Posted on 06/18/2006 7:49:43 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Based on the facts as I see them, the American people are about to get arguably the rudest awakening in the last one hundred years. The middle class will vanish, our social programs will fall into insolvency, and a select few people will make a hell of a lot of money at the expense of the rest of us.
Imagine the arrogance necessary for one to believe he’s justified in wrecking three vibrant cultures – the US, Canada and Mexico – just to make his financial bottom line more attractive. Hitler, as twisted and evil as he was, sincerely believed he was working for the benefit of his people. Those I will describe below can make no such claim. They seek only to serve their own selfish interests.
There are a number of circumstances that work together to create the current situation. It’s a situation that crosses party lines and involves both elected leaders and private sector executives in three nations. Here’s what’s coming down…
Corporate Greed…
First, let’s take a look at the wage gap between CEOs and non-management employees. In 1980, the average pay for a corporate executive officer was 42 times that of the average employee compensation (42:1). In 2004, the ratio was 431:1. In other words, the gap had widened by slightly over a thousand percent. This was actually a drop from a high of 531:1 in 1999. A one hundred point drop is significant, but the gap remains far too wide.
CEOs generally hold considerable sway over corporate board members, and therefore exercise a tremendous amount of control over their own compensation. In 2004, Yahoo’s Chief Executive Terry Semel raked in $230.6 million dollars in total compensation. That works out to $631,780.83 per day. How many of you reading this earn 600 G’s per day? Per year? Per decade?
I’m not singling Terry out of a crowd. But this is a good example of the extravagance of corporate pay packages. Let’s say some CEO earns $100 million per year. That’s $273,972.60 per day. If we cut his pay to “only” $50 million per year, that’s still one hundred thirty-six thousand dollars per day. One would think that he could scrape by on that amount, although he might be forced to keep his old yacht an extra year before trading it in. Oh… the hardship!
The other $50 million could be pumped into the company’s retirement fund, paid out in dividends to shareholders, or maybe even (gasp!) used to finance a pay raise for employees. Assuming this theoretical company has 5000 employees, that’d be a ten thousand dollar a year pay increase for each of them. Yes, I know I’m over-simplifying things a bit, but space doesn’t allow for nit-picking details. You can find the hard numbers by following the links at the end of the article.
Governmental Complicity…
Have you wondered how it is that President Bush can be such a hawk when it comes to waging the War On Terror and simultaneously be a lame duck with our southern border? The answer to this question is as simple as it is disturbing. Bush and many of his fellow Republicans are in the pockets of businesses both large and small. You shouldn’t (and probably aren’t) be surprised. Both major parties have long been for sale to the highest bidder.
The disturbing part is the fact that our government is evidently working hand in hand with American corporations to drive our wages into the gutter. Manufacturing jobs are becoming an export commodity. Service-oriented jobs are being outsourced to foreign entities. And in a grand move that will cement our future as a third-world pseudo-republic, Bush and Company are moving forward with their grand dream of globalism: The NAFTA Super-Highway.
Globalism…
What will this multi-gazillion dollar 10-lane highway do to America?
It’ll allow imports from all over the world to bypass American ports by making landfall in Mexico. The American section of the NAFTA Super-Highway will stretch from our southern border at Laredo, TX all the way to Canada along the I-35 and (new) I-69 corridors. There will be only the most superficial security measures in place, and low-wage Mexican truckers will stream unimpeded across our border. Left out in the cold will be American trucking and logistics companies, especially union shops. In bypassing union ports and truck lines, the Bush Administration will effectively remove the clout of the Teamsters and Longshoremen unions.
I’m not a huge fan of labor unions because of the level of corruption within them, but I’m not stupid, either. By wrecking the unions’ ability to exercise a bit of control over U.S. shipping, the Bush Administration will fling open the door to lower wages for all workers, both union and non-union.
The end result will be an overall equalization of wages for Americans, Mexicans and Canadians. That’s good news for Mexicans, but very bad news for everyone else. Bush, like his father, is a globalist. Remember Old Man Bush and all his talk about a New World Order? The NAFTA Super-Highway is the road that leads to the formation of the North American Union. For an example of how this sort of thing works, check out that shining star of success called the European Union.
If this process continues to move forward, the American middle class will be a dim memory. Like modern-day Mexico, we’ll have two classes: The very rich and the very poor. This is the goal of globalists like Bush and his ilk. The bulk of the money and power in this nation will rest in the hands of a select few. The rest of us will be little more than peasants.
Many of our manufacturing jobs have already been shuttled off to Mexico. This allows American companies to produce their goods at a substantially reduced cost. But that isn’t enough to sate the hunger of corporate America. In the interest of padding their already-swollen pockets, corporate suits now seek ways to lower the wages of those who work in service-oriented jobs. Warehouse workers, truck drivers, carpenters, plumbers, and others will all be faced with the specter of competition from Mexican workers willing to work for half the wage of legitimately employed Americans.
