[Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul
Mark Solomon
msolomon at moscow.com
Wed Jul 25 11:18:13 PDT 2007
Thanks for the frank answer, Roger. So would you
support eliminating price supports for wheat in
the Farm Bill now being drafted in Congress?
Mark
At 11:11 AM -0700 7/25/07, lfalen wrote:
>Mark
>In most cases I do not favor agricultural
>subsidies. The beef industry has never wanted
>them. Some however have taken advantage of hay
>subsidies. A lot of dairymen think that they
>would be better off without milk price supports.
>I think that paying farmers to not grow
>something is ridiculous. I don't think much of
>corporate subsidies (welfare) either. In some
>isolated cases they may be warranted, but
>usually not.
>Roger
>-----Original message-----
>From: Mark Solomon msolomon at moscow.com
>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:06:40 -0700
>To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com, "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul
>
>> Roger,
>>
>> One person's subsidy is another person's good
>> national policy. How about agricultural price
>> supports, specifically, U.S. wheat?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> At 10:13 AM -0700 7/24/07, lfalen wrote:
>> >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 ä 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
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070725/909d0e53/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list