Renegotiating U.S. Trade Exploitation Takes Center-Stage This Week…

President Trump uses economic leverage as a national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions.  The Big Club.

Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.

That is: global financial exploitation of national markets:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China (tomorrow), and against the backdrop of NAFTA being renegotiated starting Wednesday, revisiting the economic influences within the import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.  There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.

For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?

Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”

What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.

It’s not.

It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates and massive financial corporations.

Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.

This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.).  This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.

Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.

A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)

However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).

Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.

…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.

National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. But most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is  now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.

Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is how the corporation maximizes it’s profits.

Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.

If the U.S. harvest is abundant, they will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.

The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.

The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly BS.

A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.

Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Currently, massive multinational corporations control the majority of product inside each nation and therefore control the entire global product market and price.

EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control.  By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).

Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic. With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally.  Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those profits in contributions to the politicians.   It’s a circle of money.

In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees.  As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time.  These are specialized lobbyists.

EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.

CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.

The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, it’s almost everything.

Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more.  Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can afford the high prices.  Of course if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them.  (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)

Individual flower growers in Florida go out of business because they didn’t join the global market of flower growers (controlled market) by multinational corporate flower growers in Columbia and South America, who have an umbrella company registered in Mexico allowing virtually unrestricted access to the U.S. market under NAFTA.

Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.

The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.

Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).

This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, ore, then sells the finished good back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations). ‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.

This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.

Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.

RELATED:

♦The Modern Third Dimension in American Economics – HERE

♦The “Fed” Can’t Figure out the New Economics – HERE

♦Proof “America-First” has disconnected Main Street from Wall Street – HERE

♦Treasury Secretary Mnuchin begins creating a Parallel Banking System – HERE

♦How Trump Economic Policy is Interacting With The Stock Market – HERE

♦How Multinationals have Exported U.S. Wealth – HERE

 

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Canada, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Economy, Education, India, Legislation, media bias, N Korea, President Trump, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US dept of agriculture, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Renegotiating U.S. Trade Exploitation Takes Center-Stage This Week…

  1. Larry Bucar says:

    I love this topic and your analysis of the PDJT winning strategy, epic and thankful to God the Father and His eternal Son.

    Liked by 24 people

  2. Sylvia Avery says:

    I am almost weak with relief to have something to read about that doesn’t involve McMasters or Charlottesville.

    It was so good, I’m going back to reread it.

    Liked by 31 people

  3. vikingmom says:

    Gosh, isn’t it an amazing coincidence that all the professional agitators on the payrolls of the globalist bigwigs are suddenly running around the streets stirring up trouble and distracting people from what their bosses are really doing?

    It’s like watching the Wizard of Oz while he is trying to shut the curtain….only this isn’t a movie – it’s our country being destroyed! 😥

    Liked by 11 people

  4. Patrickj says:

    As a prime example, take a look at the pricing of any prescription drug across the world vs USA.

    Liked by 9 people

  5. Southern Son says:

    THIS!, is why I’m so Grateful that we have the Boss on Our Side!
    It’s a Complicated Business folks.

    Liked by 12 people

  6. kurt72 says:

    “Just how lucrative JP Morgan’s EBT state contracts are is hard to say, because total national data on EBT contracts are not reported. But thanks to a combination of public-records requests and contracts that are available online, here’s what we do know: 18 of the 24 states JP Morgan handles have been contracted to pay the bank up to $560,492,596.02 since 2004. Since 2007, Florida has been contracted to pay JP Morgan $90,351,202.22. Pennsylvania’s seven-year contract totaled $112,541,823.27. New York’s seven-year contract totaled $126,394,917.
    These contracts are transactional contracts, meaning they are amendable based on changes in program participation. Each month, the three companies that administer EBT receive a small fee that can range from $.31 to $2.30 (or higher depending upon the number of welfare services on an EBT card and state contractual requirements) for each SNAP recipient.
    EBT processors charge for other services as well. For example, any time TANF recipients withdraw their cash benefits or make balance inquiries through out-of-network ATM machines, the user may incur ATM transaction fees generally ranging from $.75 to $1.50. In addition, most states allow EBT processors to charge card replacement fees. Arizona cardholders, for example, are permitted one free replacement a year, after which a $5 per card fee is imposed. The same goes for customer service calls: After an EBT cardholder exceeds the state’s maximum number of free calls, EBT processors typically tack on a $.25 per call fee.”
    The Daily Beast
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/jp-morgans-food-stamp-empire

