[Starts in mid-answer]

LaRouche: ... in the world for 80 years to come, at least, unless some idiot burns the place down. Therefore, the interest of Italy, among other countries, is to try to get some kind of pacification, and development, cultural development, in that region of the world, which pacifies it, and makes it what I proposed in an Abu Dhabi speech I gave, is to see this area of the world, as the crossroads between the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. I don't believe in burning oil for fuel. The problem that leads us to idiocy, is this ban on nuclear energy. And what's happened is that, the discussion of energy, especially over the period since the 1970s, has been increasingly idiotic, scientifically. And this is something that goes to the second question you raised, the purpose of economy, the moral, political purpose of economy.

Let's go back to the beginning of our civilization. We are a European civilization, globally extended, primarily Europe and the Americas, with great impact on the cultures of the entire world. Our origin is probably Egypt. Our beginning is Greece, Homeric Greece perhaps. That's the beginning. We date our civilization generally from Solon of Athens. The design of the Constitution of the United States, especially the Preamble, was based on Solon of Athens.

In ancient Greece, science, before Euclid, was based on a concept of power, as the concept is used by Plato. The concept of power is valid in modern scientific terms. Whereas the contrary concept, which was introduced by Aristotle, against Plato, was the concept of energy. And the problem is the concept of energy defies, is contrary to, the nature of man. See, if Aristotle had been correct, the human population would never have exceeded several million individuals. Aristotle did not understand the nature of man, which is why Christian theology is based on Plato.

What do we mean by that? What is the difference between man and an animal? Why are we designing an economy for apes, instead of for people? The difference is simple, from the standpoint of science: the discovery of a universal physical principle. Did you ever kiss, see, eat, taste a physical principle? No. You can't see it. You can't see it with sense perception. It's something that's invisible to the senses, but which you prove exists, and you prove it by being able to use it to change the world in which we live. Man is not an animal. Man is a creature made in the image of the Creator, who can discover these principles and use them to change the universe. Plato used the term, described as what we mean by power, as Leibniz used the term power. So, what we should do, is look toward the use of technologies which are derived from the discovery of principles, in order to increase the power of the individual personality, and mind, over nature.

That means we must stop treating many human beings as human cattle. We must stop herding and culling herds of human cattle, as policy. We must now think about the general education of all persons in society, to their maximum potential, in terms of what the existing  culture can provide them.

What is nuclear power? Nuclear power is a result of man's understanding, and discovery, of principles of what are called microphysics. And those powers we have discovered, through the work of people like Mendeleyev, and Pasteur and Curie, and Max Planck, and Betti, here in Italy, and the hydrodynamic school in Italy, we have discovered powers way beyond anything we knew before, in nature. And when we have to use them intelligently, because when you discover fire, you don't use it to burn down your house. So therefore, we have to take responsibility for controlling those powers we develop. So therefore, once we do that, then the myth that we must not have nuclear energy will vanish. Irresponsible  behavior cannot be tolerated by society. So, whatever is done in energy policy, must be responsible for mankind. Because we're made in the image of God, we are capable of discovering the principles in the universe.

We are then responsible for the way in which we use them.

Then, what shall we do with oil? Burn it? It's a waste. Petroleum is a petrochemical feedstock. So therefore, what we should do, is transform the Middle East, as we can phase out of oil into higher technologies, from burning it, into using it as a petrochemical feedstock, and turn the Middle East into an area of chemical production, for fertilizers and other things.

In your second question, you go to another aspect of the same question, which has two aspects to it. First of all, as to what is the nature of economy. From my standpoint, as these figures illustrate, the nature of economy is essentially a physical one. It is proving and improving, the conditions of life. To make life richer for people, physically. To provide more energy, more effort, assigned to developing the mind of the young individual, as opposed to using them like human cattle in work.

You think of modern civilization. When did modern civilization come into being? Here, fifteenth century. Here, in this area. Fifteenth century. What was the difference?

