Frank Weltner Presents... This Scholarly Library of Facts about Domestic & Worldwide Zionist Criminality The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Zionist History Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, Research & News About Zionism We Reveal Zionist Banksters, News Falsifiers, PR Liars, Neocons, Subversives, Terrorists, Spies & More The Jew Watch Project's 1.5 Billion Pages Served Demonstrate Our Focus on Professionalism An Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation

Top: Jewish LeadersFolder: Alan Greenspan

Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), QuestionsAlan Greenspan, Chair, Federal Reserve System, Robert Rubin, U.S.Treasury Secretary, and Larry Summers, Deputy U.S Treasury Secretary.

Hearing of the House Banking and FinancialServices Committee on The World Economic Situation and the U.S.Economy

September 16, 1998

REP. LEACH: Thank you. Mr. Sanders?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You'reprobably not going to miss me, but I think I'm coming back, so--

SEC. RUBIN: And Mr. Sanders, we look forward to it. (Laughter.)

REP. SANDERS: Mr. Chairman, in all due respect to my friendsMr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin, and Mr. Summers, their testimony, whichis similar to testimony that we have heard from them in recentyears, is coming from an "Alice in Wonderland" perspective;it just doesn't have anything to do with reality. Mr. Chairman,whether anyone likes it or not -- and I hate to break this toyou -- the IMF has failed and failed dismally. Given the horrendousrecord of the IMF in making life worse for the people of Mexico,worse for the people of Asia, worse for the people of Russia,not to mention all of the austerity programs in Africa, in LatinAmerica, and the misery that those programs have caused, why inGod's name would anyone want to continue along the incrediblepath of failure that has been the record of the IMF? That, tmy mind, would be insane. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's my view. But let me mention to you and quote the point of view of a numberof other people whose opinion is not normally mine. This Sunday's-- just last Sunday's New York Times, and I quote: "It'sonly a bit of an overstatement to say that the fre market, IMF,Bob Rubin, and Larry Summers model is in shambles," end ofquote, said John S. Wadsworth Jr., who runs Morgan Stanley's operationsin Asia.

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial from July 20th,1998, quote: "The IMF helped create the very crisis thatMr. Camdessus says he now needs more money to solve," endquote.

And the Wall Street Journal, not noted to be a progressiveorgan that I have a lot in common with, has constantly talkedabout the failure of the IMF and the issue of moral hazard.

Now let me quote from a very important letter that we receivedin Congress from 126 delegates to the Mexican congress, from thePRD party, the second largest political party in Mexico, and Iquote, "Contrary to the view promulgated by the Clinton administrationand the U.S. media, the packaging of $12.5 billion from the exchangestabilization fund and $17.8 billion fro mthe IMF to bail outMexico benefited only foreign investors and a small grou of already-wealthyMexican investors while wreaking havoc on our national economy."End of quote.

A letter from 140 American and international environmentalgroups, labor unions, and development organizations says, andI quote, "The disastrous impact of IMF-imposed policies onworkers' rights, environmental protection and economic growthand development, the crushing debt repayment burden of poor countriesas a result of IMF policies and the continuing secrecy of IMFoperations provide ample justification for denying increased fundingfor the IMF." End of quote.

Let me say a word about Russia; poor, tragic Russia. Whencommunism fell in 1991, the Russian government received the attentionand the policy guidance and $20 billion from the IMF, and it isfair to probably say that never in the modern history of thisworld has one country, which started off as an industrializednation with an inefficient economy, to be sure, never before havewe seen an economy decline in seven years like the Russian economyhas declined under the guidance of the brilliant advice of theIMF, not to mention $20 billion in taxpayer money. And I don'thave to tell you, you know that. This is a country that usedto manufacture; they don't do it any more. Their children arehungry, their old people don't receive pensions; they used toproduce food.

