JFK: On The Issue Of Free Trade

[Terry Mauro]

In this video JFK attacks free trade, using the disaster befallen American farmers in the 1920's as an example of free trade. Not even a forced education by Papa Joe at the London School of Economics could rid JFK of the heritage of the American System. Who pushed Free Trade, who is famous for their devotion to Free Trade?---answer "The British Empire".

http://www.larouchepac.com/

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Interesting point. One of the things that Thy Will Be Done, the book about Rockefeller, Evangelism, the CIA and Oil does is trace a clear line of development from the death of JFK to the Passage of NAFTA.

Basically the authors argue that the assassination marked a radical shift in US policy towards Latin America, the key event being the Brazilian coup of 1964, in which Rockefeller and J.C. King were the key players. Under LBJ the US would basically use the CIA and its missionary links (Wycliffe Bible Translators) to undermine any government in Latin America that was considering any nationalization whatsoever,but also the "catch-up" policies of tariffs and import-substitution. These new economic policies gave US Corporations much more free reign in Latin America.

Later Nelson Rockefeller pushed the OAS as a means of asserting US Corporations dominance over the governments of Latin America. Rocky's buddy Adolph Berle told Latin America leaders at a conference in 1968 that they should accept the OAS as

a "subsitute for [uS controlled] empire":

His soluiton was even more startling: He called uppon the OAS to discuss Nelson's suggestion regarding

"huge deposits of oil and other resources udner the high seas of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico"

Governor Rockefeller has proposed that under common agreement thes resources be exploited for the

benefit of the capital-hungry American states her is a task par exccellence for the OAS....Some of the

revenues paid by oil companies, mostly US firms, would passed on to the OAS to finance its poicing and

other tasks in the hemisphere. Anothe chunk of oil royalties wiould be passed on to banks, again mostly

US banks to help pay for debt service. By then, foreign debts consudme 65 percent of Latin America's

foreign income and left OAS member countries in arrears averaging 10 percent. Such "extranational"

financing of the OAS woul also take financial pressure off member states to adopt protectionism in inter-

American trade. Banks with heavy loan performance in Latin America, including David Rockefeller's Chase,

would have little to gain by acurrency restircions of tariffs that stemmed the flow of capital or direct invest-

ment earnings from Latin America back to the United States. Free trade, it was argued, was the way to avid

tariff wars, declining trade, world economic depression and world wars. (p. 606-607)

More on this theme leading up to NAFTA tomorrow.

[Terry Mauro]

Interesting point. One of the things that Thy Will Be Done, the book about Rockefeller, Evangelism, the CIA and Oil does is trace a clear line of development from the death of JFK to the Passage of NAFTA.

Basically the authors argue that the assassination marked a radical shift in US policy towards Latin America, the key event being the Brazilian coup of 1964, in which Rockefeller and J.C. King were the key players. Under LBJ the US would basically use the CIA and its missionary links (Wycliffe Bible Translators) to undermine any government in Latin America that was considering any nationalization whatsoever,but also the "catch-up" policies of tariffs and import-substitution. These new economic policies gave US Corporations much more free reign in Latin America.

Later Nelson Rockefeller pushed the OAS as a means of asserting US Corporations dominance over the governments of Latin America. Rocky's buddy Adolph Berle told Latin America leaders at a conference in 1968 that they should accept the OAS as a "substitute for [uS controlled] empire":

His soluiton was even more startling: He called uppon the OAS to discuss Nelson's suggestion regarding

"huge deposits of oil and other resources udner the high seas of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico"

Governor Rockefeller has proposed that under common agreement thes resources be exploited for the

benefit of the capital-hungry American states her is a task par exccellence for the OAS....Some of the

revenues paid by oil companies, mostly US firms, would passed on to the OAS to finance its poicing and

other tasks in the hemisphere. Anothe chunk of oil royalties wiould be passed on to banks, again mostly

US banks to help pay for debt service. By then, foreign debts consudme 65 percent of Latin America's

foreign income and left OAS member countries in arrears averaging 10 percent. Such "extranational"

financing of the OAS woul also take financial pressure off member states to adopt protectionism in inter-

American trade. Banks with heavy loan performance in Latin America, including David Rockefeller's Chase,

would have little to gain by acurrency restircions of tariffs that stemmed the flow of capital or direct invest-

ment earnings from Latin America back to the United States. Free trade, it was argued, was the way to avid

tariff wars, declining trade, world economic depression and world wars. (p. 606-607)

More on this theme leading up to NAFTA tomorrow.

********************************************

"...the US would basically use the CIA and its missionary links (Wycliffe Bible Translators) to undermine any government in Latin America that was considering any nationalization..."

