Economic Treason: A Conspiracy from Within

In the aftermath of 9/11, the greatest threat to our way of life is not a direct military or terroristic threat. It is an adversary that has managed to manipulate economics, and influence large, multinational corporations. Surviving in a Global Economy is not as easy as it looks, even for the last Super Power, or so it seems. Are we really a large, unwitting victim that has been duped into these grossly one-sided trade arrangements? Or have we simply not been good stewards of the US economy. While predatory trade & economic tactics, and economic espionage have existed for centuries; the overwhelming evidence suggests that the US did not take the necessary actions to prevent the economic crisis that devastated entire business sectors. Nothing is in place to protect our economy from external predatory economic tactics and trade warfare. Why was there no real attempt to assert trade measures when huge trade deficits have been racked up year after year with no end in sight? Who is profiting while literally millions of Americans struggle for financial survival? Either we do not have the political will to protect our economic independence, or the influence of international business interests at both state and federal government levels has rendered our economy completely vulnerable.

In addition, emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia each accumulating hundreds of billions US Dollars in cash reserves, and governments that are straining to keep up with their rapidly growing capitalist economies. The harshest reality that we have to come to terms with is that we have to change our rules of engagement when it comes to global markets and economics, and the corporate push for globalization. As a nation with the most powerful military on the planet, our most exposed target and greatest vulnerability as a nation, is our economy. Consequently, a sophisticated enemy will never expose themselves to our military might. Instead, they will most likely strike at our economy by using our own open markets against us, while ensuring our full cooperation and support.

[N]ations knew, as well as [ourselves], what we meant by “free trade” was nothing more nor less than, by means of the great advantage we enjoyed, to get a monopoly of all their markets for our manufactures, and to prevent them, one and all, from ever becoming manufacturing nations.

– quote from an unknown British leader shortly after the War of 1812

The 21^st Century has presented the US with challenges that we have not seen before, and have not yet prepared. New economic forces, like China and the EU, have come onto the scene and changed both the geo-political and world economic landscapes. In addition, international opinion and influence have been felt in the most recent 2004 presidential election, unlike any presidential election in the past. The international community and the UN have sought an influence in determining the US leadership, and have pursued a campaign of vilification to undermine the re-election of President Bush. Most people are familiar with the concept of predatory economics as a pricing tactic that companies will use to undermine a competitor in a given market, or even attempt to drive the competitor out of business. On a macro level, countries act very much like businesses and rely on the same tactics on a much larger scale to help their businesses gain a foothold in new foreign markets. In international trading terms, this tactic is commonly known as “dumping”, which is a practice typically used to overwhelm a competing domestic manufacturer/supplier that simply can not match the prices.

In many cases, these foreign competitors are supported by their governments using both financial resources and covert intelligence resources to conduct economic espionage, stealing trade secrets and business strategies from unsuspecting businesses.

Treason by definition: [1] the betrayal of trust, [2] the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or [3] to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family.¹
But in a free market-based democracy, where the "injury" can in fact be measured by substantial economic losses, and gross disregard for the general welfare of the millions of Americans, then we can reasonably examine the material impact of predatory trade and economic tactics, performed in collusion with foreign entities, that are directed at and result in undermining both the economic foundation and the economic independence of our society.

Not surprisingly, the global free trade movement has given rise to “plunder by trade” tactics, and a new age of mercantilism. Under the guise of globalization, we have seen the advance of multinational companies in developing countries that do little to prevent the growing problem of forced labor among women and children, a modern form of slavery, to meet the continuing demand for new sources of cheap labor. Somehow, we have rationalized ourselves to the point where we are convinced that exploitation of women and children is not our responsibility if it occurs outside the US, even while we knowingly purchase the products that keep them enslaved. The US economy is now in the middle of a geo-political and geo-economic crossfire, and a new world economic order is now taking shape. The information I present is all based on current research and actual events.

The question I ask is, why has US federal government not taken any steps to prevent further trade deficits from crippling an economy that is already vulnerable? No economy can survive such a vast trade imbalance for long periods.

