The United Nations Fiasco

It is time for the U.S. To get out of the U.N. It has become the world's most ridiculous toothless and faithless debating society in the history of the world. I have to qualify this distinction because its predecessor, the League of Nations, was equally impotent. I excluded it only because the current U.N. was simply a further and equally ineffective extension of this previous organization.

The League of Nations could claim as an excuse that it really had no commitment of force from members supporting it. The U.N. can make no similar claim. It has the force necessary but has no sincere interest or intention of using it. Why anyone would bother to establish, train, and finance a military force and not use it demonstrates its faithlessness.
The League of Nations was completely unsuccessful in preventing or influencing second world war, watching from the sidelines while Hitler grabbed Austria, Czechoslovakia, and finally Poland. The U.N. has been equally incompetent in preventing or stopping any war that I am aware of. It prides itself on discussing (interminably) possible resolutions to problems but always ends up “observing”, while Tutsi and Hutu slaughtered each other, and was equally circumspect not to intrude in the killings in Bosnia and Somalia. During the past 50 years,only the U.S.(supported thankfully by Great Britain) has made any timely and substantive effort to stop the killings in South Korea, Kuwait, and Kosovo.

An obvious and necessary question is why the U.N. is so incapable and ineffective. This is not a difficult question. The truth is that a majority of the member countries constituting the General Assembly simply want to use the U.N. to promote their own interests which, unfortunately, consist mainly of actions designed to undermine the efforts of other member states to accomplish anything of substance. This practice derives from the jealousy and ill-will of poorer countries toward rich countries, and their attempts to hinder whatever the richer countries wish to accomplish. The governments of these countries are unable to sufficiently provide a successful working economy for their own citizens, and attempt to deflect blame for this failure toward other countries more successful in providing for their citizens. All the hot air generated in the General Assembly is designed to do just that.

George Bush is criticized for not paying sufficient attention to this body but it is to his credit that, after attempting to get consensus in the U.N., he had the courage to act, much like Clinton had in Kosovo. You have to give him credit for going ahead and doing what he felt was his duty as president and ignoring the temporizing attempted by other Assembly countries intent on pursuing their own(oil) interests with little genuine concern for Iraq. Only history will tell whether President Bush was right or wrong in doing so, and he will eventually have to accept the consequences of what he has done.

The only potentially effective (and necessary) body in the U.N. is the Security Council, which has been hamstrung in its ability to act as well. Because each permanent member has a veto over all proposed actions(which it has too often used to effect political objectives rather than preventing unjust international acts), it too has become essentially powerless. What is needed is an expansion of the Security Council to nine members, with only a two-thirds majority necessary to pass resolutions(and without anyone having a veto power). If Brazil, India, Singapore, and Japan, for example, could be included as permanent members, the Council would have a chance of becoming an effective organization. If some changes of this sort are not made, the U.N. might just as well close its doors and turn off the lights.

The Globalization Hoax

Globalization, in theory at least, was an economic philosophy which espoused a more efficient production of the world's manufactures for the benefit of the world at large. It is based upon an economic theory proposed, I believe, by Adam Smith that if each manufacture was produced by the most efficient worker in the world, production would be maximized with the best use of the world's resources(manpower,materials,etc.). In theory this concept is sound except for the fact that it was based upon the presumption of full employment. Full employment these days does not exist and in the U.S. hasn't for some time. Unemployment is especially prevalent in the more populous countries of the world, especially those in southeast Asia. There is widespread unemployment throughout the world, becoming more serious in western countries as work moves to southeast Asia. The inapplicability of this premise(full employment) completely invalidates the benefits of globalization and the conclusions proposed and being supported by establishment-paid economists. These economists still have high hopes that the public will not become well-informed enough to understand this. So far, with the help of the controlled media, they have succeeded. This has culminated in the current serious financial crisis facing the U.S. today, a trade deficit that soon will ruin the U.S. economy(also conveniently overlooked by the media).

A result of this disregard of unemployment problem in the western world is that soon most of the world's products will be manufactured in China. Containing 25 percent of the world's population,it is easily able to manufacture all the world's products and still have 500 million more citizens not suitably employed. This is leaving other wage-earners worldwide with no opportunity for work except for those willing and financially able to “retrain” in other occupations. In the U.S. a job in the construction trades or in agriculture is still possible, mainly because U.S. businessmen have been unable so far to find the means to ship these jobs overseas as well. The only other jobs left that are available from a perusal of yellow pages of the major U.S. newspapers are those in “service industries” such as burger flippers and sales clerks. The only positive aspect about this is that the “retraining” that is encouraged by establishment economists need be truly of short duration, and the uprooted worker need not spend much time and money in doing so. But I really don't think these available new jobs are really as high paying as these economists might have one believe. In reality there are very few well-paying jobs available, or that will be available in the near future, offered to this ever-growing element of the society.

What is apparent to all reasonable persons is a situation in which most of the workers of the western countries will soon be working in “service jobs . It is true that the total production of goods worldwide may possibly expand marginally, and that many products will be manufactured more efficiently but most probably by hard-working southeast Asian workers. Those who fail in this worldwide contest will simply have to accept positions with salaries qualifying them as the “working poor”. This will, if things don't change, will be the fate of the great majority of workers in the western (previously-industrialized) countries.

All the laws created to produce a globalized world, those establishing zero duties, free trade zones, and special tax laws for multinational, have simply resulted in the ruin of western worker. What needs to be done now is to reverse the consequences of this fraud against western workers by the creation of international laws establishing a division of the worlds manufacturing proportionately throughout all countries of the world. Citizens of all countries should also have to accept the same proportion of “service jobs” western workers are having to accept. The most efficient workers in their own societies can compete for the manufacturing jobs available as their country's share in world production.

One final issue is that the U.S. government, having improperly manipulated the dollar for so long, now has established relative exchange rates which make it almost impossible for American workers to compete with their foreign counterparts. This has been taking place since the 1970s when a floating exchange rate regime was established to presumably correct a large trade imbalance. The rich weren't happy with allowing the dollar to adjust so they directed their minions in the FED to prevent this assuring the continuation of large trade deficits. Since the dollar was not convertible into gold or redeemable by the FED anymore, this meant that foreign dollar-holders would simply have to trade their dollar holdings for other American assets resulting in the stock market and real estate bubbles we have been experiencing ever more often.

This is the origin of the current justification of raising interest rates comes in. The FED pretends that we are experiencing “inflation”. This is simply a ruse to continue maintaining an overvalued dollar even though this practice does(and is meant to) decrease employment and create the possibility of a recession. In the meantime, any remaining U.S. Assets as yet not foreign-owned continue to revert to foreign ownership. A consequence to the American worker of maintaining n overvalued dollar is a decrease in the money supply (needed to hold interest rates high), and he making of a recession a good possibility. How the FED has the nerve to talk about fighting inflation while at the same time claims to being concerned about a “slowdown” in the economy is really a laugher. And the media, as usual, just dutifully write this hogwash down without calling Bernanke on it.

I mention this because globalization, combined with an overvalued dollar, causes other problems. Oh what a tangled web we weave... One problem is that not all American jobs can be shipped overseas. Workers in these industries are plagued by the an international wage too high to compete worldwide just like their brothers in the manufacturing industries. American agriculture, although the most efficient and mechanized in the world, still has a problem selling its products in world markets simply because wages are, even with these advantages, still too high for their products to compete worldwide.. So the government subsidizes this industry(what great belief and commitment to globalization!) It hasn't and won't provide similar subsidies to help manufacturing workers, so why should it do it for farmers? If the government really is convinced that globalization is good for all workers throughout the world, then it should remove these subsidies to the farmers. If not, then give every American worker a chance for decent employment by creating subsidies for them as well. This won't happen because the manufacturing jobs lost by American workers are being given to low-cost foreign workers employed by the very same American firms who have laid them off. If American workers were again able to compete, these American manufacturers would lose the cost advantages they so ardently pursued(and received) by moving manufacturing jobs offshore and their efforts to financially exploit foreign workers would have been useless.

And finally, what a coincidence it was that the shifting of work overseas started right about the time that the FED started seriously manipulating the “floating” dollar. Could someone have advised these multinationals that the dollar would never be allowed to fall to a level that American workers wages could compete fairly worldwide? American workers have been screwed “every which way they could”!

Saving the Western Worker from Extinction

What is urgently needed in the new age of a “globalized “ economy is an international minimum wage. If the western worker is to survive he must compete on an even basis salary-wise with workers in the LDCs. Currently only the International Seaman's union has established this minimum standard, and the rest of the workers in tradable goods should be provided equivalent wages. Currently the minimum wage for this union is around $5.50/hour which I propose be a suitable international standard. This wage level would not be so excessive to seriously erode the current competitive wage advantage of workers of the LDCs, but would give western workers the possibility of obtaining employment in cases where they could demonstrate superior productivity capabilities.This will provide a win-win situation worldwide because the advantages obtained would far exceed the few disadvantages. Foreign governments now having significant cost advantages for their workers but concerned with a loss of their share of world manufacturing need not worry. Even a $5/hour wage would still provide their workers with a significant advantage over their foreign counterparts. Western workers would have to provide significant productivity capabilities to overcome this. Trade imbalances for western countries would become more sustainable, as they urgently need to, and all governments involved would have less labor problems.It is true that the costs of tradable goods would increase everywhere in the world. But the only significant element of any society effected would be western country retirees having no significant shareholder interests in international companies. Retired shareholders having meaningful stock investments, direct or through pension funds, would experience a short temporary decrease in their share prices caused by labor wage increases. Share prices would recuperate shortly afterward caused by an even larger increase in profits due to increases in worldwide revenues. No multinational with a well-know brand name need to be concerned about where the world will spend their increased incomes. Even the poorest of wage earners worldwide want the best they can buy. Their saying is “we can't afford cheap products”. The resulting revenue and profit increases would be, in addition, accompanied by a significant increase in the quality of all shareholdings because they would be based upon profits due to increased production revenues rather than being increasingly dependent on restructuring and layoffs detrimental to the societies involved.
The advantages to a minimum wage are phenomenal in contrast:
Foreign workers in tradable goods industries will have considerable more income. This will spread out over their economy in general causing a widely-based increase in the standard of living. Their governments will have a large increase in tax revenues allowing them to expand social programs for the less-fortunate in their societies(e.g., farmers). Overall, most communities worldwide will have a significant increase in purchasing power which can be spent by the citizens of the LDCs on the very tradable goods they are producing but previously unable to purchase..
Foreign governments will not need to go begging to the WTO or IMF(or do their bidding) because they will no longer need the loans these organizations reluctantly dole out. Instead they will be paying off their outstanding international bank loans allowing export earnings to be used to pay for import of the foreign-made goods they are so fond of, rather than simply providing for interest payments to foreign banks. Foreign investments and bank loans will be far more secure. There will be less chance of turmoil at WTO and IMF meetings, and less need for internal security and stability for foreign governments under all conditions.
American and foreign workers will be better able to fairly compete for the right to do the world's manufacturing and, with a worldwide increase in money supplies, increased consumption would lead to an overall increase in production and employment of workers worldwide This would result in an increase of pride and self-respect for all production workers, foreign and western alike, previously underemployed or unemployed. Social cost (e.g., unemployment,welfare) would significantly decrease, providing more opportunity for further governmental support for other elements of their societies.
Multinational companies worldwide will experience an initial decrease in profits caused by increased labor costs. Subsequent increases in revenue from both foreign and western consumers would provide profit gains far exceeding these costs resulting in a real increase in shareholder values based on production, capital equipment improvements, as well as a concurrent improvements in technology.
And finally, the establishment of a minimum wage would end the most egregious and ever-increasing exploitation of workers worldwide. International manufacturers have continually moved production to the countries with the lowest wage levels to reduce costs, taking advantage of the most poverty-stricken members of the world. American companies moved production from Mexico to China because the Mexican workers' $3/hour wage was just too generous in comparison with the $1/hour prevalent in China. This practice has forced other countries to effectively lower their own wage levels to compete, resulting in an ever-increasing spiraling downward of wage levels already far below that what an average family presently needs to survive on. This is a despicable practice effecting workers worldwide and needs to be stopped.
This proposal is based upon my desire to effect two goals, one to roughly equalize worldwide wages so that western workers would have an opportunity to once again find meaningful employment, the other to end the exploitation of foreign workers caused by the practice of multinational companies and their partner's practice of paying subhuman wages. Enough is enough! So I have done a simple “trial balance” of the consequence of an implementation of a minimum wage rate of $5/hour. Results are based primarily on a change in the distribution of profits and wages earned for products manufactured for export in the LDCs. So my proposal involves basically in the consequences of a change in the profit margins for products manufactured in these countries. It is too complicated to envision what product price increases would effect. In light of current wage levels, they would be unnecessary and simply represent a continuing arrogance and cynicism on the part of these manufacturers. So I conclude that if you pay these foreign workers just $5/hour, increasing labor rates fivefold, the following would result:
Profit margins of foreign-made products in the LDCs would decrease from 60 to “just” 40 percent.
The number and price of exports to the U.S. from southeast Asia, for example, would remain around $1 trillion.
Profits for multinational and their local partners would decrease by $200 billion, and foreign workers would have received this as increased income. Since well-run foreign governments normally require 50 percent participation, by (local) government or private partners, the "loss" of profit to the multinational firms would be approximately $100 billion. Because of U.S. laws, created to promote this "end run" around hiring U.S. workers, these multinationals have been not only exempt from U.S. taxes, they have not been required to repatriate these funds. If some have been inadvertently repatriated, they have been most-probably just investment in U.S. stock market speculation and have contributed almost nothing to U.S. production and employment.
Of this income now available to foreign workers, $40 billion would be collected by foreign governments as taxes, to be used to increase the services and benefits to other citizens.
Out of the remaining $160 billion available to consumers, foreign workers would be buying western-made products of perhaps $50 billion, leaving over $110 billion dollars in consumer dollars to be spent locally. An increase in money supply in consumer's hands and spent locally usually results in six times as much local spending(i.e., the “multiplier effect”), each purchase allowing further purchases from other people in the community. This would increase the GDPs in these countries by upwards of $600 billion, resulting in perhaps a 50 percent increase in living standards for many of these people.
The $50 billion going into the purchase of foreign-made (western made) products could potentially result in respectable employment of upwards of 2 million more western workers.
Western workers would be competing for worldwide production against foreign workers making $5/hour instead of the current wage rates of 65 cents(India) to one dollar(China) with which they have no chance to compete. The playing field would be leveled to the point that productivity would again be the determining factor in choosing who deserved to be employed.
This proposal deals solely with America's trade with the LDCs. When combined with similar benefits obtainable for the workers of LDCs through trade with other western countries, the potential benefits are tremendous.
I am well aware that many countries will resist this proposal in anticipation of gaining a trade advantage over those who would be willing to comply. The answer to this is quite simple, one that has been commonly used as a basis of duties in the past. Importing countries complying with the rules would be required to impose import duties for products manufactured in the non-complying countries equal to what the labor costs should have been. This would be a significant windfall to the complying countries because it would provide their governments with an increased income available to provide better living standards to their own citizens. The non-complying ones would simply be giving up income which would otherwise be paid to their own citizens and experiencing a loss of government tax revenue.

