Dick Eastman, replying to anonymous anarcho-capitalist "dcrealtornw"
arguing
for Rockefeller unregulated international transactions sup****ted by Kerry
Heinz and Cheney Wolfowitz Perle -- and wrongly named "free trade:"
You (dcrealtornw) say -- "Whew! You blew them out of the water! Now that
is an argument for 100% tariffs on everything now! Blockade the ****ts!
Stop all foreign travel too!"
Not at all !
My policy is that goods and services should be traded, tourism and
exchange
of ideas (professors and students and scientists), and raw materials and
even components (intermediate goods) -- BUT NOT INVESTMENT CAPITAL OR
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL CREDIT FOR PURPOSES OF
FACILITATING THE ABOVE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND FOR PERSON-TO-PERSON
GIFTS AND LOANS (rich Jews and poor Mexicans and Ukranians in this country
can still earn money and send it to their families and co-religionists
abroad.)
NOW LET ME SET YOU AND EVERYONE STRAIGHT ON THE ECONOMICS OF FOREIGN
TRADE!!! Foreign trade is justified on the basis of what is known as The
Law of Comparative Advantage. In simple terms each country can make
different products at different levels of proficiency -- maple syrup is
easier (comparatively cheaper to make) than organes in northern countries
while oranges are comparativly cheaper to produce (less labor, inputs,
energy, time etc -- some of these redundant but for the benefit of people
who don't have time to think it through) than maple syrup in nations
closer
to the tropics. And so, provided the difference is not greater than
trans****tation costs and tarriff barriers, nations will gain, will aobtain
mutual advantage, from exchange according to comparative advantage --
BUT -- AND THIS IS THE CRITICAL PART -- for the law to hold, labor and
capital must not be allowed to cross boarders! This was a critical
assumption of David Ricardo who formulated this law and it has never been
other than a necessary condition for obtaining the "mutual gain" -- any
rigorous mathematical modelling of the logic of the theory shows that if
the
assumption of non-mobility of capital is violated the country with an
absolute advantage will always end up with all the capital and labor and
the
other country will be lose in an absolute sense.
NOW FOR THE REAL EXAMPLE: If we trade goods and services with China and
keep investment capital home (except on a short-terms trade facilitation
(purchase agreements to facilitate trade transactions) China will
concentrate on what it can make comparatively cheaper and so will we
(maple
syrup becomes silk, oranges become cowboy saddles) and each will
manufature
what they can produce at home (computer chips, cars, houses, roads,
mothballs etc.) for whatever reason they choose. In such a case each
nation
will only have indigenous investment, investment originating and investing
at home, and of course the investment will go to kinds of production that
are comparatively profitable according to the market system BUT WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU ALLOW INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO MIGRATE TO CHINA (WHICH IS
Roughly speaking HE ONLY PLACE BIG NEW YORK BANKS ARE INVESTING LATELY) --
THEN,
BECAUSE LABOR IS KEPT DIRT CHEAP IN CHINA, COR****ATIONS WILL
RELOCATE ALL PRODUCTION IN CHINA -- UNTIL THE STANDARD OF LIVING
OF THE US (A SMALL COUNTRY COMPARED TO CHINA -- ANY LEVELING
OF INCOMES WOULD RESULT IN A BIG DROP FOR AMERICANS AND A
SMALL GAIN FOR THE CHINESE) IS BROUGHT DOWN TO DIRT-POOR CHINESE
LEVELS -- THUS NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS --
This result must follow by the simple assumption of 1) the existence of
multinational cor****ations and 2) the assmuption that cor****ations are
profit maxzimizers without regard for standards of living of any country.
