Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
R K

Sir James Goldsmith Prophesied Exactly What Happened

Recommended Posts

In Nov 1994 Sir James Goldsmith testified to the Senate on what would happen if they passed the (Uruguay) GATT round.

* Massive unemployment

* Massive offshoring of US and Western jobs (skilled and unskilled)

* Massive capital flows from where they were needed (US, Britain) to China

* Massive instabilities and social problems

* Massive trade imbalances

* Massive rise in global corporations profits exacerbating the problem further

* Instability of the banking system

He was correct.

Series of 3 (sound quality sometimes poor)

He gave an interview on his testimony in the following series of 5 videos covering the points in more detail.

These have been posted before but are worth revisiting given that exactly what he predicted would happen, has happened and far from being corrected is in fact simply being papered over. They are fundamental to the spurious and misguided arguments about the private/public sector imbalances which are but a symptom of the wider problem i.e. the impoverishment of ALL of us in the West and Britain and why it has come about and will continue precisely because of the economists' and their employers' arguments in favour of such a system.

Edited by Red Karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To parallel this, in a more natural and organic metaphor.

Osmosis.

Meh, get over it. We've had it pretty damn good for 300 years in the West.

What we need to do is to reintroduce a formalized class system, and start forcibly sending the under classes and poor back to work.

A nation where any kunt can take on massive loans is doomed to fail. N'est pas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough but does it matter anymore?

Lets try and make our way out of this mess , not wonder what might have been 15 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Nov 1994 Sir James Goldsmith testified to the Senate on what would happen if they passed the (Uruguay) GATT round.

* Massive unemployment

* Massive offshoring of US and Western jobs (skilled and unskilled)

* Massive capital flows from where they were needed (US, Britain) to China

* Massive instabilities and social problems

* Massive trade imbalances

* Massive rise in global corporations profits exacerbating the problem further

* Instability of the banking system

He was correct.

Series of 3 (sound quality sometimes poor)

He gave an interview on his testimony in the following series of 5 videos covering the points in more detail.

These have been posted before but are worth revisiting given that exactly what he predicted would happen, has happened and far from being corrected is in fact simply being papered over. They are fundamental to the spurious and misguided arguments about the private/public sector imbalances which are but a symptom of the wider problem i.e. the impoverishment of ALL of us in the West and Britain and why it has come about and will continue precisely because of the economists' and their employers' arguments in favour of such a system.

John Pilger's columns emphasise the role of globalisation as a conduit for the channeling of wealth to the global elites:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough but does it matter anymore?

Lets try and make our way out of this mess , not wonder what might have been 15 years ago.

Nothing quite like mass unemployment to bring down wages and make us more competitive. Perhaps we might then become attractive to the Chindians as a place to assemble things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Pilger's columns emphasise the role of globalisation as a conduit for the channeling of wealth to the global elites:

http://www.johnpilge...e.asp?partid=12

Thanks! I found this interesting page (I'll read further)

Global Impact - Inequality within countries

blackdot.gif1146943366218_0.11145516692217722.jpg It is not just inequalities between countries which have increased as a result of globalisation. Inequalities within countries have also increased, in the developing and developed worlds alike.

While some people have grown rich on the back of globalisation, others have found themselves worse off. And there is one thing which all commentators agree on: those most likely to suffer from globalisation are the poor.

Among industrialised nations, inequality has been most pronounced in those countries which have adopted the free trade agenda to the greatest extent. New Zealand, which liberalised its economy faster than any other industrialised nation during the 1980s, now has the highest rate of inequality.

In the UN's annual human poverty ratings, the USA holds bottom rank among the countries of the industrialised world, with 15.8% of the population calculated to be living in poverty. The UK is close behind it, with a 14.6% human poverty rating.

blackdot.gifInequality has become a key issue in many developing countries too. China is heralded as one of the great success stories of globalisation, and millions of its people have seen substantial rises in income and opportunity as a result of the country's liberalisation policies.

Yet as state industries have closed and social security has been cut, tens of millions of Chinese workers have joined the army of unemployed migrants who throng to the cities in search of work. Even after a targeted anti-poverty programme in 1991-94 had brought the number of rural poor back down to around 60 million, the Chinese government still identified rising income disparity as one of the key challenges facing the country in the years ahead.

Supporters of globalisation argue that those most exposed to the rigours of economic liberalisation are most likely to benefit from it. In China, indeed, the coastal regions most linked in to the global economy have shown far greater rates of economic growth than the inland provinces, where mass poverty remains high.

Yet those who have been most exposed to globalisation have also suffered from it the most. As the latest UN report on the world's 48 least developed countries reveals, the poorest nations have gone further than anyone in opening up their economies, and yet they have been driven deeper into poverty. Economic research indicates that rising inequality within countries is no coincidence, but an intrinsic feature of the liberalisation model itself.

blackdot.gifblackdot.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To parallel this, in a more natural and organic metaphor.

Osmosis.

Meh, get over it. We've had it pretty damn good for 300 years in the West.

What we need to do is to reintroduce a formalized class system, and start forcibly sending the under classes and poor back to work.

A nation where any kunt can take on massive loans is doomed to fail. N'est pas?

Yeh and lets bring back hanging, flogging and the workhouse. More retarded, emotionally stunted and economically illiterate

nonsense from HPC's loony fringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh and lets bring back hanging, flogging and the workhouse. More retarded, emotionally stunted and economically illiterate

nonsense from HPC's loony fringe.

Politicians keep repeating the mantra that the pace of globalisation is unstoppable, and that we must work with it.

Cui Bono? Sadly, most people don't ask this fundamental question.

Edited by Cicero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians keep repeating the mantra that the pace of globalisation is unstoppable, and that we must work with it.

Cui Bono? Sadly, most people don't ask this fundamental question.

Correct, they don't...I also don't get people on here who you would think would have a bit more savvy who seem to regard globalisation

as not only inevitable but desirable in its consequence of impoverishing (as they patronisingly say) "the sheeple" in this country: is that the future they really want..do they not have kids? Or are they just so smug that they believe that whilst everyone else is going to get screwed, they are so clever that they're gonna sail through it all untouched....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh and lets bring back hanging, flogging and the workhouse. More retarded, emotionally stunted and economically illiterate

nonsense from HPC's loony fringe.

I smell troll, but I'll bite.

First thing. Turn off your television.

Second, stop braying like some deranged donkey. Your bleeding heart is only going to stain the carpets.

Finally, have a think about what you are saying. Putting people to work does not mean we have to resort to the corporal punishment regime you speak of.

Sheesh. Where do you people come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian Hodge, Welsh banker - now dead - said that derivatives would bring the entire banking system to collapse about 10 years before it did. He warned his staff not to touch them.

A Welshman with "Staff" - you sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I smell troll, but I'll bite.

First thing. Turn off your television.

Second, stop braying like some deranged donkey. Your bleeding heart is only going to stain the carpets.

Finally, have a think about what you are saying. Putting people to work does not mean we have to resort to the corporal punishment regime you speak of.

Sheesh. Where do you people come from?

Why am I troll...because I disagree with you? Has it occured to you that there are so many unemployed because of the globalisation

that you so blithley accept: I know its hard for people like you to understand, but most people do not seek to become unemployed and live

on benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian Hodge, Welsh banker - now dead - said that derivatives would bring the entire banking system to collapse about 10 years before it did. He warned his staff not to touch them.

thats p!ss poor timing, he could have made a mint for his company during the blowoff period, didnt make alot of sense not to participate seeing as the system ultimately has to collapse anyway as everyone was doing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why am I troll...because I disagree with you? Has it occured to you that there are so many unemployed because of the globalisation

that you so blithley accept: I know its hard for people like you to understand, but most people do not seek to become unemployed and live

on benefits.

I don't think he said that at all. His point was (I think anyway) that everybody (not just the masses) have to accept it and get on with life. If that means forcibly moving people to where there is work (I agree a long shot) then we may have to do it. Tell me what the alternative is? Tariffs? Because that's all there really is unless you just say "OK we can't compete with shoe assembly but we can compete with growing our own food, clean energy, etc.". We need somebody to step forward, outside government, who knows what he's talking about, to be head of a thinktank for the next thirty years. His/her job would be to direct everything from EDUCATION upwards to get the country competing again. This is war-the economic kind. You can't uninvent globalisation anymore than banning the bomb. It's just there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats p!ss poor timing, he could have made a mint for his company during the blowoff period, didnt make alot of sense not to participate seeing as the system ultimately has to collapse anyway as everyone was doing them.

You sound like a man with a revolver pointed at his own skull, playing Russian roulette and believing that he is on a winning streak after the first click.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he said that at all. His point was (I think anyway) that everybody (not just the masses) have to accept it and get on with life. If that means forcibly moving people to where there is work (I agree a long shot) then we may have to do it. Tell me what the alternative is? Tariffs? Because that's all there really is unless you just say "OK we can't compete with shoe assembly but we can compete with growing our own food, clean energy, etc.". We need somebody to step forward, outside government, who knows what he's talking about, to be head of a thinktank for the next thirty years. His/her job would be to direct everything from EDUCATION upwards to get the country competing again. This is war-the economic kind. You can't uninvent globalisation anymore than banning the bomb. It's just there.

Your points are fair, but my view point is that globalisation ultimately benefits a small elite to a disproportionate degree, and

at huge social cost..its not a question of living with it...it needs to be addressed or it will at some point in the not too distant

future lead to catastrophic social and political collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like a man with a revolver pointed at his own skull, playing Russian roulette and believing that he is on a winning streak after the first click.

i dont think its a great analogy

a better one would be someone else pointing a revolver at your head and forcing you to play. As can be seen if its gonna blow anyway your best move is to make sure you catch the upside before you get shot

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not really a very good analogy

a better one would be someone else pointing a revolver at your head and forcing you to play. As can be seen if its gonna blow anyway your best move is to make sure you catch the upside before you get shot

It is the best I could come up with in the situation. I will try harder next time :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.