America is a Democracy?

Joel Hirschhorn in his most recent articles on OpEdNews has encouraged the American public to petition for a constitutional convention under Article V of the constitution in order to rectify the ever-increasing creation of laws harming the interests of the working classes of the U.S. His article, "An Open Letter to John Edwards" supported Mr. Edwards' opinion that America has become a country of two nations, the rich and the poor, which I call the Privileged and the People. Many people believe that the Constitution of the U.S. established a democracy in which all citizens had an equal say in the running of the government and in the creation of suitable laws. This is simply not true. The Constitution simply set up a republican form of government based upon a separation of powers between congress, the judiciary, and the executive. Nowhere do the words "democracy'' or "democratic" appear in this document, which is the sole basis of our federal laws. The word "republican" appeared only in Article 4 in the context of state's rights. The original drafters of the Constitution wanted a government selected and run by the landowners and other rich folks of that day. Only as an afterthought were any explicit rights of the working classes included when the Bill of Rights was added as a series of amendments to the constitution explicitly spelling out various rights for the general public. Unfortunately these "absolute" rights were limited, and excluded people of color and women from the franchise and various other civil rights. It took another 150 years or so for these groups to finally gain the franchise, after persistent demands by both groups. The amendments authorizing these rights had to be explicit because the lawmakers(and judiciary) were ignoring the constitution's implications inherent in the word "justice" which did appear in the preamble if not in the body of the Constitution. But these new amendments simply established the right of the public to "democratic election" of their choice of candidates(put up by moneyed interests). The closest any early document came to granting equality for all people was in the Mayflower Compact which stated very concisely what the Constitution failed to do, containing the phrase "just and equal laws". Unfortunately this phrase or anything like it did not appear in the Constitution. A major flaw was the omission prohibiting discrimination on the basis of class or occupation. This omission allowed the legislature to consistently pass laws directly favorable to the rich, and harmful to the working classes. And all this was done without violating the Constitution.
We are now living under a plutocracy of the rich as resulting legislation have amply demonstrated. The lawmakers need not have paid any attention to the rights and interests of the working classes and have passed laws which were not at all "equal" favoring businesses and securities holders. Until the 17th amendment was passed in 1913 the general public had absolutely no control at all over any legislation(both houses must pass any proposed bill and the senate, prior to that time, was selected by state assemblies). This article will explain why the constitution should be changed to better reflect a democracy concerned with the well-being of all its citizens. I will provide some examples of legislative changes which would in my opinion further perfect our constitution. There have been only 26 amendments of the constitution over a period of over 200 years. The first ten were passed immediately after the original document was created to correct the obvious omission of explicit protection of citizen's rights not specified in the original document. The two amendments related to prohibition canceled each other out leaving only 14 actual changes to the Constitution to this date. That averages about one every fifteen years. If the Constitution were perfect, as much literature and opinion has subsequently implied, a lack of changes would appear to affirm it. But no document,person,or institution has ever in the history of the world proved to be perfect and sufficient during an extended period of a time. The truth is that those in power, having gained the most from its opportunities, don't want any changes. But there are serious reasons that dictate the need for change. The Constitution was established at a time when the U.S. was essential an agricultural society, with no extensive corporation interests and influences, no extensive trade, no large amount of financial capital, no cheap and efficient transport, and no sophisticated international communications(telephone,TV, or Internet). Especially significant was the shortage of resources(including especially manpower) available for an improving productive capacity, rather than the superabundance now prevalent in the world today. The under utilization of capital machinery and underemployment and unemployment of current manpower alone are causing and will cause in the future the major problems which will have to be faced by all the world economies.
All the fancy economic principles which the rich use against the working classes currently are no longer valid because they were all based upon suitable employment available for all persons desiring it. That is no longer the case. Working people around the world, under globalization, are competing for the same limited jobs and only the low bidders are winning, resulting in an ever-increasing exploitation of the working classes because of their dire need of adequate wages to support their families. The superabundance of financial capital allows something that was not afforded the founding fathers, the ability to apply tremendous money pressure in the political process. To deal with these entirely new institutions and circumstances the Constitution must change. The lesson learned from the necessity of including a Bill of Rights was that the constitution must explicitly spell out the basis of new laws protecting the rights of the working classes. So with that in mind I am proposing explicit changes designed to do just that.
1) Needless to say, money plays too big a role in the creation of new legislation. All one has to do to confirm this is to examine the laws that have been passed recently. NAFTA, CAFTAN, TWO(and GATT), Immigration Laws (applicable to both legal and illegal immigrants) and all of the laws supporting globalization, are without doubt simply for the benefit of the shareholders of multinational corporations and have directly deprived American workers of their jobs. The "story"that American workers are ill-trained, lazy, and cannot compete productively with foreign workers is simply a convenient and insulting pretext for shipping work overseas. To make matters worse, these jobs are said to be only those requiring "low skilled" workers. The workers previously employed in the steel, auto,electronic,shoe making,etc. were all skilled workers. Just because they were classified as " blue collar" does not automatically imply low skill level. It does imply that these people were actually working and not just sitting behind a desk checking out their personal e-mail which a great part of the so-called "skilled" office and government workers are typically engaged in . And what about the hi-tech multitude who have been cheated out of their jobs by the fraudulently created and implemented Immigration laws opening the doors to foreign workers? Are they presumed to be "low-tech" as well, needing to "retrain"? In any case, the "story" the businessmen(though their supporters, the congressmen) have been promoting for both blue and while collar displaced workers is that these people must retrain themselves for more skilled jobs. Excuse me, these groups were already skilled. And what hi-tech jobs are currently available for these millions who would have to (once again) fork out thousands of bucks to qualify themselves for? The only fields I know of which are understaffed are those of various classifications of highly-paid health care related positions created as government monopolies only available to "friends-of-the-family". All this fraud has been created by the fact that money now completely controls all legislation. Campaign finance laws and term limits are long overdue.
2) Reform of the Supreme court is long overdue. Many laws have been created by congress which have completely exceeded their Constitutional jurisdiction(e.g.,recreational drugs use and abortion) and others directly violating legitimate state laws(i.e.,marijuana in California). The supreme court should as a matter of its Constitutional duty review all these laws without being coerced to doing so. The justices claim that they have only a limited time to review any laws because of an extensive work load. If the original supreme court had only 9 justices dealing with legal issues for a simple farm-based population of perhaps 13 million citizens, we now have a population of 300 million in a far more complicated society necessitating far more justices. Currently, out of thousands of requests for judicial review, less than 200 are determined yearly. The justices claim these cases have been chosen because they affect fundamental legal principles. This years cases included the Anna Nicole Smith case concerning the legal aspects of the marriage of a young woman to an older man and her expectation of receiving inheritance from his estate. I was shocked to learn that a young women would ever pursue an older man for his money! This is really startling news and obviously has important legal implications, but I would have thought that any issues of this matters would have been resolved when the first cases of this sort were encountered, about 3000 years ago. One has to come to the concussion that the other (not so important) lawsuits submitted for review during this period were not important enough to be considered for judgment by the court. So much for American justice! So I propose an increase in the number of justices to the extent that at least half of those cases presented to it must be reviewed. And considering the very obvious partisan politics practiced by the court(as exemplified by the 2004 presidential election in particular), it is time to make these offices subject to voter choice, and with time limits to their tenure. Surely there are more than 9 people in the entire U.S. capable enough to dispense legal judgment.
3) The president is hogtied in passing any legislation when his party in not in power. The opposition party doesn't want any meaningful and important legislation passed which would cast credit on the incumbent. This results in no substantive laws being passed in the interests of the public but gives comfort to the conservative elements of both parties who want nothing to change. In Great Britain this is not the case because the prime minister is simply chosen from the party in power and, when legislation proposed by his party is rejected, the government is changed to provide another which is more in accord with the legislation deemed necessary at the moment. The most important legislation of the Clinton administration(health care reform) was stymied and will continue to be so in the future because of this disgraceful practice. Something has to be done to rectify this.

4) I believe no new amendments will be allowed to pass designed to correct these patent legislative abuses because, as a consequence of money pressure, both parties as well as the executive are now serving the interests of the rich. Each wants to score points by being the prime mover behind legislation solely designed to benefit this group, and have no time or interest in issues important to the working- and middle-classes . F. Lee Baily said in an interview with Newsweek in 1967 "Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee". That is doubly valid with today's flood of capital looking for influence. Both political parties are working on the same political campaign platform, which is the "status quo" or "family values" one so dear to the people who are now prospering. And there is absolutely no doubt about who is benefiting from the laws as they now stand. All one has to do is look at the widening income gap between the rich and the poor (which increasingly include the middle class). This is the absolutely indispensable reason and justification for a Constitutional Convention. The congress has not in the past, and will not in the future, pass legislation resolving health care problems,education reform,campaign finance reform, meaningful gun control laws, laws controlling corporate management abuses, or any other laws effecting the financial interests of its patrons. All recent laws have benefited the rich to the detriment of the working classes, and the entire government has been guilty of collusion.

These are but of a few of the major issues which should be address in any convention. I have quite a few more issues needed to be scrutinized in the interest of better government but hope you readers will assist me in pointing out other important ones needing attention. The primary purpose in all proposed reform should be one of making the Constitution(and government) a democratic one. Abe Lincoln, in the Gettysburg address, spoke of a government "of (all) the people, by (all) the people, and for(all) the people". Today we have a government only "of(applicable to) the common folk, by the rich(or their supporter), and for (the benefit of) the rich" and supported (legally) by laws not unlawful with respect to the current U.S. Constitution but very definitely not in the interest of the working public! It is imperative that these abuses be stopped. Only when we can wake up the general populace with concrete suggestions for changes benefiting them can we expect them to take an interest in any sort of action.