Widespread national guilt, self-loathing, terminal apathy and decades of global stewardship have created the conditions for a perfect economic storm in the US. A storm whose effects ravaged a once strong economy, and whose reverberations have been felt from coast to coast, throughout the Midwest and down to Texas. The steady decline of the dollar against other world currencies is creating a fear among the economists that know how important foreign investment has been to the US economy. When and if foreign investors decide to abandon the dollar for a stronger currency, such as the Euro, another potentially devastating sell-off, in both US equities and currency, is a very real possibility.

The more I evaluated that various cause and effect issues, like terrorist strikes on economic targets and factoring currency valuation fluctuations, the more apparent it became that the normal laws of capitalism and economics are not being allowed to follow their normal course. The most flagrant offender is China with red hot economic growth and a restrained valuation of their Yuan, which make Chinese products artificially cheaper in the US market, even after much of the US manufacturing base has evaporated. After more than ten years of this predatory trading tactic, which used to be called “dumping”, it is safe to say that government trade regulators have fallen asleep at the wheel. Any trade policy that requires sustaining a growing trade deficit for a future trade payoff that takes more than 10 years to materialize is a bad bet that mortgages the future for an uncertain payoff.

Failing Economics 101: Surviving in a Global Economy for Dummies.

The US is failing in some of the most basic trade dynamics that really have not changed much over time. In the past, when the US recognized that a trading partner was dumping goods in the US market to undermine local manufacturers, then tariffs and penalties were promptly applied to the imported goods. Over the last ten years the rules of engagement have changed. Now companies like Walmart have partnered with Chinese manufacturers to produce products for the US market that are virtually unaffected by any trade restrictions. And trade levels have steadily increased regardless of the economic impact on US manufacturers and jobs. It is hard to imagine that so many that have prospered while enjoying the freedoms of the US have compromised our economy and security for a future payout in Asia without reservation or regard for the future of our children. The communists in China, who are laughing all the way to the bank, can and will point this out as a fundamental flaw in our capitalist democracy that allows such trade arrangements to place our own national economy is such a weakened state. The absolute and irrevocable problem with globalization is that it undermines our normal and healthy instincts as a nation to protect our economy.

When we lower our defenses by allowing multi-national corporations to influence, and in some cases determine, our trade and immigration policies, at that point we have surrendered our national sovereignty to the whim of multinational corporations. The inevitable effect is economic suicide. History will reflect on this era as the “soulless period of capitalism”. A period where the rise of global trade also saw a related increased in the level of slave labor in third world countries.

The last several years have been a painful reminder to the average American that global economics and global politics are hopelessly interconnected. The current and newly developing economic superpowers, the EU, US and China, are all competing for economic prosperity. I originally wanted to entitle my article, “Surviving in a Global Economy for Dummies” because it seemed that so many of these economic principals were self-evident, and yet provided another example where we as a country pursued a self-masticating economic policy. As we consume our own vital manufacturing base, and supporting jobs, in the interest of free trade and for this foolhardy notion of future access to a vast consumer base in Asia, we are quickly finding ourselves in a position where we will not be able to produce the products that these newfound consumers are demanding. Even the bold-faced optimists have to admit that moving to a global economy looked much better on paper. If you can imagine, arguably the most powerful nation on the earth needs a basic survival guide when navigating the treacherous waters of global trade.

To understand the dynamics at work you need to understand the history of economic rivalries between countries, and the emergence of predatory economics which started with the early forms of mercantilism. The fact of the matter is that a military superpower, with a weakened economy, is no match for an economic superpower with bad intentions. The US is virtually unbeatable as a military superpower; however the economy is another question entirely. Our open free market system can easily be used against us. Once the US economy is fully engaged in, and dependent on, global free trade, we are no longer in control of our own destiny. Therein lies our dilemma, it is not so much a matter of thriving in a global economy as it is a matter of surviving in a global economy. Before we can begin to realize the economic benefits of globalization, I have identified seven(7) simple rules that will determine our fate as we attempt to compete with countries that offer a seemingly endless supply of cheap labor, and very little regard for the human condition.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. was the world's leading export powerhouse and ran a substantial trade surplus, of about one percent of Gross Domestic Product. The U.S. also benefited initially from strong export demand in a wide range of industries, from low-tech textiles and apparel to sophisticated aircraft and machine tools. Since the 1970s the U.S. moved from a trade surplus to a deficit position, as Europe and Japan began to compete effectively with the U.S. in a range of industries. There are many ways in which trade has injured U.S. workers since then. First, deterioration in the trade balance (the difference between exports, which create jobs, and imports, which eliminate domestic employment) has reduced employment, especially in manufacturing and other industries producing traded goods.