Now they import food. But meanwhile, they now have a handfulof billionaire oligarchs who have made a fortune illegally havinga substantial role in running that country.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is fine for all of us in a very congenialway to be laughing and chatting about what's going on, but I thinkwe are blind not to recognize that the IMF has failed. And whilewe do not and must not turn ou backs on what's going on in thisworld -- and please do not hear me to say that. And I think, Mr.Chairman, your suggestion about thinking about providing foodto Russia when this winter is coming is a very important suggestion-- we must not turn our backs. But any major league manager thathas a pitcher who's won three games and lost 20, you know what? You say to that pitcher, Thank you, you're going down to theminors. We're trying a ne strategy. Your strategy has failed.

So I would simply like to ask Mr. Greenspan or Mr. Rubin orMr. Summers how, given the horrendous record of the IMF in Russia,in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America and all the suffering thatit has caused to poor people while rich people in almost everycountry have become richer, how in a straight face can you comebefore the taxpayers of the United States and say, Hey, we want$18 billion more to continue this failed policy? Mr. Greenspan? Mr. Rubin?

MR. GREENSPAN: Congressman, if we agreed with your appraisalI think we woul agree with your conclusion. I think the problemis we don't agree with your appraisal.

REP. SANDERS: Yes, you think that the success -- that the IMFhas been successful in Russia after $20 billion in guiding thatcountry since the fal of communism?

MR. GREENSPAN: I think I stipulated the conditions under whichI think they have failed or succeeded. I would not characterizewhat the IMF has done anywhere as an unmitigated success. ButI scarcely would conclude the wholl negative view which you haveadduced.

REP. SANDERS: Mr. Greenspan, your testimony goes around theworld very quickly. And I think that maybe the people of Russiatoday who are sufferin so terribly, who have seen such a majordecline in their economy through IMF guidance over the last sevenyears, would love you to tell us and tell the mabout the successesof the IMF in Russia.

MR. GREENSPAN: I would say that the IMF had very little todo with the decline that existed in Russia. I think that youstart off with a centrally planned economy in which a goodly partof what they are producing is not available to be sold in themarket, and that very rapidly dissolves. I'm no arguing thatthey moved from a centrally planned economy to a free market economy. That's scarcely the case.

I've argued elsewhere that, indeed, the type of markets thatthey have is scarcely the type that we support; that is a ruleof law, a structure which has -- an institutional structure whichenables exchange to be viable and productivity efficient. Russiahas scarcely been able to do that. And I would suggest to youthat if the IMF never existed, we'd be looking at very much thesame sort of problems that they have.

REP. SANDERS: But we put $20 billion of IMF into Russia. Mynext question i one that has not been --

REP. LEACH: Excuse me --

REP. SANDERS: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. I thinkothers have had as much time. And this is a perspective thatwe're not hearing too much fro this committee today.

REP. LEACH: You're true on your perspective, you're true thatothers have gone over. We're over about 10 minutes. We havea lot of members. If you could ask it very briefly.

REP. SANDERS: Sure.

We've learned recently, through the subcommittee that Mr. Bachusis the chairman of and I'm the ranking member, that in fact, despiteall the resolutions and amendments passed by the United StatesCongress urging our representative to the IMF to use his or hervoice and vote to protect workers' rights or moral hazard, guesswhat? We have learned that our representative never asks forany votes at the IMF and virtually all of the important decisionsare taken without votes. Now what does this tell about IMF andthe Treasury Department's respect for the will of Congress? Mr.Summers, did you want -- or Mr. Rubin?

SEC. RUBIN: Let me, if I could, respond to that, Mr. Sanders. I think actually it makes the point in the opposite directionthat you've suggested.

There are very few votes taken. Most of this is resolved throughinformal conversation and discussion. No, that's precisely thepoint. And it's voice and vote. And let me assure you that weare exceedingly mindful of Congress's directions with respectto the use of the voice and vote, and hav used that voice verypowerfully in the consultations. So that while it is true relativelyfew of these decisions reach a vote, we are much more effectiveon behalf of that which Congress has directed us to do througha consultation process in which we can exercise intellectual andmoral suasion than we are in a vote where we're only one of 182nations, although we, I think, have something like 18 percentof the vote.

