Globalization and its Contribution to America’s Economic Catastrophe

The promoters of Globalization, in their headlong and single-minded lust for profit, have exhibited one major flaw, a complete ignorance of the basic economic principles underlying capitalism. While marginally lowering prices on products by replacing decently-paid western workers with third world workers at exploitative wages, they have killed the proverbial “goose that laid the golden egg.” The displaced workers, those middle income western wage earners, were the backbone of world consumption. The exploited workers could not buy the products which they created. Now, as his wages are being increasingly undermined by product outsourcing and tariff policies (NAFTA, CAFTA), the previously middle class wage earner is gradually becoming unable to keep up the consumption necessary to support production. Only the rich, beneficiaries of the increased profits generated by these policies, can afford these products. They have the gold but the goose has been cooked. This article explains the phony “principles” supporting Globalization, the reasons for its “success”, and the danger that it represents.

Practically all well-known U.S. economists and policymakers have supported Globalization as if it were the Holy Grail, resulting finally in our current international economic crisis. There were two well-publicized reasons proposed to justify Globalization, and one (secret and undisclosed) which was the real reason for their wholehearted and sycophantic support. One of the former was the concept that free trade under Globalization would end trade competition among nations leading to world peace. The other was based upon an ideological concept derived from one of Ricardo’s economic theories called the Law of Comparative Advantage. This “law” was predicated upon the idea that the world as a whole would benefit when each country produced only those goods that it was most efficient in producing and leaving to other countries those products they excelled in. Both of these concepts have been proven unworkable in actual practice, but the economists and politicians have not given up on them regardless, mainly because they really were only pretexts for Globalization and whether they worked or not was immaterial. Why let reality stand in the way of a good story? The third and real reason that these "professionals" endorsed Globalization was that it was profitable for them to do so. Few writers or economists can propose anything contrary to the interests of the politically connected and be published or promoted. Only writers of inordinate prestige and integrity, such as Naomi Klein and Paul Krugman, can afford to take the risk. Naomi’s The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and Paul’s The Conscience of a Liberal are among the few books which dare to disclose the truth about the U.S. government’s unfair and damaging policies and practices. Conversely, the way to riches is by puffing lazy and incompetent “elites” and touting any program financially rewarding to them. Most honest economists, columnist or reporter will eventually end up poverty-stricken under these circumstances.

In dealing with the premise that world peace would be assured under free trade and Globalization, there is a claim that World War II was caused by excessive tariffs among the combatants causing a lessening of trade and friction between them. In reality, the war in Europe was contested between countries which had considerable friendly trade prior to the war. Germany and Great Britain were major trading partners. In the case of the Pacific conflict, it was not tariffs but an embargo against the Japanese established in response to their aggression against China. Tariffs took no part in the conflict. Imperialism was the culprit in the Pacific as well as in the European conflict. Today, thanks to an economic imperialism over third world countries resulting from policies forced upon them by the IMF (as directed by the U.S.), no country need attack the resource rich countries fought over in the past. For the most part, their assets are already owned by the multinationals, in the interests of the world’s shareholders. Economic Imperialism under Globalization is no less offensive and improper as Imperialism by force.

Another convenient claim, the concept that tariffs established by the U.S., the famous Smoot-Hawley in particular, were the basis of the economic collapse worldwide ultimately leading to the war, was also specious. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff (a Republican tariff) was passed in 1922 and had been in effect without problems for 7 years before the stock market’s collapse. Smoot-Hawley was just the last of a series of high-tariff law in the U.S., simply a continuation of U.S. trade policies prevalent throughout the history of the U.S. and primarily responsible for our great economic successes.

Many countries will be peace loving and friendly to the west as long as they are doing well economically. If not, they can be expected to revert to “uncooperative” competition and to acts offensive to competitor governments. What is happening in Russia today is an example. Public dissatisfaction caused by poor government policies and corruption, but blamed upon the U.S., has resulted in “unfriendly” acts by the current government. The gap between "have" and "have nots" worldwide, regardless of the causes, will tend to cause instability and aggression in many countries. The idea that Globalization will miraculously change this is pure fantasy.

The concept that the entire world will benefit from “free trade”, as derived from Ricardo’s laws, had been soundly refuted prior to the current world economic meltdown. Alan Greenspan in his paean to Globalization, greed, and the Republican Party, The Age of Turbulence, cited “well-documented evidence that competitive markets over the decades have elevated standards of living for the vast majority of Americans and much of the rest of the world”. He apparently had never seen or heard of Detroit, Bethlehem, or any of the eastern cities ruined by the loss of entire industries (textiles, shoes, electronics, steel, autos, et.al.) which had been the direct result of Globalization prior to the current economic debacle. Certainly with the economies of the entire world in disarray he would not now be able to claim this improvement in the standard of living for practically anyone, anywhere.

Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage was based upon the concept that countries share production, with each concentrating on those products for which it had a relative advantage, and relinquishing to its trading partners those which they were best at. It was based upon a balanced trade with each country trading enough of its products to afford those of their trading partners. If this tradeoff was not observed, there was no problem in those days, There being little else to swap for, such as the shares of corporations, government and corporate bonds, commercial properties, and “bundled” assets (such as REITs) which are currently available, the balancing factor was invariably money. The country experiencing a sustained trade imbalance would quickly run out of money, and the trade imbalance would automatically disappear (simultaneously bankrupting the country involved). Ricardo did not even contemplate that happening in his day. No government would survive if it allowed it to happen. Trade had to be based on comparative advantage, not absolute advantage, with a balanced (equal) trade between all countries. Each had its own specialties which their trading partners had to respect. An unfortunate result of this needed “reciprocity” was the forced opening of China to the opium trade by the British in the mid 19th century. Great Britain was running out of sterling having few products to sell to China in exchange for its silk, tea, spices, etc. If citizens of the U.S. had not possessed substantial non-monetary assets, accumulated throughout the history of the U.S., the U.S. money supply would have disappeared long ago, with a corresponding drop in the American citizens’ standard of living. Today, these assets are now being sacrificed for the benefit of foreign corporations, as the trade deficit problem remains unresolved.