The trade surplus of the 1960s was transformed into a deficit that reached 2.9% of GDP in 1998. This deficit will grow rapidly in the future as a result of the continuing global financial crisis. Although financial markets are beginning to recover throughout the world, the real economies of many developing countries and Japan remain mired in recessions. For example, reliable private sector reports show that unemployment in Sao Paulo, Brazil currently exceeds 20%.

The growth in the trade deficit over the past two decades has destroyed millions of high-wage, high skilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and pushed workers into other sectors where wages are lower, such as restaurants and health service industries. The EPI forecasts that the Asia Crisis would lead to the elimination of one million jobs in the U.S., with most of the losses concentrated in the manufacturing sectors of the economy (Scott and Rothstein 1998). These job losses have begun to materialize, despite the continuing boom in the rest of the economy. The U.S. has lost nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs since March of 1998, due to the impact of the rising trade deficit.

With no restrictions on movements of labor or capital, each tends to flow to any host country where wages or returns are higher than at home. During the eighties laborers migrated to western Europe from eastern Europe, southern Europe, and Turkey, and to the Arab Gulf states from Africa and southern Asia because of higher wages. Capital migrated to the United States because of higher returns. The U.S. stock market's annual appreciation of over 15 percent (not counting dividends) was exceeded among the major Western industrial countries only by the Japanese stock market's rise of nearly 20 percent. In comparison, average stock market increases were 5 percent in Canada, about 11 percent in France, 12 percent in Germany, 14 percent in Italy, and 12 percent in the United Kingdom

The WTO: Where Global Politics and Global Economics Collide

At the same time, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has entered the scene to provide an international oversight body to manage trade disputes between WTO member countries, and can impose sanctions on member countries that have been found guilty of violating the WTO trade policies. The US is now target of such a trade penalty as authorized by the WTO in 2004. Critics of the WTO allege that the organization is undemocratic and that its negotiation sessions lack transparency as they happen behind closed doors. They argue that community groups affected by these decisions are not allowed to participate. Moreover, these critics argue that multinational corporations have undue influence in a process designed to serve their interests.

Proponents respond that the WTO is as democratic as its member country governments. The WTO only enforces existing agreements that have already been ratified by these governments. While meetings may not be open to the public, government representatives conduct negotiations. The dispute resolution panels are appointed rather than elected, but the governments of both parties to the dispute must approve their members. Corporations, on the other hand, are afforded no special role in the decision-making process. WTO defenders reject the notion that state sovereignty is jeopardized by the organization. Ultimately, the decisions made by the WTO are not binding on member states. A state still retains policy autonomy and can enact any regulations it chooses; the WTO simply stipulates that those states injured by the policy can respond in kind.

The position taken by WTO proponents seems rather odd. On the one hand, they argue that the WTO is simply an extension of the domestic political processes of its member governments. Yet, the point of the body is to change outcomes in a way that ensures more open international trade. Clearly, the domestic politics of trade policy have been altered in some important way.

The WTO and its defenders argue that it is democratic because all countries officially have one vote and decisions are usually made by what they call "consensus." In practice, however, votes are almost never taken. Rather, the U.S. and other major powers work with the WTO Director General to broker "Green Room" decisions in secret among small, handpicked caucuses of compliant countries. They then present the results as faits accomplis to the other member countries. At the Seattle Ministerial in 1999, such longstanding practices finally ignited a revolt by some less-developed countries and ultimately led to the failure to launch a new round of trade negotiations.

A Brief History of the WTO

1947
Having already established the International Monetary Fund and the precursor to the World Bank, the United States and its allies create the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to bolster free trade. GATT is intended to be a stopgap measure on the way to forming the International Trade Organization.

1948
Twenty-three countries ratify GATT. It is formally established in Geneva.

1950
The U.S. Congress refuses to ratify a treaty establishing the International Trade Organization. Although some 50 countries ratify the ITO's charter, the project dies, giving GATT a de facto extension from its provisional nature.

