Stealing Resources


Resources have been taken by power ever since humans became Takers.

Colonialism is the general pattern, and most history books will tell you that colonialism ended with "decolonialization" but ...  (see below).

John Perkins popularized the term "Economic Hitmen" (which he worked as) & explains one of the modern & - previously - less obvious forms of colonialism.





The truth about 'Aid'

Here in Kenya (foreign owned companies) export ~2 billion dollars of Green Vegetables mostly to Europe per year. Feeding 10s of millions of Europeans .. while over 1 million people a year in Kenya recieve food-aid due to starvation. The very active exploitation of African cheap labor and corrupt politics is treamendous. 

The Aid-Industry here is a sad joke that makes westerners think they are helping people while multi-nationals rape the country. (note the 'jobs' created here by food exporters at best give people about $2USD a day).  

More information here: http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/exports/?country=ke

(Will Ruddick, Skype CC group, 19Nov2012)




     

Video: How the poor get poorer 

How the poor get poorer- {The bitter truth}
This is an animated interview of John Perkins, author of 'HoodWinked' and 'Confessions Of An Economic Hitman' 



The truth behind the Greek Economic Crisis


Greece is been subjected to Economic slavery.
A slave in order to work must be feed and accommodated, an economic slave must do these things for him/her self.


John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"


See lots more videos here




The Secret History of the American Empire


www.marlboro.edu - Author John Perkins spoke at Marlboro College on 4/23/08. Drawing on experiences described in his two New York Times bestsellers, Perkins describes the post-WWII era as one that created history's first truly global empire -- mostly through economics, rather than the military. Now we find ourselves catapulted toward a future that appears catastrophic to many people; however, in Perkins's view it offers great opportunities. Identifying corporations as "the most influential institutions on the planet," he challenges us to transform ourselves and the companies that so deeply impact our lives. He presents a plan for creating a world "that will make our children proud of us."

John Perkins spent three decades as an Economic Hit Man, business executive, author, and lecturer. He lived and worked in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and North America. Then he made a decision: he would use these experiences to make the planet a better place for his daughters generation. Today he teaches about the importance of rising to higher levels of consciousness, to waking up -- in both spiritual and physical realms -- and is a champion for environmental and social causes.




John Perkins on Globalization


Volume 1 of 5 in the 'speaking freely' series. (52 minutes)

For many years John Perkins claimed to have been working as something he defines to be like an "economic hit man in the world of international finance"; a function he performed by persuading Third World countries to take on large -scale public works projects. Today, we recognize that these types of projects, financed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), have served to enrich U.S. corporations while creating crippling debt for these countries, effectively turning them into American client states. Experiencing a change of heart, Perkins resigned from the business in 1981. After running a utility company, he founded the nonprofit organization, Dream Change Coalition (http://www.dreamchange.org), which works closely with Amazonian and other indigenous people to help preserve their environments and cultures. Take the time for a conversation with Perkins about globalization and inequality around the world.

Produced: 2007, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1245106/

www.johnperkins.org, www.dreamchange.org

For a better quality copy please visit the Cinemalibre webstore @http://www.cinemalibrestore.com/sf_series.html or www.cinemalibrestudio.com



Why America invaded Iraq


If video disappears search for more here

Why did America invade Iraq in 2003? Was it for oil? Or was it because Saddam Hussein was a mass-murdering dictator who harbored terrorists and threatened the region with Weapons of Mass Destruction? If it was the former, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just buy Iraq's oil on the open market? And if it was the latter, why did Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry support President Bush? Noted British historian, Andrew Roberts, has the answers. 




A rose, by any other name ...

What is Colonialism

see 
in this e-book





The Economic Hitman




The Debt Trap


From "Debt, the first 5,000 years" (audioBook & text in Class 5.1, Ecosystem Flows)


TWO YEARS AGO, by a series of strange coincidences, I found myself attending a garden party at Westminster Abbey. 

I was a bit uncomfortable.  It’s not that other guests weren’t pleasant and amicable, and Father Graeme, who had organized the party, was nothing if not a gracious and charming host.     But I felt more than a little out of place. 

At one point, Father Graeme intervened, saying that there was someone by a nearby fountain whom I would certainly want to meet. 

She turned out to be a trim, well-appointed young woman who, he explained, was an attorney—“but more of the activist kind. 

She works for a foundation that provides legal support for anti-poverty groups in London.  You’ll probably have a lot to talk about.”

We chatted.   She told me about her job.   I told her I had been involved for many years with the global justice movement—“anti- globalization movement,” as it was usually called in the media. 

She was curious: she’d of course read a lot about Seattle, Genoa, the tear gas and street battles, but ... well, had we really accomplished anything by all of that?

“Actually,” I said, “I think it’s kind of amazing how much we did manage to accomplish in those first couple of years.”

“Well, for example, we managed to almost completely destroy the IMF.”

As it happened, she didn’t actually know what the IMF was, so I offered that the International Monetary Fund basically acted as the world’s debt enforcers—
“You might say, the high-finance equivalent of the guys who come to break your legs.” 

