Tales of an Economic Hitman

Check this out here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8&feature=related

John Perkins started and stopped writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man four times over 20 years. He says he was threatened and bribed in an effort to kill the project, but after 9/11 he finally decided to go through with this expose of his former professional life. Perkins, a former chief economist at Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, says he was an "economic hit man" for 10 years, helping U.S. intelligence agencies and multinationals cajole and blackmail foreign leaders into serving U.S. foreign policy and awarding lucrative contracts to American business. "Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars," Perkins writes. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an extraordinary and gripping tale of intrigue and dark machinations. Think John Le Carré, except it's a true story.
Perkins writes that his economic projections cooked the books Enron-style to convince foreign governments to accept billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other institutions to build dams, airports, electric grids, and other infrastructure he knew they couldn't afford. The loans were given on condition that construction and engineering contracts went to U.S. companies. Often, the money would simply be transferred from one bank account in Washington, D.C., to another one in New York or San Francisco. The deals were smoothed over with bribes for foreign officials, but it was the taxpayers in the foreign countries who had to pay back the loans. When their governments couldn't do so, as was often the case, the U.S. or its henchmen at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund would step in and essentially place the country in trusteeship, dictating everything from its spending budget to security agreements and even its United Nations votes. It was, Perkins writes, a clever way for the U.S. to expand its "empire" at the expense of Third World citizens. While at times he seems a little overly focused on conspiracies, perhaps that's not surprising considering the life he's led. --Alex Roslin From Publishers WeeklyPerkins spent the 1970s working as an economic planner for an international consulting firm, a job that took him to exotic locales like Indonesia and Panama, helping wealthy corporations exploit developing nations as, he claims, a not entirely unwitting front for the National Security Agency. He says he was trained early in his career by a glamorous older woman as one of many "economic hit men" advancing the cause of corporate hegemony. He also says he has wanted to tell his story for the last two decades, but his shadowy masters have either bought him off or threatened him until now. The story as presented is implausible to say the least, offering so few details that Perkins often seems paranoid, and the simplistic political analysis doesn’t enhance his credibility. Despite the claim that his work left him wracked with guilt, the artless prose is emotionally flat and generally comes across as a personal crisis of conscience blown up to monstrous proportions, casting Perkins as a victim not only of his own neuroses over class and money but of dark forces beyond his control. His claim to have assisted the House of Saud in strengthening its ties to American power brokers may be timely enough to attract some attention, but the yarn he spins is ultimately unconvincing, except perhaps to conspiracy buffs.Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

These Are theConsequences of War

http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=13488

by Aaron Glantz
The following is an excerpt from Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations by Iraq Veterans Against the War and Aaron Glantz. From March 13-16, hundreds of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans gathered in Silver Spring, Md., to testify about atrocities they had personally committed or witnessed while deployed. Among those who testified was former Marine Corps Pfc. Vincent Emanuele of Chesterton, Ind. He served in Iraq in 2003 and 2005.

An act that took place quite often in Iraq was taking pot shots at cars that drove by. This was quite easy for most Marines to get away with because our rules of engagement stated that the town of al-Qaim had already been forewarned and knew to pull their cars to a complete stop when approaching a United States convoy. Of course, the consequences of such actions pose a huge problem for those of us who patrol the streets every day. This was not the best way to become friendlier with an already hostile local population. This was not an isolated incident, and it took place for most of our eight-month deployment.
We were sent out on a mission to blow up a bridge that was supposedly being used to transport weapons across the Euphrates, and we were ambushed. We were forced to return fire in order to make our way out of the city. This incident took place in the middle of the day, and most of those who were engaging us were not in clear view. Many hid in local houses and businesses and were part of the local population themselves, once again making it very hard to determine who was shooting from where and where exactly to return fire. This led to our squad shooting at everything and anything, i.e., properties, cars, people, in order to push through the town. I fired most of my magazines into the town, but not once did I clearly identify the targets that I was shooting at.

