Global Trade Outlaws Rule

FREE TRADE IS NEITHER FREE, NOR A TRADE

Sanders’ surprise victory in Michigan, a big industrial state, is attributed to his attacks against so-called “free” trade (Clinton has never seen a “free” trade treaty she did not love). Ditto for Donald Trump’s victory in the same state (Trump has proposed a 45% tax on Chinese imports). Polls show angry white males and the young (for Sanders) are voting against the system which brought to them the globalization of pauperization. Rightly so.

Let me provide more needed theory:

As it is, globalization means plutocratization.

First, globalization without redistribution implies plutocratization. (As Paul Krugman asserts.)

Second, globalization of trade without globalization of law amounts to trade without law. Thus, organizations, corporations and plutocrats presently engaged in global trade are, technically, out-laws.

Third the immense fortunes gathered by the trade outlaws have enabled them, in turn to pay well their servants in politics and national administration to further the very out-lawfulness which has made them prospered.

Fourth, under the Clintons in the 1990s, the Banking Act of 1933 was replaced by financial deregulation, which spread worldwide, making financiers masters of world trade.

Real Family Income Is Going Down. Real = Including CPI. If One Included Real Costs Beyond The CPI, The Real Income Would Collapse Even More. If I had Put On This Graph GDP or Trade, Both Of These Curves Would Be Shooting Up

Real Family Income Is Going Down. Real = Including CPI. If One Included Real Costs Beyond The CPI, The Real Income Would Collapse Even More. If I had Put On This Graph GDP or Trade, Both Of These Curves Would Be Shooting Up

One of my commenters and friends told me that it is president Carter, a democrat, who had started the degeneracy we presently enjoy. I was surprised, and initially denied. However, I looked and various graphs, and, to my dismay, he turned out to be right. As I learn more about what happened, I will integrate it in my discourse (Carter, of course, attacked, secretly, Afghanistan on July 3, 1979, so he was not highly considered here; but now he is heading evwen lower!)

In other words, we are engaged in a nonlinear process: the global trade outlaws are getting ever more powerful, and, the more powerful they get, the more they advance their plots and breathing together (con-spirare, conspiracies),

Meanwhile, We The People, are getting ever more destitute (the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, does not include LIFE ESSENTIALS such as education, health care, retirement).

Let me give you an example of the degeneracy of US society: I had an insurance agent for two decades, who worked at one of the most prestigious insurance companies in the USA. Last Spring he got sick. Although a well paid professional, he did not get health care in a timely manner. So he died of pneumonia. He was in his forties (basically the age when one gets sick the less). I know dozens of similar stories. Meanwhile, US healthcare is 50% more expensive, per head, than health care in the most performing healthcare systems in the world.

What does that have to do with the globalization of trade? Massive globalization led to massive plutocratization, and that, in turn, led to US politicians and civil servants doing exactly what plutocrats and their corporations wanted them to do (so that politicians and civil servant would make their future income up, as the good agents of plutocracy whom they are).

 Then the one who led us for 40 years, the one who makes more than 200,000 dollars in an hour, giving secret talks to financiers, claims to represent We The People. We The People are earning 10,000 times less (2,000 x 4.5) than she does, per hour. How can she represent, or even understand, us? Is that realistic? No wonder some of us want to protect themselves.

Paul Krugman, the architect, under president Ronald Reagan of “free” trade, presents as self obvious that Sanders’ program is “unrealistic”. Says Krugman: “The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties — Trump is trying to become America’s Mussolini, Sanders at worst America’s Michael Foot — Trump has been tilling some of the same ground. So here’s the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political traction?”

Well, I tell you why, Paul: We The People are getting tired of ‘the conscience of a liberal” who got to work engineering Ronald Reagan’s sinister plot to claim that giving to the rich was the best way to give to the poor. Krugie boy is on his best defending his position at the altar of “power”:

Paul Krugman: “The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he’s never been anywhere close to the levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn’t and can’t.” 

That’s obviously a ridiculous thing to say: the USA has basically to get accord from just one power, the French Republic, which is all for putting the brakes on soul-less globalization (always has been, for about a century, whether governments are from the so-called right, or left). Then, automatically Germany, Italy and Spain (with, or without a government), will follow. Tax cheats such as Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands are going to increasingly feel the whip, and better shut up. (A few days ago, France told Britain that she would open the refugee gates, if Britain left the EU. So Britain is going to have to face unexpected costs, in all ways.)

The World  Trade Organization, prodded by France, already announced that a carbon tax, imposed worldwide, was NOT in violation of WTO rules. So one can start with that, on day one. See what it does for the price of Chinese steel and Chinese solar panels.

In all justice to Krugman, he finishes this way: …”the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even if they don’t know exactly what form it’s taking.

Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.”

It is a huge “if”. I would be astounded if Clinton made it to the presidency.

After decades of increasingly corrupt, venal, lying politicians whose idea of policy is to do what the world’s richest corporations and their plutocrats want them to do, what could be worse?

Having someone reigning again who got paid a fortune repeatedly for plotting in secret talks with financiers what would be the next move to enrich that elite? Under Bill Clinton, the Banking Act of 1933 was destroyed, bringing the reign of unrestrained finance. Moreover global trade treaties got signed, which allow corporations and their corporations to escape taxation and legislation. How electing Trump or Sanders could make it worse?

When Clinton was asked why she accepted so much money from Goldman Sachs, for so little “work”she replied: “I guess that’s their rate!” She refused to release any transcript to the flood of talks she gave to financial conspirators and outlaws. And you know what? Thanks to the stubborn work of individuals such as yours truly, this sort of rotten mentality is now exposed, and nobody wants to be led by it anymore. Not even the people supporting Ted Cruz.

Paul Krugman’s dream of another cabinet job, 35 years after the one he enjoyed with his boss, Reagan, is fading away…

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

17 Responses to “Global Trade Outlaws Rule”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Great essay. I was tracking what you were doing, though and you doubled the size of the essay after initial publication. By adding all the Krugman quotes, and smart comments around them…
    It seems that Krugman is all over the map, but coming your way. Did you send him that stuff?

    I agree about Clinton. They should just indict her, and be done with it. She has the Clinton Foundation scandal, the email scandal, what else?

  2. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    These people have a temporally linear viewpoint. They are courageously marching toward the future and dragging us ungrateful luddites along.

    As I keep pointing out though, nature is thermodynamically cyclical and history is just the momentarily stable residue.

    Consequently their Towers of Power are ultimately momentary crust on an ever churning process.

    There is something significant to consider though, in that; The bigger they come, the harder they fall.

    The coming crash of this wave will unleash formidable opportunities to create beneficial change, if effectively channeled. Though there are likely various unpleasant people scheming to do just that, toward their own ends. So it requires going very long to beat them.

    To do this requires identifying particular vulnerabilities and using them to leverage each other, do it in ways that don’t attract attention and then let it unwind from a broad based movement, rather than a particular focal point.

    As I see it, there are various issues in the scientific and philosophic fields that would seriously upset the apple cart of their various constituencies and if that were to be accomplished, it would attract attention to much deeper rooted issues.

    For example, the point I keep raising about time does refute “spacetime” as the physical explanation for Relativity but it also goes to the root of culture and civilization, as they are narrative and history based.

    Which would then lead into the problem of monotheism conflating the ideal and the absolute, such that a spiritual absolute would logically be the essence of being from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom from which we fell. Given the top down premise of monotheism is foundational to top down authoritarian government, getting that issue introduced into the public forum as an essentially philosophic and intellectual issue, where it would be initially sterilized from social and political implications, would get it a hearing before debate could be smothered.

    Then go onto issues such as a financial system actually being a public medium, like roads, not private property and they won’t know what hit them.

    How is that for strategy?

    Or should I fill in the gaps a little more?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I would not call myself a luddite (an anti-technology maniac). Because I am not one. I am actually the exact opposite, and it’s plutocracy which is anti-tech and anti-science, because it is against all that is new, especially in the world of ideas, as it feeds the metaprinciple that having ideas is good.

      • brodix Says:

        Patrice,

        That was a bit of sarcasm, as to how they justify themselves. “Doing God’s work.” So to speak.

        The plutocracy is certainly not against new ideas, so long as it feeds their power, which much of it actually does. It wasn’t the plutocrats who invented guns, or dynamite, or the internal combustion engine. Consider the internet; Yes, it does empower lots of normal people, but it also allows them to be surveilled at an equally deep level and those who do gain the most power from it, become members of the club.

        The only way they can really be taken down is not to fight them, because that only increases their power, if they prevail, or replaces them with another plutocracy, but to place the entire process in some larger context or network that explains their methods and forms of power, taking away the mystery.

