Monday, January 4, 2016

WHY TRUMP IS WINNING. THE REST ARE INTERNATIONALIST SELLOUTS WHO STAND AGAINST WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS.

There is only one candidate whose campaign theme is this: The USA exists for working-class Americans who are citizens. That candidate's name is Donald Trump.

Trump has what Margaret Thatcher called key to politics — conviction — and avoids what loses to the left — consensus. In, A BRILLIANT LADY AND WHY DONALD TRUMP IS MOST POPULAR WITH AMERICANS, I wrote about that back in early October when most pundits were surprised by Trump's early dominance.


Almost all of the GOPher candidates are internationalists openly. As internationalists, they will continue to swell the working-age population through immigration.

Their policy lowers wages permanently and increases profits in the short-term. Over years though, it decreases capital investment in the USA and puts the economy in a capitalism death spiral. I wrote about that in JASON X AND LEW ROCKWELL'S CULT OF MISES. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY AMERICANS ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

The internationalist candidates are: Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kaisch, Carly Fiorina.

Those candidates will continue on the path of both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. That is the path of stripping Congress of power and make you subject to international governing agencies that you cannot vote out of office. I wrote about that in TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP OF ESTABLISHMENT INTERESTS TO SCREW YOU OVER.

One candidate likely is a libertarian open-borders candidate, which is the same as the internationalists, in effect: Rand Paul.

The remaining candidates are cryptic about where they stand: Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, Rick Santorum.

Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi S. Cruz, is an international energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas, and an ex-GOP establishment internationalist. Heidi Cruz is a task-force member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a pro-internationalist body.

Heidi Cruz served in the Bush White House in three jobs — 1) under Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council; 2) as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department; 3) and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.

So it's quite likely that Ted Cruz is an internationalist who stands against working-class Americans.

On the Democratic Party side, all of the candidates are internationalist sellouts — Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. All of them hate white, working-class Americans. All want to implement immigration policies that make whites a minority in our own country.

Foreign Trade is good when Americans can buy products that aren't made by Americans in the USA. Foreign trade isn't good when foreigners operate at lower-to-them cost structures owing to a different legal scheme.

When foreigners can throw bodies at the production and sell into the USA at massively lower prices than Americans, doing so kills the return to capital in the USA and thus kills capital investment itself. When capital investment shrinks, wages falls. The country goes into the capitalism death spiral. In SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH and in CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE, I explained in detail all of this for you.


That is why import taxes (tariffs) should exist.  Import taxes ought to be levied at the rate of the inverse of the ratio of foreign per capita GDP to USA per capita GDP. So for example, because Canadian GDP per capita is $50,271 while American GDP per capita is $54,629, a tax of 7.98% should be levied on imports coming from Canada

Here is the math:

(1 - ($50,271 ÷ $54,629)) × 100 = 7.98%

Likewise, Mexican GDP per capita is $10,361. So a tax of 81% should be levied on imports coming from Mexico!

Foreigners should compete against Americans through efficiency under capitalism as capitalism is the only way to get a high living standard. What is killing the USA and our economy and capitalism itself is importing goods taxes-free from third world countries whose means of competition is a mass of workers with little capital.








Read more ...

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

JUNE 2015 U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE STATE. THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PICTURE GETS BETTER AND BETTER, AS EXPECT DURING A LONG DEPRESSION


The trade balance continues to better. This should surprise no one as Americans have imported ever less, even in the face of shrinking exports.







It appears foreigners are buying ever less of Americans' service economy.









Read more ...

Thursday, February 27, 2014

LOONIE TALK! CANADIANS CAN GET RICHER WHEN THEY CAN AFFORD TO BUY LESS OR SO THEY'RE TOLD!

So today, I came across a persuasion-in-propaganda piece, Weaker Loonie will help the Canadian economy, published by Shaw Communications' Global Canada news.

The piece of deceit is typical. In it, the writer suggests fallacy and what should seem as absurdity to all.


Export growth will boost domestic disposable income and the government’s tax take and will enhance the balance of payments so why wouldn’t Canada want a weaker loonie.




Ask Canadians in what time periods their living standard has risen.


A weaker Canadian dollar does not help almost all Canadians whose jobs consists solely in working in Canada. A weaker loonie means Canadians would need to work more hours to pay for the same products they buy now from foreigners.

Only 4% of Canadians work in primary industries — logging, oil, fishing, mining — which account for 58% of Canadian exports. Primary industry accounts for a mere 6.2% of GDP. Yet, the devaluate-the-loonie jokers would have you believe that weaking the buying power of the loonie would be a bonanza for a whopping 93.8% of the Canadian economy!


Three-quarters of all Canadians work in services, mostly servicing other Canadians.

A weaker Canadian dollar only helps those whose firms export and thus are trying to increase sales against other exporters from other countries. Such Canadian exporters hope to increase sales to foreigners to offset what amounts to lower prices owing to a lowered exchange rate.

If what they say were true, that a weaker loonie would make Canadians richer, giving Canadians more income, then why wait? Why the executives of the Bank of Canada, Canadians central bankers, should double the cash in circulation right now. That should cut the prices of exports in half instantly.

Why Canadians could become the richest people on earth, if merely having less buying power were the key to life. Why would anyone believe the fallacy preached by those who who claim you can get richer when your cash loses buying power? Why would anyone believe that anyone can get richer when that one can buy less for the same hours worked?

If merely cheaper export prices were the key, why don't exporters voluntarily cut their prices in half right now? Why try to force a lower exchange rate, which imposes a burden upon all Canadians who are not capitalists of export products?

Exporters want a lowered buying power of Canadian cash because exporters still need to pay Canadians their full wages, the ones who make those export products. Weaking the Loonie lets exporters pay less in buying power to Canadian workers who work in export.

So why the clarion call for less buying power for Canadians with a so-called "weaker" loonie? Some Canadian businessmen can't compete without bending the rules.

If the Chinese are slowing down, needing less natural resources, it means that Canadian bankers and investors have plowed too much cash and credit into primary industries to produce things for export. Their capital structures are wrong.

Those Canadian primary industries need to shrink. Bankers and capitalists who bet on those industries in what now is clearly over-investment, need to take losses.

Too many unprofitable firms involved in primary industries exports need to go out of business. The Canadian state of trade needs to adjust to the new reality.

What Canadians ought to hope is for a strong loonie that lets Canadians buy American know-how (technology) at favorable prices to Canadians so that Canadians can set the stage for new industries and more employment for Canadians.

Greater buyer power is the essence of what it means to be rich. However, believing that having less buying power against foreign goods leads to trade dominance and enriches everyone through undercutting rivals is to suffer from loonie-cy, er, lunacy.

Weakening the buying power of one's cash against foreign cash puts one's exports on fire sale prices. Fire sale prices might lead to more sales, but it does not follow that doing so leads to higher profit. It is profit whether from wages less living expenses or sales less outlays, which makes anyone rich.

Exports are not an end. Exports are the means to an end, paying for imports. The goal is to work for greater buying power. The goal is not to work for less buying power. If the goal were the latter, then why not enslave oneself to a people of another country?

Never in history has a country failed because its people suffered from having too much buying power. However, the list is long of those countries whose people were ruined by having too little buying power.

Oh, Canada. Talk about daffy, loonie lunacy.




Read more ...