Who said we had to compete like this in a global economic arena?
The next question is part of
the answer. Why did the U.S. Federal Government sponsor the moving of factories outside the USA starting in 1956. It was supposed
to be a temporary program to help out the Mexican and Central American economies while testing the effect of lower prices
for consumers in the USA. The program never ended and it evolved into the maquiladora factory program in Mexico using impoverished
workers to make products for consumers in the USA. The number of U.S. factories moved to Mexico numbered 2,000 by 1992 prior
to the passing of the NAFTA free trade agreement. After NAFTA was passed, the number quickly doubled to 4,000 factories being
moved to Mexico. Soon after that President Clinton and the "Contract with American" Republican Congress rushed $20
billion dollars to Mexico to save the peso and bail out the Mexican economy. President Clinton said he was also going to funnel
more money to Mexico through international money funds. After all these negative results for more than fourty years including
the massive immigration of workers to the U.S. seeking economic survival, how can anyone keep saying this is something good.
We have asked these questions many times very little response. It would seem this should be something all should know
especially during the present financial crisis. There should be some kind of reference to these happenings in important
documents like encyclical on economics.
Lets go back to 1956.
It is 1956, I was an
army officer and my unit was put on active alert to be ready to ship out to Egypt. Egypt had nationalized the Suez Canal
and assumed control of the canal. They displaced the international consortium that controlled the canal for nearly a century.
A whirl of money activity followed and it is easy to dismiss this but what happened in 1956 reflects several other
happenings since then.
In the brief encounter, the outside of everything looked like a geopolitical incident in
history. President Eisenhower was in the background ready to control the events.
France, Israel and the United
Kingdom used Egypt's actions following Israel invasion of the Sinai as an excuse to attack Egypt by air. About five months
later on December 3rd, 19956, the British Government announced it would redraw its troops with France and Israel doing the
same. Behind the scene there was a different kind of war going on. It was a money war. The Suez crisis triggered the International
Money Fund lenders to get involved in geopolitical matters outside of their norm.
A speculative money attack set
the stage for future actions to stem off money wars. The Suez was a financial crisis too. Throughout 1956 and 1957, the United
Kingdom had a current account surplus despite the disruption of its international trade, but the value of its currency came
under severe speculative pressures. The Bank of England was forced to deplete it U.S. Dollar reserve to defend the values
of the pound sterling against the dollar.
These events arose with the International Money Fund totally untested
in crisis management when the new money wars started. The IMF was forced to play a role in the resolution of the economic
crisis relating to the countries involved in the Suez conflict. The IMF was called upon to finance the imbalances for all
four combatants. Its role included rescuing the pound sterling from speculative attack from a new form of financial wars.
The U.S. used the situation to get its way in the matter with the possible catastrophic consequences including the triumph
for international communism. Deals were worked out between the U.S. and Britain with the International Money Fund woven into
the process.
Similar events followed in 1994 with the financial crisis relating to the Mexican peso - called the
"tequila crisis" errupted. Soon after a money crisis broke out across East Asia in 1997 and in Russia and Brazil
in 1998. - then Turkey in 2000.
We find that 1956 represents the Globalization of money products starting before
the Globalization of tangible products. Perhaps the USA funded the moving of factories outside the USA to prop up this new
Globalization of money products. Then big money found it to be a profitable venture in making production and factories mobile
- ready to be moved from place to place for the sake of cheaper and cheaper labor
John Perkins wrote his book
The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man which vividly describes the interactions between big money , big corporations and big
government in money wars and real wars relating to Globalization and Free Trade. See
http://www.bizarrepolitics.com/confessions-for-history and
http://ezinearticles.com/?id=919326 We do not need any conspiracy theories to know Globalization and Free Trade did not evovle in any natural economic
fashion but have been driven by all of the above. Now the world is faced with a massive financial crisis with the financial
communities being bailed out. Economies based on making money on money instead of making things are burning out with the devaluation
of the worth of workers and labor now impacting the value of money. The countless money products are build on sand instead
of the tangible value of workers and labor. For me, the 1956 Suez crisis with the U.S. Federal Government starting the moving
of production outside the USA was not a coincidence. Speculative attacks on stable currency set the stage for future actions.
Centralized controls are failing their missions. We do know open markets for money products depend on real local value added
economies that are decentralized to minimize the mistakes that pop up in a centralized global economic arena. It is just to
big and too much to handle by any international money fund or my nations . And evidently, we already have had world
authorities doing things without the consent of the people
