On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:17:42 -0800, ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mar 6, 6:22 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:08:14 -0800, ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> > On Mar 6, 2:02 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:51:46 -0800, ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 6, 12:26 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:54:20 -0800, ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Another aspect of US militarism.
>>
>> >> >> > "By 1990, the value of the weapons, equipment, and factories
devoted
>> >> >> > to the Department of Defense was 83% of the value of all plants
and
>> >> >> > equipment in American manufacturing."
>>
>> >> >> > (http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt312.html)
>>
>> >> >> > But of course, spending on gun cannot provide the butter.
>>
>> >> >> The above is misleading about, and I suspect that you are
consequently
>> >> >> misled in your view of, American industry by regarding the
"value" as
>> >> >> opposed to number of plants etc.
>>
>> >> >> The "value" of weapons etc. is always _grossly_ inflated by the
American
>> >> >> "defense industry" in connivance with the American Department of
Defense . . . .
>>
>> >> >> > Factories devoting to the development of weapons cannot produce
>> >> >> > consumer goods to satisfy Americans' needs.
>>
>> >> >> We had and have no problem producing consumer goods;
>>
>> >> > No. The fact that many countries are holding tons of dollars point
to
>> >> > the imbalance.. Americans want many things from aboard yet it is
not
>> >> > producing things other countries wants to buy.
>>
>> >> Well, we've seen several movements of production in the last
half-century
>> >> or so similar to the Chinese before, connived at even though unfair
in
>> >> practice and damaging to American working-people, the majority,
because it
>> >> fit in with or at least could be represented as serving recognizable
>> >> American foreign-policy objectives:
>>
>> >> The first such wave went to Japan, with IIRC Hong Kong and Taiwan
>> >> following quickly, and somewhat later South Korea.
>>
>> >> And there's a similar situation with regard at least to
pharmaceutical
>> >> production in Costa Rica.
>>
>> >> But the major bleeding of American dollars abroad for the last
several
>> >> decades is due, just like with regard to everyone else, to the
incredible
>> >> and corruptly-connived-at price-gouging of the international
petroleum
>> >> cartel, with both Texas "oil wealth" and the Saudis at the heart of
it.
>>
>> >> >> the movement of
>> >> >> American production intended for American use to China was to
maximize
>> >> >> "profit" by exploiting cheap Chinese slave-labor-- try to get
some
>> >> >> labor and labor, consumer and environmental safety laws passed
and
>> >> >> enforced in China, if you think the Chinese are free-- and to
mount an
>> >> >> unconventional offensive, an economic attack, on American
>> >> >> working-people, the majority of Americans, by the Chinese
"Communist"
>> >> >> ("New Class") regime and the American (cor****ate) plutocracy,
while the
>> >> >> American military and American counterintelligence are silenced
by the
>> >> >> money involved.
>>
>> >> > The above half-sentence is not clear. Please rephrase.
>>
>> >> I don't see a half-sentence.
>>
>> >> If you mean the "unconventional offensive" part, I consider America
to be
>> >> being seriously whipped by three "unconventional offensives" being
waged
>> >> against it at present, the Saudi War, the Mexican/Vatican War, and
the
>> >> Chinese War:
>>
>> >> The Saudi War, comprised of Saudi Arabia's "jihadist movement" on
the one
>> >> hand and its price-gouged petrodollars laundered through the
>> >> "Saudi-industrial complex" used to buy it immunity from retaliation
for
>> >> its actions on the other (see _House of Bush, House of Saud_, for
one
>> >> glimpse of this);
>>
>> >> The Mexican/Vatican War, a "population offensive" from Mexico,
connived at
>> >> by the Mexican plutocracy for revanchist reasons and the Vatican to
>> >> increase its political strength in the US, as well as of course by
the
>> >> American plutocracy (and especially that connected with the "service
>> >> industry") in the United States which greatly treasures the
>> >> all-but-slave-labor of illegal immigrants who can be de****ted if
they get
>> >> "uppity" about pay, labor conditions, etc., the all-but-free use of
which
>> >> labor drives and is intended by the American plutocracy to drive the
value
>> >> of labor down in the US and thus injure American working-people, the
>> >> majority;
>>
>> >> And finally the Chinese War, an economic offensive intended to
damage
>> >> American industry and the American working-people, the majority,
waged on
>> >> the one hand by a variety of unfair trade-practices ranging from the
>> >> relative cheapness of Chinese slave-labor (labor that can't organize
and
>> >> campaign and strike for labor and labor, consumer and environmental
safety
>> >> laws and enforcement is slave labor) to outright currency
manipulation,
>> >> and the "profits" from such laundered through the
"Chinese-industrial
>> >> complex" used to buy it immunity from retaliation for its actions on
the
>> >> other (see Wal-Mart).
>>
>> > Well, the only trade war which should really be described as a war is
>> > the
>> > opium war when Britain forced China to accept the poison as trade
>> > goods.
>>
>> Nobody defends the Opium Wars nowadays.
>>
>> Not even the Brits.
>>
>> > At present, I don't see anything similar concerning the China trade.
>>
>> Deliberate attempts to ruin an enemy country's economy are a recognized
>> form of warfare, economic warfare . . . .
>
> How is this the case?
> Trade, except the "opium wars" kind, are by nature win-win.
Like free labor competing against slave-labor, as in ancient Rome and the
pre-Civil-War American South, disemploying, dispossessing and ruining the
working-people, the majority, of both?
Now let's add product-dumping, intellectual property theft and
currency-manipulation.
And tie it all together by having paid and owned flacks call it, most
self-righteously, "free trade".
> Actually, you yourself had said that the movement of production to China
is to maximize
> American profit.
That was _one_ motive, and I put "profit" in quotes, because the
proceeds of the sale of the products of slave-labor, dumped on the market
to damage America's economy and working-people, isn't really profit, it's
the proceeds of crimes against humanity and treason . . . .
>> As are lavish monies expended to subvert that country's government, if
>> only to buy immunity for one's ongoing "unconventional offensive"
>> against that country . . . .
>
> Pray tell what individuals have lavished monies to subvert the American
> government.
What do you want, bags marked "Bribes"? with regard to Saudi Arabia, as
pointed out above, take a look at _House of Bush, House of Saud_, by way
of absolutely hair-raising starters; with regard to China, look to
Wal-Mart and the rest of the "Chinese-industrial complex" and their
"campaign donations" to ensure that things continue just as they have
been, even in the face of a tidal-wave of worse-than-defective products
from China, including poisoned protein supplements and lead-containing
_toys_ aimed at American _children_ . . . .
>> >> And the monies involved and the
connivance of the American
>> >> plutocracy and its money-based political system and "two" political
>> >> "parties" in these wars against America silence the American
>> >> military and American intelligence with regard even to the existence
>> >> of these wars, and still more the damage they are causing.
>>
>> I wonder whether there _are_ military and intelligence analysts who
>> recognize what's happening but are having their re****ts stuffed?
>>
>> It's hard to believe there aren't _any_ . . . .
>>
>> Where's Richard Clarke-- or even someone even more suspicious-- when
>> you need him?
>>
>> >> These are huge and complex subjects, and hard to clearly and
>> >> thoroughly delineate by any one individual, and especially on the
>> >> wing, as here, but I hope I've made my viewpoint clear enough.
--
When was the last time you heard an American politician
use the word "plutocracy"?
|