REP. SANDERS: Yeah, but we have veto power. Could you giveus that discussion about our role, or is that closed discussion?

SEC. RUBIN: Excuse me?

REP. SANDERS: Can you provide us that evidence, the testimonyabout the role that we play within these IMF discussions, or isthat closed information?

SEC. RUBIN: We would be happy to come and discuss it with you,if you'd like

REP. SANDERS: But it's secret information; it's not published?

SEC. RUBIN: Let me say we are very much in favor of increasedtransparency i the IMF, if that's your point. We agree with that.

REP. SANDERS: Thank you.

SEC. RUBIN: But we are also very happy to come discuss theissue with you.

REP. LEACH: Mr. Lucas?

PAPERT: Welcome back to EIR Talks. This is Tony Papert.With me in the studio now is EIR economics writer Richard Freeman.Rich, we were discussing earlier with John Hoefle, the bailout,or the takeover, of the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund.As that was going on, exactly one week ago today, on Sept. 23,Fed chairman Greenspan, whose organization was arranging the bailout,was testifying before the Senate budget committee. FREEMAN:Well, I would say we should watch a clip here of his testimony,on Sept. 23, and I would just draw people's attention to two things.First, that he says that this has a minimal effect on the UnitedStates -- the whole world financial disintegration that's ongoing.And second, his recommendation, which is to basically keep thecurrent financial structures, because they're so sound and robust,and can withstand any problems, and if you have to make changes,make changes on an {ad hoc} basis.

PAPERT: So, let's turn to that clip now. [Greenspanvideo excerpts] FREEMAN: I think the key thing to say,Tony, about his testimony Sept. 23, is that here you have a persontelling everybody about the minimal risk that the world faces,who's lying through his teeth, because at that very moment thereare meetings going on at the Federal Reserve Bank of New Yorkto try and prevent a breakdown of the world financial system throughthese derivatives. And Greenspan, I think, now stands thoroughlydiscredited. He has said repeatedly in Congressional testimonyover the last two to three years, that derivatives are not a problem,[that] in fact they're a very dynamic instrument, and so forthand so on. And I think at this point the IMF, the Federal Reserve,and all the so-called financial experts in the world stand thoroughlyexposed on this question. I think the thing to realizeabout Greenspan is, first, his role on derivatives. Hehas been running protection for the derivatives market over thelast number of years. In 1997, he gave testimony, actually spokebefore an event of the Atlanta Federal Reserve District, in whichhe said that regulation could be no good, and that it could bevery destructive. At the same time last year, the FinancialAccounting Standards Board, which is a board of independent accountantswho 0certify all corporations of any size in this country, cameforward with what I'd call a rather timid proposal, which basicallysaid, let's take these off-balance-sheet liabilities which nobodyknows how much an institution has, and put them on the books atcurrent market value, so people know what they're worth, and what'sthere. And Greenspan wrote three letters during the summer oflast year, to the Congress and the Financial Accounting StandardsBoard, protesting, saying that if this were done, among otherthings, this would lead-- wreck, prudent financial management. In other words, the financial management would go outthe window if people knew how much the derivatives size was. His third letter was signed by 22 of what he called majorcorporation heads. When you then look at the number of peoplewho signed, they were all heads of the major banks of the UnitedStates. This year, the head of the Commodity Futures TradingCorporation, which has regulation over exchange trading in derivatives,said, let's look into the risk of non-exchange-traded derivatives,which are sometimes called `over-the-counter.' And these are tradedby the banks and the hedge funds. And Greenspan attacked thisproposal, attacked the CFTC, and got his people in the Congressonce again, to hold hearings, to put a stall to any reporting...

