Nomi Prins. All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power. Nation Books, 2014. See here to purchase the book.
Nomi Prins is a former Wall Street executive. Her writings have appeared in such publications as The Nation and Mother Jones, which are anti-establishment left-wing periodicals, but also in mainstream sources such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and Fortune.
This book is about the influence of bankers from the Presidential
administration of Theodore Roosevelt to that of Barack Obama. I decided
to read this book as a check on right-wing John Bircher material that I
have read. John Birchers believe that the international bankers are
conspiring to create a one-world socialistic government. Among the
people they criticize are David Rockefeller, the Council on Foreign
Relations, and the Trilateral Commission. All of these are featured in
Prins’s book, only she writes from the perspective of the
anti-establishment left, whereas John Birchers form part of the
anti-establishment right.
How did the two compare? Here are some items, based on my impressions:
—-John Birchers criticize the Federal Reserve system and President
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as corrupt ways to pad the pockets of the
rich and well-connected. G. Edward Griffin, who has a Bircher
background, argues that the conflict between Theodore Roosevelt and J.P.
Morgan was solely a matter of show. Nomi Prins, in these areas at
least, tends to accept the standard historical narrative. In her
telling, the Federal Reserve system was established to redress the
problem of bank panics, the conflict between Theodore Roosevelt and J.P.
Morgan was real, and the wealthy did consider FDR a traitor to his
class on account of his New Deal and attempts to reign in Wall Street.
This is not to suggest that Prins always embraces the standard
narrative, though. For example, she argues that Dodd-Frank was all for
show and fails to curb banks.
—-John Birchers essentially believe that the international bankers
are left-wing in that they desire a one-world socialistic government.
Prins, by contrast, contends that international bankers have had
right-wing ideas. David Rockefeller opposed Richard Nixon’s wage and
price controls, acts of government control of the economy that many
right-wingers criticized. The bankers during the 1970’s and 1980’s
supported deregulation of the banking industry so that they could
compete more effectively on an international scale. David Rockefeller
also supported the existence, maintenance, and spread of democratic
capitalism because democratic capitalist countries allowed the bankers
to have more influence and to make more money. Whereas G. Edward Griffin
argues that the Federal Reserve pursues inflationary policy, Prins
contends that the bankers’ desire has been to restrain inflation. Prins
maintains that the bankers and the IMF pressure Third World countries to
adopt austerity policies, whereas Griffin holds that they prop up
socialist and Communist dictatorships.
—-At the same time, to nuance the above two items, Prins also argues
that the bankers prior to the Reagan era at least had a social
conscience. Prominent bankers endorsed the Glass-Steagall Act under FDR
in order to combat the reckless speculation that had led to economic
disaster. The Rockefellers and other elite families felt a need to
uphold their family name and thus initiated philanthropic projects.
Whereas G. Edward Griffin contends that the international bankers liked
war because that allowed them to lend to both sides and make money off
the interest, Prins refers to bankers who opposed war and endorsed
disarmament, since war could disrupt their economic interests. (John
Birchers, of course, would be on board with her about bankers favoring
disarmament, since that would coincide with their claim that the
international bankers are seeking to create a one-world government). By
contrast, Prins contends that, with the Reagan era, the bankers were
largely focused on their personal and individual prosperity.
—-Another area of nuance, in Prins’s telling, is that the bankers
took different positions. There were bankers who supported the tax cuts
of JFK, LBJ, and Reagan, but there was also a concern that tax cuts
could be inflationary, especially in the 1970’s. Bankers were concerned
about inflation, yet there were Wall Street interests who saw Paul
Volker’s high interest rates as too draconian in their attempts to
squeeze out the last drop of inflation.
—-John Birchers tend to treat the international bankers and
Presidents as part of a conspiracy. You will find some nuance from
right-wing conspiracy theorists, though, since some allege that
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated because he challenged the
banking establishment. Prins presents a more complex picture. In her
telling, some Presidents were closer to the bankers than others: Nixon
and Reagan, for example, were distant from the Eastern establishment
banking interests. At the same time, even Presidents who may not have
been close to bankers could pursue their interests, as Reagan did,
heavily. President Kennedy was criticized by banking interests because
he sought to tax more heavily the business that they did abroad.
Overall, though, Prins argues that Presidents have largely been beholden
to the banking interests, since Presidents rely on Wall Street for
political contributions. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats.
Who is right: the John Birchers or Nomi Prins? Well, both draw from
primary sources about what people said and did. John Birchers may say
that some positions are for show and do not reflect the bankers’ actual
positions. But they themselves draw from what the bankers, the CFR, and
the TC say when they argue that these interests support Communism or a
one-world government. Why is some polite remark that David Rockefeller
makes towards Communist China reflective of his position, whereas the
data that Prins amasses are not? Both are probably reflective, on some
level. That said, the John Birchers and Prins each highlights things
that the other does not. (To her credit, though, Griffins’ book is cited
by Prins, since she uses it as a secondary source that engages primary
source information.) The John Birchers can point to examples of bankers’
support for Communists, whereas Prins can cite data about their support
for democratic capitalism and opposition to Communism. The bankers may
not care about whom they do business with, since their goal is to make
money. Moreover, the Trilateral Commission may not have supported
Communism, per se, but recognized that the West needed to find some way
to co-exist with Communist countries and interact with them as
established powers in their own right.
Some knowledge of economics can help a person with this book, which
is why I struggled with parts of it. In addition, the narrative was
useful and informative, but the book is not as juicy as one might expect
from reading the cover and the summary.
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.