Politics and Trade

RE: [spiers] Politics and Trade

John, you are getting out of control.


Martin Mendiola
305-445-2525
Martin@Mendiola.US


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [spiers] Politics and Trade
> From: "John Spiers"
> Date: Thu, February 16, 2006 12:16 pm
> To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
>
> Folks,
>
> This essay is long, so I've also attached it as a .pdf if you want to download
it...
>
> Politics and Trade
>
> Once you start trading internationally, discussing politics with people around
the world
> becomes part of the deal. Aristotle said for something to be interesting it
had to be different,
> and certainly foreigner's views are different. And crafting worthy views can
be a fun
> challenge too. Back in the 70’s people trading both with the People’s
Republic of China and
> Taiwan were obliged to carry two passports, one to present in Taiwan to the
Taiwan
> government and a different one to present to the communists, with each leery
of anyone
> trading with both. In this instance having two USA passports was allowed by
the US State
> Department, a different passport for each border. I recall being pressed in
Canton by one
> particularly rude young woman, who asked me directly if I traded with both
Taiwan and
> China. I wasn’t going to lie, so I said yes, which gave her the opportunity
to raise righteous
> indignation and begin a tirade. I cut her short by asking are not China and
Taiwan one
> country? (Certainly both Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China said so,
their argument
> was over who was the legitimate government of China.) When Chairman Mao said
Chinese
> should trade with the Americans, didn’t that mean Guizhou and Zhejiang and
Hebei and
> Taiwan and Sichuan and all of China? She considered this for a moment, and
then said my
> politics were very good.
>
> I wish that were true, for today President Bush says if we are not with him,
we are against
> him, possibly equating himself with He whom he quotes with that phrase, Jesus.
Now I don’t
> doubt at all President Bush believes he is called to do God’s will. Indeed,
we all are. I am
> confident that like every single other politician called to do God’s will, he
has flubbed the
> effort. Politicians are not prophets, and we err when we give honor and power
and credence
> due a prophet to a politician. In essence, this is the counter argument I
give my opposites
> overseas when they want to hear me critique the USA. I critique the universal
problem of
> giving politicians any power. And here, outside of say Switzerland, San
Marino, Singapore,
> Andorra, the Vatican, Iceland (they managed nearly 300 years without any
government
> whatsoever!) Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, etc., people all over the world give
their
> governments too much power, contrary to self-interest of the governed.
>
> The revolutionaries who formed the USA took the Greek and Roman experience,
with which
> they were quite familiar, and applied it to USA. The essential America is
conforming to what
> God recommended to Samuel in 1 Samuel 8-10, and as further informed by
Socrates, Jesus in
> his “render unto caesar...” formulation, the barons at Runnymede in 1215, and
the Spanish
> scholastics who argued for the right to revolution. Montesquieu’s separation
of powers meant
> to hobble government was the premier political thought in America, with Kant
taking it a step
> further, pointing out a natural conflict of interest with lawyers, as officers
of the court,
> serving in the legislative or executive branch. (How come that was left out
of the
> constitution!?) Drawing lessons from these centuries of history there were
three premises of
> the American revolution: that rights are God-given and inalienable, that
governments are
> formed to secure those rights, and lastly, we can overturn the government
which fails to
> secure those rights. The central fear was what Augustine identified in his
City of God, the
> libido dominandi or “lust for power” that captures most of us, but is
disastrous when
> leveraged with government power.
>
> With Rome as a model, the Jeffersonians saw the Constitution as a way for the
common man
> to be secure in his person and property as he pursued life, liberty and
happiness as in the
> earlier Roman republic. The Hamiltonians saw it as a way for the elite to
lead the nation to
> greatness as in the later Roman Empire. The tension between the two has
always been with
> us.
>
> George Washington in his farewell address warned of entangling alliances.
Cincinnati is
> named after George Washington, who, like the Roman Cincinnatus went back to
his farm after
> service, eschewing power for himself and his family. Admirable.
