The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Craig Roberts ArchiveBlogview
Three Days in and Trump Has Already Kept One Pledge
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

On Trump’s third day Trump is one up on the Establishment. Can this last?

I am not a Trump booster. I am a scorekeeper.

On the third day of his presidency Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacificic Partnership (TPP). Based on this we must assume he will also deep-six the Trans-Atlantic Partnership.

Trump and his advisors regard the Pacific and Atlantic partnerships as trade deals like NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement that sent American jobs to Mexico at the expense of Americans.

However, the most strategic part of these agreements is that they make global corporations immune from the laws of the countries in which they do business if those laws adversely impact the profits of the global corporations.

Who decides the question? Not the courts of the countries or a world court.
The question is decided by a corporate tribunal staffed only by corporations.

In other words, the sovereign laws of sovereign countries, such as France’s laws against GMOs, are subject to damage suits decided by corporate tribunals, which means the end of the legal sovereignty of countries.

The so-called trade partnerships are weapons of American economic imperialism.

Whether Trump and his advisors are aware of this or not, Trump has on his third day dealt a lethal blow to a power lusted after by US global corporations.

How will this formidable force respond to this blow inflicted upon them by Trump?

That remains to be seen if the blows that Trump has promised against the interests of the elites continue.

Global corporations are Fifth Columns in the countries in which they are incorporated and also in the foreign countries in which they do business. They have no loyalty to any country, only to the profits that comprise their bottom line. Anything that increases those profits they regard as legitimate. Anything that diminishes those profits they regard as illegitimate.

Modern capitalism is a profit-driven world, in which capitalists are devoid of the loyalty to their native countries that Adam Smith and David Ricardo assumed them to have. US global corporations have demonstrated their disloyalty to the US by moving US jobs to Asia. Think Apple, Nike, Levi, and all the rest. Jobs offshoring separates consumers from the incomes associated with the production of the goods that they consume, which leads to penury.

The rewards for the offshoring global corporations have been large profits from reduced labor and regulatory costs, resulting in executive “performance bonuses” and capital gains to shareholders and to executives with stock options or some similar income booster.

The costs have been the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that made the US an “opportunity society.” High productivity, high valued added manufacturing and professional skill jobs, such as software engineering jobs, have been moved offshore, and in the case of software jobs also given to foreign H1B work visa holders. The consequence is the collapse of the state, local, and federal tax base, and the consequent assault on Social Security, Medicare, and state and local pensions.

A county like the US that gives its GNP away to other countries is locked into a transformation from First World to Third World. This is what Trump has said he will reverse.

How can he do it? Is this something that he can deliver by cutting corporate tax rates and by imposing an import or border tax?

The US is a member of the World Trade Agreement, which prohibits tarrifs or “border taxes.” If this is correct, Trump would first have to pull the US out of the WTO, something that might be difficult.

However, what Trump can do is to offset the labor cost advantage to corporate profits from offshoring their production for US markets by changing how corporations are taxed.

If US corporations add value to their product in the US, that is, if they produce the products that they market to Americans in the US with American labor, they would have a lower tax rate than if they produce the products abroad with foreign labor. The difference in the tax rate can be calculated to offset, or more than offset, the advantage of the lower labor and regulatory costs abroad. This is a matter of domestic taxation and not a matter of tarrifs on foreign-produced goods, and, therefore, it is not subject to WTO rules.

Because of the globalist propaganda, Americans have forgotten that the strength of their economy was domestically-based. The development of the US economy was never based on foreign trade. It rested firmly in the rise of consumer spending power from America labor receiving the bulk of the productivity gains.

What jobs offshoring did was to transfer the income gains from productivity to corporate profits by underpaying Asian labor.

It was easy to pay Asian labor less than labor’s contribution to profit, because of the immense excess supply of Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, and other labor. When labor is plentiful and jobs are scarce, labor goes begging.

Even today the Chinese and Indian labor forces are under-employed. The only way American labor can compete is to accept a wage below the US standard of living.

Trump understands this, just as did Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

Ross Perot was a billionaire; yet he stood up for ordinary working Americans. Yet, the left says all billionaires are evil.

Pat Buchanan was royalty in the Republican Establishment; yet he deserted them and stood up for the ordinary working American. And the left says he is a “Nixon-Reagan fascist.”

Clearly, the pathetic remnant of the American left has more hate for those who stand up for the working class than they have for those oppressing the working class and those fomenting war. Why did the women so quick to march against Trump not march against the Clinton, Bush/Cheney, and Obama regimes for killing, maiming, orphaning, widowing, and dislocating millions of peoples in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Syria?

That we see the left aligned with the ruling elites against Trump is proof that the left has abandoned the working class.

Chris Hedges doesn’t know how desperately revolution is needed in the US. If revolution occurs, it is more likely to be led by Donald Trump than by the left.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics • Tags: Donald Trump, Free Trade 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    n other words, the sovereign laws of sovereign countries, such as France’s laws against GMOs, are subject to damage suits decided by corporate tribunals, which means the end of the legal sovereignty of countries.

