THE BIG FREE TRADE CON
Pridger never ceases to be amazed at the bold-faced lies and distortions
that politicians, court economists, and policy wonks engage in to promote
and preserve the holy grail of free trade policy. The proponents of
globalism and free trade keep reminding us that we cannot turn our back on
what has made this country so economically great and strong. They speak
primarily to the under 30 generation that does not remember how great this
nation was before the advent of the "new international economic
order." As for the rest of us, they hope we've either forgotten or
have come to believe the oft-repeated propaganda line.
They are getting things exactly backwards and expecting people to believe
them (and many actually do). We turned our back on what made this nation
great when globalism became national policy. We didn't become great under
"new international economic order" policies – we became great
before that, back when Americans produced just about everything Americans
consumed. We became great under policies of reasoned trade protectionism
and at least half-way enlightened business regulation.
The spectacular national success story was that of a
great nation of free people, free to produce everything that the national
marketplace needed. Free and unhindered trade among the several states was
the "free trade" and "free market" system that made
the nation economically strong and the people prosperous. Free
international trade spells destruction of national economies, including
ours. It divorces the consumer from the producer, and capital from
domestic labor. It totally upsets the internal economic balance necessary
for broad-based prosperity.
Today's young to middle-aged population has grown up and been educated to
believe that America was actually a very socially and economically
backward nation until the blossoming of free trade and the new
international economic order. International interdependence, like multi-culturalism,
is now an accepted given – the norm of the American status quo. Even many
true conservatives have been successfully conned, and believe that
globalism actually represents the blossoming of greater economic
"freedom." Libertarians are also hooked on the supposed
transcendental truth that "free trade" is unquestionably good –
it has to be, because it has the word "free" in it!
But our so-called "free trade" agreements, for which "fast
track" has been employed, are not free trade agreements nearly as
much as they are "investment agreements," allowing (and
encouraging), American capital to go abroad, hire cheap labor, and then
produce for the American market. A perversion on the very face of it! – and the process of "fast-track" itself ought be be judged
totally unconstitutional. "Free trade" is not really about free
trade, it's about freeing up capital to exploit the world in a wholesale
manner.
Of course, unfettered trade does represent greater economic freedom for
multi-national corporations and runaway flag businesses. But it has meant
the end of national economic independence, and the betrayal of American
labor. And American labor constitutes the vast majority of the population –
"We the People" – the former owner/operators, and primary
stakeholders, of the American domestic marketplace.
We are even told that factory and job export, including all nature of job
outsourcing, is actually good for American workers and will eventually
result in the creation of more job opportunities for Americans.
Incredibly, many people apparently still actually believe this! This makes
it frustrating for those of us who have kept our eye on the ball since
long before the Reagan administration whipped the new international
economic order out on us. Old reprobates that we are, we still think that
it is more than just self-evident that we were much better off when we
were an economically and politically independent nation.
Just a few nights ago Pridger saw our own Treasury Secretary reiterating
the great con on national TV. The clinching argument to "prove"
that free trade and globalism are good for American labor was the simple
statement that (to paraphrase), "America represents only 5% of the
world's population. That means that 95% of the global market is outside of
the United States. Selling goods and services to that 95% of the world's
population is the great hope of American workers." That market
potential is supposed to be our salvation – why worry about a the loss of
our own paltry 5% share of the global market? Why worry that American jobs
are going overseas, when the 95% percent of the potential market for
"American production" is growing ripe for American exploitation?
These simple numbers represent something that all Americans can
understand, and that's why it makes such a good con. 95% of the market is
still out there for Americans to tap into!
What's wrong with that argument? First, our 5% percent of the world's
population is "us" – We the American People – and our
continental real estate, its industries and its markets ought to still be
ours too. The job of protecting that real estate, our industry, and that
market was one of the few legitimate roles of our limited, constitutional,
republican government. Second, that other 95% of the global market
"out there" is "theirs" not "ours," and we
aren't even going to come close to having a significant share of it unless
American labor is able to underbid Mexican, Chinese, Indian, and
Bangladeshi labor. Since we've already lost so much of our own market,
we'll be very lucky just to regain our own 5% share of global markets.
