Sunday 27th of April 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the birds and the bees of economic management....

Lyndon LaRouche (8 September 1922 – 12 February 2019), was an American economist, and political activist who founded various political organizations under the umbrella of what was termed the LaRouche Movement, and the Schiller Institute, founded by his spouse, Helga-Zepp-LaRouche.

 

The LaRouche Outlook: Between the British and US Economic Models    BY Tamer Mansour

 

A prominent American who does not look like an American in his views 

His name rose to worldwide recognition in the mid-70s, and throughout the 80s of the last century, and he was considered one of the most prominent and controversial political thinkers in the United States and beyond, as his school of thought in politics, economics, history, and culture, were almost always at odds with the dominant political status quo in America, and defied the norms and practices of the ruling establishment.

This experience has sparked the flame of his lifelong ethical commitment to the political struggle and quest for a new “Just World Economic Order” 

What made his views even more contentious around the world, is his ardent support for the war on global drug cartels, as well as the banks and international financial institutions that stood behind this illegal trade.

He founded a global political movement, popular among the youth between the ages of 18-25, which had branched presence and supporters across the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, and Australia. His passionate and ceaseless support for nations seeking full independence and sovereignty over their economies, internal political affairs, and geopolitical decisions, and the right of the people to seek comprehensive agricultural, industrial, and technological developments, without external boundaries or interferences.

LaRouche is no stranger to the Russians. On 14th October 1993, LaRouche’s name was proposed by a prominent Russian academic, namely Professor Taras Vasilievich Muranivsky of the Russian State University for the Humanities, to be elected as a member of the International Ecological Academy of Russia, or “Academy of 100”. A proposal that was strongly supported by Bencion Fleischmann, Professor of Mathematics in the Russian capital.

LaRouche’s integrity and insight 

His best-selling book titled “You Wish to Learn All About Economics?”, published by the Schiller Institute, was the first LaRouche book to be translated into the Russian language. And when he was imprisoned in the US for authoring the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) policy, and leading a global campaign against the predatory lending practices of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), more than 12 Russian elected politicians and activists signed appeals for the release of Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon was highly regarded across the Middle East and the Arab World as well, due to his principled stances against Israeli and American policies in the region throughout the decades, which he considered they contradict the traditional American foreign policy approach in his view.

Even during his academic studies between 1948-1952, LaRouche was very clairvoyant and definitive regarding the political deep roots of the conflict between two classes of societies. Those whose individual interests are perfectly aligned and reliant on the national economy of their countries, such as farmers, manufacturers, and blue-collar workers on one hand. And the interests of the oligarchies, looting the nation out of its people’s wealth through usurious financial practices, government patronage, and favorable treatment because of political campaign funding and lobbying for oligarchy-friendly legislations, etc.

In this regard, LaRouche highlighted the prime importance of the American Revolution and it’s the Federal Constitution. His view was that despite the roots of the US Revolution, emanating from the origins of the 15th Century European Renaissance Era heritage.

Still, North America represented a geographical and strategic severance from Europe. A continent then ruled by an alliance between the aristocratic feudalist class of landowners, and the oligarchic financial class. On this last point, the Metternich-Castlereagh Alliance, announced during the 1815 Vienna Congress, represents a case-in-point worthy of deep study and research. An Alliance Henry Kissinger dedicated an entire book for, under the title “A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812–1822”

Under that European modus-operandi, North European nations were seeking independence and freedom from that oligarchic-feudal system, and the founding of independent constitutional republics away from traditional historical European ruling regimes.

However, LaRouche saw these “modern” European nation-states, as quasi-republics, seeking change through parliamentary reforms, yet, this was occurring within nations still ruled from the top by the same oligarchic financial interests, such as in Britain. On the contrary, the Federal Republic of the United States emerged in 1789, as a truly free and constitutional nation, ruled by a presidential system.

Worth noting here, that this initially “free” nation’s political and geopolitical decisions, were heavily criticized for decades by LaRouche et alia, for practices and policies that serve special corporate, oligarchic, and financial interests, increasingly eating away the basis of such a “free”, “constitutional” and “presidential” political system.

LaRouche saw that the economic system the US built upon its financial might during the 19th century, was distinctly American in nature, as opposed to the then-fading British “free” trade system, which followed the theories of Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith, as many believe.