1986
An important round of discussions begins in Punta del Este, Uruguay, as ministers agree to a new negotiating agenda, including discussions on extending GATT's trading system to cover trade in services and intellectual property. The Uruguay Round results in the largest negotiating mandate on trade ever completed.

1994
After several ministerial meetings, GATT members continue to negotiate trading rules in areas such as agriculture, services and market access. Members debate the creation of a new institution to take on trade decisions on a more permanent basis. Ministers from most of the 125 governments participating in GATT sign a deal in April that creates the World Trade Organization -- a group with its own secretariat and the ability to make permanent commitments. All previous commitments under GATT had been applied on a provisional basis.

1995
The World Trade Organization begins to operate, based in Geneva, Switzerland. Central to the organization's operation is a 1994 amended version of GATT updated to include areas such as intellectual property.

1997
WTO members discuss telecommunications issues at a meeting in February, with 69 governments agreeing to liberalization measures. Later in the year, 40 governments negotiate for tariff-free trade of information technology products and 70 governments finish a financial services deal.

1999
Delegates at a December summit of the WTO in Seattle fail to begin a new series of trade negotiations. Many blame the disintegration of the talks on massive protests outside the conference, as well as strong divisions between industrialized and developing nations. Issues such as agriculture subsidies, the environment, intellectual property, labor standards and the WTO's membership remain unresolved. Thirty-one governments, including the People's Republic of China, continue to wait for consideration for WTO membership.

2000
WTO issues several reports and rules on a number of international disputes involving both developing and industrialized countries, over such issues as patent protection and steel dumping. Steps are also taken toward China's membership, which relies greatly on trade normalization between China and the United States. Five other countries are granted membership, bringing WTO membership to 140.

2001
The Fourth Ministerial Conference is held in Doha, Qatar, where China is admitted as the 143rd member of the WTO, despite controversy surrounding its human rights record. At the conference, the United States, Europe and Japan are pressured to remove domestic protections for their agricultural industries in order to facilitate the economies of many developing countries. Also during the conference, the United States blocks a proposal to help developing countries buy cheap drugs to fight AIDS and other diseases.

2002
The WTO fields complaints from eight members against the United States concerning steel dumping and protections. Verdicts on the steel dispute are issued over 2002 and 2003, but are either ignored or appealed. The European Union, one of the lead members in the complaints against the United States, threatens to increase tariffs on U.S. imports.

2003
Developing and industrialized nations remain far apart on many key trade issues heading into the WTO's Fifth Ministerial Conference in September 2003. Fears that the conference in Cancun will fail to bring about new agreements are somewhat allayed when WTO members iron out a last-minute compromise measure allowing poor countries to override patent rules and import cheap drugs to fight diseases like AIDS and malaria.

n By Chris Nammour, Online NewsHour

Smaller and poorer countries cannot afford to maintain the representatives and trade lawyers necessary to make their voices heard on policy issues at the WTO headquarters in Geneva. WTO dispute-resolution processes, too, are slanted against such countries, which don't have the resources to defend themselves against complaints by rich countries. Often just the threat of a complaint forces them to settle a dispute in favor of transnational enterprises and against the interests of the majority of their citizens.

The dominant governments, for their part, often take their cues from powerful industry consortia such as TransAtlantic Business Dialogue (TABD). These exert a disproportionate influence on WTO decision-making, much stronger than that of most governments of poor countries. Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations representing the interests of ordinary citizens are shut out of policy decisions and the dispute-settlement process.

For example, although the United States and the European Union set up consumer and environmental dialogues as an expedient response to political criticism, these groups were excluded from the 1999 TransAtlantic Economic Partnership negotiations by both governments. Officials of the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue, in contrast, provided detailed recommendations to the negotiators and were consulted during the summit by high officials of both governments.

During the course of my research, I identified six(6) major economic influences that clearly stand out as the causative factors producing the dramatic shift in the world economic landscape:

1. Giant transnational corporations that have increased their power through the process of economic globalization.

2. Record setting trade imbalances with China and India.

3. Inability to control piracy and preserve intellectual property rights across developing countries (and ongoing economic espionage).

