Balancing the Trade Deficit is our National Security

Believe it or not, most people under the age of 40 don't even know what the current account is, much less how dangerous carrying a deficit is to our personal safety and the safety of our country. The current account is very simply the difference between exports and imports into our country. In other words, when a country exports more than it imports, the country has a positive current account, or a net export. When its imports exceed its exports, the opposite is true.

Most people don't pay a lot of attention to where a good is produced, assembled and its parts originate. However, it is a massively important factor to the overall safety of a Nation. In fact, Bismarck was quoted as stating, "Free trade is the weapon of the strongest (Makers of Modern Strategy, from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age pg 223)." When a good is traded, or exported from the producing nation for payment, a number of crucial items are captured, most significantly 1. Greater Purchasing Power for their Currency, 2. Jobs, 3. Production Capacity, 4. Control of Natural Resources, 5. The Deflating of the Purchasing Countries Currency, 5. A General Tactical Strengthening of their Position in the world.

First, the purchase of a widget by a citizen of the United States from a foreign country, for our example Foreignland, causes a boost to the currency of Foreignland. This boost is caused because the US citizen is foregoing dollars for a good. Since that good was originated in a foreign country, the dollars received as payment are traded for the currency of Foreignland to compensate its workers, managers and profit margins. This trading of dollars for Foreignlandcurrency causes the demand for dollars to fall and the resulting demand for Foreignlandcurrency to rise. This causes an appreciation in the currency of Foreignland relative to the dollar and thus gives residents of Foreignland greater purchasing power for goods in dollars (real estate, automobiles, clothing or DVDs). In a functioning free market trade, the appreciation in the currency of Foreignland from goods sold to the United States would eventually lead to a reverse in the money flow as dollars become cheap and therefore the jobs, manufacturing, and goods would soon be produced in the United States as it is now more cost effective to build those goods in the US.

No big deal right? Right. Except, once a country enjoys the jobs, production capacity, control of natural resources, and general tactical strength over the purchasing country they are reluctant to allow the natural reversion to occur. Instead, the exporting country does everything in its power to hold its currency low, thus capturing all the dollars from the trade, as well as, the jobs, natural resources, and tactical strength. A perfect example is China. China refuses to allow their currency to appreciate by refusing to allow its currency to be freely traded or exported out of the country. China represses the market further by demanding that any import or foreign corporation be partnered with a Chinese firm with no less than 50% ownership in order to do business within the country. This is neither a dishonest or dishonorable action, it is statesmanship, albeit at the expense of industrialized countries such as the U.S..

That said, such behavior is not conducive to a free market. It creates a manipulated market with the majority of the societal rewards of trade favoring the country willing to assert itself. The sad reality is that the United States over the passed two decades has taken measured steps to eradicate any governmental regulation on trade so as to proliferate such results. Whether a naive pipe dream of free marketeers, a calculated manipulation by the upper 3% of the United States population to enrich themselves off of artificially under priced labor, or pure laziness this lack of oversight by the United States as an entity have allowed trade to hinder its citizens rather than enrich them.

Worst yet, because of the number of U.S. dollars the Chinese hold in reserve, China is a significant military threat to the United States and its empire. Twenty years ago, China had no capability to maneuver in the world, no economic might to purchase modern military technology, and was little more than a decentralized region of impoverished people. China certainly was not militarily ambitious or sophisticated enough to shoot down United States' satellites as a show of force (which happened in the summer of 2008). The enrichment from the dollars of U.S. citizens gave the Chinese this capability. The dollars have literally built a formidable threat on the global scene with its own identity, cares, interests and ambitions. With every additional dollar, they grow relatively stronger and the United States relatively weaker.

Jobs, are the second great benefit of being a net exporter. These jobs represent a standard of living and the general contentedness of a population. It is a given that a population without work is one which is without stability. Gandhi once stated that, "Violence occurs when there is wealth and no work." Many others have highlighted that there is a general tendency of the classes to war when the working class of that society is not sustainable in nature. The great growth of the United States from 1941-1990 was the result of a vibrant manufacturing base and an economy where those willing to work were always afforded that opportunity. Without the abundance and demand for work, a society will begin to destroy itself from within. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to state that the ability to import unilaterally into a country, is the ability to poison it.

An importing country becomes enslaved by the exporting country as its population is literally dependant on those imports so that they can resell them for industry (see article "The Float," http://commoncentsdg.blogspot.com) and consume them for their sustenance. The exporter, thus, has the capability to use their goods as a weapon to kill industries dependant on them. This type of attack by trade is an efficient means of asserting one's sovereignty as it devastates the morale of a target nation without having to spend military capital.

