Zepp-LaRouche Spells Out Alternative to Hyperinflation
September 28, 2012 • 12:52PM

When the Congress and Bush-Obama Administrations signed over their power of the purse in 2007-2008, that the losses from unchecked speculation were to simply be transferred to the savings of the population and productive economy of the population. The same Congress then set up an unconstitutional “super committee” at Obama's request, to push through cuts to appease rating agencies, who scream that we are in debt, after it was to maintain the financial bubble built in part by those rating agencies, which created the situation. Open ended money printing, drive up food and fuel prices, as Bernanke's QEI and QEII each increased prices by about 50%. Since 2007-2008, the nations monetary debt has nearly doubled and the worth of families dropped by the same amount, with unemployment above 20% The recent coordinated actions in Europe with the establishment of the ESM, the ECB's announcement of unlimited bond purchases, and the Fed's QE3, in going for open ended debt purchases, signal an accelerating and open ended devaluation of the worth of money, increasing prices of everything, and loss of savings, and worse.

In the second question at her September 22nd, 2012 international webcast, Helga-Zepp LaRouche spelled out an alternative to the hyperinflation in an answer to a question given to her by the Russian newspaper Zavtra and a Russian Economist, concerning the time frame inflation, the world financial collapse, and a solution. Time is running out. Those people with any serious plans better work together now for what the future is going to look like, and how the bankruptcy reorganization process is going to be directed toward that future vision. Read her answer, and get moving.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, as I already mentioned, the ESM [European Stability Mechanism], even if it would go into effect, which is still held up by some legal suits and a flood of new legal suits being prepared, also against the ECB — but if it would go into effect, the ESM as it is conceived right now, is already too small. Because if you need to have so-called rescue packages for Spain, then Italy would follow; then you soon are at the French banks. And one of the reasons why the French are making such enormous pressure on Germany to go for all of these schemes, is because the French banks are about the most bankrupt of all. So, in order to refinance this, you would go into a hyperinflationary process, probably in the next weeks and months.

Inflation is already visible in the form of commodity prices, real estate, gasoline, energy. But, you know, basically you could have a complete explosion, like it happened in 1923. Because if you remember, in 1923, you already had almost four years of money-printing on the side of the Reichsbank, because the Versailles conditions imposed on Germany, meant that Germany had to print more money than the Germany economy could possibly compensate for. But only after the French troops had occupied the Rhineland, and production came to a standstill as a result of the opposition of the German population, only then, from spring to November 1923, it exploded.

Today, we have a similar process, not in one country, but we have it in the entire Eurozone and in all of the dollar-zone. So therefore, this could go much, much more quickly, and since the dollar is not just the currency for the United States, it would affect, naturally every country, it would to a general collapse and outbreak of chaos.

Now, what would be the social consequences? If people realized that hyperinflation is on, well, the EU and even the British government, they have made contingency plans for the evacuation of British citizens from the Continent, if there would be such a collapse.

So, it's short term: I can not tell you exactly how many weeks, but it's already on! Hyperinflation is on. Bankers, like Deutsche Bank bankers and others are already saying, "Ja, there will be a rather big inflation, but that is the price we have to pay." Others even peddle the line that inflation would be good, because it would reduce the debt. Now, this is expropriation of the population, and therefore it would not eliminate the dangers of war and general collapse.

Now, concerning Glass-Steagall, well, that is absolutely true: If you impose Glass-Steagall right now, in the United States and in Europe, you would wipe out a large part of this virtual money, which has been created through derivatives, through structured paper, through securitization, through all these creative financial instruments, which were the result of the deregulation already under Greenspan in the '90s, but especially after the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

You would have to write off most of this paper. And as the former Economic Minister of Italy, Tremonti, has pointed out, people would not really lose anything, because they would only write off something which existed only virtually before. So, people naturally are opposed to this, because they say, "But I have all this structured paper, and I have this and that," but it does not exist, it does have a real value in terms of the real economy.

