The worry, witch-hunt, and waste that have ensued are destroying
American confidence, undermining our economy, warping our political
life, and isolating us from our international allies.
The first principle of terrorism is to understand that the weak win by
exploiting the strength of the powerful. When 9/11 terrorists with box
cutters hijacked American airliners, they transformed America's
preeminent transportation system into a devastating weapon of attack.
They also set a trap with the promise of revenge and security as the
bait. The hijackers' biggest victory was to goad our government into
taking the bait by unleashing the War on Terror.
The media have given constant attention to possible terrorist-
initiated catastrophes and to the failures and weaknesses of the
government's response. Trapped in the War on Terror, however,
questions the very rationale for the War on Terror. By analyzing the
virtual absence of evidence of a terrorist threat inside the United
States along with the motives and strategic purposes of al-Qaeda, it
is easy to show how disconnected the War on Terror is from the real
but remote threat terrorism poses. The generalized War on Terror began
as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a
life of its own. A whirlwind of fear, failure, and recrimination, this
"war" drags every interest group and politician into selfish
competition for its spoils.
Facing the threat of nuclear incineration during the Cold War, America
overcame panic about nonexistent communist sleeper cells poised to
destroy the country, a panic fueled by the destructive hysteria of
McCarthyism. Through careful analysis of the Soviet threat, the nation
managed to sustain a productive national life and achieve victory,
despite the terrifying daily possibility of catastrophe. This book is
inspired by that success. It points the way forward, not toward
victory in the War on Terror but to victory over it. The first and
most difficult step toward that victory is to know the enemy. In large
measure, as Trapped in the War on Terror shows, that means
understanding how al-Qaeda is making us our own worst enemy.
Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove
their conservative critics wrong, the press during the run-up to the
war -- timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally
unthinking -- came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for
existence in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens,
particularly during times of great national interest.
911 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA plot: a covert network of moles,
patsies, and a commando cell in the privatized intelligence services,
backed by corrupt political and corporate media elites.
Buttressed by historical examples like the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the
Gunpowder Plot, this model makes it clear how such a monstrous false-
flag or self-terror exploit is possible even under a largely benign
government. That paradox is the incredibility gap that has made most
Americans reject the evidence about 9/11 as paranoid fantasy.
http://www.amazon.com/Trapped-War-Terror-Ian-Lustick/dp/0812239830/
http://www.amazon.com/Lapdogs-Press-Rolled-Over-Bush/dp/0743289315/
http://www.amazon.com/11-Synthetic-Terror-Made-Fourth/dp/0930852370/
There is no "war on terror".
War only happens because of the the predictability of how the few can
manipulate the many.
In WW1 ,'the few' had limited mass communication capability to stir
the 'mob', such as cartoons of the kaiser's men bayoneting babies for
example. My fathers generation in the UK grew up with a great dislike
for Germans. The powder keg is always ready for a spark.
The 'powder keg' is the group consciousness. Much more easily
manipulated these days. How easy it is to breed fear and loathing, of
setting man against man.
If one uses 911 as an example, to me, it doesnt matter whether it was
a US conspiracy or not. It was organised by 'people'. People whose
intent it was to fire a spark into the ever ready powder keg.
The incredible absurdity was exemplified at the weekend, when some
idiot burned himself in an aborted attempt to blow up a plane, and
millions of travellers were pushed through even more intrusive
security procedures. The 'cave men' must find the whole process quite
hilarious.
I suppose this now means we in Aus, having had our rights to take
knitting needles into the cabin once again will be rescinded, and I
bet the recent 'bomber' couldnt even knit!
Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.
Republicans use the fact that the Obama administration has stopped using the
term to show that he is soft on terrorism.
Exactly right.
>
> Republicans use the fact that the Obama administration has stopped using
> the term to show that he is soft on terrorism.
Politics.
>On Dec 31, 9:00�am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> War on Terror - Trapped in a Self-Defeating Strategy?
>>
War is a good profit-making venture for large corporations who provide
the ongoing materials for war. The profits are huge because the demand
is expedience and the coporate media has a vested interest in war as
it acts as a propaganda vehicle, all the while increasing its ratings
and profits. Expect the war on terrorism to continue as long as the
going is good and the governments involved take part in it because the
politicians are chosen via corporate donations and televised
elections.
So in effect, its a corporate entity that benefits in and of itself.
If the public is willing to foot the bill, then on she goes until
enough people demand its end. Its always been that way.
Pacifism, masochism and sadism with the citizens of his own nation.
MG
> What is needed with the problem of terrorism, is to bring it back down
> to earth and deftly skewer the large political, economic, and media
> industry that has an interest in exaggerating terrorism's effect and
> in scaring people unnecessarily.
>
> The worry, witch-hunt, and waste that have ensued are destroying
> American confidence, undermining our economy, warping our political
> life, and isolating us from our international allies.
> ...
> http://www.amazon.com/Trapped-War-Terror-Ian-Lustick/dp/0812239830/
> http://www.amazon.com/Lapdogs-Press-Rolled-Over-Bush/dp/0743289315/
> http://www.amazon.com/11-Synthetic-Terror-Made-Fourth/dp/0930852370/
But the War on Terror, along with worry, witch-hunt and
waste are to the short-term advantage of politicians,
bureaucrats, career police and military officers, and
those who own and control the mainstream media. One
can hardly say the War on Terror is a failure for them.
> What is needed with the problem of terrorism, is to bring it back down
> to earth and deftly skewer the large political, economic, and media
> industry that has an interest in exaggerating terrorism's effect and in
> scaring people unnecessarily.
This guy is trying to working both sides of a fence.
To deal with this issue realistically, to actually face the very real
"self defeating" aspect of this, remove the stupid and lazy '-ism'.
"Terrorism" is political slang, the issue is fear. Terrorism essentially
is a forced personification of fear, the goal to make an emotion
tangible. These tangibles, the terrorists, always wind up being so only
because they lack a standing army, navy and air force and usually English
as a first language. Or, they are not us.
"The first principle of terrorism" is elevating fear into a -ism which
also happens to be the first step to self-defeat. With any "Strategy to
defeat terrorism", the defeat is already realized.
> al-Qaeda is making us
al-Qaeda is not MAKING us do anything. Fear is doing this 'making'. This
is the "our own worst enemy" and this is what 'we' best first understand.
Some People are now so pumped up and addicted to fear (media adrenaline
junkies), this al-Qaeda is being replaced by any manner of fear-as-hate
objects.
One, only one, example: Killing "Liberals", as vague and ill defined as
"al-Qaeda", is becoming an accepted moral imperative to survival and
openly advocated on commercial media, void of legal reprisal. Fear and
the resulting hatred is seen as a way to a solid market share.
Circus side show for the rubes. Meanwhile, on center stage: Money
Let's say the people who now inhabit the USA disappeared, and all of
the "terrorists" from the middle east inhabited that land instead.
Do you think there would still be "terrorism"?
Who is advocating killing liberals on commercial
media?
Exactly, the headlines for the 7/7 bombings weren't "Statistically
insignificant deaths caused by losers.". I'm willing to bet that
the
amount of people dying in the west directly through terrorists
actions
is about the same as those dying from worrying about it or avoiding
airplanes and dying in car wrecks.
This certainly true, but cars are not trying to coerce us.
While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant, the effect
on freedom of speech has been huge.
But feeding the cars arguably has linkage with the terrorism.
> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant, the effect
> on freedom of speech has been huge.
>
Has it? How so?
--
Les Cargill
> ... I'm willing to bet that the
> amount of people dying in the west directly through terrorists
> actions is about the same as those dying from worrying about it or avoiding
> airplanes and dying in car wrecks.
Gee, even fewer Americans died at Pearl Harbor.
I guess we shouldn't have worried about that either.
Fred Weiss
>> I'm willing to bet that the amount of people dying in the west directly
>> through terrorists actions is about the same as those dying from
>> worrying about it or avoiding airplanes and dying in car wrecks.
> This certainly true, but cars are not trying to coerce us.
> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant,
> the effect on freedom of speech has been huge.
Like hell it has.
You are still free to say anything you like.
Les Cargill
> Has it? How so?
Consider the Mohammed cartoons. Also consider that Tariq Ramadan gets
academic honors piled upon him whenever he hints at causing the
violent death of fellow academics.
Phffft. Readily available, all over the Internet. That's all
part of the exersize of the alleged "right" to never
be offended. Far more general than Islam.
> Also consider that Tariq Ramadan gets
> academic honors piled upon him whenever he hints at causing the
> violent death of fellow academics.
>
Sounds like he's using freedom of speech swimmingly. Besides,
he got his H1B jerked. No doubt this increases his
Islamist street cred.
--
Les Cargill
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > James A. Donald wrote:
> >>> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant, the effect
> >>> on freedom of speech has been huge.
> >
> > Les Cargill
> >> Has it? How so?
> >
> > Consider the Mohammed cartoons.
Ireland is implementing a new law against blasphemy specifically aimed
at prosecuting persons who successfully insult particular religions.
IOW, people can claim victimization to control others' opinions.
That totally sucks.
>>> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant,
>>> the effect on freedom of speech has been huge.
>> Has it? How so?
> Consider the Mohammed cartoons.
Has had no effect what so ever on my freedom of speech.
> Also consider that Tariq Ramadan gets academic
> honors piled upon him whenever he hints at
> causing the violent death of fellow academics.
Another of your bare faced lies.
>>>>> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant,
>>>>> the effect on freedom of speech has been huge.
>>>> Has it? How so?
>>> Consider the Mohammed cartoons.
> Ireland is implementing a new law against blasphemy specifically aimed
> at prosecuting persons who successfully insult particular religions.
How is success decided ?
> IOW, people can claim victimization to control others' opinions.
It does not control anyone's opinion.
