“Collusion?” Where was the FBI when we needed them?

January 13, 2019

The news that broke yesterday about the FBI launching a counter-intelligence investigation of President Trump after he fired former FBI director James Comey got me thinking.  Where was the FBI when real collusion took place that has nearly destroyed the United States? Past presidents have colluded with other world leaders for decades to transfer all of the wealth of the United States to the rest of the world through a grand scheme of globalization that transformed America’s economy into a comatose host to be fed upon by hordes of parasitic nations.

Where was the FBI after World War II when Truman colluded with European leaders to establish the World Bank and the International Monetary fund, along with signing the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, unilaterally dismantling America’s protections against predatory trade partners?  Where was the FBI when George H. W. Bush colluded with world leaders to establish the World Trade Organization, surrendering America’s trade policy?    Where was the FBI when Clinton colluded with Mexico to pass NAFTA, or when he colluded with Chinese leaders to grant China “Most Favored Nation” status?  Where was the FBI when Obama colluded with South Korea to worsen our balance of trade with them?  Or when he tried to ramrod the Trans Pacific Partnership deal down our throats?

The result of all of the above is that the United States is a shell of its former self.  We are now nearly $22 trillion in debt to the rest of the world.  Stand on a rooftop and take a look around.  Everything you see – as far as you can see – is owned by foreign governments or corporations.  You think you own your house or, if you have a mortgage and are honest with yourself, that at least your bank owns your house?  Think again.  All such debt has been bundled up and sold to foreign interests.  The same is true of virtually all U.S. property, whether “owned” by private individuals, small companies, corporations, or even your local government, state government or the federal government.  They own us lock, stock and barrel.  And with ownership comes control.  Don’t think that it doesn’t.   Incredibly, past presidents have colluded to make a communist country led by a dictator-for-life the biggest benefactor of all.  How in the hell did all of this happen?  Where was the FBI?

Where was the FBI when these past presidents colluded with the rest of the world to unleash a relentless campaign of fake news and false propaganda to brainwash and assure Americans that all of this was done in their best interest?  “Trade deficits don’t matter.”  “Everyone wins in free trade.”  “We’ll retrain you to get an even better job.”

Where was the FBI while past presidents rendered America subservient to “The New World Order?”  They never uttered a peep of protest.  They never launched an investigation.  Some have likened Trump to the “Manchurian Candidate,” an old movie about a communist attempt to get a brainwashed traitor elected president.  Given all of the above, one has to wonder who was the real “Manchurian Candidate?”  Was it Trump, or was it the string of presidents who preceded him?  Is Trump now faced with fighting an entire system that they’ve created, including the media and all of the government’s bureaucracies?  Is the FBI now part of a “Manchurian” conspiracy?  Should Trump have gone beyond Comey and fired all of the FBI’s senior leadership?

OK, I know, I’ve veered way off the road into the weeds of conspiracy theory.  But seriously, don’t you find it just a wee bit ironic that we finally have a president who is trying to extricate America from domination by world organizations and he finds himself under attack by the same FBI that was perfectly happy with America’s subjugation to foreign interests through the process of “globalization?”

Advertisements

Global Economy Locked in Schizophrenic Tug-of-War

March 31, 2009

The global economy is locked in an unprecedented tug of war of ideologies, between those commited to propping up the failed free trade model and those who recognize the role of the global trade imbalance in collapsing the economy.  The following linked article is a perfect example of the former contingent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52U1YY20090331

The World Bank, led by Robert Zoellick, has announced a paltry $50 billion program aimed at restoring global trade.  Such a feeble attempt is laughable but not surprising, given that Zeollick, America’s Trade Representative from 2001 to 2005, was completely ineffective  and presided over the worst run-up of the U.S. trade deficit in history. 

But the following is an example of new thinking that is emerging.  It seems that the International Monetary Fund sees global trade transitioning to a reduced level and, in some cases, vanishing altogether.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE52T2D420090330

Marek Belka, director of the IMF’s European department, said … some export-dependent countries would need to find other sources of business when the dust settled.

“What we are seeing now is the sheer implosion of international trade. I think it’s transitory.

Belka said that if the downturn caused U.S. consumers to save more of their money, and buy fewer goods from abroad, exporters around the world would feel the pinch.

“There will be less trade between the United States and China, … there will be less trade everywhere,” Belka said.

“We have to be prepared in our trade policies to look inside and in our immediate neighborhood,” he told the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe meeting.

“I think that domestic economy and intra-regional integration will play a larger role than before. We should not count on global trade to such an extent as we are counting now.”

I believe it’s this new thinking that Obama is counting on to help the U.S. restore a balance of trade.  But I also believe it’s naive to expect it to work.  You can be sure that if customers walk into a Toyota, Hyundai or Mercedes dealership tomorrow or next year, they’ll be just as eager as ever to sell that customer a new car.  Walmart will be just as eager to maximize profits by offering cheap products from China.  Drug companies will be just as eager to maximize profits by taking advantage of tax breaks in Ireland.  Nothing is going to change by itself.  If that’s what Obama thinks will happen, he’ll be sorely disappointed.

At the same time, there’s a schizophrenic approach to the dollar.  Foreign holders are worried about their dollar-denominated investments, like treasuries, but can’t unload them out of fear of driving down the dollar, eroding their export market.  The administration would like a weak dollar to help restore a balance of trade, but fears the resulting rise in oil prices and the prospect of rampant inflation. 

The outcome of this tug of war is clear – the U.S. will move toward a balance of trade.  Whether it happens sooner or later, or whether it’s done through some kind of global cooperation or through the imposition of tariffs or other protectionist measures by the U.S. remains to be seen.  Regardless of whether or not economists and world leaders ever come to understand the root cause of the imbalance in global trade that collapsed the economy, most now understand that such an imbalance can’t be tolerated forever.


Former World Bank Chief Blames Greenspan & Bush for Financial Crisis

April 28, 2008

 http://www.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUSL2719096320080427

I don’t disagree with Joseph Stiglitz’s analysis as far as it goes, but he altogether misses the main cause of the U.S. financial crisis: our “free” trade policy which has produced a $700+ billion per year trade deficit and a cumulative $9 trillion trade deficit since 1976. But what else would you expect from an economist? To lay the blame where it really lies would be to disavow their beloved “principle of comparative advantage,” the flawed, 200-year old theory upon which globalization is based.

Pete