Our civilization is based on the Greek origins, especially the ancient Classical Greek, and a great revival of that knowledge, as part of the Christian revolution which occurred here in the fifteenth century. You take the relationship of Plato, for example, to what was done by the Apostle John and Paul -- that is our civilization. In the fifteenth  century, we, from the beginning, efficiently established government, based on the concept of agape, which we call general welfare, or common good. Therefore, the physical conditions, including education, and other things that cost physical effort, which are necessary for the common good, are the proper purpose of economy. Profit and capital, should mean the improvement of those conditions. Therefore, since we have to integrate the individual initiative into the total society, and give the individual freedom to innovate, therefore we have to set up rules on how monetary and financial systems, and tax systems, work. To cause money, which is an idiot, to serve our purpose. The point is to put the power of money in the right hands, to the benefit of the population, and to the advantage of those who are capable, and willing to improve the situation. And that's why I start from physical economy. And say, "Don't start from a financial economy, and try to prove that a financial economy will do good." A financial system is an idiot. You set it into motion, it's like a sorcerer's apprentice, it does whatever it wants to do.  That's why some of the so-called greatest world economists are idiots, because they are too much absorbed in their own financial systems.

Government, the function of government, under the general welfare principle, is to set the rules by which financial systems operate, and tax systems, to ensure that the benefit of present and future generations is secured. To favor investment into useful capital formation, and to favor that profit which is used for such purposes. If you've invested for the benefit of the economy, you should pay less taxes than the one who wastes it. If you do that, the economy will grow. If you let the fellow have free taxes for having ten mistresses on the beach, the economy will not grow.

So, I think the problem, really in both cases, is our conception of man: one, what do we mean by science and power, and secondly, do we understand that the problem of society is, we have abandoned the principle upon which the modern nation state was based, through innovations such as those of Brunelleschi, and Nicholas of Cusa, and Leonardo da Vinci, here, in the fifteenth century. Agape, the principle of agape.

Question from the chairman of the business association: How do you see the U.S. dollar? The second question, after the steel tariffs in the United States, which blocked successfully the exports of, for example, European steel into the United States, this brought life to an internal difference within the United States. Why? Because the U.S. producers of companies, the U.S. producers of finished products, at that point decided, preferred, to buy finished products in Europe, and this led to unemployment, large unemployment, in that sector in the United States.

LaRouche: Well, the U.S. dollar is a political problem. It is now collapsing. It should collapse under present policies, because the dollar has been, in real standards, has been greatly overvalued.  The dollar has operated as an imperial consumer-society dollar. Prior to the crisis of '61 to '64, the U.S. dollar was the most powerful currency in the world, because we were the most productive nation in the world, per capita. The IMF rules, under the 1971 -75 changes, allowed the U.S. dollar to steal.

For example, what happened to Italy in 1976, in the imposition of the IMF rules. So what happened is, the United States rigged the values of currencies worldwide, by its power. By imperial power. It shut down its own industries, by forcing other people to sell to us, way below value. Then it forced them to invest in our financial markets, to participate in the profits we got from stealing from them.

Now that dollar system is disintegrating. So, therefore, what's going to happen to the dollar? The idiots think that by military power, they're going to intimidate the world into continuing the system. The U.S. is going into what we call the "steal" business, stealing. That's Cheney, typified by Halliburton, and Bechtel, and so forth -- that's stealing. They're going to the Middle East to steal. They stole all the art treasures. That was an organized theft, organized by gangsters in the United States. The same thing they've done with the veni culturali in Italy.

So, the question is, what's the United States' value in the world? Because the dollar is no better than the nation. The value of the United States to the world today, lies only in the tradition of our birth and our long history. It is very politically concrete. Many countries in Europe, leaders of political forces in Europe, would agree completely on the Bretton Woods reform, a New Bretton Woods reform. But they're afraid. Because the imperial power is threatening. Therefore, if the United States changes its policy, and I've written two recent papers, one he referred to earlier, on my foreign policy, which was written especially for Europe. The point is, I'm at present the Number One candidate for the Democratic nomination in the United States -- that's the opposition party, technically. And therefore it was my responsibility to state U.S. foreign policy, as I would define it, especially for the governments of Europe. And I've also written a commentary on my view of the Church-state relationships, from the standpoint of reference of the Pope's two addresses to the United Nations organization, one in 1978, and the other in 1995.

If the United States says to the governments of Europe and other countries, "let us assemble to discuss a general monetary and economic reform," and if a majority of those governments agree, it will happen. The value of the United States is its potential to play the political role, by giving up its imperial power, from its imperial position.

In the post-war period, we saved Europe and some other parts of the world, with the great Bretton Woods reform at that time. We did that because we had all the power. That's why we were able to do that. Now, we no longer have all the power, economic power. The world has great economic power; we have given up ours. Therefore, the function of the United states is to go to the next step, to play its part in creating a new world order, based on a coalition of sovereign nation states.  Under that condition, the dollar value will be stronger. If it goes the way Bush is taking it now, it will go to the bottom.

Question: Don't you think that too much paper has been printed?

LaRouche: Yes. We're going to have to cancel much of it. Bankruptcy reorganization. Sometimes the only way you save a business, is with bankruptcy. Save the system, bankrupt the bankrupts.

Question: Do you know Kondratieff?

LaRouche: Yes.

Moderator: Let's take another question. The other question is, what do you think about the idea that France, Germany, and Russia, they have common interests, economic common interests, and they are kept  together by these economic common interests, but one aspect of this is that they have common interests on Iraq, and this will be bad, if they were kept together just by this. Then he has another question.

He has just come back from Russia, and he has the impression that actually your idea of the program of Food for Peace in Russia was very good, because there's a devastating situation where old people, pensioners, live with 50-60 dollars a month, and this is really dangerous for democracy in that country.

Three questions, do you want to take more questions?

One more question. His question is, he was favorably impressed, he liked very much, what Clinton proposed in Seattle. Clinton proposed that China's entrance in the WTO would be agreed on, in exchange for China to accept the Kyoto protocol. Also, Clinton proposed, and he finds this particularly good, that a general rule of social protection be established also in poor countries, in order to avoid unfair competition, to advanced countries, because they produce of course cheaper, because they don't pay for social protection for workers, they don't pay high wages, etc., etc. And what do you think about this?

LaRouche: Okay, I'll take these three.

Kondratieff, of course, I know his work fairly well. Leontieff, Vassily Leontieff, who was the designer of the structural national income accounting system of the United States, was a student of Kondratieff. I also, in contemporary times, Professor, Academician Lvov, who's head of the CEMI, the Center for Mathematical and Economics, and my friend Glazyev, who is his protege, and son-in-law, are specialists in the area of Kondratieff today.

Kondratieff's work was based on a study of what he called technological long waves. The fault in that, that he does not understand, and did not take into account, that we, man, generate those long waves. For that reason, people such as Lvov and Glazyev have taken much interest, along with other Russians, in my work, because they are interested in the idea, well, let's get away from the Soviet idea of taking long waves as something that's mechanistically determined, and let's be Christians, and let's make the long waves ourselves. I think they'll come over completely into my camp, particularly, and this goes with the third question today. It's that the Kyoto conference was not competent in terms of its scientific assumptions. Because the question about the global warming, and so forth, is not true, is not valid scientifically.

However, there's a much more severe problem, which is that, the fact is, as defined by another great scientist, Vernadsky, who was a student of Mendeleyev, who's responsible for the modern scientific definition of both biosphere and noösphere. Now, the problem is, largely, is how do we manage the biosphere, and noösphere? When we're dealing with large-scale systems, systems in countries, national systems, or international so-called ecological systems, we do have the alternative of giving ourselves blessings, or catastrophes. Because what is needed -- and this comes back into the Kondratieff question -- we have to go to this aspect of science, real science, define these real problems, and have functioning international agreements, on what are the actual opportunities, and dangers, in mismanaging the planet.

