|
Further Discussion |
|
The following is a transcript of the discussion which followed Mr. LaRouche's main address on Dec. 15th to the seminar entitled “The Global Economic And Financial Crisis And The Strategic Role Of Russia,” in Moscow. Lvov: Do we have some questions? Q: The title of your lecture is “The Global Economic And Financial Crisis And The Strategic Role Of Russia.” Could you not elaborate more about the role of Russia, and what Russia could do? LaRouche: I thought it was implicit. I've written a good deal on the subject of Russia's role. Russia is a Eurasian nation, which has not yet accepted the idea that it's a defeated nation, as a cultural impulse. Therefore, Russia has the capability of mobilizing itself to play a leading role, where other nations will say, “We're only colonies, we can not make such proposals.” It is both objective, and psychological. I've been a virtual ally, and a supporting member, of the Non-Aligned Nations Movement for the past 55 years, and I can tell you that my clientele are very good people, often. But, they are unwilling to step up to the fore, in making decisions, and they don't think they have the authority to do it. If you take the buried scientific capabilities of Russia, the scientific capabilities which are not now being fully utilized, combine that with the character of Russia as a Eurasian nation, and then look at Central and North Asia, the great concentration of mineral and other resources, which are unusable because of the lack of infrastructure development, this means that this is one of the great undertakings of this planet. We can not simply rip these resources out of the ground and export them at cheap prices. You must have the people of Kazakstan and Russia developing these resources. The future of all Eurasia depends upon the contribution from this development. Lvov: Thank you. You know, this has been a very interesting report. It seems to me that it exposes a wide range of problems, which have arisen on the world scene today. Whether we like it or not, it is quite apparent that the world has entered a fragile state of disequilibrium. Therefore, the problems raised here by Mr. LaRouche seem to me to be very important and urgent. It seems to me that the problems experienced today by Russia are on a par with the problems of the United States, England, France, or any other country. All of us, together, are experiencing a global crisis of world civilization. There is an enormous redistribution of risk under way. Therefore, we must pay attention to historical experience, including that historical experience which our country possesses, that difficult experience which we accumulated during the past 100 years. It may be located in the fact that we have not yet adequately explained how, in a relatively short period of historical time, Russia became the relatively weak link, in the face of the crisis transformation taking place in the world. The revolutions of 1905 and 1917 would seem to have marked a new transition, to a new social system, and yet, suddenly, after a short period of 70-some years, there came another transformation--the shift from socialism to capitalism. Now, ten years have passed since the beginning of the so-called “transformational reforms” in Russia. Is this not enough time, to think through what happened to us? What is happening in Russia today? I would put it this way: In Russia today, everything is happening, and nothing. The vast assimilation, like the Sahara Desert, of the so-called experience of liberal reforms in the world. And now, we are just beginning to discover that this experience is composed of ozone holes. These holes are formed in the depths, along two axes. The first, is what Mr. LaRouche said about a reform of the economy, carried out without any regard for the main subject of economy--human beings. Man and his requirements remained outside the scope of these reforms. The second problem, to which Mr. LaRouche also constantly draws attention, is the problem of financial pyramids and financial bubbles. In this respect, I would like to remind you of what happened in 1972. At that time, when we still had Bretton Woods, the representatives of England, France, the U.S.A., and others gathered, concerning the payment of debt obligations with the so-called gold-standard dollar. I think you would agree that the end of this, in 1972, was the first major default in the world financial system. As a result, a new system of relations took shape in the world--the system we are living under today. If we look at one of the parameters of monetary regulation on the world financial markets, namely, the ratio of total indebtedness to money supply plus total domestic debt, we find that in Russia today, this ratio is 47%. In the past month and a half, it has declined by five percentage points, which had to do with interventions made in support of the exchange rate of the ruble. For years, we understood financial stabilization as meaning the issuance of cash, in strict correspondence to Central Bank gold and currency reserves. After 1972, however, America demonstrated for us quite a different policy. At the present time, only 4% of every dollar actually has any backing. The entire world, however, is flooded with these 4%-backed dollars, and the world is functioning. At the same time, this raises the natural risk