In dealing with the “efficiency” issue supposedly leading to such great improvements in worldwide standards of living, much of what has been claimed, such as the actual across-the-board implementation of “free trade” and its purported benefits, is fallacious or distorted. The low cost of foreign goods is not due to fair competition based upon the productive capacity of individual workers, but strictly upon worldwide wage levels determined primarily by international exchange rates. These exchange rates have been consistently manipulated by foreign governments in order to make their tradable products more competitive, a practice called “beggaring thy neighbor” in the past. This practice is a direct and significant violation of “free trade”. Japan’s spectacular economic success over the past 50 years was based upon the establishment of an undervalued Yen (established by U.S. authorities) designed to reestablish it as a powerful U.S. ally in the East. China‘s devaluation of the Yuan in 1993-1994 and peg to the dollar was not contested by the U.S. government although it was obvious that it would allow China to gain (and hold) a long-term supremacy over the U.S. in most manufactures. That too was done to “pacify” China. As a side “benefit”, these devaluations were the principle initiating cause of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, ultimately resulting in drastic losses of assets by other Asian countries, and deterioration of their already exploitative wage rates. If giving up worldwide supremacy in manufacturing (and its associated world economic and political leadership) is the cost of gaining friends, the U.S. has made a splendid bargain. The folly of this policy will become painfully evident when China’s GDP (and consequent military strength) overtakes that of the U.S. (about 2028 according to recent studies).

The major consequence of Globalization and “free trade” will be a lowering of wage rates (and worker and environment standards) to an exploitative one worldwide. Exploitative wage rates are simply rates insufficient to provide workers a "living wage", one that will not compel them to force their children to work and sufficient to provide money for their education. In Asia almost all workers have been exploited because of massive unemployed or underemployed populations in these countries. Each country has been desperately trying to employ its citizens at whatever wage rates are offered, and foreign multinationals (exploiters) have taken advantage of this.

In the interest of fairness for all workers worldwide, “equalizing” tariffs should be imposed by all countries on all imported goods which the home country itself could produce. An “equalizing” duty should be levied on all internationally-traded manufactures at a level designed to compensate for differences in worker’s wages and benefits. Those citizens unsatisfied with the quality or price of products produced locally would be free to buy foreign-made products but would have to pay duties in cases of unfair wage rate differentials. If no substantial wage differentials existed, there would be no duties. An equalization of effective worldwide labor rates was, in fact, a major feature of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act.

The manufacturing advantage enjoyed by current low-wage countries would be eliminated as the leaders of these countries realized that they were contributing funds to foreign governments (in the form of duties) which would not be necessary if they arranged equitable wages and benefits for their own workers. For all countries, local competition should result in the hiring of the most competent workers but at wages appropriate to any worker worldwide. Any worker anywhere, working in good faith, deserves a living wage. Anything short of this should be recognized as obscene. In addition, innovation would increase because new products developed under local competition would augment products developed abroad. The resulting income policies, coupled with fair tax policies, should eventually provide wage levels appropriate for workers worldwide.

One other consideration need hardly be mentioned but has dire consequences. Under Globalization, it will be necessary to “homogenize” the economic policies and social practices of the entire trading world, a relinquishing of sovereignty in many areas of government and society. It will require social-welfare oriented countries and conservative capitalistic ones to find common economic ground; religious and ethnic groups to agree on social policies contrary to long-held beliefs and traditions. To accomplish this will prove to be not only illusory but dangerous. How would the U.S. be better off by adopting those “international” wage policies which have left workers in the rest of the world poverty-stricken and unhealthy?

Globalization is 100 percent baloney. Globaloney, a term coined by Claire Booth Luce more than 60 years ago when it was first proposed, was baloney then, and is baloney now, only packaged in a different wrapper. Each country must be able to choose and support its own culture and be free to independently choose its own interests, pursuits, and way of life. Universal decent and fair trade practices will permit this independence and will do it without sacrificing these sovereign rights. If the U.S. government fails to face up to the consequences of its current policies of “free trade” under Globalization, we can all kiss off the “American way of life” that we have created and been so proud of.

How to Regain Control of Our Government

The following are a few quotes from William Greider's book Who Will Tell The People. "When incumbent officeholders begin to perceive a real threat developing to their power, that is the moment when election politics can begin to become serious and interesting again. When the organized presence of citizens can deprive others of power, all the deeper power relationships surrounding government will be put to risk too." This article will explain how you can win back power from Congress and have representatives interested in your welfare rather than the welfare of the political elites.

If in the coming election the candidates that you are to choose from have been selected by various "special interests" groups, the winner will, when in office, simply do the bidding of these groups without regard for any other interests. If that is the case, what would be the point in voting? Many people believe that this is the case and will either not vote, or vote for a third-party candidate who has no chance of winning, both simply a repudiation of the candidates selected by others. But, in both of these cases, the "winner" will not care a hoot because he is well aware that no matter how disillusioned or angry these voters are, they haven't the power to affect him in any way.



But voters can do something that will make a difference. They have the power to vote the entire Congress out of office, if they vote in concert. They should be doing this whenever they are dissatisfied with the government's performance. They only need vote against all incumbents, whatever their party affiliation.



What the public is missing in this election is that, even if they vote into office a populist like Barack Obama whose intention is to promote policies and actions beneficial to the general public, if the Congress won't go along with his program, Barack will be powerless and ineffective. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, another populist. Jimmy's campaign promises were all frustrated by Congress with the active concurrence of fellow Democrats beholden to their benefactors, those rich and powerful folks who financed their campaigns.



The public has to realize that it must break up the Congress's power blocks before Barack will be able to serve the public in the ways that he has promised. The only way to break up these power blocks is by voting out all incumbents, regardless of party. The remaining part of this article is a reprint of a previous article of mine explaining how this can be done.

How to Win an Election, Any Election

All of us have just about had our fill of unconstitutional and corrupt actions by our representatives in Congress and, considering their current extremely low "favorable rating" from the public, this is an ideal time for the public to take charge and dislodge them from office. This should be done en mass because they are jointly responsible for laws passed on their watch, and all recently passed legislation that I am familiar with has been in the interest of the rich patrons sponsoring their campaigns.

Some will claim that his own representative is serving him well, and will only attempt to toss out the other guys rep. For your "hero" to say that he is not party to this lamentable mess is like Frank James saying he really did not believe in what brother Jesse was doing and tried to prevent him from doing it. Laws are passed(and laws are at times not enforced) with the cooperation of all members of Congress.To protect your own rep simply will not work. The incumbents almost always win, considering that the big money is on their side. The 'democracy' which everyone so enthusiastically extols simply does not exist today for the working classes of the U.S. The sole democratic tool left to the public is the ballot box.

I have a sure-fire method for the people to again gain control over their representatives. It consists of simply voting against any incumbent on the ballot, regardless of party. The last election, won by George Bush with a 3 million vote majority over John Kerry, was contested by less than 57 percent of the qualified voters. More than 90 million qualified citizens failed to vote, mainly because they felt that their votes would not count. This figure roughly corresponding to the number of adult citizens without jobs(i.e., the job "participation rate" of U.S. workers is now around 66 percent (34 percent 'not participating') with another 5 percent 'officially' unemployed). If a person is not employed, he is, by definition 'unemployed'. Only our government can not understand this concept. There are about 85+ million 'unemployed' people of working age now in the U.S. The results of this particular election are typical for most elections, where the winner has less than a 5 percent majority. If only ten percent of these 90 million citizens who failed to vote were to vote against any incumbent he would stand little chance of winning. A simple ten percent increased participation in the Bush/Kerry election could have changed the popular vote margin of 3 million in favor of Bush (a solid majority) to a margin of 6+ million votes in favor of Kerry(a pretty respectable whompin').

If this proposal could become a reality the pols would finally take the public very seriously, that is, if they wanted to be reelected! The sole problem is one of getting these citizens to vote and providing them with a candidate who could win. The fundamental problem for those interested in placing a candidate responsive to the general public in office has always been the choice of an alternative candidate who had a chance of winning. We all now pretty well agree that the incumbent politician's opposition is also one who has his snout firmly affixed to the money trough and in many cases is following the same policies as his opponent.

But the charm of this solution is that it should be applied in every election in which the Congress has failed to do what was promised in its platform or was inherent in its party policies. After a very short time the pols would get tired of serving just one term(losing seniority and committee representation), and start paying attention to the needs of their all their constituents, including the American working classes.

A coordination of candidate selection and election such as this differs little from what the Religious Right has been doing for the Republican party, providing an "en bloc" vote which has biased recent elections enough to get our current pathetic officeholders installed. In the future, when the public becomes aware of their power at the polls, it will be able to select its own candidates for a "peoples party" by setting up sites on the Internet. These sites would collect suggestions for the party's candidates and provide the consensus candidate at election time.

If we all could get behind this movement, we would at last obtain the government we deserve. Other efforts to regain control of Congress, such as that of amending the Constitution under Article V of the Constitution, could well be the ultimate solution but will take time. A project such as this could very well speed up the process. So I encourage all of those voters who have been disregarded or damaged by their current representative to vote in this coming election. Vote for the opponent of the current incumbent or, if he has left office, for the candidate of the opposite party. Encourage all your friends to do likewise. If each of you will do this I believe that we can win back our government in this election.

Causes and Cures for our Current Debt Crisis

It is touching to see Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson getting credit for their proposed solution to the financial crisis we now face, especially since it was caused by policies which they and previous government officials had purposely followed knowing full-well that this current calamity could be the result.

FED chairmen, in particular Alan Greenspan in his erstwhile promotion of the interests of America's rich, have constantly flirted with a depression by employing interest rate and monetary policy practices designed to support an overvalued dollar or to cause a recession in order to reduce purchase of foreign-made goods. The FED, under Mr. Greenspan, has constantly increased interest rates during otherwise normal business cycles, under the pretext of preventing an undesired inflation which he alone supposedly understood (or experienced), when his true interest were in preventing a market-induced devaluation of the dollar. These interest rate increases simply shut down needed business activities and, together with corresponding monetary policies designed to decrease consumption, created systemic weaknesses increasing the possibilities of a depression.

This may seem quite preposterous to you, the reader, so I will briefly explain the reasons for these policies.

When “globalization”, the scheme of multinational corporations to extend the exploitation of laborer's wage rates to the entire world (beginning 30 years ago), began to produce unsustainable trade deficits in the western world there were, practically speaking, only 3 ways to resolve the resulting trade imbalances. They were protection (tariffs, quotas,etc.), a devaluation of the nation's currency, or a recession, which would cause unemployment and a resulting loss of consumer's purchasing power (hopefully for foreign products).

U.S. legislators, in the interests of U.S. multinationals who were manufacturing goods overseas to sell in the U.S. (the ever-increasing outsourced products and services), were “persuaded” to discontinue these tariffs, quotas, subsidies, etc. protective of American industries (a process known as “globalization”). They also were directed by U.S. wealthholders, their sponsors, to resist any devaluation of the dollar, and to cooperate with our trading partners in their efforts to keep their own currency values lower (ignoring the fact that their industries would, as a consequence, gain a major portion of the world's product manufacturing and services.) The sole solution left to resolve the trade deficits , in the opinion of the U.S. policymakers, was to drive the U.S. into what turned out to be a series of low-level recessions. This would not only tend to limit U.S. consumer's purchases of foreign products and services (unfortunately products made in the U.S. as well) and would (presumably) result in a decline in the trade deficits. In this scheme, only the wealthy could afford considerable purchases of foreign-made goods. This would not alone solve the fundamental trade problems, however. The trade imbalances would continue until America's workers could again compete fairly with their foreign counterparts.

Under these policies, U.S. wage rates would be expected to fall. Unfortunately, they would have to fall to around $3/ hour to effect any change in the trade imbalances. It did not happen (and could not happen given living costs in the U.S.). As long as trade protection was not allowed (a cornerstone of globalization), the only solution remaining to correct trade imbalances was for the dollar to depreciate. This solution was resisted by the rich and was not resorted to until recently (and grudgingly). This solution to the trade imbalance was, in effect, done “too little too late” . By having forced serial recessions for 30 years without trade deficit resolution, the middle class in the U.S. had been essentially pauperized by mounting debt. Instead of decreasing consumption during these “recessions” the middle class attempted to “keep up with the Jones” on borrowed money or previous savings. This finally culminated in the sub-prime lending fiasco and current debt crisis. These practices had essentially wiped out any “cushion” of accumulated financial assets, credit card loan limits, and home equity loans, culminating in a $1 trillion credit card debt and extensive non-performing home loans. There is no longer any way to avoid facing the fact that the middle class is no longer able to sustain an adequate consumer demand for a healthy growing economy.

The only solution possible now, short of trade protection policies, is for the government to provide the consumption dollars necessary to sustain a healthy economy which,current tax policy being what it is, will result in substantial deficit spending. Unfortunately, the rich don't like this solution either, now contesting the “last, best, chance” for the survival of a high American standard of living, the proposed bailout. As soon as the rich realize that this “consumption-supporting” deficit will have to be continued indefinitely, now that the middle class's resources have been permanently compromised, they will be even more unwilling to provide this needed financial support. Consequentially, unless a new administration “gets serious” about serving the interests of the general public rather than the short-sighted and ultimately destructive policies demanded by the rich, the U.S. will be facing a never ending decline in it's standard of living ( a fact well understood by Wall Street.)

I have a solution which would eliminate the sub-prime interest rate problem as well as the “BTC” (before the crisis) fiscal deficit as a bonus. U.S. citizens now pay about $3,800 per person more than the citizens of their prosperous (western) trading partners for health care services. This amounts to an outlay of about $1.2 trillion more for our insurance-dominated , “pay for as you go” health services than other western countries citizens pay in their single-pay health systems. The U.S. citizen, as a further insult, experiences a far-lower quality of health care than citizens in these (government administered) “single pay” systems. The U.S. health care system was rated 26 in the quality of health services among the developed western nations by the World Health Organization in 2008. Of the resulting $1.2 trillion excess payments, the U.S. government pays about 40 percent, and the private citizen 60 percent. This amounts to $480 billion from the government (via taxes) and $720 billion from U.S. families, about $500 per month more per family.

By reverting to a single-pay health care system the projected $480 billion fiscal deficit would disappear. With $720 billion more in the pockets of American consumers (and mortgage holders), the proposed $700 billion federal bailout of our financial sector would be unnecessary.
These problems could be solved in a single day by the U.S. congress. They only need to give up the AMA's, ADA's, hospital's, insurance company's, and pharmaceutical companies' more-than-generous “contributions” to their political campaigns and vote for a single-payer health system developed in the interest of all the country's citizens.

An even-more important single law would quickly solve the U.S. trade imbalance (at least eliminating the unfair wage advantage of foreign workers over their their counterparts in the U.S.). The U.S. congress simply needs to promote legislation requiring a worldwide (living) minimum wage for workers producing internationally-traded goods, with a proviso that products of non-complying countries be subject to an “equalizing” tariff based upon wage and benefit differentials. Not only would U.S. and other western countries' trade imbalances disappear, but workers worldwide would benefit. It's time for all good people everywhere to demand a living wage for workers of all countries. Every man working in full faith for 40 hours a week deserves, as a matter of morality and justice, to receive a living wage for himself and his family! Anyone tolerating or condoning less than this should be recognized as an “exploiter” and suffer the disdain of his fellow citizens.

Popular Scams of the Rich and Famous

There are an ever-increasing number of linkages between politicians, big businesses, and rich individuals designed to promote their joint prosperity at the expense of the general public. Money flows in both directions between these “players” under various “pay for play” schemes. Because they unfairly absorb federal tax revenue or deprive the general public of legitimately earned benefits, I refer to these schemes as “scams'. Most are technically “legal' being based upon law or statute, or founded upon government policy and practice, but have been set up in ways designed to benefit favored individuals. In most cases, these practices are promoted by Republican politicians serving their primary clients, rich individuals and “big business”. Hopefully, in the coming elections, legislators will be chosen which will have the courage to rectify these abuses. The following are just a few of the more popular scams.


Social laws, uncertain as to constitutionality, have been passed to control the general populace, and are generally ignored by those creating them, as evident in many recent court cases. Prostitutes do quite a brisk business during political party conventions, and a “madam” recently interviewed claimed that the "family values" group, the Republicans, are the the best customers. But all this has been pretty well hidden from public awareness by the establishment media, and grudgingly and belatedly disclosed, if at all, after previously promulgated on blogger sites. This situation was not reported during the 2004 conventions by a single major U.S. media, and I read about it only in foreign news sources, the Guardian and Reuters. So much for the fearless American press! But news media in the U.S . practice self-censorship because they are fully aware of what they can and cannot report. Anything critical of the rich and famous is forbidden.


There has been no effort to contain medical expenses that have caused a great many of the financial problems currently plaguing the U.S. The AMA and ADA have so well financed the campaigns of our legislators that we are now facing multiple financial crises substantially directly cause by health care costs. The 2007 federal government deficit of approximately $180 billion would have become a $300 billion surplus simply with a reform of this sector. Americans pay, on average, nearly $7,000 per person for medical costs, whereas citizens in the next-highest-cost developed pay around $3,200 per person. Bringing the U.S. health costs in line with those of the rest of the western world would save U.S. citizens directly $720 billion and the federal government $480 billion more. The U.S. physician's claim is that costs are so high because we get the best health care in the world. This is a real con job. The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. 26th in quality of health care of the advanced countries. The major problem is that a monopoly has been created by limiting the number of teaching hospitals as well as the number of students who are entitled to enroll. The selection process for medical school positions involves the usual custom of picking predominantly children of those politically connected. The "special" qualifier for positions in the few medical schools places offered, that determines appointment more often than demonstrated academic excellence, is participation in extra-curricular activities indicating "leadership" abilities. This is a standard trick for all appointments in this vast conspiracy, made to benefit unqualified candidates supported by political elites. It avoids the serious business of determining the truly deserving (who are frequently passed over because they are considered “nerds” (because they study so much)) and for admission committees to give preference to candidates whose academic performance is not quite up to par. George W. qualified as a possible “leader” because he was a cheerleader at Andover, and others are selected because of their participation in college political activities. When training people for highly technical and critical jobs (e.g., physicians), the last thing the candidate should be doing is playing political tricks or scheming for political office. They should be studying.