4. The emergence of the European Union and the WTO.

5. WTO influence over economic policy and self-governance in the G8 countries.

6. Terrorist actions directed at major economic targets.

A recent example of the interaction of Global Economics and Geo-politics is playing out in the WTO, where severe trade sanctions against the US and introduced by the EU are now moving into the enforcement phase. European representatives to the WTO have openly stated that their expectation is for American companies that are initially impacted adversely in global markets to pressure the US government to repeal a trade law that allows the US government to distribute the proceeds from penalties on foreign countries for “dumping” products in the US market to the US companies that were harmed by the dumping.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

— U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

The world is becoming more globalized, there is no doubt about that. While that sounds promising, the current form of globalization, neoliberalism, free trade and open markets are coming under much criticism. The interests of powerful nations and corporations are shaping the terms of world trade. Multinational corporations believe their their future and growth potential lie in globalization, and in the interest of globalization, nationalism must be replaced with an agnostic approach to diversity. In democratic countries, they are shaping and affecting the ability of elected leaders to make decisions in the interests of their people. Elsewhere they are promoting narrow political discourse and even supporting dictatorships and the “stability” that it brings for their interests. This is to the detriment of most people in the world, while increasingly fewer people in proportion are prospering.

Critics of the US’ aggressive move toward free trade partnerships charge that these free trade deals primarily benefit U.S. corporations who are able to shut their U.S. manufacturing plants and move production to low wage countries with free trade deals and then shipment the finished goods back to the United States duty free.

Multinational corporatons have become the modern day merchants of mercantilism, exploiting cheap labor in third world countries while they eliminate jobs in the countries that generate most of their profits. If these multi-national corporations were actually countries, then tactics they use would be described as blatant forms of imperialism, their influence is even being felt in the UN. The commitment to corporate partnerships at the UN is strong. Even a skeptic must admit that the temptation for the UN to ally itself with the private sector is quite powerful. Funding to most agencies is down. The UN has seen itself sidelined in the process of globalization while other international bodies like the WTO take on more power. And most of all, the UN has been under enormous pressure from the US. It includes companies with terrible human rights and environment records, and these companies get to "bluewash" their images by wrapping themselves in the UN flag. Moreover, they get to do so without making any commitment to changing their behavior.

Once Walmart decided to source products from China, it did not take long for Walmart to become a key component in the US trade deficit with China, a mind-boggling portion of between 10% and 13% of everything China has sent to the U.S. winds up on Wal-Mart's shelves.

Modern Slavery: ILO reports 12.3 million people are enslaved worldwide for forced Labor

The International Labor Organization (ILO) says 2.4 million of them are victims of trafficking, and their labor generates profits of over $30billion. The ILO says that while the figures may be lower than recent estimates, they reflect reported cases which may rise as societies face the problem.

The report calls for a global alliance to improve laws and raise awareness of what it calls a "hidden" issue. The report, entitled A Global Alliance Against Forced Labor, is the ILO's second major investigation into slavery this century.

The ILO says forced labor is a global problem, in all regions and types of economy. The largest numbers are in poor Asian countries and Latin America, but there are more than 350,000 cases in the industrialized world. Four-fifths of forced labor is exacted by private agents and most victims are women and children, the ILO says. The report has uncovered a significant amount of the kinds of forced labor which have been known about for a long time.

An example is bonded labor - where children are forced to do the same jobs as their parents, without hope of release. Modern slavery is growing in some conflict zones, with the seizure of children as soldiers or sex slaves. But the report sees the biggest deterioration in the newly globalized economy, in sectors such as the sex industry, agriculture, construction and domestic service.

As the world starts to globalize, it is accompanied by criticism of the current forms of globalization, which are feared to be overly corporate-led. As corporations become larger and multinational, their influence and interests go further accordingly. Being able to influence and own most media companies, it is hard to be able to publicly debate the notions and ideals that corporations pursue. Some choices that corporations take to make profits can affect people all over the world. Sometimes fatally.

A History Lesson on Mercantilism, the Roots of Predatory Trade Practices

“The Best Prophet of the Future is the Past” - Unknown

The wealth of the ancient city-states of Venice and Genoa was based on their powerful navies, and treaties with other great powers to control trade. This evolved into nations designing their trade policies to intercept the wealth of others (mercantilism). Occasionally one powerful country would overwhelm another through interception of its wealth though a trade war, covert war, or hot war; but the weaker, less developed countries usually lose in these exchanges. It is the military power of the more developed countries that permits them to dictate the terms of trade and maintain unequal relationships.

