Is America’s decline the result of globalization?

The term globalization was popularized during the late 90’s in conjunction with the implementation of “free” trade policies.  Free trade is based on the notion there’s nothing exceptional about America, it’s just one nation among many, so we shouldn’t use trade policy to protect our economy and Constitutional liberties.  The architects of free trade want policies that are free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.

This is a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy.  In 1789, our founders placed tariffs on textile imports to protect the domestic textile industry from King George III, his private sector cronies, and their predatory monarchist ideology.  From then until the Clinton/Bush free trade policies, protectionist trade policies were instrumental in protecting Constitutional liberties and building the world’s most prosperous manufacturing economy.

John D. Rockefeller said “competition is a sin”.  You can’t have a capitalist market economy without competition, so Rockefeller was advocating for an economy dominated by price fixing cartels, not unlike Communist China.  This Wall Street Journal article titled “China’s Superior Economic Model”, is based on comments by Intel CEO Andy Grove.  Grove said China has “demonstrated that a plan for job creation must be the number one objective of state economic policy.”  This is the socialist rhetoric Republicans claim to oppose while defending trade policies that subsidize Chinese communism.  Oops!

Republicans say they support free markets.  But based on the “free” market, Aramco, a Saudi State owned company owns half of America’s largest refinery, and the governments of China and Qatar are acquiring U.S. based Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) export facilities. Apparently, foreign government ownership of US industry is their definition of a free market.  The Saudis use their stake in Motiva as a market for their crude.  Is it more efficient to ship crude oil from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. instead of using the glut of North American oil?

The point is, free markets have nothing to do with market efficiency or freedom from government intervention.  The term “free market” is a euphemism for managed global markets that serve the strategic interests of monopolistic multinationals and their political cronies who reject the notion of sovereign representative governments and unalienable rights.

That’s why State owned companies, which are fronts for totalitarian regimes, are given free reign in the imaginary free market.  The Rockefellers of the world prefer China’s command and control economic model, so they implemented free trade policies that have transferred Trillions in investment capital, technology and assets to Communist China.  I consider this treason.

We live in a hostile world governed by the use of force, including the use of economic force.  So the primary purpose of trade protection is not to shield U.S. industry from competition, but to protect our Constitutional freedoms by protecting our economy.  The framers of the Constitution wanted a market economy, not a free market, i.e., a market free from legal and moral Constitutional constraints.

By inserting the Commerce Clause into the Constitution, they made market principles subordinate to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  But the Commerce Clause is limited.  In his ruling on Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts said the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” but he betrayed the intent of the framers and ruled it a Constitutional tax.

Ronald Reagan did not betray the intent of the founders.  He protected U.S. markets from communist policies, i.e., he did not allow US multinationals to transfer Trillions in investment capital and technology to the Soviet Union because they had cheap labor.  Why not?  Because it would’ve subsidized a communist ideology that threatens our liberties in a Constitutional Republic.

Did the U.S. economy suffer because Reagan rejected free trade with the Soviet Union.  Of course not.  His philosophy was peace through strength, which meant a strong economy that enabled us to destroy the Soviet Union’s communist ideology.  Likewise, we could destroy China’s communist regime by placing tariffs on Chinese imports.  Anyone who thinks China is not a threat equal to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, should check out this hearing on human rights abuse in China.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, industrial nations have dominated the global economy.  Why?  Because manufacturing generates enormous wealth via capital investment, technology and jobs.  When free trade was being debated in the late 90’s, bipartisan leaders said it would transition America to a “low wage service economy”.  But they didn’t say that transitioning from the world’s largest manufacturing economy, to a low wage service economy, is by definition a radical economic decline.

As indicated in the previous link, countries that manufacture and export more than they import, experience higher growth rates and a higher standard of living.  The same principle applies to business, i.e., businesses that sell (export) more products than they buy (import), are more profitable.

During the 80’s there was concern about America’s ability to compete globally.  Japan was on the rise but we went through corporate downsizing and welfare reforms, and by the mid 90’s, America again dominated the global economy and had balanced the Federal budget.  What “happened”?  Free trade happened.  There’s a direct correlation between free trade, the decline of America, and the rise of Communist China’s command and control economy.  In my opinion, free trade is designed to sell America off to foreign governments run by totalitarian regimes.

Communism, fascism and monarchies are all examples of totalitarian regimes.  The American Revolution was fought to free America from the chains of the British monarchy.  But the domestic fight against totalitarian ideologies didn’t end with the Revolution.  America’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, was a leader of the Federalist Party, which wanted a strong central gov’t similar to a monarchy.

Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, adamantly opposed the Federalist agenda, i.e., a strong central government and central bank (like the Fed) which would infringe on the rights of States and individuals.  Unfortunately, the Federalist vision for America, which includes free trade, is dominating American politics.  Check out the section on “Monetary Policy” in the PDF Knowledge is Power.

The U.S. military has also been globalized, i.e., it no longer protects the interests of the U.S. domestic economy or Constitutional principles, it protects the interests of global corporations and politicians that prefer China’s totalitarian economic model.  Many people believe the Iraq war was about oil, and for the most part it was.  But much of Iraq’s oil is going to China.

So the U.S. military was used to subsidize Chinese communism by securing Iraqi oil.  Meanwhile, Wall Street lobbies for Cap and Trade which limits America’s ability to use it’s lowest cost and most abundant energy resources.  The resulting higher energy costs will harm America’s ability to compete globally and creates incentives to export U.S. fossil fuels.

CNBC reported that Afghanistan is the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”, and Chinese State Owned Entities (SOE’s) have started mining in Afghanistan.  Coincidentally, China is one of the largest manufacturers of lithium batteries for electric cars.  And the plan is to build large banks of lithium batteries to store the intermittent energy produced by wind and solar farms.  So Afghanistan is our first war for “clean” energy and American blood and treasure are subsidizing China’s booming manufacturing economy.  US political and business leaders should be prosecuted for aiding the enemy.

The subprime bubble masked the catastrophic economic effects of free trade, but now we’re seeing the harsh reality of a low wage service economy come into focus.  Municipalities, States and the Federal government have made promises based on revenues from an industrial economy, and they will not be able to keep those promises.

Bankrupting the world’s most powerful democratic republic is what the architects of free trade intended.  They’re ideologically opposed to market economies and representative government. Free trade, a.k.a. globalization, was an opportunity to achieve a bloodless coup d’etat and create a global command and control economy.

Patriotic Americans should oppose free trade policies that are transitioning America from the world’s most prosperous manufacturing economy, to a low wage service economy.  Conservatives recognize Obamacare as a fundamental transformation of America, which it is.  But America’s transformation is a bipartisan agenda including the Clinton/Bush free trade agreements.  Followed by the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NSA wiretapping, mandates for clean energy, amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, and gun gun control, which are all part of America’s incremental transformation to a totalitarian system.

These policies are part of a forced transition from a democratic market economy, to a tyrannical command and control economy.  The fraudulent left vs. right narrative is part of a divide and conquer strategy, and is a key part of the tyrannical agenda.  Homeland Security and the Patriot Act will be used to control citizens opposed to the economic decline caused by Clinton/Bush free trade policies, Obama’s policies, and financial sector tyranny.

If citizens want to know where the tyrants have buried the bodies, i.e., the corpse of  America’s prosperous democratic republic, look behind issues the fraudulent left/right media agree on.  Examples are globalization and free trade.  Fareed Zakaria has a Sunday show on CNN, which most people consider leftist.  Fareed does a segment each week called What in the World?, which recently covered the topic of globalization.  Like right wing media, Fareed extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization, and said the Great Depression was exacerbated by the implementation of protectionist trade polices (tariffs).  But as usual, the facts don’t fit the media’a fraudulent narrative.

Some say the electronic trinkets produced in China would be too expensive if manufactured in America.  But virtual slave labor has always existed in foreign countries, and before free trade, America’s economy thrived without exploiting cheap labor abroad.  Many leaders say government should be run more like a business.  Well, multinational corporations spend billions implementing policies that PROTECT their market share and global competitiveness.  They even engage in corporate espionage to gain competitive advantages that US leaders give away via free trade.

Businesses don’t engage in anything remotely resembling free trade.  Why?   Because providing the competition with capital and technology guarantees failure.   Doing so would cause shareholders to demand criminal prosecution of the Board of Directors and top officers, which is what should be done to politicians who have intentionally traded away America’s economic future.   Manufacturing is the engine of economic growth, so outsourcing manufacturing in exchange for cheap trinkets is like the Native Americans selling their sovereignty for beads and blankets.

American history teaches the concept of manifest destiny.  But how many fur traders, homesteaders and gold miners were thinking about manifest destiny when they moved West?   Few if any, they didn’t even know what the phrase meant.  Manifest destiny is the language of ruling class elites, i.e. merchant bankers and industrialists.  They moved common folk across the American West like pawns on a chess board.  Ruling class elites wanted conflict with the Indians so they could call in the cavalry and manifest their destiny.

The new frontiers for today’s ruling class are Communist China and emerging markets.  Free trade is preparing the way for the global cavalry and final phase of manifest destiny.  For all intents and purposes, US financial elites and industrialists have seceded from the Union.  They’ve allied themselves with China’s totalitarian regime and are engaged in economic terrorism against the United States.  Media and politicians support this treasonous alliance and they exploit class and race divisions as part of a divide and conquer agenda.  They want divided Americans to blame each other and fight over the economic crumbs left behind by free trade and the financial crisis.  We’re all Indians now.

Now Obama is calling for fast track trade authority to implement a new “free” trade agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  The following text and next two paragraphs are excerpts from the previous link.  What’s wrong with fast track?  For most of the past 200 years, Congress negotiated trade policy and wrote the laws to oversee trade, as required in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.  This power was first transferred to the Executive Office when Nixon was granted Fast Track in 1974 as part of his consolidation of presidential power.  Fast Track expired in 2007.

As far as President Obama is concerned, the TPP is entering the home stretch.  All he needs now is for Congress to vote to grant him Fast Track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, and it’s a done deal.  Fast Track would allow the President to sign the TPP before it goes to Congress.  Members of Congress would then have a short time period to hold an up or down vote and would be prohibited from making amendments.  Without Fast Track, which was used to pass NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is unlikely that the TPP could be signed into law

The Obama administration has been negotiating the TPP in secret for more than three years.  Unlike past trade agreements, the text of the TPP is classified and members of Congress have restricted access to it.  If they do read the text, they are not allowed to copy it or discuss any specifics of it.  However, more than 600 corporate advisers have direct access to the text on their computers.  Sachie Mizohata writes in Asia Times, “The TPP is a Trojan horse, branded as a free trade agreement, but having nothing to do with fair and equitable treatment.  In reality, it is precisely a wish list of the 1% – a worldwide corporate power.”

Global elites creating a New World Order sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory.  But President Obama, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, George H.W. Bush, and other world leaders have publicly stated that their objective is a “new world order”.  Given the decline of America in conjunction with globalization, world leaders talking of a new world order warrants serious consideration.

The video link below, has a clip of Charlie Rose interviewing Henry Kissinger about globalization.  They talked about the “new world order” as a shift of power and economic growth from the West to the East, i.e., China.  There’s also a clip of George H.W. Bush saying, on six different occasions, his objective is a “new world order.”   And there’s a clip of UK Primer Minister Gordon Brown declaring a “new world order”.  The video also explains the Federal Reserve’s use of debt to enslave citizens.  Much of the video is subjective, but the fact is, many world leaders acknowledge their objective is a New World Order.

In the New World Order video, Henry Kissinger used the word globalization to describe the mechanism by which the world is being reordered.  And he emphasized the fact that new global rules are designed to pick winners and losers.  The West, and the U.S. in particular, have been picked to lose.  Goldman Sachs exec Jim O’Neill also makes this clear in an interview with Charlie Rose.  The winners are totalitarian regimes like Communist China.

The invisible hand of the market became visible shortly after 13:50 into the Charlie Rose interview.  That’s when Rose asked O’Neill about the possible implosion of China’s economic bubble.  Jim said, “Some days I wake up and think, what have I created with this damn thing?  I worry about that.”  Goldman Sachs was instrumental in restructuring  trade policy to favor Communist China.

Shortly after 29:45 O’Neill said, “In order for the world to progress, we have to let some things go to other people.”  Charlie then alluded to the massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. to China and asked, “What are the political implications for all this, especially for this country which has been on top for so long?”  Jim responded, “I’d like to hear President Obama say, how do we adjust before he says how do we compete”.

Jim then referred to Obama’s economic adviser Larry Summers saying, “he understands [China’s] relative advantage in international trade.”  Free trade is designed to pick winners and losers in the global economy and Goldman Sachs picked America to lose.  Because of their influence in Washington DC, Goldman Sachs is referred to as Government Sachs.  Financial elites have achieved  regulatory capture and subverted representative government.

The first three minutes of Fall of the Republic illustrates President Obama’s role in creating a new world order.  During the Rose interview, Jim O’Neill takes credit for coining the term BRIC, which refers to the emerging markets Brazil, Russia, India and China.  The emerging markets represent a New World Order led by China’s totalitarian regime.  Billionaire leftist George Soros says China must be brought into the “new world order”, and its currency will replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

After World War II Germany was a pile of rubble, literally.   Sixty years later they’re the strongest economy in the West.  They pay high wages, have a high standard of living, have a low debt to GDP ratio, and are able to compete with communist china.  This is because they protect their economy and manufacturing base.  Don’t buy the lie that America cannot do the same.

The founders ended the Declaration of Independence with these words: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.  Our founding fathers and mothers understood the price of freedom, and if we are going to preserve the representative government they fought and died for, we must be willing to commit time and resources to reverse the policies of globalization.

Another interesting source is the book Godonomics, which illustrates the Biblical principles behind private property rights and market economies based on moral principles.

Comments are closed.