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      Wow, that is interesting. Very profitable for JP Morgan. Sure gives them a vested interest in keeping the numbers of food stamp recipients high, doesn’t it? I just bet they use some of their lobbying dollars to persuade our lawmakers.

      They must have been like pigs at the trough when food stamp recipients rose from like 18 million when BO took office to around 45 million when he left (numbers are approximate).

      Liked by 3 people

    • Vince says:

      Good info about JP Morgan, but we should also include Walmart in the picture too. That’s where a lot of the food stamp money is spent.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. Janice says:

    Sundance you have no idea how grateful I am for the education I have received from you and Treepers! I would still be watching the squirrels and feeling hopeless without this house. I actually look forward to each day for the next MAGA! GOD Bless you all and may God continue to bless our President.

    Liked by 26 people

  8. The Boss says:

    The fear in the purveyors of “Emerging Market” (China) and EU investment funds is becoming more obvious.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Sharon says:

    The progression of assumptions and processes by the wheelers ‘n dealers or the many nations who are simply pawns in this mess, is understandable at some level even by me. It breaks my brain to force the focus in thinking and the sequence in reasoning to the conclusions, but it is understandable.

    The reads and re-reads of these pieces are a satisfying challenge, but I think the brain synapses are being exercised.

    This is one of the things I think I learned today:

    “This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.).”

    Ok, as I expand my normal reasoning into the business of those “…multiple nations, across a myriad of….” it dawns on me that all of those third world nations who are not players are the pawns that are simply used for this impact or that; and then, besides the inherent qualities of being pawn-like, they are very usable in the demands made on the so-called consumer nations to be big-hearted/not so selfish, etc.

    In fact, it would seem that one of the uses of painting the United States as being a “service economy” would be accusing us of just taking, taking, taking and not producing anything – very useful to the ghouls down the road.

    Those who intentionally seek to do injury to any target, personal or national, seldom leave anything to chance and the powers behind this certainly have not. So through the 80s and 90s (and earlier) those of us who were instinctively bellowing helpless protest against stuff that was just plain wrong-headed were right – even though peeps like me wouldn’t have been able to articulate why we were right.

    I appreciate the education. Certainly requires having my thinking cap on, as dad used to say.

    Can’t possibly retain it all but it does provide some additional infrastructure that can increase understanding.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Minnie says:

      Thank you, Sharon.

      Watch industry (manufacturing) return and quadruple on our home base and the resulting roar of a robust economy.

      One of Mr. President’s campaign promises, and so far he’s been right on track.

      MAGA On! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

      Liked by 5 people

  10. quintrillion says:

    It has always been irritating to me that mergers are allowed that create monopolies and are not in the interest of US consumers.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Minnie says:

    I predict tomorrow will be like New Year’s, our birthdays and the 4th of July, all rolled into one!!

    🇺🇸🦁🇺🇸❤️

    Liked by 8 people

  12. Payday says:

    Fantastic overview! And yes, you were highly successful in explaining it. I just pray PDJT finishes out his term to implement this and the deep state is stopped instead.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. imprimipotest says:

    It boils down to the fact that mega-banks and financial institutions are in collusion with huge international corporate conglomerates and corrupt establishment politicians (wearing whatever political party garb is opportune) against the interests of the common man and woman, their liberty and self-governance.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. BeePee says:

