LAROUCHEPAC:
by Neil Martin
Lyndon LaRouche's October forecast is coming due, and the game is up on the global derivatives market. The monetarist interest of Wall Street and London have tried to shift their losses onto the back of the American people, but now, at the end of the fiscal year, the psychological effect of the reality of the worthless speculative debt, is undeniable, the fuse is being lit, and at some point an explosion will be taking place, bringing the full weight of quadrillions of dollars of speculative debt down upon the heads of humanity. The question is, will it bring the world's only sovereign currency, which acted as such during brighter times of our nations history since FDR, down with it, or, on the other hand, will patriots act before its too late, and assert the true value of the U.S. dollar, as means to build real wealth, and cease attempting to resuscitate the cold carcass of a monetary system.
Tied up with this most important question, is whether U.S. patriots will embody the courage of an idea which has the power to shape the nation as a dynamic, the idea of the American System of economics, and its formulation as explicitly anti-monetarist, anti-free trade, anti-Adam Smith, i.e., anti-British Empire.
In this paper free trade and globalization will be refuted.
The first part features a few old refutations on free trade that are no longer in use to today; however they are to teach the second source scholars about the history of free trade, because to them and their elders, theories do not have to be proved, and history is pushed aside; the second part will feature other refutations of free trade that are applicable today; finally, the third part will refute today's globalization, compliments of Hamilton's report on manufacturing.
1. Refutations Of 19th Century Free Traders
In Hamilton's report on manufactures, he quotes a free trader reflecting the view of Adam Smith. “If contrary to the natural course of things, an unseasonable and premature spring can be given to certain fabrics, by heavy duties, prohibitions, bounties, or by other forced expedients; this will only be to sacrifice the interests of those of the community to those of particular class. Besides misdirection of labor, a virtual monopoly will be given to the persons employed on such fabrics; and an enhancement of price, the inevitable consequence of every monopoly, must be defrayed at the expense of the other parts of the society. It is far preferable, that those persons should be engaged in the cultivation of the Earth, and that we should procure, in exchange for its productions, commodities, with which foreigners are able to supply us in greater perfection, and upon better terms.”
The above quote should not be taken lightly. What this person was implying was that the United States should not be an agro-industrial economy. The free trader did not want the United States to have her domestic manufacturing, because this would lead to a foot in the door towards a economic independence and a dense population. Why would a nation surrender her home markets to the British? Home manufacturing supports the general welfare and keeps the population employed instead of being an empire of consumers.
Now, surrendering her manufacturing to England meant that the U.S could care less about the Declaration of independence, and the U.S Constitution. This was not a Harmony of Interest; instead it was one of discord. The Free trade theorist would say “Buy our manufacturers and we'll buy your food, and raw materials.”
A government that would fall for this, does not qualify in being wise concerning political economy. Political economy is a science that adheres to natural law. It focuses on whatever is good for the national wealth of the nation, and anything thing less would be un-Hamiltonian.
An economy based on lowering prices means somebody is being screwed. Some one is prolonging a country's lower living standards, and someone is saying “See globalization creates jobs.” Why not go for Henry Carey's harmony of interests domestic Agriculture, domestic Manufacturing and domestic commerce? The theorists of free trade preach to consumers that they need not be concerned about the livelihood of people who were either farmers or people formerly employed in high skill labor, and other important industries. This is the bread and butter of Free trade.
Nathaniel Ware's Book Notes On Political Economy
Let's take a look at this book:
“No Revenue. We are asked what we will do for a revenue if we make all or supplies at home?”
Why wouldn't home made goods made from U.S raw materials be suitable for the population at home? It was unsuitable because these free traders only knew of trading goods via country to country putting the consumer, at a distance to the producer. Doing this completely does not adhere to a harmony of interest. The silly question “How to get revenue?” is simple. Establish home markets, protect them, protect them, protect them, and establish the third national bank of the United States that's based on credit. (This will of course enrage the British Empire because now she'll have to go back to drawing board.)
National Revenue is domestic commerce, with an array of capital goods and food for the population of the country. Take the transcontinental railroad, this showed the intention of the United States to develop the west. The Railroad would increase the development of the west, and also establish rail road hubs, but before this a population would have to be there—-that would be the first main freight of the railway. When this came to a close, there could be development because a power of association was there. Just imagine the areas of the United States that could be opened up for development for domestic commerce. This of course would need labor and machinery. The plan for these areas were that they would be economically developed. Before the magnificent railroad was built, there was no infrastructure from West to East cities. The people out West could not fashion what needed to be fashioned, this made their raw-materials almost nothing, but when the West attained technology, the raw materials could be of use out West. The effects of the transcontinental railroad was that the revenue question became trivial.
