I [Heart] America's Trade Deficit!

by Don Boudreaux on March 30, 2008

in Balance of Payments, Myths and Fallacies, Trade

In his brilliant book, The Myth of the Rational Voter, my colleague (and EconLog‘s) Bryan Caplan identifies the “anti-foreign bias” as a major impediment to economic enlightenment.  That bias is real and ubiquitous — see, for example, this recent essay by Peter Morici at Forbes.com.

I sent the following letter in response to Mr. Morici’s essay:

Peter Morici unloads a riotous barrage of accusations against free trade: Free trade caused, among other misfortunes, the collapse of the market for adjustable-rate mortgages, excessively high CEO compensation, inflationary monetary policy, and Uncle Sam’s inexcusable bailout of Bear Stearns (“It’s Time To Cut The Trade Deficit,” March 26).  Mr. Morici, however, doesn’t explain how allowing consumers to take advantage of bargains from abroad caused these calamities.  He simply assumes it to be self-evident that America’s growing trade deficit proves that free trade triggers countless system-wide maladies.

Alas, Mr. Morici doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  America’s trade deficit represents capital flowing into the U.S.  True, some of this inflow finances Uncle Sam’s Eliot-Spitzer-party-like spending.  But that spending is caused by reckless politicians, not consumers.  Nearly all the rest of the trade deficit represents positive investments in America – investments that not only signal continued investor confidence in the U.S. economy but, more importantly, investments that finance R&D, product development, worker training, new firms, factory modernization, and other activities that promote economic growth.  Does Mr. Morici really think that such investments harm Americans?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

52 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 52 comments }

MikeB March 30, 2008 at 12:10 pm

This guy Morici is a real prize. He is actually on the faculty of the University of Maryland, I can't believe any school worth its salt would give a position someone so dead wrong on this issue.

Tim Worstall March 30, 2008 at 1:28 pm

You know what's really scary?

"former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission during the Clinton administration."

Eeek!

OregonGuy March 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Economic flat-worlders.

I had to stop watching Lou Dobbs when I heard him calling for the re-implementation of the "Corn Laws".

I don't think these "thinkers" realize how silly their arguments are. Or, that they've been attempted–to sad effect–before. I had an old guy, one day, describe this as the goose effect. "Every time they open their eyes, it's a brand new day."

Gooses. Geeses. They make a lot of noise, don't they?

Non March 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm

MikeB, I know how you feel. I react the same way when Boudreaux starts talking about immigration.

FreedomLover March 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Morici = Muirdiot? Possible? I think so.

Methinks March 30, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Why, yes, Freedomlover, Morici is a more readable but similarly incoherent Muirdiot. The bow-tie was a nice touch. I wonder if he realizes how much it makes him look like a "Wall Street rascal". Clearly, the tenure needs to be abandoned.

M. Hodak March 30, 2008 at 8:36 pm

This Maryland grad is quite embarrassed. We've come down a couple of notches since the loss of Julian Simon.

James Hanley March 30, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Lou Dobbs is an economic idiot, but at least he wasn't the Chief Economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission. I'm in agreement with Tim Worstall.

That a person with that background could be as foolish about basic economic ideas is mind-boggling. I may not be able to sleep tonight.

FreedomLover March 31, 2008 at 12:33 am

Methinks – credentials mean nothing to me. If a person wants to convince me of something they better be able to lay out all the facts on the table and construct a scientific argument that's 100% airtight. Credentials are for idol worshipers and getting hired.

andy March 31, 2008 at 6:47 am

The article is crap, the foreign investment obviously doesn't harm america. However, I still don't agree with Don's explanation:

America's trade deficit represents capital flowing into the U.S.

A man who is getting heavily indebted by buying a new car, new home, plasma TV, getting drunk every night, enjoying free time – is running a trade deficit. But: nobody would argue, that
- it is sustainable
- it represents an investment

The fallacy here is that inflow of credit doesn't equal investment. That might be mostly true if the 'deficit' was financed mainly by private individuals, even though they could make mistakes as well. However, huge amount of the trade deficit is financed by foreign central banks or state companies. I don't think you can claim that these people have incentives to put money into sound investments. Quite the opposite. Financing a drug addict is their official agenda.

LowcountryJoe March 31, 2008 at 7:13 am

Economic flat-worlders.

I had to stop watching Lou Dobbs when I heard him calling for the re-implementation of the "Corn Laws".

I don't think these "thinkers" realize how silly their arguments are. Or, that they've been attempted–to sad effect–before. I had an old guy, one day, describe this as the goose effect. "Every time they open their eyes, it's a brand new day."

Gooses. Geeses. They make a lot of noise, don't they?

Posted by: OregonGuy | Mar 30, 2008 2:56:29 PM

You're the one that just doesn't "get it" and is in denial, OregonGuy. Everyone knows that we trade with one another (outside our political boundaries) at our own peril: we trade to make ourselves worse off than we were before. Sheez, you would think that you free-market types could grasp this truism having been told so often.

[/sarcasm]

mnm March 31, 2008 at 7:59 am

A man who is getting heavily indebted by buying a new car, new home, plasma TV, getting drunk every night, enjoying free time – is running a trade deficit.

Posted by: andy

Technically, that's a budget deficit. The trade deficit is different.

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 8:21 am

Freedomlover: "If a person wants to convince me of something they better be able to lay out all the facts on the table."

Morici: "…productivity gains were hogged by executives at Wall Street banks…"

Morici: "China is perhaps the biggest renegade in the mugging of the American middle class. The U.S. has slashed tariffs on Chinese products from auto parts to TVs, while China maintains much higher tariffs…"

So, Freedomlover, are you saying that suddenly aggressive assertion is not an "acceptable" argument and the Chinese subsidizing our consumption is NOT bad? What's this upside down world you live in? Didn't you notice Morici's cool bow-tie?

andy March 31, 2008 at 8:40 am

mnm – no, it's both – budget AND trade deficit. If you get financing through equity and not debt, that would be trade deficit only. However, I doubt there is any fundamental difference – it cannot be called 'investment' in either case and it is not sustainable in either case.

If the US government runs a budget deficit and sells the bonds to foreigners, it is both budget deficit and trade deficit. And it is definitely not investment, unless you call destroying infrastructure in Iraq an 'investment'.

andy March 31, 2008 at 8:41 am

mnm – no, it's both – budget AND trade deficit. If you get financing through equity and not debt, that would be trade deficit only. However, I doubt there is any fundamental difference – it cannot be called 'investment' in either case and it is not sustainable in either case.

If the US government runs a budget deficit and sells the bonds to foreigners, it is both budget deficit and trade deficit. And it is definitely not investment, unless you call destroying infrastructure in

brian March 31, 2008 at 8:42 am

Technically, that's a budget deficit. The trade deficit is different.

No it's not. It's a trade deficit. A budget deficit would be if the man's government ran spent more than it took in. The man in his example is the country, not the government.

Even still, budget deficits cause trade deficits. Is Don B saying that budget deficits don't matter since they are offset by trade deficits? Yay for the Republicans' deficit spending! We don't care because the trade deficit will make up for it!

muirgeo March 31, 2008 at 9:02 am

That was an excellent summary of what has gone wrong with financial sector and a great explanation of how it's related to our trade deficit.

"You have to love Ben Bernanke's free trade capitalism. If you are an autoworker put out of work by Korean imports, he, as a good economist, tells you to go to school and find other work. If you are a New York banker caught paying yourself too much and run short of foreign investors to fleece, Ben will make you a loan and keep rolling until the bank finds a new game. "

BINGO!!!

It's claimed, " Mr. Morici, however, doesn't explain how allowing consumers to take advantage of bargains from abroad caused these calamities. "

No, actually he spelled it out very clearly. But a counter of his points were only attempted by taking the position that we need to just look at all the Capital inflowing to our country from our trade deficit..WHAT? Our economy is in a state of collapse only forestalled by a government bailout. The house is on fire and your wanting to show the neighbors all the nice new furniture you've bought?

"Alas, Mr. Morici doesn't know what he's talking about. America's trade deficit represents capital flowing into the U.S. True, some of this inflow finances Uncle Sam's Eliot-Spitzer-party-like spending. But that spending is caused by reckless politicians, not consumers."

Actually the trade deficit looks more like us exporting debt then Capital flowing in as confidence in our markets is plummeting and our lenders are wondering what to do with these pieces of paper we've given them to back up our purchase.

Blaming the problem on Eliot Spitzer and politicians while ignoring loans sharks, their securitized products and Wall Streets whines for socialism as their bubble burst is telling indeed. Wall Street.. what a dammed embarrassment to responsible children everywhere and to any thoughts of successful unregulated markets.

Likewise every post by the commenters here is inuendo or a pesonal attack. Absolutely nothing of substance to counter the points made by Morici. Not one significant rebuttal or explanation to sway my impression that we have a bankrupt economy run by a bankrupt philosophy….. oh but of course I must remember this doesn't represent a real free market. Only the cheap crap at Walmart is freemarket stuff. The debt and market collapse and government bailout that's Eliot Spitzers fault. LOL

Anyway thanks for pointing me to a great article I'll be sure to cite it whenever some one tries to tell me of the success of our "free trade" policies.

lowcountryjoe March 31, 2008 at 9:23 am

Bizzaro world: more consumer choice is equivalent to dictatorial corporatism. Congratulations on your understanding of an economy, Doctor Bellara.

vidyohs March 31, 2008 at 9:28 am

Here you go muirduck,

This is from a guy I know that was a political commissar in the old USSR, and is now currently living in the USA. He said it's the way they handled the problem back in the "bad old days".

Tax Rebate

This morning President Bush said each one of us would get a $600.00 tax
rebate. It was previously slated to be $800.00, but they dropped it to a
$600.00 tax rebate because of various budget problems.

Now, if we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China, if
we spend it on computers, most of the money will go to
Korea or India. If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to the Arabs
…..and none of these scenarios will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America …..so the only way to keep that
money here at home is to drink beer, gamble, or spend it on
prostitution. Currently it seems that these are the only businesses still
left in the U.S.

Whad-da ya think, muirduck, the guy has a pretty good head on his shoulders doncha think?

John Dewey March 31, 2008 at 9:51 am

brian: "Even still, budget deficits cause trade deficits."

How does a budget deficit "cause" a trade deficit? I don't see how the two are related.

A U.S. trade deficit arises when foreigners decide to use a portion of dollars gained in trade for some purpose other than purcahsing U.S. goods and services. Some, such as Toyota and Honda and Hyundai, use their dollars to build plants in the U.S. Some foreigners invest in U.S., real estate or equities of U.S. firms. Some, such as a few foreign governments, decide to purchase U.S. financial obligations, either private or government debt.

It is not the issuance of government debt that "causes" foreigners to not buy as much goods and services as the U.S. buys from them.

Sam Grove March 31, 2008 at 9:57 am

The U.S.'s financial woes are due solely to two things: government spending outside of constitutional mandates and monetary inflation. And not just from direct effects.

Any monies that private sector crooks make off with are relative chicken feed.

vidyohs March 31, 2008 at 9:59 am

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HQdFtrNc7I

is one man's idea of where our country is going.

Whatcha think?

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 10:06 am

Likewise every post by the commenters here is inuendo or a pesonal attack. Absolutely nothing of substance to counter the points made by Morici. – Muirdiot

That's right muirdiot, only you make substantive comments which can never ever be mistaken for stupidity or a personal attack. Muirpidities such as "derivatives are thievery" and "paper pushing Wall Street assholes, cocaine-addicted monkies, jerks" are just sheer genius analysis.

Mysteriously, though, you have no explanation for such muirpidities as:

Muirpid: But even the supposed independence of hedge funds is ridiculous when considering the many ties of their "products" (paper with varying claims of value) to the public treasury

what ties?

what products?

What are the claims and how do they vary?

what is the relationship of these mythical claims to treasury?

We are left with no explanation because idiocy, by definition, follows no logical path. It is no wonder, then, that Morici appeals to Muirdiot. Plus, the bow-tie….

Josh Nankivel March 31, 2008 at 10:53 am

What's the best source of data for further analysis as to what makes up the US capital account surplus? I'm keen to know if we can quantify what type of capital it is made of…how much is consumer products versus plant&equipment, etc.

If anyone knows, please email me at joshnankivel@gmail.com

Thanks!

Python March 31, 2008 at 10:59 am

Andy says to Muirgeo: "I don't get your logic. "

Welcome aboard Andy.

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 11:07 am

ah, Python. I see you're off the Vicodin now.

Deryl G March 31, 2008 at 11:07 am

Statist: "This happen because we don't have enough regulations."

Free-Marketers: "This happened because we have too many regulations."

Reality: People will always make mistakes and bad people will always try to take advantage of others. No system will change that.

I would argue that less regualtion is likely to give us the best results, but lets not pretend that there is some sort of utopia out there.

John Dewey March 31, 2008 at 11:12 am

Josh Nankivel: "What's the best source of data for further analysis as to what makes up the US capital account surplus?"

You can view the U.S. Balance of Payments accounts from 1960-2007 here.

Randy March 31, 2008 at 11:15 am

"Do you say that the problem could have been avoided if the regulators did regulate? THEY DID. They encouraged the behaviour." : Andy

Exactly. The purpose of regulation is to protect established interests at the expense of everyone else.

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 11:56 am

Deryl, I think most people here can point to a specific regulation and a specific unintended consequence. However, I don't think anyone here believes that complete deregulation will usher in a period of utopia. Rather, we accept that (as you put it): "People will always make mistakes and bad people will always try to take advantage of others. No system will change that." Since no system will change that, it seems silly to pay the price of regulation to pursue changing this reality.

Here's a link to an Op-Ed by Allan Meltzer about regulation. Seems timely for this thread.

Sam Grove March 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Andy says to Muirgeo: "I don't get your logic. "

Vastly different premises.

colson March 31, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Deryl G: You are right – what we would call a "utopia" is not what many people would think it is – in the economic argument sense, it is usually prefaced by a ceteris peribus assumption. I think this is often lost on those who oppose free market ideas when they are presented with an analogy or examples used to counter protectionist ideas.

"Free Marketeers" are generally for natural and organic markets. Maybe we should call ourselves "economic naturalists". We generally assume that there will be both "good" and "bad" in any given marketplace. We do not hide this point – failure does happen. But we realize there is nothing that can be done to buoy any given position without having, to borrow from Newton, an equal and opposite effect. The more you attempt to subvert natural economies, the greater the natural consequence will be.

Deryl G March 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Methinks adn colson-

To be clear, I'm a free-market advocate.

I don't think I did a good job of making my point, which is that just because one can find examples where bad thinks happened under a particular system does not mean that the system is "bad".

People seem to be claiming that the current situation with mortgages illustrates that markets need to be regulated. However, to expect to never have a bad outcome is ludicrous. Those calling for more regulation seem to think that if there are ever enough regulations there will be no more of these type of failures. The truth is that no matter what, occasionally there will be unfortunate events.

When statist claim this crisis is proof that free-markets don't work, the libertarians rush to the defense of capitalism and declare that this market is not free. While I agree that the market is not completely free, the implication seems to be that if it were really free that the crisis would not occur. It may be true that this particular problem would not have happened, but some other negative event would have occured.

So lets admit there isn't a perfect system, that mistakes will happen, but that more regulations won't "fix things. At best, more regulations will likely only cause different "failures", not stop them.

Randy March 31, 2008 at 12:56 pm

"Maybe we should call ourselves "economic naturalists" : Colson

That's good.

Sam Grove March 31, 2008 at 1:24 pm

While I agree that the market is not completely free, the implication seems to be that if it were really free that the crisis would not occur.

A problem with a regulatory system is that when inevitable problems occur, they are blamed by regulatory perfectionists on insufficient regulation.

This tends toward a virtual government takeover thus eventually putting all our fiscal eggs in one basket.

In a pluralistic, spontaneous market…a free market, problems tend to be more scattered, asystemic, and the costs more easily absorbed due to being relatively small scale. This also makes bad actors more easily identified and brought to accounts than under the alternative of a totalitarian market.

Sam Grove March 31, 2008 at 1:27 pm

'Perfect' is not a useful descriptive in critiquing the market.
'Optimum' is more useful in this regard.

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Deryl,

I thought you did a great job of making your point the first time. You had some pretty rock-solid logic.

"There is no perfect system" depends on how you define "perfection". I'm willing to trade the probability of suffering a negative outcome of my decisions for the freedom to make my own decisions. That's MY definition of perfection.

As for this particular crisis, I don't think it was a crisis until the Fed and Treasury stepped in. Before the government stepped in, it was a market adjusting to a new equilibrium. Home prices were coming down and the mortgages issued on them were also coming down in price to a new, lower equilibrium. As that happened, credit markets seized up – waiting to see what the new value of the collateral will be. The Fed and Treasury stepped in and prevented mortgages and real estate from trading at their new market prices. Knowing that the market has not reached equilibrium, lenders continued their freeze on lending and/or increased their credit spreads to reflect greater uncertainty about the real value of the underlying collateral. So, the Fed stepped up its lending, it extended to investment banks and hacked away at the interest rate – all in an effort to prevent trading and, thus, to prevent the market from reaching its new, lower equilibrium. As long as markets are out of equilibrium, it can be argued that they are in crisis. And the Fed and Treasury are busy preventing that equilibrium.

The current mortgage issues were not directly caused by regulation (although, in the Op-ed to which I posted a link, Meltzer believes that Basel II helped "fan the flames"). However, the Fed and Treasury are working overtime to make this a full-blown crisis.

I'm over-simplifying to some extent, and without intervention, the adjustment would have been deep and painful for the people who took the most risk. But the outcome would have been borne by those who took the risk and the credit markets would have returned to normal liquidity as market prices could be measured because there would have been transactions.

muirgeo March 31, 2008 at 1:41 pm

"Many of the greatest economic evils of our time are the fruits of risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. It is because particular individuals, fortunate in situation or in abilities, are able to take advantage of uncertainty and ignorance, and also because for the same reason big business is often a lottery, that great inequalities of wealth come about; and these same factors are also the cause of the unemployment of labour, or the disappointment of reasonable business expectations, and of the impairment of efficiency and production."

John Maynard Keynes

THE END OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE

Written in
(1926)

There will always be regulation. The key is to make it minimalist but effective. The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them.

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Your excellent cut and paste skills are noted, Muirpid. You get a gold star for the day.

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Keynes (quote-a-palooza

Thanks the implementation of the ideas Keynes expressed in the quotation Muirpid posted above…

"The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward." – John Maynard Keynes

So, it's a damn good thing that…

"In the long run we are all dead." – John Maynard Keynes

Marcus March 31, 2008 at 2:17 pm

muirgeo quoting "THE END OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE"

Have you read the whole thing muirgeo? Or are you simply quote mining progressive websites?

Why didn't you quote this part?

"The time has already come when each country needs a considered national policy about what size of population, whether larger or smaller than at present or the same, is most expedient. And having settled this policy, we must take steps to carry it into operation. The time may arrive a little later when the community as a whole must pay attention to the innate quality as well as to the mere numbers of its future members."

Can you say eugenics?

Sam Grove March 31, 2008 at 3:01 pm

British nobility has long exuded a certain disdain for those who acquire wealth via commercial effort.

The descendants of the conquerers share this disdain with the left.

Muirgeo,

Quoting Keynes around here is superfluous.
Backing your perspective with Keynes only reveals the source of your faulty economic perception.

Sam Grove March 31, 2008 at 3:06 pm

You might do better with Smith's observation that businessmen often gather to conspire against the public.

Of course you would seize upon that as validation of you prescription while we note that your prescription provides the means for business to effect their conspiracy.

Marcus March 31, 2008 at 3:20 pm

"The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them."
– Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 31, 2008 1:41:01 PM

Muirgeo, if government is going to pick winning and losing businesses it seems rather naive to me to expect businesses to not want to influence the choice.

Sam Grove March 31, 2008 at 3:38 pm

The biggest danger to effective regulation is allowing the regulated too near the process of making regulations and too near the process of enforcing them.

There is also the fact that a business represents real people with a legitimate interest in any legislation that may affect them. Muirgeo wishes to take away from citizens the opportunity to petition legislators merely because those citizens happen to be in business.

Then too, large corporations have many employees that may also have a stake in such legislation. Politicians actively court these voters with promises of transfers from taxpayers to the industry they work in.

What muirgeo proposes merely drives such influence into the background and totally disenfranchises those who don't have the position to play golf with politicians.

Think INCENTIVES, dude. Remove the incentives.

Marcus March 31, 2008 at 3:49 pm

That's well put Sam.

Chris March 31, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Andy –

Thanks for saying that concisely. A trade deficit, by itself, is neither good nor bad. But, a trade deficit where we trade future obligations for crap, however, is bad.

Can anybody (preferably somebody with an econ degree) tell me what would happen to the trade deficit if the US were to eliminate the budget deficit? Does it matter if that elimination happens due to tax increases or cutting spending?

FreedomLover March 31, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Methinks – trying to discuss this rationally with muirduck is like trying to deal with shit-slinging monkies in the jungle. It's an insane situation to begin with.

Methinks March 31, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Think INCENTIVES, dude. Remove the incentives. – Sam

Another beautifully written post, Sam. And again, Muirpid won't understand a word of it.

The only reason that Muirpid quotes Keynes is because he's a prominent 20th century economist who uses words that Muirpid likes but the implications of which he doesn't understand. He also quotes Hayek and proceeds to attribute totally new meaning to Hayek's words – usually the polar opposite of what Hayek meant.

John Maynard Keynes – by Milton Friedman:

"….As of this writing (1988), the status and influence of the book [General Theory]has changed. It continues to have a major influence on economic thinking and economic policy, and will long continue to do so, but for very different reasons and in a very different way than it did initially. The catalyst for the change was the inflation and stagflation of the 1970s. As Robert Lucas wrote in 1981, "Proponents of a class of models which promised 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 percent unemployment to a society willing to tolerate annual inflation rates of 4 to 5 percent have some explaining to do after a decade such as we have gone through [i.e., the 1970s, when inflation rose to 16 percent and unemployment to 8 percent in the United States, and to 30 percent and 6 percent in the U.K. Inflation rose as high as 25 percent in Japan and 7 percent in Germany, though unemployment remained relatively low]. A forecast error of this magnitude and central importance to policy has consequences, as well it should."

The only part Muirpid will get is: "It [ General Theory]continues to have a major influence on economic thinking and economic policy, and will long continue to do so…"

Muirpid will make certain to attribute this quote to Friedman but will never provide context.

Anonymous August 3, 2009 at 9:55 am

Look at Flint, Mich. What you are now seeing will become the norm in America. This picture is exactly what every America city will look like at some point in the near Future.

America is well on the road to becoming a third world Country thanks to the International Free Trade Advocates called The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which is totally controlled by the International Wealthy Jews who are hell bent on total destruction of American Middle Class and the Caucasian Race in anyway they can.

I hate to tell you, but they have gained total control of all the Top Federal Political Offices in America and they are well into their “CFR Agenda”.

I promise you America will be at WAR with IRAN very soon if IRAN does not back down on their efforts to create Nukes because Israel politicians have in recent days voiced a very strong note of alarm about an Iranian bomb.

If Israel determines that IRAN must be taken out, then so mote it be, because the Wealthy CFR JEWS are in total control of the American Government and I promise you Israel will always be given anything and everything they want. PERIOD.

The American People have been conned into voting for Republican and Democrats parties all their life. The CFR with all their money buys off and backs every CFR candidate of both parties so it real makes no difference which party you vote for you always get an American President who is a card carrying member of the secret “CFR Party”.

