The struggle is between those who want to save the US economy at the expense of global banks, and those who want to rescue the global banks at the expense of the US economy
Wed, Aug 17, 2016 | 3,106 33
When playing poker, if you don’t know who the patsy is … you are the patsy (click to enlarge)
The author is a leading Russian economist, publicist, and TV and radio host. (Wikipedia — Russian only)
Sometimes referred to as the «Russian Paul Krugman», he writes prolifically, and has a very large audience in Russia. His articles3 typically receive hundreds of thousands of views. He is known for explaining complex economic ideas in clear terms non-specialists can understand.
He is a former senior economist in the presidential administration and a frequent speaker at international conferences.
Most experts would agree that Hillary Clinton represents the Democratic party, and Donald Trump, the Republican. But this approach is wrong.
Several years ago, I described in my articles3 and lectures a growing rift in the global elite. Pretty much united since 1945, in 2011 the elites split into two factions, mainly in reaction to dramatically falling profits at the top global banks following the 2008 financial crisis.
The global banks, which are the main instruments of global control by the financial elite (not the governments, as most people believe), are currently losing money, despite the fact that the dollar is being artificially supported.
By 2014, non-inflationary methods had been exhausted, forcing the Fed, under pressure from the Obama administration, which was worried about inflation, to stop printing dollars.
The global financial elite responded by trying to replace the Fed with a new, global Central Bank, a “Central Bank of Central Banks”, thereby depriving the US of the ability to issue the world’s reserve currency.
US financial interests blocked this project with the “Strauss-Kahn affair”, leading to the above mentioned rift. It is a basic disagreement about how the global economy should develop in the coming years. Put simply, it is a disagreement about whether to save the global banks at the expense of the US economy, or to save the US economy at the cost of a global financial collapse.
In 2014, I described these two scenarios at a Dartmouth Club meeting in Dayton, Ohio. I noted that American voters had identified the first scenario with the Democratic Party, and the second — with Republicans, leading to their landslide victory in the mid-term elections.
However, this is a popular misconception, and, in fact, support for the competing options crosses party lines.
For example, Bush is much closer to Clinton on this issue than Clinton is to Sanders, who himself is close to Trump. One could call the Bush-Clinton camp the “Financiers Faction”, and Trump-Sanders camp the “Isolationist Faction.” The reason that the “Financiers” back the first option is that the destruction of the global financial system would lead to regional control of the world. Again, it is through its global financial institutions that the US controls the world, and not its military, as some still believe.
Clinton supports monetary easing, a euphemism for supporting transnational banks, while Trump favors tightening monetary policy and financial restructuring, relieving companies and households of their debt. Trump is willing to accept regional leaders (including Russia) as partners, while Clinton demands submission to American dictates. Trump believes negotiations can lead to peace and order , while Clinton’s idea is a global ‘Arab Spring’, that would enable banks to write off their obligations and remain in control.
This rift is also behind other serious global problems. Regional elites, who are loyal to the “Financiers” who sponsor them, are desperately trying to help them by intimidating the public with terrorist attacks, which they blame on ISIS. Recall that it was Clinton and Petraeus who plotted to arm Al-Qaeda in Syria against Obama’s wishes.
I think Trump will probably win because I think he will make clear to the voters that they are choosing not between political parties, nor even between two personalities, rather, between these two economic scenarios. Given the results of the 2014 mid-terms, I seriously doubt that they will vote to support the bankers at their own expense!