Posted on 01/05/2017 4:51:43 PM PST by Stand Watch Listen
US Middle Class Still Suffering from Rockefeller-Kissinger Industrial Transfer Scheme to China DECEMBER 31, 2016 BY 21WIRE
The Truth Hound
When Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller met with Zhou Enlai in China in 1973—just after President Richard Nixon had visited China establishing official relations—an understanding was reached whereby the U.S. would supply industrial capital and know-how to China.
In return Kissinger-connected corporations would gain the monopolistic advantage of low-cost labor production which could outcompete all U.S. domestic industry.
The comparative advantage gained was being able to hire Chinese laborers who were ready to work hard at exceedingly low cost—with no drugs, no alcohol, a strong work ethic, no unions, no paid benefits and weak environmental standards. And with such a large labor pool, burned out workers could simply be replaced. This gave the Rockefeller/Kissinger corporations a major edge over their domestic U.S. competitors who had to pay relatively high wages, high regulation costs, deal with union strikes and collective bargaining etc.
Of course, the American consumer did not see greatly lowered prices commensurate with such greatly lowered labor costs. The $19.99 plastic action-figure toy marketed with a Hollywood movie still cost $19.99 even though it cost $12 to $15 to produce in the U.S. but less than $2.00 per copy to produce in China and transport to America’s West Coast container ports for distribution throughout America.
The consumer paid pretty much the old prices but the corporations split the monopoly profit with China’s Princelings since it did not take much of a lowering of prices to drive high-wage, high-benefit, contracted-labor domestic corporations out of business (not to mention the environmental and workplace safety regulations with which domestic companies were saddled). Then, Wal-Mart became a near-monopoly retailer that increased and reinforced the widespread selling of these off-shore manufactures.
Thus, America’s domestic producers were not simply being bested on one or another area of production; they were being bested across the entire spectrum of manufactured goods that American buy. It was anticipated that these domestic firms would fail, and their failure was hastened by the banks maintaining a deflationary domestic economy in the U.S. throughout the post Rockefeller-Kissinger-Zhou buildup of China and the degrading of American domestic manufacturing. Remember, the entire money supply of the U.S. is borrowed—that is, the money co-created with a debt of an even bigger amount (principal plus compound interest) that must in due course be returned to the lender. But money in the domestic economy was going to multinational corporations and to China, while also going to taxes to pay on the national debt that resulted [NOTE: Due to U.S. industrial depletion, federal revenue receipts as well as the tax-take of state and local governments, shrunk, resulting in greater government borrowing and therefore greater public debts—TRUTH HOUND note]. And of course, compound interest was attached to that debt. Rockefeller and Kissinger were (and to some extent still are) at war with middle-class America—with intelligent, self-supporting, self-respecting, ambitious, industrious citizens who always pose the greatest threat in the form of populist politics to the bankers and their Bank-of-England/East-India-Company/Rothschild monetary and trade system, the very system that Rockefeller and Kissinger were representing and expanding when they visited Zhou Enlai.
So here we are in 2016 and newly elected President Donald J. Trump says he intends to place a tariff on goods imported from China, while the media decries the tariff proposal as a violation of “long-standing liberal free-trade policies.”
One more thing in defense of who I believe was a great president and a warning for the new one.
Richard Nixon opened China believing in peaceful co-existence and the fact that if given time for a fair comparison of how free-enterprise and representative government functions in contrast to the communist planned economy, that the U.S. model would win out over a system where each receives what the state deems he needs and where work is ordered by the state. But of course Kissinger and Rockefeller instigated the Watergate coup against Nixon—a frame-up with John Dean and Kissinger as the real “Deep Throats” by my deductions from public information—so that the Rockefeller/Kissinger plans for China’s industrialization and America’s deindustrialization could proceed unopposed, as it certainly did after Nixon resigned to avoid a constitutional crisis that would hinder the proper working of government. Nixon should have fought them because they were about to take a financial axe to this country as soon as Nixon was gone. When Nixon was gone, they first robbed the middle-class of their savings with banker Paul Volcker’s “QE” (quantitative easing) bond purchases at the New York Federal Reserve branch. Then, when that was accomplished, America’s savings-and-loans were cast into crisis (because they had been taking in money short-term at 3% and lending long-term at 6%). This helped force the deregulation of banking to Rockefeller advantage—after which Volcker moved to become Federal Reserve Chairman in control of the discount rate. With that lever of power that sets the interest-rate framework of the nation, Volcker inaugurated the tight-money (deflation) policy that has persisted to this day, making it very hard for firms to invest in automation to combat the cost advantage of Chinese subsistence labor.
Japan was hit with deflation too — they were going to provide us with the robots. THE WHOLE THING WAS A GREAT PLAN AGAINST US, COORDINATED AT EVERY LEVEL, WITH EVERY INSTITUTION, FROM THE NEWS TALKING ABOUT HOW THE LEVERAGED BUY-OUTS OCCURING IN THE DEFLATION WERE MAKING US “LEAN AND MEAN,” WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE TEARING OUT THE GUTS OF AMERICAN PRODUCTION. And the news media and the economics and business administration courses in colleges sung the praises of international free trade and the “efficiency of markets” nonstop.
I watched it all from a pretty good seat on the sidelines, but of course I was marginalized as just another excess white person who needed to stand aside so that blacks and women could have their fair chance. And who could argue with that? So I took to the internet to see what effect I could have simply speaking as a citizen, where I’ve met encountered considerable abuse and ridicule, which certainly makes it unpleasant to try and be the “Paul Revere” awakening the good citizens.
I do wish President Donald Trump the best. But let us make sure that none of the neo-conservatives he is taking into his administration are really “Kissingers” beholden to Goldman-Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Beware of new Watergates.
Washington writer Dick Eastman taught economics at Texas A & M University and also studied the behavorial sciences.
mark
Alright, I’ll bookmark this for reading at a later time.
Check out who the Western commies were who helped Mao into power in the first place during the 1940’s and stayed on as his advisors in the following decades... Sol Adler, Sidney Shapiro, Israel Epstein etc.
As to Trump and his relations with GS... just ask Mr Mnuchin or Cohen.
Can we get over this Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller Bull stuff.
Kissinger helped open up China. What we did with that was up to us, to the business community. The business community was wrong!
Our trade policies were gutted and transformed in the early 1990s, not 1973.
Big business went in big-time, and they weren’t looking to Rockefeller to find out what they should be doing.
This Rockefeller boggie-man nonsense is nothing more than that. And what it leads folk to do is dismiss all the corporations who made deals that screwed over the United States.
Rockefeller didn’t force our businesses to hand over patent information, cut millions of jobs U.S. Citizens used to do, and outsource everything else they could.
Sheesh!
We've had trade relations with a lot of different countries. Some of them became successful exporters. Many didn't. China could have become one of the failures, rather than the (apparently) great success that it is.
The goal at the time was to separate Russian and China, to tie us closer to China, and maybe encourage something capitalistic in China. That worked.
But we didn't have to become dependent on China. We didn't have to gut our own industries. It wasn't planned way back in the 1970s either.
You touch on exactly the right issues, and overall I agree with your take on it.
It was a brilliant strategy to play off China against Russia, even if only making Russia second guess the situation.
It really helps to have lived through those times and understand the dynamics in play at the time.
“Nice racket, if you can get it.”
It really triggers a race to the bottom in the long run.
And we wondered how the Nixon crowd got a bad name. It indeed took a Trump to bring the GOP back out of the pit it dug softly for itself. It was the less-bad party. Now it has a chance, though dragged kicking and screaming into it, to be the good party again, indeed the reborn Grand Old Party.
I am close to some industries that are worried about the changes. If we don’t import so much from China, from Mexico, etc. then what will the transportation industry do? These places are the very key to our success! That’s what I hear.
But it’s like hearing the Democrats complain that there won’t be a replacement for Obamacare, when they know jolly well that Trump and his team is smack dab on top of that question. There might be less traffic from ports... but a lot MORE traffic going on in between American manufacturing and consuming locations. And also, with trade negotiations going on, more traffic TO ports.
Well, what was it that Kissinger PROPOSED to China? I can bet it probably wasn’t “you ship us dolls, we ship you corn, and we are even steven.”
This was at the time when China got the notion that “it is glorious to grow rich.”
What said rich to them? American dollars. As many of these debt notes we issued, as possible.
Rockefeller=Tri-Lateral Commission!!!
More than anything else, in the 1973 time frame, was the inception of a dialogue with China.
At the time we wouldn’t hear about internal changes in leadership and policies for months or years. This was problematic.
If this were some plot, the opening up of China would have taken place one day, and within months or a year a massive sea change of policy would have become noticeable.
No other big policy changes did become noticeable other than a better communication between the two nations.
It was two decades later when our businesses went whole hog for China.
Great article. Globalism in a nutshell.
Oh, it grew, but in a definite direction from the word go.
It wasn’t all tweeting birds and mutual philanthropy.
I had a cheap jacket in 1980 that was made in China. This was among the first of the cheap Chinese goods. Somebody eventually stole it from me.
But anyhow, the factory that made that jacket wasn’t being paid in US corn. It was being paid in US dollars. It became a little success story in China. China saw, and wasn’t stupid based on its own desiderata. How can we turn little success stories into big success stories?
And we see what the result did to the Chinese countryside, because to them success stories just meant more and more and more US dollars.
If I remember accurately, Japan still had larger trade deficits with the United States until the mid 1990s.
Okay, I was wrong. It wasn’t until 2000 that we ran up larger trade deficits with China than Japan.
Page 73 below... about mid page. That is 27 years after Kissinger went to China.
So anyhow, Donald Trump has a different idea of success story. Dollars are only one side of it. Goods and services and self-respect are the other side of it.
If China had thought that way... which is another way of saying that prosperity comes from heaven, leveraged by work (and hard work will result in a lot of benefit through that leverage)... well, probably its Yangtze would NOT be a sewer, nor would the atmosphere of Peking/Beijing be a cloud of smog.
Both the US and China suffered from a bad concept. Trump is about to spark a revolution in thought in the USA. We don’t begrudge it to the rest of the world, which needs its own Trumps.
And Japan hit a wall; but China didn’t.
Japan believes more in quality of life, however.
This article puts it out exactly as I remember it.
It is dead on. The only people not mentioned are the Bush’s, who helped carry the torch by facilitating the transfer of factories to China.
It was a concerted effort to break the unions and drop the middle class down to the status of peons or worse, Chinese labor.
The nonsense about “free trade” was just what this guy says - a marketing scam to loosen up opposition to the plan.
For those here saying that it all started in the 90’s, that’s just when it got finalized. They were pushing Chinese trade as a way to get “1 billion new customers” back in 1980.
This plan plus mass third world immigration had one goal: destroy the American middle class and make them part of a global squat labor force which could always be intimidated if they asked for more.
The Rat party and the Clintons went along with all of this because it benefited non-whites. For them and their ilk, Race is everything, and that means whitey loses. They are very happy to see Chinese, Indian and Mexican workers get jobs that the “ignorant rednecks” they deplore used to have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
