Nov 19 2006
Misreading The Elections
The nativists seem to be out trying to spin this elections as a referendum against the globalized economy (which simply means international commerce is not reserved for a few ‘connected’ corporations). Not sure how these people could take a booming US economy with low inflation, low unemployment and turn it into a something aling to the Global Freezing panic of the 1980’s (before the Global Warming panic started) – but they did:
The U.S. midterm election was noteworthy for what analysts called voter “populism,” which is to say, its element of economic protest. It is increasingly clear to voters in the United States – and in Europe – that the promise concerning globalization made to the public by economists, business leaders and politicians has not been kept.
Workers in the rich countries were promised that they would ultimately benefit from globalization. Under the new corporate norms of the globalization era, wealth and rewards were to “naturally” trickle down to everyone in a company.
Instead, workers find that their countries grow richer, as do corporations and executives, but ordinary working people grow poorer.
Someone must be having a bad day. It is important to remember that the liberal news media has been taking an economic pounding for their slanted and uninformed reporting. So they may feel a lot more bleak about the economy than every other sector – which is growing. And the Europeans may be feeling all their efforts are in vain as their governments keep taking more and more of the fruits of their labors to fund their socialist benefits. But that is their fault for having given up to the government many aspects of life best handled by the individual. For example, if you give up health care decisions to the government, you become one in a sea of millions who are complaining. If you are buying your health care, you are one of millions the health care companies want to attract. So complaining about how “countries grow rich” is simply acknowledging the need for conservative policies.
But let’s not buy into the idea that globalization only benefits the rich. With the opening up of markets Americans have been able to participate in international business and gain access to international products and services. Yes, these can be a mixed bag, but Walmart does bring the world to our familiies in terms of affordable products, and we do get to produce and export our good ideas to other parts of the world.
To restrict the global economy simply means limiting international commerce and its potential to a few elitists and the politicians they can influence. And the best way to gain this control is to convince the masses it is in their best interest to give up the opportunities for all and hand them to a few to do with as they please. Don’t fall for this “globalization is bad” schtick. Gobalization is simply the world working together and sharing their products and ideas. While it is imperfect and can be misused (what human endeavor is immune to these characteristics?), it is not bad overall. One of the better solutions to the illegal immigration wave is to try and get the South – Central American economies up and running to a level where there is little interest in migration and more in economic partnerships. This is working to some degree. But it will take time. I have been to South America on joint business opportunities in the space arena and I can tell you those societies could join the first world if they had time to shed their handicaps (like drug lords, etc).
Whether you believe this or not, it is still better to avoid a take over of international business by something like the UN. That kind of move will definitely instantiate corruption since it creates a world-wide economic power center beholding to no one people.
Ellsworth tried this shtick here in Indiana. That will last about as long as it takes people to realize that the days of getting a job at G.E. in Bloomington and making over $20 an hour on an assembly line are over. No matter who wins, those days are gone.
But you know? I must be getting old because I can remember times when people could not find a job, any kind of job. Back then the benefits ran a slow second to the paycheck. I think it is relative.
Off topic, but figured you wouldn’t mind…hope not anyway:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/11/18/new-book-highlights-able-danger/
Just when you thought Able Danger was gone forever…NOT!
The more I hear about Patrick Fitzgerald, the lower the opinion I have of this jerk. The name of Peter Lance’s new book is “Triple Cross” and you better believe I will read it.
Carol
Good Post, AJ. I’ll have to check out the like by the poster above!
General Electric is a multinational corporation. General Electric has its own propaganda division (NBC). I have seen GE put infomercials on NBC in the guise of former Clinton officials talking to Meet the Press about why the United States should provide more foreign aid to Russia to deal with their radioactive material and old nuclear bombs. GE just happens to have contracts with Russia to do those jobs for Russia. During the Clinton administration, NBC wanted the United States to work with other countries to build nuclear power plants for North Korea. The Clinton Administration did. Guess who got “a piece of the pie.†In 2004, Democrat candidates wanted to follow the North Korea nuclear plant building scheme for Iran. NBC talking heads propagandized for the Iran Plan then and continue to propagandize that scheme now. GE’s wants as many Mexican Wage Slaves inside America as possible.
