In their Feb. 7 “Wall Street on Parade” column, Pam and Ross Martens argue that losses suffered last week by four Wall Street banks in intraday trading—Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley—is intimately related to the shift in the U.S. economy that occurred beginning in the late 1970s, from productive economic activity to financial speculation. Noteworthy, they point out, is the fact that these same banks, which were bailed out during the 2008 crash,  have been spending billions buying back their own stock.

That same buyback strategy has also been taking place in publicly traded companies in the S&P 500 Index, to the tune of $2.7 trillion over the past six years. Some of the buybacks, the Martens say, simply offset insider selling or stock awards to executives; nothing goes to growing or innovating the company.

The Martens quote from one William Lazonick who, in the September 2014 Harvard Business Review attacked the buyback policy, arguing that the money should have been put into job creation and innovation in the U.S. economy. Instead it was used to buy back shares “for what is effectively stock-price manipulation.” The U.S. has shifted, he says, from a “value creation to a value extraction” model.

From the end of World War II to the late 1970s, the U.S. practiced a “retain and reinvest” approach, in which earnings were reinvested in increasing a company’s capabilities and those of its employees, providing workers with higher incomes and job security. In the late 1970s, Lazonick explains, the “downsize and distribute” regime took hold, focused on reducing costs, and distributing freed-up cash “to financial interests, particularly shareholders,” leading to employment instability and income inequality.

On Monday, the Martens point out, bank shares’ value has shrunk enormously, but executives have walked away with multimillion-dollar payouts from selling stock. Note the case of Citigroup’s Robert Rubin, a former Treasury Secretary who sat on Citigroup’s Board “after helping push through the repeal of Glass-Steagall.” That repeal, Martens says, allowed Citigroup to become a “Frankenbank, and require the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history.” 

Gen. Barry McCaffrey (ret.), who headed the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton, said on Feb. 3 that he was very concerned about the agreement that Barack Obama has personally orchestrated with Colombia’s FARC drug cartel, in collaboration with Colombian President and British asset, Juan Manuel Santos.

As reported by PRNewswire, McCaffrey pointed out that the 15th anniversary celebration Feb. 4 at the White House of “Plan Colombia,” demonstrated its success. Plan Colombia was the program that McCaffrey personally formulated, and on which he coordinated closely with Colombian military and civilian leaders to wipe out the FARC narcoterrorists and restore stability to that country. “Cooperation with the government of Colombia led to massive cocaine transit reduction to the U.S., reduced crime, and improved Colombian stability,” McCaffrey underscored.

But, as for the pending agreement with the FARC, tentatively scheduled to be signed in March, General McCaffrey said he fears it would allow the FARC “to maintain or increase cocaine and heroin production, ease transit restrictions and enforcement, keep enormous profits for the FARC, worsen the heroin crisis in our country, threaten the security of Colombia and increase U.S. drug abuse.” Note that most of the heroin entering the U.S. today comes from either Mexico or Colombia—not from Afghanistan.

McCaffrey’s fears are justified. British tool Obama, whose drug-legalization policies have been instrumental in destroying the population—especially youth—of the United States, has personally overseen negotiations with the FARC. He sent his special envoy, former State Department official and now private equity executive Bernard Aronson, to participate in negotiations with the FARC leaders in Havana. According to the New York Times Feb. 5, Aronson was crucial in moving negotiations forward when “they appeared in danger of stalling.”

Who is Aronson? Former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs under George H.W. Bush, he was involved in the 1989 invasion of Panama, and was a strong supporter of the drug-trafficking Contras in Nicaragua, whom he called “freedom fighters” against Soviet expansion.

The FARC has committed unspeakable atrocities in Colombia. So what? In discussing his involvement in the Havana peace talks, Aronson told the New York Times his strategy was to “simply treat the FARC negotiators with respect, cracking the stereotype of the arrogant imperialist.”