How so? Illegal aliens and outsourcing are the tools of an unholy alliance between the federal government and Corporate America to push our wages down, thereby freeing up money to finance their own extravagant lifestyles. This is why George W. Bush has done almost nothing to secure our borders. He and others like him plan not to secure our borders, but to instead eliminate them.
As time passes, American corporations will find it unnecessary to move their facilities out of the country. Our already stagnant wages will be just as low as those of Mexico. The cultures of three great nations will be diluted. Our currency will be replaced with the “Amero.” And, we’ll be one giant step closer to the U.N.’s perverse dream of a one-world government.
What To Do?…
We have critical elections coming in 2006 and 2008. We need to demand of everyone running for office, at every level, to pursue two basic goals. We must break away from NAFTA, and end our membership in the United Nations. These moves will create a firestorm of controversy worldwide. Mexico will scream bloody murder, but who cares? I for one am sick of seeing our nation being used as Mexico’s welfare cash cow.
Additionally, we must find allies in Canada to pursue similar goals in their country. If Canadians and Americans can be persuaded to join together, we’ll be able to return to a time when national sovereignty actually held some meaning.
Unless we take steps now to stop the process, America as we know and love her will cease to exist at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the NAFTA Super-Highway.
---I'm not sure what the problem with that really is...I think a prosperous country CAN find a way to do this....while an impoverished country chooses to treat its manual laboreres as disposable.---
Essentially, you can have cheap labor and a high tax, big government model or you can have more expensive labor and a low tax, small government model. I don't see any other way out of this in a humane, enlightened manner. What we are doing now with illegal immigrants is trying to both have and eat our cake. It is not sustainable.
Is there any doubt that Bush's way is the way ultimately of higher taxes and bigger government? How else would we even administer this "guest worker" program, much less the social, medical, and educational services?
US divided by superhighway plan--A MASSIVE road four football fields wide and running from Mexico to Canada through the heartland of the United States...
Check out mises.org and review a few of the articles or online books. Several articles have exceptional histories of why we went off the gold standard and what the ultimate effect will be. It boils down to credit expansion of the economy. A free market is less easily subject to governmental manipulation than one controlled by a central bank. The central bank, once in charge of what 'money' is, can manipulate it through interest rates. Lower rates and, to a point, you get economic expansion and inflation, which makes excessive government spending more palatable and easier to repay. (Because it will be paid off in deflated currency.)
I hope everyone will scream to their Senators, their Representatives, their Governors and their local government officials to fight against this deliberate destruction of the American middle class.
Bush has no right to do this to America, like a coward, behind our backs, and I believe it is an impeachable offense.
there are moral AND economic components to the existence of a middle-class....much of the world's leadership is in a perpetual snit over the power of the American middle-class that has devolved from the original form of American government wich two generations of bipartisan "leadership" has been trying to destroy...to the cheers of the "enlightened"
hedgetrimmer:
I certainly agree with your comment about the inflexibility of government employees, but I'm not sure I can agree with the idea that a more competitive government would have to disappear. In any case...
Regarding your "...the fundamental purpose of this nation, to protect individual rights in nation of self governing citizens" and "People should be able to change if that is what they desire...." You seem to be saying that individuals should not have to deal with market forces if they chose not to. In addition, those "self-governing" individuals should be able to tell their government to protect them from market forces.
If you, as an individual, want to opt out of the market forces, then something has to give. Either you lose your job (as I did), or you force some kind of protectionism on parts of the economy. The eventual result of this would be a lot like France, today. Once a job becomes "for life," hiring falls, the ability to be more efficient/productive by making changes becomes much harder, labor costs go up, everything is more expensive so the general standard of living declines (relatively), and your economy declines (at least relatively). Sounds a lot like what labor did to General Motors (although General Motor's short-term managment took the easy way out and allowed it to happen).
Should the government "create catastrophes?" No, but it also should not promote the kind of protectionism (except for protecting direct national defense...and I don't mean defense against the globalism) you seem to be promoting. John F. Kennedy said that a rising tide lifts all boats (i.e. a rising economy leaves everyone better off), but protectionism reduces the height of the tide leaving the few protected boats sitting higher than the rest who can't rise as much as otherwise (to strain a metaphor).
claudiustg:
I think we could deal with immigration in a sustainable manner. We could limit immigration: 1) to those who are willing to assimilate (must get a job, learn English, etc.), and 2) to provide a base of "starting out" workers (assuming we don't have enough already). I agree that Bush's spend-like-there-is-no-tomorrow policies drive me nuts, but if we can get spending controlled a rising economy will help lower the deficits...if the government hasn't already committed us to too many future handouts.
Hey, the important thing is that gays can't get married.
Anyway, making a right of way big enough for oil pipelines from Texas to Canada is kind of silly. In the future we will be getting all of our bio-diesel and other fuels from cellulose processing plants in Northern Indiana, while our raw hydrocarbons are going to be shipped in via pipelines direct from Alberta where, in a very short time as these things go, over half the Canadian population will be living.
