Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears with Bloomberg Inc. to discuss the ongoing U.S. trade initiatives and the need for immediate and urgent trade reciprocity.
Within the discussion Secretary Ross talks about the current targeted tariff proposal, and why intellectual property theft by Chinese state-run companies poses a clear threat to U.S. economic growth and national security interests.
.
From the Office of the U.S.T.R. – Washington, DC – Today President Trump announced his decisions on the actions the Administration will take in response to China’s unfair trade practices covered in the USTR Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer initiated the investigation in August 2017 at the direction of President Trump.
The President has instructed that the appropriate response to China’s harmful acts, policies and practices should include three separate actions.
Tariffs – The President has instructed the Trade Representative to publish a proposed list of products and any tariff increases within 15 days of today’s announcement. After a period of notice and comment, the Trade Representative will publish a final list of products and tariff increases.
WTO dispute – The President has instructed the Trade Representative to pursue dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO) to address China’s discriminatory technology licensing practices.
Investment restrictions – The President has directed the Secretary of the Treasury to address concerns about investment in the United States directed or facilitated by China in industries or technologies deemed important to the United States.
“President Trump has made it clear we must insist on fair and reciprocal trade with China and strictly enforce our laws against unfair trade. This requires taking effective action to confront China over its state-led efforts to force, strong-arm, and even steal U.S. technology and intellectual property,” said Ambassador Lighthizer. “Years of talking about these problems with China has not worked. The United States is committed to using all available tools to respond to China’s unfair, market-distorting behavior. China’s unprecedented and unfair trade practices are a serious challenge not just to the United States, but to our allies and partners around the world.”
The Chinese government’s technology transfer and intellectual property policies are part of China’s stated intention of seizing economic leadership in advanced technology as set forth in its industrial plans, such as “Made in China 2025.”
Section 301 is a key enforcement tool that allows the United States to address a wide variety of unfair acts, policies, and practices of U.S. trading partners. The investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation addresses four categories of acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China that unfairly result in the transfer of technologies and intellectual property from U.S. companies to China. These policies harm U.S. businesses and workers and threaten the long-term competitiveness of the United States.
USTR staff, with the assistance of dozens of experts from across the Administration, prepared a comprehensive report containing detailed findings. The report is available on the USTR website.
The report supports the following conclusions:
China uses foreign ownership restrictions, including joint venture requirements, equity limitations, and other investment restrictions, to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies to Chinese entities. China also uses administrative review and licensing procedures to require or pressure technology transfer, which, inter alia, undermines the value of U.S. investments and technology and weakens the global competitiveness of U.S. firms.
China imposes substantial restrictions on, and intervenes in, U.S. firms’ investments and activities, including through restrictions on technology licensing terms. These restrictions deprive U.S. technology owners of the ability to bargain and set market-based terms for technology transfer. As a result, U.S. companies seeking to license technologies must do so on terms that unfairly favor Chinese recipients.
China directs and facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and to generate large-scale technology transfer in industries deemed important by Chinese government industrial plans.
China conducts and supports unauthorized intrusions into, and theft from, the computer networks of U.S. companies. These actions provide the Chinese government with unauthorized access to intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, including technical data, negotiating positions, and sensitive and proprietary internal business communications, and they also support China’s strategic development goals, including its science and technology advancement, military modernization, and economic development.
The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China likewise concluded in a report entitled “China Manufacturing 2025: Putting Industrial Policy Ahead of Market Forces” that there has been an “unprecedented wave of outbound investments” in recent years from China into firms in industries of relevance to Made in China 2025, and many of these investments have been in areas where foreign business is unable to make equivalent investments in China.
The USTR report also notes, “As the global economy has increased its dependence on information systems in recent years, cyber theft became one of China’s preferred methods of collecting commercial information because of its logistical advantages and plausible deniability.” The report goes on to conclude that “based on available information on China’s cyber intrusions, experts have concluded that China’s cyber intrusions and cyber theft align with its industrial policy goals.”
President Trump has just announced the removal of HR McMaster as National Security Adviser. He will be replaced with former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.