I really despise organized religious superstition.

Later Nelson Rockefeller pushed the OAS as a means of asserting US Corporations dominance over the governments of Latin America. Rocky's buddy Adolph Berle told Latin America leaders at a conference in 1968 that they should accept the OAS as a "subsitute for [uS controlled] empire":

His solution was even more startling: He called upon the OAS to discuss Nelson's suggestion regarding

"huge deposits of oil and other resources under the high seas of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico"

Zapata Oil, by any chance?

Governor Rockefeller has proposed that under common agreement these resources be exploited for the

benefit of the capital-hungry American states her is a task par excellence for the OAS....Some of the revenues paid by oil

companies, mostly US firms, would passed on to the OAS to finance its pricing and other tasks in the hemisphere. Another

chunk of oil royalties would be passed on to banks, again mostly US banks to help pay for debt service. By then, foreign

debts consumed 65 percent of Latin America's foreign income and left OAS member countries in arrears averaging 10 percent.

Such "extra-national" financing of the OAS would also take financial pressure off member states to adopt protectionism in inter-

American trade. Banks with heavy loan performance in Latin America, including David Rockefeller's Chase,

The REAL Fort Knox, located in Chase's main vaults in Maryland, not in Kentucky. There is no gold in Fort Knox, Kentucky.

would have little to gain by a currency restrictions of tariffs that stemmed the flow of capital or direct investment

earnings from Latin America back to the United States. Free trade, it was argued, was the way to avoid tariff wars, declining trade,

world economic depression and world wars. (p. 606-607)

Free Trade or Laissez Fair has aided and abetted the downfall of the U.S. economy, any time it has been implemented by the

fascistic conservative element whenever it takes control of the American Government, as it has in the past, and now, in the present.

Thanks for bringing these points to the forefront, Nathaniel.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And into the mouth of lions!

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.ph...rleans&st1=

170 - Address in New Orleans at the Opening of the New Dockside Terminal.

May 4, 1962

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in event that one is of the opinion that it will serve any purpose, then one can go to the New Orleans library and observe film of the Presidential motorcade driving through New Orleans.

May even give one a few ideas!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Terry Mauro]

And into the mouth of lions!

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.ph...rleans&st1=

170 - Address in New Orleans at the Opening of the New Dockside Terminal.

May 4, 1962

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in event that one is of the opinion that it will serve any purpose, then one can go to the New Orleans library and observe film of the Presidential motorcade driving through New Orleans.

May even give one a few ideas!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************************************************

The friends I knew in New Orleans really seemed to love JFK, and were proud of the banner they had strung across, Canal Street [was it? or Bourbon?] proclaiming a favorite greeting inherent to New Orleans, alone, "Where 'yat, Jack!"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And into the mouth of lions!

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.ph...rleans&st1=

170 - Address in New Orleans at the Opening of the New Dockside Terminal.

May 4, 1962

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in event that one is of the opinion that it will serve any purpose, then one can go to the New Orleans library and observe film of the Presidential motorcade driving through New Orleans.

May even give one a few ideas!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************************************************

The friends I knew in New Orleans really seemed to love JFK, and were proud of the banner they had strung across, Canal Street [was it? or Bourbon?] proclaiming a favorite greeting inherent to New Orleans, alone, "Where 'yat, Jack!"

Yes But!

The younger generation unfortunately was not the powerhouse of New Orleans.

Don't suppose that any of your "frineds" were in this grouping?

===============================================================================

Name: FOR AMERICA

Type Entity: Non-Profit Corporation or Co-op (Non-Louisiana)

Status: Not Active (Action by Secretary of State)

2008 Annual Report/Reinstatement form is required in order to reinstate Print Annual Report/Reinstatement Form For Filing

Mailing Address: 208 S LASALLE ST, CHICAGO, IL 60604

Domicile Address: 208 S LASALLE ST, CHICAGO, IL 60604

Principal Office: 208 S LASALLE ST, CHICAGO, IL 60604

Principal Bus. Est. in Louisiana:

Qualified: 07/14/1954

Registered Agent (Appointed 7/14/1954): CHARLES E. DUNBAR, JR., 321 ST. CHARLES, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

Registered Agent (Appointed 7/14/1954): SUMTER D. MARKS, JR., 321 ST CHARLES, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

Registered Agent (Appointed 7/14/1954): LOUIS B. CLAVERIE, 321 ST. CHARLES, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

-----------------------------------------------------

*For those who are new to the game, 321 st. Charles St. is the United Fruit Building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1920Uni...anyEntrance.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------