And of course, as this happens -- as Americans try to maintain their old
standard of living (both private and public consumption) when they no
longer
have capital to increase the productivity and value of their labor --
i.e.,
when they can't they will go deeper and deeper into debt -- but the Big
Financiers and Big Multinationals who own the Senators and top
agenda-setting COngressmen and of course the Presidents (Kerry or Bush or
Nader or Badnarik -- they all are the same -- all lacky's merely
presenting
superficial "product differentiation" to get the country to buy -- like
all
the shampoos on the shelf are almost all owned by the same small group --
all the varieties of candy bar at the grocery counter line are mostly
owned
by the Marrs family etc.) -- as I was saying, the ruling capital
monopolizing and ex****ting elite HAVE PREVENTED THE INEVITABLE DAY OF
RECKONING OVER THIS TRADE IMBALANCE UNTIL THEY CAN GET ALL OF THEIR
CAPITAL
HORSES OUT OF THE AMERICAN BARN -- there is still some middle-class left
to
plunder, still something that a populist revolt could save and rebuild the
country with if we were to face the music and act now -- but as long as
the
country is floated on every increasing debt -- 7 trillion and growing --
the people --- totally in the dark about all I have written above --
will
go on letting their nation be de-industrialized, degraded, enslaved --
until
the standard of living decays right to the origin (i.e., to zero). IT IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE GLOBALIST PLUNDERERS THAT
AMERICANS BE LEFT TO DEGRADED, POOR AND DUMBED DOWN
FOR THEIR 7 PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION TO MATTER
-- FOR THEIR NOTIONS OF A JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLIC, THE HERITAGE
OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS TO MATTER, OF REAL ECONOMICS TO
MATTER.
So there!
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Wa****ngton
Every man is responsible to every other man
----- Original Message -----
From: dcrealtornw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aftermath_September_11@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monday, August 02, 2004 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Aftermath_September_11] Outsourcing livlihood
In a message dated 8/2/2004 7:23:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dharma@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
CATO Institutie is hired apologetics for Rockefeller Rule and David
Rockefeller is the man who with Kissinger and Zhou Enlai designed the
present China-outsourcing deindustrialized American servant economy.
Whew! You blew them out of the water! Now that is an argument for 100%
tariffs on everything now! Blockade the ****ts! Stop all foreign travel
too!
From: Senhor San [Dick Eastman]
To: Quigs_Fight@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
; Aftermath_September_11@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monday, August 02, 2004 4:10 AM
Subject: Outsourcing livlihood
The unemployment statistic and the GDP really tell us nothing about the
state of the population, nothing about standards of living, nothing about
what is being produced and for whom -- making guns to fight and occupy
innocent nations because our government (and Israel) killed over 2000 of
our own people in a false-flag frame-up mass-murder black-op generates
employment and wages, profits and interest income for making a economic
pie
full of guns as it would for constructively employed people being paid for
supplying goods and services that American families actually want and
benefit from.
Remember, economists are whores of who feeds them -- and the Rockefeller
Foundation funds no academic chairs or research grants for findings that
could provide ammunition to populists.
The author below writes: "... the United States is by far the world's
largest ex****ter of goods -- China ranks fifth. " But is he talking about
goods manufactured in the US and then ex****ted -- or is he merely adding
the sales revenue of US based multinational cor****ations regardless of
where
the products are manufactured (outsourced)?
CATO Institutie is hired apologetics for Rockefeller Rule and David
Rockefeller is the man who with Kissinger and Zhou Enlai designed the
present China-outsourcing deindustrialized American servant economy.
----- Original Message -----
From: dcrealtornw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aftermath_September_11@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, July 30, 2004 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Aftermath_September_11] Re: [Aftermath_September
March 14, 2004
Trivial Outsourcing Pursuits
by Alan Reynolds
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally
syndicated columnist.
The unemployment rate has fallen by half a percentage point over the past
six months. If it merely continues to drop at the same pace, unemployment
will be 5.1 percent in another six months (August) and below 5 percent
before the election.
Unemployment would then be the lowest ever for any president seeking
re-election -- lower than it was for Richard Nixon in November 1972 (5.3
percent) or for Bill Clinton in November 1996 (5.4 percent).
If Sen. John Kerry had hoped to make a big political issue out of an
unemployment rate that is likely to be below 5 percent by election time,
he
had better start trying to change the subject as soon as possible. And his
never-ending wisecracks about Herbert Hoover could backfire, too, because
Hoover enacted the same policies key Democrats now recommend -- namely,
higher tax rates and tariffs.
Another nonissue sure to grow tiresome in a few more months is the
maniacal
anxiety about im****ts of business services -- a trivial pursuit that would
have gotten no attention at all had it not been deviously mislabeled as
"outsourcing." That is not what outsourcing means. Outsourcing means
having
business services done by specialist firms rather than inside a
manufacturing or financial firm.
When I was a vice president at a Chicago bank, we had an entire floor of
attorneys and a few dozen economists on the payroll. The bank could have
got
better service for less money by putting legal firms and economic
consultants on retainer. It often makes sense to also let specialist firms
handle accounting, employee benefits and payroll. That is outsourcing.
What uninformed politicians and journalists mean by "outsourcing" is
im****ting services. They would have you believe the United States has
suddenly been im****ting many more services. Yet the increase in service
im****ts last year was precisely zero.
>From 1997 to 2000, by contrast, U.S. service im****ts grew 9.7 percent a
year. So why did the media start fussing about im****ted services only
after
such im****ts stopped growing? Politics aside, this makes no more sense.
Outsourcing is a senseless name for nonsense.
U.S. im****ts of both goods and services grew by 10½ percent a year from
1992
to 2000 in real terms, but by only 1½ percent a year from 2000 to 2003.
Nobody complained about losing jobs to im****ts while im****ts grew rapidly.
The pretense that Americans are losing jobs to im****ts did not gain
political traction until im****ts stagnated. Turning facts on their head
is,
of course, a familiar symptom of election-year mania.
Trade warriors have been staring down the wrong side of their cannons --
im****ts, rather than ex****ts. Im****ts have been weak for three years, but
ex****ts have been even weaker. That matters because the United States is
by
far the world's largest ex****ter of goods -- China ranks fifth.
U.S. merchandise ex****ts rose 6 percent a year from 1990 to 2001, while
ex****ts from Europe grew only 4 percent a year and ex****ts from Japan by 3
percent. The United States is the world's largest ex****ter of services by
an
even wider margin -- India ranks 21st. Like China, India's im****ts of
commercial services have doubled since 1995. Although India did achieve a
tiny surplus in services in the past two years, the country has a sizable
overall trade deficit.
By fourth-quarter 2003, real U.S. ex****ts of services were 5.2 percent
higher than a year before. That is, the United States was ex****ting more
"outsourcing" services, though service im****ts were flat. Real ex****ts of
goods were 7.2 percent higher. But those gains were still not enough to
get
ex****ts back to pre-global recession levels. Real U.S. ex****ts in 2003
were
still 0.6 percent smaller than in 2000.
Here is the problem: Just as U.S. im****ts grow only when the U.S. economy
grows (and shrink only in recessions), other countries' im****ts also grow
only if and when their economies grow. Strong economies, including ours,
need more industrial im****ts and can afford to buy them. Unfortunately,
economies of our biggest trading partners have not been strong.
Canada accounted for 23.8 percent of U.S. ex****ts last year, Mexico for
13.7
percent, Germany and France 6.4 percent, and other members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (mainly in Europe)
for
17.6 percent. If these economies don't grow, neither can U.S. ex****ts.
By fourth-quarter 2003, real GDP in the United States was 4.3 percent
above
a year earlier, compared with only 1 percent in Canada and 2 percent in
Mexico. GDP was up a pathetic 0.2 percent in Germany and 0.5 percent in
France -- two countries with unemployment close to 10 percent. When your
biggest customers are broke, it is not easy to sell them more.
Blame Europe and Canada's weakness for relatively weak U.S. ex****ts, not
China's strength (which is helping Japan). As the year-end 2003 re****t
from
the U.S. trade representative noted, "Over the last three years, while
U.S.
ex****ts to the rest of the world have decreased by 10 percent, U.S.
ex****ts
to China have increased by 66 percent."
The United States would benefit greatly if there were more strong
economies
in the world, such as China and India, and fewer laggards like Germany,
France and Canada. The latter countries could learn something from China
and
India, both of which prospered only after doing the opposite of what
Herbert
Hoover did in 1930-32 and what the Democratic Party now threatens to
repeat.
The economies of China and India grew by drastically reducing tariffs and
tax rates. China's average tariff on im****ts has fallen from well more
than
50 percent in the early 1980s to about 10 percent now. But actual tariff
collections average less than 3 percent because so many goods are
tariff-free.
India slashed tariffs, too, and cut the top income tax rate from 62
percent
in 1984 to 30 percent today, becoming just another in a long list of
supply-side miracles.
Politicians who now propose the U.S. do the opposite of what China and
India
have done, and instead move closer to emulating Sweden and France, are
amazingly slow learners.
|