>
> But rules reflect weakness. George Washington had to make such an address,
because there
> was so much agitation for us to strive for “national greatness” by copying the
Europeans in
> the competition for empire. To do so the Hamiltonians needed the ability to
make war
> without the consent of congress and the ability to print currency without its
value constrained
> by money (gold historically), but each were contrary to the constitution, and
the American
> Revolution. In time they would get both.
>
> Indeed, USA is considered exceptional in its form of government and relative
freedom, with
> the people sovereign. George Bush does not represent USA, he is not our
“leader,” in the
> sense that so many countries see their top politician as “leader.” He
represents nobody. Bill
> Gates may represent Microsoft, but in no useful sense does the President
represent American
> citizens. Our president is merely the CEO of one branch of the federal
government, a branch
> ultimately under the congress, which represents the people to the federal
government, that
> strictly limited entity. Or so the theory goes.
>
> My view is probably just an opinion, but one with an orthodox pedigree in USA.
A pedigree
> that goes back at least as far as the Bush family, who have been here since
before
> revolutionary times as well as their progenitors, the Walkers and Prescotts.
Indeed they’ve
> been here quite a while, almost as long as the Spiers.
>
> Pre-Revolutionary Spiers were sailing merchants, landowners, slave owners.
Henry Spires
> (the spellings changed often before Webster and Johnson standardized spelling)
was given a
> land patent in Virginia for 100 acres by the King in 1744, and John Speirs got
600 acres 80
> years earlier. Our lines run back to Scotland, to Arundel and to Howard, duke
of Norfolk, thru
> Lawrence Washington, George’s elder half-brother. There is even a medieval
curse on the
> Spiers name, wherein no firstborn is ever male. Who cast the curse, why, or
how “no firstborn
> ever male” is much of a curse, all is forgotten. Spiers were wealthy and
active in the
> revolution, indeed, quite well-to-do financially until, at least in my line,
the fortune was
> wiped out in the stock market crash of 1929, before government policy caused
the
> depression. I have copies of family papers, reckonings after some slaves were
auctioned off,
> on Christmas eve, 1854. The reason we no longer have slaves is that word
“inalienable”
> associated with rights, which made inevitable the end of slavery in USA.
Whether Jefferson
> foresaw this effect downstream is debatable, but the fact is he wrote the
words and the words
> led to the end of slavery, the ultimate expression of libido dominandi.
>
> My grandfather is named Edward Howard Spiers (after the duke), and grandmother
a
> descendent of the Pope family, whose plantation is now the town of Pope’s
Creek, Virginia.
> And both my grandparents were Spiers, second cousins. As were, ahem, their
parents. All
> rather Pharaonic.
>
> When my father was de-mobbed from the navy in 1945 in Seattle, his father told
him to stay
> here, for fear my father would marry a cousin in Virginia. A dutiful son, my
father stayed in
> Seattle and married the Irish gal who handed him his walking papers at the
navy office. They
> were disconsolate back in Virginia that my father married a Catholic. “At
least she isn’t a
> Jew...” grandad wrote, philosophically.
>
> Privately this family history is no more important to me than the genealogy of
Gwyneth
> Paltrow. But it is terribly important to some family members who keep careful
track of it all.
> How else will my daughters assume their place in the Daughters of the American
Revolution?
> The genealogy must be exact. There is a certain entitlement that comes with
being of
> revolutionary stock, and we must not lose our patrimony through neglect. On
the other
> hand, if one had an ancestor executed by Berkeley during Bacon’s rebellion,
then perhaps
> anti-tyranny is in the blood.
>
> So both the Spiers and the Bushes go way back, and both know the history of
this country.
> And everyone makes a choice, Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian? As many have
observed, we honor
> Jeffersonian ideal, but we live in a Hamiltonian milieu, since the liberals
and conservatives in
> USA politics are both Hamiltonian. Both want “national greatness” which for
either is merely
> aesthetical differences in the exercise of libido dominandi.
>
> Conservatives want to intervene overseas, think Fallujah. Liberals want to
intervene
> domestically, think Waco. Moderates want to intervene everywhere. Think
Fallujah and Waco.
> They are all Hamiltonians, to a degree. Radicals want to intervene nowhere.
Think Monticello.
>
> The word radical stems from the word ‘root’ meaning the original and essential
part. I am
> radical.
>
> In pursuit of power, the political branch of the Bush family feels the need to
muddy their lines
> for public consumption. Hence the move to Texas, the ranches, cowboy boots,
and the oil
> industry. Our current president, Texan and methodist George Bush, was born in
New Haven,
> Connecticut. He is about as Texan as Hillary Clinton is a New Yorker. Another
Bush, the one
> who had Florida given to him, became a catholic, coincidentally very important
in a state with
> a huge Cuban voting bloc.
>
> The Kennedy's had to go the other way, putting on blue blood airs, attending
Harvard,
> seeking high government service when they are potato famine refugees, rum
runners at that.
> But since the Bushes are in power right now, I’ll pick on them.
>
> Our president’s grandfather saw no particular problem selling oil to the Nazis
in spite of the
> fact we were at war with Germany. Where he got caught Congress would seize the
assets. Five
> of the Bush family companies were seized by Congress in this manner. Congress
invoked the
> Trading with the Enemy Act and seized the Bush-Harriman-managed Thyssen entity
> Hamburg-American Line, under Vesting Order No. 126. Thereafter, under Order
No. 248, and
> then Vesting Order No. 259, and ultimately Vesting Order No. 261 various other
businesses
> were seized. None of this is secret, it is all in public records. There is
evidence there were
> more going on, which were not caught. A lot of pilots were shot down in WWII
in the Pacific.
> Extremely few had submarines dispatched to pick them up, as in the case of GHW
Bush. To
> this day the Bushes are co-investors with Osama bin Laden’s family. When
national greatness
> is at stake, there are no rules.
>
> The liberal side has nothing to crow about, Gore is no better than Bush when
it comes to
> trading with the enemy. The Al Gore family was backed by Armand Hammer whose
convict
> father was a founder of Communist Party USA, and who kept hard currency
flowing into
> Soviet Union so Stalin could keep the gulags going. Armand Hammer and was
given the
> Order of Lenin by Stalin. Check out the Gore’s zinc mine to see where his
money comes
> from, and what an enviro-disaster it is. (I can criticize Armand Hammer now
that his Museum
> no longer buys from me).
>
> Now clearly, I am no better than the Bushes, no worse. My grandfather was a
civil engineer, a
> surveyor, like his ancestor George Washington. My grandfather led the crew
that
> surreptitiously surveyed Panama so that when the USA stole it from Colombia,
we would be
> able to define precisely what we were stealing. If it were up to me each
school day,
> kindergarten through twelfth grade, would start with a good stiff drink for
each student. This
> policy would be no more bizarre than most other government policies. The
problem is the
> power, and having it to exercise. And the leverage being ‘government’ gives to
power. The
> American revolution was about limiting the power of the government to keep us
out of
> imperial adventures, foreign and domestic.
>
> Our soldiers are in Middle East because oil is there. The Bushes are in oil
because money and
> power is there. Savings and Loan scam? Count Jeb in. Big league sports? Buy
George jr. a
> team. The Bush oil company Zapata changed to fisheries when that seemed to be
important,
> then it became a dot.com during the dot.com boom. If the real money and power
was in ice
> cubes, then the Bushes would be there in a big way. And we’d be at war with
Greenland.
> We’d have a no-fly zone over Antarctica. Global warming would be a Republican
issue.
>
> Republicans have war on terror and painkillers, and democrats have war on
poverty and bad
> weather. Both cost the same, both are useless. And both are good for feeling
superior to the
> other. Bush promises freedom from terror. Gore promises better weather.
Both say big
> government will deliver. From them we get more terror and worse weather.
>
> Hamilton was very popular within that spectrum that was pro-centralization for
the purposes
> of pursuing national greatness. Like any movement, the American revolution
was 40% for
> and 40% against and 20% undecided. The political spectrum was as wide as any
time in
> history. The tension was very strong.
>
> The counterrevolutionaries, the Hamiltonians, know exactly what to do to
assume power, and
> it takes unconstrained “money” and the ability to make war without restraint.