The whole system of "globalization" is simply a way to exploit workers worldwide thereby maximizing the profits of essentially western-owned multinationals. The results are now coming in, as demonstrated by the current disinflation in the western countries. By allowing multinationals special tax breaks and accounting practices the U.S. government has encouraged the transfer of almost all high wage U.S. jobs overseas to low wage(exploited) workers. By simply calling these lost jobs "low skilled" they have convinced U.S. workers that they really deserve less for their labor, which in many cases were the most stressful and demanding in the country, Soon middle level professional jobs will be moved overseas as well, and similarly described, no doubt, as "low skilled". This includes engineering and product design, paralegal and brokerage back office jobs, and accounting and auditing jobs as well. Even radiologists will miraculously end up as "low tech" workers.


Still extant farm subsidies unfortunately not only violate those “economically sacrosanct” principles of globalization but result in higher prices for the American consumer as well as increased cost to the American taxpayer. As a bonus, they frequently produce serious economic consequences for other "global" players, especially for our South American "partners" (and incur their resentment).


The U.S. government has made no effort whatsoever to assist in providing support for displaced U.S. workers by demanding reciprocity of employment opportunity with those countries whose citizens are flooding the U.S. labor market. While surveying foreign papers in Europe and Australia/New Zealand for jobs in the IT business, I found loads of ads promising unlimited amount of IT opportunities in the U.S. But ads for IT jobs in these same countries all ended with statements that these local jobs are reserved for their own citizens. Recently the U.S. government passed an amendment to its visa rules allowing other country's workers to enter the U.S. for 6 months without a prior job offer. Most other western countries did the same I believe, offering job opportunities for U.S. workers. But there was a limit to the ages of these workers, 27 years I believe, suspiciously approximating the average age of the children of our current members of Congress. These job opportunities can not possibly benefit those most damaged by U.S. outsourcing policies, those who had irreplaceable (at their ages) experience, without finances to retrain, and facing huge and continuing family bills in the U.S. They still have no realistic possibilities to work overseas even though the great god “globalization” based its legitimacy on the free movement of capital and labor. What a joke!


The entire USAID program has become an excellent way to feed money to political supporters. This scam involves granting taxpayers money as USAID “aid money” to friendly foreign governments with "tied" aid (agreements to purchase in most cases U.S.-made products and services). The so-called "aid" money never reaches the country supposedly receiving it. The "receiving" country gets products and "advice" from U.S. corporations and individuals selected from the U.S. governments "preferred list" of suppliers. The organizations providing these services and products are basically weapons suppliers and "international" accounting and law firms providing "advice" to the recipient country's government. These “select” suppliers and “advisers” are, of course, those companies and individuals who are the major suppliers of campaign finance funds. The recipient country gets weapons systems and armaments used by the local military to control discontented locals (and also expected to support U.S. regional political goals). The result is a lot of money is transferred to American multinationals and private companies located in the U.S. with the bill payed out of taxpayers funds. This is an excellent way to create campaign finance funds with the bill paid by U.S. taxpayers.


Flight of capital from the U.S., (unrestrained by laws regularly established by other more prudent governments) is increasing the risk of a banking default in the U.S. and a drastic drop in the dollar. It is accelerating at the same time that foreigners dollar holders (private and public) are thinking twice about keeping their funds here because the U.S. government has shown no interest or willingness to restrain this process.


The much ballyhooed one-man, one-vote election under a democracy simply does not exist. With the caucus system still being practiced in many states, the candidates the public finally gets to vote for (essentially one of 2 choices) have been chosen by the powers-that-be within each state, and under these conditions, the private citizen's vote is practically meaningless.

Most of the efforts of the U.S. government to contain Communism have involved the setting up of American-friendly foreign governments who were willing to turn a blind eye to exploitation of their country's resources and populace by U.S. corporations. To make matters worse, the U.S. Government, which has established these regimes, insist on calling the resulting U.S.-friendly governments (oligarchies of the rich at best) as "democracies" when,in reality, the government which it replaced was far more democratic than the one established by the U.S. government. This was all done under the pretext of constraining Communism, but was also a handy scheme for U.S. businesses to gain possession or control of the few assets these poor countries possessed and a new supply of exploitable local workers. Now that Communism is no longer a realistic treat there is no longer any pretext for doing this. No governments should be overthrown by actions of the U.S. government regardless of its having a political or economic system inimical to presumed western interests, and certainly no one should be going around bragging about setting up a "democracy" when the opposite occurred.


Bidding on all levels of government contracts is also riddled with ways to allow the contract manager to give the contract to a friend. If the manager's friend is not the low bidder, the manager can simply reopen the bidding on any number of pretexts and advise his friend what he needs to bid to get the contract. Bids can be thrown out as "non-serious" bids without notice, on the basis that the bidder is incapable of performing at that price. This device is used when the winning bid is so low that even the manager's friend can't compete even knowing the prospective winning bid price. This is because he is really a 'prime contractor', won't be doing the work, and needs extra funds to cover his “cut” and to cover possible gratuities for the contract manager. The government has even set up a separate agency, at taxpayer expense, to "prove" this type of fraud can not occur. All the public exposure over the years of these practices puts the lie to the honesty of this organization.


The FED's constant claim of incipient inflation over the last 18 years (when none has ever materialized) has finally resulted in our current economic crises. The latest FD-sponsored recession might well be the final straw that breaks the back of U.S. consumers. There is a serious "moral hazard" involved in improper disclosures of these continuing, unpredictable, and totally uncalled- for adjustments in interest rates as well.