Ron Paul was the only 2008 Presidential Candidate that was not a member of the secret “CFR PARTY”. He was the Candidate that would have been our best American President. But, the American People was conned again by the CFR.

You are probably thinking that had John McCain been elected things would have turned out much differently.

I have bad news for you. John McCain is also a card carrying member of the CFR too, so things would have been exactly the same as with President Obama with a very few exceptions.

This really should not be a surprise because every America President has been a card carrying member of the CFR since it was founded by a few wealthy Jews in 1921. There was only one exception and that was John F. Kennedy and that is probable was one of the compelling reasons why he was assassinated by Lyndon B. Johnson another card carrying member of the CFR.

These CFR members are like Cock-Roaches they are everywhere. That‘s What happens well you have the Richest Private Club in the world and you control absolutely everything and everyone too.

President Obama and his CFR buddy McCain both wanted to transfer all of the best jobs off shore to China.

President Obama and his CFR buddy McCain both would not build a real concrete Wall on our Southern Border to stop the Illegal Aliens and Drug Pushers from invading our Country.

President Obama and his CFR buddy McCain both want to reward American Citizenship to every Illegal Alien and Drug Pusher for invading our great Country.

George Bush (the father), Bill Clinton, George Bush (the dummy), Barack Obama are all card carrying CFR members. Every CFR member all have the exact same “CFR Policies” and are all reading off the same CFR script.

The One thing you can always depend on is that the “CFR Agenda” is totally contrary to the best interest of all Americans and most especially to middle class working Americans.

That is why both parties look exactly alike because both parties have the exact same “CFR Agenda”.

So, if the American People keep voting for card carrying Members of the CFR you will keep getting the exact same “CFR Agenda”.

The “CFR Agenda” consists of total Destruction America’s middle class by transferring all the high paying jobs off shore to China and warmly greeting all Illegal Aliens who are crossing our Southern Border from Mexico to fill all the jobs that can not be moved off shore to $2/day slave labor in China. Then at some point our “CFR Congress” will reward all of the Illegal Aliens with American Citizenship.

They should all be tried for treason for sitting idly by and allowing Mexicans to invade of our southern border which is a violation of the American Constitution.

Then at the same time they have well over 200,000 Young American Soldiers stationed around the world being killed, guarding the borders of every other country in the world.

What you will find if the CFR continue getting their way, and all the America wealth is moved off shore to third world countries. Everyone will be very, very poor, including all the Americans too.

Remember if all the higher paying jobs are moved off shore to China and American does not manufacture anything it will soon become a third world country too.

Then the question becomes “what the hell are we doing to our great country?”

Why are we sitting idly by and letting the CFR do this to our great country?

Do you really think your grand-children will LOVE you for allowing the CFR destroy America?

Every Presidential Candidate in 2008 had exactly the same “CFR Agenda”, except RON PAUL. I promise you before this is over, you will wish you had voted RON PAUL for President.

The “CFR Agenda” is to eliminate the Majority Caucasian Control of America, then deliver voting control of America to all the Latinos of Mexico, Central and South America.

Then America will be replaced by the “North American Union” that will combine Mexico, United States and Canada into ONE COUNTRY without Country Borders.

Then the American Dollar currency will be replaced by the “AMERO Currency”.

Ours Young American Children will be forced to fight and die to satisfy anything Israel or the CFR Jew members wants.

You are now seeing the “Pot Smoking Generation” of the nineteen-sixties taking control of our Federal Government and they are running it right into the ground.

This all started when President Bill Clinton sided with the Republicans to push NAFTA and the WTO through congress in 1992 and 1993. Bill was handsomely rewarded for this dastardly deed with well over $109 million dollar speaking tour paid to him by these wealthy Jews right after he left office.

They couldn’t run a CHICKEN HOUSE let alone run a great country like America.

The nineteen-sixties was the American Generation where Sex, Drugs, Alcohol and Homosexuality was the norm, everything and anything was acceptable.

It sure looks like we have made God very angry and WE are now being forced too Reap the Whirlwind.

SO MOTE IT BE.

Previous post:

Next post: