Anti-border tax coalition

April 20, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-lobbying-idUSKBN17C2HQ

I’ve been predisposed for a week or so and it’s now time to get caught up on some things.  There’s been a lot in the news lately regarding Trump administration policies on immigration and trade.  I’m extremely pleased with what’s happening on immigration, less so with what I hear about Trump waffling on the idea of a “border tax” (another name for tariffs).

But I’ll start with the above-linked story that came out last week because this is a perfect example of the divergence of interests that takes place when a nation becomes “economically over-populated” or takes on the characteristics of such an economy through free trade with a badly overpopulated nation.  For the benefit of those unfamiliar with this concept, this divergence of interests is one of the consequences of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption.  As a society becomes more densely populated, the need to crowd together and economize space begins to erode per capita consumption.  As per capita consumption declines, so too does per capita employment.  The result is rising unemployment and poverty.   It’s in individuals’ best interest – in the best interest of the common good – that this situation be avoided.  (To better understand this concept, I encourage you to read Five ShortBlasts.)

However, while per capita consumption may begin to decline as a population density reaches a certain level, total consumption continues to rise with a growing population.  Who benefits from that?  Anyone in the business of selling products.  Not only do they benefit from the increase in sales volume, but they benefit further as the labor force grows faster than demand, putting downward pressure on wages.  Thus, it’s in corporations’ best interest to see population growth continue forever, and to pursue more markets through free trade.

So it’s in the best interest of the common good that we avoid meshing our economy through free trade with nations whose markets are emaciated by overcrowding and who come to the trading table with nothing but bloated labor forces hungry for work.  But it’s in corporations’ best interests to grow the overall customer base through free trade with those same nations.  So it comes as no surprise that a big-business coalition is eager to steer lawmakers away from any tax plan that would include a “border tax” (a tariff) that might shut them out of their foreign markets.

They call themselves “Americans for Affordable Products,” making it sound as though it is individual Americans who make up this coalition and not global corporations.  They want us to believe that products will become less affordable.  While prices for imports may rise, they want you to forget that those increases would be more than offset by rising incomes and falling tax rates.  They don’t care if the border tax benefits you.  All they care about is that it may not necessarily benefit them.

So which of these competing interests will lawmakers heed – their wealthy corporate benefactors or the angry Americans who swept the Trump administration into power on his promise to enact a border tax and bring our manufacturing jobs back home?  Money talks and I fear that groups like this coalition are having an effect.  Trump and Republicans would be wise to ignore them.  Democrats paid the price for ignoring the plight of middle-class Americans when Obama betrayed his promise of “hope and change.”  Those same middle-class Americans will pull the trigger on Trump too if he doesn’t come through.

 


Week 1 Done

January 28, 2017

The world is slowly awakening to a new reality.  It has profoundly changed.  And that may be an understatement.

Throughout the campaign, Trump’s “populist” rhetoric was dismissed by many – especially by those who stood to lose the most if globalization were dismantled – as exactly that, a play for votes or posturing designed to win concessions in the highly unlikely event that he would actually be elected president.  After all, this is the author of The Art of the Deal, a book about his tactics for winning in the business world.  He’s just  staking out his opening position.  Right?

During the transition, however, he doubled down on his rhetoric and stacked the cabinet mostly with people aligned with his positions.  The world grew a little more nervous.

Then came inauguration day and, I have to admit, that even I was taken aback by his speech.  It was as though he picked up a rhetorical two-by-four and began swinging at everyone who’d had a role in America’s trade mess and economic decline, and any who doubted his intentions or who stood in his way.

Now his first week in office is history, and what a week it was.  TPP (the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal) is dead.  NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Deal) is as good as dead.  The wall on the southern border will be built.  Tariffs on Mexican imports will pay for it.  Immigration from many Middle Eastern countries has been brought to a halt.  And, in stark contrast to Obama’s visit to Mexico in the early days of presidency to discuss renegotiating NAFTA, a humiliating experience that yielded only more Mexican tariffs on American goods, Trump has put Mexico on notice.  If you can’t accept the new reality of American tariffs on Mexican imports and an all-out effort to halt illegal immigration from your country, then too bad – we have nothing to talk about.