Name: VIGILANCE INCORPORATED

Type Entity: Non-Profit Corporation or Co-op (Non-Louisiana)

Status: Not Active (Action by Secretary of State)

2008 Annual Report/Reinstatement form is required in order to reinstate Print Annual Report/Reinstatement Form For Filing

Mailing Address: 100 W 10TH ST, WILMINGTON, DE 19801

Domicile Address: 100 W 10TH ST, WILMINGTON, DE 19801

Principal Office: 100 W 10TH ST, WILMINGTON, DE 19801

Qualified: 03/16/1951

Registered Agent (Appointed 3/16/1951): CHARLES E. DUNBAR, JR., 1300 HIBERNIA BLDG, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112

Registered Agent (Appointed 3/16/1951): SUMTER D. MARKS, JR., 1300 HIBERNIA BLDG, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112

Registered Agent (Appointed 3/16/1951): LOUIS B. CLAVERIE, 1300 HIBERNIA BLDG, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112

=================================================

Most will find a "familiar"/family name there.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

This post could have gone here or on the Larry Stern thread, but I think it is interesting in the context of honing our definition of the "free trade" which has a lot of ideological baggage, just as its supposed anty "protectionism" does.

I have seen for some time now a division between unilateralists--focussed more on china and Latin America and China-- and multi-latteralists focussed more on Europe and UN. Probably I picked this up from P.D. Scott, but I see a lot of it around.

In that context I found this article by Larry Stern very interesting, BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT JFK WAS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN INDUSTRIAL POLICY THAT HELPED THE "AEROSPACE AND MILITARY" INDUSTRIES ON THE ONE HAND, AND AN INDUSTRIAL POLICY THAT HELPED OTHER SECTORS OF THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY ON THE OTHER HAND.

--------------

-- JULY 6, 1963 Industrial Research Aid Stalls in Congress: Commerce Department Program Cut by Laurence Stern

Congress, which spends with a lavish hand for miltary and space research, is turning a deaf ear on an Administration

plea to stregnthen scientific know-how in the Nations's less glamorous civilian industrial sector.

In fact the House Appropriations Committee has all but signed a death warrant for a civilian industrial tech-

nology program that has been endorsed by the Presiden, as well as blue-ribbon panels of scintific and economic

advisors.

This grim condition of the new Department of Commerce program has been blamed on poor Congressional sales-

manshipm shrewd industry lobbying and the conservative temper of the House committee.

But the House committee, which slashed a 7.4 million dollar Administration request to $1 million last June 21,

never came to grips with the arguments by the President and his advisors in favor of the program.

Arguments for Aid

Chief salesman for more Federal aid to civilian industries is J. Herbert Holloman, Assistant Secretary of Commmerce

for Science and Technology. His argumen to Congress and to industry itself stands mainly on these grounds:

* Of the nations's 16-billion dollar outlay for research ad development, less than $4 billion is plowe into new

products and new industrial processes that contirbute to growth of the civilian economy. [the Civilian Economy

when was the last time you heard THAT phrase on CNN/]

* Other advanced industrial nations, such as those in the European Common market adn Japan, investa higher

proportion of thier research effort in the civilian economy. This leads to technical superiority on consumer

products and, and inevitably, a stornger export position in an increasingly competetive world market.

* Within the United States, the fruits of research are concentrated on a tiny minority of Corporations and

universities rather than beging distrubted broadly throught he economy. Thus, only 300 companies perform

90 per cent of all research and development in American manufacturing industries. Only 100 of our 2000

Colleges and universities carry out 95 per cent of all Federaly supported research.

Even President Kennedy, in his budget mesage to Congress this year, voiced his concern that in concentrationg on

space and military research, "we have paid a price by sharply limiting hte scarec scientific and engineering resources

available to the civilian sector of the economy"...... In his messge, the Presiden outlined a six-point program which

he said would "redress the balance in the use of scientific skills" between the military-space effort and the industries

serving civilian markets.

Among the President's proposals were a federal-State engineering extension service in the Nations' universities;

more tax-icentives for research by business firms; pilot programs of support for industrial research and encourgement

of more university training of industrial researchers.

It was with this background of Administration support that the Department of Commerce approached Congress last

year to get its fledglin program off the ground. (article continues on how Congress blocked it )

---------------

Those who wanted more spending on the space and military sector and less on the 'civilian economy' seem to be in favor of direct US intervention in Latin America and the Pacific to protect that investment. This woul eventually culminate in NAFTA, because these folks (most notably Nelson Rockefeller at his most illiberal) wanted to keep these markets open to US investment. But eventually this would necessitate opening the US to lower labor standsards, more cheap products and NAFTA.

What struck me as I read this Larry Stern article was the DIRECT DICHOTOMY THAT THE AUTHOR ESTABLISHES IN THE LEAD BETWEEN MILITARY GOV SPENDING VS GOV SPENDING IN THE "CIVILIAN ECONOMY" It is noreworthy that the latter phrase doesn't even exist today. Does this correspond with the change that P.D Scott describes as moving from the CFR to the American Security Council Worldview?

Also it was notworthy just how explicit JFK himselm states this dichotomy. Perhaps a little too clearly for his own health?

Also note that all of the bulleted points are in support of JFK's argument. I cannot immagine reading these pro "industrial policy" arguments in a mainstream american newspaper after 11/22/63

But also note the way that JFK establishes the dichotomy. Its is not really a question of Laissez faire vs. more gov. involvement. It is a quesiton of gov involvement to help the arms makers OR government involvement to help the bridge builders. One can't help thinking this could be a winner in 2008. Just one problem. Anyone saying it would get cut off TV well before Iowa!

[Terry Mauro]

This post could have gone here or on the Larry Stern thread, but I think it is interesting in the context of honing our definition of the "free trade" which has a lot of ideological baggage, just as its supposed anty "protectionism" does.

I have seen for some time now a division between unilateralists--focussed more on china and Latin America and China-- and multi-latteralists focussed more on Europe and UN. Probably I picked this up from P.D. Scott, but I see a lot of it around.

In that context I found this article by Larry Stern very interesting, BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT JFK WAS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN INDUSTRIAL POLICY THAT HELPED THE "AEROSPACE AND MILITARY" INDUSTRIES ON THE ONE HAND, AND AN INDUSTRIAL POLICY THAT HELPED OTHER SECTORS OF THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY ON THE OTHER HAND.

--------------

-- JULY 6, 1963 Industrial Research Aid Stalls in Congress: Commerce Department Program Cut by Laurence Stern

Congress, which spends with a lavish hand for miltary and space research, is turning a deaf ear on an Administration

plea to stregnthen scientific know-how in the Nations's less glamorous civilian industrial sector.

In fact the House Appropriations Committee has all but signed a death warrant for a civilian industrial tech-

nology program that has been endorsed by the Presiden, as well as blue-ribbon panels of scintific and economic

advisors.

This grim condition of the new Department of Commerce program has been blamed on poor Congressional sales-

manshipm shrewd industry lobbying and the conservative temper of the House committee.

But the House committee, which slashed a 7.4 million dollar Administration request to $1 million last June 21,

never came to grips with the arguments by the President and his advisors in favor of the program.

Arguments for Aid

Chief salesman for more Federal aid to civilian industries is J. Herbert Holloman, Assistant Secretary of Commmerce

for Science and Technology. His argumen to Congress and to industry itself stands mainly on these grounds:

* Of the nations's 16-billion dollar outlay for research ad development, less than $4 billion is plowe into new

products and new industrial processes that contirbute to growth of the civilian economy. [the Civilian Economy

when was the last time you heard THAT phrase on CNN/]

* Other advanced industrial nations, such as those in the European Common market adn Japan, investa higher

proportion of thier research effort in the civilian economy. This leads to technical superiority on consumer

products and, and inevitably, a stornger export position in an increasingly competetive world market.

* Within the United States, the fruits of research are concentrated on a tiny minority of Corporations and

universities rather than beging distrubted broadly throught he economy. Thus, only 300 companies perform

90 per cent of all research and development in American manufacturing industries. Only 100 of our 2000

Colleges and universities carry out 95 per cent of all Federaly supported research.

Even President Kennedy, in his budget mesage to Congress this year, voiced his concern that in concentrationg on

space and military research, "we have paid a price by sharply limiting hte scarec scientific and engineering resources

available to the civilian sector of the economy"...... In his messge, the Presiden outlined a six-point program which

he said would "redress the balance in the use of scientific skills" between the military-space effort and the industries

serving civilian markets.

Among the President's proposals were a federal-State engineering extension service in the Nations' universities;

more tax-icentives for research by business firms; pilot programs of support for industrial research and encourgement

of more university training of industrial researchers.

It was with this background of Administration support that the Department of Commerce approached Congress last

year to get its fledglin program off the ground. (article continues on how Congress blocked it )

---------------

Those who wanted more spending on the space and military sector and less on the 'civilian economy' seem to be in favor of direct US intervention in Latin America and the Pacific to protect that investment. This woul eventually culminate in NAFTA, because these folks (most notably Nelson Rockefeller at his most illiberal) wanted to keep these markets open to US investment. But eventually this would necessitate opening the US to lower labor standsards, more cheap products and NAFTA.

