Bob Ireland responds:
Sounds like a formula for trouble at present and the near future at least. ??
___________________________________
Yes, it does sound like trouble. I think JC Collins implies this in his article, which greeneyes excerpted here.
If you read the whole article, Collins seems to imply that President Trump’s “renegotiated trade deals” [eg. with China] and his “Make America Great” policies of increasing exports, reducing debt-to-GDP ratio, providing more jobs for Americans, etc. will not really make American great, but will merely provide a softer landing for Americans, in the face of what is deemed to be an inevitable transition to a “multilateral” world order.
JC Collins argues that Trump is just another globalist in disguise. I disagree. I trust Trump, and I trust the Plan. But I'd be better equipped to refute people like Collins if I knew a little more about the economic aspects of Trump's Plan.
George Soros & co. freely admit that they favor a "multilateral" system because — according to them — it will diminish US influence in the world. Are they right? Or is there some aspect of multilateralism that will actually benefit the USA (as some on this thread have suggested)?
At times like this, I really miss H. Ross Perot’s 30-minute infomercials, charts and pointers. Perot did a great job of educating Americans about the national debt, the balance of trade, deindustrialization, and other seemingly complex economic issues.
He proved that Americans are interested in these issues and fully capable of understanding them, if someone would just take the time and trouble to talk to us plainly about them.
JC Collins is looking at Trump’s NATIONALIST economic policies through the spectacles prescribed to FDR.
Collins needs a modern prescription for his tired eyeballs.
For comparison sake, look at Putin’s NATIONALIST agenda. Russia First! He realizes that is the only way he can compete...by being like Trump.
I guess I am one of those citizens Perot thought he could explain economics to. I did take one semester of economics in college - back just after men emerged from caves - so my knowledge is more common sense - or so I would like to think.
When our international balance of payments reached about $1 tril a year it was inevitable that we were on a crash course. By reducing that imbalance more dollars will remain on shore to stimulate our own economy; any additional trade income is a positive in the formula. Such should, it seems to me, help to reduce our national debt {except of course for a profligate Congress!}
During the Clinton Administration our trade imbalance with China was about $45 bil a year; we agitated to reduce that imbalance of trade. The DS establishment obviously ignored us and by the end of the Obamster Admin the trade imbalance had increased to about $450 bil a year! {Plus such costs as theft of intellectual property.} Can there be much doubt that the United States financed China's rise to super power status? No other sovereign economy in the world could have sustained such a financial drain.
Now the Chinese - who I do not blame for taking advantage of stupid (or traitorous) negotiators - have a burgeoning economy, but their maintenance status is perilous; already with trade changes they were devaluating their currency to stabilize their status. Now, with the mainland coronovirus epidemic, they are under serious threat at least for a while, interrupting supply chains, shipping, etc.
We don't need to wipe out China financially, but we need to re-equalize the trade relationship - encourage more imports of American products, reduce or stop intellectual property theft, strong arm them to stabilize their currency valuation.
Collins opinion that the above will not really make American great, but will merely provide a softer landing for Americans, in the face of what is deemed to be an inevitable transition to a “multilateral” world order seems rather odd. Given that we have always had a global economy of sorts, why must we accept a total global currency control hegemony? If we keep the dollar strong and stable, the rest of the world wants to access the dollar. What is wrong with that? It has stabilized the world's financial intercourse, not destabilized it. Running up onerous debt in D.C. is what may destabilize the world economy.
***George Soros & co. freely admit that they favor a "multilateral" system because — according to them — it will diminish US influence in the world. Are they right?***
More accurately, it will increase George Soros' influence in the world. Can any intelligent lover of freedom think that such a change in global influence would benefit the average American citizen? The American dollar has been the generator of global prosperity for almost a century - IMO.
Soros is a currency trader with incredible resources at his hand {from somewhere} who has a record of tanking various sovereign currencies. I suspect it is somewhat possible that he is the antichrist. If and when he establishes a new global financial order I have little doubt that Americans will find themselves scrapping for a good family dinner daily. {Argentina}
Forgive this incredible slide, but I think these issues are central to the current problems we are dealing with - and Prez Trump is doing what is necessary to maintain America's leadership in a troubled world!