    And in THIS particular case, the exfiltrated country and the beneficiary country just happen to be the # 1 and # 2 largest economies in the world. This is going to be a fireworks show! I have been waiting a long long time for this one. I didn’t even believe I would ever see it even. I was born for this.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. fleporeblog says:

    Our President, Lighthizer, Mnuchin and our beloved Wilburine have been preparing for this week since the election was concluded and our President won! No matter how hard the Uniparty tried to hold off Lighthizer’s confirmation, with the hope Muh Russia would consume him, it was a complete and utter failure. If anything, Mexico and Canada will have to give more because of it. The CoC and Uniparty are screwed and they know it! Sasse, Flake, Graham, Lucifer etc. Can cry all they want that renegotiating NAFTA will hurt their states. The problem for them is that Crying Chuck has gone all in saying our President better get everything he can in these negotiations. Sucks to be Chuck because THEY will!

    China has also excepted their faith! Our President gave Xi the courtesy on Friday to let him know what he is doing on Monday. Xi asked if our President was still coming in November/December for the visit. Our President said yes. That trip doesn’t occur without NK being settled. Xi had the weekend to talk with the Communist Leaders to discuss next steps. We will see those steps shortly and our President will be going into the history books as the man that ended the 64 year old Korean War. China will also agree to hundreds of billions of dollars of coal and LNG to offset the trade discrepancy. It will be a win-win for both countries since China needs to purchase energy for their people.

    Don’t be shocked that Nieto decides the WALL is well worth it to keep certain agreements in his favor. Could be why our Lion told us not to lose an ounce of sleep on the WALL!

    Liked by 21 people

  16. jmarshs says:

    It should be added too that the countries that US multinational corporations do business in, such as China and Mexico, devalue their currency against the dollar as a means of keeping their worker’s wages artificially low in order to continue attracting foreign manufacturers (from the US, for example). This makes it impossible for locally-based US businesses to export goods to those countries because US products can’t be “afforded” by the locals. So as a result, US based businesses go out of business – thus increasing the market share of the multinationals. The US multinational corporations BENEFIT by China’s breaking of trade agreements.

    For a good article on how the peso has performed against the dollar undee NAFTA see:
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2016/10/27/make-peso-great-again-for-workers-sake/goqyqRCDryl9dlK2ij4mTP/story.html

    This is what PDJT is going up against, God help him….

    Liked by 8 people

  17. Bruce says:

    The US could be double the current GDP if we got the monkey off our backs. The monkey is the gov.

    I get the article. Medical costs are high because the gov. subsidizes medicaid etc. I get it that food prices are high because EBT cardholders don’t care what anything costs, it isn’t their money.

    Some people in the country still don’t want hand outs. They are too proud.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ploni says:

      Our situation is not due to handouts, Bruce.

      It’s due to the unfair economic apparatus that the Globalists in industry and government have built during the past 50-plus years.

      Handouts are simply the lubrication that made that evil machine run.

      Liked by 2 people

  18. Ploni says:

    Thank you, Sundance.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. missmarple2 says:

    Sundance,

    Thank you so much for the explanation! I am not very good at economics, but living here in the Midwest, I would read about bumper crops and large numbers of livestock going to market, and then the price went UP!

    I used to run an eBay business and one thing that really horrified me was that Fisher-Price was bought by Mattel and then production went to China. That meant a complete closing of the factory in upstate New York with the loss of jobs, as well as the toys being changed in their design.

    Not long after that, the Madame Alexander doll company, which had been located in Harlem since its founding, was again sold and moved to China. The major fine work on those dolls is in the costumes, which were sewn by local seamstresses. Again, all of the local people ended up unemployed and the designs are now inferior and some sizes and face styles have disappeared. The price, however, did not come down. (Neither did the Fisher-Price toys.)

    I always found both of these moves sad, because those toys were part of my children’s childhood.