I have always voted Republican. That does not mean that I like everything that they do. Ross Perot was against the (North American Free Trade Agreement) NAFTA. By the way, Mexico is in North America (not Central or South America). He was afraid of a “giant sucking sound†that he believed would result if NAFTA became law. He though that American factories would be sucked into Mexico (resulting in the loss of American jobs). What is the sound that an army of Mexican Wage Slaves makes when it is sucked into America by crooked individuals, crooked plantation owners and crooked corporations who do not want to pay a fair wages to Americans? There is a simple reason why Perot was wrong about his expectation that the American meat packing industry would be sucked into Mexico by NAFTA. Prior to Bill Clinton getting NAFTA through Congress, he and Hillary had a real close relationship with Tyson Foods.
Tyson Foods did not need to move their meat packing plants to Mexico to have willing Mexicans work for wages that would allow Tyson Foods to compete in the world market. It would cost Tyson Foods money to move their equipment and build factories in Mexico. In addition, it would cost American ranchers money to ship cattle (in cattle cars) to Tyson factories in Mexico. However, Tyson Foods does not need to pay for the shipment of the Mexican workers to its packing plants in the US. For many of the Mexicans, arriving at the Tyson Foods plants, by traveling in a cattle car (paid for by Tyson Foods) would have been a better deal than the existing Clinton-Bush approved Wage Slave Trade System. The existing Clinton-Bush approved Wage Slave Trade Transportation System puts all of the cost (and risk) on the illegal immigrant.
During the first American colonial period, (not the current colonial period) wealthy international businessmen would pay for the transportation of indentured servants to travel to America so that they could work on their plantations. The typical indenture (written contract) would require the indentured servant to work on the plantation for a period of years with no salary for that period. When the period of service was complete, the indentured servant was promised his freedom and his own parcel of land. By becoming a landowner, he would be eligible to vote. Under the Clinton-Bush approved Wage Slave Trade System, there is not an indenture that promises the Mexican Wage Slave his own land. Under the Clinton-Bush approved Wage Slave Trade System, there is not an indenture that promises him citizenship. However, the Mexican Wage Slaves know what was delivered by Ronald Reagan. Republicans went along with the last amnesty because they were told that the Reagan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation contained penalties that would punish crooked businessmen if they continued to hire illegal immigrants. The conservative voter’s assumption was that there would be honest enforcement of the new law.
When Governor Bush ran for President, I understood that his plan was to alter the de facto Wage Slave Immigration System that was in place in 2000. Although he said that he was not for amnesty, I knew that his Compassionate Conservative Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan amounted to a de facto amnesty. Many Republicans who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 did not understand that the words “Bush Compassionate Conservative Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan†means the same thing as the word “amnestyâ€. The number of prior Bush voters who did not go to the polls in 2006 is not reflected in the 2006 EXIT polls. They made their “exit†prior to arriving at the voting booth. In other words, they stayed home. I voted Republican in 2006. I understand that the “economic penalty provision†in the Bush Plan is a flimflam. I am not a Bush Sycophant. I hold my nose and vote Republican but I realize that Republicans trying to out pander the Democrat Party by adding more and more Wage Slaves to the voter rolls will only increase the Democrat Party “victim baseâ€.
Strata
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15251.htm
Good economy? Strata, you don’t know whereof you speak.
Let former Reagan cabinent member,conservative, and opponent of
globaloney proffer a few facts explaining why. )(Above link)
Hint: jobs replacing lost jobs not as good.Manufacturing base
eroding. Stagnanting or declining wages for the workers.
Ken
But of course all that is ONLY true under GWB, it wasn’t that way before was it?
Besides you wrote it, and you are certified to be 100% wrong.
Bill Clinton laid the ground work for the export of our manufacturing base to China. He is responsible for getting NAFTA and WTA passed. Clinton immediately gave China Most Favored Nation Status and threw our markets open to unlimited dumping of Chinese made goods priced so cheap it was almost like getting things for free. By the time Clinton left office, WalMart had been changed into ChinaMart and had squeezed out all the local competition. In addition to opening our markets to unlimited exports from China, the entire contents of the US Patent Office was wire transferred to China. The enormous balance of payments deficits were hidden during Clinton’s term by allowing Saudi Arabia to spend it’s oil billions on building over 3,000 Wahabi Mosques in the US and buying control of American Colleges and universities with multi million dollar grants to build Middle Eastern and Islamic Study Departments which now dominate and control most of our higher education institutions.