to “the elimination of capitalism”.  Government-owned and community media influence the masses with values of solidarity, people’s power and socialism for the twenty-first century.  Many capitalists have fled to Miami and elsewhere, and while others remain, they are frustrated and nervous because they are no longer in power.

For the first time in the history of Venezuela, a president used the profits from the country's petroleum sales to fund social programs, such as building schools and hiring teachers so every child would go to school, starting free universities, building hospitals and health clinics in every barrio and country village that have saved thousands of lives each year.

In the hills of Vargas, a group of rural women told me how in the past when someone in their village got sick and died, it would take them two days to carry the body down to the cemetery for burial, and when they returned, sometimes there was another dead body waiting for them, because there was no clinic they could go to.  Now there are clinics everywhere.  With the help of the Women's Bank, they have formed successful agricultural cooperatives that give them all a steady income.  They swore they would never go back to the terrible poverty they suffered before Hugo Chávez changed their lives.

Chávez pioneered barter trade, signing bilateral barter agreements with developing countries, swapping Venezuelan oil for other products or services the country needed, including 50,000 Cuban doctors and dentists who provide free medical care in city slums and remote rural villages.

Chávez put the condition of the poor people on the national agenda.  Voter registration has dramatically increased, and polling places have increased.  More than 80 percent of eligible voters went to the polls in the 2012 presidential election (compared to less than 59 percent of voters in the United States who cast their ballot that year).  Today even the anti-Chávez candidates say that if elected they, too, will continue the social projects in order to try to win the majority of voters.  In 1998, when Chávez was first elected, all the houses in the villages of Barlovento in Miranda, were made of mud and in very bad condition due to regular flooding.  The state governor, Henrique Capriles, who ran against Chávez in 2012, made significant loans to the poor people so that now nearly all the houses in the villages are built with cement blocks.

Ten years ago, on June 1, 2003, I was invited to meet Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on his weekly television show to present the Spanish edition of my first Prout book, which was published in Caracas.  I told him that I was inspired by the words of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, the founder of Prout, at the end of his 1979 visit to Caracas, in which he said, “Venezuela needs good spiritual political leaders.  If Venezuela can produce spiritual political leaders, it will not only be the leader of Latin America, it will also be the leader of the planet.  Venezuela is a blessed country.”

President Chávez said, “Dada Maheshvarananda has given us a book that we appreciate very much.  Your visit has come at such an opportune moment....  Thank you very much, brother, and let’s continue with spirituality, spirit, good faith, morality, and the mystical force that moves the world.  Dada Maheshvarananda and other citizens of the world are welcome to visit, especially those who come in good faith and offer their ideas, their spirit and their moral flame to the Bolivarian Revolution.  This has attracted the attention of the whole world, especially those that struggle and dream of a better world, just as it says in After Capitalism: Prout’s Vision for a New World.”

In December 2003 and again in 2005 the national petroleum company of Venezuela (PDVSA) contracted for me and other Proutists to give a series of training courses and lectures about the Prout model.  Then in 2007 we founded the Prout Research Institute of Venezuela in Caracas as an independent, not-for-profit foundation.  A major reason we did this was because of how closely the goals of Prout's socio-economic model were shared by the Bolivarian Revolution initiated by President Chávez.

Prout asserts that the first priority of any economy should be to guarantee the minimum requirements of life (food, clothing, housing, education and medical care), the right to live, to all people.  Subsidized food staples are sold very cheaply in government supermarkets throughout the country, and public schools now provide free lunches to all students, both of which significantly reduce the money spent by poor people to feed their families.  Free education and health care for all has been achieved, too, with college enrollment doubling.  During 2012 the government built more than 200,000 houses and gave them to needy families, and it plans to build a total of two million homes by 2018.  His government reduced poverty by half and extreme poverty by 70 percent.  Eligibility for public pensions tripled.  As someone who has spent his life working with the poor, I am deeply grateful for these very impressive accomplishments – so are the masses who poured out to the streets yesterday.

Community empowerment is another key component of Prout's economic democracy; Chávez initiated the system of communal councils with cooperative banks that decide for themselves which local projects they will fund – 33,000 are now running throughout the country.