I'll come back to the rest of your question. On the question on cooperation, the Iraq, and so forth. In the foreign policy paper I've issued this week, I addressed this question, exactly. The problem is, we have two issues on people's minds. One is the military issue of the insanity of, call it honestly, the Cheney Administration, because Cheney is the keeper, and chief trainer, of President Bush, who doesn't really function too well. Microsoft may actually develop a package, which enables the President to use verbs.

All right. So the problem here is, one thing is the war issue. The other is the issue, the positive question, of economic solutions to the present world crisis. If we do not deal with the economic questions, then dealing with the war question will be a failure. If we let the world economy go in the direction it's going now, we will have war -- you can't stop it. However, the reason for the danger is that the society is demoralized. People are going crazy, under the demoralizing conditions that exist. The danger is what is called fascist states, or fascist imperiums -- that's the danger. The only way we can prevent that, in the long term, is by developing economic solutions, which have to be based on partnerships among sovereign nation states, which have to be oriented toward economic development of all nations.

If we do that, then we can shape the opinion of institutions of the world, in the main, in the sense that nations will unite against any attempt to spoil this by going to some crazy war. So, we must, in this case, do that. The problem in Russia, was not just the Food for Peace. My view, I knew what was wrong with the Soviet economy. The military system worked, the military-scientific system worked. The civilian economy didn't. Because the civilian economy had no concept of entrepreneurship. The soviet military scientist was successful, or go shot. Much of Soviet science was based on gulag science. You herded a bunch of scientists, like cows. You put them in a concentration camp, a gulag. The KGB chief comes in, you produce or we shoot you.

I had a friend of mine, who just recently died, Kuznetsov, Pobisk Kuznetsov, who was in a concentration camp, a Soviet concentration camp, for 10 plus one, particularly because he was being milked like a human cow, for ideas, for science. He was a good scientist too. So Russian culture today, still today, has embedded in it those particular qualities, which are a vital part of U.S. and world scientific capabilities. The problem is, to make a package, in which we assist Russia to deal with these immediate social problems, of an economic nature, and we go into partnerships with Russians.

For example. Russia has debts, debts left over from the Soviet period, other debts. We can reorganize those indebtednesses. We can use the reorganization of the indebtedness, as there's been discussion between Russia and Germany on this. To set up technology sharing, and export programs, around Russian firms, new Russian firms, which are the vehicle of capturing this intellectual capital which still exists in Russia, for common benefits, as in the development of Asia.

That comes back to the third question -- you asked about this Kyoto-China business, and so forth. Now, the best knowledge of how to deal with Central and North Asia, is concentrated in Russian scientists who worked in these areas, particularly those who are familiar with the work of Vernadsky. That is, dealing with the problems of desert areas, dealing with tundra areas, all these kinds of so-called ecological problems, there is in Russia, a great knowledge of this, and in the area especially of Russia and Kazakhstan, there's a great area in which much of this work has to be done.

Now, I've made certain critical adjustments in the concept of biosphere and noösphere by Vernadsky. And what I've proposed, in particular, is that this case  of North and Central Asia be used as an area, one of the great areas of the world -- another is Africa, and the other is South America -- areas of the world in which the combination of raw materials management, the environmental management in general, and development for the purposes of benefit to these whole regions, on regional programs, would be carried out. That is where I think Russia plays a very key role in Asia, and we have, for example, in the great raw materials area of Africa, which we must help -- it's a great African mineral shield, South Africa, in particular, to help Africa as a whole. We have to do the same thing in one of the other great areas of raw materials on this planet, which is South America... [tape ends]          

- 30 -