    Roberts, if you call mainstream media people presstitutes, what name would you give to the countless parliamentarians sitting in Europe’s Houses who campaigned for the TTIP tirelessly chanting that the sooner it was signed the better, that their countries and their countries’ workers would have benefited hugely from it?

    And no, there is no more difference between right center and left parties. Actually the more active I have spotted are representatives of France’s, Germany’s socialist parties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "... what name would you give to the countless parliamentarians sitting in Europe’s Houses who campaigned for the TTIP tirelessly chanting that the sooner it was signed the better, that their countries and their countries’ workers would have benefited hugely from it?"
     
    Oh, that's easy ... vassals and lackeys to an overlord that itself is a stooge of the NWO Corporatocracy.
    , @Dieter Kief
    Germany and France sell lots of goods to the US, whereas the US sells comparatively few things abroad. The Germans assumed if they accepted TTIP, they could go on selling lots of goods to the US - that was all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/proberts/three-days-in-and-trump-has-already-kept-one-pledge/#comment-1739254
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    As has been pointed out before, there is no real ‘left’ in America anymore, at least not in any numbers or who garner any mass audience. It was infiltrated and coopted by the government a long time ago and channeled onto pathways that ensured the owners of the country a continuing stranglehold. Class warfare was then overshadowed by gender and identity obsessions that have gotten increasingly bizarre. The supposed left, as in this anti-Trump women’s march, is just a club for snobs, mindless followers and virtue-signalling opportunities. That Clinton has the blood of thousands on her hands is nothing as compared to domestic toilet wars which shows what these people’s priorities are. They don’t speak for all women as the recent election demonstrated there were a lot of silent Trump supporters out there, both male and female. Many (most?) of the supposed women’s groups are just government fronts which one can tell just by the way they get trotted out every time the US government wants to attack yet another country and they sing the same song of how women in that country are treated badly so bombing them is an act of women’s liberation and yada yada.

    Read More
  3. @Anonymous

    n other words, the sovereign laws of sovereign countries, such as France’s laws against GMOs, are subject to damage suits decided by corporate tribunals, which means the end of the legal sovereignty of countries.
     
    Roberts, if you call mainstream media people presstitutes, what name would you give to the countless parliamentarians sitting in Europe's Houses who campaigned for the TTIP tirelessly chanting that the sooner it was signed the better, that their countries and their countries' workers would have benefited hugely from it?

    And no, there is no more difference between right center and left parties. Actually the more active I have spotted are representatives of France's, Germany's socialist parties.

    “… what name would you give to the countless parliamentarians sitting in Europe’s Houses who campaigned for the TTIP tirelessly chanting that the sooner it was signed the better, that their countries and their countries’ workers would have benefited hugely from it?”

    Oh, that’s easy … vassals and lackeys to an overlord that itself is a stooge of the NWO Corporatocracy.

    Read More
  4. @Anonymous

    n other words, the sovereign laws of sovereign countries, such as France’s laws against GMOs, are subject to damage suits decided by corporate tribunals, which means the end of the legal sovereignty of countries.
     
    Roberts, if you call mainstream media people presstitutes, what name would you give to the countless parliamentarians sitting in Europe's Houses who campaigned for the TTIP tirelessly chanting that the sooner it was signed the better, that their countries and their countries' workers would have benefited hugely from it?

    And no, there is no more difference between right center and left parties. Actually the more active I have spotted are representatives of France's, Germany's socialist parties.

    Germany and France sell lots of goods to the US, whereas the US sells comparatively few things abroad. The Germans assumed if they accepted TTIP, they could go on selling lots of goods to the US – that was all.

    Read More
  5. The economic policy of Fascist Italy was that of the Corporate State. This has been erroneously called Corporatism by many. It’s not. The Corporate State involves the control of the Corporations by the State.
    Corporatism is control of the State by the Corporations, making the Corporations immune from the laws of the countries they operate in, as you stated. Any control will be via a Corporations Tribunal composed of members of the Corporations. Ultimately, the aim is for the State to wither away and for Society to be controlled by the Corporations. It is a corollary of the idea of Syndicalism, the control of Society by Trade Unions.
    In reality, both would involve the control of society by an elite number of Corporatists or Syndicalists. The rest of us would have no say whatsoever, forever.
    Free Trade Capitalism – Globalism – is not Capitalism at all, because overseas exporters don’t pay our taxes and duties, but have access to our market. Secondly, as the TPP agreement shows, Corporatism is explicit and implicit in these agreements.
    The MSM and nearly all “Economic Commentators” omit all mention of the Corporatist nature of these agreements. Quelle Surprise !
    Dr Roberts, you are the only source who has persistently presented the Corporatist nature of these agreements. You have done so for many years. I, for one, am very grateful for this very important work.

    Read More

Comments are closed.