WELCOME :: MAIN MENU MOVED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BLOG!

Search the Web

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Exposing the Myths of Neoliberal Capitalism:

AN INTERVIEW WITH HA-JOON CHANG

Wednesday, February 08, 2017By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview

Author and economics professor Ha-Joon Chang. (Photo: New America; Edited: LW / TO)
Author and economics professor Ha-Joon Chang. (Photo: New America; Edited: LW / TO)
For the part 40 years or so, neoliberalism has reigned supreme over much of the western capitalist world, producing unparalleled wealth accumulation levels for a handful of individuals and global corporations while the rest of society has been asked to swallow austerity, stagnating incomes and a shrinking welfare state. But just when we all thought that the contradictions of neoliberal capitalism had reached their penultimate point, culminating in mass discontent and opposition to global neoliberalism, the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election brought to power a megalomaniac individual who subscribes to neoliberal capitalist economics while opposing much of its global dimension.
What exactly then is neoliberalism? What does it stand for? And what should we make of Donald Trump's economic pronouncements? In this exclusive interview, world-renowned Cambridge University Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang responds to these urgent questions, emphasizing that despite Donald Trump's advocacy of "infrastructure spending" and his opposition to "free trade" agreements, we should be deeply concerned about his economic policies, his embrace of neoliberalism and his fervent loyalty to the rich.
C. J. Polychroniou: For the past 40 or so years, the ideology and policies of "free-market" capitalism have reigned supreme in much of the advanced industrialized world. Yet, much of what passes as "free-market" capitalism are actually measures designed and promoted by the capitalist state on behalf of the dominant factions of capital. What other myths and lies about "actually existing capitalism" are worth pointing out?
Ha-Joon Chang: Gore Vidal, the American writer, once famously said that the American economic system is "free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich." I think this statement very well sums up what has passed for 'free-market capitalism' in the last few decades, especially but not only in the US. In the last few decades, the rich have been increasingly protected from the market forces, while the poor have been more and more exposed to them.
For the rich, the last few decades have been "heads I win, tails you lose." Top managers, especially in the US, sign on pay packages that give them hundreds of millions of dollars for failing -- and many times more for doing a decent job. Corporations are subsidised on a massive scale with few conditions -- sometimes directly but often indirectly through government procurement programs (especially in defense) with inflated price tags and free technologies produced by government-funded research programs. After every financial crisis, ranging from the 1982 Chilean banking crisis through the Asian financial crisis of 1997 to the 2008 global financial crisis, banks have been bailed out with hundreds of trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money and few top bankers have gone to prison. In the last decade, the asset-owning classes in the rich countries have also been kept afloat by historically low rates of interests.
In contrast, poor people have been increasingly subject to market forces.
In the name of increasing "labor market flexibility," the poor have been increasingly deprived of their rights as workers. This trend has reached a new level with the emergence of the so-called "gig economy," in which workers are bogusly hired as "self-employed" (without the control over their work that the truly self-employed exercise) and deprived of even the most basic rights (e.g., sick leave, paid holiday). With their rights weakened, the workers have to engage in a race to the bottom in which they compete by accepting increasingly lower wages and increasingly poor working conditions.
In the area of consumption, increasing privatization and deregulation of industries supplying basic services on which the poor are relatively more reliant upon -- like water, electricity, public transport, postal services, basic health care and basic education -- have meant that the poor have seen a disproportionate increase in the exposure of their consumption to the logic of the market. In the last several years since the 2008 financial crisis, welfare entitlements have been reduced in many countries and the terms of their access (e.g., increasingly ungenerous "fitness for work tests" for the disabled, the mandatory training for CV-making for those receiving unemployment benefits) have become less generous, driving more and more poor people into labor markets they are not fit to compete in.
As for the other myths and lies about capitalism, the most important in my view is the myth that there is an objective domain of the economy into which political logic should not intrude. Once you accept the existence of this exclusive domain of the economy, as most people have done, you get to accept the authority of the economic experts, as interlocutors of some scientific truths about the economy, who will then dictate the way your economy is run.
However, there is no objective way to determine the boundary of the economy because the market itself is a political construct, as shown by the fact that it is illegal today in the rich countries to buy and sell a lot of things that used to be freely bought and sold -- such as slaves and the labor service of children.
In turn, if there is no objective way to draw the boundary around the economy, when people argue against the intrusion of political logic into the economy, they are in fact only asserting that their own 'political' view of what belongs in the domain of the market is somehow the correct one.
It is very important to reject the myth of [an] inviolable boundary of the economy, because that is the starting point of challenging the status quo. If you accept that the welfare state should be shrunk, labor rights have to be weakened, plant closures have to be accepted, and so on because of some objective economic logic (or "market forces," as it is often called), it becomes virtually impossible to modify the status quo.
Austerity has become the prevailing dogma throughout Europe, and it is high on the Republican agenda. If austerity is also based on lies, what is its actual objective?
A lot of people -- Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Mark Blyth and Yanis Varoufakis, to name some prominent names -- have written that austerity does not work, especially in the middle of an economic downturn (as it was practised in many developing countries under the World Bank-IMF Structural Adjustment Programs in the 1980s and the 1990s and more recently in Greece, Spain and other Eurozone countries).
Many of those who push for austerity do so because they genuinely (albeit mistakenly) believe that it works, but those who are smart enough to know that it doesn't still would use it because it is a very good way of shrinking the state (and thus giving more power to the corporate sector, including the foreign one) and changing the nature of state activities into a pro-corporate one (e.g., it is almost always welfare spending that goes first).
In other words, austerity is a very good way of pushing through a regressive political agenda without appearing to do so. You say you are cutting spending because you have to balance the books and put the house in order, when you are actually launching an attack on the working class and the poor. This is, for example, what the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition government in the UK said when it launched a very severe austerity program upon assuming power in 2010 -- the country's public finance at the time was such that it did not need such a severe austerity program, even by the standards of orthodox economics.
What do you make of all the talk about the dangers of public debt? How much public debt is too much?
Whether public debt is good or bad depends on when the money was borrowed (better if it were during an economic downturn), how the borrowed money was used (better if it was used for investment in infrastructure, research, education, or health than military expenditure or building useless monuments), and who holds the bonds (better if your own nationals do, as it will reduce the danger of a "run" on your country -- for example, one reason why Japan can sustain very high levels of public debt is that the vast majority of its public debts are held by the Japanese nationals).
Of course, excessively high public debt can be a problem, but what is excessively high depends on the country and the circumstances. So, for example, according to the IMF data, as of 2015, Japan has public debt equivalent to 248 percent of GDP but no one talks of the danger of it. People may say Japan is special and point out that in the same year the US had public debt equivalent to 105 percent of GDP, which is much higher than that of, say,South Korea (38 percent), Sweden (43 percent), or even Germany (71 percent), but they may be surprised to hear that Singapore also has public debt equivalent to 105 percent of GDP, even though we hardly hear any worry about public debt of Singapore.
A number of well-respected economists are arguing that the era of economic growth has ended. Do you concur with this view?
A lot of people now talk of a "new normal" and a "secular stagnation" in which high inequality, aging population, and deleveraging (reduction in debt) by the private sector lead to chronically low economic growth, which can only be temporarily boosted by financial bubbles that are unsustainable in the long run.
Given that these causes can be countered by policy measures, secular stagnation is not inevitable. Aging can be countered by policy changes that make work and child-rearing more compatible (e.g., cheaper and better childcare, flexible working hours, career compensation for childcare) and by increased immigration. Inequality can be countered by more aggressive tax-and-transfer policy and by better protection for the weak (e.g., urban planning protecting small shops, supports for SMEs). Deleveraging by the private sector can be countered by increased government spending, as the Japanese experience of the last quarter century shows.
Of course, saying that secular stagnation can be countered is different from saying that it will be countered. For example, the quickest policy that can counter ageing -- that is, increased immigration -- is politically unpopular. In many rich countries, the alignment of political and economic forces is such that it will be difficult to reduce inequality significantly in the short- to medium-run. The current fiscal dogma is such that fiscal expansion seems unlikely in most countries in the near future.
Thus, in the short- to medium-run, low growth seems very likely. However, this does not mean that this will forever be the case. In the longer run, the changes in politics and thus, economic policies may change policies in such a way that the causes of "secular stagnation" are countered to a significant extent. This highlights how important the political struggle to change economic policies is.
What is your professional opinion of Donald Trump's proposed economic policies, which clearly embrace neoliberalism and all sort of shenanigans for the rich but oppose global "free-trade" agreements, and what do you expect to happen when they collide with Ryan's austerity budget?
Mr. Trump's plan for American economic revival is still vague, but, as far as I can tell, it has two main planks -- making American corporations create more jobs [at] home and increasing infrastructural investments.
The first plank seems rather fanciful. He says that he will do it mainly by engaging in greater protectionism, but it won't work because of two reasons.
First, the US is bound by all sorts of international trade agreements -- the WTO, the NAFTA, and various bilateral free-trade agreements (with Korea, Australia, Singapore, etc.). Although you can push things in the protectionist direction on the margin even within this framework, it will be difficult for the US to slap extra tariffs that are big enough to bring American jobs back under the rules of these agreements. Mr. Trump's team says they will renegotiate these agreements, but that will take years, not months, and won't produce any visible result at least during the first term of Mr. Trump's presidency.
Second, even if large extra tariffs can somehow be imposed against international agreements, the structure of the US economy today is such that there will be huge resistance against these protectionist measures within the US. Many imports from countries like China and Mexico are things that are produced by -- or at least produced for -- American companies. When the price of iPhone and Nike trainers made in China or GM cars made in Mexico go up by 20 percent, 35 percent, not only American consumers but companies like Apple, Nike and GM will be intensely unhappy. But would this result in Apple or GM moving production back to the US? No, they will probably move it to Vietnam or Thailand, which is not hit by those tariffs.
The point is that, the hollowing out of American manufacturing industry has progressed in the contexts of (US-led) globalization of production and restructuring of the international trade system and cannot be reversed with simple protectionist measures. It will require a total rewriting of global trade rules and restructuring of the so-called global value chain.
Even at the domestic level, American economic revival will require far more radical measures than what the Trump administration is contemplating. It will require a systematic industrial policy that rebuilds the depleted productive capabilities of the US economy, ranging from worker skills, managerial competences, industrial research base and modernised infrastructure. To be successful, such industrial policy will have to be backed up by a radical redesigning of the financial system, so that more "patient capital" is made available for long-term-oriented investments and more talented people come to work in the industrial sector, rather than going into investment banking or foreign exchange trading.
The second plank of Mr. Trump's strategy for the revival of the US economy is investment in infrastructure.
As mentioned above, the improvement in infrastructure is an ingredient in a genuine strategy of American economic renewal. However, as you suggest in your question, this may meet resistance from fiscal conservatives in the Republican-dominated Congress. It will be interesting to watch how this pans out, but my bigger worry is that Mr. Trump is likely to encourage "wrong" kinds of infrastructural investments -- that is, those related to real estate (his natural territory), rather than those related to industrial development. This not only will fail to contribute to the renewal of the US economy but it may also contribute to creating real estate bubbles, which were an important cause behind the 2008 global financial crisis.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

C.J. POLYCHRONIOU

C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Iran Is Ditching The Dollar


rouhani putin iran russia
REUTERS/Alexei Nikolsky/RIA Novosti/Kremlin
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani at the welcoming ceremony during a summit of Caspian Sea regional leaders in the southern city of Astrakhan, September 29, 2014.
Iran reportedly is no longer using the US dollar in foreign trade transactions and is replacing it with other currencies, the deputy governor at the Iranian Central Bank Gholami Kamyab said, according to Sputnik News.
“In trade exchanges with the foreign countries, Iran uses other currencies including Chinese yuan, euro, Turkish lira, Russian ruble, and South Korean won,” Kamyab reportedly said.
He also reportedly added that Iran was considering bilateral currency swap agreements, which would allow partners to exchange one foreign currency for the equivalent in the other currency. He did not explicitly name partners, however.  
Although nuclear sanctions imposed on Iran over years are meant to deter the state from building up its nuclear arms program, they could also be the catalyst that is pushing Iran to look for new economic partners. As Ian Bremmer noted, the glaring drawback of using coercive sanctions (and other weaponizations of finance), is that the targeted countries can and will increasingly diversify away from the dollar.
And over the past few years, Iran has been strengthening economic and military ties with others countries (including China and Russia) in an effort to circumvent the Western-imposed sanctions.
Turkey ran an extensive gas-for-gold scheme with Iran, which ran from about March 2012 to the fall of 2013 and yielded Iran more than $13 billion dollars amid crippling sanctions implemented by the U.S. over the country’s perceived nuclear program.
“It’s a huge amount of money,” Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury who detailed the arrangement in Foreign Policy, said. “You can’t ignore the fact that the Turks helped Iran with a massive sanctions-busting scheme.”
Russia and Iran recently signed a deal to build more nuclear reactors in Iran (after already pledging eight in May), signed a military deal for increased cooperation in the Middle East (both countries staunchly back the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad), and are forming an “espionage alliance.
In August, Russia and Iran may have signed a $20 billion oil deal, in which Russia would buy Iranian oil in exchange for Russian goods and equipment, although the exact terms of the deal (and whether or not it actually went through) are pretty hazy.
The White House previously said that such a deal would raise “serious concerns” and would be inconsistent with the nuclear talks between world powers and Iran.
China has also expressed interested in having closer military ties with Iran, and has on occasion circumvented the sanctions imposed on Iran in the past few years.
The bigger picture of what’s going on is that over the past several months several non-Western countries — including RussiaChinaIndia, and North Korea — have been strengthening their military, energy, and economic relationships with each other.
So bottom line: Iran’s diversification away from the dollar could be another snippet in that larger trend.



.....>>>>

Monday, February 2, 2015

Wealth accumulation - Is the global system rigged to their advantage?

Published on 26 Jan 2015 | One percent already has half the world’s wealth under its thumb and at this rate is set to accumulate even more. As much of the world slowly recovers from severe recession, the rich are prospering and greatly so.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Why don't Economists understand money? (Conference 2013)

Published on 6 Mar 2013 | Prof Victoria Chick, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University College London, addressed the question: "Why Don't Academics Understand Money?" at the Positive Money conference in January 2013. She said there has been a regression in the way economics has been taught. This 18 mins video gives some very interesting insights.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Money is at the root of our current social and economic crisis.

Published on 30 Apr 2012 | 97% Owned by private bankers - Positive Money Cut

To join the campaign to democratise money.
see http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/97per...

When money drives almost all activity on the planet, it's essential that we understand it. Yet simple questions often get overlooked - questions like: where does money come from? Who creates it? Who decides how it gets used? And what does that mean for the millions of ordinary people who suffer when money and finance breaks down?

97% Owned is a new documentary that reveals how money is at the root of our current social and economic crisis. Featuring frank interviews and commentary from economists, campaigners and former bankers, it exposes the privatised, debt-based monetary system that gives banks the power to create money, shape the economy, cause crises and push house prices out of reach. Fact-based and clearly explained, in just 60 minutes it shows how the power to create money is the piece of the puzzle that economists were missing when they failed to predict the crisis.

Produced by Queuepolitely and featuring Ben Dyson of Positive Money, Josh Ryan-Collins of The New Economics Foundation, Ann Pettifor, the "HBOS Whistleblower" Paul Moore, Simon Dixon of Bank to the Future and Nick Dearden from the Jubliee Debt Campaign, this is the first documentary to tackle this issue from a UK-perspective, and can be watched online now.





Sunday, July 20, 2014

BRICS - alternative or complementary to IMF & World bank (Bretton woods institutions)?

BRICS: Progressive Rhetoric, Neoliberal Practice.

Published on 19 Jul 2014 | Patrick Bond: All the governments behind the New Development Bank practice intense neoliberalism.



Thursday, March 6, 2014

China Starts Dumping US. Treasurys!

Published on 18 Feb 2014 | The Fabian Calvo Podcast - Enlightenment - Education - Entrepreneurship. China Sold Second-Largest Amount Ever Of US Treasurys In December: And Guess Who Comes To The Rescue?



Monday, February 17, 2014

Timeline - USD from fiat money to a possible zero value?

Published on 16 Feb 2014 | a short history of USD from - after value based on Gold into one that is based on demand today and major events that had determine its present position...



Friday, February 14, 2014

When will the USD collapse?

The SHOCKING Truth About the U.S. Dollar: What The Media Never Told You.

Listen as Follow the Money Weekly Radio show host, Jerry Robinson, explains the shocking truth about the coming collapse of the U.S. Dollar. In this video, Jerry Robinson explains the Petrodollar System and how it's collapse will destroy the dollar through hyperinflation.

Jerry Robinson is a popular economist and best-selling author of the book "Bankruptcy of our Nation".



Sunday, February 9, 2014

Fascism - where Banksters make better money!


The JP Morgan vision for Europe


In May 2013 the US financial giant JP Morgan released 
a progress report outlining their take on what they call the "Eurozone Adjustment".


The standout passage of this document can be found on page 12, where they explain what they think is wrong with Europe (quoted below). Note there is absolutely no mention of financial instability caused by countless recklessly over-leveraged financial institutions gambling on crap like Spanish property, Irish bank bonds and Greek sovereign debt, and absolutely no talk of financial sector reform either. The JP Morgan narrative adheres very closely to the Great Neoliberal Lie technique, where the real causes of the financial crisis are played down or ignored completely in favour of the misleading narrative that social welfare spending caused the crisis. Here's the section in question:

"The political systems in the periphery [of the Eurozone] were established in the aftermath of dictatorship, and were defined by that experience. Constitutions tend to show a strong socialist influence, reflecting the political strength that left wing parties gained after the defeat of fascism. Political systems around the periphery typically display several of the following features: weak executives; weak central states relative to regions; constitutional protection of labor rights; consensus building systems which foster political clientalism; and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo. The shortcomings of this political legacy have been revealed by the crisis. Countries around the periphery have only been partially successful in producing fiscal and economic reform agendas, with governments constrained by constitutions (Portugal), powerful regions (Spain), and the rise of populist parties (Italy and Greece)."

So, the problems that JP Morgan have identified in Europe are strong legislatures (or "weak executives" as they put it) strong regional representation, protected labour rights, strong constitutions and political systems that rely in part upon consensus building instead of dictatorship. They also identify the rise of democratic populist parties and the public right to political protest as major impediments to their "Eurozone Adjustment" objectives.

JP Morgan make it absolutely clear that they would like to see European states remodeled with much more powerful, dictatorial and centralised executives, they want to see the destruction of labour rights and they are certainly not keen to allow populist anti-austerity parties or public protest to get in the way of this agenda. 

Essentially what this document demonstrates is that JP Morgan see the decline of European fascism since the 1940s and its replacement with mixed-economy social democracies as a great disappointment, that they are determined to steer Europe back towards fascism and that they are intent on using the financial sector meltdown as an excuse to use the utterly false Great Neoliberal Lie narrative to justify this pro-fascist agenda.

The motivation for a major financial organisation like JP Morgan to promote the fascistic remodeling of Europe should be absolutely obvious. States administered by powerful centralised and dictatorial executives are far more easily influenced by corporate interests than governments constrained by strong legislatures, fair judicial systems, strong regional representation, robust organised labour and popular freedom of protest, all enshrined by a durable constitution.

To put it more simply, a state with a centralised and dictatorial government is far more malleable than a state in which the government must balance the interests of corporate interests with those of organised labour, regional interests and the public at large. If labour rights are eroded, local government weakened and the right to popular protest is curtailed, the enforcement of corporate interests becomes much easier. All the corporations need do is financially coerce (or economically straitjacket) the cetralised executive branch of government in order to gain almost complete power over whole national economies.

Returning to the quoted section of the JP Morgan report, we can clearly see that they do not like consensus building governments that abide by their constitutions and protect civil liberties, in fact they disparage this kind of co-operative approach as "clientalism" [sic] (err I believe they meant clientelism). 

