Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
the creator of the crank theory free trade, advocated for the starvation of workers: The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap: For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can main
18 views
Skip to first unread message
nickname unavailable
Sep 23, 2016, 1:07:26 PM9/23/16
to
the creator of the crank theory free trade, advocated for the starvation of workers: The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap: For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal.
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
William R. Hawkins
Sunday, July 18, 2004
On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation, American manufacturing exports, which dropped by $131.6 billion (19.1 percent).
The combined effect of higher imports and lower exports was a trade deficit in manufactured goods that was a staggering $469.5 billion in 2003. Only someone completely blinded by ivory tower theory could fail to see how such a swing could harm the U.S. economy. But then what can be expected from someone who has argued that the true value of the World Trade Organization is not that it opens overseas markets to American exports (that support American jobs), but that it keeps the U.S. market open to foreign producers (who employ foreign workers).
More and more, defenders of the trade deficit are citing how cheap imports benefit consumers since they have clearly lost the argument about jobs. This is not, however, a new argument. Indeed, it goes back to the very first debates over trade policy in the 19th century. It was then called the cheap bread argument because bread was literally the main staple in working-class diets. The basic claim was that cheap imported grain was a substitute for higher wages, but the setting of the argument was even more ominous.
David Ricardo (1772-1823), an English banker and member of Parliament, is best known for the economic theory of comparative advantage in international trade. But he also authored the iron law of wages theory in 1817, which held that wages naturally tended towards a minimum level corresponding to the subsistence needs of the workers. The power of the labourer to support himself, and the family which may be necessary to keep up the number of labourers, does not depend on the quantity of money which he may receive for wages, but on the quantity of food, necessaries, and conveniences become essential to him from habit, which that money will purchase. The natural price of labour, therefore, depends on the price of the food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the labourer and his family. With a rise in the price of food and necessaries, the natural price of labour will rise; with the fall in their price, the natural price of labour will fall.
In other words, workers need a certain amount of consumer goods to survive and raise the next generation of workers. They cannot expect to earn more than this subsistence level. It is in the interest of employers to keep the cost of living down, so that wages can also be kept low. As Ricardo noted, A rise of wages, from the circumstance of the labourer being more liberally rewarded, or from a difficulty of procuring the necessaries on which wages are expended, does not, except in some instances, produce the effect of raising price, but has a great effect in lowering profits.
The value of trade then is not to the worker, who cannot expect his living standards to rise above their natural low level, but to the employer and factory owner who make a profit from the difference between what is paid in wages and what is earned from the sale of products. There was no notion in Ricardo that workers would increase their real wages as their productivity increased. They would earn their keep but nothing more. Increased productivity was the result of capital investment in new technology, and the higher profits would go to the owners of these improved means of production. This is very much what has been seen today, as productivity and profits have been soaring, but real wages have been stagnant at best and falling in many industries.
In is thus not surprising that the first great free trade movement in England was that of the Anti-Corn Law League led by firebrand Richard Cobden in the decades following Ricardo s iron law of wages. The Corn Laws created a system of protectionism for British farmers. The Anti-Corn Law argument was that food prices would be lower if England opened itself up to foreign grain imports. And if food prices dropped, so could wages and British industry would be more competitive.
There were other arguments made as well. For example, it was said that foreigners needed to sell agricultural goods in England to earn the money needed to buy British manufactured goods. A modern version of this argument is now being used in support of the campaign to cut U.S. farm support programs and open the American market for agricultural imports from Latin America and elsewhere. The problem with the argument today is that the United States is already running a trade deficit that provides foreigners with more than enough money to buy American goods – they just are not buying.
The view that workers were merely a factor of production, just another commodity, with no more chance of improving their condition than does a ton of pig iron or a pair of boots, was a major factor in the rise of anti-capitalist movements of which Marxist socialism became the leading doctrine. The socialists did not add anything new to economic theory. They accepted the dismal science of classical economics, but rejected as unacceptable its consequences.
Ricardo held that like all other contracts, wages should be left to the fair and free competition of the market, and should never be controlled by the interference of the legislature. But it was this very interference that allowed the United States to escape the Ricardian trap. The great success story of America is the transformation of the working class into the middle class. Trade protectionism kept the demand for labor higher and the supply of labor lower than the natural order favored by the classical economists. The result was higher real incomes, as the creation of a mass market of affluent workers supported the advancement of industrial science and growing productivity. Unions and professionals were able to bargain for their share of the higher profits. America became the envy of the world. Higher incomes are always preferable to lower prices because they impart more control to the wage-earner over how his money will be spent, or saved.
Now, the return to prominence of classical theory in the service of transnational corporations has branded the achievements of American society as commercial liabilities, harming the competitiveness of American industry in the face of underdeveloped societies where Ricardo s iron law still rules and workers receive the barest subsistence. Ricardo is very clear about what happens when the number of labourers is increased, wages again fall to their natural price, and indeed from a reaction sometimes fall below it. When the market price of labour is below its natural price, the condition of the labourers is most wretched: then poverty deprives them of those comforts which custom renders absolute necessaries. It is only after their privations have reduced their number, or the demand for labour has increased, that the market price of labour will rise to its natural price, and that the labourer will have the moderate comforts which the natural rate of wages will afford.
For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal. Today, the increase in the labor supply in the United States is not from domestic overpopulation, but from the mass surge of foreign populations into the global labor pool. The way to restore a favorable balance for the American middle class employee is to cut the foreign workers out of the U.S. market. Nations progress by improving their own means of production and boosting incomes, not from the consumption of cheap imported goods that boosts production somewhere else.
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
William R. Hawkins
Sunday, July 18, 2004
On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation, American manufacturing exports, which dropped by $131.6 billion (19.1 percent).
The combined effect of higher imports and lower exports was a trade deficit in manufactured goods that was a staggering $469.5 billion in 2003. Only someone completely blinded by ivory tower theory could fail to see how such a swing could harm the U.S. economy. But then what can be expected from someone who has argued that the true value of the World Trade Organization is not that it opens overseas markets to American exports (that support American jobs), but that it keeps the U.S. market open to foreign producers (who employ foreign workers).
More and more, defenders of the trade deficit are citing how cheap imports benefit consumers since they have clearly lost the argument about jobs. This is not, however, a new argument. Indeed, it goes back to the very first debates over trade policy in the 19th century. It was then called the cheap bread argument because bread was literally the main staple in working-class diets. The basic claim was that cheap imported grain was a substitute for higher wages, but the setting of the argument was even more ominous.
David Ricardo (1772-1823), an English banker and member of Parliament, is best known for the economic theory of comparative advantage in international trade. But he also authored the iron law of wages theory in 1817, which held that wages naturally tended towards a minimum level corresponding to the subsistence needs of the workers. The power of the labourer to support himself, and the family which may be necessary to keep up the number of labourers, does not depend on the quantity of money which he may receive for wages, but on the quantity of food, necessaries, and conveniences become essential to him from habit, which that money will purchase. The natural price of labour, therefore, depends on the price of the food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the labourer and his family. With a rise in the price of food and necessaries, the natural price of labour will rise; with the fall in their price, the natural price of labour will fall.
In other words, workers need a certain amount of consumer goods to survive and raise the next generation of workers. They cannot expect to earn more than this subsistence level. It is in the interest of employers to keep the cost of living down, so that wages can also be kept low. As Ricardo noted, A rise of wages, from the circumstance of the labourer being more liberally rewarded, or from a difficulty of procuring the necessaries on which wages are expended, does not, except in some instances, produce the effect of raising price, but has a great effect in lowering profits.
The value of trade then is not to the worker, who cannot expect his living standards to rise above their natural low level, but to the employer and factory owner who make a profit from the difference between what is paid in wages and what is earned from the sale of products. There was no notion in Ricardo that workers would increase their real wages as their productivity increased. They would earn their keep but nothing more. Increased productivity was the result of capital investment in new technology, and the higher profits would go to the owners of these improved means of production. This is very much what has been seen today, as productivity and profits have been soaring, but real wages have been stagnant at best and falling in many industries.
In is thus not surprising that the first great free trade movement in England was that of the Anti-Corn Law League led by firebrand Richard Cobden in the decades following Ricardo s iron law of wages. The Corn Laws created a system of protectionism for British farmers. The Anti-Corn Law argument was that food prices would be lower if England opened itself up to foreign grain imports. And if food prices dropped, so could wages and British industry would be more competitive.
There were other arguments made as well. For example, it was said that foreigners needed to sell agricultural goods in England to earn the money needed to buy British manufactured goods. A modern version of this argument is now being used in support of the campaign to cut U.S. farm support programs and open the American market for agricultural imports from Latin America and elsewhere. The problem with the argument today is that the United States is already running a trade deficit that provides foreigners with more than enough money to buy American goods – they just are not buying.
The view that workers were merely a factor of production, just another commodity, with no more chance of improving their condition than does a ton of pig iron or a pair of boots, was a major factor in the rise of anti-capitalist movements of which Marxist socialism became the leading doctrine. The socialists did not add anything new to economic theory. They accepted the dismal science of classical economics, but rejected as unacceptable its consequences.
Ricardo held that like all other contracts, wages should be left to the fair and free competition of the market, and should never be controlled by the interference of the legislature. But it was this very interference that allowed the United States to escape the Ricardian trap. The great success story of America is the transformation of the working class into the middle class. Trade protectionism kept the demand for labor higher and the supply of labor lower than the natural order favored by the classical economists. The result was higher real incomes, as the creation of a mass market of affluent workers supported the advancement of industrial science and growing productivity. Unions and professionals were able to bargain for their share of the higher profits. America became the envy of the world. Higher incomes are always preferable to lower prices because they impart more control to the wage-earner over how his money will be spent, or saved.
Now, the return to prominence of classical theory in the service of transnational corporations has branded the achievements of American society as commercial liabilities, harming the competitiveness of American industry in the face of underdeveloped societies where Ricardo s iron law still rules and workers receive the barest subsistence. Ricardo is very clear about what happens when the number of labourers is increased, wages again fall to their natural price, and indeed from a reaction sometimes fall below it. When the market price of labour is below its natural price, the condition of the labourers is most wretched: then poverty deprives them of those comforts which custom renders absolute necessaries. It is only after their privations have reduced their number, or the demand for labour has increased, that the market price of labour will rise to its natural price, and that the labourer will have the moderate comforts which the natural rate of wages will afford.
For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal. Today, the increase in the labor supply in the United States is not from domestic overpopulation, but from the mass surge of foreign populations into the global labor pool. The way to restore a favorable balance for the American middle class employee is to cut the foreign workers out of the U.S. market. Nations progress by improving their own means of production and boosting incomes, not from the consumption of cheap imported goods that boosts production somewhere else.
Bret Cahill
Sep 23, 2016, 2:04:19 PM9/23/16
to
> the creator of the crank theory free trade, advocated for the starvation of workers: The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap: For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal.
> http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
> The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
> William R. Hawkins
> Sunday, July 18, 2004
>
> On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
>
> Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation,
"Merely" omitting vital information is the chief weapon the rich deploy against the poor. It's a very passive kind of lie.
> http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
> The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
> William R. Hawkins
> Sunday, July 18, 2004
>
> On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
>
> Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation,
The legacy media do this all the time.
If the poor aren't pro active they'll starve.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Sep 23, 2016, 2:07:57 PM9/23/16
to
Economics is the happy science. Just pop shill fanny and the treats will fall out.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
nickname unavailable
Sep 23, 2016, 4:38:43 PM9/23/16
to
in my opinion, it led to the deregulation of the media. we can't have people inside government, blowing the whistle on what a bill clinton type was doing.