The National Security Council is a massive intelligence apparatus consisting of dozens of principals and hundreds of staff. There has been a series of leaks from within the NSC over the past year. We suspected, there was a concerted effort to track down the leaker(s).
There is a similarity to White House staff leaks, under Bannon – prior to Kelly, and recent NSC leaks under McMaster.
Given the timing of the removal in relationship to another NSC leak about President Trump’s phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin; and knowing the content of that specific leak was isolated to a small circle that would include McMaster’s personal staff; it is not a stretch to connect the dots and surmise McMaster (et al) was an IC leaker.
In the first assembly of his team, outsider President-Elect Trump took the advice of DC and professional voices familiar with the apparatus of the swamp. [See Reince Priebus, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster etc.]
It makes logical sense after President Trump gained increased familiarity with the systems, patterns, organizations and institutions therein, that he would replace positions with people he feels would be more comfortable executing his administrative policy agenda.
Additionally, the NatSec challenge has changed. POTUS is now positioning to confront Iran directly and is about to engage in direct talks with North Korea. [Each new batter faced requires new pitcher skills.]
This video highlights the insane naivete’ of ideological democrats who are willing to give away U.S. trade and manufacturing jobs because they refuse to understand economics and history.
Senator Maria Cantwell is from Washington State, home of Boeing Corp. The leading aerospace company already acquiesced to Chinese demands within a manufacturing/trade agreement for production in China requiring Boeing to give-up their technology. In this video, Cantwell is playing the role of Jeb Bush. First, WATCH:
Apparently Senator Cantwell doesn’t even know that Boeing, her state’s largest employer, is already bound to the agreement with China.
Many people may remember the specific example of Boeing, China and aerospace came up in a presidential primary debate between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. It was one of the most eye-opening debate contrasts during the 2016 GOP primary.
During the January 2016 South Carolina debate, and in response to Trump pointing out a necessary shift in trade position (a shift to put American interests first – a shift to stop the dependency on cheap import goods – a shift to use China’s dependency on access to our market to OUR advantage), Jeb Bush came back with an example of Boeing manufacturing.
2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump, responded to Jeb’s Boeing example, and pointed out China is forcing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in China. As would be typical from a candidate who is unfamiliar and poorly briefed on the issue, candidate Jeb Bush looked back incredulously and said:
“C’mon man”…
There we saw it.
Right there was the disconnect.
However, almost everyone missed it.
There, in that exact moment, was the spotlight upon all that is wrong with a professional political class; globalists dependent on Wall Street best interest for their talking points.
Not only is China demanding Boeing open a plant in China, the intent of such a plant provided an opportunity to explain why candidate Trump, now President Trump, and his America-First MAGAnomic approach, is vitally important.
China refused to trade with (buy) Boeing products if the company did not move their manufacturing to China. Why? It was not about putting Chinese people to work; their motive was all about China importing Boeing’s research and development (Boeing’s production secrets) into their country so they can learn, steal and begin to manufacture their own airliners.
This is just how China works.
In time, Comac, a state-owned, Shanghai-based aerospace company will then use the production secrets they have stolen, produce their own airliners, kick out Boeing, undercut the aerospace market, and sell cheaper manufactured airplanes to the global economy.
Boeing, the great American company that Senator Maria Cantwell thinks they are, becomes yet another notch on the Asian market belt.
All of those Boeing workers, those high-wage industrial skill jobs that support the American middle class, yeah – those jobs get lost. And the cycle continues.
Of course Wall Street will be invested in the cheaper Chinese aerospace manufacturing company Comac, as it emerges as a manufacturing power.
This reality within this story is a peek into the future of the fundamental disconnect between Wall Street (grows again) and Main Street (lost jobs/wages). The reality within this example is exactly what has taken place over the past three decades.
Wall Street entities like Goldman Sachs will be fine. DC purchased politicians will be ok given the affluence they have accumulated by selling out the American worker.
Republican and Democrat leadership will be fine – it’s middle America who suffers.
The economic consequence, yet again, creates disparity between those insulated by Wall Street and the rest of the U.S. This is how our current oligarchy is growing out of control.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the wealth gap has exploded in the past 30 years.
And so they, as professional politicians, will propose solutions – their solutions. However, their solutions are actually the preferred solutions of their campaign contributors, ie. Wall Street. The same Wall Street that funds lobbyists, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to set the economic legislative priorities of congress.
You get cheap Asian imported durable goods. Meanwhile the non-import market, your visit to the grocery store, food, energy etc. sees prices increasing because the domestic raw material within the food sector is part of the trade agreement. Harvests are exported; domestic prices on consumable goods increase. This is exactly what happens when multinational entities control the trade outcomes and the American economy becomes a service economy.
In 1984 a name brand polo shirt would cost around $45, a really good 26″ TV around $600 to $1,000, a decent couch $1500, and a pair of name brand sneakers around $100. However, eggs (.49), milk ($1.79 gal), and store bread (2 loaves for $1).
Electric bill $100, water bill $20, phone bill $50.
In 2016 an imported name brand polo costs around $20, a really good 42″ TV $300 to $400, a couch for $500 and a pair of sneakers $50 – All imported, all Asian, all about half of of what they cost in 1984.
However, eggs ($1.99), Milk ($3.99+), and store bread ($2+ each). All domestic products and all double or triple 1984. Electric bill $250, Water bill $100, phone bill $100+. Again domestic consumables, again double, triple or even more.
We consume and spend more on domestic goods such as food, energy, fuel, than we do purchasing imported durable goods. As a consequence, depending on lifestyle, the net out-of-pocket is essentially the same to a little more.
However, the income opportunity, the jobs, the good paying jobs, well, those are gone because the durables are no longer part of the domestic production.
…The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive…
To keep the under-employed pitchforks at bay, government policy (now directed by Wall Street globalists and corporations) subsidized the income gap. That’s why EBT, WIC, SNAP and food stamp assistance over the past two decades was necessarily increasing. Congress has to satiate the masses to hide the ruse (bigger problem).
The sheeple masses dropped the pitchforks, but economic independence turns to dependence. This is now a strategic retention policy of democrats. With government policy adjusted accordingly – deficits necessarily explode. Stopping those deficits would require an actual budget. There hasn’t been a federal budget, passed under regular order since 2007…. “Omnibus”… Sound familiar?
Yes, that’s the BIGGER picture reasoning behind the UniParty “Omnibus” approach.
Yes, under Donald Trump’s MAGAnomic proposals the cost of imported “durable” goods might just increase. Until they start manufacturing in the U.S. your iPhone might cost $800 instead of $600. However, the North Carolina apparel, clothing and furniture manufacturing market would/will have an opportunity to revitalize – and with it, jobs, jobs, jobs…
Yes, when Main Street economic principles are applied Wall Street will initially lose. There’s no way for this not to happen. Most of Wall Street is built on the Multinational platform of economic globalism. Weaken the grip of the multinational corporations and financial interests on the U.S. economy and Wall Street will drop… this is not difficult to predict. This is also necessary.
Yes, there’s going to be a period of “pain” per se’ as U.S. manufacturing attempts to find its footing again and begins to restart. However, in the longer term, it’s a shift from “dependency” to “independence”. This is critical because one of the lesser discussed aspects of a trade deficit is the statement it makes about the competitiveness of the U.S. economy itself.
By purchasing goods overseas for a long enough period of time, U.S. companies lose the expertise, and the factories needed to make those products disappear. [Just try finding a pair of shoes made in America] As the United States loses competitiveness, we outsource even more jobs, and the overall standard of living declines.
Those who were fully matriculated independent adults prior to 1984 know exactly what needs to be done. Heck, freedom is dependent upon it.
Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro, an insufferable mouthpiece for the GOPe Wall Street corporate community, was born in 1984 and only views the world -and trade therein- through the prism of how much his next iPhone costs. These dolts are willing to consign themselves to a modern American society that looks exactly like THIS:
See the problem?
♦ On Social Security – Unlike many politicians President Donald Trump is NOT calling for rapid or wholesale changes to the current Social Security program; and there’s a very good reason why he’s the only candidate not proposing wholesale changes. Instead of accepting a limited worldview based on a singular economic pie controlled by Wall Street, President Trump is looking to make hundreds more more economic pies.
President Trump does not consider these programs as “entitlements”, he considers them reasonable promises made in exchange for effort. The American people pay into them, and the federal government has an obligation to fulfill the promises made upon collection of social security taxes. To fully understand how Donald Trump views the solvency of Social Security, we must again understand MAGAnomics and and how the essential underpinning is growth; real and measurable GDP growth.
The issue with Social Security, as viewed by Trump, is more of an issue with receipts and expenditures. If the aggregate U.S. economy is growing by a factor larger than the distribution needed to fulfill its entitlement obligations then no wholesale change on expenditure is needed. The focus needs to be on continued and successful economic growth.
What you will find in all of Donald Trump’s positions, is a paradigm shift he necessarily understands must take place in order to accomplish the long-term goals for the U.S. citizen as it relates to “entitlements” or “structural benefits”.
All other politicians begin their policy proposals with a fundamentally divergent perception of the U.S. economy. They are working with, and retaining the outlook of, a U.S. economy based on “services”; a service-based economic model pushed by Wall Street lobbyists who fund the politicians.
While this economic path has been created by decades old U.S. policy, and is ultimately the only historical economic path now taught in school, Trump intends to change the course entirely.
Because so many shifts -policy nudges- have taken place in the past several decades, few academics and even fewer MSM observers, are able to understand how to get off this path and chart a better course.
President Trump is proposing less dependence on foreign companies for cheap goods, (the cornerstone of a service economy) and a return to a more balanced U.S. larger economic model where the manufacturing and production base can be re-established and competitive based on American entrepreneurship and innovation.
The key words in the prior statement are “dependence” and “balanced”. When a nation has an industrial manufacturing balance within the GDP there is far less dependence on the economic activity in global markets. In essence the U.S. can sustain itself, absorb global economic fluctuations and expand itself or contract itself depending on the free market.
When there is no balance, there is no longer a free market. The free market is sacrificed in favor of dependency, whether it’s foreign oil or foreign manufacturing, the dependency outcome is essentially the same. Without balance there is an inherent loss of economic independence, and a consequential increase in economic risk.
No other economy in the world innovates like the U.S.A. Donald Trump sees this as a key advantage across all industry – including manufacturing and technology.
The benefit of cheap overseas labor, which is considered a global market disadvantage for the U.S., is offset by utilizing innovation, automation and energy independence.
The third highest variable cost of goods beyond raw materials first, labor second, is energy. That’s why President Trump unleashed the U.S. energy sector and simultaneously reset the tax base for U.S. corporations. The manufacturing price of any given U.S. product will allow for global trade competition even with higher U.S. wage prices.
We have a strategic advantage with raw manufacturing materials such as: iron ore, coal, steel, precious metals and vast mineral assets which are needed in most new modern era manufacturing. President Trump smartly said: stop selling these valuable national assets to countries we compete against – they belong to the American people, they should be used for the benefit of American citizens. Period.
EXAMPLE: Currently China buys and recycles our heavy (steel) and light (aluminum) metal products (for pennies on the original manufacturing dollar) and then uses those metals to reproduce manufactured goods for sale back to the U.S. China does the same thing with raw food products (harvests and proteins).
President Trump says “no-more”. We should do the manufacturing ourselves with the utilization of our own resources; and we use the leverage from any sales of these raw materials in our international trade agreements.
When you combine FULL resource development (in a modern era) with with the removal of over-burdensome regulatory and compliance systems, necessarily filled with enormous bureaucratic costs, we can lower the cost of production and be globally competitive. In essence, Trump changes the economic paradigm, and we no longer become a dependent nation relying on a service driven economy.
The cornerstone to the success of this economic turnaround is the keen capability of the U.S. worker to innovate on their own platforms. Americans, more than any country in the world, just know how to get things accomplished. Independence and self-sufficiency is part of the DNA of the larger American workforce.
In addition, an unquantifiable benefit comes from investment, where the smart money play -to get increased return on investment- becomes putting capital INTO the U.S. economy; investing in U.S. companies instead of purchasing foreign investments.
With all of the above opportunities in mind, this is how we get on the pathway to rebuilding our national infrastructure. The demand for labor increases, and as a consequence so too does the U.S. wage rate which has been stagnant (or non-existent) for the past three decades.
As the wage rate increases, and as the economy expands, the governmental dependency model is reshaped and simultaneously receipts to the U.S. treasury improve.
More money into the U.S Treasury and less dependence on welfare/social service programs have a combined exponential impact. You gain a dollar, and have no need to spend a dollar – the saved sum is doubled. That is how the SSI and safety net programs are saved under President Trump. When we elevate our economic thinking we begin to see that all of the “entitlements” or “budget busting” expenditures become more affordable with an economy that is fully functional.
As the GDP of the U.S. expands, so does our ability to meet the growing need of the retiring U.S. worker. We stop thinking about how to best divide a limited economic pie, and begin thinking about how many more economic pies we can create.
Simply put, this is the process to…. Make America Great Again.
There’s a lot of news this week reflecting a great deal of oppositional alignment against the presidency of Donald Trump. CTH can get down in the weeds of each specific issue to discuss the motives and intents (we will, and do), but the big picture MUST remain at the forefront of understanding. If we lose track of the big picture, the weeds are overwhelming.
…“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”
♦POTUS Trump is disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S. He is fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our interests, our position, is zero-sum. Our opposition seeks to repel and retain the status-quo. They were on the cusp of full economic victory over the U.S.
In these economic endeavors President Trump is disrupting decades of financial interests who use the U.S. as a host for their ideological endeavors. President Trump is confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host (USA) ie. YOU. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; everything else is chaff and countermeasures.
Familiar faces, perhaps faces you previously thought were decent, are now revealing their alignment with larger entities that are our abusers. In an effort to awaken the victim to the cycle of self-destructive codependent behavior, allow me to cue an audio visual example from U.S. Senator John Thune. WATCH:
.
What South Dakota Senator John Thune is showcasing here is his full alignment with big multinational corporate agriculture (BIG AG). Big AG is not supporting local farmers. Big AG does not support “free and fair markets.” Big AG supports the interests of multinational corporations and multinational financial interests.
For those interests the U.S. is the host; from our perspective they are the parasite.
It is critical to think of BIG AG in the same way we already are familiar with multinational manufacturing of durable goods.
We are already familiar how China, Mexico and ASEAN nations export our raw materials (ore, coking coal, rare earth minerals etc.). The raw material to manufacture goods are then trans-shipped back into the U.S. for purchase.
It is within this decades-long process where we lost the manufacturing base, and the multinational economic planners (World Trade Organization) put us on a path to being a “service driven” economy.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the wealth gap has exploded in the past 30 years.
With that familiarity, did you think the multinationals would stop with only “DURABLE GOODS”?
They don’t.
They didn’t.
The exact same exfiltration and exploitation has been happening, with increased speed, over the past 15 years with “CONSUMABLE GOODS“, ie food.
Raw material foodstuff is exported to China, ASEAN nations and Mexico, processed and shipped back into the U.S. as a finished product. This is the same design-flow with food as previously exploited by other economic sectors, including auto manufacturing.
Multinational corporations, BIG AG, are now invested in controlling the outputs of U.S. agricultural industry and farmers. This process is why food prices have risen exponentially in the past decade.
The free market is not determining price; there is no “supply and demand” influence within this modern agricultural dynamic. Food commodities are now a controlled market just like durable goods. The raw material (harvests writ large) are exploited by the financial interests of massive multinational corporations.
Again, if we were to pull out of NAFTA our food bill would drop 25% (or more) within the first year. Further, if U.S. supply and demand were part of the domestic market price for food, we would see the prices of aggregate food products drop by half almost immediately. Some perishable food products would predictably drop so dramatically in price it is unfathomable how far the prices would fall.
Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
It doesn’t.
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity. Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics.
The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests an raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA being renegotiated, likely to exit; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1:♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.
Sneaky. CTH anticipated POTUS Trump would withdraw from NAFTA due to the FATAL FLAW that still remains unaddressed in all discussions. So it came as a surprise to see reports (opaquely cited) that U.S.T.R. Lighthizer was willing to drop the U.S. firm stance on content origination rules within the auto-sector.