Our share of the global market had become the richest, most productive
pocket of economic dynamism the world had ever known. It was
"our" share of the global consumer marketplace, and when our
paltry 5% share of the global population produced for itself, the nation
was economically unassailable. We produced and consumed 30% of the global
GNP! The American economy became the economic wonder of the world.
Naturally, a lot of people didn't like that and wanted "their share
of it."
If there is ever to be any true equity in the world, it stands to reason
that, if we represent only 5% of the global population, our rightful share
of global markets will be exactly 5%. The very core goal and purpose of
globalization is to bring economic parity and the "good life" to
all of humanity. This would naturally imply that no nation should have any
more than its proportionate share of global wealth, based on population.
Our rightful share of global markets; our share of production; our share
of consumption; and our share of global resources will be 5%, as long as
5% remains our share of the global population. How is it then that because
95% of humanity lives elsewhere it represents a potential economic bonanza
to us? Answer: This is just globalist smoke – a snow job to quiet and
pacify the restless natives until they finally "wake up homeless in
the nation their fathers occupied."
Is 5% of the world's population somehow going to exploit the other 95%
after it has given up its own share of the market to the foreign
competition? Is the other 95% percent of humanity going to stand by and
let us exploit it? No! Not even the Third World is going to stand around
passively and be exploited any more. That is the very problem globalism
purports to fix in the first place! The "experts" know this, of
course. It isn't going to be the American people who intend to exploit the
world – they've already been slated to join the other 95% in fraternity
and equality. The American people are not to be allowed any material
advantage over the rest of humanity – that would defeat the whole
supposed purpose of globalism. They (that is, us Americans) must become
more competitive – and that means, in general terms, a lot less affluent.
The fact is, corporations (not people or nations), are the real entities
vying for international market share. Any laws of diminishing returns and
notions of equity and quality of life are irrelevant to corporations. They
(whatever false flag they may fly), intend to profit no matter what
pattern the distribution of global wealth may take. The real goal is for
international capital and large multi-national corporations to capture
100% of the global resources, agricultural and industrial production, and
consumer markets. That, in spite of all the wonderful rhetoric attached to
globalism, is the "real" program in a nutshell. That is what is
happening while we watch the shells of the game make their deceptive
moves.
The United States has always represented only a comparatively small
percentage of the global population. Yet the United States of America,
with its small population, by the middle of the twentieth century, had
created and was consuming almost 30% of the global GNP. Not only was it
the economic wonder of the world, but it became the most militarily
powerful nation in the world. This did not happen by accident. It happened
because we had been getting something right. But we're not getting it
right any more.
Not only did the United States "consume" 30% of the global GNP,
it was also responsible for "creating" the wealth represented by
that share of the global GNP. True, we were exploiting and consuming more
than our share of the world's natural resource production – and that was
one of the reasons the rest of the world (represented by foreign
internationalist planners), decided that America had to start sharing its
wealth more "equitably" with the rest of the world. Another
reason was that most of the rest of the world simply wasn't getting very
much right, and there was (and continues to be), a lot of economic
jealously on that account.
What America and the rest of the advanced industrial nations really needed
to do was to perfect themselves rather than commit the economic suicide
which we have been conned into thinking was the solution to the great
"North-South" disparity in wealth. Perfecting ourselves would
have meant learning to live within our means so that the rest of humanity
would be able to upgrade economically without having to consume an
impossible 600% of global GNP – the percentage amount of current GNP
which would bring the rest of the world up to U.S. and "western"
standards of affluence and consumption.
Even the term GNP (Gross National Product), as it is being comparatively
used is totally inadequate for the purposes, and thus very deceptive. The
advanced western nations (and a few others, of course), created the lion's
share of global GNP that the world is now sharing. The rest of the
undeveloped world, for various reasons, simply hadn't created a
significant share of global GNP. Thus deficient, they were merely told
that the West (or North, as the international brain trust calls it), was
"taking" more than its rightful share.
Colonialism was blamed for fact that most underdeveloped nations, even
after thirty years and more of independence, were failing to make the
grade. They were still being exploited, they were told. This, of course,
was true. But that was only a small part of the story. Many of those
nations would never have known what GNP was had they not been colonized
and exploited to begin with.