--J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 1994

Modern forms for predatory economics have evolved from mercantilism, which is targeted at weakening one or more business sectors within a rival economic nation. One could say that Mercantilism was a byproduct of the initial attempts at global trade. When predatory economic tactics did not prove sufficient to weaken a competitive rival, it was not uncommon to seek more agressive alternatives to undermine a rival country’s access to vital raw materials, and thereby limit their ability to compete in a global marketplace. And when it was deemed in the interest of a country’s expansion of commerce against a rival trading nation, mercantilism gave rise to economic terrorism, or what became known as “Privateers”, a form of state-legalized piracy. Spain exercised rigid control of her empire's commerce and industry. England also tried to do so. Mercantilist policies adopted during the reign of Elizabeth were continued in the seventeenth century under the Stuarts and Oliver Cromwell. Elizabethan laws were passed to discourage idleness, to reward industrial enterprise with monopolies, and to control the commerce by means of Navigation Acts. Elizabeth gave her justices of the peace the authority to fix prices, regulate hours, and compel every able-bodied subject to work at some useful trade.

German mercantilism was concerned primarily with increasing the economic power of the state by internal regulation. It heralded later attempts at economic nationalism and a planned society. Because they aimed primarily at increasing national revenue, German mercantilists were known as cameralists, from Kammer, the royal treasury.

France displayed perhaps the most thoroughgoing mercantilism. Jean Baptiste Colbert, chief minister of Louis XIV from 1661 to 1683, was a great exponent of economic regulation. However, Colbert was a practical politician intent on the welfare of the middle class to which he belonged, not a doctrinaire theorist; for him mercantilism was the most convenient method of attaining his end. He prohibited the export of money, levied high tariffs on foreign manufactures, and gave liberal bounties to encourage French shipping. He purchased Martinique and Guadeloupe in the West Indies, encouraged settlement in Santo Domingo, Canada, and Louisiana, and established trading "factories" (armed commercial posts) in India and Africa.

In a modern world where military solutions are no longer needed to enforce the terms of mercantilism, the exploitation of cheap labor has become the new economic weapon of choice.

It is argued that the way the more powerful countries have been pushing for various policies implies that the globalization process is a continual repeat of mercantilist processes seen throughout history. In that context, the Cold War, for example, can be seen as battles over differences in how resources were going to be used to develop a country; most colonies that broke free around and after World War I and II were often trying to simply develop their nations. Because the imperial powers were to lose out, they would often cry “communism” and use that as justifications for military action or trade embargoes, overthrowing potential democratic regimes in favor of more “stable” dictatorships, and other malleable regimes.)

Economic tactics have been used in combination with military tactics for hundreds of years. One of the early examples of this practice can be found in right here in the US, during the American Revolution. Most people that a familiar with American history remember the American Revolution as a great military struggle between the armies of the American colonies and the British Army, widely recognized at that time as one of the world’s most feared military forces. What many people don’t know is that as early as the Revolutionary war, Economic tactics used in conjunction with military tactics. The British Government realized that it wasn’t enough to defeat the revolting colonists militarily, they also had to demonstrate that the independent colonies were not economically viable. One of the common tactics used to destabilize was to introduce a large amount of counterfeit currency into the emerging US economy using British agents.

Counterfeit currency had become such a problem for the newly forming independent US colonies, that when they caught counterfeiters they were typically executed. As harsh as it sounds, the counterfeiters were considered to be agents of the tyrannical British Government. Economic terrorism was just another page out of the military playbook for the great European War powers over 200 years ago. In our case, England used every means at their disposal to both defeat and demoralize the American revolutionaries by weakening their economy.

This is one of the most important aspects of history, and is conveniently ignored. If economic terrorism was used over 200 years ago, imagine how sophisticated the practitioners of predatory economics must have become 200 years later.

One of the known tactics of communist infiltration was to first weaken the economy of the nation being converted to Communist rule. Once you weakened the country’s economy, it was much easier to convert those in abject poverty that simply had nothing else to lose, and the promise of a better life in a Communist society. This tactic was commonly used in countries in Central America where the Communists were trying desperate to establish a foothold in North America. As you may remember from the history of communist guerillas in Central America, this was just the first act and the Communists’ tactics become increasing violent and ruthless from there.