English translation of the transcript of Parts 1 and 2 of the interview below the following summary.
COPENHAGEN, Oct. 13 -- Provoked by Gordon Brown's call for a``New
Bretton Woods'' today, the Danish 24-hour news equivalent of CNN,
TV2 News, called the Schiller Institute for an interview, which occurred
on their 21:00 and 21:30 broadcasts.
The two journalists, Niels Brink and Lotte Mejlhede,
started the interview by stating that the Schiller Institute had
predicted a financial crisis for years, and therefore, they
wanted to ask Gillesberg about the crisis and his solutions. They
also referred to Gillesberg's previous election campaigns, with
the financial crisis as the main theme. Gillesberg referred to
Lyndon LaRouche three times, as the "standard bearer of the New
Bretton Woods idea," and was able to describe the leading
elements of an FDR-inspired system, such as a fixed-rate system,
credit creation, referencing FDR and Hamilton, physical economic
development of the underdeveloped sector as a motor for
international economic growth, and to bring physical economy back
to the industrialized sector.
Gillesberg was asked how much is a technical solution, and
how much is political -- the old BW system was established by the
winning powers after WII, to which Tom answered that we have to
go over to economic development as a peace-winning policy,
instead of the danger of war as a result of the crisis. To the
question if this is realistic, Gillesberg described the 4-power
perspective, emphasizing the battle to get the U.S. on board,
with a president "who is an idiot" and two presidential
candidates who are not prepared to deal with the economic crisis.
In answer to whether the giant bail-out packages will work,
Gillesberg spent a lot of time describing the gigantic
derivatives market, what derivatives are, and the need to "cut to
the bone"--if a new system is created without writing them off,
we get another crisis. Now Gordon Brown is calling for a NBW
conference, so it will happen, but the question is what the
content will be.
The interview was actually only scheduled for one segment,
but the two interviewers and the producer were so excited by
Gillesberg's answers, and that he said things that were totally
different than their previous "experts," that they asked if he
could stay for another segment, lasting in total 20-25 minutes.
The station had prepared a good graphic about the old Bretton Woods
agreement for the first segment. We also expect to put a video of the spot on
our homepage. As done on CNN, throughout the interview, at the
bottom of the screen, the station had either Gillesberg's
identification as chairman of the Schiller Institute, important
statements he had just made, or that the Schiller Institute had
predicted the crisis for years.
The interview came about after the station called the
Schiller Institute in Denmark's office today, remembering our
2005 election campaign with the slogan, "When the bubble
bursts... a New Bretton Woods." Earlier in the day, the SI sent
out a press release with comments from Gillesberg about Gordon
Brown's statement, but TV2 News actually called in without seeing
the release beforehand.
PART 1: TOM GILLESBERG DANISH "TV2 NEWS" INTERVIEW
ON LAROUCHE, THE CRASH, AND THE NEW BRETTON WOODS
This is the English translation
of the first segment of TV2 News Oct.
13 interview with Tom Gillesberg (TG), chairman of the Schiller
Institute in Denmark. The two
interviewers are senior journalists
Niels Brink (NB) and Lotte Mejlhede
(LM). The live interview occurred at
9:15 p.m. on the only 24-hour
national TV news station in Denmark.
The interview has been rebroadcast
NB: Yes, Tom Gillesberg is now here
in the studio. Welcome.
TG: Thank you.
NB: You are chairman of the Danish
branch of the Schiller Institute.
TG: Thank you.
NB: First, you must explain to me or
tell me, what is the Schiller
TG: Well, it is an international
campaign which is fighting for a new
just world economic order, which,
for more than ten years, has had as
one of its main points, that we need
a New Bretton Woods financial
NB: Yes, and we'll return to this,
this Bretton Woods, but, firstly, I
would like to tell the audience that
you ran for office in 2005 as an
independent, precisely with a
program for a new financial system.
And, unfortunately, it looks as
though you were correct in your
predictions, that we were getting
close to a crash. Are you sorry
about that, or are you joyfully
rubbing your hands?