>
> Bret Cahill
nickname unavailable
Sep 23, 2016, 4:42:07 PM9/23/16
to
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 1:07:57 PM UTC-5, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Economics is the happy science. Just pop shill fanny and the treats will fall out.
>
dean baker has a answer for this, open up the economy to professionals. it will wipe out whats left of the democratic base. trump is wiping out the other part.
> Economics is the happy science. Just pop shill fanny and the treats will fall out.
>
once the crack pots in harvard etc., that tells us its the robots when productivity is falling, are exposed to the real world, we will enjoy seeing them gasp.
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Sep 23, 2016, 8:45:38 PM9/23/16
to
> > > the creator of the crank theory free trade, advocated for the starvation of workers: The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap: For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal.
> >
> > > http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
> >
> > > The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
> > > William R. Hawkins
> > > Sunday, July 18, 2004
> > >
> > > On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
> > >
> > > Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation,
> >
> > "Merely" omitting vital information is the chief weapon the rich deploy against the poor. It's a very passive kind of lie.
> >
> > The legacy media do this all the time.
> >
> > If the poor aren't pro active they'll starve.
> >
>
>
> but the vital information was not omitted. many real economist, historical and legal scholars came out publicly against what bill clinton was doing. many were making the rounds on talk shows and on PBS,
It didn't get past all the culture war hype, down to the working class voter.
> >
> > > http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
> >
> > > The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
> > > William R. Hawkins
> > > Sunday, July 18, 2004
> > >
> > > On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
> > >
> > > Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation,
> >
> > "Merely" omitting vital information is the chief weapon the rich deploy against the poor. It's a very passive kind of lie.
> >
> > The legacy media do this all the time.
> >
> > If the poor aren't pro active they'll starve.
> >
>
>
> but the vital information was not omitted. many real economist, historical and legal scholars came out publicly against what bill clinton was doing. many were making the rounds on talk shows and on PBS,
So even if Bill is evil incarnate you won't be able to do anything until you can get the economic issues past Anderson which is exactly why he's jerry springering gun control.
nickname unavailable
Sep 23, 2016, 9:45:10 PM9/23/16
to
Bret Cahill
Sep 23, 2016, 10:08:29 PM9/23/16
to
Bret Cahill
nickname unavailable
Sep 24, 2016, 1:49:24 AM9/24/16
to
if trump wins, thanks bill.
>
> Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Sep 24, 2016, 5:17:50 AM9/24/16
to
Even if the race to the bottom wasn't almost all traceable to 0.1% media, exposing the scams of the legacy media is the first if not only step.
You simply cannot do anything until the public understands that the media are misleading the public on everything.
Obama always understood a lot of people would be trying to use him. Only the past year or so did he figure out how and how much they were using him.
But what can he do about it now?
Act embarrassed about being played like a Vegas poker chip?
You may be confusing your attempts to vilify politicians with exposing 0.1% media scams.
The former doesn't result in progress, certainly not now or by itself.
Bret Cahill
nickname unavailable
Sep 24, 2016, 12:33:59 PM9/24/16
to
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:17:50 AM UTC-5, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > > > > > the creator of the crank theory free trade, advocated for the starvation of workers: The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap: For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
> > > > > > > > William R. Hawkins
> > > > > > > > Sunday, July 18, 2004
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Merely" omitting vital information is the chief weapon the rich deploy against the poor. It's a very passive kind of lie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The legacy media do this all the time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the poor aren't pro active they'll starve.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but the vital information was not omitted. many real economist, historical and legal scholars came out publicly against what bill clinton was doing. many were making the rounds on talk shows and on PBS,
> > > > >
> > > > > It didn't get past all the culture war hype, down to the working class voter.