factor. This system is completely devoid of real material backing, which essentially works on its own behalf, creating one of the fundamental causes of the current crisis, which today we call “terrorism,” and so forth. I shall not expand on this at length, but I would like to say that I am familiar with what Mr. LaRouche says about this, as with his other work. In conclusion, I would like just to draw your attention to the following circumstance: Next year, as you know, the world public, and governments, will be involved in the so-called “Rio Plus 10” activities [the tenth anniversary of the UN ecology summit in Rio]. The system of global balance will be the subject of a new international congress of nations, at which new resolutions on stabilization, economic development, and sustainable development will be discussed. I believe we may expect another upwards spiral of completely unfounded populist, propagandistic documents, which will involve no analysis of any profound processes of world social development. As I listen to LaRouche today, I can't help but ask this question: Do we not, after all, already have here a well-developed, mature idea, of what the world should look like, with a system that would block the global crisis of humanity? The time has come to formulate these qualitative parameters, as we see them, of a society that proclaims the necessary social guarantees, a society that will write on its banner the principles for a rational utilization of what we call the planet's “assimilation potential.” Then, finally, we shall say what kind of financial system we should have, linked to the real sector. In Mr. LaRouche's terms, this is “physical economy.” It should be developed not for the sake of speculation, or for money as such, but in order to build bridges among nations and develop science and technology. That's what is important. But we, to a significant extent, conduct our discussions and teach our students according to what today seems to me to be a false paradigm. Otherwise, the world is becoming extinct. We have enormous epidemics. Sixty-seven percent of the world's population enjoys only 4.8% of world GDP. I don't know if Lyndon LaRouche is aware, for example, of how things are with us. Reforms are all very well, with stabilization of the financial markets, but if things continue as they have been, the Russian population in mid-century will have shrunk by at least 45 million persons, below what it is today. So, why are we doing all these things? Why have reforms, why have liberalization, if there are not going to be any people? And Russia is an exact mirror reflection of what is happening in the world. We should be thinking about being guided by different criteria. We have assembled here at one of our leading institutes. Economics: Formally, I am the leader of the Economics Section of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And I would just like to express this concern: I feel very uncomfortable about the question of what the science of economics is. Is it what we have discussed here with Mr. LaRouche? Is it something different--with a moral component? We find today, that a whole array of models and postulates, which an educated person learns, suffers from a flaw that is, in my opinion, an essential one. The significant premises of these models do not stand up to criticism. They are very remote from real life. On this optimistic note ... I should say that this was a very good lecture. I am pleased that my colleague in the Economics Section of the Academy of Sciences, Dr. Glazyev, has arrived. I think he is an advocate and a well-wisher of Mr. LaRouche. I think that he demonstrates very well, a new approach and new type of thinking. Many other economists, I must say, remind me of horses, who charge ahead at full speed, but they have blinders on. They are speeding along the very brink of an abyss. I asked one of these horses about this, and he replied, “Yes, we see the precipice, but the IMF's theory requires that we go this way.” Sergei Glazyev: I should like to express my happiness, that Mr. LaRouche is here with us, and has been able to visit our country. He has a large number of supporters in our country, not only among economists, but also from other scientific disciplines, and in the recent period also the political elite is paying attention to what he says. I hope that his warnings and analysis will be listened to in Russia, not only among scientists, but by those who are in a position to make decisions. I think this is all the more necessary, insofar as, according to his hypothesis of world financial, economic, and political development, Russia has a great responsibility, and an important role to play. I do share this view, and therefore I hope that we shall succeed in attracting the attention of the economics community, as well as political circles, to Mr. LaRouche's forecasts, as well as to the solutions he proposes, on how to create the basis for sustained growth. Lvov: Thank you. I would like to thank Lyndon LaRouche personally, for coming here and bringing us together today. I am also grateful for the very correct concept he presented. Russia has earned its role, through its sufferings and experience. It should show the world a new model of development, and I think that the Americans should listen to a voice from Russia. Return to Home Page |
|