The most it might possibly do is is have some effect on the EXPESSION of
some particular opinions by those stupid enough to take any notice of that law.
> That totally sucks.
Nope, it has no effect what so ever on anything at all.
You can ban alcohol, to a Muslim it has no effect, but it is still an
infringement of a freedom.
Or... to put it in another term you might understand, the Muslims get a
law passed to stone Gays, it won't effect me, but your ass is likely to
be waist deep in rocks. Are your freedoms being infringed now?
Les Cargill
> Sounds like he's using freedom of speech swimmingly.
No one in Academia doubts the wonderful moderation and academic
greatness of Tariq Ramadan, which indicates that no one else in
Academia is using freedom of speech swimmingly.
How do you know that Rod doesn't regularly blaspheme
and defame the Prophet? I don't see why he would give
Muhammad special treatment.
>>>>> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant,
>>>>> the effect on freedom of speech has been huge.
>>>> Has it? How so?
>>> Consider the Mohammed cartoons.
>> Has had no effect what so ever on my freedom of speech.
Has had no effect on those who do cartoons either, they are all over the net.
The most it might do is ensure that some of those who
choose to do cartoons like that do so anonymously.
That is nothing even remotely resembling anything like a huge effect.
> You can ban alcohol, to a Muslim it has no effect,
Plenty of them ignore that ban anyway.
> but it is still an infringement of a freedom.
Not in the case of the cartoons where you can still do them anonymously.
> Or... to put it in another term you might understand,
> the Muslims get a law passed to stone Gays,
Doesnt happen anywhere that matters.
> it won't effect me, but your ass is likely to be waist deep in rocks.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> Are your freedoms being infringed now?
Nope, because your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys are completely irrelevant to my freedoms.
In fact it increases my freedoms because I have the freedom to laugh at your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>>> Also consider that Tariq Ramadan gets academic
>>> honors piled upon him whenever he hints at causing
>>> the violent death of fellow academics.
>> Sounds like he's using freedom of speech swimmingly.
> No one in Academia doubts the wonderful moderation
> and academic greatness of Tariq Ramadan,
Another bare faced lie.
> which indicates that no one else in Academia
> is using freedom of speech swimmingly.
Like hell it does.
>>>>>> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant,
>>>>>> the effect on freedom of speech has been huge.
>>>>> Has it? How so?
>>>> Consider the Mohammed cartoons.
>>> Has had no effect what so ever on my freedom of speech.
>> You can ban alcohol, to a Muslim it has no effect,
>> but it is still an infringement of a freedom.
>> Or... to put it in another term you might understand, the Muslims
>> get a law passed to stone Gays, it won't effect me, but your ass is
>> likely to be waist deep in rocks. Are your freedoms being infringed now?
> How do you know that Rod doesn't regularly blaspheme and defame the Prophet?
In fact its completely trivial for anyone to use groups.google and see that I do just that.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=fuck+goats+village&as_uauthors=rod+speed
> I don't see why he would give Muhammad special treatment.
I do anyway.
The Shocking Doctrine
Historically, while people were reeling from natural disasters, wars
and economic upheavals, savvy politicians and industry leaders
nefariously implemented policies that would never have passed during
less muddled times. This reprehensible game of bait-and-switch isn't
just some relic from the bad old days. It's alive and well in
contemporary society, and coming soon to a disaster area near you.
The neo-liberal economic policies—privatization, free trade, slashed
social spending—that the Chicago School and the economist Milton
Friedman have foisted on the world are catastrophic in two senses.
Because their results are disastrous-depressions, mass poverty,
private corporations looting public wealth, their means must be
cataclysmic, dependent on political upheavals and natural disasters as
coercive pretexts for free-market reforms the public would normally
reject.
Free-market ideologues welcome, and provoke, the collapse of other
people's economies. The result is a powerful populist indictment of
economic orthodoxy.
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism: the free market
policies of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of
Economics have risen to prominence in countries such as Chile under
Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin, the United States (for example in New
Orleans after Hurricane Katrina), and the privatization of Iraq's
economy under the Coalition Provisional Authority not because they
were democratically popular, but because they were pushed through
while the citizens of these countries were reacting to disasters or
upheavals. It is implied that some of these shocks, such as the
Falklands war, may have been created with the intention of being able
to push through these unpopular reforms in the wake of the crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du3mpRkaz8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2gYUVURAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRvuGLM_Pe4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7FcoU0LLUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG_xRZW32X0
>>> What is needed with the problem of terrorism, is to bring it back
>>> down to earth and deftly skewer the large political, economic, and
>>> media industry that has an interest in exaggerating terrorism's
>>> effect and in scaring people unnecessarily.
>>> The worry, witch-hunt, and waste that have ensued are destroying
>>> American confidence, undermining our economy, warping our
>>> political life, and isolating us from our international allies.