Why would the Trump team agree to low thresholds of U.S. auto-parts used in American cars? It just doesn’t make sense. Still doesn’t… but no-one’s talking right now; and clarity is impossible to find. The bigger question remains: Why haven’t we pulled out yet?
Perhaps the answer to that question lies in the heart of a plan concocted by a small group of conniving GOPe multinational business interests. The tricksters are creating an enticement plan to insert domestic rules on U.S. regulations into a renegotiated NAFTA draft. The GOPe loves them some NAFTA. The GOPe will scheme to keep NAFTA.
Their current enticement plan is to work around congress, by structuring a NAFTA chapter on “rules of competitiveness”. If the scheme works as they have outlined, many domestic regulations currently tripping up expanded U.S. business development, specifically shipping/transportation infrastructure (ports/railroads), could be reduced or eliminated by putting rules to override U.S. regulations in a final NAFTA deal.
Hypothetical Example: Portland, Oregon doesn’t want a new port facility to open. They block the proposal citing environmental regulations or internal infrastructure etc. However, the new NAFTA rules require streamlined timelines and support the facility being built. The NAFTA rule overrides the federal regulatory register (the domestic rule) being used by Portland to stop the development.
On it’s face, this sneaky approach seems like a way to cut through bureaucratic regulations to speed up economic expansion. Ergo POTUS Trump would like the approach; or so the architects of the plan are approaching their construct by anticipating Trump’s thinking… Therefore POTUS Trump would see this innovative approach at deregulation as reason to remain in NAFTA. “An enticement to remain”, at least that’s the plan in their mind.
However, the ultimate beneficiaries are not necessarily the local U.S. business interests; rather the beneficiaries are multinational corporations (Wall Street) who would still exploit NAFTA, but now hold a talking point showing benefit to Main Street U.S.A. Hence, my definition of the schemers as “sneaky bastards”.
The “SNEAKS” never stop conniving and scheming. EVER. In this endeavor, just like the TPP scheme no-one understood, Tom Donohue has the same Wall-Street-Minded Decepticons in position to pitch the ruse:
Ted Cruz of Texas, Steve Daines of Montana and Cory Gardner of Colorado. The senators touted the plan in a letter to Donald Trump on Tuesday, describing it as an unprecedented opportunity “to lock into law” major elements of the president’s economic development plan. (link)
You can barf or eye-roll, your choice.
Remember this is the same Decepticon crew that was for TPP and giving Obama the legislative fast-track trade approval authority (TPA); before one of them decided to run for the 2016 presidency and manufactured an insufferable walk-back that convinced a bunch of “Battered CONservatives” he really didn’t support TPP or TPA. [See: historic reference for “sneaky bastard.”]
Behind the curtain here we can sense the invisible hand and familiar fingerprints of Tom Donohue and the U.S. CoC.
BLOOMBERG – […] The tactic could enable passage of an array of legislative proposals, including regulatory overhaul bills stymied in the Senate and measures to expand workforce development programs. Potential changes also could include setting ceilings on the cost of new regulations and making additional spectrum available for commercial use.
Adam White, who directs George Mason University’s Center for the Study of the Administrative State and who has been briefed on the effort, says the approach could improve the U.S. trade position by strengthening American competitiveness from within and enticing businesses to invest in the country.
“We need to be given the best possible opportunity to compete,” White said. “In some ways, that involves lowering barriers to trade abroad, but sometimes it involves lowering the barriers that we have created for ourselves.” (read more)
Consider me suspicious cat on this scheme, as we look for more details:
A timely book by Peter Schweizer, “Secret Empires”, explains how Chinese companies purchased U.S. politicians to gain trade advantages. When you understand this process, you better understand why those same politicians today are against the Trump trade policy that is antithetical to their purchased interests.
.
Reminder: U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue is warning President Trump not to take any trade action against China or he will unleash his purchased control agents within congress and financial media to destroy his presidency.
Allow me to re-emphasize:
All opposition to President Trump stems from the underlying financial and economic policy. All opposition is about money!
When you ask the “why” question five times you end up discovering the financial motive for all opposition. It doesn’t matter who the group is; the opposition is ultimately about money. There are trillions at stake.
Donohue takes-in hundreds of millions in payments from multinational corporations who hold a vested interest in keeping the U.S. manufacturing economy subservient to China. The U.S. CoC then turns those corporate funds into lobbyist payments to DC politicians for legislative action that benefits their Chinese trade deals. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the #1 lobbyist in DC; there are trillions at stake.
Wall Street’s famous CONservative mouthpieces then take their cues from Donohue and decry any Trump trade policy that might impact their multinational benefactors. They hide behind catch phrases like “free trade”, or “free markets”. However, what they are really hiding is the truth, there is no free market – it is a controlled market. It’s a circle of trade and economic propaganda driven by the most well known guests that appear on Fox News. Ben Shapirois one such example; there are hundreds more.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The head of the most influential U.S. business lobbying group warned the Trump administration that unilateral tariffs on Chinese goods could lead to a destructive trade war that will hurt American consumers and U.S. economic growth.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement on Thursday that such tariffs, associated with a probe of China’s intellectual property practices, would be “damaging taxes on American consumers.”
His comments came after White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that Trump would in coming weeks get options to address China’s “theft and forced transfer” of American intellectual property as part of the investigation under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974.
Reuters reported on Tuesday that Trump was considering tariffs on up to $60 billion worth of Chinese information technology, telecommunications and consumer products, along with U.S. investment restrictions for Chinese companies.
Donohue said the Trump administration was right to focus on the negative economic impact of China’s industrial policies and unfair trade practices, but said tariffs were the wrong approach to dealing with these.
“Tariffs of $30 billion a year would wipe out over a third of the savings American families received from the doubling of the standard deduction in tax reform,” Donohue said. “If the tariffs reach $60 billion, which has been rumored, the impact would be even more devastating.”
He urged the administration not to proceed with such a plan.
“Tariffs could lead to a destructive trade war with serious consequences for U.S. economic growth and job creation,” hurting consumers, businesses, farmers and ranchers.
In Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Donohue’s comments were correct, adding that recently more and more American intellectuals had made their rational voices heard. (read more)
Everyone admits the past 40+ years of U.S. trade deals have resulted in the massive export of U.S. wealth via jobs and manufacturing gains within other nations. The financial beneficiaries of those prior trade positions were: Wall Street, multinational corporations and multinational banks.
The losers of all prior trade priorities was the U.S. middle-class. This point is inarguable, just look around. Stop the nonsense and quit listening to those who control the markets.
So ask yourself, friends and family this very important question:
If prior U.S. trade policies resulted in the export and redistribution of U.S. wealth… What happens when you reverse the process?
In the answer to that question you discover the opposition to U.S. President Trump.
When Main Street economic principles are applied Wall Street will initially lose. There’s no way for this not to happen. Most of Wall Street is built on the Multinational platform of economic globalism. Weaken the grip of the multinational corporations and financial interests on the U.S. economy and Wall Street will drop… this is not difficult to predict. This is also necessary.
I doubt there is a more current exhibit for Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) than a comparison of identical action by President Obama and President Trump and the media narrative therein.
President Barack Obama talks on the phone with President-elect Vladimir Putin of Russia while aboard Air Force One en route to Richmond, Va., March 9, 2012. Alice Wells, Senior Director for Russian Affairs, is seated at right.
2012 – “President Obama called Russian President-elect and Prime Minister Putin to congratulate him on his recent victory in the Russian Presidential election. President Obama highlighted achievements in U.S.-Russia relations over the past three years with President Medvedev, including cooperation on Afghanistan, the conclusion and ratification of the START agreement, Russia’s recent invitation to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and cooperation on Iran.
President Obama and President-Elect Putin agreed that the successful reset in relations should be built upon during the coming years.
The President said that he looked forward to hosting President-Elect Putin at the G-8 Summit in May at Camp David. The two leaders outlined areas for future cooperation, including strengthening trade and investment relations arising out of Russia’s pending accession to the WTO. President Obama and President-Elect Putin agreed to continue discussions on areas where the United States and Russia have differed, including Syria aand missile defense. President Obama and President-Elect Putin agreed to continue their efforts to find common ground and remove obstacles to better relations.” (link)
Earlier today President Trump hosted leadership from the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and national law enforcement officials to discuss the ongoing issues with Sanctuary Cities and immigration.
.
WHITE HOUSE – SANCTUARY CITIES ARE UNDERMINING LAW ENFORCEMENT: Sanctuary jurisdictions obstruct Federal immigration enforcement efforts and put law enforcement at greater risk.
A “sanctuary city” generally refers to a State or local jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement, often by rejecting “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and refusing to share information relating to potentially removable aliens.
Detainers are used to request that a State or local law enforcement agency hold a criminal alien in local custody for up to 48 hours after their release on state charges to allow ICE to take custody of the alien and initiate removal proceedings.
State and local law enforcement agencies routinely detain suspects for violating Federal laws at the request of federal authorities.
The Constitution and Federal statues allow for ICE to detain illegal aliens, and for local police to do so at ICE’s request, relying on ICE’s determination of probable cause.
Detainers themselves establish probable cause of an alien’s removability and it would be absurd to require ICE to obtain a judicial warrant every time it detained an illegal alien.
Indeed, Congress authorized immigration officers, rather than Federal judges, to issue administrative warrants to arrest aliens based on probable cause to believe they are in violation of the immigration laws.
♦If this was necessary under the Fourth Amendment, immigration enforcement would grind to a halt.
When sanctuary cities refuse to comply with detainer requests, law enforcement officers must carry out their immigration enforcement duties in workplaces, residences, and in the streets.
This can lead to ICE having to enter dangerous environments to arrest criminal aliens.
Some sanctuary city officials have gone as far as warning illegal aliens about upcoming immigration enforcement actions, allowing criminal aliens to prepare themselves and putting law enforcement, the public, and the aliens at even greater risk.
♦ENDANGERING COMMUNITIES: Reckless sanctuary policies endanger the safety of our communities and obstruct immigration enforcement actions which can prevent further crime.
Too many criminal illegal aliens have been released into American communities and gone on to commit crimes which could have been prevented had ICE been able to take the individuals into custody.
In 2016, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) arrested a criminal illegal alien for possession of cocaine for sale and other charges.
The individual had been deported three times previously and had prior convictions for similar offenses but was still released.
SFPD arrested the individual again in 2017 on charges involving the sale of narcotics, yet the city again refused to comply with an ICE detainer request and the individual was released.
SFPD arrested an illegal alien and alleged gang member more than ten times between 2013 and 2017 for charges including rape, assault, domestic battery, robbery, and vehicle theft.
On each occasion ICE’s request to have the individual transferred to their custody or receive notice before his release was denied.
A criminal illegal alien was arrested in Cook County, Illinois in 2011 for driving on a suspended license from a prior conviction for driving under the influence (DUI).
ICE issued a detainer request but the individual was released from jail and arrested less than a year later for aggravated DUI causing death.
Activists say sanctuary policies make illegal aliens feel safe enough to report crimes to police.
Illegally present crime victims and witnesses are eligible for certain immigration benefits, like the U-visa and T-visa, to encourage their cooperation in reporting crime.
♦IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: President Trump’s Administration has and will continue to pursue strong immigration enforcement based on the rule of law.
President Trump’s Administration has taken action to ensure our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully enforced.
The Department of Justice has filed a legal action regarding three California laws that intentionally obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration law, regulate private entities that seek to cooperate with Federal authorities, and impede consultation and communication between Federal and State law enforcement officials.
During fiscal year (FY) 2017, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) made more than 140,000 administrative arrests and effected more than 225,000 removals.
From President Trump’s inauguration through the end of FY 2017, ERO made more than 110,568 arrests compared to only 77,806 in all of FY 2016.
However, more resources are needed to ensure law enforcement is able to do its job and enforce our immigration laws.
There are nearly one millions aliens in the United States with final orders of removal but not enough officers or resources to enforce the orders.
Many sheriffs have backed off of holding criminal aliens for fear of lawsuits.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
What you will find in all of Donald Trump’s positions, is a paradigm shift he necessarily understands must take place in order to accomplish the long-term goals for the U.S. citizen as it relates to “entitlements” or “structural benefits”.
Centinel2012 