Four Horsemen Page #6

are led as if by an invisible hand

to the general well being of society...

To make it clear,

Adam Smith didn't really say that

Adam Smith was very much aware of that

businesses when they got together,

conspired against the public interrest,

raised prices,

he was aware of monopoly

he was aware of the importance of education

that the private sector couldn't provide.

So he him self was aware of all the limitations.

But his latter day descendants

have forgotten all those caveats.

Adam Smith was the godfather of classical economics,

but since it's publication,

his work has been used as a political football

financiers twisting his words to suit them

Lord Griffith advocates

ruthless individualism to push this idea that

if bankers get rich,

then we get rich too through a process

known as trickle down economics.

Or Horse and Sparrow theory

If you feed the horse enough oats

Some will pass through to the

road for the sparrows

the idea is that extreme wealth

concentrated on a small minority

would eventually trickle down to everyone else

but it doesn't work

because by the time the money

reaches the people at

the bottom of our money pyramid,

it's lost it's purchasing power

But the public are now confused as to

why our politicial leaders

have allowed this to happen,

and quite naturally now ask why?

Because our political processes

are badly flawed

Because they are depending on

lobbyism and campaign contributions

That's why a lot of people view

we have to restructure our political processes

to give more voice to the ordinary citizen

and less to the interrest groups, moneygroups

Those who have taken such a

large role in shaping our tax code,

our regulatory regulations and so forth

I stood on the front step of Collin Powells house

And I looked at him and said:

-"Whats next boss?"

He said:

-"What do you mean?"

-"Whats next,

after you're going to write a book?"

-"I know you're going to write your book,

but you're not going to do that for

the rest of your life"

-"What are you going to do next?"

He said:

-"Maybe a cabinet position, but first money"

I said:
"Money?"

He said:
"Yeah, millions"

-"That's the only way you can be a

cabinet officer in the american government"

The democrats and the republicans

are beholdant to corporate interrests

and until they become unbeholdant

to those corporate interrests

we will never have a well governed republic.

The inherent inequity in our system of

money, banking and politics

has not just had consequences domestically

but also on a massive scale globally.

Western leaders have presented

their military campaign in Iraq,

Afghanistan and Pakistan as a moral obligation

but are there other reasons for it?

The first financial beneficiary of

Americas foreign policy is the military

in particular those who supply it

with arms and equipment

The military has won wars.

But how successful has it been

in it's aim to erradicate terrorism?

The drone attacks not only failed,

but they've created extra extremism

they've helped in radicalisation of

youth in the north west frontier

and also in certain parts of

Punjab and Pakistan.

And because time after time,

there's a feeling that

America is doing it deliberately

to destabilise Pakistan.

I'm not so sure about that,

but I certainly feel that those people who

actually support this policy

every time you kill 10 so called terrorists,

you create 500 more

because they see the drone attacks as

an attack on the sovereign state of Pakistan

If they really wanted to flush them out,

there was no need for a huge military operation

in Swah, causing an entire district to

become internally displaced persons.

The population of Swah is 1,8 million

there are 2.3 mln refugees in the country

The whole district has been emptied

This wouln't be necessary had they

carried out a surgical commando operation

To get the militant leaders.

But they allowed them to escape, all of them.

After the military, the next financial beneficiary

are those who win the contracts to

conduct the rebuilding process.

In the west people might even feel optimistic

when they hear that

the us is pumping in tens of billions

newly created dollars into

develeping nations to build infrastructure.

But often this too doesn't seem to

achieve publicised goals.

Is there another reason we give

these countries aid?

The Economic hitmen have created

the worlds first truly global empire,

and we've done it primarily without the military.

We work in many different ways

but perhaps the most common is

that we'll take a third world country

that has resources our

corporations want like oil,

and they arrange for huge loans to

that country from the world bank

or one of it's sister organisations.

However that money never goes to the country.

Instead it goes to our own corporations

to build infrastructure projects like

powerplants, highways, industrial parks,

things that benefit a few wealthy

families in that country as

well as our corporations.

But it doesn't help the majority of people at all.

They are too poor to buy elecricity,

or drive cars on the highway.

They don't have the skills to get jobs

in industrial parks

but they are left holding a huge debt.

Infrastructure which has used heavy loans

from the world bank and the IMF

and made from grounds from western countries,

they've all gone into benefit the elite

and the feudal classes.

They have not benefitted the people.

A lot of money goes to these consultants

and companies from the west who

charge huge amounts of money and

actually the real money on projects and

on ordinary people is very limited

The masses have very little already so

those landlords who have the infrastructure

and are going to make money because of

the infrastructure that is built through the

roads they will prosper,

but the ones who don't have any resources

that do not have jobs, there isn't any

economic activity for them in terms

of manufacturing goods so they can sell

and they could also prosper.

When you don't have that what do they do?

They resort in joining the taliban

because they see the enemy coming in

and taking away what little bit they have.

President Obama i understand wants to

invest 7,5 billion dollars in

Pakistani infrastructure

to elevate poverty and to take away all the

divisions and all the

anti-American sentiment away over here.

Whatever his reasons are,

we can do without it.

In fact it's the worst possible thing he can do.

This kind of help is actually a hindrance

it's just going to make matters worse.

It will bring this contrived war on terror

into the guerilla areas.

How much of US foreign policy

is genuinly altruistic?

And how much is it influenced by

the banks and corporations that

profit so tremendously from it?

Americas evangelism of democracy

is riddled with contradictions not least

this idea of promoting democracy

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes