"Wage Slavery"
DickEastman
grade teacher voiced concern that the U.S.
would loose its "self-sufficiency."
The establishmentazzi mouthpieces heap
ridicule on Pat Buchanan as he points out
1) that our industrial capital (i.e., the new
factories, machines, technologies, equipment,
hardware) has exited (thanks to the mobility of
capital which establishmentazzi-owned legislatures
and Presidents have imposed on our economic system
over the last 50 or so years)--and the standard of
living of workers depends on the amount of industrial
capital that is "wrapped around" each worker (by
increasing the marginal productivity of labor;)
2) That the Fed's tight money supply (i.e., reducing
the amount of checking-account money and currency in
circulation (euphemistically called "inflation fighting"
and "ratcheting up interest rates") has forced millions
of families into debt, farmers off their farms,
middle-class businesses into bankruptcy, and billions of
once middle-class wealth and assets into the hands of
establishmentazzi masters of the global plantation.
So the middle-class is left in burger-flipping jobs
(the "service economy" ((actually "servant economy")).
And Yesterday, Labor Day in the U.S., the establishmentazzi's
lead paper mouthpiece, The New York TImes ran this front page
headline:
FOREIGN WORKERS
AT HIGHEST LEVEL
IN SEVEN DECADES
____
12 PERCENT OF JOB FORCE
___
Increase in Immigrants Helps
Companies Grow but Holds Down
Pay of Unskilled
(unquote)
But almost everyone is unskilled
in the servant economy. (I have
two master's degrees but am counted
as unskilled because, at age 51, I
am a clerk at Blockbuster Video --
the victim of my own integrity
I have the "uppityness" to add.
The new figures of the Bureau of Labor
and Statistics indicate a 15.7 million
increase in the number of immigrant workers,
17 percent more than three years before.
The NY Times quotes establishmentazzi
servitor, Demetrios Papademetriou,
co-director of international migration
policy (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) at the Carnegie
Endowment (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) saying:
"Immigrants are now a critical part
of the labor force across the board.
We are into a new world of immigrants
basically spreading throughout the
economy. This is something that is
going to continue and intensify."
Notice that it is Carnegie Endowment
International Migration POLICY, and
NOT merely Carnegie Endowment International
Migration Analysis and Forecast.
Do you remember voting Demetrio Papademetriou
to take over immigration policy for the U.S.
Did you ever hear of Demetrio Papademetriou
before you opened this post?
The Carnegie Foundation by the way, in 1985,
acquired from the Soviet Union, as reported
in the back pages of the NY Times of that
day, the design for the Soviet Education
System (remember the Soviet Union was still
a totalitarian dictatorship in the brainwashing
business) for the making of docile citizens
who will go along with the system and keep their
mouths shut. (For example, the teacher's "mentors"
who sit in on her classes and report on her to higher
education officials, are performing the function of
communist party faculty monitors of the Soviet system.)
(Note: If Carnegie, or Bush or Gore, wanted academic
excellence they could have imitated the Japanese system,
and merely allowed more local control and allowed people
with Ph.D.s in Science, Math, English, Government etc.
to teach those courses--you know, the guys now driving the
taxi cabs) without the utterly useless (for
education) "PC" indoctrinations (and "PC" is merely
subservience to the political fashions of the billionaires,
the CEO's, the investment banking interests.)
I have two masters degrees, both in scientific fields,
and lots of credits toward a master's degree from a leading
university) -- yet in Yakima biology is taught by women
who moved over from the teaching of Phys. Ed. -- because
they have the necessary and sufficient degree in "education"
and the union card.
The establishmentazzi wants you to be the dumbed-down, docile,
and doomed suckers that too many of you actually have become.
Some merely read my posts as an autistic exercise -- and write
me criticizing my style, my attitude --as if I have anything
to do with the python squeezing his life away.
And as the billionaires pool their resources, network their
systems, and draw on all the smart people who will prostitute
their minds and betray their mothers (and fathers, brothers,
sisters, children, friends, neighbors, strangers--everyone)
to force their will to power and universal self-aggrandizement
on us all -- be warned that you only see the tip of the
controlling ice-berg, only a few facets of the grand scam.
Those immigrants who are twelve percent of the workforce,
have their secret counterpart in some Carnegie-or-other
co-director of international VOTING policy" hidden
somewhere, with 12 percent of the vote "brought in"
in the same way 12 percent of workers are foreign.
Finally remember this. The body of all humanity is best
organized into cells called nations--which trade among
themselves in a natural ecology/economy and realize all
of the gains of trade from comparative advantage that
David Ricardo and other economists have discovered.
But this is not the "free trade" of the establishmentazzi,
that Buchanan, Livingstone, Nader, Chomsky, economist Daly
and others are blowing whistles on. Establishmentazzi
"free-trade" is the old-world system of exploitation that
the American Revolution was the first to successfully resist.
(Even as the "Establishment" finally won out over the ideology
of the Founding Fathers (Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Calhoun,
Madison, Bryan, Lincoln--who all would agree on the "fundamentals'
in opposition to the "establishmentazzi" system of global investment
banking, currency manipulation, open boarders etc.) Again, the
right way for civilization to be organized is for cells to each
do their part in relation to their location on the earth, with people
within the cell all focused on the smooth working of that cell and
the proper and properly regulated interaction of that cell with the
other cells. But what are the establishmentazzi but a virus to the
body of humanity on earth. They invade across cell walls, take over
the vital workings, capture essential cell material critical to
proper "internal workings--remove them from the cell, ignoring the
cell wall. This is the function of a virus. This is a killer.
And, yes, the virus benefits, even as the host organism--the human
race around the world. This analogy is more than rhetoric, it is
a true fractal pattern, true at two different scales.
Now, ask yourself. Is this analysis right or wrong?
If you think it is probably right, do you have a plan
of action or are you open to suggestions.
If you are open to suggestions, will you entertain this
suggestion:
Forget who has a chance and who does not in the next election.
Forget, "We need Gore to beat Bush" and "We need Bush to
beat Gore." (Both Gore and Bush are hand puppets scaring
child-minds into one or two desired slaughter pens, the
GOP and the Democratic Party.)
Rather, put all you have into the cause and the fight of
the angry opposition--remembering, the Biblical injunction:
"be angry and sin not"-- so be angry--angry enough to break
the chains of habit and comfort--and support
Pat Buchanan (US)
Noam Chomsky (idea man, not running)
Ken Livingstone (UK)
Ralph Nader (US)
Taxpayer Party (I forget his name, good man though, read his book)
But not Harry Browne (laissez-faire for the super rich only;
Libertarians are not what they were in
the days of Hayek and Rothbard)
Our brains and our money to resist are running out. In fact
the odds are already....not good. All you can do is trust
that the truth/freedom/humanitarianism/intelligence have
advantages that none of us knows everything about--advantages
that the Great Supreme over/behind this Universe of Physics
may bless.
(Note: I favor the immigrants too. The U.S. would not have
these Mexican farmers/family men swarming into this country
if the Establishmentazzi (including the 18 Mexican-billionaire
affiliate families) had not financially plundered Mexico.
Fox already has come to Wall Street and received his orders,
more of the same, more bleeding of the patient to "cure" him,
more establishmentazzi "virus." Economist Daly has shown how
the "new-coolies in China, Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil
etc. are the super victims, even more so than in the former
middle-class societies. ((There is no need to be grateful
for this relative advantage in misery distribution!)) )
Dick Eastman
Yakima
U.S.A.
Every man is responsible to every other man.
If you are open
>
DickEastman
The great lie of free trade is that either global humanity must
accept the establishmentazzi global plantation or else we must
forego all benefits that Ricardo first identified in terms of
gains of trade from specialization/division of labor based on
comparative advantage.