Hamilton
> created the First Bank of the United States, so controversial that is was
given only a 20 year
> run. Jefferson resisted Hamilton. Eventually Aaron Burr shot and killed
Hamilton, this while
> Burr was President Jefferson’s Vice President of the United States. Perhaps
VP Dick Cheney is
> bringing back the good old days.
>
> Our legal history shows an evolution from the common law principle that if a
factory should
> open and make mom’s laundry dirty 30 miles a way, mom may complain to a judge
and the
> judge stops the factory and makes it pay for new clean sheets for mom. 800
years of
> common law and property law required the ruling. But in time the judges
started ruling for
> the factory, since the factory was more important than mom’s laundry, as a
part of the
> change in legal theory preceding and accommodating empire. Thus the polluting
of rivers,
> shoddy products, all sorts of mischief, attendant to and necessary for
imperialism, gained
> traction. The victory for imperialists came with Lincoln and the civil war,
ending the
> Jeffersonian ethic, or at least putting it into a deep sleep.
>
> The constitution limits the right to create gold and silver coins to the Mint,
but in 1913 in a
> legal fiction, congress created a private company (which reports to congress)
that controls
> currency, the paper stuff. The reason for this is everyone knows a government
cannot be
> trusted, ever, with control over money, so this legal fiction allowed the
imperialists a way
> around the objection. (In Hong Kong, private companies print and issue
competing
> currencies, not the government, the way it used to be in USA).
>
> By 1951 Truman could enter a war without a declaration by congress, by calling
it a police
> action. Congress still controls the purse strings, but the revolutionaries
assumed no standing
> army, ever. With a massive military in place, that military-industrial
complex which General
> Eisenhower named and warned us about in his farewell address, a president does
not need
> any stinkin’ congressman to go ahead and start a war. Commander-in-chief of a
million men
> and a year’s worth of supplies, we can be deep in the big money, obliged to
honor those
> who’ve already died, before congress can rally.
>
> So now we have an America capable of what the revolutionaries fought, that
Hamiltonian
> imperial power. The Bushes, as do the democrats, no matter who they run as
candidate,
> represent the Hamiltonian strain of USA politics. They are wrong, wielding
power gained
> from foreign entanglements and war. It is counter revolutionary to side with
with the
> Hamiltonians, and support the Bushes (or the Kerrys if he was in office).
>
> Imperial power ends. It always has. Whether Persian, Maurya, Greek, Roman,
Chinese,
> Moslem, Moghul, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Japanese or English, they all go
eventually.
> And when they do, those “homelands” revert to their natural state. Is Italy
despised now that
> it is no longer Imperial? Do tourists avoid Kyoto now? Is Patna miserable?
Will Los Angeles
> be uninteresting when we inevitably bring our troops home from the some 136
countries
> where we maintain a military presence (and not counting just marines as
embassy security)?
>
> So how to solve the problem, if you accept it is a problem? Live and work,
like the
> revolutionaries, as though our primary concerns were the good, the true and
the beautiful.
> Introduce products that will still be here in 200 years, like Keillor’s
Marmalade introduced in
> Dundee in 1797, during the height of British Imperial power. This is necessary
and sufficient.
> This is true of everyone self-employed, we who freely choose what field to
enter, then find
> ourselves obliged to closely follow in order to serve our customers. In this
way we may feel
> the urge of libido dominandi, but age quad agis, we can’t get around to acting
on the evil
> impulse. It is not enough for our constitution to be exceptional, we
Americans have to be
> exceptional too.
>
> Of course this is harder than simply picking up a gun and forcing others to do
you will, but in
> that measure it is harder is the measure it is the more persuasive. Instead
of Americans
> trying to become imperial masters, it is better that we model a better way for
the royalty try
> to become like us, by starting a small business. Princess Kinga von
Liechtenstein has started
> her own company, a fashion outfit. She could spend her life taking pleasure
in having others
> serve her, but she instead will serve others. She is doing her part to make
the world a better
> place.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Compete on Design!
>
> www.johnspiers.com

Bookmark this post --- Email this post