Analyst's Opening Statement: This 10 Part "Commulism Series" was seven months in development. Considering how fast data changes, the Analyst has strived to keep current the volumes of relevant data throughout, recognizing there may be a few data points that might not be absolutely current at publishing date, particularly during these past few weeks of highly volatile financial market activity. However, the threat assessment, core themes and Counter-Manual (Framework) Guidelines remain fully supported, and not sensitive to the day to day data fluctuations.
Also, the Analyst views (and intends) this document to be a vehicle to provoke public debate on the theme article issue and that the White House/DOD/State Department et al to read this, "acknowledge" the threat, and revise the following proposed "Commulism Response Framework" accordingly. The ideas presented are aggressive, if not unconventional in some areas, as they must be given the seriousness of the threat. They are provocative, for the sole purpose of sparking that much needed, yet currently absent public and government debate, in the vital interests of collective U.S. national and economic security.
Finally, it would indeed be refreshing to hear one of the 2008 Presidential hopefuls in either party or a soon to launch Independent, move beyond petty badmouthing of the other candidates. Instead, having them prudently focus on something of substance both the American people and themselves have yet to recognize and mention, but promptly need to become aware and understand. It is an issue/term/moniker ("Commulism") NEVER media et al mentioned. Who on the campaign trail is ready to broach and champion an issue which dwarfs other issues in terms of future U.S. national/economic security impact, yet has never been mentioned in the public or campaign lexicon? Hopefully one of these candidates is ready to step up and be the first to declare the rise of Commulism, and the plan to address it - the "Counter-Commulism Framework". Any reader that is within one, two or three degrees of separation to a 2008 Presidential candidate is encouraged to direct them here to begin that important awareness and education process.
Part 1: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brock_no_080125_u_s__economic_securi.htm concluded with the int egrated "5 Pillar Superpower Sustainability Framework" to support the core ideology - Communism:
Note: For the visual, see the illustrative Commulism 5 Pillar Structure Chart at the end of article. The columned look was chosen to denote the insidious nature of Commulism, by capturing the underlying Communist ideology intent to displace Democracy.Here now is Part 2, providing an analysis and assessment of the first of the 5 Commulism Pillars - "Economic". Given the length of this section, it is covered in 2 parts - Part 2 today and Part 3 later.
A) ECONOMIC - SUSTAINABILITY (and LEVERAGE):
Lesson - Marxist economic policies are neither leveragable nor sustainable, as evidenced by the collapse of the Soviet Union, followed by no resulting global economic impact from that loss. A globally integrated capitalistic economic system in whole or in part is necessary for sustained economic growth, the cornerstone of any core ideology (including communism) survivability. And one that leverages built-in globalization.
The Soviets having neither economic sustainability nor leverage, accordingly never posed a global economic threat. In fact, the Soviet Union’s collapse was effectively a non-event as respects the global economy and global markets.
Analyst’s Note: For those that may say what about the Long Term Capital debacle? That was triggered by the “Russian” financial crisis in 1998, not the “Soviet Union” collapse in 1989.
Instead, the Soviet Union possessed a tired, dying, inwardly focused economy with no linkage to the global economy per se, except arms sales. The imbalance or better characterized as the dislocation between being a military superpower and a third world economy then became the principal reason for the Soviet Union collapse. It possessed no economic juice to fuel its ambitious geo-political plans.
The Chinese astutely learned that critical lesson and instead are seeking to achieve a healthy “superpower balance” on both major fronts, ironically leading with being a global economic superpower threat, and leveraging that to military superpowerdom. Evidence this principal focus on economic power, consider for example, the U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, reports the U.S. imported just $4.8 billion in goods from China in 1986. That exploded to an annual $288 billion in 2006, trending towards $325 billion for 2007. Couple that with both the huge manufacturing infrastructure that U.S. and western companies have either put or contracted in China, and China being overwhelming now the U.S. Treasury’s number one customer and lead purchaser of all U.S. debt, collectively provides a chilling conclusion. The U.S. is in rather lackadaisical fashion setting the stage to expose its economy, its lifeblood, to be taken hostage.
The magnitude of this impending crisis will only worsen with U.S./WEAST insatiable appetite and dependency on cheap (a collective function of tax/tariff inequities, artificially (non-float) undervalued Yuan, low cost labor and evident many recent news reports, poor product quality standards/controls) Chinese imports and manufacturing off-shoring growing by the day, as does the U.S. dependence on China disturbingly being its dominant creditor. On the latter, China is a close second behind Japan in aggregate U.S. debt purchased, but is now in real time, buying U.S. debt in absolute terms at a pace (amount) exceeding Japan. Case in point, the U.S. Treasury Report of June 21, 2007 used in House Budget hearings notes Japan’s U.S. purchased debt increased 97% between Jan. 2001 and April 2007 from $312 billion to $615 billion. This compared to China’s robust 573% increase for the same period from just $61.5 billion to $414 billion.
An additional note on the continued and seemingly encouraged exporting of the U.S. manufacturing base to China, which further fuels Commulism. Instead of pursuing responsible efforts to aggressively mitigate and/or cease it, the U.S. instead weakly continues a mindset to only further cushion the painful effects on the increasing numbers of displaced employees, and therefore a fait accompli that offshore manufacturing migration will continue. The October 2007 House legislation to “strengthen” the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program with H.R. 3920 – the Trade and Globalization Act of 2007 is disheartening in this regard as it arguably signals a further weakening in the U.S. employment base. The reason being that it reflects an effort to increase benefits to the growing legions of displaced workers rather than it or any other measure seeking to stem the reason for needing a TTA at all - manufacturing base outflow.
Rather than this “Tylenol-like action” to simply further dull the pain, Congressional action should instead be directed at fixing the disease – manufacturing base outflow. A contributing factor to all this being “non-competitive” free trade agreements around the world. In addition to other measures to be discussed in later parts of this series, these trade agreements deserve an immediate “re-look and re-engineer”, to promptly level the playing field for the U.S., particularly as respects a prized and precious resource - its workforce. Bottom line, “free” trade should not come with a heavy “cost” - U.S. jobs.