    Liked by 10 people

    • fleporeblog says:

      Their starting to realize that it might be more affordable to make things in America again! They keep trying to convince folks that it has nothing to do with our President. Sure we believe you! /s

      https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/250943/hasbros-bringing-playdoh-production-to-the-us-not-tied-to-trump

      From the article linked above:

      Hasbro (HAS – Free Report) is bringing the production of their children’s toy and moldable putty, Play-Doh, back to the United States. Play-Doh was last produced in the United States in 2004 and has been outsourced since. Now, Hasbro looks to add a production facility in East Long Meadow, Massachusetts in addition to current factories in China and Turkey.

      Executives of Hasbro say the decision does not relate to President Trump’s plans to bring back manufacturing to the United States. Rather, the new United States manufacturing plant, expected to be in production as early as the latter half of 2018, is being built to accommodate increased Play-Doh demand in the past five years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • missmarple2 says:

        Yeah, right. Hasbro is avoiding praising Trump because they get pressure from Hollywood. They do get a cut of movies (GI Joe, Transformers, My Little Pony) so I imagine they are keeping their mouths shut due to that.

        It will be interesting when the intellectual property rights to things like movies, music, and fashion (think of all of those knock-off designer purses) are reclaimed. Hollywood has been griping about this for YEARS, and it looks like President Trump may actually do somethign about it.

        Liked by 3 people

  20. mimbler says:

    You know, if liberals really believed in global warming, they would want manufacturing to be done in the US where it is clean manufacturing.

    Instead, with globalization, our products are made in the most polluting, third world countries there are.

    Sometimes, I wonder if there is a single principle other than being in power that a lib actually believes in,
    Mike

    Liked by 5 people

  21. fleporeblog says:

    I watched this video yesterday and it completely blew me away! SD is absolutely right that the Chinese economy is a paper tiger 🐯. There are so many ghost cities in China 🇨🇳. They build them and yet no one lives in them. They have to give their people jobs which inflates their GDP. It is all make believe.

    http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/world/article/An-eerie-look-inside-China-s-ghost-cities-6810665.php

    From the article linked above:

    China has a number of would-be metropolises in the country. These grand cities have sprawling roadways, towering apartments and glimmering government buildings. These same places also lack inhabitants.

    The spectacle of China’s “ghost cities” emits an eerie vibe. Eight-line streets with no cars, stadiums with no teams and parks with no people. A recent article in Wired explained the phenomenon, noting the Asian giant has built hundreds of new cities in the past three decades in an effort to urbanize the enormous country.

    The hope is that urbanization can fuel economic growth. And its China’s prosperous growth that fueled the big empty cities in the first place. The BBC wrote in 2012 about how many of these places rose from “investment for investment’s sake.” Here’s how they described what happened:

    Investment in infrastructure accounts for much of China’s GDP – the country is said to have built the equivalent of Rome every two months in the past decade. And with such a large pool of labour, it is harder to put the brakes on when growth slows and supply outstrips demand.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Minnie says:

      Excellent video, thanks for posting.

      I am reminded of North Korea’s sprawling vacant hi-rises featured in Fat Man’s parade video.

      The empty streets and buildings are hauntingly ominous. Knowing what little we do about North Korean citizens (starving, horrendously mistreated and abused) it makes my stomach ache.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. MakeAmericaGreat says:

    A masterpiece, Sundance.

    One of your best.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. xyzlatin says:

    The start of all this globalism goes back further and includes Maurice Strong in the UN.

    “In 1972, Stockholm, Sweden, hosted the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which was attended by 113 delegates and two heads of state (Olaf Palme of Sweden and Indira Gandhi of India). This conference raised a generation’s awareness of an issue hitherto little talked about, the global environment. The Stockholm conference secured a permanent place for the environment on the world’s agenda and led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The conference and its aftermath made known the international nature of the environment and introduced the idea of the relationship between development and the environment. It has been said that the only way to unite the countries of the world is for them to face a common enemy; perhaps environmental degradation will be that enemy.”

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Luke from NJ says:

    Sundance, the amount of work you put into these articles is mind boggling. Thank you so much for it, because it lays it all out as clear as day. It is an honor to come and learn. I am indebted to you for filling out my poor education.

    Like

  25. golsono says:

    Will try post this song. Has stuck in my head for decades

    Like

  26. yakmaster2 says:

    I’m very glad our POTUS fully understands high finance on a global scale and has put in place administrators who’ve also had decades of experience in big business and banking.

    No one can BS this President because he’s got the knowledge to follow the money. He’s also got the will to go up against the huge international corporations and banks that are essentially running today’s world.
    He’s one politician they can’t put in their pocket. Unfortunately, that makes him an existential threat, and therefore, a high profile target.
    For me, reading SD’s post today only reiterates that danger.
    I will continue to pray.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. G. Combs says:

    Here are companion pieces by:
    1. Mother Jones: 1995: Dwayne’s World
    Dwayne Andreas has made a fortune with the help of politicians from Hubert Humphrey to Bob Dole. But, he says, their talk of “free markets” is just wind.

    2. From a E.M. Smith “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” explaining the economic model continuum from Capitalism ====> Communism and why Corporate CEOs LOVE Socialism

    [..]At the risk of having another “is so – is not” “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” thread break out on yet another unrelated topic…. to answer the implied question “why would capitalists destroy their own markets?”:

    Realize that the capitalist urge is not toward a competitive market. It’s the very LAST thing any profit maximizer wants. Even in Adam Smith’s “The Wealth Of Nations” he recognizes that ~’Rairly do men of means gather, even for merryment and {discourse?} but that the conversation turns to ways to {restrict competition and raise prices}’.[…]

    Corporations are very happy under a Socialist Third Way / Progressive / Market Socialism / Fascist / “Government regulated Coopetition” (whatever you name you like to apply to the same beast) system. They are not very happy with wide open competitive markets. See all of Europe for an example of “Managed Markets” (yet another name…) The French are masters of this technique, and the Germans not far behind. […]

    Like I said, it DOES work. What galls me is just that we run around putting 20 different names on the same process and that just hides what’s really going on. All for political reasons. Very “un-tidy”… You’d think these folks had something to hide…[…]

    So the idea that capitalists/corporations HATE socialism is another gaslighting exercise to keep the general public confused.

    Like

  28. G. Combs says:

    The paper The network of global corporate control As a PDF file: (anticorruptionsociety(DOT)files.wordpress.com/2015/09/swiss-study-the-network-of-global-corporate-control-2.pdf)
    by Dr. Stefania Vitali: economist research interests include: Agent-based computational economics; networks; business fluctuation and financial fragility; economic geography; corporate governance.
    Dr. James B. Glattfelder: Physicist and Complex systems theorist
    and Dr. Stefano Battiston: Professor at the Department of Banking and Finance of the University of Zurich. His work applies the complex networks approach both to the empirical analysis of large economic networks and the modelling of their dynamics.

    They show the strings attached from the financial sector to the corporations. And by now, thanks to Trump everyone should be aware of the money strings on our politicians. One point the paper does not mentioned is mutual funds, trusts and pension plans.

    If you invest in a mutual fund you are buying shares in the mutual fund (that you can not vote) and the Mutual Fund then uses YOUR money to buy stock shares which it owns and controls. This allows much more consolidation of control. For example Edward C Johnson 3rd, chairman of the Fidelity Group votes the stock in Monsanto owned by several pension and mutual funds like FMR LLC, FIDELITY MAGELLAN FUND INC, FIDELITY GROWTH COMPANY FUND, and Pyramis Global Advisors. The vanguard Group, aka John C. Bogle, owns another healthy chunk of Monsanto. In this way even more power is concentrated in the hands of a few. This explains the point made in the paper that the amount of power is far greater than the amount of wealth can account for.