In reality, the general concept of clientelism isn't the problem to JP Morgan at all. The problem is that under the social democratic model, government "clientelism" towards corporate interests is curtailed. The corporate lobby don't want the states of Europe to function as the clients of the general public through strong local democratic government (and the checks and balances offered by a robust legislature), through strong labour organisation, or through the liberty to protest. JP Morgan seem to want the states of Europe to act as exclusive clients of the corporatist agenda. 

Perhaps Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebells
would be proud to know that his big lie technique
is still being used to defend fascism to this day.

In effect, the JP Morgan complaint isn't about clientelism at all, it is a complaint of "wrong-clientelism". It is a complaint that in their view, the states of Europe must not be allowed to act as the client of the public by allowing citizens involvement in economic policy making (through democratic processes, strong labour representation or liberty to protest) because this kind of public interference acts as an impediment to their beloved corporate agenda. JP Morgan would prefer to see the states of Europe act exclusively in the interests of the corporate lobby, and imposing illiberal, anti-democratic or even fascistic socio-economic reforms is an agenda they seem to fully endorse.

It is absolutely obvious why corporate interests like JP Morgan would dearly love to see the rights to to protest and organise labour severely curtailed. By pushing for the the dismantlement of the means of resistance, they can minimalise and marginalise social opposition to the corporatist agenda they wish to see enforced by these corporate client states, no matter how socially or economically harmful or unpopular the corporatist agenda may be to the state in question.

Just in case you think it sounds utterly far fetched that an American financial institution may be attempting to undermine democracy and liberty in Europe in order to impose fascistic regimes more favourable to their commercial interests, just consider the history of JP Morgan themselves. Not only did JP Morgan actively invest in Nazi industry (through the automotive company Opel and other subsidiaries) well into the Second World War, they were also compensated for their losses by the American taxpayer when they were forced to divest (several other American corporations such as Standard Oil maintained their investments in Nazi Germany for several years after the US joined the war against Germany!). Chase Bank (which merged with JP Morgan in 2000) were one of Wall Street's most enthusiastic investors in the Nazi economy, even providing direct assistance to Hitler's Nazi regime in the late 1930s. Chase and JP Morgan were the only two American banks which stayed open in France during the Nazi occupation there. 

JP Morgan has a proven history of collaboration with fascist regimes in Europe. If JP Morgan supported and profited from the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, and suffered no adverse financial consequences for it (even getting a US taxpayer funded tax rebate to cover their losses when they were forced to divest their Nazi assets and first dibs to reacquire their Nazi assets after the war was over), is it any surprise that they favour the imposition of an illiberal and fascistic political agenda on the states of Europe once again?

Since I've strayed onto the topic of the Second World War, I'll finish with a quote often attributed to one of the fascist dictators that JP Morgan seem to be getting nostalgic about; Benito Mussolini.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

 source  here>>


Financial crisis for many, bonanza for the few

Reuters/Kacper Pempel

Despite what the UK's ruling politicians or statisticians from palm-greased think tanks may say, the UK’s economic “recovery” is visible nowhere on the country’s streets.
The opiate of Quantitative Easing (QE) or Printing Money, the £375 billion fraudulently spirited up so far, is making some of the figures look good, but it is killing the patient.
The effect of QE is to propel the nest eggs of the rich from prudent “savings accounts,” where interest rates are at an all-time low, into capricious stock and bond markets to be managed by hedge funds and other pushy players. Meanwhile, everything with half a brain that moves, including the Parliamentary Commission on Banking, chaired by Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie, is demanding to see clear blue water between public-facing banks and the casino economy. However, precisely the opposite is happening, as billions of savings leaves the safe ground in search of higher returns.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

1-Feb- 2014 : Janet Yellen replaces Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman

FILE - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Washington, Dec. 2, 2013.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Washington, Dec. 2, 2013.Read here

replaced by::  Janet Yellen


more here 


Don't mess with the Petrodollar!

3 Jan 2014 : Petrodollar Scam Breaking Down