> > > > >
> > > > > So even if Bill is evil incarnate you won't be able to do anything until you can get the economic issues past Anderson which is exactly why he's jerry springering gun control.
> > > >
> > > > it never gets to the great unwashed, till it becomes intolerable, then they pay attention.
> > >
> > > To the wrong person, i.e., the Germans in the 1930s.
> > >
> >
> >
> > and that is what i, and many smarter people than i, including insiders were trying to pound into the corrupt bil clintons head.
> > if trump wins, thanks bill.
>
> And Obama can thank W. Bush's quagmires and meltdowns.
>
bill clinton could have ended iraq, but he and his war criminal secretary of state, were neo-cons who bombed the shit out of iraq almost daily, and helped keep the area destabilized.
> > > > > > > > the creator of the crank theory free trade, advocated for the starvation of workers: The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap: For Ricardo, the reduction in number of workers is the result of mass starvation as their wages drop below what can maintain their families. People are thought to be no different than herds of any other animal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1158
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Dismal Science: Avoiding Ricardo's Trap
> > > > > > > > William R. Hawkins
> > > > > > > > Sunday, July 18, 2004
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On July 13, the trade figures for May were released and again the United States suffered a massive trade deficit in goods – $50.8 billion for the month to be exact. Though the monthly deficit was slightly less than in April, it was $5.1 billion higher than in May of last year. Since trade in services was essentially unchanged, it was trade in goods which accounted for the continuing bad economic news as American industry continues to suffer in world competition. At the current rate, the trade account is on course to reach a goods deficit of $600 billion this year, a truly alarming amount of red ink.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ideological defenders of this dark status quo have resorted to a staggering array of arguments, all of which collapse immediately upon examination. For example, Brink Lindsey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies claimed in a policy paper published in March, Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Actually, manufacturing imports were up 1.01 percent ($13.9 billion) according to the Commerce Department, and that was over a period which included a recession, when demand for imports is supposed to be reduced. Lindsey also neglected the other half of the equation,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Merely" omitting vital information is the chief weapon the rich deploy against the poor. It's a very passive kind of lie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The legacy media do this all the time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the poor aren't pro active they'll starve.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but the vital information was not omitted. many real economist, historical and legal scholars came out publicly against what bill clinton was doing. many were making the rounds on talk shows and on PBS,
> > > > >
> > > > > It didn't get past all the culture war hype, down to the working class voter.
> > > > >
> > > > > So even if Bill is evil incarnate you won't be able to do anything until you can get the economic issues past Anderson which is exactly why he's jerry springering gun control.
> > > >
> > > > it never gets to the great unwashed, till it becomes intolerable, then they pay attention.
> > >
> > > To the wrong person, i.e., the Germans in the 1930s.
> > >
> >
> >
> > and that is what i, and many smarter people than i, including insiders were trying to pound into the corrupt bil clintons head.
> > if trump wins, thanks bill.
>
> And Obama can thank W. Bush's quagmires and meltdowns.
>
then of course hillary went along with it all, and then some. hillary then set up the mess in libya, yeman, and syria. and look at all of the countries that have followed her off of the cliff. hillary makes bush look like a piker.
the economic meltdown was all bill clintons. i have repeatedly proven it. bush was a imbecile with the same beliefs. but it was bill clinton that handed him a unstable casino that was collapsing.
> Even if the race to the bottom wasn't almost all traceable to 0.1% media, exposing the scams of the legacy media is the first if not only step.
>
and right after that, hillarys support plunged with minorities, and right after that, so did the legacy medias numbers.
> You simply cannot do anything until the public understands that the media are misleading the public on everything.
>
> Obama always understood a lot of people would be trying to use him. Only the past year or so did he figure out how and how much they were using him.
>
> But what can he do about it now?
>
> Act embarrassed about being played like a Vegas poker chip?
>
> You may be confusing your attempts to vilify politicians with exposing 0.1% media scams.
>
> The former doesn't result in progress, certainly not now or by itself.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
0 new messages