The myth of free trade. Part 1.
Ed Deak
FORWARDED TO MAI-NOT. THE LESSONS OF FREE TRADE
>Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 09:28:02
>To: ecol...@csf.colorado.edu
>From: Ed Deak <thi...@uniserve.com>
>Subject: The myth of free trade. Part 1.
>
>Dear Friends, Aug.3,1997.
>
>In reply to Mike Schussler's praise of free trade, posted by Wayne Visser.
>
>Originally I only wanted to write a short posting on what happened in
Canada with the FTA and NAFTA. Then I realized that the so called "free
trade" angle is only a small link in a long chain of inevitable events. I
have written a number of occasions about these in the past, but this time I
would like to break the whole problem down into several parts, so I can get
rid of the subject once and for all.
>
>Please don't climb all over me and start cursing me until all the parts are
posted and the whole thing is up for criticism.
>
>The so called "free trade" and "globalization of trade" advocated by nc
economists and most governments has never worked and never will. It doesn't
exist as a free trade, except as a freebooter, bandit economy under the
control of an international aristocracy, corporate Mafia, robber barons,
etc. etc.
>
>Let's strip the propaganda buzz and look at things as they really are and
not as they appear in textbooks and paid PR outpourings, by going back to
the basics, now hidden under worthless, ideological verbiage.
>
>I have been involved in the free trade debate since 1985, when it first
raised its ugly head in Canada and have a filing drawer full of material.
Whatever I write here, no matter how ridiculous or impossible it may seem,
is based on facts that can be proven with solid evidence.
>
>1. The purpose of the ecology is the search for balance and the sustenance
of life with the least waste. A certain amount of imbalance is necessary to
sustain of life. This results in the conversion of certain forms of matter
and energy into other, lower forms. Whenever large imbalances are created by
natural or artificial forces, i.e. earthquakes, hurricanes, global warming,
ozone depletion, the automatic balancing mechanisms of local and global
ecologies create reactions to regain balance with available resources, or
reserves. We live in the forest and see this happening every day. These
reactions are unavoidable, necessary, automatic, unstoppable and
unprofitable from the monetary point.
>
>Various economic and ideological theories, including free trade, are based
on hopes and efforts to prevent, or mitigate these reactions. Not one of
these hopes and theories has ever worked and never will. All they do is
increasing the degree and costs of reactions and spread them over larger
areas and sectors. In other words, sweep then under the carpet and hope that
the faithful won't notice
>
>The best illustration of ecological and economic systems would be a self
aligning, self governing teeter-totter. Both ends of the scale contain boxes
of precious stones or life sustaining resources of the same weight. The
right side is called "Action" and the left side "Reaction". The Action side
is exposed to forces and influences that keep on shifting and removing
certain weights and amounts of reasources from the box. The automatic
balancing system then moves or removes the equal amount from the Reaction
side, recreating the equilibrium of the scale. This movement is constant and
unstoppable. As the resources in the Action side deplete, so are they on the
Reaction side. The bigger the losses on the Action side, the more is dropped
from the Reaction and nothing or nobody can either stop, or replenish it.
>
>Question: Are economics supposed to be the promotion of waste, or the
preservation of these resources lost to actions and reactions? Which method
will sustain life longer: The waste or the conservation?
>
>2. Monetary economics, incl. so called "free enterprise and trade" are
based on permanent waste, causing ever increasing imbalances. As the
coprorations and monetary investment grows so do the ecological imbalances,
because of the reactions to the waste to cover ther costs of investment, in
other words the costs of the creation of artificial people in the form of
fiduciary money and corporate shares.
>
>Profits, can not be created, only taken from another sector, which may be
humans or resources. If profits could be "created" then energy and matter
could also be created. Before this happens somebody must invent perpetual
motion.
>
>Money is nothing more than a licence by an authority for the control (not
the creation) of existing energy/matter. Excess use of available
energy/matter to cover monetary manipulations and investment wastes
resources, plus creates increased reactions, wasting more. As I am writing
these the news came of a fire of 3 million tires at Coolidge, Arizona and of
the results of a chemical factory fire at Hamilton, Ontario, releasing
cancer causing PAH, necessitating evacuation, loss of property, etc. Such
are the costs of the unaccounted reactions to "cheap goods" that never
appear, or are calculated in economic reports.
>
>Here the question is not whether we should go back to horses and buggies,
but a correct accounting and reporting system measuring the costs of the
actions and also of the reactions, which are not done under today's methods,
so that the public would know what goes on, instead of being buried under
propaganda.
>
>3. "Free trade" or "free enterprise" are impossible concepts, unless we
accept the superiority of one sector to rule and exploit, which is against
democracy.
>In a democratic society decisions should not be made and people's health
and property should not be endangered for the benefit of any sector. If any
sector is permitted by law to rule over and exploit others, we have no
democracy.
>
>4. Both the idiot Siamese twins, called Capitalism and Communism claim to
be democracies, but neither can survive without self appointed, unelected
sectors holding the reins of power over life and property through terror and
trickery.. Whether it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (an idiocy in
itself, because a proletar may become a dictator, but a dictator is no
longer a proletar but a lord and ruler), or of the so called "market system"
they pursue similar ideologies and process:
>
>a. Internationalization of labour and resources under a non owner,
overlapping, ideologically pure managerial sector, controlled by self
appointed Boards of directors. Under communism these directors earn their
jobs through vicious infighting, including fraternicide and assasinations
and the disenfranchisement of peoples under their rule, resulting in
ecological disasters and destitution for millions, while the directors live
like kings.
>
>(Note: The Marxist hymn is the "Internationale" the capitalist one is
"Globalization". There' no difference between the concept)
>
>b. Under the capitalist system the directors earn their jobs through proven
talents for vicious infighting, and disenfranchisement resulting in
fraternicide and in ecological disasters and destitution for millions, while
the directors live like kings. From the practical, factual angle capitalism
is a somewhat gilded communism.
>
>c. Both capitalist and communist systems are built on the concentration of
control in the hands of non-elected cadres, the elimination of self
sustenance and the creation of dependancy to the ruling system through
specialization, propaganda, the creation of incompetence, the loss of
individual life skills, etc. I shall return to this later.
>
>2. The purpose of every empire of colonial system of history was free
trade, to exploit the resources of others for the benefit of a ruling class.
They all collapsed, because the concept of trade must rest on ecological
balance and equality, which Adam Smith has also discovered, but his
followers keep hidden.
>Trade without democratic rights and strong public control becomes fraud and
legalized robbery, as we can see in our daily lives.
>
>A colonial power can not be a democracy. There can not be balanced or
democratic colonial systems. If we accept the concept of democracy and the
same rights and privileges for all, we can no longer exploit others either
through weapons, psychological weapons, or fiduciary capital. If it is wrong
to take lives and properties of individuals of societies by weapons, it is
also wrong to take it through the perceived power of money.
>
>If equality under constitutions and laws protects us from the expropriation
of property and life through violence, it must also include the
psychological violence of perceived might and power. Therefore
disenfranchisement by monetary power is immoral and illegal, which makes
free trade and MAI, by any logic, legalized crime .
>
>Any arguments? If yes, I would love to hear them after all parts are posted.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>This is all for now. Don't miss the next exciting installment on how the
Canada/USA Free Trade Agreement was "sold" to and forced on Canada through
deceit and the use of psychological warfare tactics.
>
>All the very best, Ed. (Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC. Canada)
>
--
For MAI-not subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see http://www.flora.org/mai-not/