The federal government has been playing footsie with fascism for quite a long time, supported only by the inability of the general public to recognize it. Ecclesiastic appointments, corporate management, charity, "brain trust" ,foundations, university appointments, and even scholarship awards are controlled by political elites, with the consequent assurances that these appointees will play ball with the politicians and their “sponsors”. The Pols now essentially control everything under the direction of the rich and famous.


No one needs reminding that the lobbying crowd and PACs are distorting the legislative process, but every effort of reform is soundly trounced. The lawmakers will not vote against their own power bases and the "favors" they can offer and receive under this system. The only attempt to remedy this was the establishment of limits on 'hard money" campaign money while leaving the door wide open for "soft money" contributions with their oh-so-easily-evaded prohibitions. The “attempt” to control the "revolving door" practice of members of the government (receiving miraculously-compensated position by lobbying organizations upon retirement) by restricting the period in which they could be hired to one year after leaving office is a real joke. There seems to be no sincere effort to restrict members of Congress and the agencies from accepting high-paying jobs from the companies they had previously regulated. Likewise, the law limiting "gifts" while politicians are in office, with no restraint on them after leaving office, is an even bigger joke. The results of these practices have demonstrated their fundamental dishonesty in too many well-publicized instances.


The attempts to trick the public by entering legislative bills that their sponsors know will be voted down (but designed to pacify offended parties) are so widespread and well known as to be an open scandal. But with the media's connivance, these practices (tricks) are never fully understood by the public. I hope that the never-quite-successful attempt to reform the health care system is finally recognized as this type of trickery. The attempted reforms of education,drug abuse, and campaign finance should likewise be recognized as fundamentally dishonest. In every case, one house can take credit for a valiant effort to effect a reform ... and the other house fail to pass it, as planned. Another great trick which is quite effective is to set up a panel, committee, or specially selected individual to deal with a problem, with the understanding that the party so selected will simply sits on its duff until the issue is no longer current.


The “justness” of the U.S. legal system can be compromised by anyone with unlimited funds. The Constitution certainly would not have countenanced the use of multiple lawyer (with political connections) for any one case, for jury selection advisors, and the abusive use (and misuse) of expert witnesses.


Failure to properly assess federal income taxes result in increased prices not reflected in the COLAs used to adjust retirement,pension, and social-welfare payments. These increased prices affect the middle class the most because they are stuck with buying overpriced real estate and a broad range of items otherwise not included in COLA adjustments. They try to maintain an average standard of living by patronizing various civic, sports, and charities whose prices have been, over the past decade, driven up 4-fold while their incomes have been stagnant or falling. The FED is forceful in suppressing price increase on normal necessities while any many items previously affordable by the middle classes soar out of the reach of any but the rich. Inflation in these newly-created luxury items is around 15 percent while inflation in those broad range of standard necessities (and the salary levels of those people supplying them) is prudently restrained by the FED at 2 to 3 percent.. Purchasing power for citizens worldwide will remain stagnant as long as these globalization, tax, and FED policies continue.


Foundations, “brain trusts”, charities, and other non-profits are the most dangerous potential source of political influence-buying of all these “scamers”. Foundations, formed by individuals to avoid inheritance taxes, can provide jobs, grant contracts, and purchase goods and services from a large number of politically-sponsored individuals and companies. They pay no taxes even when they accumulate funds, which they call “surplus”. These surpluses can be invested with the proceeds not subject to taxes. Their employees are well compensated and live quite luxuriously while on 'company business'. Contract awards and grants tend be generous, and the foundations can purchase supplies and services without oversight. Most recipients of this largess are politically-connected and are expected to promote political goals and to funnel funds to political campaigns.


There are literally hundreds of thousands of other varieties of non-profits,categorized as NGOs, which conduct their businesses in essentially the same way. They are set up to perform certain socially-beneficial services, but after all the above-mentioned expenses, only a small percentage of their income are used in this way. Typically, 30 percent of their income (tax deductible write offs from corporations and individuals, and government giveaways) are spent on salary and payroll taxes to top employees and their generous “business expenses” (5-star hotel accommodations, chic restaurant and 1st class air travel costs). The remaining 70 percent can be used for “public relation fees” (to supporters) and some is even spent on legitimate promotion programs. What is left, perhaps 50 percent, can, by the “50 percent rule” be passed on to another tax-exempt having similar expenses, with the result that the claimed public-service, used to obtain tax-exempt status, can end up with practically nothing. Certain charities are particularly offensive perpetrators of this same scheme, disbursing for political purposes the monies donated for the most-needy individuals of all, the poor and defenseless, mostly children. Principles of those organizations practicing this blatant “welfare to the rich” scheme should be, but seldom are, prosecuted.


Government workers in the state and defense departments regularly abuse per-diem TDY privileges. Congressmen on "boondoggles" to exotic foreign locations also are in on the act. These government employees receive $250-$300 per day (tax free and unaccountable) when providing government "services" overseas. The trick is to assume this status even when their overseas assignment may last for years. In practice they rent out luxurious but low cost apartments while living in low-cost countries instead of using their big per-diem allocations for hotel quarters, and live high on the hog on peanuts, pocketing the difference. Congressmen use their "boondoggles" to visit exotic sites under the pretext of the need to be there and having legitimate work to do at the site. They generally go first class air, stay at the fanciest and most expensive hotels, and patronize the best restaurants. Their expenses, if not covered directly by U.S. Government agency or international organization money, are well financed by lavish per-diem allowances.


No real effort has been made for he past 30 years or so to pass legislation that the congress acknowledges are necessary. Health care reform, educational reform, drug reform, and term and campaign election reform have been continually proposed throughout this period, and not one of these issues has been satisfactorily resolved. It is painfully evident that the Congresses involved were acting in bad faith in proposing them.


The president elect has the right to grant 3000 top-level federal (patronage) jobs as payoffs to friends and supporters, and federal judgeships control quite a few more. Top officials in all agencies and government departments are chosen in this way and each lucky appointee in turn picks other friends-of-the-family for subordinate jobs. The results are a government completely under the control of the “in” party and manned by appointees with little or no substantive administrative experience. The consequences of this practice have been the mishandling of the Katrina disaster and security, defense, and other government screwups. This is however, a sure- fire guarantee of easy (if any) work with generous salary for otherwise inexperienced and uneducated wives, relatives, and friends of all sorts.


