[Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

[lfalen]

You are right about The UN Security Council. I am on the fence about NAFTA. I favor international trade with sufficient safe guards as to health and safety. In general I do not like tariffs and subsidies. If however some foreign products are subsidized by the country that produces them, it is only fair that a tariff be placed on their entry into the US. Tariffs or subsidies should only be used to keep things in balance.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:30:27 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

> Roger et. al.
> 
> If you think giving the UN more authority is a mistake, then what do you
> think about the WTO and NAFTA?  The WTO as an organization and NAFTA as a
> trade agreement are both criticized by anti-globalization critics as
> lessening national sovereignty, but serving the interests of the
> multinational corporations and the class of super rich.  Even Ross Perot
> during his presidential run mentioned the "sucking sound" of jobs lost to
> Mexico under NAFTA.  The promises that NAFTA would open up a big market for
> US products in Mexico has proven so far to be false.  It was thought that
> NAFTA would help solve the illegal immigration problem by furthering good
> paying jobs in Mexico, but we know this is so far not greatly true. Now they
> are planning a super highway from Mexico into the USA, potentially with
> Mexican trucks and drivers taking over some of the US trucking industry!
> Read about it at the link below:
> 
> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497
> 
> WTO rules and agreements that do not protect food safety in reality (maybe
> on paper) are one reason we have unsafe imports coming into the US, if I
> have my facts straight.
> 
> Anyway, it has been hoped the UN would help to stop war, genocide and
> improve human rights, but the Security Council is one road block to this
> goal.  I understand that China's Security Council vote has blocked efforts
> to address the genocide in Darfur  China has oil interests in the Sudan.
> Read about this at this link:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html
> 
> A stronger UN might help to stop war and genocide...But the potential for
> abuse of this power is a matter of concern.
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> 
> On 7/23/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ted
> > I think that much of what you say is correct. But giving more authority to
> > a world body like the United Nations would make matters worse not better.
> > Other than for The Security Council third world nations have an equal  to
> > that of the US.  This would not improve health or environmental problems.
> > The FDA and EPA should be strengthened The safety of all products coming
> > into the US should be assured. I believe business should be based on the
> > profit motive, with adequate government restrictions to insure safety and
> > environmental concerns .
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
> > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:33:07 -0700
> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul
> >
> > > On 7/21/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >  Having said that it is important to realize we live in a global
> > society
> > > > and market place. We have to be willing to compete in the global
> > market.
> > > > Just do not place our laws second to anything else.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are very problematic and apparently mutually exclusive rules
> > governing
> > > competing for profit in a global marketplace and not placing our laws
> > second
> > > to anything else.  Getting rid of trade barriers and government
> > regulation
> > > of business has been promoted as a benefit to most all in an open
> > worldwide
> > > economy.
> > >
> > > But the profit motive as a overriding rasion d'etre in the
> > > global economy with multinational corporations, will inexorably result
> > in a
> > > disregard for some fundamental US domestic interests, US workers' wages
> > and
> > > jobs, safety and environmental law (Bush's "Clear Skies Act." Orwell
> > would
> > > love it!), if not the US Constitution, etc.
> > >
> > > How can US domestic businesses compete with businesses in nations with
> > few
> > > if any environmental or safety laws, without pressure to lower our
> > standards
> > > that add costs to business?  The EPA has lost power under the Bush
> > > administration:
> > >
> > > Objections to Bush's "Clear Skies Act" from the National Council of
> > > Churches:
> > >
> > > http://www.ncccusa.org/news/04bushonair.html
> > >
> > > Protection of the global climate is an essential requirement for
> > faithful
> > > human stewardship of God's creation on Earth. Our own National Academy
> > of
> > > Sciences --- joining an overwhelming scientific consensus --- concluded
> > in
> > > 2001 that carbon emissions from power plants are significantly
> > contributing
> > > to the increase in global warming. Yet, your initiative pointedly does
> > not
> > > set mandatory standards of reduction for these emissions. A
> > multi-pollutant
> > > approach must address all significant emissions from power plants,
> > including
> > > carbon emissions.
> > >
> > > Clean air is as essential to life as a stable climate. Yet the
> > Environmental
> > > Protection Agency reports that millions of Americans live in areas that
> > have
> > > been deemed unhealthy to breathe. Power plants are the single greatest
> > > source of industrial air pollution in the nation. The American Lung
> > > Association asserts that the attainment of reductions of sulfur dioxide,
> > > nitrogen oxides, and mercury that would take effect under the existing
> > Clean
> > > Air Act will be delayed for years if "Clear Skies" is adopted by
> > Congress.
> > >
> > > ---------------------
> > >
> > > It is becoming increasing hard to separate what is an exclusively
> > domestic
> > > interest from an international one.
> > > For example, are US citizens expendable as warriors to protect the
> > > multinational economic system under the guise that they are protecting
> > US
> > > citizens from attacks on our soil?  The oil in the Middle East is not
> > being
> > > protected by our military just for US current or future
> > consumption.  Access
> > > to this oil is critical to keeping the multinational economic system
> > > functioning.  It is argued that keeping this system functioning and
> > > expanding is critical for US economic benefits, but at a cost to whom?
> > >
> > > Ron Paul comments on the "elites" hypocritical pandering to the
> > "American
> > > way" should be at the top of the list of political ruses for
> > politicians.
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Consider one issue that has been in the news recently, food safety.  How
> > can
> > > we allow free trade with other nations who may not follow our food
> > safety
> > > and testing standards without placing our laws second?  The answer is we
> > > can't, not without very creative legislation that violates the spirit of
> > the
> > > food safety laws.  It's one thing to have standards in place, but
> > without
> > > the rigorous testing to enforce the laws, food safety is in name only:
> > >
> > > U.S. food imports outrun FDA resources
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-03-18-food-safety-usat_N.htm
> > >
> > > "The FDA has so few resources, all it can do is target high-risk things,
> > > give a pass to everything else and hope it is OK," says William
> > Hubbard,a
> > > former FDA associate commissioner who retired in 2005."The public
> > probably
> > > has the perception … that they're more protected than they really are."
> > > --------------------
> > > Regarding another hot button issue that seems to defy political
> > > partisanship, US jobs and wages, both so called liberals and
> > conservatives
> > > raise questions about the loss of good paying jobs to cheap foreign
> > labor,
> > > replaced by lower paying jobs.  Of course the business and financial
> > > "elites" that Ron Paul references pursue the cheapest labor they can
> > find,
> > > anywhere in the world.  If profit is their primary goal in competing in
> > > business, they'd be a fool not to.  And even if they tried to show
> > patriotic
> > > loyalty to US workers by maintaining good paying US jobs, their less
> > > scrupulous competitors would force them out of business.
> > >
> > > This story at the web link below is about cheap imported labor from
> > India
> > > into Dubai.  And a Dubai company was going to take over US port
> > security?  I
> > > don't know of any egregious current examples in the US like this, but
> > there
> > > is good data regarding lowering of wages in some professions, or loss of
> > the
> > > whole manufacturing base in some sectors, in the USA, from the influx of
> > > cheap "illegal immigrant" labor, and/or the moving of factories and
> > > businesses that take advantage of cheap abundant labor in other nations:
> > >
> > >
> > http://news.aol.com/story/_a/dubai-skyscraper-becomes-worlds-tallest/20070721134709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of the 4,000 laborers are from India.
> > >
> > > Toiling in slave-like conditions in Dubai's sizzling summer with no set
> > > minimum wage and working in three shifts around the clock, they are
> > building
> > > the $1 billion skyscraper in the heart of Downtown Dubai, a 500-acre
> > > development project worth $20 billion.
> > >
> > > Protests against labor abuse in Dubai are regularly recorded by human
> > rights
> > > groups but are rarely reported in local press. However, it's a
> > prevailing
> > > belief the workers are happy with whatever pitiful salary they get to
> > send
> > > home to dirt-poor families in India.
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > "...it's a prevailing belief the workers are happy..."
> > >
> > > Sounds like the old south...Or a certain local religious leader...
> > > -------------------
> > > Simulation and hyper reality indeed!
> > >
> > > Politicians who are bought by the multinational economic system, wear
> > the
> > > flag and salute!  They simulate patriotism so well it is taken for
> > reality,
> > > and the media delivers their patriotic holograms to float in peoples'
> > homes
> > > on their high definition wide screen monitors.
> > >
> > > It is just as Baudrillard contends, if I can stretch his thinking onto
> > the
> > > Procrustean bed of this theme... The simulation of patriotism for a
> > strong
> > > and independent nation, via modern media and tactics of advertising and
> > > marketing, public opinion surveying and focus groups, is projected and
> > > respected, while the real empire (the USA as a separate and sovereign
> > > nation) is being undermined...Highly sophisticated psycho/social
> > > psychoanalytic methods are now applied with full force to the selling of
> > > politicians.  Image is all.  How else could Bush have won two elections
> > for
> > > president?
> > >
> > > Globalism will win in the end...And US patriots will have holograms of
> > the
> > > once sovereign and proud USA beamed into their compounds for "correct
> > think"
> > > sessions...
> > >
> > > Ted Moffett
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>