The colonial powers had developed the only real "industries"
most of them have ever had. It was colonialism that had made them
"aware" of the potential of their own natural resource wealth.
But for western colonialism and exploitation, many would have remained
just as the original European explorers found them. Whether or not that
would have made it a better world is perhaps debatable, but it is also
irrelevant at this late date.
The point I am trying to make here is that GNP is, or should be, just what
the term implies, "Gross National Product." Gross national
product is created within each nation by its own peoples. American GNP is
the product of the American economy, just as England's, Germany's, and
France's GNP are the products of their economic activities.
There are many large nations which are richly endowed with intelligent
populations and abundant natural resources, but nonetheless have not
contributed their rightful share to the global GNP. Some never suffered
western colonization. Others did. The United States of America, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand were once English colonies. But they were
special cases. Why were they special cases? What happened in
Spanish/Portuguese-America? South America is as rich in natural resources
as North America, and just as diverse in climate.
Some developing nations, such as China, were never conquered or colonized.
China is particularly noteworthy. It had an ancient and high civilization
that predates those of the west. China remained isolated and backward both
by circumstance and design, however. But now that China has decided to
modernize, it is developing at breakneck speed, and has made up for
centuries lost in two short decades. Within a few more decades China will
be capable of a GNP greater than anything the United States has ever
known.
But China has several special advantages. Not only does it have a highly
developed civilization and culture, but also a very intelligent and
energetic population. And, even more than that, it has the American market
and plenty of American money – and it has positioned itself to take
maximum advantage of it's new-found situation – a situation that was
almost thrust upon it. China's unique situation as both America's
indispensable provider and creditor has been the result of the astute
planning of the Washington Brain Trust – a "Trust" which
promises one thing while delivering something altogether different.
Most Latin American nations have enjoyed independence about as long as the
U.S. and Canada have. Yet, rather than producing large GNPs of their own,
they now want "their share" of "our" share of global
GNP. Why haven't they created their own rightful share? (These matters
will have to wait for other posts.) And what of rich, wonderful,
sub-Sahara Africa? In many African nations, the colonial period remains
the nearest thing to a "golden age" any of them have yet
experienced. And this after forty years of independence. They, too, want
"their share" of "our" share of global GNP.
Liberia, the oldest independent black republic in Africa, (and the world's
second largest merchant ship registry), is even more backward than most of
its ex-colony neighbors. Zimbabwe and the Republic of South Africa, once
the only economic success stories in sub-Sahara Africa, now also need help
badly, and their political, social, and economic fortunes continue in
precipitous decline.
Our trusty national leaders have chosen to share our wealth by
relinquishing our national marketplace to the rest of humanity and sending
what we have (our national assets: factories, our jobs, our money, etc.)
to the competition so they can successfully compete with us and upgrade to
our former economic status. The great fiction and the great con is based
on the impossible proposition that, by these means, the rest of the world
will soon enjoy the same economic standard that we have known. In the end
it will not be a sharing of wealth, but the sharing of poverty.
In return for opening our markets and sharing the wealth of Americans with the rest of the world, huge American multi-national corporations have been taking the natural resource wealth of the rest of the world.
For well over half a century, giant American multi-national corporations have been exploiting the resources of other nations on behalf of Americans' ability to engage in perpetual conspicuous consumption. Pridger remembers wondering (back in the early 1970s), what were nations like Indonesia going to do when they developed a need for their petroleum resources? American and other foreign oil companies were pumping their oil out of the ground and sending it elsewhere at breakneck speed. By the time Indonesia needs that oil, it will be mostly gone. The same will be true for most other petroleum exporting nations.
In addition to exploring, drilling, developing, and
using the natural mineral and oil resources of innumerable developing
nations (and often in exchange for the privilege), huge American
multinational corporations have been helping them to develop into
"modern," developed, nations. In the end, these developing
nations not only sell out their most valuable natural resources long
before the develop a need for them, but are literally forced into huge
debts in the exchange. Whatever industries are developed are mostly
devoted to satisfying the needs of the developed nations, and the profits
accrue to international capital interests rather than to the people. The
people get the privilege of working for foreign interests for something
maybe approaching a living wage. Local economies are destroyed, including
agriculture, which is the foundation of any viable economy.
The whole facade is so transparent that it is a wonder that the Global
Village has been pulled off. But it has, and now we're eyebrow deep into a
New World Order that negates everything that we once supposedly knew,
stood for, and benefited from as a well endowed nation state. Most of us
were too busy making a living to concern ourselves with global
geopolitics, so we left our fate in the hands of our trusty
representatives in Washington – and they have turned out to be mis-representatives.
Still, they tell us we're going up the river rather than
being sold down the river.
A great and graphic example of the perversity of globalism is readily
apparent in NAFTA. If there were anything really altruistic in NAFTA (as
is alleged), we
would not have sent American factories and jobs to Mexico so that cheaply
paid Mexican labor could produce for the American market. We would have
given Mexicans the wherewithal to create GNP for themselves – earn more
and produce for the Mexican market. This would have given Mexican
manufacturers the incentives to raise Mexican wages so that they would be
able to purchase and enjoy the fruits of their own productive labor (the
Henry Ford lesson).
Had Mexico developed its own economy, rather than
falling for the con and having it developed for them by Yankee
capitalists, it would be much closer to national prosperity today than it
now is – even if it didn't have ten thousand American factories
clustered at its northern border.
Americans should have kept their factories and jobs at home so they could
continue to be as productive and prosperous as ever. New factories and
jobs in Mexico, even if they had to initially be capitalized by American
taxpayers, should have had the purpose of producing new wealth in Mexico
for Mexicans (increase their GNP) – rather than simply transferring
American wealth-producing assets to Mexico so multi-national corporations
could enjoy greater profits. Maybe the American taxpayer would have been
repaid with interest rather than growing trade deficits, and Mexicans
would not be so eager to leave Mexico for the United States. But this
would have required simple common sense – something that has become
particularly rare in the halls of political power.
The perversities of the New World Order were not the result of any
thinking in Washington. In fact, until the 70's our national leadership
resisted deregulation and unfettered international free trade. Then,
somehow, they totally lost their way and fell for the big con. Since then, they've apparently
ceased to think at all – being satisfied, instead, with the wondrous
windfalls of the Wall Street bubble and towering GNP statistics. Budgetary
deficits and the national debt are no longer any great concern. The
thinking and planning was done by others elsewhere, and our mis-representatives
in Washington, armed with "fast track", have acted as a rubber
stamp, committing the American people (an many others), to perdition.
The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, was adopted by the UN
General Assembly on December 12, 1974. It sought to establish
"'generally accepted norms to govern international economic relations
systematically,' and to promote the creation of a New International
Economic Order."
Of course, the New World Order would go nowhere without active American
support – and this active support would eventually undermine it's own
economic well being as well as its ability to shape its own economic and
political destiny. As Henry Kissinger remarked, "Where the world is
going depends importantly on the United States." (Time Magazine,
October 27, 1975) And it was "regretted that the United States, like
most other countries, has yet to develop the internal mechanisms which
make it possible to discern desirable directions..." (RIO)
Of course, our trusty leaders went for the proposed new international
economic order. Henry Kissinger, in a speech read by the United States'
Ambassador to the U.N., told the Third World and global planners: 'We have
heard your voices. We embrace your hopes. We will join your
efforts.'" With this statement, and the policy changes that followed
(as Congress caved in to the globalist's plans in increasingly large
increments), our nation was unequivocally set on a course of national
economic suicide.
The international brain trust told us, "A free market implies the
free movement of labour and capital as well as goods and services. Yet
immigration laws in almost all rich nations make impossible any large
scale movement of unskilled labour in a world-wide search for economic
opportunities... not much capital has crossed international boundaries,
both because of poor nations' sensitivities and the rich nations' own
needs... The rich nations have in fact used the 'free market to construct
a protective wall, which even enhances their privileged positions..."
("RIO – Reshaping the International Order – a Report to the Club of
Rome," 1976)
Well, our "protective walls" are
down now, and we enjoy the free market and the great benefits of "the
free movement of labor and capital as well as goods and services"
across out borders. Our immigration laws were revised and relaxed and
hardly function at all now – except to exclude the kind of people who
originally settled and developed the nation. We have relinquished our
privileged position, and are now paying the piper.