Once we were taking rocket fire from a town, and a member of our squad mistakenly identified a tire shop as being the place where the rocket fire came from. Sure enough, we mortared the shop. This was one of the only times we actually had the chance to investigate what we had done and to talk to the people we had directly affected. Luckily, the family who owned the shop was still alive. However, we were not able to compensate the family, nor were we able to explain how it was he could rebuild his livelihood. This was not an isolated incident, and it took place over the course of our eight-month deployment.

Another task our platoon took on was transporting prisoners from our base back to the desert. The reason I say the desert and not their town is because that is exactly where we would drop them off, in the middle of nowhere. Now, most of these men had obviously been deemed innocent, or else they would have been moved to a more permanent prison and not released back into the population. We took it upon ourselves to punch, kick, butt-stroke, or generally harass these prisoners. Then, we would take them to the middle of the desert, throw them out of the back of our Humvees while continually kicking, punching, and at times throwing softball-sized rocks at their backs as they ran away from our convoy. Once again, this is not an isolated incident, and this took place over the duration of our eight-month deployment.
The last and possibly the most disturbing of what took place in Iraq was the mishandling of the dead. On several occasions, our convoy came across bodies that had been decapitated and were lying on the side of the road. When encountering these bodies, standard procedure was to run over the corpses, sometimes even stopping and taking pictures with these bodies, which was also standard practice whenever we encountered the dead. On one specific occasion, I had shot a man in the back of the head after we saw him planting an IED device; we pulled his body out of the ditch he was laying in and left it to rot in the field. We saw the body again up to two weeks later. There were also pictures taken of this gentleman, and his picture became the screen-saver on the laptop belonging to one of our more motivated Marines.

The larger point that I'd like to touch on is that these are the consequences for sending young men and women into battle. These are the things that happen. And what I'd like to ask anyone who's viewing this testimony is to imagine your loved ones put in such positions. Your brothers, your sisters, your nieces, your nephews, your aunts, and your uncles, and more importantly, and maybe most importantly, to be able to put ourselves in the Iraqis' shoes who encountered these events every day and for the last five years.

Maybe America will Bomb Iran after all? Who knows?

September Surprise
Get ready for it…
by Justin Raimondo
While the rest of the pundits opine about the meaning and implications of Sarah Palin's ascension from small town mayor to prospective vice president – and whether or not her daughter's private life is fair game for any media outlet other than the National Enquirer – those of us whose job it is to stand watch on the ramparts and report the real news are wondering when – not if – the War Party will pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat. For months, I've been warning in this space that an American attack on Iran is imminent, and now I see that the Dutch have reason to agree with my assessment. Their intelligence service reportedly has pulled out of a covert operation inside Iran on the grounds that a U.S. strike is right around the corner – in "a matter of weeks," according to De Telegraaf, a Dutch newspaper.
As the story goes, the Dutch had infiltrated the purported Iranian weapons project and were firmly ensconced when they got word that the Americans are about to launch a missile attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. They wisely decided to close down the operation and pull out.
Remember, the Israelis have been threatening to strike on their own for months: what's changed is that now, apparently, the U.S. has caved in to what is a blatant case of blackmail and has agreed to do the job for them.
We haven't heard much about Iran lately, at least compared to the scare headlines of a few months ago, when rumors of war were swirling fast and furious. The Russian "threat" seems to have replaced the Iranian "threat" as the War Party's bogeyman of choice. What we didn't know, however, is that the two focal points are intimately related.
According to this report by veteran Washington Times correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, the close cooperation of the Israelis with the Georgian military in the run-up to President Saakashvili's blitz of South Ossetia was predicated on a Georgian promise to let the Israelis use Georgia's airfields to mount a strike against Iran.
The main problem for Tel Aviv, in making its threats against Iran at all credible, has been the distance to be covered by Israeli fighter jets, which would have a hard time reaching and returning from their targets without refueling. With access to the airfields of "the Israel of the Caucasus," as de Borchgrave – citing Saakashvili – puts it, the likelihood of an Israeli attack entered the world of real possibilities. De Borchgrave avers:
"In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter-bombers in the event of pre-emptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter-bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli air force would fly over Turkey.
"The attack ordered by Saakashvili against South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7 provided the Russians the pretext for Moscow to order Special Forces to raid these Israeli facilities where some Israeli drones were reported captured."
Reports of anywhere from 100 to 1,000 Israeli "advisers" in Georgia do not bode well for the situation on the ground. With the Israelis already installed in that country, the logistics of carrying out such a sneak attack are greatly simplified. Israeli pilots would only have to fly over Azerbaijan, and they'd be in Iranian airspace – and within striking distance of Tehran.
Faced with this fait accompli – if the Dutch are to be believed – the Americans seem to have capitulated. In which case, we don't have much time. Although de Borchgrave writes "whether the IAF can still count on those air bases to launch bombing missions against Iran's nuke facilities is now in doubt," I don't see why the defeat of the Georgians in Saakashvili's war on the Ossetians has to mean the plan to strike Iran via Georgia has been canceled. Indeed, reading de Borchgrave's riveting account of the extent of the Tel Aviv-Tbilisi collaboration, one finds additional reasons for all concerned to go ahead with it:
"Saakashvili was convinced that by sending 2,000 of his soldiers to serve in Iraq (who were immediately flown home by the United States when Russia launched a massive counterattack into Georgia), he would be rewarded for his loyalty. He could not believe President Bush, a personal friend, would leave him in the lurch. Georgia, as Saakashvili saw his country's role, was the 'Israel of the Caucasus.'"
Saakashvili, a vain and reckless man, now has even more reason to go behind Uncle Sam's back and give the Israelis a clear shot at Tehran. With this sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Americans, the rationale for a more limited, shot-across-the-bow strike by the U.S. becomes all too clear.
After all, if the Israelis attacked, the entire Muslim world would unite behind the Iranians. If, on the other had, the U.S. did Israel's dirty work, with Tel Aviv lurking in the background, it would conceivably be far less provocative, and might even generate sub rosa support among the Sunni rulers of America's Arab allies. It's going to happen anyway, goes the rationale, and so we might as well do it the right way, rather than leave it to the Israelis, who have threatened – via "independent" commentators like Israeli historian and super hawk Benny Morris – to use nuclear weapons on Iran's population centers.
In terms of American domestic politics, the road to war with Tehran was paved long ago: both major parties and their presidential candidates have given the War Party a green light to strike Tehran, McCain explicitly and Obama tacitly, albeit no less firmly.
The stage is set, rehearsals are over, and the actors know their lines: as the curtain goes up on the first act of "World War III," take a deep breath and pray to the gods that this deadly drama is aborted. ~ Justin Raimondo

Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz

Last update - 20:06 13/08/2008

U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: U.S., nuclear program, Iran
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium. The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
Advertisement
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles. Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail. Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's. Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria. Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace. The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing. Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so. U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran. The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran. These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran. Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk. Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth. Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea. In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems. Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.

Farewell to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Daily Article by Yuri N. Maltsev Posted on 8/6/2008

http://mises.org/story/3065

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, writer, Nobel Prize winner, and the most famous Soviet dissident died at the age of 89 on August 3, 2008 in his home near Moscow. He lived a long and hard life, but he died the way that he wanted to: "He wanted to die in the summer — and he died in the summer," his wife Natalya said. "He wanted to die at home — and he died at home. In general I should say that Aleksandr Isayevich lived a difficult but happy life."
His entire life was a victory over the most improbable. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was born on December 11, 1918 in Kislovodsk in Southern Russia, half a year after his father died in a hunting accident. He managed to get a Soviet university education despite the fact that his mother Taisiya came from one of the richest families of Southern Russia and his father Isaakiy was an officer in the tsar's army.
Aleksandr was raised by his mother in abject poverty as his earliest years coincided with war communism and its abolition of private property (making economic calculation impossible); what followed was mass starvation and destruction. His family was no exception — their property was confiscated and later destroyed by central planners.
Solzhenitsyn stated in his autobiographical series of novels The Red Wheel that his mother was fighting for survival and they had to keep his father's background in the old Imperial Army a secret. Taisiya was well educated and openly encouraged her son's literary and scientific interests, while also secretly raising him in the Christian faith. He studied physics and mathematics at Rostov University before becoming a Soviet army officer after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.
He was commissioned as a Soviet artillery officer during the Second World War despite the fact that he had previously been rejected due to poor health. A successful artillery captain, he was arrested by the secret police in 1945 for disrespectful remarks about Stalin in a letter to a friend.
Despite his eight-year sentence for hard labor (which was nearly a death sentence in Stalin's dreadful Gulag system), he managed to stay near Moscow in the government research facility for imprisoned scientists. Eventually he was transferred to the special Ekibastuz camp in Kazakhstan. In the Tashkent medical ward a malignant tumor was removed from his stomach in 1954, and he survived the tumor and the surgery against all odds.
After release from the Gulag in 1956, Solzhenitsyn returned to Central Russia, worked as a math teacher and began to write his powerful prose. "During all the years until 1961, not only was I convinced that I should never see a single line of mine in print in my lifetime, but, also, I scarcely dared allow any of my close acquaintances to read anything I had written because I feared that this would become known," he said in his autobiography. "Finally, at the age of 42, this secret authorship began to wear me down."
He published his first works, two novellas: "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," and "Matryona's House" in a literary journal Novyi Mir (New World) in 1962 with explicit approval by Nikita Khrushchev. These were the only publications of Solzhenitsyn in his own country until 1990.
In 1970, after publishing several works in the West, including the novel Cancer Ward — a fictional piece based on Solzhenitsyn's own treatment at the Tashkent cancer ward — he was awarded, while in exile, the Nobel Prize in literature. Solzhenitsyn didn't attend the ceremony in Stockholm, Sweden for fear that he would not be allowed to re-enter the USSR.

Solzhenitsyn on his release from the Gulag in 1953
Three years later, his Gulag Archipelago was published in France. Immediately after this publication he was accused of treason, stripped of his citizenship, and deported to Germany. He wrote sarcastically: "For a country to have a great writer … is like having another government. That's why no régime has ever loved great writers, only minor ones."
He accepted an invitation to teach at Stanford University, and then moved to Cavendish, Vermont, where he lived with his family for years.
In 1990, his citizenship was restored by Gorbachev, and he returned to Russia in 1994 and actively participated in the reform process. He crossed the country that had already ceased to be the Soviet Union, from the East to the West, acquiring "a collection of cries and tears."
"It is history's sorrow," Solzhenitsyn wrote afterwards, "the grief of our era, which I carry about me like an anathema."
We will remember Solzhenitsyn as an unyielding champion of freedom who dedicated himself to revealing the horrors of socialism and exposing the ultimate evil of Lenin, Stalin, and their cohort of mass murderers. Once a prisoner of brutal labor camps himself, Solzhenitsyn chronicled the horrors of the Soviet Gulag system and emerged as a one of Russia's greatest writers. He became a moral and spiritual leader who exposed and condemned the nefarious nature of the socialist ideology that served as the basis for the monstrous communist slave camps established from Siberia to Ethiopia, Cuba to Vietnam, China, and Yugoslavia. He riveted socialists of all countries whose secret ghastly history he exposed.
"For us in Russia, communism is a dead dog, while, for many people in the West, it is still a living lion", wrote Solzhenitsyn while in his exile in the West.
In the West, he liked the Swiss model of local government and spoke highly of his experiences living in Vermont. Before leaving for Russia in 1994, Solzhenitsyn spoke to his neighbors in a Cavendish town meeting and thanked the town for its hospitality and for respecting his privacy. He thought of the town-meeting type of self-government as the most suitable for Russia. He did not, however, make a god of democracy; he admired great Russian reformer Pyotr Stolypin with his strong promarket and antisocialist stand as the prime minister of the Russian Empire (1906-1911).
Solzhenitsyn believed in the individual rather than the group, party, or state. He wrote in The Gulag Archipelago, "that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but through all human hearts."
Solzhenitsyn had enough courage to equate socialism and Nazism as equally evil and morally reprehensible. He condemned both Nazi and Soviet atrocities during the Second World War and he accused his fellow countrymen of masterminding their own shipwreck.
According to Solzhenitsyn, 61,000,000 people were slaughtered in the USSR in the quest for equality. Under Stalin alone, 43,000,000 were murdered. Lenin and Khrushchev are responsible for the other 18,000,000. Most of these deaths (39,000,000) were due to forced labor in gulags and during deportations.

His writings earned him over 20 years of prison, exile, and world-wide renown, making him the most prominent dissident of the Soviet era and a symbol of intellectual resistance to communist rule. But he is also one of the most maligned and defamed writers of the 20th century. He has been the victim of character assassination and willful distortions from almost every quarter.
He published his final original work in June 2001 with "200 Years Together: 1775-1995," about the history of Jews in Russia. Solzhenitsyn spent his last years in failing health and seclusion at his rural home in Troitse-Lykovo near Moscow, editing his 30-volume collected works. He predicted that he would not be able to complete the work, which will "continue after my death."
Yuri N. Maltsev, senior fellow of the Mises Institute, worked as an economist on Mikhail Gorbachev's economic reform team before emigrating to the United States. He is the editor of Requiem for Marx. He teaches economics at Carthage College. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

A Law Professor and a Policeman Tell You Why You Should Never Speak to a Policeman Without Your Lawyer Present

I'm not sure what the law is in New Zealand if we have any sort of rights to remain silent but these are two videos that are definitly worth watching.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/3821.cfm

July 30, 2008

These presentations took place at Regent University's Law School. They are like nothing I have ever seen. If you do not watch both of these videos, you risk walking into a trap that could ruin your life.
I did not know any of this until I saw them. Someone should have told me. Someone should have told you.
Anything you say can be held against you in a court of law. Nothing you say will exonerate you in a court of law: "I object your honor. This is hearsay." "Objection sustained."
Don't tell your story. Get your lawyer.
When the policeman reads you the Miranda warning, honor it. Do not give a waiver. No matter what the police officer tells you, do not surrender your rights. "Do you want to talk to give me your side of the story?" You do not.

Mariana Fights Inflation, 1605

http://mises.org/story/3039

Daily Article by Bart Fuller Posted on 7/23/2008

Although its form has changed over the years, inflation has been with us since at least the days of ancient Rome. Inflation then was accomplished by debasing the currency, a process that involved reducing the amount of precious metal in coinage without changing the legal value of the coins. The removal of silver from US coins in 1965 is a recent example of inflation by debasement.
With the advent of paper fiat currency, inflation occurs by printing more money or by increasing and easing the availability of credit in the banking system.
The Federal Reserve admitted as much, possibly unwittingly, in its most recent Open Market Committee meeting announcement when speaking of its efforts to ensure economic growth by the "substantial easing of monetary policy to date, combined with ongoing measures to foster market liquidity…"
Whether inflation occurs by easing monetary policy or by removing precious metal from coinage, it is always and everywhere fraudulent and immoral, for it takes from people the fruits of their labor and destroys the value of their past labor that they have stored in their savings. But why don't more of us know this?
It's not for lack of a warning. Just this past year, Ron Paul dared to speak truth to power and inform the people of the means and consequences of inflation. In recent decades men like Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and Hans Sennholz did the same. Men from past centuries have warned us too: men from the Old World, men steeped in theology and ethics who studied how man interacted with man in the market. One of these men was Father Juan de Mariana, S.J., and through a recent English translation of one of his works he now speaks to the New World too.
Father Juan de Mariana was a Jesuit priest, born in 1536 near Toledo, Spain, who, after spending time in Rome, Sicily, and Paris, returned to Toledo where he remained until his death in 1624. He was a prolific writer and boldly stated his opinions with a holy confidence wrought by prayer. Notable works include History of Spain (Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, 1592), which was recommended reading to James Madison by Thomas Jefferson and On Monarchy (De Rege et Regis Institutione, 1599) which was written at the request of King Phillip II. This latter work visited controversy to Mariana as some in France levied accusations that its message was the motivation for the assassination of King Henry IV in 1610.
Our focus today, however, will be his treatise On the Alteration of Money (De monetae mutatione). Mariana wrote this pamphlet, published in 1605, with the hope that the king and his court would be dissuaded from further debasing the realm's money. At the time, the king's treasury was depleted, due to "long and drawn-out wars in many places and by many other problems…" To replenish the treasury, the value of existing money had been doubled and new coins of copper of less weight and without the traditional small amount of silver had been issued. The debasing of silver was being considered also. Mariana could not help but speak out and saw himself as one "who defends the truth … and points out the public threat of dangers and evils" the kingdom faced. In his mind, this was "the most serious of issues to arise in Spain in many years."
After laying out his intentions and the facts of the situation, Mariana raises the question, "Does the king own his subjects' goods?" He answers, in short, no. Based on Aristotle and the Novellas Constitutiones, his reasoning is thus: All power has limits; when power exceeds its limits it becomes weak and breaks down. In the case of royal power, it becomes tyrannical. "[T]he very nature of royal power — if it is legitimate and just, it arises from the State — makes clear that the king is not the owner of his subjects' private possessions" and he has no power to take them. To do so is "criminal."
He then proceeds to ask if the king can "demand tribute from his subjects without their consent." Again he answers no, explaining, "The private goods of citizens are not at the disposal of the king. Thus, he must not take all or part of them without the approval of those who have the right to them."
And representative government is not always a sufficient means to grant approval. When rebuking the parliament of Castile he could just as easily be speaking to the US Congress:
There is certainly little benefit in summoning procurators of the states to parliaments in Castile. Most of them are poorly equipped to manage affairs. They are men who are led by chance — insignificant men of venal disposition who keep nothing in view but their desire to gain the prince's favor and to benefit from public disaster.
Once he has established that the king can not legitimately take his subjects' private possessions, he asks whether "a prince in every case [can] solve his fiscal problems on his own authority and debase his kingdom's money by diminishing its weight or its quality?"
Immediately, Mariana concedes two points: (1) the king may change the form of money in terms of how it's struck and engraved as long as the value of it remains unchanged; (2) the king may debase money without the people's consent in a period of war or siege as long as two conditions are met: (a) the debasement is temporary, only lasting as long as the war or siege; (b) as soon as the war or siege ends the king must make amends to the people by repaying all losses suffered by the debasement. Debasement in any other circumstance is wrong.
A "seizure" of possessions and an "injury" to the people have occurred because "what is declared to be more is worth less." A stern warning is given for anyone considering debasement in any other circumstances:
These strategies aim at the same thing: cleaning out the pockets of the people and piling up money in the provincial treasury. Do not be taken in by the smoke and mirrors by which metal is given a greater value than it has by nature and in common opinion. Of course, this does not happen without common injury. When blood is let by whatever device or strategy, the body will certainly be debilitated and wasted. In the same way, a prince cannot profit without the suffering and groans of his subjects.
Mariana goes on to explain that money has an intrinsic value and an extrinsic value. Briefly, the intrinsic value is that of the metal and weight of the coin in addition to its production costs. The extrinsic value is the nominal legal value established by law for a particular metal content and weight. It is incumbent upon the king to ensure that these two values always remain the same. To do otherwise invites trouble, for if the legal value of money is allowed to exceed the intrinsic value, it will prove difficult to stop, as the temptation for profits will overcome the treasury. It will also create havoc in the business community, since prices will adjust for the valuation of the money. It is here that Mariana first observes the phenomenon of inflationary price increases stating,
If the legal value of debased money does not decrease, surely all merchandise will sell at a higher price, in proportion to the debasement of the quality or weight of the money. The process is inevitable. As a result, the price of goods adjusts and money is less valuable than it previously and properly was.
Mariana continues with an explanation of how money, weights, and measures are the foundation of commerce, building his case from the ancients, Jews, Scripture, and Thomas Aquinas. It is so obvious that money "cannot be changed without danger and harm to commerce" that he almost taunts officials when he writes, "Those who are in power seem less educated than the people because they pay no attention to the disturbances and evils frequently caused by their decisions, both in our nation and beyond."
In a display of his fidelity to truth, he pauses to discuss the advantages of debasing the copper money, stressing the importance of their consideration. Following this examination is a short but technical history of Roman and Spanish alterations to money up to the current king's reign. Later in the treatise, he also discusses the prospect of debasing the silver and gold coinage reiterating the points he made in the copper discussion.
In his discussion of the disadvantages of debasement, Mariana again shows that truth in these matters is his goal, preferring to work with data rather than speculation, as that is "the safest approach, and the assured way to the truth." He continues by naming and discussing eleven disadvantages to altering the copper money. However, the first five are of much less importance than the latter six that one "could put up with them to avoid the greater disadvantages…"
These less important disadvantages are
critics' claims that debasement has never been used;
commerce will be hindered, especially international trade;
the objection that the king has no authority to borrow from outsiders;
wealth for pious works would not accumulate; and
the expense of copper will be overbearing.
Space does not permit further explanation but again in Mariana's opinion their importance is minimal when compared to the six he called the "Major Disadvantages." These six are
the large supply of copper money was against the law;
it was "against right reason and the natural law herself — it is a sin to change them";
price inflation will result;
trade difficulties, even the destruction of trade may result once prices rise;
the inevitability of the king's poverty; and
"the greatest of them all: The general hatred that will be stirred up for the prince."
Not one to find faults without offering solutions, Mariana ends his treatise with a list of suggestions for the king that would help him attain his goals without exacting the scourge of inflation on his subjects. They sound hauntingly similar to the ideas put forth today that are so often ignored by those in power. First and foremost, reduce his budget by cutting his spending. Second, reduce the size of gifts given to those who serve him. Third, cut losses by reducing the scope of the empire and avoiding wars. Fourth, hold those in the king's court accountable so that there is no profiteering from their positions. And finally, add a tariff on imported luxury items. Mariana was convinced that implementing just one of these suggestions would yield all the income the king hoped to realize from the copper debasement and would do so without alienating the people.

Mariana leaves no doubt of what he thinks about money debasement or inflation. In various parts of his treatise he calls it "criminal," "evil," "fraud," "sin," and "unjust."
He's no less blunt in his description of those who resort to debasement to solve their problems. Though his treatise was written over four hundred years ago, we can still hear his voice exhort, "A prudent reader should notice whether or not we are getting on the same road; whether or not that historical moment is a portrait of the tragedy certainly threatening us."
Let us join Father Mariana in prayer, "beg[ging] God to shed His light upon the eyes and minds of those who are responsible for these things, so that they may peacefully agree to embrace and put it into action wholesome advice, once it is known."

Bart Fuller is a business systems application developer from Troy, Michigan. Send him mail.

Bibliography
Grabill, Stephen J. editor. Sourcebook in Late-Scholastic Monetary Theory. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007.