TG: I'm glad that we can now begin
to do something about this, because
the problems have been there for a
long time. The reason that we said
that that had to happen, is because
there has actually been a gigantic
financial bubble which has simply
grown bigger and bigger. And the
bigger it gets, without anyone doing
anything about it, the harder it
gets to do anything. And that is
what we are seeing now. It would
have been much easier to solve ten
years ago. Now it is a gigantic
problem, because there is not a bank
in the entire world that hasn't been
involved in speculating in all of
these exotic instruments --
derivatives and other things. Now it
Even [British Prime Minister] Gordon
Brown actually said today that we
must discuss a new Bretton Woods
conference, a new financial system.
Well, it is good that we are now
starting to do that, since it has to
NB: Maybe we have to talk about
Bretton Woods, since, as you say,
Gordon Brown came out with it today.
We have a chart here that shows
something about Bretton Woods; it
was created by the 44 nations that
were on the side of the Allies,
toward the end of World War II. And
they held the meeting in the
American city Bretton Woods,
therefore the name. It was a very
large economic agreement. And it was
supposed to ensure that the world
could recover after the war ended,
and there was peace. The main idea
was to prevent the repetition of the
crisis during the '30s, that led to
the problems we know about, and the
whole Nazification of Germany, among
other things, by ensuring certain
regulation of currency rates and
international capital movements. And
then the International Monetary
Fund, IMF, was established, and that
meant that nations that had
balance-of-payments problems, could
get help from IMF if they had
trouble with their currency. And,
finally, it meant the establishment
of the World Bank.
And then, unfortunately, Bretton
Wood was dependent on all dollars
being able to be exchanged for gold,
and then, we saw that the U.S.
dropped the gold standard in 1971.
And thus, a part of the foundation
of Bretton Woods was eliminated.
But what is it that you think is
necessary to use from this today, in
order ensure the future?
TG: Well, it is just as the American
economist and former Democratic
Presidential candidate Lyndon
LaRouche said, who has been the
standardbearer for a New Bretton
Woods. What he has clearly presented,
is that we must take the best parts
of Franklin D. Roosevelt's
intentions from the old system. And
that means, that we must first
acknowledge that the present system
is kaput -- finished -- cannot be
saved in its present form, and has
to be reorganized. And that is what
Gordon Brown has really said today.
And there are many others who have
said that recently. The next point
is that we must return to a
fixed-exchange-rate system, as we
had until 1971. That is simply to
say, that you can no longer
speculate in floating currency rates
-- that this gigantic speculation
orgy, which the financial sector is
running today, that that is simply
NB: But, excuse me, a fixed exchange
rate, then there is no expression of
what any currency really is worth,
so it is a political decision, to
say that it is worth so much.
TG: Precisely. And that was how is
was after the war. And that produced
very stable conditions, where you
knew what you could count on, when
you were trading internationally.
What was then added, and which has
to be added, is a credit mechanism.
That is, there has to be a way to
create credit internationally for
great infrastructure projects. In
order to make it possible for Africa,
South America, and the poor parts of
Asia to be developed. Because, if we
do that, we will again [have an?]
international economic driver.
LM: Can I ask you one thing in
connection with this? Isn't it that
what we are dealing with is to kill
capitalism in its present form?
Because then you would have much,
much stronger control?
TG: Yes. It is a return to the sort
of capitalism that Franklin D.
Roosevelt represented, which is not
the sort of wild financial
capitalism, where people make money
with money, but where the financial
system becomes a subdivision of the
physical economy. That means, that
the priority is that you have
industry, that you have farming,
that trade functions, but all that
is speculation, purely for the sake
of the speculators, is gotten rid
of. And right now, I think there is
widely spread recognition throughout
the world, that you need regulation.
The big fight is how strongly you
have to intervene.
NB: Yes, because you are talking
about regulating some financial
markets. But, then, on top of that,
you add an ideological element, when
you say, besides that, we have to
develop all the countries that are
moving forward, and all those that
are underdeveloped, and give them....