"Sober up , Sir! A brute is molesting your children behind the
tavern!"
The postings to this thread enjoin discussants to jump the ruts of
established discussion categories, the inappropraite economic models
and the rampant misapplication of those models.
We are being overrun intellectually by world-scale mega scam
artists because this undeclared an enemy has also tampered
with our educations and the content of our (their) media
news -- so that we fail to see the fast hands rifling our
pockets.
At any rate, we must wake up to the fact that
international trade "delivers the goods"
in the salutary way way David Ricardo describes ONLY WHEN
RICARDO'S CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE MET, i.e., the assumptions
of the immobility of industrial capital and of labor, so that
when savings and profits are realized in a country they go to
investment projects within that country alone and not elsewhere.
(By the way, in 1890 the City was raking in 90 percent of
Britain's total income from foreign sources, while the sale of
British manufactured goods and services earned/realized merely
the remaining 10 percent. This is the "good old days,"
the establishmentazzi wants to recoup for themselves--this
time, on an "entire-earth" scale, i.e., the Global Plantation.)
Whenever Establishment-trained economists--and who else is
allowed to hang an economist's shingle these days?--peek over
the walls of their conventional-analysis thought ruts,
they discover that the establishmentazzi apologists advocating
the grotesquely corrupted conception of globalist 'free trade'
with national boundaries perfectly permeable to capital flows
(i.e., of totally deregulated international commerce) are totally
and exactly wrong to appeal to "Ricardian analysis" to defend their
policy--since what they advocate exactly undercuts the systemic
constraint (against capital export) that ensures the Ricardo's "mutual
gains" from free markets (no or low tariffs) in goods and services.
John Maynard Keynes--who would not like modern global finance
at all--always used the the term "free trade" in the sense in
which Ricardo understood it--i.e. freedom to trade goods and
services across national boundaries, but UNDER THE NECESSARY
RICARDIAN ASSUMPTIONS OF IMMOBILE CAPITAL AND LABOR.
With that understanding we see it is wrong for the world-class
plutocracy to appeal to this passage of Keynes to support their
monopolization of nations' capital and absconding with the
same to leverage takeovers and monopolization elsewhere in the
world:
Lord Keynes:
"We must hold to free trade, in its widest interpretation, as an
inflexible dogma, to which no exception is admitted, wherever
the decision rests with us. We must hold to this even where we
receive no reciprocity of treatment and even in those rare cases
by infringing it we could obtain a direct economic advantage. We
should hold to free trade as a principle of international morals,
and not merely as a doctrine of economic advantage" (unquote)
He is talking about barriers (tariffs, import restrictions) to the
market flow of goods and services, he is not talking about George-
Seros style currency manipulation and Chase Manhattan globalist
finance.
Lord Keynes:
again:
łI sympathize, therefore, with those who would
minimize rather than those who would maximize,
economic entanglement between nations. Ideas,
knowledge, art, hospitality, travel--these are things
which should of their nature be international. But let
goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and
conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be
primarily national.˛ (unquote)
So when Keynes says:
> "If there is one thing that protectionism cannot do, it is
> to cure unemployment...There are some arguments for protection,
> based on its securing possible but improbable advantages, to
> which there is no simple answer. But the claim to cure
> unemployment involves the protectionist fallacy in its grossest
> and crudest form ... The proposal to cure the present unemployment
> by a tariff on manufactured goods ... is a gigantic fraud"
We see clearly that he is not taking about sending people's savings
and locally earned profits overseas, rather he is talking about the
flow of "manufactured goods." He is talking about protective tariffs,
on goods and services produced, not expatriated capital seeking corrupt
governments and economies that do not internalize their costs of production.
And note how this passage clearly implies that a nation's manufacturing
(which, in the U.S. has been drained away to China, Mexico etc.) is
important in terms of unemployment, standard of living etc.
And those familiar with the economic history of the U.S. will note
that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton held views very close to
these of Keynes. Which brings us to Pat Buchanan and the economist
Buchanan has read very closely, Herman Daly.