I just mention contract fraud briefly because it is so well-known by now that I need little elaboration. The GAO has, as yet, 5 years later, not done anything about the letting of the most-well-known and abusive "no-bid" contract, that to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brand, and Root for a variety of services which could have been provided by anyone, but which were granted on the basis that only they could perform them (e.g.,serving meals to servicemen). Evidence was proffered long-ago that most of these "services" were finally performed simply by the lowest biding subcontractor irrespective of capability, and at a fraction of the price given to the prime contractor This is a common way of "whitewashing" a blatant fraud, the "problem" being "handled by" some agency/committee, which essentially buries it until the issue is no longer on anyone's radar scope. The latest estimate of no-bid contracts for 2008 is in excess of $150 billion.


Trickery and favoritism in the granting of Small Business Administration loans is, likewise, never investigated or prosecuted. Big organizations set up "small business" subsidiaries that, not so surprisingly, get many the loans meant for genuine small entrepreneurs. The practice of forgiving defaulted loans lets the door wide open for fraud as well.


All in all, most of the American populace's problems derive from a lack of understanding of how
their job opportunities and financial success are being jeopardized by these practices. A great deal of the blame for these scam's success can be attributed to the establishment media's self-censorship on these important issues, with a consequent inability of the public to correctly determine what is going on. Thankfully, there is now a self-appointed group who are now providing the news so instrumental in allowing the public to make necessary political decisions. They are called "blog sites" and are America's version of the old soviet "samizdat". Hopefully the government can be prevented from meddling with them.

A Flagrant Violation of the Constitution

The U.S. Constitution was the first written agreement in history guaranteeing the citizens government protection of basic human rights as reflected in its Bill of Rights. It was the realization of the fundamental human rights espoused by philosophers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke, but which had never before been granted by any previous government to its citizens. By virtue of the sacrifices of life and fortune by our ancestors, citizens of the U.S. had inherited those rights as stipulated in our Constitution. Now, the rightful admiration and acclaim of the world for this monumental accomplishment has been destroyed by our current government. By invalidating the last protection of the people from government abuse, that offered by Article V of the Constitution, the people no longer have any remaining protection from possible abuse. The sole other protection of the people’s rights provided in the Constitution was via the ballot box, which has been “neutered” by the influence of money in the election process, and is one of the very abuses necessitating an Article V Convention.

By refusing to grant the legitimate requests of the states for an Article V Convention (to propose amendments to the Constitution), all three branches of the U.S. government are now operating as a "rogue" government outside the law. Under Article V of the Constitution, the states may request the Congress to establish a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. The states have done this by submitting over 500 requests to the federal government.

Congress has refused to convene a convention, the President has failed to initiate action against Congress for this violation, and the Supreme Court has refused to force them to do so. I will, in the process of explaining the Constitutional duties of each body, make clear the basis of the laws that have been broken, and the remedies open to the public if the government continues in its violation of these laws.

The "sovereignty" of the people was first established during the Continental Congress when, under instructions from John Adams, the states established themselves as separate sovereign states under state constitutions (established in conventions by their own citizens). This occurred prior to the Declaration of Independence, and as a necessary precursor to the federal Constitution. The Constitution was a contract between these newly-sovereign states (the previous colonies) to establish a federal government under a federal Constitution and delineated the rights and responsibilities of this new entity with respect to the citizens of these states.

As these constitutions were being created by the independent states, the Declaration of Independence was promulgated to formally declare the colonies no longer under British rule, and to enumerate the grievances which had led to this event. It was drafted by Jefferson and contained the natural "rights of man" which George III had violated and which served as a pretext for the legality of the colonies to secede.

The United States Constitution was drafted by James Madison but failed to include these natural “rights of man”. It was a document designed primarily to establish the form of the new government and entirely excluded reference to the rights violated by the king and the supposed cause of secession. In the process of ratification of the Constitution, the states demanded an explicit statement of the rights of man, which many had included in their own constitutions. This resulted in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution was created after the Constitution had been drafted, and was meant to define the principles underlying it. The final phraseology contained only generalities such as “secure the blessings of liberty” and “promote the general welfare” which were so broad that they could be construed to encompass almost anything. Unfortunately, the only substantive and explicit protections for the people, in fact, were those established by the Bill of Rights, which consisted in freedoms which were not to be contravened by statutory law (freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc.)

But there was no underlying philosophy regarding the intent and nature of the statutory laws allowed under the Constitution or the principles which were to underlie them. Thomas Jefferson was convinced that the government so established was one of a democracy in which the government and its laws had been created for the benefit of “the people”. Lincoln was among later presidents who likewise believed the Constitution had established a democratic government when he used the phrase 'of the people, by the people, for the people' in his Gettysburg Address. Other delegates to the Convention thought otherwise. They maintained that the government established was simply a Republic consisting of a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, and an elected president. In their opinion, in establishing these three bodies the Convention had not, at least by the strict wording of the Constitution, established a democracy(the word “democracy” did not appear anywhere in it). The (male) landowning classes were the only citizens allowed to vote. The selection of the president was further controlled by an Electoral College which precluded the choosing of the President by popular vote. The Senators were appointed by the state legislatures (not elected by "the people"), and the Supreme Court was not subject to selection by the voting public but appointment by the president (with the "advice and consent" of this same "appointed" Senate). The right of filibuster resided in both the House and Senate as a further means to prevent the passage of any law contrary to any interest represented by either body. It still resides in the Senate.

The principles and philosophy under which successive governments were to operate depended entirely upon the philosophy of the party in power. John Adams (a Federalist) presided over a governing party interested in a strong federal government administered by an oligarchy of landowners whereas Thomas Jefferson (a Republican) believed in federal powers strictly limited by rights reserved to the states and in a popular democracy. Since then, the Federalists have disappeared and the current Republicans believe in a limited role of the central government and rule by an oligarchy (the Aristocracy of the Rich). Currently both parties of Congress as well as the President have indicated by the nature of recent legislation that an oligarchy of the well-connected is the form of government they want. They all have been seduced by the money which assures their continuation in power. The Democrats still pretend to believe in extensive control by the government and a popular democracy but have in fact supported a government catering to the wealthy and displaying little interest or effort in serving the public at large. Both parties dance to the same tune, played by the same band.