However, based on the American economic model, initially described as “protectionist”, rather than carrying the mantra of “free trade”, the government is responsible for the financial, monetary, and fiscal policies.

One has to question here, does the “federal” government practice this responsibility in reality? Is the Federal Reserve Bank, even “federal”?

The government, according to the original American economic model, is supposed to be the main credit issuer, through the “national” bank/s, to leverage the economic infrastructure development. To enable farmers and industrialists to practice their liberal professions and businesses under the protection of the state, where their “national” production means and output would be secure.

Does this model sound like it has been kept intact since then?

While private banks and their Big Brother, patron and ally, the “Federal” Reserve, were not supposed to have that big of a role in policymaking, except for facilitating access to credit, for those who need it, as they pursue the development of agriculture, industry and trade. Where there is supposedly no place for speculative loan-sharking, financial usury, or money laundering.

Does it seem like these great promises of the American model were kept, at all?

LaRouche had this vision and deep analytical abilities since his early academic years, and his years of military service in post-World War India, let him witness with his own eyes, the horrors of poverty and injustice, imposed upon Indians under the colonial yoke of the British Empire.

This experience has sparked the flame of his lifelong ethical commitment to the political struggle and quest for a new “Just World Economic Order”. A young American soldier who saw the necessity of giving these people of the “Third World”, their absolute rights of national sovereignty, independence, and development of their educational and economic systems, through fair access to the most advanced technologies.

LaRouche’s quarrel with the British Commonwealth policies and practices around the world, was perfectly aligned with the quarrel of US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt over the same issues, against British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, throughout the World War II era.

Lyndon LaRouche’s opposition to unfair policies of world powers, whether it was the British Empire, or his own country, was the reason behind his national and international prominence. As he never abandoned his positioning, against the fans of the antiquated British economic and political model. As well as, Britain’s allies and followers of its “mutated” imperial approach within the United States, such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the like.

So, did the American model really sever itself from the British prototype? Or did it just mutate into another form of the same “oligarchic” model?

To be continued… 

 

https://journal-neo.su/2025/04/02/the-larouche-outlook-between-the-british-and-us-economic-models/

 

MEANWHILE:

Thomas Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina on June 30, 1930.

As his father passed away prior to his birth, and his mother, a housemaid, had 4 children already, he was adopted and raised by his great aunt and her 2 grown daughters.

When he was 9 years old his family moved to Harlem, New York in search of better opportunity.

After dropping out of the prestigious Stuveysant High School for family reasons, he was drafted into the military in 1951 and served as a photographer in the Marine Corps during the Korean War.

On returning from military duty, he began attending night classes at Howard University, where he was encouraged to apply to Harvard.

In 1959, he graduated magnua cum laude from Harvard. The following year, he received his masters degree from Columbia University.

“Sowell cares about people. He believes that compassionate policy requires dispassionate analysis.”— Walter Williams

Despite studying under Milton Friedman and George Stigler, in 1961 Sowell considered himself a Marxist. It was his internship with the US Department of Labor in the summer of 1961 and his observations of the inefficiencies and perverse incentives within government that eventually dissuaded him from Marxism.

In 1968 he earned his PhD in Economics from the University of Chicago.

From 1963-1978, he held teaching positions in economics at various institutions including Rutgers, Howard, Cornell, Brandeis, UCLA, and Amherst College.

Since 1972, Sowell has published 56 books, over 70 essays, and more than 30 books reviews

In 1980, he was awarded the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, where he continues his writings and work to this day.

https://sowell.org/about

 

Thomas Sowell’s political views are characterized by his advocacy for classical liberal economics and his critical examination of government intervention. Sowell has researched and spoken on the unintended consequences of policies such as affirmative action and minimum wage laws, emphasizing the importance of individual responsibility and free-market mechanisms in promoting economic prosperity.

https://conservatism.net/thomas-sowell/

Sowell’s economic philosophy stands firmly on the bedrock of free-market capitalism. He vehemently champions the power of the market and argues against excessive governmental intervention in the economy. You see, in Sowell’s view, the economy is like a wild stallion—it runs best when it runs free.

One of Sowell’s standout theories is his critique of the so-called ‘trickle-down theory.’ While this theory is often attributed to conservative economists, Sowell insists it’s an imaginary concept. He views wealth not as a fixed pie to be divided but something to be created. In other words, he emphasizes that the economy can grow, thus benefiting everyone without wealth having to ‘trickle down’ from the rich to the poor.

Sowell is also renowned for his thoughts on ‘racial economics.’ He dares to challenge the idea that economic disparities between racial and ethnic groups are solely a result of discrimination. Instead, he points to a variety of other factors, like culture and human capital, that can create such differences.

Then there’s his concept of ‘visions.’ Sowell separates people into two broad categories based on their socio-economic beliefs—the ‘constrained’ and the ‘unconstrained’ vision. The folks in the constrained camp, like Sowell himself, believe in the limitations of human nature and the value of existing social institutions. On the other hand, those in the unconstrained camp believe in human perfectibility and the need to actively intervene to improve society.

Sowell’s economic philosophy, while distinct and sometimes controversial, offers a fresh lens to view and understand the world of economics. It’s a stark departure from mainstream thought, but like a breath of fresh air, it stirs the pot, ignites conversations, and forces us to question and rethink established norms. Now, isn’t that something?

https://julienflorkin.com/personalities/thomas-sowell/

 

SEE NANCY PELOSI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayOiPkvKBw

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

market drop....

Stock market turmoil deepened on Friday, as China hit back at tariffs announced by US President Donald Trump, raising the likelihood of an extended trade war and damage to the global economy. 

All three major stock indexes in the US plunged more than 5%, with the S&P 500 dropping almost 6%, capping the worst week for the US stock market since 2020.

In the UK, the FTSE 100 plunged almost 5% - its steepest fall in five years, while Asian markets also dropped and exchanges in Germany and France faced similar declines. 

Trump, who has vowed to remake the global trade order, dismissed concerns about the market shock, noting that the US labour market is strong.

"Hang tough," he urged his followers on social media. "We can't lose."

The global stock market has lost trillions in value since Trump announced sweeping new 10% import taxes on goods from every country, with products from dozens of countries, including key trading partners such as China, the European Union and Vietnam, facing far higher rates. 

Analysts say the moves, some of which are due to go into effect as soon as Saturday, amount to the biggest tax increase in the US since 1968.

They expect the measures to lead to a contraction in trade, and have warned they could drive many countries into an economic recession.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx26v8x24w1o

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

the true goal...

 

Some Observations on Tariff Hysteria

by 

 

Fear not. I am not going to subject you to a detailed analysis of the economic and political consequences of Donald Trump’s recently implemented tariffs. While I do have a Ph.D. comprehensive field in international economics, I am not a finance guy or a bond trader. And I am not trying to make up an excuse for Trump’s implementation of this policy. I simply want you to consider another explanation for Trump’s tariff policy, which has nothing to do with the actual import and export of goods and services, and everything to do with reshaping the US balance sheet, particularly with respect to short-term debt.

As of the most recent data available, the U.S. government’s short-term external debt stood at approximately $8.66 trillion as of September 2024. This figure represents obligations that are due within one year and includes debt held by the general government, central bank, deposit-taking corporations, and other sectors.

The current interest rate on U.S. short-term debt varies depending on the maturity of Treasury bills:

  • 1 Month T-Bill: 4.30% as of April 4, 2025.
  • 3 Month T-Bill: 4.28% as of April 4, 2025.
  • 6 Month T-Bill: 4.16% as of April 4, 2025.
  • 1 Year T-Bill: 3.89% as of April 4, 2025.

These rates reflect the yields on marketable obligations with maturities of one year or less. The federal short-term rate for April 2025 is slightly lower at 4.16% annually, based on IRS calculations. Stated simply, that is a lot of money in interest the US is paying to service the debt.

Today, April 4, 2025, yields on U.S. long-term Treasuries experienced a significant decline as a result of the tariffs:

  • 10-Year Treasury Yield: Fell below 4%, closing at 3.97%, marking its lowest level since October 2024
  • .This drop was driven by heightened recession fears following President Donald Trump’s announcement of aggressive tariffs on imports, which led investors to seek safety in government bonds
  • .The decline reflects concerns about potential global economic downturns and increased demand for safe-haven assets like U.S. Treasuries.

 

In other words, the US Government received more money for a bond today than it did yesterday, and the US Government obligation to pay interest has shrunk. I had lunch with a good friend today, who has access to Trump financial officials, and he said this is the real purpose of the tariffs — i.e., restructure the US balance sheet, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of short-term debt owed by the US Government.

I was told that if the average US citizen understood how fragile the US financial system is, especially from the burden of short-term debt, that this could cause a panic, followed by an economic crash. Trump is behaving like a magician — i.e., asking people to focus on potential trade benefits and increased jobs, while doing financial legerdemain.

James Surowiecki posted on X and excellent summary that exposes the tariff rates as fake: ....

 

While the tariff scheme is being attacked — correctly in my view — as a misguided trade policy, I have come to believe that is not Trump’s true objective.

Let me use a crude, oversimplified example, to explain what Trump is trying to do. Imagine you are buying a home, you have a 10 year $500,000 dollar interest only loan at 4.5%. At this rate, your monthly payment is $1,875. Now, what happens if that rate falls to 2.5%? Your new payment would be $1,041.67. You would have gained almost $10,000 dollars in your pocket by the end of the year (assuming you did not spend the savings). In other words, Trump is using tariffs in a bid to refinance the US debt at a lower rate. Remains to be seen if this works.

Refinancing onerous debt is something Trump has done multiple times in his business career, and managed to become a billionaire in the process. Whatever objections you have about other Trump policies, particularly Ukraine and the Israel/Palestine war, don’t make the mistake of assuming he’s stupid on this one and does not know what he is doing. Still, it is a gamble. We’ll have to wait a couple of months to see it this was a desperate Hail Mary pass or a shrewd, albeit risky, financial deal.

https://sonar21.com/some-observations-on-tariff-hysteria/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

british evil....

 

The LaRouche Outlook: The Sun Never Set on the British Empire’s Evil. Part 3

Tamer Mansour
The City of London established the system of private central banking (and “central bank money”) and spread it worldwide, with the sole purpose of enforcing upon sovereign nations a “money system” and rule by a private financial elite.

 

When the Ukrainians were almost ready to accept negotiations with Russia, to avoid the incoming expected defeat? Boris Johnson, The UK Prime Minister at the time, hastily paid a visit to the Ukrainian capital, to meet the Ukrainian President, and encourage him to keep “fighting” this completely needless war against Russia, assuring him that all the needed aid is going to be availed to him upon demand, from the British, the Europeans, and the Americans!The British are “desperately trying to lure the United States into a war with Russia and China from a position of weakness, not strength. Their financial empire is teetering on the verge of a major new financial collapse far worse than 2008” 

The British role in inciting warfare, and antagonizing Europeans and Americans against Russia is supposedly obvious mentioning only the above example, not to mention an entire history of a former empire on which the sun never set. An Empire that once ruled the world, and was the city on the hill for an entire epoch named “Pax Britannica”, which renders the consequential effect of the British Empire as exceeding the timeline of the colonial era to this very day.

LaRouche’s critics must have acted deceivingly surprised when he said as US President George W. Bush was preparing for war against Iraq: “The president was just a dupe of the British, Zionists, and utopian military lunatics”.

When Lyndon LaRouche was once asked in a Q&A session: “Why do you guys call it the British Empire System?”, his answer was both concise and informative. Lyndon said: “The world has generally been under an imperial system; it’s called a monetaristsystem”. Adding: “We are so used to believing in money to being value, which it is not, it is the sign value. Assigned by forces which are called the oligarchical system”.

“Abolish the British system, save the people!”

Two years before his passing, Lyndon LaRouche called in 2017, during the first term of Donald Trump’s Presidency, for immediate action by the American people, in order to stave off what he called “the British Plan for war with Russia and China”.

Adding: “The American people must demand that the ongoing treasonous British coup against the Presidency and the nation itself be stopped, and its perpetrators prosecuted and imprisoned”.

Calling Americans against the British system in control of the United States, saying that it: “must be cancelled, and the President must make every effort to save the people of this country and the rest of humankind from further British directed depredations against their lives. Cancel the British system, save the people”.

LaRouche’s critics have long claimed that he is a conspiracy theorist obsessed with the British Empire. However, historically and contemporarily, who in his right mind would deny the sinister role played by the British around the world, as the empire with the largest surface area in the history of humankind, roughly 35 million Km2 by 1920?!