Though many complaints have been made in the world media about how Chávez has “destroyed” the Venezuelan economy, economic growth actually increased to 5.6 percent in 2012.  The conservative International Monetary Fund calculates the country’s gross public debt last year at 51.3 percent of GDP, but Europe has more than 90 percent! The foreign part of this debt was only 4.1 percent of Venezuela’s export earnings.  Inflation is high, but lower than before he came to office.

Food sovereignty, to produce enough food to feed the entire population, has not yet been achieved, but it is another goal common to both the Bolivarian government and Prout.

Chávez wanted to transform the profit-oriented capitalist economy into one oriented towards endogenous and sustainable social development by involving those who had been marginalized or excluded.  From 2002 he inspired the phenomenal creation of 262,904 registered cooperatives by the end of 2008, but many of these never became active or collapsed.  The national cooperative supervision institute, SUNACOOP, recognizes about 70,000 as functioning, which is still the highest total for any country after China.

The majority of Venezuelan cooperatives have few members who are unskilled.  Because of the high rate of failure among the registered cooperatives, in 2005 the president shifted the government’s support from cooperatives to socialist enterprises and worker takeovers of factories.  In this way, the government pays the salaries, but keeps the ownership.  Prout, on the other hand, supports cooperatives that are worker-owned as well as worker-managed.

Of course there are problems in Venezuela; a couple of them are very serious.  Corruption and crime hurt everyone.  Their causes are many; to solve these problems requires the help of all the people – for this a major consciousness-raising campaign is required in every level of education, through the mass media and in every government office.  Consciousness-raising and popular education are also key to reducing pollution and protecting the environment, another serious problem.

If the impact of these problems was reduced, many more people of the middle class could be inspired to support this revolution.  Unfortunately the revolutionary rhetoric of Chávez was often insulting towards his opponents – listening sincerely to valid complaints is necessary to open dialog and build bridges so that an ever greater majority of Venezuelans participate constructively in the Bolivarian project.

Hugo Chávez was a very strong man who led his people through a tremendous social transformation.  He has died, but his vision of a more just and more democratic society continues to inspire the masses of Venezuela and remains very much alive. 
 

Find this article here.

Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

The Fed is privately owned.  Its shareholders are private banks.

by Ellen Brown


“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.  They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”  
– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s  
The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year.  In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar.  The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company.  The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer.  The Associated Press called it a “government takeover,” but this was no ordinary nationalization.  Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency.  Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded.  The Associated Press reported:  
“The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs.”2  
This is extraordinary.  Why is the Treasury issuing U.S.  government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly “the lender of last resort” created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:  
“The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request.  The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use.  The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.”  
Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes.  Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers.  According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):  
“The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral.  It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable.”  
“To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable” means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities.  Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered “risk-free” for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, “Bailout Bedlam,” webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:
“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”3
If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself.  Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?
Not Private and Not for Profit?
The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is notfunded by Congress.  But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a “lender of last resort” to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907.  The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look.  The website states:
* “The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks.  However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company.  The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System.  The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”
* “[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”
* “The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.”5
So let’s review:
1. The Fed is privately owned.
Its shareholders are private banks.  In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks.  None of its stock is owned by the government.
2. The fact that the Fed does not get “appropriations” from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in “open market operations.”
Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off.  When the Fed wants to “expand the money supply” (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen.  These maneuvers are called “open market operations” because the Fed buys the bonds on the “open market” from the bond dealers.  The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking establishment uses to back its loans.  In another bit of sleight of hand known as “fractional reserve” lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan.  It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve “a total money-making machine.” He wrote:  
“When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check.”
3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.
The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders.  A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.
In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%.  The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans.  Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion.  Ten percent of that is $700 billion.  That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.  
The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy.  Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%.  They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks.  A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.  
Time to Change the Statute?
According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:
“[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute.”
As we know from watching the business news, “oversight” basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over.  The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells.  The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it “can alter its responsibilities by statute.” It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a trulyfederal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives.  If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.
If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves.  Among other benefits to the taxpayers, a truly “federal” Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.  
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back.  Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine.  Her websites are www.webofdebt.com  and www.ellenbrown.com .

Find this article here.