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Trapped-War-Terror-Ian-Lustick/dp/0812239830/
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Lapdogs-Press-Rolled-Over-Bush/dp/0743289315/
>>> http://www.amazon.com/11-Synthetic-Terror-Made-Fourth/dp/0930852370/
>> But the War on Terror, along with worry, witch-hunt and
>> waste are to the short-term advantage of politicians,
>> bureaucrats, career police and military officers, and
>> those who own and control the mainstream media. One
>> can hardly say the War on Terror is a failure for them.
> The Shocking Doctrine
> Historically, while people were reeling from natural disasters, wars
> and economic upheavals, savvy politicians and industry leaders
> nefariously implemented policies that would never have passed
> during less muddled times. This reprehensible game of bait-and-
> switch isn't just some relic from the bad old days. It's alive and well in
> contemporary society, and coming soon to a disaster area near you.
We'll see...
> The neo-liberal economic policies�privatization, free trade, slashed
> social spending�that the Chicago School and the economist Milton
> Friedman have foisted on the world are catastrophic in two senses.
> Because their results are disastrous-depressions, mass poverty,
How odd that we have in fact seen the exact opposite, just one
depression in 100 years now, and the complete elimination of mass
poverty right thruout the entire modern first and second world.
> private corporations looting public wealth, their means must be
> cataclysmic, dependent on political upheavals and natural disasters as
> coercive pretexts for free-market reforms the public would normally reject.
How odd that we havent actually seen them get even a single
free-market reform as a result of any natural disaster what so ever.
> Free-market ideologues welcome, and provoke,
> the collapse of other people's economies.
Or attempt to, anyway. Souros tried it and failed dismally
even with an operation that is as puny as Malaysia.
> The result is a powerful populist indictment of economic orthodoxy.
> http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/
> The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism: the free market
> policies of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of
> Economics have risen to prominence in countries such as Chile under
> Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin, the United States (for example in New
> Orleans after Hurricane Katrina), and the privatization of Iraq's
> economy under the Coalition Provisional Authority not because they
> were democratically popular, but because they were pushed through
> while the citizens of these countries were reacting to disasters or
> upheavals. It is implied that some of these shocks, such as the
> Falklands war, may have been created with the intention of being able
> to push through these unpopular reforms in the wake of the crisis.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du3mpRkaz8g
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2gYUVURAI
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRvuGLM_Pe4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7FcoU0LLUU
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG_xRZW32X0
All completely and utterly irrelevant to what is being discussed, terror.
Are you saying that Keynesian economics is the same as neo-liberalism?
Are you also implying that we have been using the Chicago School ideas
for a 100 years?
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of
Capitalism
by Ha-Joon Chang - Reviewed by Thom Hartmann
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/hartmann/023
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
The fundamental myth of the Milton/Thomas Friedman neoliberal cons is
that in a "flat world" everybody is not only able to compete with
everybody else freely, but should be required to. It sounds nice.
America trades with - and competes with trade with and for - the
European Union. France against Germany. England against Australia.
But wait a minute. In such a "free" trade competition, who will win
when the match-up is Canada versus the Solomon Islands? Germany versus
Bulgaria? Zimbabwe versus Italy?
There are two glaringly obvious flaws in the so-called "free trade"
theories expounded by neoliberal philosophers like Friedrich Von Hayek
and Milton Friedman, and promoted relentlessly in the popular press by
(very wealthy) hucksters like Thomas Friedman.
First, "infant" economies - countries that are only beginning to get
on their feet - cannot "compete" with "mature" economies. They really
only have two choices - lose to their more mature competitors and
stand on the hungry and cold outside of the world of trade (as we see
with much of Africa), or be colonized and exploited by the dominant
corporate forces within the mature economies (as we see with Shell Oil
and Nigeria, or historically with the "banana republics" of Central
and South America and Asia and, literally, the banana corporations).
Second, the way "infant" economies become "mature" economies is not
via free trade. It never has been and never will be. Whether it be the
mature economies of Britain (which began to seriously grow in the
early 1600s), America (late 1700s), Japan (1800s), or Brazil (1900s),
in every single case, worldwide, without exception, the economic
strength and maturity of a nation came about as a result not of
governments "standing aside" or "getting out of the way" but instead
of direct government participation in and protection of the "infant"
industries and economy.
The modern history of protectionist trade policies goes back to
ancient Rome, stretches through the reigns of a series of King Henry's
in the UK, through Alexander Hamilton's tenure as Secretary of the
Treasury under George Washington, through the trade policies of Dwight
D. Eisenhower and JFK, and continues today with China, Korea, the
Middle East, and the rapidly-growing Brazilian economy.
The way economies go from being underdeveloped, anemic, and
uncompetitive to becoming developed, strong, and aggressively
competitive is simple and straightforward: government steps in.
Government first determines which industries are worth growing and
which are not. Having a strong machine-tool industry in the United
States both creates good jobs and is in our strategic interest -
machine tools are necessary for virtually every other form of heavy
manufacturing (and even light/sophisticated/electronics fabrication),
and being dependent on Italy or China or Japan for them is crazy. On
the other hand, do we really need to spend the resources of We The
People to encourage and grow a sandalwood-carving industry (actually a
substantial industry in Thailand) when we neither grow sandalwood nor
have a long and historic tradition of carving it into both artistic
and utilitarian forms?
Once "strategic" and "important" industries are identified, government
both encourages and protects their domestic growth in a variety of
ways. These include subsidies, legal protections (like patent laws),
import tariffs to protect against foreign competition, strong industry
regulation to ensure quality, and development of infrastructure to
ease manufacture, distribution, sales, and use of the product.
As Ha-Joon Chang points out in his brilliant book Bad Samaritans: The
Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism," in 1933 a
clothing manufacturing company decided to branch out into the
manufacture of automobiles. They had everything going against them -
their nation had no really serious domestic auto industry, the company
had no experience with the product, and other nations (particularly
the US and Great Britain) were already making world-class vehicles
that had captured most of the world's markets.
But the company caught the imagination of its country's leadership,
and a ministry of trade decided to help it along. Government subsidies
helped the company develop their first car. Decades of high import
tariffs protected it from foreign competition as it grew into a
serious contender. Domestic content laws both made sure the company
used parts made within the country, and also guaranteed that domestic
competitors would have to, thus building a strong base of domestic
companies supportive of an auto industry, from tires to plastic
components to precision machine tools and electronics.
In 1939 the country even kicked out both GM and Ford from sales within
the country, and the nation's single wholly-owned bank bailed out the
struggling textile manufacturer as it moved relentlessly forward in
the development of an automobile.
That company, originally known as The Toyoda Automatic Loom Company,
is today known as Toyota, and manufactures the infamous Lexus that Tom
Friedman mistakenly thought was successful because the world is "flat"
and trade is "free." In fact, the success of the Lexus (and the Prius
and every other Toyota) is entirely traceable to massive government
intervention in the markets by Japan over a fifty-year period that
continues to this very day.
To illustrate how infant industries must be nurtured by government
until they're ready to compete in global marketplaces, Chang points to
the example of his own son, Jin-Gyu. At the age of six, the young boy
is legally able to work and produce an income in many countries of the
world. He's an "asset" that could be "producing income" right now. But
Chang, being a good parent, intends to deny his son the short-term
"opportunity" to learn a skill like street-sweeping or picking pockets
or shining shoes (typical "trades" for six year olds in many
countries) so he may grow up instead to become an engineer or
physician - or fully reach whatever other potential his temperament,
abilities, and inclination dictate.
Somehow this is lost on Thomas Friedman and the whole "free trade"
bunch. As Chang writes, "[E]ven from a purely materialistic viewpoint,
I would be wiser to invest in my son's education than gloat over the
money I save by not sending him to school. After all, if I were right
[in sending him out to work at age six], Oliver Twist would have been
better off pick-pocketing for Fagin, rather than being rescued by the
misguided Good Samaritan Mr. Brownlow, who deprived the boy of his
chance to remain competitive in the labor market.
"Yet this absurd line of argument is in essence how free-trade
economists justify rapid, large-scale trade liberalization in
developing countries. They claim that developing country producers
need to be exposed to as much competition as possible right now, so
that they have the incentive to raise their productivity in order to
survive. Protection, by contrast, only creates complacency and sloth.
The earlier the exposure, the argument goes, the better it is for
economic development."
But history proves the free-traders wrong. Every time, without
exception, a developing nation is forced (usually by the IMF, WTO, and/
or World Bank) to unilaterally throw open all their doors to "free
trade," the result is a disaster. Local industries, still in their
developmental stages, are either wiped out or bought out and shut down
by foreign behemoths. Wages collapse. The "Middle Class" becomes the
working poor. And in the process the largest corporations and
wealthiest individuals in the world become larger, stronger, and more
wealthy. It's "Monopoly" (the game) on steroids.
Even worse, opening a country up to "free trade" weakens its
democratic institutions. Because the role of government is diminished
- and in a democratic republic "government" is another word for "the
will of the people" - the voice of citizens in the nation's present
and future economy is gagged, replaced by the bullhorn of
transnational corporations and think-tanks funded by grants from mind-
bogglingly wealthy families. One-man-one-vote is replaced with one-
dollar-one-vote. Governments are corrupted, often beyond immediate
recovery, and democracy is replaced by a form of oligarchy that is
most rightly described as a corporate plutocratic kleptocracy.
When this corporate oligarchy reaches out to take over and merge
itself with the powers and institutions of government, it becomes the
very definition of Mussolini's "fascism": the merger of corporate and
state interests. As China has proven, capitalism can do very well,
thank you, in the absence of democracy. (You'd think we would have
figured that out after having watch Germany in the 1930s.) And as so
many of the Northern European countries show so clearly, capitalism
can flourish and generate great wealth and a high standard of living
within the constraints of intense regulation by a democratic republic
answerable entirely to its citizens.
Consider the United States of America.
In the earliest days of our nation, George Washington's Secretary of
the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, with some writing and editing help
from Tench Coxe, outlined what came to be the foundation of American
industrial policy. At its core was the protection of what Hamilton
referred to as "infant" industries.
Although the invention of the term "infant industry" is usually
credited to Friedrich List (in 1841 to support the idea of protecting
new industries in Germany by government actions), the man who
originated the phrase (and most aggressively promoted the idea in the
USA) was Alexander Hamilton. In his "Report on the Subject of
Manufactures," written together (but not credited to) Hamilton's
friend and sometimes-assistant Tench Coxe, Hamilton wrote:
Bounties [subsidies] are sometimes not only the best, but the only
proper expedient, for uniting the encouragement of a new object of
agriculture, with that of a new object of manufacture. It is the
interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw material
promoted, by counteracting the interference of the foreign material of
the same kind. It is the interest of the manufacturer to have the
material abundant and cheap ... By either destroying the requisite
supply, or raising the price of the article, beyond what can be
afforded to be given for it, by the conductor of an infant
manufacture, it is abandoned or fails; …
It cannot escape notice, that a duty upon the importation of an
article can no otherwise aid the domestic production of it, than
giving the latter greater advantages in the home market.
Hamilton's point was that there are two things needed for an "infant
industry" to turn into a genuine manufacturing power. The first was
cheap raw materials, the second protection from foreign competition.
To provide the cheap raw materials - for example, cotton or wool, if
we were talking about the manufacture of clothing - Hamilton suggested
both short-term subsidies for the production of the raw material, and
tariffs (import taxes) on cotton or wool brought in from overseas.
This would both provide a sure and inexpensive supply of raw material,
and ensure that the raw materials were - and would continue to be over
the long term - produced here at home.
To protect the nascent clothing industry (in this example), Hamilton
also strongly advocated short-term supports to the budding industries
(for example, government support or gifts of land for the production
of factories) and tariffs on foreign-made clothing. This would make
domestic products cheaper for the consumer and foreign ones more
expensive, thus encouraging Americans to buy American-made clothing,
thus building up a strong domestic fabric and clothing industry
(remember the mills that John Edwards' dad worked in?).
As Hamilton noted (this is only referenced in the book - I'm filling
in Hamilton's actual words here):
It is a primary object of the policy of nations, to be able to supply
themselves with subsistence from their own soils; and manufacturing
nations, as far as circumstances permit, endeavor to procure, from the
same source, the raw materials necessary for their own fabrics.
As to how to accomplish that, Hamilton and Coxe had a straightforward
plan, which was adopted by the Founders of this nation:
I. Protecting duties.
Protective duties, or duties on those foreign articles which are the
rivals of the domestic ones, intended to be encouraged. [B]y enhancing
the charges on foreign articles, they enable the national
manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors.
II. Prohibitions of rival articles or duties equivalent to
prohibitions.
Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own manufacturers
as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations, a similar policy on
the part of the United States in every proper instance, is dictated,
it might almost be said, by the principles of distributive justice;
certainly by the duty of endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a
reciprocity of advantages.
III. Prohibitions of the exportation of the materials of
manufactures.
The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful supply for the national
workmen, and, where the article is either peculiar to the country, or
of peculiar quality there, the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to
rival those of the nation, with its own materials, are the leading
motives to this species of regulation. …
IV. Pecuniary bounties [industry direct financial subsidies].
This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging
manufactures, and it is in some views, the best. Though it has not yet
been practiced upon by the government of the United States (unless the
allowances on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted
meat could be considered as a bounty) and though it is less favored by
public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages, are these -- It
is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other,
and for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate
and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit, and
diminishing the risks of loss, in the first attempts.
V. Premiums [incentives for production, innovation, or quality].
These are of a nature allied to bounties, though distinguishable from
them, in some important features. Bounties are applicable to the whole
quantity of an article produced, or manufactured, or exported, and
involve a correspondent expense.
Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or superiority,
some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are dispensed only in a
small number of cases. But their effect is to stimulate general
effort. Contrived so as to be both honorary and lucrative, they
address themselves to different passions; touching the chords as well
of emulation as of interest. They are accordingly a very economical
mean of exciting the enterprise of a whole community.
VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures [raw materials]
from duty [import tariffs].
The policy of that exemption as a general rule, particularly in
reference to new establishments, is obvious. It can hardly ever be
advisable to add the obstructions of fiscal burdens to the
difficulties which naturally embarrass a new manufacture; … exemptions
of this kind in the United States, is to be derived from the practice,
as far as their necessities have permitted, of those nations whom we
are to meet as competitors in our own and in foreign markets.
VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries [patents and
copyrights].
The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, and of
the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made
in other countries; particularly those, which relate to machinery.
This is among the most useful and unexceptionable of the aids, which
can be given to manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement
are pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. The
first must be employed, according to the occasion, and the utility of
the invention, or discovery: For the last, so far as respects "authors
and inventors'' provision has been made by law.
IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured
commodities [regulation and inspection].
This is not among the least important of the means, by which the
prosperity of manufactures may be promoted. It is indeed in many cases
one of the most essential. Contributing to prevent frauds upon
consumers at home and exporters to foreign countries--to improvement
quality and preserve the character of the national manufactures, it
cannot fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and
to serve as a guard against successful competition from other
quarters.
The reputation of the flour and lumber of some states, and of the
potash of others has been established by an attention to this point.
And the like good name might be procured for those articles,
wheresoever produced, by a judicious and uniform system of inspection;
throughout the ports of the United States. A like system might also be
extended with advantage to other commodities.
X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place [a
stable currency and banking system].
The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place is a
point of considerable moment to trade in general, and to manufactures
in particular; by rendering more easy the purchase of raw materials
and provisions and the payment for manufactured supplies. …
XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities
[transportation infrastructure].
Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the domestic
interests of a community; but they may without impropriety be
mentioned as having an important relation to manufactures. There is
perhaps scarcely any thing, which has been better calculated to assist
the manufactures of Great Britain, than the ameliorations of the
public roads of that kingdom, and the great progress which has been of
late made in opening canals. Of the former, the United States stand
much in need; and for the latter they present uncommon facilities. …
This understanding of the role of government in helping "infant
industries" grow to become mature industries capable of international
competition was well-known by Americans for most of the history of our
country. After Hamilton published his "report" during the George
Washington administration, Congress, at Hamilton's and Coxe's urging,
raised tariffs on imported finished manufactured products from 5
percent to 12.5 percent. Three presidents and two decades later,
Congress doubled them in response to the War of 1812, when the British
and Canadians made their way all the way to Washington, DC and set
fire to the White House just a few days after President James Madison
left to command troops (the only sitting president to do so in our
history). The War of 1812 exposed the weakness of our industrial
base's ability to shift to wartime footing, leading directly to the
increase of import tariffs from 12.5% to 25%.
As these tariffs made foreign-manufactured goods more expensive and
increased demand for domestic-manufactured items, American industry
began to take off. Not being idiots, Congress saw this cause-and-
effect and raised tariffs two more times, in 1816 and 1820, to 25% and
40% respectively. It set the stage for one of the greatest
industrializations in world history - from the 1830s straight up to
and through World War II - and also produced the world's first truly
large-scale middle class.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln raised tariffs to a full 50%,
where they stayed - the world's highest, as Chang notes - until 1913
when Teddy Roosevelt's defection from the Republican Party led to a
three-way split and Republican defeat and the anti-tariff Democrats
(of that day) dropped them to 25%. After World War I and the 1921
Republican victory, tariffs were again raised back up, hitting 37% in
1925, and then raised slightly higher still a year into the Republican
Great Depression when Herbert Hoover and the Republicans in Congress
pushed through Smoot-Hawley, raising tariffs back to the more-or-less
average rate during the industrialization of America, 48%.
FDR ran, in part, in the election of 1932, on slightly lowering the
Smoot-Hawley tariffs back down to the 37%-45% range. As Chang notes in
Bad Samaritans:
[T]he stupidity of the Smoot-Hawley tariff has become a key fable in
free trade mythology. … but this view is misleading. The Smoot-Hawley
tariff may have provoked an international tariff war, thanks to bad
timing, especially given the new status of the US as the world's
largest creditor nation after the First World War. But it was simply
not the radical departure from the country's traditional trade policy
stance that free trade economists claim it to have been. Following the
bill, the average industrial tariff rate rose to 48%. The rise from
37% (1925) to 48% (1930) is not exactly small but it is hardly a
seismic shift. Moreover, the 48% obtained after the bill comfortably
falls within the range of the rates that had prevailed in the country
ever since the Civil War, albeit in the upper region thereof.
And tariffs are only one part of the equation. As Chang notes,
"Between the 1950s and the mid-1990s, US federal government funding
accounted for 50-70% of the country's total R&D funding …" Lacking
such assistance, Chang notes, "the US would not have been able to
maintain its technological lead over the rest of the world in key
industries like computers, semiconductors, life sciences, the internet
and aerospace.
Country by country, region by region, era by era, Chang shows how
countries that rose to become industrial or trade superpowers did so
only by totally repudiating the Milton Friedman/Tom Friedman "free
trade" and "small government" mythos, and instead following Alexander
Hamilton's tried-and-true formula. Hamilton, after all, hadn't
invented it - he simply observed what the British had been doing since
the year 1601 when Queen Elizabeth chartered the British East India
Company, and she had simply been observing what the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Dutch had been doing for a hundred years before that.
And all of them had the example of the Roman and Greek empires, which
rose and maintained their economic power by similar Hamiltonian
policies.
