William Thien

Archive for the ‘NAFTA’ Category

Decades long (Greenspan to Yellen) monetary policy aimed at continually diminishing the strength of the currency for the regular population is in and of itself justification enough to respond.

I believe Washington has chosen monetary policy that forces the public to work longer hours for less income with the desire of increasing productivity at the expense of American working classes and their quality of life.

It has nothing to do with the general economy. The labor statistics coming out of Washington are false.  We’ve all known that for many years. The statistics don’t include the perpetually unemployed or the unaccounted for in industrially blighted urban areas. Therefor, the numbers are unreliable. So why the constant attempt to weaken the dollar?

Is it about selling more American made goods overseas? Somewhat, yes. But in my opinion it is more about squeezing the American working classes to get them to work harder for less, increasing the speed of the treadmill so to speak through weakening the dollar, thereby increasing productivity.

Again, if you weaken the dollar, if you systematically do so while steadily increasing inflation, a person needs to work harder and/or longer hours to get what they want or need or they must borrow more. A weaker dollar buys less and it buys less everywhere you use it even at home, not just overseas when you travel. The thing of it is, it’s not a function of the economy, it’s not happening on its own. It’s policy!

That’s what the FED has been up to starting with Greenspan, what the parties have been up to starting with Clinton, NAFTA and MFN for China, and the dollar.

You are getting squeezed by the FED/Washington establishment and the same people you elected. If money is speech as the Supreme Court determined, by weakening the dollar your voice is also being muffled. Directly.

The dollar isn’t too strong. Rather, Washington may be too powerful, too disingenuous.

I heard a debate on the radio this morning on the way to work. During the broadcast they were talking about a Constitutional Convention. Maybe it’s not such a bad idea.

I myself say, “What do you mean I don’t sound like a conservative? You are full of it. You can be a conservative and still be a working stiff! Conservatism isn’t just for the very wealthy. That’s something else altogether. That’s the monetary policy we have now.”

Copyright © William Thien 2017

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.



A friend recently said to me, “you know you favor a candidate that does not favor labor.” The Clintons, they said in so many words, are pro-labor.

I had to laugh. The first Clinton, ole Billy Clinton himself, ratified NAFTA and granted China most favored nation trading status, or MFN after Bush 1, Reagan, and Nixon wouldn’t even do so and they were not even considered pro-labor presidents.

You couldn’t have done more to demolish the position of labor in The U.S. than to facilitate the transfer of jobs outside of The United States through the implementation of NAFTA and Chinese MFN.

The Clintons favor labor? That’s a joke, I said, a joke upon U.S. labor.

Now that could change. But up until now, it hasn’t and she hasn’t said anything that would indicate a reversal to his executive signature.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.


A so-called conservative radio pundit recently referenced Trump’s belief that we need to scrap all of these international trade treaties such as NAFTA and TPP. The pundit suggested in his commentary that it was a bad idea to curtail international trade by ending such trade deals.

The the problem is though that the pundit mistakenly confused NAFTA and TPP as well as China’s Most Favored Nation Trading status with “off-shoring.” The aforementioned treaties are indeed trade treaties.

With respect to this observation trade or “international trade” involves the trade of products manufactured in another country and branded with the trademark or name of the company that was founded in that country.

The other type of trade, or “off-shoring” to which this observation refers, which is not really trade at all, involves a company here in The United States closing up shop and production here in The United States and off-shoring production to another country all the while stamping its name or trademark on the same products of a foreign origin and advertising at the same time that the consumer needs to “buy American.” From what I can discern, this latter example is what Trump is referencing in his commentary. Trump is referencing the sweetheart tax deals that benefit those U.S. companies involved in off-shoring American jobs and thereby putting Americans out of work and receiving a tax break at the same time.

There is a massive distinction between open trade and offering tax deals to offshore American jobs.

In my opinion, Trump has it right on this issue.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Not to disparage a former President…but you must read this.