The railway dealt a blow for the British Empire because this signified that the British as a maritime power was now in trouble, and if Continental Europe did this, maritime trade would be nearing death.
“We are told that commerce will stagnate if we make our own supplies, that there will be nothing for it to occupy itself with.”
The world does not have one market, the home market when developed is the best market for items made in that same country. Commerce, manufacturers, and agriculture being in the same country affirms that there is a Harmony of interest. And this protectionist policy will not stagnate, it will grow. Protectionism would grow in many ways like a mode of transport, new methods of agriculture, and new types of machinery, compliments of a machine tool sector. Protectionism will also look for the best fuel at the moment, and it is currently Nuclear power.
A protectionist economy is incapable of stagnating. “Man is to be fruitful, multiply, subdue the Earth, and replenish it.” What type of economy would be needed to tackle this task given to us by our creator. Certainly not a environmentalist economy; they can only replenish the Earth depositing their own waste outdoors, and engaging in intimacy with trees is not being fruitful and multiplying.
The economy that manifests commerce that does not stagnate is the American System of political economy. The American System, unlike the monetarist economy, increases her energy flux density, and this correlates with the improvements of an economy. The American System does not promote the most horrid forms of power generation. Prince Philips' World wildlife foundation does. They want alternative fuels like Solar Panels, and windmills; any type of an economy that would use such garbage is bound to fail and take down billions with it.
“It is contended and used as an objection to the protective tariff, that if we make our own supplies up to the full, Europe, and England in particular, would not take our raw materials.”
Who cares about England not buying our raw materials. She always buys in the cheapest market. For the United States to make their own supplies would be excellent, as this meant new fields of employment could be opened up and the Harmony of Interest could be established.
More importantly though, the areas that were developing their resources, also got an increase of population, to further the diversity of employment. There will also be a startling find that when the development of these areas increased, the energy flux density increased. Now, when they were just a mere town, the energy flux density was low, because all that town did was export raw materials to England or Europe.
To be a trading partner with England officially has a country making concessions towards England, meaning death to the nation. The U.S was employing her people in manufacturing, something that the British did not like the United States to do if one were keen to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. This policy, of the United States playing England's game “you buy from us, we buy from you” was just an excuse to prevent the United States from becoming an agro-industrial economy; instead the British wanted the U.S to have an economy that sold to the British so that she could sell to the United States.
Lastly, we have going to the wild or back lands. The only occupation man could engage in with no association, was farming in the back lands and wild lands. This of course scattered the population instead of making it dense. Henry Carey too speaks of man going out west, and he attributed this to free trade. This was not pioneering. Ware said, “In this age of improvement, why stagnate and barbarize the human family, by casting then in the woods remote from all comfort and civilization.” What was lost by this was the basic necessities a town had to offer to the population like education for children, books, newspapers, society, and churches and the back woods and wild lands could not create what a power of association could create.
What caused all this was free trade. The young men were interested laboring in manufacturing. However with free trade crushing manufacturing, destroying the Harmony of interests, thereby hitting commerce and agriculture hard, nothing could be done by the territories. Only the federal government can assure the Harmony of interest will exist. Once it does away with a policy of protectionism, so goes the way of human beings advancing. Nathaniel Ware said the “human mind must advance in this age,” and this was not going to happen if free trade was the policy of the government.
John Blyes Book Sophisms of Free-Trade
“Foreign commodities are always paid for by British commodities, Therefore the purchase of foreign commodities encourages British industry as much as the purchase of British Commodities”1This quote comes from McCullough's BookPrinciples of Political Economy P.152
Would Adam Smith go with this policy? Sorry he did a flip flop. Here's what he says: “The capital which is employed in purchasing in one part of the country in order to sell in another the produce of the industry of that country, generally replaces by such two distinct capitals that had both been employed in the agriculture or manufacture of that country, and thereby enables them to continue that employment.”2Wealth of Nations Book 2, Chapter 5, P. 295
“When both are the produce of domestic industry, it necessarily replaces by every such operation two distinct capitals which had both been employed in supporting productive labor, and thereby enables them to continue that support.” When there is domestic commerce, there are unlimited markets in a country. To really ruffle the feathers of his fellow free traders, Adam Smith says, “But capital employed in the home trade, it has already been shown, necessarily puts into motion a greater quantity of domestic industry, and gives revenue and employment to a greater number of the inhabitants of the country; than an equal capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption:”
Adam Smith just conveyed that the domestic commerce, let's say between the different sources of manufacture, are kept in their employment through domestic trade.
John Byles, a Brit I might add, states in his Sophisms Of Free Trade, “Purchase Britain articles with British articles, and you create two such aggregate values, and you create two such markets for the British industry.”
I have never heard of a free trader justifying making markets at home, when they can cater to the world markets. John Byles states that the importance of Smith favoring domestic commerce is that, “They are the admissions of the founder of the existing school of political economists, on a point of vital importance so vital that it affects the entire theory on free-trade.”3John Byles Sophisms of Free Trade 8th Edition, Chapter 4, Page 21
“the Navigational laws were useless and injurious.”
One chapter in Byles' book is devoted in saying “the Navigational laws were useless and injurious.” The Navigational laws modeled after the Dutch's navigational law assured that British goods will be shipped only by British owned vessels, with a British Captain, and British sailors. This applied to British goods going to countries, going out of countries, and traveling throughout the rivers of United Kingdom. Why didn't the British use competition to choose who will transport British goods? I 'm going to use the great chameleon Adam Smith for this one. Smith acknowledges, “When some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defense of the country. The defense of Great Britain, for example, depends very much upon the number of its sailors and shipping. The act of navigation, therefore, very properly endeavors to give the sailors and shipping of Great Britain the monopoly of the trade of their own shipping of foreign countries.” Smith later on says, “As defense, however, is of much more importance than opulence, the act of navigation is, perhaps, the wisest of all the commercial regulations of England.”4Smith on Navigational Law Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Chapter2, P. 344
“If all countries practiced free trade, all countries would be gainers”
Laissezfaire is not a policy one wants to follow in using the daily necessities of life. There are a number of crises that mankind has to face, and all nations must be sovereign and have the means to produce the type of technology to deal with them. Buying cheap and selling dear, can't solve any problems like the world wide water crisis. Free trade countries are not interested in solving problems, how can a society exist with free trade countries using laissezfaire to deal with crises. What do they do pay homage to a Adam Smith statue?
Technological breakthroughs are not going to be the topic of a dialogue amongst Free Trade countries. Free Trade is neither effective or productive when it comes to giving man a livelihood. Some free trade countries have remaining public infrastructure, what about the ones that don't. How are they going to compete in this rigged up system? This is the law of the jungle, laissezfaire will take care of that. What about the countries that have remaining industries? They have the means to export, but what about the other countries that have never built up her industries? Well, those countries better find some form of purchasing power so they will not fall prey to the law of the jungle.
Laissezfaire is not going to take advantage of the talents of mankind. It' going to degrade man. Creativity in laissezfaire does not exist. An economy without creativity is an economy that is insane. Her theorists will do damage control like calling protectionism as a mean to create a monopoly, that it will raise prices; they may also speak of the benefits of not having a harmony of interest that is Manufacturers, commerce, and agriculture, by saying no country shall have commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing this too is a monopoly and this also raises prices, Nations can not be gainers in free trade.
With Free trade, what is its outlook for the future? Will free trade make the same kind of contributions to mankind as the American System has? Free Trade can care less John Byles said, “Humanity, it cannot be too often repeated, is the profoundest policy.” This is where the difference between Free trade and the American System. “Humanity as the most profoundest policy.”
"Free importations is the source of lenty; protectionism of scarcity."
Free importations into a country leads to horrid conditions, but free traders say it's the source of plenty, yeah if you want to ruin a nation's economy like the British Empire did to Ireland, Portugal India, and Turkey. Now this policy of absolute lawlessness, free trade only benefits, the exporter or the importer. The United Kingdom will not do a trade of equivalents. They always want the advantage.
For the Empire to trade on good terms with a country is not the British way.
Ireland was devastated by British Empire. There was time when the Irish had manufactures and agriculture, but after the act of union in 1800, her manufactures gave way to British ones. 1800 highlights the year in which Ireland lost her sovereignty. All she had left a good forty years after wards was an agriculture economy ,and this is what the Irish used to trade with Great Britain. This only left them with potatoes. So much for Ireland having plenty.
As for Portugal it was the Methuen Treaty that nearly destroyed her. Why would a country send wine over to the British at a cheaper price than other countries, and than allow for the British to dump all sorts of goods with only a 23 percent tariff. Then we have the case with Turkey. She let articles come in at three percent tariff, now how could a nation survive with that type of policy.
Lastly we have India, India was a nation with domestic commerce, and a good maker of cotton, but the British made it virtually impossible for India to keep that trade. No longer was the cotton in close proximity to the loom. It was thousands of miles away from the workshop of the world England.
The taxes that the Indians had to pay were mind boggling. The only thing the British Empire did not tax was air. However the one thing the Indians were allowed to do was growing poppy, and that would be the Opium that the British Empire sold to the Chinese. There was two wars that the British fought to liberate the Chinese with Opium.
Willard Philips book Protectionism and free trade
“The Constitution expressly authorizes protection”
One of the chief architects of the U.S Constitution was Alexander Hamilton. If one were to take a look a his continentalist papers and his letter to James Duane, one would get an immediate picture of the environment that surrounded the American revolution, and what type of Government Hamilton wanted.
It should come to no surprise on what's going to be asserted and proved quite easily. The U.S Constitution is a protectionist one. Were one to take look at Hamilton’s letter to James Duane that was written in 1780 during the American Revolution one would see how powerful Hamilton wanted the congress to be.
To Hamilton the government should not have scores of needs that the continental congress had. Instead the government should have the powers to have it be a sovereign nation state. These powers would make congress the highest legislature of the land .
But in order to address the lack of powers that the congress had, their needed to be a constitutional convention. This was the first item Hamilton suggested to James Duane.
The next thing Hamilton addressed was the lack of powers the congress had because the individual states had them. The only power Hamilton thought the states should have was there internal police.
Hamilton then conveyed to James Duane what powers Congress should have, such as “all that relates to war, peace, trade, finance, …declaring war…laying prohibitions on all the articles of export or imports, imposing duties, granting bounties, and premiums… of regulating trade... coining of money, establishing banks, on such terms, and with such privileges as they think proper, appropriating funds and doing whatever else relates to the operation of finance, transacting everything with foreign nation.....and making treaties of commerce.”
These were powers that the Continental Congress lacked. Were Congress to have these powers they would be the highest legislative body in the United States. This entails that the articles of confederation became scrapped. .
The powers that Hamilton wanted the congress to have showed his view of government. Later on in the letter Hamilton tells James Duane that a bank( Hamilton first proposed this idea of a bank of the united states to Robert Morris) should be erected with capital coming from joint credit of the public, monied men, and foreign loans. Hamilton called this an experiment that should be “fully tried.”
Hamilton’s “CONTINENTALIST” Papers"
Hamilton starts off the first of six continentalists papers by saying, “It would be extreme of vanity in us not to be sensible, that we began this revolution with very vague and confined notions of the practical business of government.” Now in letter 4 dated 1781 (once again written during the American Revolution) to Mr. Loudon, Hamilton discussed 6 methods give Government what it needed to augment her powers, but number one shall only be addressed
Number one dealt with “the power of regulating trade, the power to grant bounties and premiums for the purposes of giving encouragement to the manufacturer, using duties for regulation or for revenue, having the power to choose who will be customs officers, and lastly “laying embargoes, in extraordinary emergencies.”
In the course of history no nation has elevated the standard of living for her population by seeking anti protectionist measures. Laissezfaire measures such as not regulating trade deprives a nation of her freedom. Is there any freedom in having another nation subjugate a nation? No, laissezfaire as a nation building policy is an utter failure.
But as a policy to undermine the sovereignty of nations, it receives a perfect score.
Hamilton's policies could never undermine the sovereignty of the United States or for that matter other countries. Hamilton’s epic pieces of letter to James Daune and the 6 Continentalist letters to Mr. Loudon by Hamilton expressed his views on what a government must have the powers that are needed to keep a nation sovereign. Hamilton never addressed the lack of powers of the U.S government with out providing solutions.
Were one to look upon Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. One would see that Hamilton surely played a key part in giving the congress powers that the previous Congress lacked. Therefore, protectionist measures were the means to keep a nation sovereign.
I would just leave it with Hamilton, but Chapter 5 in Willard Phillipps, book needs to be addressed more. Phillips quotes a professor who wants the constitution to be construed in a nature that gives the Government menial powers or no powers at all. “But says the professors of the same school, the constitution must be construed not only literally but strictly, so as to find as, little authority as possible given by it, and if none at all so much better.” This is down right un-Hamiltonian. This guy would love the constitution in exile movement.5Constitution In Exile. As already stated, they want the government to be powerless concerning the promotion of the general welfare. He wants the federal government to be as weak as possible. A big government, is a lousy word by demagogues to rouse up a section of population that are just prone to be playing the part of people who are illiterates in the art of statecraft. This professor whoever he was, will serve as a plague and possibly destroy the U.S Constitution. Some one of this stature must be banned from holding any positions in the government or in places of higher learning, and further more his ideas must be defeated. “The country maybe crippled by foreign commerce that is profitable to those directly concerned-free trade says what is profitable to them is best for the whole country.”
Ireland was annihilated by British trade, and they say looting Ireland was the best for the country. If that were the case, why did so many Irish people leave Ireland to go the United States. The same with China, The British made a killing at selling opium to the Chinese, was this prosperity for the Chinese.
After the war of 1812, the United States were dumped with tons of British fashioned items. This caused a problem to the industries that were in operation during the war, but if the venture was profitable it was good for the whole of the nation. This is pure crap, no country benefits off of free trade except for pushers of free trade themselves, and sooner or later the countries that did trade with the British will wound up with no purchasing power.
Daniel Raymond's Book Elements of Political Economy
Raymond quotes Adam Smith for manufactures, Dr . Smith says “nature does nothing: man does all.” This is yet again another piece of crap. What about water wheels that are based at rivers to turn the water wheels that provide power to some manufactures? What about hydro electric dams, that supply electricity? Man kind making steel? Hello the fiery furnace. Another example is electricity, which transformed the manufacturing sectors with that commerce improved and so did Agriculture.
What nation would not want agriculture as a science, domestic commerce, and domestic manufacturers? These are the building blocks of a nation and there must always be improvement. Man kind does not progress with stagnation it progresses with creativity.
2. Refutations of Free Trade Suitable For Today
Willard Phillips Book on Protection Versus Free Trade
“In legislation, regard is to be had to the future as well as the present- free trade considers only today.”
The protective tariff , and the third National Bank are good examples of the legislature thinking about the future. How is a country suppose to grow if it competes with free trade, on free trade terms?
A legislature who is thinking about the future today should throw the monetary system in the trash along with the federal reserve and go with a Hamiltonian credit system. Now a legislature that only legislates for today needs to be seen as one that will hear nothing, see nothing, and do nothing, today these congress people were getting the riot act read in August to them. When they go to their districts, and they deserve this treatment for their cowardice.
Let's take a look at the preamble of the Constitution. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice ,insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty our selves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.” The general welfare functions as the main engine for the U.S Constitution; promoting the general welfare is future oriented. One of the ways in which this is done is by having a protective tariff. A protective tariff is the fuel that facilitates the various industries, and the legislatures that are opposed to this are on the side of globalization.
“The same amount of capital in a community can by protective legislation, be made to employ a greater amount of labor that would otherwise do- Free-traders expressly assumes the contrary.”
The "let it alone" theory has never produced one job at all in the United States. Nor has it ever revolutionized production. The let it alone theory says industries will pop up by themselves, but this is not the case. The argument that vital industries will pop up by themselves is the equivalent of people being told the economy will bounce back, or that Santa Clause and the tooth fairy really exist. Has anyone seen a group of investors or investment banks with the intention of developing countries? Instead they make an investment designed off of globalization. An overwhelming majority of Private wealth has no intention to promote the general welfare. It can never mesh with public wealth because their investments signify that they like globalization and not manufactures. This will be covered at the end of the paper.
Now the very idea of Protective Legislature establishing the third National Bank that nourishes, promotes, encourages, and developing industries, throws a monkey wrench in their theory that says industries will grow by them selves, that capital can only increase industry, that capital can not be augmented by laws and governments, and “therefore, laws and government can not increase industry.” Protectionism puts more people to work than the private sector that adheres to the doctrines of Adam Smith and Mills. It is the first seen with the intention, where are the free trader's intentions to create cheap labor jobs. A country can not compete with globalization, only a sovereign nation state can. Her actions will be solely based upon the general welfare, that is followed up by protective legislation, the results of this are protective tariffs, bounties, and low interest credit.
“Protection of our own domestic industry is no degree hostile to other countries- free trade pretends the contrary.”
This is only a ploy to promote globalization, and to have nations forfeit their sovereignty. Globalization does not lead to man's dominion over Earth. Those that push it like Tony Blair 6Tony Blair, The official ass-kisser of the British monarchy. also push the Lisbon 7Helga Zepp-LaRouche on the Lisbon treaty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlrESONoYR4 treaty, climate change and the nullification of the principle and the Westphalia treaty that ended a hundred years of warfare on the continent of Europe. The ultimate goal of globalization is to annihilate countries. Only the sovereign nation state can destroy globalization. That's not going to happen as long as we have a Nazis giving advise to Obama who must make a choice having an identity as being a stooge for the queen and wall street, commanding the White house or Obama being president. He can't do both.
“Protection favors the working classes; is for the benefit of both the many and the few-Free trade represents it be for only for a few.”
This deliberate act of sophistry will never die. This began with Adam Smith. The object of strengthening the various manufactures is to create a home market for Agriculture, the various manufactures, and for commerce. What class gets hurt? The few in this case is not the farmer, nor the various manufactures nor those engaged in domestic commerce. The ones that are hurt and rightly so are the ones that represent globalization. Their private interest is against the general welfare. They have no right to eliminate the means of livelihood for people.
Robert Ellis Thompson’s Elements of Political Economy
“Protection can change the direction of capital, but does not add to its amount or efficiency. It can only divert it from more to less remunerative channels, without in the least adding to its power to employ and fertilize labor, or increase national wealth.”
Thompson identifies that this argument comes from Adam Smith. This insane theory is sheer madness. Protectionism can too improve the efficiency of capital through having industries not competing with foreign ones and creating domestic markets for domestic industry. This makes it self evident that the main source of revenue will come from the United States, and not through trade with nations. Protectionism on behalf of the government can also do for the manufacture what it can it do for it self. By providing a line of credit the manufactures can invest in greater technologies. It is great to see a creative process followed up by a another creative process. This is what happens when Government promotes manufactures.
It is much better to have various industries than just being a nation that is a subordinate to Globalization. Because if the United States does this what would happen to the National Bank and the diversity of employment ,that was created by the Government implementing Protectionist policies. Protectionist polices also creates the situation where there is a Harmony of interest with Commerce, Manufactures, and Agriculture.
Robert Ellis Thompson has a quote in his book that goes right along with the at consumer society “ the interest of the consumer is the interest of society, while that of the producer is the interests of a class.” What would happen to a National bank if consumers were the society, and producers were just a class? The destruction of the Ultimate source of protectionism the National Bank will be crushed.
The consumer is like a person who strives for private wealth. Those that have private wealth do not out number producers; But this type of refuting does not address the future. Those that play upon the interest of the consumer and the producer wants society ,and class to never have the same mutual interest. But a class and society are part of a nation ,and nations must not take Adam Smith's bait. There is a mission for this nation, it involves that a nation solves as many crises and provide upcoming generations with the technologies that can benefit them.
Refutations of Adam Smith and his hatred of Colbert
“The general industry of the society never can exceed what the capital of the society can employ.”8National Wealth, Individual Wealth P.215 Does Adam Smith know that the Federal government can effortlessly supply that general industry with what it needs. It will not be by a monetarist system. It will be by credit uttered by a National Bank.
“No regulation of commerce can increase the quantity of industry and society beyond what its capital can maintain.”9Wealth, Not Nations, Harvard Classic P.332-333, Book 4, Chapter 2 First of all Smith is endeavoring to blatantly ignore protective tariffs and credit. Protectionism with it's main arsenal the National Bank followed up by protective tariffs will not have the home market at a state of fluctuation, but foreign markets are susceptible to speculation, and fluctuation.
Smith is also using the Monetary theory, the greatest means to cripple economic growth. Government credit is the answer, and credit does not “divert a part of it into a direction into which it might not otherwise has gone.” Government Credit is not monetary theory. Stupid monetarists say “where are you going to get money to do this. From here or there, damn it, where?” The answer is something they do not want to hear, credit. Credit dwarfs the monetary theory at being the benefactor to a nation. After all they were designed with different economic polices. Essentially credit is only an arsenal of a Hamiltonian government, while the monetary is for governments that choose to digress instead of progress.
Adam Smith's view of Colbert the minister to Lewis the XIV of France
Adam Smith vehemently detested how Colbert refused to have men of private interest invest how they wanted too. This was a big pet peeve of Mr. Smith. According to Smith this infringed upon “the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice.”
Colbert set into place a policy that would industrialize France. Adam Smith grieved on how Colbert regulated commerce and industry. To Adam Smith this was audacious act and a great slap in the face of those French Economists who Smith admired because they knew that land reigned supreme in generating revenue. Smith said, “If the rod be bent too much one way,(that is towards industry)says the proverb in order to make it straight you must bend it as much as the other(to get agriculture). The French philosophers physiocrats have an admirer, and it's Dr. Smith.
Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is not what nation builders should be basing their policy on at all. An intention based upon attaining private wealth will not do anything for the public good. Daniel Raymond comments about Smith saying “It seems to be an admitted dogma with Dr. Smith that national and individual interest are never opposed, but a more unsound doctrine in principle, or a more abominable one in its consequences, cannot well be imagined. Such a doctrine, if adopted in practice, would destroy all government,and tear up the very foundations of society.”10Daniel Raymond's Elements of Political Economy P.215, Vol 2
Smith is often attacked for recognizing that private interests are not different than public interests. It's like the invisible hand guiding vise to do the public good.
3. Conclusion: What the American System Can Do That Globalization Can't
An argument in favor of globalization says now these countries have manufactures and now the people can work. I beg to differ, those who have said this obviously have no understanding or have never studied Hamilton's report on manufacturing because he lays it out how manufacturing benefits a nation. Hamilton listed and expounded on the 7 ways in which manufacturing helped out the home country.
These will be compared to what conditions globalization makes, and if globalization fails to meet this criteria throw it outside, for garbage collection.
Number 1) Division of labor “It has justly been observed, that there is scarcely anything of greater moment in the economy of a nation, than the proper division of labor.” A proper division of labor has to be built with protectionism. No industries can spring about with out the aid of government. One might ask what about the industries that Mexico, China's and other plantations have. They were not built on protectionism. They were built upon cheap labor for the consumer but more importantly the investor the one with no soul. And presently nations are saying the same lines we can not compete with cheap labor. That's an excuse to justify for them saying that globalization is inevitable. These fools want to have high skill labor at the same field as low scale labor. What about protective tariffs. They'll say that is hindering competition. Protective tariffs leads to a nation preserving the diversity of employment in their home country. Globalization and a consuming nation are the opposition to humanity.
Plantation countries' sole existence is to serve the interest of the consumer. Here is what Robert Ellis Thompson said about the consumer “the 'consumer' always buys and never sells-has no soul and no patriotism-has no interest but the cheapness of commodities -belongs to none of the classes that make up the industrial state. His sole function in life is to devour the result of man's labors, but he adds nothing himself to the sum of the utilities that make wealth. There maybe a few exceptional persons in the nation that deserve to be called mere consumers”..... “And that there interest lies in the direction of dependence upon the farther producer, instead of the nearer, we have less to doubt.”11Robert Ellis Thompson, Comments On the Mind of the Consumer, P.257
Number 2) “As to an extension of the use of Machinery a point which though partly anticipated requires to be placed in one or two additional lights. “The employment of Machinery forms an item of great importance in the general mass of national industry.” Machinery before functioned as the means of a nations success in not needing foreign goods they could make by themselves. But look the United States and Western Europe, they now get foreign items that machinery could easily make. They are no longer national industries. Does this coincide with no protectionism, and further more no National Bank. The Plantations are dependent even though they have machinery, but the machinery is not for the domestic industry, domestic commerce, and domestic agriculture, it is for the world market. For countries to make a break from globalization they have to stop being plantations. The intent will be to build up their economies. This would require massive machinery and a commitment by other countries to assist the non and semi developed countries. This will fall on the shoulders of the Four powers coming into fruition China, Russia, India, and the United States.
Number 3) “As to the additional employment of classes of the community, not among the least valuable of the means, by which manufacturing institutions contribute to augment the general stock of industry and production.” Those extra hands contribute to the output of a manufacture, either those who would not be employed, or when the Farmer and his family are idle, they too can work at a manufacturer. Another thing needs to be said is that the people are nigh to one another as in the case with the farmer, and family being able to work in manufacturers.
Globalization has two classes of people. One consists of those who work on plantations otherwise known as slave laborers, and consumers. All these goods that are produced are not for the public good but for private wealth. The hall mark of globalization, is domestic industry has no basis for existence, cheap labor must remain unchallenged that national wealth creates nothing but private wealth does. Private wealth is might is right, and that wages are not determined by natural law but by the law of the jungle.
Number 4) As to promoting of emigration from foreign countries. Today and always people emigrate to raise their status of living. They'll love a country that has higher living standards. Has anyone seen a mass amount of European's, Americans, and other nationalities going to plantation nations to seek work? A pig will fly before that will happen. This is globalization. Mankind does not prosper in working on plantations or the new age plantation the factory in a investors haven. The only difference between them is one gets to leave the plantation at the end of work, while the others lived on the plantation. Some fools might say well the factory workers received money. This is nonsense. None of these uncongenial jobs have a view that man is in the image of god. Paying people so they can have less than bare subsistence is not a gesture of good will. British Free trader David Ricardo insisted that this policy should only yield to “the free competition of the market” thereby treating man like an animal. What was he doing taking a study to see how long people can live with wages determined by a theory that detested mankind.
Number 5) “As to furnishing greater scope for the diversity of talents and dispositions, which discriminate men from each other.” Alright now working on a plantation does not make man irreplaceable, for the same talents he has ,others have. Why would anybody to do such a fiendish act? What is their intent for mankind a miserable life? A country that is sovereign presents man as being distinct from his fellow man, this concept does not derive itself off of globalization, but by the American System of Political Economy. Hamilton also says “It is a just observation, that minds of the strongest and most active powers for their proper objects fall below mediocrity and labor with out effect, if confined to uncongenial pursuits.” This right here are the results of globalization. Why would others create uncongenial pursuits for people? My simple answer is that they hate people, and in no way would they want a nation to subject people to congenial pursuits because this will stop globalization and emphasize that man is in the image of his creator. Globalization deliberately doesn't do this.
Number 6) “As to affording a more ample and various field for enterprise” The goal of globalization is not to create conditions from whence the cultivator, the artificer, and the merchant are side by side. This goes against Henry Carey's harmony of interest. Globalization wants discord. It has no intent to do as Hamilton wants to do “cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind.” To make this occur there must be bounties granted by the federal government into the enterprises which man wishes to start. This also includes mankind making new inventions from which man will be granted a patent.
Globalization does not want industrious entrepreneurs and inventors. They want a hoard of consumers that they can exclusively cater to. Globalization is one big monopoly scattered through out the globe.
Number 7) “As to creating, in some instances, a new, and securing in all a more certain, and steady demand, for surplus produce of the soil.” Globalization can't accept this, a nation
choosing to have an agro-industrial economy. An economy where agriculture's main market is the home market will be advantageous to agriculture, manufacturer, commerce. This showed that the U.S knew of the benefits of an agro-industrial economy.
In addition this meant that the U.S will have to develop the technology to borrow from the Earth which Henry Carey called the great machine. This marked a change in U.S policy the latent powers of the Earth will be resurrected by mankind and put into usage for the benefit of man.
With an Argo-industrial economy there is a higher energy flux density followed up by a diversity of employment. There can also be a diversification of industry that will “increase the productive powers of labor, and to an augmentation of revenue and capital; yet it is scarcely conceivable that there can be any thing of so solid and permanent advantage to an uncultivated and un-peopled country as to convert its wastes into cultivated and inhabited districts.”
Hamilton also conveyed that the articles they once received from Europe will not be needed. The U.S would now concentrate their efforts on utilizing its own portion of the great machine called Earth, so now “Animals, plants ,and minerals acquire an utility and value, which were once unexplored.”
What Hamilton just said is laying the foundation on how the United States should develop and it must be emphasized that this was when the U.S had only 13 states, but that principle still stands here to be utilized. There will be development on the Earth when new technologies are introduced that signify a higher energy flux density.
Now can globalization do this make use of the land, augment the powers of labor, create a division of labor, make man distinct from another man, bring together agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, create vast usages of machinery, bring in new technologies that will revolutionize agriculture and manufacturers? That is to develop a country like the American System can do. The answer is no.
Globalization wants nothing but a labor force on plantations that are scattered about the globe. The promoters of globalization should be brought to justice for their Zeus like behavior. What does globalization do to countries? It stops them from becoming nation states. The Westphalian principle of the advantage of the other is completely detested by pushers of globalization such as Tony Blair former prime minister of the U.K
Nation states have brought the best to humanity, while globalization has subjected man into competing with one another, and the sure way to come out on top is to undersell the rival countries. But how long can this last. Globalization is an entropic system. It will eventually not be able to sustain her operations. This would lead to her plantations not being subjected to the wrath of globalization. But that is not freedom yet for these countries that have served globalization. The pushers of globalization may just decide to take it self down along with humanity.
It is the job of nation states to stop this and bring the countries that were plantations back to life. They have to be developed and they must have all access to a world wide Hamilton credit system. In addition, they must be allowed to have a manufacturing sector that would produce the same or nearly the same results as the seven ways Hamilton identified through the cause of manufacturing. Lastly, they will also have access to technologies that globalization saw as a threat to have dominion over her plantations.
Footnotes
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendRelated Media
Related Updates
Editor's Choice
Latest Shows
LaRouche Report
LaRouche Statement