        There will always be levels of society, just as the body has a head and feet. Yet the same blood flows through both.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Agreed about the Internet. However, that’s possible because of the tech monopolies set-up by the pluto gov of the USA. And weak laws, and even weaker enforcement (see tech monopolies and others, like IKEA, avoiding tax in Europe, for more than a decade)
          Right now the blood of money is only flowing through the vicious head of Pluto.
          I don’t think that fighting them increases their power. Far from it. They depend upon us not fighting them. Plutocrats depend upon our STOICISM. (Hence my broadsides against Stoicism!)

  3. John Rogers Says:

    Bravo!

  4. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to IanMillerBlog]

    Even Marx was not against Capital, and that’s why he wrote a book called “Das Kapital”. Capital is everywhere. Cities represent capital. Civilization is impossible without capital. Stalin was a capitalist-in-chief, arguably the biggest capitalist of his time, short of president Roosevelt.

    So it’s not a question of “capitalism versus Marxism”. To have a free market and free trade, one needs to find out what “free” means. And then impose it… through the government, indeed.

    As it is, Free Trade is neither Free, nor a trade.
    https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/global-trade-outlaws-rule/

    Neither is the Free Market, Free, or a Market.

    • ianmillerblog Says:

      Yes, of course capital is everywhere. My “capitalism versus Marxism” was not trying to put down capital, but rather the way it is used.

      As an aside, if Hillary can get $200,000 an hour out of Goldman Sachs, frankly, I see no reason not to take it. I mean, she is hardly taking from the virtuous or the innocent or the poor.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Goldman Sachs, and other rogue financiers, steal from all of us, then give to Hillary. That’s indeed hilarious but it’s also theft. Do we want a thief to lead the world? Hillary is THE ring leader of WORLD financial deregulation. When Bill started his political career in Arkansas, she was buying and selling commodities to trade on Bill’s decisions. Everybody in finance knows this (I traded futures myself, so I know, and always wondered why she was not arrested; now I have figured that one out).
        Let me repeat slowly:
        Hillary is THE ring leader of WORLD financial deregulation. After all she traded commodity futures while her spouse influenced their price.

        Rogue financiers, steal from all of us, and the world, then give to Hillary. Naïve ones say: no poor got hurt in the making of this movie.

        • Kevin Berger Says:

          Ah, I’ve got to find back that nifty FB tidbit (yeah, I know) from some “citizen group or the other, covering Juppé’s ties with such rogue (Anglo) financiers. His bread is buttered, alright.

  5. brodix Says:

    Money is a medium of exchange. Essentially it is an enormous voucher system.

    The problem is that we also treat it as a store of value and now the production of capital, notational value has become an end in itself.
    Which means the voucher system is being flooded with enormous amounts of excess notes.

    If the government threatened to tax the excess out and not just borrow it to spend in ways that support the private economy, but don’t create a direct profit, people would find ways to invest back into their community and environment, not just extract value to store in the financial system.

    In the body, the medium of exchange is blood, while the store of excess value is fat. If the circulation system gets clogged with fat, you have heart attacks and strokes and that is analogous to what our system keeps having, so they compensate with looser money, which is like higher blood pressure, to try to keep it flowing.

  6. Paul Handover Says:

    As the saying goes, “The more I learn of man, the more I love dogs.” We have so much to learn from our dogs, starting with integrity.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: Diogenes the Cynic thought this exactly (I don’t know about the “integrity” part). Diogenes the Doggist thought many human behaviors were already found in dogs, so he behaved accordingly, in his search for the human soul.
      Personally I feel that human beings are the crown of creation. My admiration for rats, although genuine, does not compare.

  7. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    I suppose stoicism has become synonymous with being politically inert, but for many people it is probably a better alternative to actively joining the forces of power.

    Surely you understand that in this relativistic reality that Authority always needs The Other to enforce its rule and that for those who are part of the power structure, The Other is anyone who questions it.

    So my argument is not to confront the current power structure directly, but to bring into question the foundational basis for its authority.

    One; To question whether the narrative of history, of which they presume to be at the forefront, is really a fundamental progression, or is it an effect of thermodynamic processes that simply accumulate residue.

    Two; Would a spiritual absolute rightfully be that paternal father figure, from which we all descend and our rulers wield authority in the name of, or is it that raw element of being, flowing through all living organisms and those at the top are just the crest of the current wave.

    Three; Is money a commodity to be manufactured and hoarded, or is it a social contract, in which in order to function, every notational asset has to be backed by a commensurate amount of viable debt and can only function within a healthy society, in which this system is simply a stand in for community reciprocity. Such that large pools and reservoirs of these notes are to be viewed a likely threat to the public authority of the community issuing those notes, as they would constitute a potential for economic and political blackmail.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: