The article is an accurate summary of LaRouche's analysis of the global financial collapse, in which he is extensively quoted on the IMF and neo-liberal model being in a "terminal phase," whose collapse will result in chaos unless his policies are adopted. "What's on the agenda now is a system of protection for growth...we have no choice, no government has a choice.... Privatizations, deregulations, free trade and arbitrary budget cuts have only worsened the situation: the result was less production and more deficit, especially in vital areas such as productive employment, food production, housing construction, heavy industry, electricity, and related areas.... We created societies that thought that all you needed was a credit card, instead of producing; where the priority was generating wealth on the basis of speculation rather than through productive projects."

The article then paraphrases LaRouche's alternative proposals for getting the world out of the present mess: "restructure the world financial system, [putting it] under the supervision of governments; policies to maintain and increase jobs, and undertake large infrastructure projects, especially since nothing has been done in this area for many years."

Palabra's second article is called "Support Fox's Policy of Not Participating in the War." Author Jesus Armando Gonzalez wrote: "For Lyndon H. LaRouche, Vicente Fox was right in refusing Mexico's support for the United States in its intended attack upon Iraq. This opinion comes from a US economist who has sought the Presidency of the United States on multiple occasions. LaRouche considers the attitude of the President of Mexico to be sensible, and pointed out that it was a natural reaction, because the Mexican government understood that it could not trust the statements of the Government of the United States.... He emphasized that the denial of support by Mexico is a response to the lack of interest by George Bush in dealing with the migration issue. In fact, LaRouche emphasized that there was a special tie between the Bush family and the National Action Party, which was based on cooperation between the two nations in favor of employment and resolving the migration problem. ‘The Bush family implicitly promised this to the PAN, and now there is a crisis coming from the United States to Mexico, the maquiladoras are suffering; the Mexicans in the U.S. are losing their jobs, and Bush doesn't say anything to the President of Mexico.' The economist noted that the Mexican government has fought for more than 20 years for respect for its migrants in the United States.... In face of the refusal by George Bush to permit a migration accord with Mexico, in Lyndon H. LaRouche's view, Vicente Fox could not respond in any other way than not supporting the United States in its intended attack on Iraq.... ‘With all this, the Government of Mexico understood what the European governments have been saying for some time, that the Government of the United States is not trustworthy."

-30-

Return to the Home Page
Top