Production Capacity follows the same logic as jobs, except that it deals directly with materials instead of human capital. A country's ability to produce atrophies as its production dwindles. Very simply, when a country slows production it sheds equipment, factories, supplies and fixtures used to produce goods. Over a prolonged period, that shedding results in a lack of capacity to "ramp up" if necessary. Manufacturing is massively important in war as supplies and the ability to produce weapons, tanks, carriers and general supplies is a major factor in winning or losing. If a country forgoes capacity in times of peace, a great possibility exists that the lead time to ramp up for war becomes prohibitively long. Least we forget, the American automotive industry were the heroes of WWII as they answered the call of President Roosevelt to build sufficient planes and tanks to forge an attack against the Nazis.

It could not be more eloquently put than how Alexander Hamilton wrote it in his text book, Report on Manufacturers, the goal is to promote such manufactures....

" as will tend to render the United States independent of foreign nations for military and other essential supplies. [N]ot only the wealth but the independence and security of a country appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavor to possess within itself, all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense."

The general concept Hamilton proved was that free and unmanaged trade was a concept that only could succeed if someone was naive enough to believe war was no longer a real threat to the Nation. Economists and business leaders alike refuse to acknowledge this reality as it does not fit easily into their models of measuring profit and loss. Common sense nonetheless would assert that being conquered would trump any competing economic interest or argument asserted from that community. Thus, the balancing act between the benefits of trading between two parties of differing competitive advantages and protecting the soundness of the Nation is the operative standard of judging the best course of policy for a Nation.

Strangely enough, the father of free market capitalism, Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nationsmaintained,"the first duty of the sovereign was that of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies." As war was inherent in the understanding of any concept during the late 1700s, Smith was in favor of governmental regulation of international trade when that trade reached a level that was detrimental to the Nation's ability to protect itself in the world. It was Smith who said, "defense is of much more importance than opulence." After all, what is the point of trading if the end result is a net loss of its a Nation's sovereignty.

Control of Natural Resources is along the same lines of production capacity, but with respect to a specified class of items. Over the passed seven years the United States has experienced a tremendous run-up in the costs of natural resources. A significant reason for this run-up, aside from the speculation and margin buying by Wall Street (the reason for the 2007 commodity bubble), is the industrialization of third world countries. Countries, such as India, China, Vietnam and South Korea had very little demand for oil, gasoline, heating oil, lumber, steel and concrete in the past; however, now due to increased demand for goods produced in these countries a need has been created. This need combined with the general depreciation of the US dollar, as a result of being a net importer of goods, has sufficiently lowered the standard of living of Americans in that they must pay more for essential items leaving less discretionary income available.

Further, this flow of limited natural resources to net exporters to the United States puts the US at the mercy of such countries in a time of conflict or disaster as they control the flow of commodities. For example, how would the United States react if attacked by an independent sovereign and in need of natural resources such as oil, steel, sugar and rubber, but the costs associated with getting those goods was extremely expensive because of a demand in China. As a result, the United States looks to borrow or negotiate with the Chinese to acquire these items. In this example, assume the Chinese find an alliance with the attacking sovereignty more beneficial than one with the U.S. as the U.S. is vulnerable and without recourse. What would the United States do? Attack? No, we don't have the necessary resources to sustain such an attack. Maybe we could appeal to the business community who so profited off this trade arrangement, would they freely finance the war? Could they even if they wanted to?

Add all the above together and one can easily surmise why a net exporter will gain tactical advantage in the world. Net exporters very simply hold the power to destabilize the importing country from both the interior and the exterior. Eliminating social stability by devaluing the importing country's currency, eroding their substantive work force (substantive jobs are those that actually create a good, see The Float, on this blog), depleting their ability to acquire natural resources, reducing their capacity to wage war and capturing the importing country's reserves of currency all serve to empower the net exporter in the long run. These factors in addition to the forging of new trade and defense alliances with other sovereigns, as the net exporter grows in wealth and stature in the world, create an identity and ability to achieve its own ambitions.

Once strong enough, the United States can only appeal to the newly formed industrialized nation's sense of morality and fair play to achieve fair terms in dealings with them. This situation is the result of a comedy of errors by the stronger country to allow this situation to occur. During the strongest and most prolific years of the Roman Empire, independent sovereigns were reduced in stature to client states of the Roman Empire. These client states were strong enough to withstand their own populations from revolting and strong enough to withstand attacks from nomadic tribes , but never strong enough to pose a threat to the Empire itself. In exchange for surrendering their sovereignty, these client states received a better standard of living and support in protecting their lands from outside attackers. For the citizens of a client state being absorbed under the influence of Rome was a "good deal." They enjoyed peace, relatively stable commerce and a stable life. That said, ambition and ideas of becoming independent were not possible. Its not immoral or dishonest, it is responsible use of power for the greatest good of the citizens of the Empire. After all, isn't the entire point of government to provide a system and framework so that the citizens enjoy the greatest standard of living possible?

What about the "free market?" The answer is: what about it? Many simple citizens forget, or never understood, the free market is merely a mechanism of creating wealth and a standard of living for the citizens of a Sovereign. The free market provides no security to the citizens and clearly cannot exist without, at a minimum, the enforcement of criminal and property laws by the Sovereign. The Sovereignty of a nation is not subservient to a market, but rather the opposite is true. For without a Sovereign, the market cannot functionally exist. On this rationale, a market that serves to weaken and over time jeopardize the ability of that Sovereign to effectively maintain its ability to impose its will on the international scene is a market in need of adjustment for over time it will destroy itself by the same token.

Is the United States doomed? No. Strong leadership could reverse the current trend and restore its prowess in the world. The United States still can be the defining empire in the world, but strong statesmanship on behalf of its elected officials is necessary. Those officials must defy the urge to "do nothing" and allow the status quo to continue. Taking action would certainly force these officials to put the interests of America as a Nation in front of the interests of many powerful lobbyists who will invariably attempt to maintain this course of action. That said, officials must serve their country and citizens as a whole first. In acting in the best interest of the Nation, these officials will actually best serve those lobbyists as well, as their wishes are short-sighted and not sustainable in nature.

After all, the United States must act now while it still can sustain itself without importers. The United States should take back the wealth gifted to these countries by demanding fair ratio of 1:1 exports to imports. Trading partners who fail to abide by this standard must be punished. The U.S. must support this stance with the full might of its military if necessary. If this occurs, the United States will clearly stand once again as an unchallenged power able to achieve its own ends in the world, peace, charity and abundance.

Americans are Americans are Americans

Wage disparity, the slimming of the American middle class, the strengthening of the multinational corporation and the record breaking bonuses of CEOs are all occurring simultaneously in the United States. The threat of wealth redistribution and government intervention are topics that have become common place. Divergence in the media where Americans can choose their slant by switching the channel, but never get a straight answer is all that is available. Finally, a growing majority of America's youth who believe they shall not be able to achieve the socioeconomic status of their parents is significant.

How did this Country who banned together to win: two world wars, a four decade cold war for global supremacy, and the race to the moon become so demoralized? Where did the tough- nosed honest gumption of this population go? It wasn't long ago when an experiment comprised of anenmeshment of immigrants found a common purpose in the burgeoning of an industrial revolution and understood that together they could conquer any challenge. It was against this backdrop Henry Ford declared he "paid his workers well so they could afford to buy one of his cars." Every neighborhood was adorned by a corner market where a family could make a living serving their block as a local grocer. These were the days when doctors would make a house call, and one paid the bill with what he or she had in his or her wallet. Americans left their doors unlocked and finding work was attainable for those who were willing to work.

In these golden days, buying local and buying American was the standard, and foreign labor and outsiders were viewed with skepticism. These Americans believed in honesty, family and Country. This was the era where the boy with a work ethic and a dream could move from themail room of a company to becoming the CEO. People believed that hard work would lead to upward mobility in society. In these days, bankers let borrowers meet with them face to face, a worker knew the owner, and neighborhoods policed themselves.

America today is in transition. The ghosts of Marx and Schumpeter look over us with parsed lips and a wry smile in a gesture of "told you so." Prices and wages diverged throughout the 2000s culminating in a freezing of the credit markets. In the simplest description, trust between the classes seized in a long coming day of reckoning. If one acknowledges that credit is a bridge extended to someone in need of more money by someone, or some entity, that possesses it, than it becomes obvious why the credit markets seized. Those "without" no longer could afford their current course of consumption. Credit was extended to supplement this shortage, but soon, those "without" could no longer afford to service the necessary debt. Frankly speaking, the wages had fallen far too short of the prices of society. The culmination was $4.50/gallon gasoline and median home prices of $300,000 on an average household income with two working parents of under $45,000/year.

Now it is commonly acknowledged as fact that globalization caused the wage deflation, or at a minimum wage stagnation, in the United States (Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat, Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence, Common Cents, The Current Account Deficit and National Security). American companies became part of the "multinational" corporate model where labor was sought in an environment where a competitive advantage existed regardless of nationality. United States labor laws, environmental regulations, labor unions, and high corporate taxation cemented this outsourcing of labor. In addition, failure to enforce Anti-Trust laws allowed Corporations to reach a size that eliminated competition. An example isWalmart, who breaches contract law with suppliers, drives down wages by forcing competitors to close and subsidizes its low costs by paying wages so low that the workers are encouraged to accept Federal and State welfare for health care instead of the Company's group policy. Most intelligent business people refuse to supply, build or service companies of this size because such Goliaths slow pay and renegotiate contracts as a business practice and ultimately drive their business partners into insolvency.

So after all of the above, what conversation needs to take place? A one on one conversation, nationally televised without commercial, commentary or spin between an American CEO and an American worker. No government, no labor union, no chamber of commerce and no company delegates permitted. Like the doctor on a house call when it was time to settle the bill, business leader and worker need to see one another from a perspective of humanity. Just two brothers of Country, who have avoided one another, speaking only through third parties, for a significant period of time and act with malice despite forgetting how their relationship became so strained. The American worker needs to know what they can do to earn the trust of the American upper class. The American upper class needs to understand that regardless of why they have betrayed the trust of their Country when they chose to export the dignity of work overseas, they will be stronger once such a trend is reversed.

In having this conversation their should be no third party interference, as just in a sibling rivalry, such interference shall cause resentment and defensiveness on the party who feels outnumbered. The wealthy need to soften in resolve with the real needs of the worker and the worker needs to understand and respect the pressure facing the business. Picture it. Two people, who have grown to dislike one another and have refused to directly communicate for decades, locked in a room until they come to a mutually agreeable solution. A solution to bring the United States back into alignment. No longer should the youth be conditioned with a fear of being outsourced by fellow countrymen. No longer should the wealthy feel that those without are spoiled and not willing to work and earn their way to a point of financial security.

My suggestion is metaphorical, symbolic and allegorical; but, drives at the core of our current crisis of credit, unemployment, confidence and patriotism. There has been far too much taking in our culture and entirely too little giving. Giving of employment, giving of opportunity, giving of self and giving of dignity. Government cannot solve our situation without the agreement of those who are able to give these things. The cry of the wealthy that "if the government is to redistribute wealth they shall denounce their Country and take their capital and toys elsewhere" is understandable. Forcing a party to act never ends amicably. The cry of the working class of unfairness is counterproductive, for we need no further sleuthing for problems. We need a solution. A dialogue of how these parties can best participate together.

After all, their existence within the borders of this Country is symbiotic. The worker needs the wealthy for wages, the middle class needs the worker for advancement and the wealthy needs the middle class for sustenance of their situation.

Our Theory on Government's Role in Commerce

When Republicans are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites. When the Democrats are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites. While neither party will constructively work along side the party in power in fear that good government will lead to the reelection of their nemesis, American citizens drown in rhetoric and double speak from both parties about what good government looks like. Regardless of one's political affiliation, this blog attempts to engage readers with the logical, not partisan, discussion of what is necessary government involvement in commerce.

First, let us start with an irrefutable fact of the order of operations. Government is the first step in economic activity. Government is necessary to provide at a bare minimum: property rights, police protection, infrastructure and recognized mediums of exchange, or currency. Yes, I am aware that many anti-establishment Locke Liberals and libertarians would argue against the last two, but in our current developed state these two are enough established to be considered necessities of commerce (i.e. roads, electricity, water, etc.) They are essential because without any of them, commerce would subside as a matter of natural progression from its current state.

What levels of commerce would we have if one could take property from another by force? If there were no roads? If the electricity was not delivered? If agreements were not binding or valid? If we had to barter with goods to make a purchase? Certainly not an economy the size, strength and complexity as ours. Whether it is good or bad, it's where we are at.

So, the right question is not where government involvement should or should not be, but rather how far should government go? In a credit based economy, like ours, the government speaks for and develops the value of the assets in our economy (i.e. the government borrows notes from the Federal Reserve, or dollars, at a rate if interest in exchange for true "dollars" that the Fed holds as collateral along with all assets held within the Country). Oh by the way, for those of you conspiracy theorists, the same is done by many States with Motor Vehicles ( A state takes a manufacturers' "statement of origin" from the maker of the vehicle and in exchange delivers a "title," or license for use, and the ability of that vehicle to be used within that State through the process of registration. As a result, that State then issues a Driver's License so that it has jurisdiction over the driving patterns of the user thereby controlling the licensee, or "owner," to use that " registered motor vehicle" on their publicly owned streets and highways. But I digress.

The simple answer is that the proper role of government in commerce is the amount necessary for commerce to "work." By work, I mean that citizens can effectively participate in the money multiplier and achieve, or reasonably believe that they can achieve, their personal goals and happiness. This ability, or at a minimum the belief in this ability, allows the society to function in a peaceful manner as its citizens have an outlet to achieve there desires, or work. After all, and I recognize people who quote the Declaration of Independence as an authoritative document are annoying, the point of America is the right to "Life, Liberty andPursuit of Happiness," right. The key is for people to have the freedom of the pursuit, that's right THE PURSUIT, of happiness.

In closing, I recognize that the Declaration of Independence is not authoritative in nature. That said it carries persuasive authority into the intent of our Founders. Government's role in commerce is the creation and maintenance of channels for commerce so that Citizens can access and thrive in that system. The government is there to provide and maintain the artery, so that the heart, or private commerce, can pump blood and that blood can freely flow without blockage or interference. The artery must be maintained though, to maintain its shape so that blood doesn't spurt every where thereby killing the body; as well as, ensuring clear passage. Further, the artery is to be for the benefit of one's own body. Should the artery be ruptured, by outside attack or internal disruption, its integrity must be put back in tact to ensure survival of the being. That said, at no time shall the artery be altered outside its purpose of a conduit and shall never alter the course of which platelets cross its path.

Who is the Independent Party?

INTRODUCTION

To understand the independent vote, one should start by understanding who we exactly are. The difficult thing is that the independent vote is highly dynamic. We are principled, but ever changing. We have no representation so to speak and only seem to vote once our tolerance for poor and obtuse one-sided decisions of either party literally forces us to the polls to vote against them.

Independents are not joiners in general. The same independents who essentially were absent from the polls during the Clinton and Bush presidential campaigns (as indicated by the sub fifty percent turn out at the polls) are the same people who pushed the first black president into office and then turned around and elected a republican to the late Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts of all places. It is fair to say that the independents are non-fair weather voters. We are nonexistent so long as we feel that the parties are managing the Country in a competent manner in our abscence. Independents would rather spend their days focused on things closer to home. Things pertinent to their individual development and pursuit of happiness.

The independent voter may have a job or been laid off, be educated or not, or be wealthy or poor. That said, the independent voter is usually a "free rider" when it comes to governance. Much like the man or woman who watches PBS and never springs for a donation, independents expect good government without having to become involved. Whether too busy, overwhelmed, disinterested or maintaining a general sense that they cannot effectuate change through their vote, one won't find an independent asking for signatures on a petition or at a Tea Party. It is not their nature to make a raucous. After all, they are better off worrying about what they can control like working for a promotion, taking a vacation, watching their children play baseball or planning for retirement.

Even the actual term, independent, illuminates that their motivations highly elusive. Independents do not believe the rhetoric from either party and cannot understand of how Republicans and Democrats can be prisoners to their own ideology. The independent decides many issues on a case by case basis. They also believe that special interests such as bankers, unions, the NRA, Christian Coalitions, Big Business, Wall Street, AARP, trial attorneys, drug companies, physicians, Big Pharma, ACLU, etc. control Republicans and Democrats to the point that listening to their point of view is nothing more than rationalizations for paid for positions.

Fox News and CNN are intrigued by the motivations of independents because independents are the silent majority. The parties largely don't understand the independent vote because independents are difficult to poll due to their erradic involvement in the political process. A general nonchalance combined with the ability to determine an election makes evaluating the independent vote difficult not only in direction but also in potence. Indifference, emotion, revenge, personal attributes of candidates, life expierence, environment, economic status are just a few of the factors that influence whether and how independents vote.

Everything being even, independents vote based on American ideals and not talking points. These ideals are comon beliefs of Americans as a people before ideology attempts to define how best to achieve those ends. Many of the strongest positions of both parties are less relevant to independents. In reading the following chapters the focus will be to describe the essence of the independent. In summation, it is easier for one to define the independent by what we are not- absolute. Our brilliance is in our recognition of the nuance of good government, society and the human condition.