    So facts like “85% of Monsanto is held by mutual funds and Institutional (financial) Holders” while true in that the money originated from pensioners and other little people does not tell the whole story. Yet it is trumpeted by those who want to confuse those trying to follow the money and power trails and misdirect us into thinking the stock is held and voted by pensioners and mutual fund holders – a complete and utter falsehood.

    The article Financial Core of the Transnational Corporate Class lists the top companies AND the officers running these corporations.

    …In this study, we decided to identify in detail the people on the boards of directors of the top ten asset management firms and the top ten most centralized corporations in the world. Because of overlaps, there is a total of thirteen firms, which collectively have 161 directors on their boards. We think that this group of 161 individuals represents the financial core of the world’s transnational capitalist class. They collectively manage $23.91 trillion in funds and operate in nearly every country in the world. They are the center of the financial capital that powers the global economic system. Western governments and international policy bodies work in the interests of this financial core to protect the free flow of capital investment anywhere in the world.

    Like

    • G. Combs says:

      An earlier work by the same physicists.

      World’s Stocks Controlled by Select Few
      A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the “backbone” of each country’s financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country’s market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.

      “You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense,” Glattfelder said. “From that you’re able to … unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn’t at all important.”

      The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries,.. these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world.. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market…..
      http://www.livescience.com/9704-world-stocks-controlled-select.html

      This validates what Sundance is saying about control of the world market.

      A few other bits of interesting of information:
      In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker.
      timelines(DOT)ws/subjects/Labor.HTML

      When new money is created it does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people’s bank accounts or under their mattresses. Therefore money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money

      Date…$ /oz gold.. Money supply….min. wage…..Pay in gold
      1959 ….$35.25 …….50.1 billion………$1.00……..0.0284 oz.
      1974 …$195.20………101 billion………..$2.00…….0.0102 oz.
      1976 …$124.74 …… $113 billion…….$2.30…….0.0184 oz.
      1985 …$354.20……..$205 billion……..$3.35……..0.0094 oz.
      1994 ..$409.80……. $ 406 billion…….$4.25……..0.0104.oz.
      2006 ..$636.30 …….$808 billion……..$5.15………0.0081 oz.
      2008 …$880.30……. $831 billion……..$5.85………0.0066 oz.
      2009.$1,020.28…….$1663 billion……..$6.55……..0.0064.oz.

      Our friends the CEOs, pay went from .0.663.oz of gold per hour in 1976 to 2.44.oz in 2008.

      Meanwhile the working stiff went from 0.028 oz of gold per hour in 1959
      to 0.0064 oz of gold per hour in 2009.

      The IMF even weighs in stating

      …In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012)….
      http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/09/dervis.htm

      Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001. Statistics showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified by Clinton, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002, just after he left office this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP.
      (wwwDOT)fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm
      …………

      Originally, according to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, banks were supposed hold anywhere between 12 and 18% of their deposits in “reserve”. That is where the words “fractional reserve” comes in. Gradually the Fed has lowered the amount of “reserve” required until now the banks are operating on no reserve.

      97% of the US ‘money supply’ is therefore created out of nothing. This fairy dust money is now owed to bankers/financiers plus interest and we pay them back with our labor.
      activerain(DOT)com/blogsview/1036752/3-cash-97-loans-mortgages

      Because money is not capital, that is WEALTH, Mises concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value.

      It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the bankers and the groups most closely connected with them.
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north84.html

      When new money is created it does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people’s bank accounts or under their mattresses. Therefore money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money[…]

      This is the key point of the Fractional Reserve System. When money is devalued by printing more the first pigs to the trough steal the wealth of the late comers. Newly printed fiat money does not create new wealth it just transfers it, that is steals it from the working stiffs. The CEOs, by the major raises in their salaries are protected from this theft.

      It is especially devastating to the retired because it is their hard savings that is stolen. Do you think that Clinton and his banker friends did not set up the 2008 financial crisis and Bernanke’s rounds of quantitative easing on purpose as a massive wealth transfer FROM soon to be retiring baby boomers TO their pockets?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s