Wake up and go back to sleep.
Yes, we could limit immigration to levels that can be assimilated into our current social structure, but then we won't get the much cheaper wages that characterizes the current uncontrolled illegal immigration.
Under Bush's proposed guest worker plan, the problem is that we are talking huge numbers of both legal and illegal workers. They will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers with a tremendous increase government provided services. Else we could just lock them out of the hospitals and schools I suppose.
Bush's big spending now is just a drop in the bucket, compared to what the cost of his immigration policies will be down the line. Sure, in 3 or 4 decades the rising economic tide might kick in and float all our boats, but no case for this grand scheme has been adequately presented to the American people.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce.
The nightmare known as the North American Union...
I might suggest first that if there isn't enough gold, then there certainly should be enough debt (that is what paper money is) but even with the massive amount of debt that has been created, GM and many other companies are indicating problems meeting their obligations to their pensioners. That shouldn't be. See there wasn't enough gold, so we started using debt based money, lots of it, and we promised it to the pensioners. And now we don't have enough? My take is when we use debt as money, that is when there is never enough. But that there is enough when we use gold, the right way. Get on the web and look at the growth of the cities in the 1800s to 1900, see the fine architecture. Some of the most beautiful fanciest homes were built, not the ugly MacMansions that pass for architecture today. There may have been some panics, some recessions, some banks closing, but that is normal and it does no one a favor artificially keeping a bank open that is run by incompetent management. Otherwise, a largely gold and silver oriented money economy with reasonable levels of private debt resulted in a magnificent growth of the American economy. There was a time when we did it right.
You might read, for your research, The Creature From Jekyll Island. In there somewhere is an explanation how JP Morgan arranged for much metallic money to be shipped out of the U.S. and to Great Britian because GB was hurting for money after the Great War. Then when our stock market bubble collapsed, we were starved for real money which we needed to reset the economy. GB had our money. FDR forced us on to debt based money after that and we accepted it because that was the only way out. If JP Morgan had not sent our gold to GB, we might still be using gold and silver today.
Yes, an economy can be starved for gold. There can be situations where there isn't enough gold. GB experienced it and we experienced it, the hard way.
But that is not the same thing as asking is there enough gold. See? Think of when we did have enough, 1800-1900.
First we have to make sure we have some gold, and enough however much that will be, but it will be within the limits of what we have. Done right....the market will determine how much everything is worth in terms of gold. Ratios will arise naturally, and you will know how much gold will buy a house, a car, groceries for the month, braces, private school, etc.
The nice thing would be that in order for the one world government people to get financing they'd have to take it from you and you wouldn't tolerate the taking. As it is today, they can force you, without your knowledge, to finance their agenda by borrowing unbacked credit from the central bank. You pay the silent insidious tax of inflation and do not connect it with what they are doing.
Which reminds me of your question: "I wonder if there is enough gold in the world to back the vastly increased wealth that has been created since the Constitution was written?" What? Our money is unbacked. All the wealth you are thinking of is unbacked by unbacked money. I'm not sure what you meant to ask but it wasn't the way you asked it.
For your research, start here: gold and economic freedom by Alan Greenspan
Setting the stage that bad boy is gonna prance on...
I do not believe Hitler thought he doing his evil deeds for the good of the people. He was an insane mass murderer.
But I'll comment. The thing about the modern economy, perhaps I concede there should be sophisticated mechanisms of credit between private entities that allow the flexability ours allows.
But why must the currency itself be debt based? A debt based currency is forced on us by our government. The islands of Gurnsey and Jersey ran a debt free system of money that was very successful. The government would print money, use it to pay for a legitimate public work project (not a damn bridge that goes nowhere) and that money would circulate debt free in the islands, and was receivable for taxes. It worked. I'm not against something like that. Further, to be only for gold and silver coins is a mercantile mentality that I don't necessarily endorse. I just want equity, and a preservation of this Republic.
We labor under a deficit, a national debt, the IRS, none of which the people like very much, why?
Visit Bermuda sometime, it is beautiful, and there is no IRS, no income tax, little if any debt.
Finally, "Gold and silver remains useful as a currency only of last resort," yes. Thank you for saying that. Gold and silver is where everyone runs when the inherent flaws of our modern money system show themselves and people are afraid where they are invested is not safe as when they bought in. What we might be able to agree on is that fiduciary monies allow beneficial modern economic phenomenon to occur which wouldn't occur with gold and silver, but also contain risks that gold and silver don't have. People will, just like a child testing the world, building confidence as he grows, take ever greater risks with debt and explore more exotic types of doing business, i.e., credit derivatives, and still, like a child, who gets to far from mom and dad, gets scared when a crisis develops, and goes running back to silver and gold. It is a cycle.
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.