Pat Buchanan favors the protective tariff precisely for those
reasons Keynes admits of above, viz., those "securing possible
but improbable advantages, to which there is no simple answer."
Keynes wrote that before Herman Daly was born. Today the
analysis of those advantages has been made and the answer is
as simple as reading Daly's book.
Herman Daly, formerly senior economist of the World Bank's
Environment Department and now at the University of Maryland,
that when capital is mobile across national lines it will follow
absolute advantage, i.e., head right for China-Burma slave-like
labor and official corruption that winks at environmental and
social despoliation--rather than looking only at comparative
advantage within the country where the capital was generated,
with the result that one or more countries may end up producing
nothing (or taking in each others laundry and flipping burgers,
or offering "customer service" at the big Wal Mart China-goods
outlets (Wal Mart is based in Arkansas, by the way, and it was
defended in the courts by Maoist Black-Panther-defending radical
lawyer, now after the big money, Hilary Clinton) while other
other countries (Asian countries at the moment) end up producing
everything if they have lower absolute costs,
the very result Ricardo's capital immobility and labor immobility
assumptions were posited by Ricardo to prevent.
Fine point: We are talking about capital flows, not currency
flows. Currency markets will be more passive and appropriate
when capital assets stay at home through regulation of credit
buying of a nations capital or corporations "going transnational"
and skipping off in flagrant disregard with the tacit Ricardian
social assumption that the corporation was tied to the polity in
a "what's-good-for-General-Motors-is-good-for-the-U.S.A. understanding.
We are talking about an American corporation closing up shop and
heading overseas to build its next generation of factories--a
development already far too far along.
> If we want to buy more foreign goods, from where shall we
> get the foreign currency with which to pay if the respective
> governments have placed binding constraints on the flow of
> foreign exchange?
Ideally within a trading period imported goods and services
will be paid for with exported goods and
services. To smooth transactions there are commercial and
import-export loans, bankers acceptances ( time drafts of
bills of exchange consigned by a bank that promise to pay
a specified amount at a specified time period), outstanding
Eurodollars and even swapping of various derivatives instruments
are media to smooth and "carry over" foreign trade in goods and
services. But this ideal takes regulation that does not exist,
either because it has been withdrawn by establishmentazzi-lobbied
legislation or presidential executive order or because the new
high-powered wide-transactions media were developed and elaborated
without regulation ever catching up to them. (The establishmentazzi,
unlike the "less deserving" function in an environment of total
laissez-faire. ((What special favors might a billionaire might
buy if turned loose in your local community?)
Under capital constraints U.S. corporations would be
"constrained" in their use of capital abroad. U.S.
financial institutions would be limited in kinds of
loans they could make to foreigners.
There would be no constraint on dollar flows. There
would be normal shifts in demand and supply in the
currency markets as a result of these changes in
institutional and behavior. (Big private fat cats
could certainly invest their own money as they choose,
but not the savings and pension funds of "the people"
(for you, Lefty) or the "middle class" (for you, Righty).
As above, restrictions on capital mobility are not restrictions
on foreign exchange transactions. Again, restrictions on the flow
of capital goods and industrial capital investments are
not currency controls.
The problem of global capital flight is worldwide.
Buchanan-Daly-Keynes protectionism would address the problem
insofar as the factories in China are being constructed
with American capital for the purpose of selling the output to
the American market. The tariffs will make this a lest profitable
course to follow, and the tariff revenues will recoup some of the
heavy losses the domestic American economy, infrastructure, and
households have are suffering.
As Daly and J.B. Cobb explain in their book, For the Common Good,
(New York: Beacon Press, 1989), (also see Scientific American,
November 1993, "Can the Environment Survive Free Trade"),
nations can use tariffs to internalize the the costs
(negative externalities) created by unrestricted
expatriation of domestic investment capital.
"The most practical solution is to permit nations that
internalize costs to level compensating tariffs on trade
with nations that do not. "Protectionism"--shielding an
inefficient industry against more efficient foreign
competitors is a dirty word among economists. that is
very different, however, from protecting an efficient
national policy of full-cost pricing from
standards-lowering international competition
"Such tariffs are not without precedent. Free traders
generally praise the fairness of "anti-dumping" tariffs
that discourage countries from trading in goods at prices
below their production costs. The only real difference
is to include the costs of environmental damage and
community welfare in that reckoning.
By the way you can obtain the Scientific American
article, "The Perils of Free Trade; Economists Routinely
Ignore Its Hidden Costs to the Environment and the
Community," by Herman E. Daly, pp. 50-57, from
by clicking their "archives" locating the article and paying
$5.00 to download the text. (I found the article in archives
by searching the 2000 -1993 archives for articles with text
including the term "comparative advantage,, it was the
fifth or sixth article that came up.
Here is an excerpt:
"In light of the growth versus development distinction,
let us return to the issue of international trade and consider
two questions: What is the likely effect of free trade on
growth? What is the likely effect of free trade on development?
"Free trade is likely to stimulate the growth of throughput.
It allows a country in effect to exceed its domestic regenerative
limits by "importing" those capacities from other countries.
True, a country exporting some of its carrying capacity in
return for imported products might have increased its throughput
even more if it had made those products domestically. Overall,
nevertheless, trade does postpone the day when countries must
face up to living within their natural regenerative capacities.
That some countries still have excess carrying capacity is
more indicative of a shortfall in their desired domestic
growth than of any conscious decision to reserve that capacity
for export.
"By spatially separating the costs and benefits of
environmental exploitation, international trade makes them
harder to compare. It thereby increases the tendency
for economies to overshoot their optimal scale.
Furthermore, it forces countries to face tightening
environmental constraints more simultaneously and less
sequentially than would otherwise be the case. They
have less opportunity to learn from one another's
experiences with controlling throughput and less control
over their local environment.
"The standard arguments for free trade based on
comparative advantage also depend on static promotions
of efficiency. In other words, free trade in toxic
waste promotes static efficiency by allowing the
disposal of waste wherever it costs less according
to today's prices and technologies. A more dynamic
efficiency would be served by outlawing the export
of toxins. That step would internalize the disposal
costs of toxins to their place of origin--to both
the firm that generated them and the nation under
whose laws the firm operated. This policy
creates an incentive to find technically superior
ways of dealing with the toxins or of redesigning
processes to avoid their production in the first
place.
"All these allocative, distributional and scale
problems stemming from free trade ought to reverse
the traditional default position favoring it.
Measures to integrate national economies further
should now be treated as a bad idea unless proved
otherwise in specific cases. As Ronald Friendly
of Columbia University characterized it, comparative
advantage may be the 'deepest and most beautiful
result in all of economics.' Nevertheless, in a
full world of internationally mobile capital, our
adherence to it for policy direction is a recipe
for national disintegration."
So forget the bi-partisan Republican-Democrat
plutocratic dictatorship run from Wall Street
and the bi-partisan Tory-Labor dictatorship
run from The City.
Hold out for a hero. Hold out for Pat Buchanan.
Hold out for Ken Livingstone. The old parties
and their ideals are dead, and monsters are
wearing their flayed skins.
The longer you wait to come to a conclusion
the smaller are the chances of breaking free.
And a brute is molesting your children in the ally.
Dick Eastman
Yakima
U.S.A.
Every man is responsible to every other man.
P.S.: There is also an argument for some protectionism
for strategic production for national defense--I said
national defense, NOT international constabulary and
neo-Hession hit-man service for the our deviant financial
elites. Pat Buchanan favors protection in these cases
as well--although the defense he wants to protect is the
defense of a cultivate-your-own-garden mind-your-own
business, happy to trade or products and buy better
products (e.g., Japanese robots, TVąs etc. pre-1988.)