Prior to letting the United Nations and the international brain trust
(Club of Rome, Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, et.
al.), dictate the future of American trade and economic policy, and
signing onto their "new international economic order," the
purpose of the American government was to represent and protect the
interests of the American people, i.e., protect them not only from
military invasion but unwanted immigrant and import invasion as well.
That's what we're still paying taxes for. But that isn't what we're
getting. Instead, the American middle class is being sold down the river
while being told they're on the way upstream to better environs.
Our leaders were apparently finally convinced that continuing to represent
the American people was too dangerous, because we are such a small
minority in the world. Apparently, they got scared. Obviously they have since been representing the
"People of the World" in hopes of escaping international
censure. Conveniently, however, it was possible for our leaders to do this
by empowering international capital (as the personification of global
economic interests), and make the great transition of American policy, and
the advent of the new international economic order attractive by making it
appear that it would mean more profits for all. In short, the New World
Order, like the capitalist principle itself, would be made to worship at
the altar of Mammon.
By this means a global capitalist tide was set in motion to lift all
boats, and if the boat of the American middle class happened to sink in
the process, at least it would not be reflected in levels of GNP nor in
the levels of wealth pumped into Wall Street and the international
financial markets. A great shell game had been created so that the
illusion of economic progress could be used to blind and fool the masses.
We have since changed our immigration and trade policies to conform to the
plans and dictates of the international brain trust. Now "We the
People" are reaping the fruits of these fundamental national policy
changes – and (as president Reagan might say), "We ain't seen
nothing yet!"
But the fruit the American people (as well as most of the other 95% of
humanity), are reaping is little more than the dried peelings, while the
rest goes to the owners of international capital. Yet few people realize
how badly and successfully they've been conned – though many are
beginning experience some discomfort and have a few suspicions.
The gold at the end of the rainbow for American workers is repeatedly
reiterated. It is that 95% of humanity that lives elsewhere. All American
workers have to do to realize and profit from that golden opportunity is
sell their production to the other 95% of the global population. All will
then be right again. We are told that America merely needs to export more
to the rest of the world. This argument is as fallacious, wrong-headed,
and downright ridiculous, as the notion that we ultimately deserve any
more than our rightful 5% share of global markets in an equitable world.
Remember, the goal is supposed to be an equitable world in which everybody
shares the wealth.
Export more? Well, we have long been exporting food to the rest of the
world. And the fire-sale prices we get for our agricultural commodity
production (because we cannot sell at American parity prices into
impoverished foreign markets), has already helped bankrupt most American
farmers. (The result of that, of course, is that American agriculture is
now largely in the hands of large corporate scale producers – as planned
by the USDA.)
Now we are supposedly expecting to export manufactured goods into a poorer
world too. Are we to believe that Africans and Asians need American made
toasters; that the Japanese need American made automobiles; that the
Chinese need American made chop sticks, computer components, and hand
tools; that Mexicans need American made cars and tortillas? Well, yes – if we can just produce and ship them cheaply enough to crack their
markets.
That's the only major obstacle. American labor is not yet quite
competitive enough, though it is still being told that it is the most
productive in the world. The key to American competitiveness in the
international marketplace is, of course, the "cost of labor." If
the cost of America labor can just be brought down to acceptable global
levels, American exports can flood foreign markets. No that won't even do
it. American labor must be even cheaper than global levels to crack the
markets! So this won't happen on any great scale any time in the near
future. A lot more American industries will have to die, and a lot more
American jobs exported or outsourced before this can happen.
This, of course, is a very bad joke. Actually, it's more like a nightmare.
And in the end, nothing will work quite as planned. The rest of humanity
(especially in poor nations), is eager to produce and consume for itself –
like America used to do. Right now poor countries are producing for the
American market solely because American consumers are still able to
purchase that production.
