FourWinds10.com - Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

HATONN: NAFTA: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT - PART 3

CREATOR GOD ATON/HATONN

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

6-21-18

6/6/91 #3   HATONN

 

ANTI-SEMITIC?  BIGOT?  ANTI-ZIONIST?

I begin to hesitate to give Dharma a break for we end up with stacks and heaps of new inquiries to cover each time.  But there are a couple of things which I want to point out to you people.

We have heard from George and, of course, of all the information we have produced, the people in Florida at the county Democratic meeting only picked up the word "Jew" in an Express.  The meeting, by the way, is in West Palm Beach where many Judean people retire.  It is sad that ones know so very little about their own heritage as seems to be prevalent.  The lady introducing the speakers, i.e., George, immediately prefaced her introduction by stating that George was anti-Semitic and a Zionist bigot.  I have awful news for these poor, uninformed people--they do not have a corner on Zionism.

I have told you in the past that Jerry Falwell of the "Christian Moral Majority" is a self-proclaimed "Zionist" and "...am proud to state that I am a Zionist".  Now, hold to your hats, brothers, Brent Scowcroft is a highly prestigious personage in the Mormon Religious Faith--a Mormon "Zionist". Now, I suggest somebody brush up on their attitudes and information since, in the very facts of the matter--to be anti-Jew is not to be anti-Semitic since the Semites came from the tribe of Shem. Therefore, since the "Jews" are not Semites--how can you be anti-Semitic if you are against the Jews?  Is this some kind of "New World Order" reasoning?  Perhaps speakers, such as Patrick Buchanan, who was called a rotten bigot and anti-Semite just last night on "Larry King Live", should stop any defense of statements and REQUIRE AND DEMAND that those making accusations along those lines, identify, define and state their rationale regarding their accusations for they are ignorant, indeed. 

Now, there is another point I wish to make about this currency switch and recall.  I should point out a thing or two to you ones who are wishing to invest with the Institute and use gold as collateral--ultimately it is such an excellent investment for it will carry value of 100 to one if, in fact, that is the amount of currency exchange.  We do not take our advice unto you ones lightly.  Further, the investment funds are being utilized with persons who are not apt to have confiscation of their industrial property, i.e., the "light cement" housing factory, etc.  Never underestimate the mysterious manner in which God works his miracles and performs His miracles.  Moreover, the material, when mixed with pozzlan (pumice) and "finished" and/or compressed, will have the radioactivity protection in one foot of material of that of three full feet of concrete as well as being very light of weight in comparison, giving major benefits in structures.  Ah, God has arranged many wondrous contacts and purposes if you but hold to the Light.

BACK TO U.S/MEXICO FREE TRADE

As so often in the postwar period, the auto industry is the pace-setter.  About to announce at this writing net losses of some $3 billion worldwide for the first quarter of 1991, GM, Chrysler, and Ford, working with the banks, were in the initial steps of reopening their new three-year contract with the UAW.  The threat is clear.  The unions are to give up the income security and health insurance components of the contract, and accept wage cuts or face the flight of investment and employment to Mexico.  The textile and apparel industry is next for the firing line.  This is what happened during 1981 and 1982, at the height of the Volcker interest-rate atrocity.  Then the industry reopened contracts in order to lay off workers and cut back its wage bill.

GM's president, Lloyd Reuss, alluded to this in a press conference April 15 in Detroit, when in response to prompting, he let slip that GM may reopen its contract with the UAW.  GM spokesmen, off the record, are less bashful.  With $5 billion in losses over the last nine months, the company cannot, it is said, afford the more than $4 billion per annum job security and health package it is committed to.  They point to the following: GM production worker wages run at $31.30 per hour. After the government and insurance companies take their cut, the workers are left with $16.30 per hour (still a lot higher than 98 cents).  GM has 42,000 workers employed in Mexican maquiladoras. They average $1.10 per hour.  As they say: "The discrepancies are huge.  Even with this subsidy from Mexico, if auto sales in the United States keep collapsing, we will not be able to produce cars in the United States."  It seems pretty plain to me.

The textile industry, for its part, fears that with the elimination of remaining import tariffs on certain classes of goods produced in Mexico, the industry in the U.S. will be wiped out, perhaps in its entirety.

Autos and textiles, along with electronics, are threatened by the banks with elimination through substitution of slave-labor in Mexico.  With the construction industry it is different.  The bankers have Mexico demanding the right to freely export "services", as part of their "free trade" looting.  In this case, "services" means labor.  Although at this point the Bush administration is insisting that there will be no opening to Mexican migrant labor under NAFTA, the construction industry is planning to replace American labor with imported slave, or cheap, labor from Mexico in the name of "free trade in services".  On April 15, one hundred leaders of the Association of General Contractors met with Bush to endorse the "fast track".  Their leader, Marvin Black, said on that occasion: "Banks are in the grip of fear that stops them from making loans for construction projects.  The message is clear...The Age of Abundance is over."

Where does this leave the U.S.?  The construction industry adds another 4 million workers to this list should massive migrant labor flows occur under NAFTA and another $100 billion in annual wages.

Let's assume that there is intended to be a shift of 10% of the investment budget to Mexico in the first year of an agreement, and a 15% shift in the second.  Then, in year one, approximately $10 billion would be looted from what is called the U.S. capital investment budget.  In year two, this would rise to 15%, or about $13.5 billion, of the remaining $90 billion.

Although again no precise forecasts are possible on the employment side, for the purposes of argument, let's apply the same ratios of contraction being promoted regarding capital investment. The textile industry would lose 140,000 of its 1.4 million jobs in year one, and about 190,000 in year two.  The automobile and related rubber and plastics industries would lose 120,000 jobs in the first year and 170,000 in the second.

Construction would shed, or replace, about 400,000 workers in the first year, and another 540,000 in the second.

This gives the total job losses for just those three industries, if one makes the same assumptions that the Bush crowd does, at 660,000 and 1 million in the first two years respectively.

This is the agreement which the same people publicly insist will not result in job losses in the U.S.

Let's assume, for the moment, that the Bush administration is right on this point, that no jobs will actually be lost.  This could only occur if U.S. wages were drastically reduced to Mexican levels.  (The political reality will probably be some combination of dramatic job loss and wage gouging.)  As on NAFTA ideologue succinctly put it, U.S. companies will tell their unions: "We don't want to move to Mexico.  But in Mexico they want 57 cents an hour and you guys want $15.  Now you're going to have to meet us half way, or at least part of the way."

In this fashion, wage reduction on the order of one-third to one-half could occur under NAFTA.  If such a reduction occurred at about the same rate as the mentioned capital shifts, i.e., about 10% in the year one and 15% of the reduced amount in year two, this gives an overall reduction in manufacturing-sector wages of goods producers of about $30 billion in year one and $40.5 billion in year two.

But you saw above that goods producers in manufacturing only make up 11% of the entire labor force.  The 1.4 million workers in the textile industry make up more than 10% of the manufacturing total.  The workers in the auto and rubber and plastics industries also make up more than 10% of the total.  This estimate assumes that almost one-fifth of manufacturing workers in auto and textiles will lose their jobs in the next two years, and almost one-quarter of the workers in the construction industry.  This is almost 10% of the remaining productive workers in those three sectors alone; 940,000 of the 4 million construction workers, 330,000 of the 1.4 million textile workers, and 290,000 of the 1.3 million workers in the automobile and related industrial employment in the country are targeted.

This is a recipe for upheaval and chaos inside the U.S.

WHY THE U.S. IS NOT COMPETITIVE

The collapse of U.S. performance on domestic and international markets has nothing to do with "unfair competition" from Japan or Western Europe, or anything of the sort.  For the past generation or so, the U.S. has insisted on following policies which have, cumulatively, pushed it over the edge, in the sense that America is no longer capable of producing, out of its own resources of qualified labor, stocks of plant and equipment, i.e., the means which would enable the country to recover and grow.  Germany and Japan have not been so insane as to impose this course on themselves.  Now, Germany, as the center of the still-functioning economy of Europe, represents the primary, and Japan, the secondary, remaining islands of productive potential in the world economy as a whole. Their capabilities are what remains after the destruction of the developing sector, through International Monetary Fund (IMF) policies, the breakdown collapse of Marxist collectivism in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and China, and the depression/bankruptcy of the English-speaking part of the advanced sector economies.

What is the difference between the U.S.A. and the other two?  Over the last 25 years, the United States, in the name of the post-industrial society and the crazed idea that your society has moved beyond the need to actually produce the improvements which permit continued human existence--has stopped being a front-rank producing nation.  Germany and Japan have not.

This could turn into an endless dissertation and is actually important enough to continue but the scribe is weary and you are losing interest as well.  Suffice it to say that the policy difference between the economies of the United States and Germany and Japan can be summed up in one four-letter word: debt.  Usury has wrecked the U.S.  By the end of 1990, the sum of credit market borrowings, or the total indebtedness of the U.S. economy, for all borrowers, was estimated at $14 trillion.  You are a debt-ridden, bankrupt economy with a gutted productive work force which no longer produces the infrastructure, food and industrial goods consumed by your own population.

***

Source:  PHOENIX JOURNAL EXPRESS, July 1991, Volume 13, Number 11, Pages 12-13.

http://www.phoenixarchives.com/express/1991/0691/13-11.pdf

 

Transcribed into HTML format by R. Montana.