America held such policies, too, until the 1980s when Ronald Reagan
became president and his economic advisers began advancing the radical
Libertarian views of Milton Friedman, and the (Ayn Rand) Objectivist
views of Alan Greenspan (who had been inducted into Rand's cult in her
New York apartment in the 1960s). Reagan began his overt push during
the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades
(GATT) talks in 1986, suggesting what was needed was a radical
worldwide leveling of tariffs and reduction of government
participation in everything from R&D funding to support for higher
education (Reagan had ended the nearly-free tuition rates at the
University of California while Governor of that state). As the Uruguay
Round was about to get underway, Reagan's speech writers had him
suggest "new and more liberal agreements with our trading partners -
agreement under which they would fully open their markets and treat
American products as they would treat their own."
George H.W. Bush, initially decrying Reagan's economic world view as
"Voodoo Economics," embraced it, as did Bill Clinton, who really
kicked the door of tariffs and "protectionism" down by signing the
United States up for both the full GATT, the creation of the World
Trade Organization (WTO), and the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).
For the first time in its history, our country's industries stood
essentially naked and defenseless against those of other fully
developed nations, most of which were still holding in place tariffs,
R&D supports, and intense support of the commons infrastructure
including free higher education and free health care.
The result was just what Alexander Hamilton feared - the rapid
unraveling of the American middle class as the nation bled its
industrial base into the gutter of cheap labor countries. While today
both China and India have import tariffs that average between 20% and
30% on manufactured goods (to protect their domestic industries and
markets), we've dropped our average tariffs from a 1973 average of 12%
to today's average of around 2 percent.
If you want to understand how - and why - America has become so
rapidly and radically deindustrialized, read Bad Samaritans. And buy
an extra copy to send to Tom Friedman. He needs it.
Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling author and host of "The
Thom Hartmann Program" syndicated nationally by Air America Radio. His
website is ThomHartmann.com. You can find information on how to listen
to his program (online if you don't have a radio station that carries
it) and read more about his great books.
> > private corporations looting public wealth, their means must be
> > cataclysmic, dependent on political upheavals and natural disasters as
> > coercive pretexts for free-market reforms the public would normally reject.
>
> How odd that we havent actually seen them get even a single
> free-market reform as a result of any natural disaster what so ever.
>
At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is
unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil
reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration
quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton
and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast
Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts....
New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover
that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be
reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using
the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks –
wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by
imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks
don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the
electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book
> > Free-market ideologues welcome, and provoke,
> > the collapse of other people's economies.
>
> Or attempt to, anyway. Souros tried it and failed dismally
> even with an operation that is as puny as Malaysia.
>
>
>
> > The result is a powerful populist indictment of economic orthodoxy.
> >http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312...
> > The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism: the free market
> > policies of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of
> > Economics have risen to prominence in countries such as Chile under
> > Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin, the United States (for example in New
> > Orleans after Hurricane Katrina), and the privatization of Iraq's
> > economy under the Coalition Provisional Authority not because they
> > were democratically popular, but because they were pushed through
> > while the citizens of these countries were reacting to disasters or
> > upheavals. It is implied that some of these shocks, such as the
> > Falklands war, may have been created with the intention of being able
> > to push through these unpopular reforms in the wake of the crisis.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du3mpRkaz8g
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2gYUVURAI
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRvuGLM_Pe4
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7FcoU0LLUU
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG_xRZW32X0
>
> All completely and utterly irrelevant to what is being discussed, terror.
A lot of the ideas are relevant to terror if you pay attention.
>>> The Shocking Doctrine
>> We'll see...
Nope, JUST saying that his stupid claims about disasterous
depressions and mass poverty are completely silly and we have
not in fact seen anything like that in the last 100 years now.
> Are you also implying that we have been using the Chicago School ideas for a 100 years?
Nope, JUST that we have not in fact seen any more than just
100 depression in the last 100 years and no mass poverty at
all in the first and second worlds in that time. I wasnt saying
anything at all about why that has happened.
> Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
> by Ha-Joon Chang - Reviewed by Thom Hartmann
> http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/hartmann/023
> http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
Completely and utterly irrelevant to what I actually said.
>>> private corporations looting public wealth, their means
>>> must be cataclysmic, dependent on political upheavals
>>> and natural disasters as coercive pretexts for free-market
>>> reforms the public would normally reject.
>> How odd that we havent actually seen them get even a single
>> free-market reform as a result of any natural disaster what so ever.
> At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq�s civil war, a new law is unveiled
> that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country�s vast oil reserves�.
Pity there was no NATURAL DISASTER whatever involved.
You wouldnt know what real terror was if it bit you on your lard arse.
If your aim is to avoid coercion then
>
> While the effect in actual deaths has been insignificant, the effect
> on freedom of speech has been huge.
Really? Because I haven't seen it. The effect on freedom of speech
of
the government throwing us under a bus has been huge. The effect of
terrorism has been pretty close to negligible. Saying what the
terrorist's
don't want you to say doesn't tend to cost much, with some notable
exceptions. Saying what the government or the Israeli lobby or the
leftist politically correct crowd don't want you to say generally
costs
far more.