Some seem to get it.  Some American companies have begun hedging their bets with announcements of plans to invest in American manufacturing.  Still, the world is largely in a state of denial.  Markets around the world continue to rally on optimism over the aspects of the Trump agenda that it likes – corporate tax breaks and infrastructure spending – while shrugging off the possibility that Trump means business about imposing tariffs on imports.

The world is made up of only two economies, really.  One is the economy of the more sparsely populated countries, able to gainfully employ their workers, which is dominated by the United States.  The other is the rest of the world, badly overpopulated and heavily dependent on manufacturing for export to the aforementioned countries – again, most notably, the United States.  Tariffs on imports into the U.S. will  totally alter the host-parasite relationship that exists between the two.  Those who continue to blindly invest in the economies of the latter may be making a serious mistake.

Americans have finally gotten fed up with playing the role of enabler to ever-worsening overpopulation, using immigration as a relief valve and trade to prop it up.  Trump has hastened the day when the rest of the world must face the consequences on their own.


Globalization Proponents Starting to Sweat

October 11, 2016

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-imf-g-idUSKCN12629J

As illustrated in the above-linked article, advocates of globalization, an experiment embarked upon in the wake of World War II to spread prosperity and avert future wars, are growing desperate to stave off its collapse.  It has indeed spread prosperity to some but a fatal flaw has been exposed.  Instead of turning overpopulated and desperately poor nations into Western-style consumers that would eventually lift the growth rates of economies that they scavenged in the first place, globalization has evolved into more of a host-parasite relationship that has left the “host” economies of Europe (most notably Great Britain, but there are others) and especially the United States, weakened, angry and ready to revolt.  Great Britain already has.  America and others soon will.

Globalization was doomed from the outset thanks the failure of economists to look beyond the resource challenges of overpopulation to consider the economic ramifications of declining per capita consumption and rising unemployment.  Now, a half-century into the experiment, instead of developing into the economic “growth engine” that its architects envisioned, it more resembles a sort of poverty-sharing program where the fortunes of some people have improved somewhat, but only on the backs of the more prosperous who now find themselves unwilling and even unable to sustain it.

Now the world’s ruling elite are calling for a coordinated effort among the host nations and their central banks to boost deficit spending and to keep interest rates near zero, ignoring the risk of eventual economic collapse posed by such reckless policies.

“On Thursday, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said policymakers now have a better recognition of the need for their actions to ‘more immediately, tangibly and clearly, transparently benefit larger segments of the population.'”

All along, we have been assured by the advocates of globalization that all of us benefit, but those benefits may just be too complicated and ethereal for the rest of us to grasp.  No one, at least not in the host countries, is buying it any longer.  Why didn’t globalization provide more benefits that were “tangible, clear and transparent” from the outset?  Because it can’t.  It’s simply impossible for the host in a host-parasite relationship to experience any benefit.  So now they want to administer a little food and medicine to the hosts by jiggering the system, keeping them alive a little longer.

Reducing poverty in the undeveloped world is a noble goal.  I might even be able to get on board with globalization if, at the same time that the host economies were being scavenged, there were provisions to address the root cause of the poverty – gross overpopulation – that necessitated globalization in the first place.  (Before many of you who haven’t read Five Short Blasts freak out, I’m talking about doing this through economic incentives to encourage people to have smaller families.)  But that’s not what globalization’s advocates want.  They not only want to scavenge host economies, but they want the host nations to take in the overflow population from the rest of the world in order to fuel the revenue growth that the global corporations – who fund the campaigns of the ruling elite – demand.

Regardless of how the U.S. presidential election turns out, the pressure to scrap the globalization scheme will only intensify.


Ford Moving to Mexico; Trump Says He’ll Stop It

September 15, 2016

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/15/news/companies/donald-trump-ford-ceo-mark-fields/index.html

The above link will take you to an interview conducted by CNN’s Poppy Harlow with Mark Fields, Ford CEO.  If you have the patience to watch it all the way through, it will be immediately followed by further discussion of Trump’s plans to raise tariffs and bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

Trump has long predicted that Ford would be announcing its move to Mexico.  Fields responds that they are only moving its small car production – the Focus and the C-Max (both made at Ford’s Dearborn, MI plant) -to Mexico.  Other models will continue to be made in the U.S.