And, in that case, then the amount
of money we are talking about here,
won't be enough.
TG: But that is exactly what
Roosevelt did. Roosevelt's program
was not simply technical, financial.
It was a development program for the
whole world. And it was the idea
that in that way, with economic
development for all nations, we
would create lasting peace. And that
is, actually, what we have to return
to today. LaRouche, who, as I said,
is the standard bearer for this, has
said that the U.S. must approach
Russia, China and India, and get
them to be part of a deal.
NB: Yes, because in the old days,
they were not at the table. They
were not capitalist economies, like
they are today.
TG: Right. And there are some people
today, who are trying. to say, "But
they are our enemies. We need a
confrontation with Russia. Recently,
we had the crisis around South
Ossetia, etc. The same with China.
Instead of saying that they should
be our enemies, the U.S. should
simply state, "We four big countries
will sit down together, together
with Europe, together with Japan,
together with others, of course, and
then we create a new system, which
has peace and development on its
agenda, for a long time to come.
LM: That sounds like a tremendous
change, and the question is, if it
is realistic, because, if you don't
have the market forces under any
control, and thereby also, people
invest simply to make a profit, what
then will be the driving force?.
TG: But right now, the problem is
that those market forces can never
create the credit. Right now,
everybody is in a credit crunch.
There is no money to be gotten from
the private market forces, and
therefore, it is up to the nations
to create credit. As an example,
here in Denmark, we could choose to
say, we have a national bank. Let's
use it as a national bank. Because,
when there is no money for
industrial projects, investment in
farming, to build big bridge
projects, for instance, because
there is not credit in the markets,
then the state can intervene. The
parliament can legislate that we
give the national bank authorization
to create credit. A couple of
hundred billions, for the sort of
earmarked investments in production.
NB: Isn't that what you call "state
TG: It is what was called the
"American System." It was what
Roosevelt represented. The man that
started all this was Alexander
Hamilton, the first Treasury
Secretary in the U.S., who created
the first National Bank of the U.S.
NB: That is all fine and good in
developed economies. If we are
talking about an economy which wants
to develop further, from a
reasonable level, then, you have to
take a risk. That is the
characteristic of all investing. Do
you think that is wrong?
TG: You have to develop your economy,
and that is not something you only
do at a specific time -- it's a
long-term process. And we have had a
number of years, where everybody
said that the American consumption
had to be the driving force in the
world economy. That can no longer
continue. Therefore, the driving
force has to be a development of the
poor areas of the world, that truly
have a gigantic need of development.
All they need is credit. If we
create a system, where credit is
there, we will see a world economy
which is going full steam ahead,
like never before.
LM: Let's jump to today, 2008. A
huge amount of aid packages have
just been adopted. Are these aid
packages part of the right way
towards the form of controlled
capitalism you are talking about?
TG: No. These aid packages are a
poor attempt to temporarily sustain
the markets, temporarily create a
certain amount of trust. The problem
is that what is not talked about, is
the derivatives floating around out
LM: What are you talking about?
TG: It is the so-called derived
financial instruments. It started
with options and futures. Today,
it's asset backed securities, credit
swaps, etc. But the size of these
speculative instruments are now ten
times greater than the world's gross
national product. That is the reason
that, from one day to the next,
banks simply go bankrupt. It's
gigantic. And if you attempt to save
it -- save this mountain of
derivatives, then there is not
enough money in the whole world. The
nations will simply go bankrupt, one
after another, therefore, you have
to recognize that we have to cut
this out. Derivatives will be placed
in a corner, and can be gone through
at a later point when we have plenty
of time, but now, we have to save
the physical economy of the world.
Make sure the banks function, that
we have industry, we have farming,
we have economic development.
NB: Tom Gillesberg, thank you for
Second segment of the TV2 News interview with Tom
Here is the English translation of the second
segment of TV2
News' Oct. 13 interview with Tom Gillesberg. After the originally scheduled first segment,
the anchors asked the producer
if they could continue for a second, unscheduled segment after the weather and