PAPERT: ... to make it illegal for them to even doa study. FREEMAN: ...to even study that there might bea serious risk, that people would know that. And so I think thatGreenspan has said repeatedly he's against regulation, he hasshown his colors as basically -- to pick up an analogy that Johnused earlier -- a mafioso running a protection racket for derivatives. And I would point out to people that Greenspan came inas Federal Reserve chairman in August of 1987. The total valueof all derivatives in the United States was about $3 trillion.Today, if you could [add up] the banks, which have $28.5 trillionin derivatives (that's the commercial banks), but also the investmentbanks and other corporations, we have $40 trillion of derivatives.And I think that this should accurately be called the Alan Greenspanderivatives bubble.

PAPERT: And it's a cancer. Now this also affects Japan,but more generally. Could you talk to us about the status of theeconomic-financial crisis in Japan? FREEMAN: Absolutely.I'd just like to add one word on Greenspan. He has been recommendingputting the Social Security Trust Fund into the stock market.He has called for slashing Medicare. He has attacked infrastructurebuilding. And the guy is really a piece of work. He's a followerof this cultist named Ayn Rand. He joined the cult in the '50s,has kept friends.... His personal accountant today is a memberof the cult from way back when.

PAPERT: Really? FREEMAN: Yes.

PAPERT: So he's kept up his ties to it. I didn't realizethat.

FREEMAN: And when he was put in as the head of Nixon'sCouncil of Economic Advisors, there was Ayn Rand, sitting in thefront row to see her prize student take the oath of office. Now,her view is that the world populations are motivated by personal,Hobbesian drives, that the state doesn't exist, that individualconcern for others is wrong and evil. And I think people shouldjust have in their mind ... and she blows things up. Her booksend up with buildings being blown up, and wanton acts of destruction.

PAPERT: She always wore a pin... I don't know if she'sstill alive, but she always wore a pin that was a dollar sign.

FREEMAN: And when she was buried, her shroud was adollar sign put on her coffin. So, you have to have this imageof this fellow who sometimes sits there putting his hand on onefinger, and babbling on, and most people say that they try tointerpret what he's saying, and in his own mind, he's thinkingof blowing things up and destruction. That's why I think he hasa personal affinity for this derivatives market.

But to take up your question on Japan.

Look, this Japan situation is very, very advanced.You have a banking system that is larger than the United States'.They have what are estimated by German banks in Tokyo, to be $1.5trillion of non-performing loans -- we have heard figures thatare even higher. They have no ability to pay off these loans inany reasonable way. Just on that alone, the Japanese banking system-- being the biggest in the world, we're the biggest economy,they're the biggest banking system -- has enough to blow up theentire world financial system.

On top of that, it was announced by Miyazawa, the financeminister, three weeks ago, when talking about the Long Ter mCreditBank, one of the big 19 banks in Japan, which is in very big trouble,that, as he put it, if they have 380 billion of derivatives ontop of non-performing loans, and, as he said, if they failed,this could lower the credibility of Japan, which is an understatement;but then said, that this could lead to a Japan-triggered worldfinancial breakdown.

Now, this is the finance minister of the second-largesteconomy of the world.

What has happened in recent weeks, is that there'sa liquidity squeeze so severe, that reports we have out of Japanis that the Japanese Central Bank is putting Treasury securitiesinto Japanese banks, and other dollar deposits, so that they willhave enough dollars, because nobody is willing to lend the Japanesebanks dollars on the overnight market, because they don't believethe Japanese banks are going to be there tomorrow.

So, this crisis by itself could blow up the world financialsystem.

Then you have the ongoing situation in Russia, wherethere was a default declared on August 19th of all foreign debt,which ended the world financial system in its current form aswe know, as Lyndon LaRouche has said repeatedly. And there youhave a situation in which we don't even know still the size oflosses which may have occurred from the derivatives, which wereabout $100 to $150 billion in the Russian market.

So you have these two major places hanging over theworld right now.

PAPERT: Now, what about Brazil? Brazil seems to begoing through something like what happened in Russia earlier.

FREEMAN: Precisely. Brazil... fascinating. Their foreignreserves, which are the reserves a country keeps in its centralbank of other currencies, and its own currency, mostly dollars,at the start of August, was about 70 to 75 billion. It is nowdown, as of September 22, to 42 billion. So they have lost atminimum 28 billion, maybe 33 billion, of reserves. This meanscapital is fleeing the country. They will have to tackle the questionthat they will have bonded debt, the Brazilians, at the end ofthis year, of 320 billion dollars. The danger is, that the Brazilianeconomy is the second largest in our hemisphere, after our own,and their financial system is quite huge. They could go go under.

And, again, this shows you the hypocrisy of what'sgoing on. People say, well, there's no trouble with Brazil. Brazilis sound. Yet, last week, Brazil's president, Sir Enrique Cardoso,said that Brazil might consider a loan from the InternationalMonetary Fund, which people have put as large as $50 billion.Well, if everything was fine in Brazil, why do they need a $50-billionloan from the IMF, an IMF which is already bankrupt to start?

If Brazil goes, there will be no emerging market, asthey call Third World economies' markets, standing. It is simplythe biggest of them all. It will bring down the whole North American,and South American, financial system. All the secondary markets,like the Brady bonds, the devalued bonds which are trading, willgo out the window.

And what people have to think about, from the pointof view of the United States: If this happens with Japan, Russia,Brazil, go, you trigger the $140-trillion derivatives market,of which the United States has $40 trillion. If that happens,regardless of what's the instigating incident, you will have ameltdown of the 7 to 8 largest banks, people will lose their checkingaccounts, their savings accounts, their pensions, their socialsecurity -- there will not be a banking system left standing inthe United States, and we're inches from that.

PAPERT: Now, in response to that danger, Mr. LaRouchecalled for a New Bretton Woods, harkening back to Roosevelt'sBretton Woods Conference in 1944, which formed the post-war monetarysystem. Since then, some unlikely characters have also calledfor a New Bretton Woods, including Tony Blair and leaders of theFrench government. What's that about?

FREEMAN: Well, Tony Blair represents what Mr. LaRouchehas identified as the `Third Way,' which I guess is neither mannor woman. And their proposal, Blair spoke Sept. 21st in New York,is to set up a new international financial authority which, amongsome of the things it would do, would manage risk-management ofthese derivatives. So, they take a recognition that there's aproblem. Only the most insane people today would not admit there'sa problem.

So then they say, we will put up a new institution-- we will manage the risk. I think the point that is very clear,is that we don't need a new institution to manage the risk; weneed to get rid of these derivatives from top to bottom, and thisis just pure fakery, which he has sold to certain people in theFrench government. He's made overtures to the United States government.So far, the United States has not bitten at these proposals. Butthese will come up.

I think what people need to focus on, is what LyndonLaRouche, who put forth a proposal for a New Bretton Woods system,and actually has called for a reorganization of the monetary systemfor at least 30 years, and whose authority is going up by leapsand bounds every day, because he's the only accurate economistover the last 30 years, including his last forecast, which hemade in 1994, predicting exactly what would happen, forecastingthis.

He has issued a statement which, if I could, I'd justlike to mention one feature of it. And people can see this onthe web site of the Executive Intelligence Review, and also inthe next issue of Executive Intelligence Review magazine.

PAPERT: The web site is larouchepub.com.

FREEMAN: And this is a major statement. It's called``What each among all nations must do now,'' and it was issuedSeptember 27th, as this crisis became deeper and deeper. And,if I could just identify two points.