Ford actually sells six car models:  Fiesta, Focus, C-max, Fusion, Mustang and Taurus.  The Fiesta and the Fusion are already built in Mexico.  Ford’s announcement about the Focus and C-max leaves only two of its six car models that are still made in the U.S. – Mustang and Taurus.  The former is built at its Flat Rock, MI plant and the Taurus is built in Chicago.  Most of its SUVs and trucks are built in the U.S.  There’s a good reason for this.  The U.S. continues to maintain a 25% tariff on all imported light trucks.

The Transit Connect is an interesting exception.  Until 2013, Ford imported the Transit Connect, a vehicle it markets as a commercial van/truck, from Turkey, trimmed out as a passenger van.  It then strips out the passenger interior, removes the windows, and replaces them with metal panels, converting it into a commercial vehicle.  It did all of this to escape paying the 25% import tariff.  In 2013, the U.S. ordered Ford to stop this practice.  Ford still does it, but now it pays the tariff.  It “eats” the cost of the tariff.  It doesn’t pass it on to the consumer.

If elected, Trump has vowed to essentially tear up most trade deals – particularly NAFTA, and will raise tariffs to force companies to re-establish their manufacturing operations in the U.S.  In the case of Mexico, he has suggested a 35% tariff.  During the linked interview, Ms. Harlow asked Mark Shields directly whether he would still move manufacturing to Mexico if that were to happen.  Shields side-stepped the question.  But the answer is obvious.  Of course Ford would not move more production to Mexico if that were to happen.  Quite the opposite.  Production of the Fiesta and Fusion would also return.

Late in the interview, Shields cited the huge savings in labor costs for the move to Mexico, saying that it needed to be done to remain competitive in that segment of the market.  Ms. Harlow failed to follow up with the obvious question:  “So you’ll be reducing the price of the Focus once production has moved to Mexico?”  I would have loved to see him squirm and see the smirk run away from his face when he replied that the price wouldn’t change a bit.

Has any company ever cut the price of any product once its production was moved overseas?  Of course not.  They pocket the extra profit.  Which brings us to one of the arguments employed by economists (and cited in the 2nd CNN segment which starts immediately after the Mark Shields interview) that prices will rise and consumers will be forced to pay the tariffs, hurting the economy and cutting deeply into consumer spending.

That’s absolute nonsense.  Consumers don’t pay the tariffs.  The importing companies pay the tariffs.  Whether or not they elect to pass that extra cost along to the consumer is entirely up to them.  As we saw above with the Transit Connect, Ford doesn’t pass it along.  Sure, that would cut deeply into profits.  By far, the smarter alternative is to move manufacturing back to the U.S.

During the course of the interview, Ms. Harlow repeats a myth about tariffs and their role in the Great Depression.  “… the last time a big tariff was instituted in the United States back during the Great Depression, all the economists agree that it made the Great Depression worse.”  I’ve said it many times but it bears repeating here:  that’s factually false and is absolute nonsense.  First of all, no new, big tariff was implemented during the Great Depression.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a very slight tweaking of the  Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922, raising tariffs overall from 38.5% to 41.4%.  Following enactment of Fordney-McCumber, the economy boomed during the “roaring ’20s.”

By the time Smoot-Hawley was enacted, the Great Depression had already been underway for a year.  During the Great Depression, America’s balance of trade declined by less than $1 billion while GDP fell by $33 billion.  To blame tariffs for the Great Depression is ludicrous.  But that didn’t stop economists from doing it, eager to make a case for their new, untested theory about “free” trade.

In the CNN piece following the Mark Shields interview, CNN reports on dire warnings by economists that Mr. Trump’s tariffs would have disastrous consequences for the economy, cutting GDP by up to $1 trillion and would result in the loss of 4 million jobs.  Such claims are really puzzling, given the fact that economists know very well that a trade deficit is actually a subtraction in the calculation of GDP.  It’s impossible that bringing back manufacturing would do anything other than boost GDP dramatically.  Merely balancing trade in manufactured goods would be an $800 billion boost to the economy.  That would be a 4% jump in GDP which, not coincidentally, is what Trump has targeted for economic growth.  Any further surplus in trade in manufactured goods would boost the economy even more.  And instead of cutting 4 million jobs, it would actually create approximately 10 million jobs.

Free trade advocates claim that manufacturing jobs don’t matter any more, that most manufacturing is automated and there are few jobs there to be had.  If that’s true, then why do so many badly overpopulated nations with huge, bloated work forces cling so desperately to the manufacturing that they do for the American consumer?  Certainly, automation has improved productivity in manufacturing, but not nearly to the extent that free traders would have you believe.  Consider the production of the supposedly high-tech cell phones like the i-phone.  Their manufacture is about as low tech as you can get – thousands of people assemble the circuit boards by hand in China.

During one of the CNN segments, the reporter comments that “cars aren’t really built from scratch any more.  They’re assembled.  Those plants in Mexico will be assembling them from American-made parts.”  As if the process of assembly requires no effort, and as if cars haven’t been built that way since Henry Ford invented the assembly line.  I can tell you from personal experience, having toured the Dearborn plant where Ford builds the Focus, that it takes a lot of workers to make an assembly plant “tick.”  Watching a stack of sheet metal being turned into a finished automobile in less than 24 hours is truly awe-inspiring.  Having toured both auto assembly plants and electronics manufacturing, I can tell you that an auto assembly plant is far more “high-tech” than electronics production.

Trump’s plans to use tariffs to return manufacturing back to the U.S. is exactly what the American economy needs – and is exactly the thing that globalists fear the most.


Trump

July 22, 2016

So disillusioned was I with Obama’s broken promises to address the problems with our trade policy, his broken promise to double exports in five years, his signing of the awful trade deal with South Korea and, more recently, his pursuit of bigger, more expansive trade deals with Pacific rim nations and with Europe, I vowed to myself that I would stay out of politics on this blog going forward.  However, as discoverer of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, as author of the book Five Short Blasts that explains the relationship and its ramifications and, consequently, as an advocate of policies that would restore a balance of trade and move us toward a stable population, and in the wake of Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last night, I feel I can no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

Now more than halfway through my seventh decade on this planet, I have spent my whole life watching our country being sucked into the vortex of “globalism” in which the United States has evolved from a beacon of hope and prosperity into a host upon which overpopulated nations, unable to sustain themselves, could feed and thrive.  Our political parties evolved into one “Republicrat” party, supporting the trade and open-border policies that are central to making “The New World Order” tick.  The “hope and change” that Obama spoke of, especially his promise to fix our trade policy, I thought, might be our last chance to stop that madness.  In the wake of his betrayal, I figured that was it – that I’d never live to see an America again that was something other than the hollowed-out shell we’ve become.

On more than one occasion, I have called Donald Trump a “buffoon.”  We’ve seen him dip his toe into politics before, only to self-destruct through outlandish pronouncements and behavior.  He got my attention with his vow to “build the wall,” but I figured the same thing would happen again.  He’d soon self-destruct.  I thought that those who gave him a 1% chance of winning the nomination were being generous.  He was just grand-standing and having fun, enjoying another brief stint in the spotlight like he’s done before.

Then he vowed to rip up our trade deals and start over on trade, making new deals that actually worked for us.  He got my attention again.  I wanted to get my hopes up, but figured that, surely, his antics during the primary race would sink his chances.  To my amazement, they didn’t.  He was saying the right things about illegal immigration and about trade, but I was dismayed with the personal attacks.

Finally, last night, I saw the Trump I’d been wanting to see.  He was still Trump and, defying predictions that he’d back away from earlier promises in order to broaden his support, he actually doubled down on each one.  But gone were the personal attacks.

Trump was exactly right when he pointed out that our trade and immigration policies have done more harm to the poor, to the inner cities, to blacks and Latinos than to anyone else. I hope the folks from these demographics paid attention and kept open minds.

Unlike the Trump I’ve seen in the past, he seems truly sincere in his desire to turn the country in a very different direction.  At least that’s the way he came across last night.  It’s hard to imagine that a man 70 years old would subject himself to everything that goes with winning this nomination and waging the campaign to follow unless he really has a fire in his belly to do what he says.

But can he?  Can he get the political establishment to go along with with his plans – plans that seem radical and dangerous to many of them?  Can he back us out of trade deals in the face of threats from these other countries that will probably scare the hell out of people?  I have said that restoring a balance of trade would not be without pain, driving up the cost of goods until our own domestic manufacturing can get re-established.  Can he, a total Washington outsider, do this without mucking it up and perhaps forever sinking any hope that it will ever be tried again?   Will he be brain-washed into joining the ranks of the globalists as Obama was?  (That would seem unlikely with Trump.)  Does he really have the energy and drive to make all this happen?

Or am I just being suckered again?  I hope not.  As one who understands that the effects of our enormous trade deficit and our immigration policies on our economy dwarf all other factors – including currency valuations, Fed policy, stimulus programs, and so on – I have to at least give the benefit of the doubt to candidates who are at least claiming that they’ll tackle these issues.  Only time will tell.

In the meantime, I’ll keep doing my small part to convince you and others of the perils of our free trade and open border policies.

 


Racism(?) in America

July 11, 2016

In the wake of the events of the past week – the seemingly inexplicable killing of blacks by police and the slaughter of innocent policemen in Dallas, it’s important to draw attention to a dimension of all of this that has gone completely unnoticed.  As a white guy who has spent the better part of seven decades living in America, I feel I can attest with some authority to the progress that has been made in race relations, at least in regards to the attitudes of whites toward blacks.

As a kid I heard racial slurs all the time, from other kids and from adults alike.  Today, I virtually never hear such things.  As a kid, I witnessed all sorts of discriminatory practices – segregation in housing and schools, discrimination in hiring practices, etc.  But in the decades since the civil rights movement, virtually all of these practices have been purged from society.  Back then, you never saw blacks in professions or in positions of authority.  Today, you hardly give it a second thought.

Some years back, I was cured of cancer by a black doctor.  The color of his skin sure as hell didn’t matter to me in that circumstance.  Today, I live in an association of 135 homes, only one of which is occupied by a black family.  Why not more?  I don’t know, but I can tell you this:  I’ve never heard one word of ill will toward that family.  They’re nice people.  They maintain their property as well as any of the other homeowners, and that’s all we really care about.

While traveling through Mississippi last month, my wife and I stopped for dinner at a Chili’s restaurant in Jackson – an island of relative prosperity, thanks in large part to a massive Nissan plant there – in what is otherwise the poorest and the blackest state in the union.  The restaurant was virtually all black – black waiters, black kitchen staff and, with only a couple of exceptions, black patrons.  But those patrons were predominantly families, nicely dressed and no one seemed to even take notice of this white couple that had just walked in.  Our waiter was probably one of the better waiters we’ve had at a restaurant in some time.  My wife and I felt totally comfortable there.

That being said, I can also tell you that exactly the opposite is true on those rare occasions when I need to venture out of the suburbs into the heart of Detroit.  Like most major cities, downtown Detroit has come a long way, but venture a few blocks beyond the center, beyond the sports arenas, convention centers and hotels, and you’ll quickly find yourself in the midst of the worst urban blight you can imagine – a place that’s downright scary.  The great Motor City, America’s arsenal in World War II is now a hollowed-out shell, a bankrupt black enclave that plods through a zombie-like existence, too poor to educate its children and to provide basic services to its residents.

I’m ashamed to say that I’m scared to be in Detroit, and breathe a sigh of relief when I cross 8-mile Road on northbound I-75.  I’m ashamed because what I’m feeling seems to smack of racism.  Then again, I’m not ashamed because I know that it’s not racism that I’m feeling.  Rather, it’s something I’ll call “poverty-ism.”  America has made great strides in improving race relations.  But we fear poverty as much as ever, and all that goes with it – drugs, gangs, car-jackings, drive-by shootings and more.  The evening news can barely keep pace with the body count.  As I continue north and breathe that sigh of relief, I can’t help but think of all of the poor people – good people too, most of them – who are trapped in that environment.

In my previous post, I wrote of some “ugly” statistics buried in the June jobs report.  Here’s another one that I didn’t mention.  While the unemployment rate for whites was 4.4%, it’s 8.6% for blacks – by far the highest of any racial minority.  For young blacks, the rate is far higher.  We’re all aware of the toll this has taken in the black community – especially in the inner cities where unemployment is rampant:  the hopelessness, despair, anger, drugs, crime, the destruction of family values, and so on.  Who can blame the people forced to live in these conditions if they’re angry at their plight and feel victims of racism?  I’d be mad as hell too.

There are a lot of reasons for this situation and I won’t pretend that there aren’t still some remnants of racism at play here.  But a big factor that no one is talking about is the fact that the middle rungs of the economic ladder, the rungs that people need to climb out of poverty, have been cut away and used by proponents of globalization to improve the economic plight of the people of other nations.  I’m talking about the millions and millions of well-paying manufacturing jobs that have been shipped overseas thanks to misguided trade policy.

One of the reasons that I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 was the fact that he was black and promised to fix our trade policy.  As a black man, I figured he’d be eager to follow through and make real, meaningful improvement in the plight of black Americans by breathing life back into the middle class sector of the economy.  Without those manufacturing jobs, even whites are struggling.  What chance does a black man have?

Instead, Obama quickly fell in line with the free trade globalists and has only made matters worse with his trade deal with South Korea and the Trans Pacific Partnership deal he’s now pushing so hard.  He had a huge opportunity to help black America.  Instead, his eight years have been wasted.

Making matters worse, black Americans are even pushed off of the lowest rungs of the economic ladder by a tidal wave of illegal immigrants.  Why pay black Americans a minimum wage and benefits when you can pay an illegal immigrant who’s eager to do the job for even less?  The president seems far more concerned with the plight of illegal immigrants than that of his fellow black Americans.

Over the past few decades, virtually every public policy has been scrutinized for its effect on racial minorities, and those found to impact minorities in a negative way have been deemed discriminatory and have been banned.  Where is the same scrutiny of our trade policy and immigration policy?  These have clearly hurt blacks more than whites.  One could make the case that if there is any racism that still persists in the U.S., it’s racist trade policy that forces blacks in disproportionate numbers to bear the economic brunt of the loss of manufacturing jobs, and racist immigration policy that gives a break to illegal immigrants in spite of the harm to the black community.

Trade and immigration policy have divided this nation into two classes of “haves” and “have-nots,” the very income inequality that has gotten so much attention, but which also grows worse with each passing day.  While great strides have been made in eliminating racism, the “poverty-ism” that this divide has fostered is getting worse.  The group of people charged with maintaining order in this divide – the police – are not immune to poverty-ism.  They know all too well the risks they face when they try to maintain order in poverty-stricken inner city areas.  I won’t deny that some police are probably racist and some of the killings we’ve seen have been racially motivated, but I suspect the majority are more a matter of the police fearing for their own lives and, consequently, erring on the side of caution for their own safety.

The main thrust of my theory, my book and this blog has been to emphasize that poverty will grow worse along with worsening overpopulation and as trade with overpopulated nations persists.  Economists and government leaders can try to mask this with statistical gimmicks that make things look better than they are, but they can’t hide the effects.  The result is an electorate that grows ever more dissatisfied with the direction of our country and with our political leaders, and worsening anger and lawlessness in the hardest-hit areas of our inner cities.

Instead of addressing these root causes, we get more “programs” to try to paper over the problems.  Just this week Hillary Clinton proposed more federal money to provide for better training for police.  This is a perfect example.  Trade away our jobs, sell bonds to draw the dollars back to the U.S., and then put that deficit spending to work in more “programs” – more welfare, more government-subsidized health care, more job training programs, more federal aid for schools, more federal aid for police and fire departments – “better training for police.”

Until we stop trying to portray this problem as a racial divide instead of the poverty-fueled class divide that it really is, no amount of talk, hand-holding and hugging are going to make a bit of difference.

 

 

 

 


“Brexit” Another Failure of Economics

June 30, 2016

Why is it that all the big stuff happens while I’m on the road and unable to comment?  So it was with the “Brexit” vote last week when Britons voted to split from the European Union – the EU.  Well, better late than never.  So the following are some thoughts regarding the “Brexit” vote.

There has already been a lot of analysis of the underlying reasons for the surprising results of this vote.  They focus on three main issues:  immigration, trade, and the fact that Britain was being fleeced by the EU to the tune of about $350 million per day – only about half of which was returned to Britain in the form of “subsidies.”

The real root cause goes much deeper.  For decades, the main thrust of the United Nations has been the eradication of hunger and poverty among undeveloped nations – a noble goal.  But instead of helping such countries by fostering real, organic economic growth that begins with self-sufficiency and nurtures domestic industrialization to meet the growing wants and needs of the people, economists decided on an easier route.  They relied instead on “free” trade and population growth.

There was once a time when nations were free to strike trade deals with one another that were of mutual interest to both.  Both sides benefited.  Each gave something and each got something on terms that worked out to the best interests of both.

But faced with the challenge of elevating the fortunes of undeveloped countries, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization seized on a quick fix – the implementation of a trade regime that would tilt the playing field such that jobs and money would slide from the developed world to the undeveloped world.  “Don’t worry,” they assured the developed world.  “It’ll benefit you, too, when these nations develop into customers for your goods.”

Well, they haven’t, and now we have a system of trade where the rules are rigged in favor of one country over another – where developed countries are forced into trade relationships that are actually detrimental to them and their citizens.  This situation is now referred to as “free trade” while the previous system in which countries were free to make their own trade deals is decried as mercantilism.

The other tool in economists’ bag of tricks is population growth.  Population growth translates to GDP (gross domestic product growth), something that business loves, so the economists found ready and willing allies among global corporations, chambers of commerce and others.  None recognize that such cancerous growth actually degrades the quality of life of individuals and fuels more poverty.  The EU is no different and has seized upon immigration-driven population growth as a tool to prop up GDP.

There is just one problem with this grand scheme – democracy, and the fact that all of the ballyhooed intangible benefits of these approaches couldn’t obscure from the people the fact that they’re getting screwed.  I’ve occasionally high-lighted cracks that have been appearing in “globalization,” mostly in the form of skepticism about whether “free” trade was really any benefit at all for the donor countries or if it was actually dragging them down.  Now comes the “Brexit” vote, ripping a gaping hole in it.

Congratulations to the British people who rejected the econo-babble of the EU elites and applied common sense to their evaluation of what’s become of their country.  And it doesn’t stop with Britain.  Other EU nations who find themselves being fleeced to prop up the likes of Greece and Spain are also ready to jump ship.  In the wake of “Brexit,” EU leaders commented that, with the loss of British revenue, the EU may now be forced to raise taxes and implement even more austerity.  Smooth move, Brussels!

Speaking of dumb moves (dumb from the perspective of the globalists), how about Obama’s trip to Britain in which he chastised the “leave” supporters and threatened that the U.S. would relegate them to 3rd class status in trade negotiations if they did, in fact, leave the EU?  If any Brits were on the fence on this issue, Obama’s comments offered proof that Britain had been subjugated to the interests of the global elite.  Obama may very well be responsible for pushing Brits over the edge.  Yet another foreign policy blunder on his part (right on the heels of his disastrous trip to Japan, during which he was publicly berated by the Japanese president).  Continuing down that tangent, just yesterday he met with the Canadian and Mexican leaders in support of NAFTA, a meeting that the press hailed as “the three amigos.”  Could he possibly have made a more tone-deaf move when the nation is already fed up with illegal immigration from and job losses to Mexico?  Now Obama is known as an “amigo?”

As proof that sentiments that drove the “Brexit” vote go beyond the EU, Donald Trump has also blown a big hole in America’s one-party Republi-crat support for free trade and mindless pursuit of population growth as a crutch for a sick economy that was long ago ceded to the World Trade Organization.  The Republican elite are abandoning him in droves, but voters couldn’t care less.  They’re fed up with their leadership, just as the Brits were fed up with theirs.  America’s “Brexit” from globalization may come in November.