No foreign nation really wants American goods, unless they are both high
quality and ridiculously cheap. Why try to fool ourselves? How can we be
thus fooled into thinking we have a chance at cracking poorer markets – or any significant market share? The Japanese are no longer poor, but they
like Japanese cars. The Chinese will sooner or later begin to need and use
the things they produce, and they'll prefer their own products to American
products. Will Indonesians and Bangladeshis ever develop a taste for
American made shoes and garments? Unlikely.
Of course, when American labor is finally willing to work for Third World
wages, American consumers will no longer be able to afford to purchase
what the rest of the world has to sell. It will be just as cheap to
produce them in America – and why add shipping costs? Then we'll have to
start producing for ourselves again.
EXPORTING MORE AMERICAN PRODUCTS IS NOT THE ANSWER!
In a viable national economy, capital and labor must work on the same team
in order to deliver the benefits of modern industrialization. Talk of a
"post-industrial" America is dangerous, and economically
suicidal, double-speak.
President Ronald Reagan was Pridger's favorite modern president. He mostly
said the right things – i.e., "Government doesn't solve problems, it
is the problem!" He ran on a strong "we must balance the
budget" platform. But more wrong things happened on his watch than
even the Clinton administration could conjure up in two terms. Reagan
initiated, or at least marched out, the "new international economic
order", he was a devout "supply side" economics man, and
coined (or at least used), the term "trickle-down economics." He was a free trader,
committed to an international free market system. He was a champion of
business capital, and when he said he wanted to "get the government off our backs"
he didn't mean "our" backs, he meant the backs of corporations –
the very entities that most needed continued regulation. He stated in
full pride that America was going "post-industrial," and was
going to become a high tech, "service economy." He initiated the
Maquiladora program, which was the pilot for NAFTA. I believe that the
first great illegal alien amnesty program came down on his watch too (but
I haven't checked the date). All of this validates the cautionary,
"Watch what he does, not what he says during the campaign," note
when assessing politicians and presidents. If Pridger were a liberal, the
list of wrong things the Reagan administration accomplished would be ten
or twenty times longer.
Pridger's old Pappy, an old-line Democrat (though finally totally
disgusted with the whole political party facade), pointed out that,
"A service economy is where everybody makes a living by taking in
each other's laundry." Bangladeshis make the clothes, the Mexicans
make the washing machines and dryers, and the Japanese, Koreans, and
Chinese make everything else we need to enjoy splendid comfort.
Reagan's trickle-down economics worked okay, but for one small thing.
Capital fashioned such large and bottomless pockets for itself that
precious little ever managed to trickle down.
In short, the country was turned upside down during Reagan's presidency.
He spoke like a true conservative, but produced the International America
of the joint liberal/capitalist internationalist cabal, in accordance with
the dictates of the International brain trust's plan for a New World
Order.
Perhaps Reagan can be excused. At least Pridger cuts him that much slack.
He survived one assassination attempt – and whether the would-be assassin
was anything other than a lone girl-crazed gunman, a brush with
assassination is likely to bring most any president to heel.
On the other hand, Pridger has no illusions as to the fact that Reagan had
long before been taken in by the rhetoric and promises of free market
economists. He probably sincerely believed that if the free market system
could produce an economic miracle in a protected America, it could also
produce the same economic miracle for the world. In this, he was sorely
mistaken. In order to attempt the experiment, capital had to be unleashed
from all its national shackles.
Pridger believes Reagan's heart was in the
right place. But, like a whole lot of us, he was duped, and his
administration commandeered by the representatives of international
capital. "They" wanted free international markets and free
trade, and both sounded a lot like "more freedom and prosperity for
all" to those who were not yet fully awake. It was during the Reagan
administration that the word conservative seemed to begin to take on new
meanings, and a lot of conservatives fell into confusion, form which many
have not yet recovered. A new kind of "internationalist"
conservative was coming on line in the beltway – neo-conservatives.
George Bush, Sr., sold them as a "kinder and gentler" brand of
conservative – compassionate conservatism. Wolves in sheep's clothing
had successfully entered the fold.
Capital, like fire, can be a wonderful servant, but makes a fearful
master. Capital unleashed, and cut free from all social or national
purpose and responsibility, can only revert to its purest and most
predatory nature.
So, here we are, two decades down the road, in one heck of a mess – yet
we're still being told we're going up the river.
John Q. Pridger