What struck me as I read this Larry Stern article was the DIRECT DICHOTOMY THAT THE AUTHOR ESTABLISHES IN THE LEAD BETWEEN MILITARY GOV SPENDING VS GOV SPENDING IN THE "CIVILIAN ECONOMY" It is noreworthy that the latter phrase doesn't even exist today. Does this correspond with the change that P.D Scott describes as moving from the CFR to the American Security Council Worldview?

Also it was notworthy just how explicit JFK himselm states this dichotomy. Perhaps a little too clearly for his own health?

Also note that all of the bulleted points are in support of JFK's argument. I cannot immagine reading these pro "industrial policy" arguments in a mainstream american newspaper after 11/22/63

But also note the way that JFK establishes the dichotomy. Its is not really a question of Laissez faire vs. more gov. involvement. It is a quesiton of gov involvement to help the arms makers OR government involvement to help the bridge builders. One can't help thinking this could be a winner in 2008. Just one problem. Anyone saying it would get cut off TV well before Iowa!

*********************************************

Thanks for bringing these points up, Nathaniel. You've got a good head on your shoulders. Keep vigilant because these are hard scrabble times we're facing here in this 21st Century. Remember, 11-22-63 happened for the specific reason of setting the groundwork for what we're being forced to live through right now, in the moment.

Arguments for Aid

Chief salesman for more Federal aid to civilian industries is J. Herbert Holloman, Assistant Secretary of Commmerce

for Science and Technology. His argumen to Congress and to industry itself stands mainly on these grounds:

* Of the nations's 16-billion dollar outlay for research and development, less than $4 billion is plowed into new

products and new industrial processes that contribute to growth of the civilian economy. [the Civilian Economy

when was the last time you heard THAT phrase on CNN]

* Other advanced industrial nations, such as those in the European Common market and Japan, invest a higher

proportion of their research effort in the civilian economy. This leads to technical superiority on consumer

products and, inevitably, a stronger export position in an increasingly competitive world market.

* Within the United States, the fruits of research are concentrated on a tiny minority of Corporations and

universities rather than being distributed broadly throughout he economy. Thus, only 300 companies perform

90 per cent of all research and development in American manufacturing industries. Only 100 of our 2000

Colleges and universities carry out 95 per cent of all Federally supported research.

Even President Kennedy, in his budget message to Congress this year, voiced his concern that in concentrationg on

space and military research, "we have paid a price by sharply limiting the scarce scientific and engineering resources

available to the civilian sector of the economy"...... In his message, the President outlined a six-point program which

he said would "redress the balance in the use of scientific skills" between the military-space effort and the industries

serving civilian markets.

Among the President's proposals were a federal-State engineering extension service in the Nations' universities;

more tax-incentives for research by business firms; pilot programs of support for industrial research and encouragement

of more university training of industrial researchers.

It was with this background of Administration support that the Department of Commerce approached Congress last

year to get its fledgling program off the ground. (article continues on how Congress blocked it )

---------------

Those who wanted more spending on the space and military sector and less on the 'civilian economy' seem to be in favor of direct US intervention in Latin America and the Pacific to protect that investment. This would eventually culminate in NAFTA, because these folks (most notably Nelson Rockefeller at his most il-liberal) wanted to keep these markets open to US investment. But eventually this would necessitate opening the US to lower labor standards, more cheap[ly made (My emphasis. T.M.)] products and NAFTA.

I just had to add that.

What struck me as I read this Larry Stern article was the DIRECT DICHOTOMY THAT THE AUTHOR ESTABLISHES IN THE LEAD BETWEEN MILITARY GOV SPENDING VS GOV SPENDING IN THE "CIVILIAN ECONOMY." It is noteworthy that the latter phrase doesn't even exist today. Does this correspond with the change that P.D. Scott describes as moving from the CFR to the American Security Council Worldview?

Also it was noteworthy just how explicit JFK himself states this dichotomy. Perhaps a little too clearly for his own health?

Absolutely!

Also, note that all of the bulleted points are in support of JFK's argument. I cannot imagine reading these pro "industrial policy" arguments in a mainstream American newspaper after 11/22/63.

And, most especially after the so-called "conservative revolution" coined by the neo-cons in 1994.

But, also note the way that JFK establishes the dichotomy. It is not really a question of Laissez Faire vs. more gov. involvement. It is a question of gov. involvement to help the arms makers OR government involvement to help the bridge builders. One can't help thinking this could be a winner in 2008. Just one problem. Anyone saying it, would get cut off TV, well before Iowa!

You're dead on the money, Nathan.