LaRouche says, ``In general, it must be recognizedthat this is not only the most explosive and dangerous financialand monetary emergency in modern history, but an immediate andunavoidable threat.... There will be, repeatedly, objections inthe form of: `Is it really that bad, after all?' The answer is,invariably, `It is not only that bad, but much worse.' To therelated objection, `But are such measures really necessary, afterall?' The answer is, `Your life and your family's life probablydepend upon these actions.'"

I'd like to just cite one of eight measures that Mr.LaRouche cites, and urge people to get a hold of it.

But he says, ``Under this assertion of sovereignty,each nation must assume perfect sovereignty respecting its financialmonetary, and economic affairs. Under present circumstances, thisrequires immediate measures of capital controls, exchange controls,international regulation of financial and monetary affairs, andterms of trade, by each and all individual sovereign nation-states.This must include the setting of protected prices for essentialcommodities of domestic consumption and export-import trade....It is by parallel and cooperative use of these measures, thatnational economies shall be defended against an already inevitable,early, sudden, and rapid collapse of fictitious financial instruments.''

So, I think that the point that we would make off ofthis, is that the crisis-management approach, or as people sawin the Greenspan statement -- the very last words he says, we'regoing to approach this ``ad hoc,'' -- crisis management, muddlingthrough, is just another word for impotence. And what we musthave is the type of leadership that FDR represents, and Mr. LaRouchehas represented, of saying, you cannot save this syste m-- itis not worth sacrificing the human race to try and do it. Thereare proposals which have proven that they will work, as you cited1944, we know how this system can be put back together.

PAPERT: Yes, or as Angela said, at the beginning ofour show, there is no globalist future, there is no future forthese multinational institutions. There is either a future forsovereign nation states, or basically no civilized future worthliving in at all.

FREEMAN: Exactly, And we can rebuild the productivecapacities. We know how to do that. We put credit into a federalizedFederal Reserve, which becomes a third national bank, and put6- to 700 billion into infrastructure, creating 6-8 million productivejobs, building the sorts of things we need in this country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He looks vaguely like Woody Allen - if Woody Allen were a tall,mumbling economist instead of a short, talkative filmmaker.

He loves parties and tennis, yet is so noncommittal in conversationthat he's been known to avoid commenting on the weather.

He's Alan Greenspan - the central banker's central banker,a bureaucratic bon vivant, and indisputably one of the most powerfulindividuals in the world today.

As stock and currency markets gyrate from Asia to the Americas,US Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has increasingly takenon the role of symbolic head of the new global economy.

In recent public remarks, he has said that something must bedone to cal mroiling economic waters. Last week, his hints thatthe Federal Reserve will cut interest rates when it meets todayin Washington sent a brief burst of optimism coursing throughthe world's bourses. Asian markets, as well as the Dow Jones,blipped up.

"Greenspan, more than any other central banker in theworld, understands that this is a global liquidity crisis thatwill deepen and will assuredly hurt all the major economies,"former Fed economist Catherine Mann told the Reuters news agencythis week. "He is taking on a role as a global financialleader."

To a certain extent, the head of the US Federal Reserve hasalways been a preeminent player in global economics. The sizeof the US economy and the solidity of the dollar ensure as much.

Mr. Greenspan's predecessor at the Fed, the gruff, fly-fishingdevotee Paul Volcker, was long a general in the world's fightagainst the inflation that ravaged much of the developed worldin the 1970s and early 1980s.

Unique circumstances may have made Greenspan today's worldeconomic commander in chief, however. At a time of turmoil, somekey global economic players, notably Japan, appear to have decidedthat the best course of action is to do nothing. Europe, for itspart, is focused on problems posed by the merger of national currenciesinto the single Euro.

New players such as Russia do not have the expertise or statureto lead. The US president is hobbled by his scandal problems,while administration economic officials cannot even get Congressto vote more cash for the International Monetary Fund.

THAT leaves Greenspan. As head of the Federal Reserve, he isappointed by the president - but tradition and the Fed's charterensure some leeway for independent action.

Greenspan has said in the past the US economy is unlikely toremain an island of prosperity in a sea of troubles. And in speakingto the Senate Budget Committee last week, the usually opaque Fedchief made remarks that many experts interpreted as a hint ofa coming cut in interest rates designed to help the whole world,not just the US. "We have to bring the existing instabilitiesto a level of stability reasonably shortly," Greenspan toldsenators. "I think we know where we have to go."

Many experts hope Europe would follow a US lead toward lowerinterest rates. Such cuts could slow the flight of money fromAsia and troubled developing economies into relatively safe Westernbank havens.

But who is this man whose pronouncements can send brokers'hearts soaring, or sinking, across the globe?

He's a native New Yorker. His first focus was music: He attendedNew York's Julliard School and toured the country for a year inthe early 1940s, playing in the Henry Jerome swing band. If nothingelse, friends believe, this experience of US travel gave him theability to connect dispassionate economic theories with the individualsthey affect.

"The most outstanding thing about him is he knows theAmerican economy ... how many black left shoes are produced inJohnstown, Pa.," says friend Herbert Stein, an economistat the American Enterprise Institute here.

A swing into economics carried him straight into moderate Republicanpolitics. He advised Richard Nixon in his 1968 campaign, and servedbriefly in the Bureau of the Budget.

Seven years later, he returned to government service, replacingMr. Stein as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in thefinal days of the Nixon presidency. He agreed only after beingassured that Vice President Ford would keep him.

In that role, he helped formulate the inflation-fighting blueprintof the 1970s that reduced inflation from 11 to 6.5 percent.

Greenspan is also known for taking hot morning baths that lastas long as an hour, with his in-box within reach. The practicebegan years ago to counter a bad back.

That has not kept him off Washington's tennis courts, wherehe is a renowned competitor. "I found his intensity remarkableand his approach shot serious," says a recent partner.

Married to NBC newswoman Andrea Mitchell, Greenspan is alsofamous for his syntax, or rather, the way it conceals virtuallyanything that could be said to be an opinion. This is partly theresult of the natural reticence of Fed officials, who understandthat markets hang on their every word. But it is also part ofGreenspan's personality.

One friend remembers encountering him in an airport, afterviolent storms had almost shut down air traffic on the East Coast.Asked about the weather, the Fed chairman said hesitantly thatit was "OK."

"He couldn't even bring himself to be conclusive aboutthe weather!" says the friend.

Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have Power....... Tocoin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,

Alan "Greenscam" has been allowed to raise interestrates 9 times since 1994 -- for a total of 2 1/2% -- during aperiod of wage deflation; adding 125 billion dollars to the budgetdeficit, and robbing home buyers and consumers of 100s of billions. This thievery has strengthened the dollar 80%; resulting in aqua- drupling of the trade deficit, and costing thousands of Americanjobs. The bankers on the other hand have enjoyed record profits,due to this massive transfer of wealth. ACCELERATING PRIVATEPARTICIPATION IN INFRASTRUCTURE IN EAST ASIA The World BankGroup has estimated total market requirements for infrastructurein East Asia at US$ 1.2 to 1.5 trillion over the next decade.Despite keen interest, the number of private projects underwayis well short of the potential. This session will focus on criticalconstraints to increased private participation and possible remedies.

The gap in expectations and perceptions of risks

Government objectives, commitment, and decisionmaking processes

Sector policies and legal and regulatory framework

Unbundling, mitigation, and risk management

Domestic capital markets and mechanisms to provide long-termdebt

Transparency and competition in contracting Instead of ourtaxes being used to promote the general welfare, they are beingdiverted to the multinational companies (foreign aid, Export/ImportBank, IMF-World Bank). According to Ralph Nader, this corporateWelfare is costing the American people over 200 billion dollarsa year. Also, instead of promoting jobs for Americans, they arecreating employment for foreigners. I believe that giving aidto enemies of America -- multinational companies -- constitutesTreason!