So therefore, when you impose Glass-Steagall, and you protect the commercial banks, you have not enough credit. You have not enough money, not enough liquidity. And this is why you have to combined Glass-Steagall with the concept of national banking of Alexander Hamilton, of, as I said, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau principles after the Second World War in Germany; and you have to have a credit system where the sovereign power of the state to issue credit for the common good, towards future production, for productive investment, that has to be put on the agenda.

Now, this is, I know, a big problem, because people who have been thinking in Europe and elsewhere in terms of monetarist categories, they have a real mental block in understanding that. They somehow can not make the jump. They say, "Yeah, but if you issue credit, then that is inflationary." Or, "Where is the difference between what the central banks are doing now, and your credit system?"

Now, the difference is absolutely fundamental, because, as I mentioned, the liquidity published right now, is entirely for past accumulation of debt, outstanding debt, outstand derivatives, outstanding accumulation of things from the past. If a sovereign state says, "I have the following manpower, with the following investments in well-defined programs and projects of physical economy, I will cause productive full employment." Productive full employment means an increase in the productivity of the labor force, and the industrial capacity by applying the newest results of scientific progress and the principles of increase of energy flux density, in the production process. Because you want to increase the productivity by making investments in those areas which are necessary for the long-term survivability of civilization, and that does require an increase in energy flux density.

Now, if you obey these principles of physical economy, then a credit is not inflationary, because you issue that credit with a low interest rate, and you don't expect a return after month — not like Ackermann wanted to have 25% returns; you have to say good-bye to that idea. You issue the credit for 10 years, for 20 years, as long as it is needed to fulfill the project you have designed.

Now, if you have international cooperation among nations, let's say, for the World Land-Bridge, then you make multinational, long-term credit arrangements, among all participating countries, and you also balance the differences among the countries. Like, for example, some countries are very huge, like Russia; many time zones, relatively few people as a population. Then you have other countries, very small, many people, like Belgium. Then you have other countries who have monocultures; others have... so you have a diversity of conditions, and you have to have a network of multinational treaty arrangements, where the aim is to increase the productivity of the labor force of the respective population, and then, you increase the buying power over a long period of time, and you change the entire way how people think about that.

Now, I would say, that we need this debate, in all countries. In Germany, we have the precedent of the reconstruction of the postwar period, where the Marshall Plan, so-called, was being implemented by the Kreditanstalt, according to these principles. Roosevelt did it with the New Deal. And I think, in Russia, I know that there is a very competent economist who has written about that, Sergei Glazyev, that the state has the right to issue credit towards production and that is the sovereign right of a nation.

Now, therefore, when you want to realize these large projects, I think it would be a complete mistake, that you need foreign investment of some offshore bankers to invest in this, but it must be the sovereign power of the government and of the state to do these investments for the common good. Now, if that is being done, there would be naturally a period, where a certain change would have to occur, and the population probably would be anxious about what that means, like "currency reserves" in Germany has a very bad name.

But I think that right now, the much, much bigger danger is what we're facing through the combination of a war going out of control in the Middle East, and hyperinflation. Because if you have more or less global hyperinflation, you have social chaos beyond belief.

If on the other side, the responsible governments of the world work together, and say, "we have a plan, how we get mankind out of this mess. Here is what we are we going to do." Then I think it can be done, and the people who have by now at least in Western Europe this is the case, and I think in the United States as well, lost a lot of trust in their governments, and that is a very dangerous condition as it is. Because if you have a complete divide between the mass of the population and their governments, this also forebodes big dangers for the future.

So, I think we should have an international debate, public conferences, TV programs presenting these ideas, and get the population very rapidly accustomed to the idea that we do have an alternative. Because all of this talk about "there is no alternative" is just totally ridiculous and irresponsible, because it is the creativity of man, always to be able to come with alternatives. And there is only one thing that has no alternative, and that is death. Everything else has an alternative. So let's just be human and implement them before it's too late!