I launched into historical background, explaining how, during the ’70s oil crisis, OPEC countries ended up pouring so much of their newfound riches into Western banks that the banks couldn’t figure out where to invest the money; 
how Citibank and Chase therefore began sending agents around the world trying to convince Third World dictators and politicians to take out loans (at the time, this was called “go-go banking”); 
how they started out at extremely low rates of interest that almost immediately skyrocketed to 20 percent or so due to tight U.S. money policies in the early ‘80s; 
how, during the ’80s and ’90s, this led to the Third World debt crisis; 
how the IMF then stepped in to insist that, in order to obtain refinancing, poor countries would be obliged to abandon price supports on basic foodstuffs, or even policies of keeping strategic food reserves, and abandon free health care and free education; 
how all of this had led to the collapse of all the most basic supports for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on earth. 

I spoke of poverty, of the looting of public resources, the collapse of societies, endemic violence, malnutrition, hopelessness, and broken lives.

“But what was your position?” the lawyer asked. 

“About the IMF? We wanted to abolish it.” 

“No, I mean, about the Third World debt.” 
“Oh, we wanted to abolish that too. 
The immediate demand was to stop the IMF from imposing structural adjustment policies, which were doing all the direct damage, but we managed to accomplish that surprisingly quickly.   The more long-term aim was debt amnesty.   Something along the lines of the biblical Jubilee. 

As far as we were concerned,”  I told her, “thirty years of money flowing from the poorest countries to the richest was quite enough.” 

“But,” she objected, as if this were self-evident, “they’d borrowed the money! Surely one has to pay one’s debts.” 

It was at this point that I realized this was going to be a very different sort of conversation than I had originally anticipated. 

Where to start? 
I could have begun by explaining how these loans had originally been taken out by unelected dictators who placed most of it directly in their Swiss bank accounts, and ask her to contemplate the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictator, or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of hungry children. 

Or to think about how many of these poor countries had actually already paid back what they’d borrowed three or four times now, but that through the miracle of compound interest, it still hadn’t made a signifcant dent in the principal. 

I could also observe that there was a difference between refinancing loans, and demanding that in order to obtain refinancing, countries have to follow some orthodox free-market economic policy designed in Washington or Zurich that their citizens had never agreed to and never would, and that it was a bit dishonest to insist that countries adopt democratic constitutions and then also insist that, whoever gets elected, they have no control over their country’s policies anyway. 

Or that the economic policies imposed by the IMF didn’t even work. 

But there was a more basic problem: the very assumption that debts have to be repaid. 

Actually, the remarkable thing about the statement “one has to pay one’s debts” is that even according to standard economic theory, it isn’t true. 

A lender is supposed to accept a certain degree of risk. If all loans, no matter how idiotic, were still retrievable—if there were no bankruptcy laws, for instance—the results would be disastrous. What reason would lenders have not to make a stupid
loan? “Well, I know that sounds like common sense,” I said, “but the funny thing is, economically, that’s not how loans are actually supposed to work. 

Financial institutions are supposed to be ways of directing resources toward profitable investments. If a bank were guaranteed to get its money back, plus interest, no matter what it guaranteed to get its money back, plus interest, no matter what it did, the whole system wouldn’t work. 

Say I were to walk into the nearest branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland and say ‘You know, I just got a really great tip on the horses. Think you could lend me a couple million quid?’ 

Obviously they’d just laugh at me.   But that’s just because they know if my horse didn’t come in, there’d be no way for them to get the money back. 

But, imagine there was some law that said they were guaranteed to get their money back no matter what happens, even if that meant, I don’t know, selling my daughter into slavery or harvesting my organs or something.   

Well, in that case, why not?    Why bother waiting for someone to walk in who has a viable plan to set up a laundromat or some such?  

Basically, that’s the situation the IMF created on a global level— which is how you could have all those banks willing to fork over billions of dollars to a bunch of obvious crooks in the first place.”

I didn’t get quite that far, because at about that point a drunken financier appeared, having noticed that we were talking about money, and began telling funny stories about moral hazard—which somehow, before too long, had morphed into a long and not particularly engrossing account of one of his sexual conquests. 

I drifted off.
Still, for several days afterward, that phrase kept resonating in my head.
“Surely one has to pay one’s debts.”

The reason it’s so powerful is that it’s not actually an economic statement: it’s a moral statement. 

After all, isn’t paying one’s debts what morality is supposed to be all about? 
Giving people what is due them. 
Accepting one’s responsibilities. Fulfilling one’s obligations to others, just as one would expect them to fulfill their obligations to you. 

What could be a more obvious example of shirking one’s responsibilities than reneging on a promise, or refusing to pay a debt?

It was that very apparent self-evidence, I realized, that made the statement so insidious. 

This was the kind of line that could make terrible things appear utterly bland and unremarkable. This may sound strong, but it’s hard not to feel strongly about such matters once you’ve witnessed the effects. 

I had.

Continue reading in Flows