The public (through their respective state governments) have requested the establishment of a convention under Article V of the Constitution in order to reestablish a more democratic government in which the laws passed and enforced will be in the interests of the general public, and not that of our current oligarchy. The Congress has refused to grant these requests and the President and Supreme Court have not forced them to do so. This has occasioned a realization that there is a serious flaw in the Constitution. That is, who can prevent the three federal government bodies so established to collude in a violation of the Constitution?

The Constitution established a republican form of government consisting of the President, Congress and Supreme Court. These three bodies were designed to "check and balance" each other so that there could not be an assumption of absolute power by any one party or political group. The judiciary was to pass judgment on the constitutionality of the laws passed by the Congress and could void these laws as "unconstitutional." The President administered the Constitution and statutory laws created by the legislature. If the President failed to properly perform these duties he was subject to impeachment by the Congress. The Supreme Court, once appointed, is under the control of no one. No one can force them to perform their duties under the Constitution (short of impeachment), and they are allowed to remain in office for life. The Congress has ignored the requests by the states for this Article V Convention. The President has not performed his executive responsibilities as administrator of the laws. The Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari petitioned for by a private citizen, Bill Walker, to force Congress to comply with their Constitutional duty of granting this Convention. All have violated their oaths of office in doing so.

What has lead up to the present crisis has been the ever-increasing role of money in the selection and election our legislators. This began back in the sixties when Richard Nixon and John Kennedy ran for President and was commemorated in the book "The Making of the President" by T. H. White. In the past, prior to extensive use of television advertising, the candidates typically had to appear before their constituents in public forums, and the electorate had a better chance of determining their political positions and principles firsthand. All candidates were limited by their ability to be in only one place at a time to present their messages. Now, with the widespread use of TV advertising and PAC documentaries, the candidate can virtually sit at home and have unlimited exposure to the public. The candidate can present his best image using make-up artists, style coordinators, and poll-tested slogans and policy platforms (which he has no intention of following). If he has enough money, he can deluge the viewing audience (the voters) in a way that his opponent, if lacking an equivalent amount of cash, has no way of contesting. The candidates are marketed in the same way as Coke and Pepsi. The advertising execs know that whoever has the most extensive public exposure (Coke or Pepsi) will be purchased by the public.

Likewise with a political candidate. It all depends on who is willing and able to spend the most money. Unfortunately, both political parties understand this and have had to promote their candidates in the same way. Money has bought the candidature and election of members of both parties. So the U.S. government now is simply an oligarchy of the rich and well connected. What is now needed is equal access to the TV for all candidates, paid for by the government, with no other means of moneyed interests to control the outcome of the elections. The present Congress is contented with the current arrangement and the only way to effect change is by means of a Constitutional Convention under Article V. The oligarchy of the rich is well aware of this and has apparently "encouraged" all branches of government to prevent it.

The reason I have taken care in explaining this history is that the country could be facing the first major Constitutional crisis in its history and the public should be well aware of the laws that are being violated. First of all, the President of the U.S. has failed to do his sworn duty to "support and defend" the Constitution by demanding that the Congress bow to the legitimate requests of the states to hold this convention. The Supreme Court and the Congress have likewise violated their respective duties under the Constitution as well as their oaths of office. The President knows full well that Article V is not being complied with by Congress and that this is an illegal act. The Supreme Court should know that it is guilty of misfeasance of office in denying the writ of certiorari.

These actions have broken the contract between the individual states and the Federal government known as the U.S. Constitution. The usual remedies of law pertaining to broken contracts are not operative. Damages are not appropriate, and the courts have made it clear that they will not force "specific performance" (the establishment of a convention under Article V). What we now have in the U.S. is a "rogue" government operating outside the law. Under these circumstances, the only valid laws still operative and enforceable are the state laws. By actions contrary to the explicit Constitutional rights of the states, our current government has nullified the Federal government's right to rule.

But first, perhaps it is necessary to try to understand the reasons these government bodies may have chosen to ignore their duties.

The Supreme Court could possibly (but not plausibly) use the excuse that time spent on this issue could detract from their efforts in deciding truly "important cases". They needn't worry about this. This issue could be settled in the cloakroom. The law is crystal clear. It does not “conform to” principles in the Constitution. It is explicit in the Constitution itself. The facts are equally clear and irrefutable. The states are of record of having made these requests. What's to arbitrate?

It is claimed that people are afraid of changing the Constitution because it has proved to be perfect as it has evolved, and should not be changed. If it is such a perfect document, then the Supreme Court should have no fear in forcing Congress to do its duty and establish this Convention. If it is not perfect, then there is a legal remedy available under the Constitution, that of amendment. But good luck with that one because an amendment must be approved by the very legislative bodies (the state legislatures) that have requested the Convention. The court must take one position or the other. Either the Constitution is perfect and unalterable, or it is flawed and must be changed. It faces a Hobson's Choice in this case because either would lead to a convention under Article V. That is, as long as the courts are interested in complying with the law.

In the process of ignoring their Constitutional duties, the court has made a mockery of the two most fundamental and sacred legal concepts of a capitalist economy under a republic. In ignoring contract law, they violated the most fundamental law underlying a capitalistic economy. In ignoring their oaths of office they have violated the foundation of all jurisprudence within the U.S. legal system. If members of the courts flagrantly violate their own oaths, how can they expect any ordinary citizen to take his oath-taking seriously in any court of law?

Any person reading this article should be offended by these illegal actions by its representatives. So I am encouraging you all to inform your representative that you are aware of your rights under the Constitution and depend on him or her to enforce them. If he refuses, lacking the capability to remove him from office (as explained in this document), citizens must work diligently to force the establishment of an Article V convention. An organization has been established to do just this, and I encourage all of you to support it. Their website is at www.foavc.org.