His spouse, Helga Zepp LaRouche emphasized around the same time, that the British are “desperately trying to lure the United States into a war with Russia and China from a position of weakness, not strength. Their financial empire is teetering on the verge of a major new financial collapse far worse than 2008”.

The LaRouches and their colleagues in the Schiller Institute and the wider LaRouche PAC, are of the view that the British and their Wall Street vassals, want to preserve their financial empire, and that’s why they see competing countries, especially, Russia and China, as a threat to their system in control. They are robust rising economies, protective of their own people’s interest, and devoted to sane economic policies that once made the United States itself a “great–large-scale infrastructure, manufacturing, advanced scientific research and exploration of space”. 

They concisely summarize these powers as the “British Wall Street/City of London imperial regime and its accompanying Washington D.C. foreign policy consensus”.

But, it’s not only about the current status quo, their views are justified by a very long history of an empire, whose origins go back to the late 15th Century, when King Henry VII of England, decided to emulate Spain and Portugal’s “successes” in expeditions across the oceans, to “discover” a world beyond their natural borders and impose their colonial rule over these “new” lands, to the 2nd half of the 20th Century as the colonial presence of the British Empire was having its last breaths. 

Yet, the systems the British have established in finance, banking, trade, agriculture, business, and geopolitics, still stand. It is correct to say that the baton has been passed to the Americans, and it’s impossible to deny the sinister effect of the US Empire, amending the system that was handed to them. But the establisher, the founder, the origin of this era’s world “monetarist” system, are the British. 

It’s enough to remind, that the Bank of England, as a central bank with overarching mandates, functions, and regulations, that resonated into the modern era’s global financial regime, was established more than 330 years ago, in 1694. 

From Australia to North America

LaRouche astonished his detractors in the 1980s of last century, as he declared that the Mont Pelerin Society, a “cult” in the form of an “academic society”, directed by British intelligence, to steer Australian politics in the British way. You bet the critics were discontented by this view, and dismissed of course as a “conspiracy theory”. But if someone else other than Lyndon published a book that chronicles the British historical and cultural effect and political sway over Australia, maybe they would have reacted with less indignation.

This unrealistic denial of the British influence through colonialism and beyond, all the way from Australia to North America, sounds almost hilariously funny if it were not so serious and historically consequential.

It is impossible within the confines of one essay, or even thousands, to summarize the sinister reverberations of the British Empire. But if one chose to conclude with a clairvoyant analysis, focusing only on the monetary financial effect, then probably no one summarized it better than American Historian and Author, and Co-Editor of EIR, Dr. Robert Ingraham. 

In one of his prescient articles published under the auspices of the LaRouche PAC, Ingraham wrote:

“British monetarism, .. deliberately mis-identifies human wealth with money,”. Following up with this salient paragraph about the British monetary system:

“British monetarism—whether of the Keynes or Hayek variety—has its roots in John Locke’s 1691 work Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money, where Locke defines money as a “special” kind of property, one imbued with almost magical powers, which “turns the wheels of trade.” Money is de facto the self-evident source of all wealth. The British Empire, as also the earlier Dutch and Venetian empires, were all based on this empiricist notion of money. They were FINANCIAL empires, – PRIVATE financial empires”. 

Ingraham then writes the following:

“This rule by a private financial elite defines the imperial system down to the present day world order of “globalization” and “The Great Reset.” During the 19th and 20th centuries, the City of London established the system of Private Central Banking (and “Central Bank money”) and spread that system worldwide, for the sole purpose of enforcing upon sovereign nations a “money system” and rule by a private financial elite.”

Does any of these views, sound far from the reality that our world and its populations live through and suffer from till this day? Has the sun ever set on the British Empire?

No wonder if countries such as China or Russia, try to defy these “British/American” norms of a so-called “Rule-Based System”, they would be vilified and conspired against. And no surprise, that an intellectual such as LaRouche who was among the voices who have never ceased to expose such “elites”, would be berated and dismissed by a corporate media world, controlled mostly by the same elites and oligarchs.

In defiance, this three-part essay was but an invitation to take a deeper look into the views of an intellectual called, Lyndon LaRouche.

 

Tamer Mansour, Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher

 

https://journal-neo.su/2025/04/25/the-larouche-outlook-the-sun-never-set-on-the-british-empires-evil-3/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.