I became involved in a rather heated discussion online at a local news outlet this weekend over Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R) Wisconsin, decision to bring a balanced budget amendment back at the federal level. The level of animosity from the left and liberals in general towards the idea of balancing the budget was surprising. States have balanced budget amendments, why not the federal government? Then, as I became involved in the debate the liberals came out in force and began disparaging every conservative they could think of in arguments totally unrelated to the balanced budget amendment. One who went by a moniker which indicated he was an “Old Chicago” liberal claimed that under President Clinton the economy was great because of higher taxes and that President Bush Jr. racked up all the debt and “screwed up,” I believe were the words of the old Chicago liberal, screwed up the economy. I had to laugh.

The economy during the administration of President Clinton was going like gangbusters because of the burgeoning internet age. There were huge, massive numbers of jobs being created because of the expansion of the internet into households everywhere. In my book The Dream Chip, first published in March of 1998, I make the comparison to the internet age as like another industrial revolution. The economy during Clinton’s Presidency wasn’t going great because he raised taxes. Nothing could be more false. Why, because governments rarely return to the economy anything close to the entirety of the taxes they collect. That they do is a falsehood that liberals and the taxing elite would have you believe, that the government redistributes all of the money it collects. The truth is that it is usually only a fraction of collections. Why? The government needs also to pay the government, including those who collect the taxes. And the bigger government gets, the more money it needs to pay itself. It’s what in math is called a “direct proportion.”

No, Clinton’s real legacy is that he voted for NAFTA and gave China permanent Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status. As I’ve blogged before, there was nothing more you could have done to undermine American industry than to pass those two forms of legislation or charter. It was as if Clinton himself went to the end of the American assembly line and threw the switch, shutting it down. And it was so big, it took a few years to stop rolling. That will be Clinton’s real legacy when all is said and done and people truly examine the damage that was done by NAFTA and MFN for China.

But that’s not the end of the damage the liberals are perpetrating regarding the matter. Enter George Bush Jr.,. The “Old Chicago” liberal then blamed everything, including the economy today, on Bush Jr., who came in as the economy was finally grinding to a halt, thanks to Clinton. The Old Chicago liberal said it was because Bush Jr. started two wars which we couldn’t pay for that the economy is in the condition it is in. NO, not exactly. The economy is in the straits it is in because of Clinton and his ratifying NAFTA and giving China MFN. Much of the debt we have is because of the wars. There is a significant difference. We won’t be able to fix many of the problems with the economy unless we realize the difference. The real problem is that the “Old From Wherever” liberals are not able to make that distinction and are foisting it on the public constantly while simultaneously socializing the entire country to a level at which the country cannot afford.

No, Clinton’s real legacy will be that he halted much of American industry in a few short years, seemingly for good. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Clinton’s real legacy.

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

If as President Clinton’s adviser James Carville suggested during Clinton’s first campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid!,” then what about jobs, now?

It was Clinton who presided over the passage of NAFTA, The North American Free Trade Agreement. President Clinton also provided China with Most Favored Nation trading status, something that was for a long time a sticking point because CHINA IS STILL A COMMUNIST COUNTRY! To this very day!

If Ross Perot said there would be a “giant sucking sound” as jobs left the country with the passage of NAFTA, there was a sonic boom when jobs left the country for China when Most Favored Nation trading status was granted, by Clinton no less. In one administration, the Clinton Administration, two extremely detrimental actions were taken which totally, and I mean totally undermined the American worker for the long term. There isn’t much more you could have done to undermine the American worker than what was done during The Clinton Administrations.

Somewhere Clinton lost sight of the “real economy,” or jobs. Jobs that pay real wages and that offer life sustaining benefits are the “real economy.” Without those jobs, Americans can’t afford to buy “Made in The USA” if that’s what they wanted to do as I’ve stated before. They have to buy “Made in China” or “Made Somewhere Else.” Furthermore, by opening up the economy to foreign production in a such a way the employers and manufacturers willing to offer decent wages and benefits were essentially knocked out of the marketplace because they simply could not compete on a cost basis.

If you ask me, Clinton’s adviser Carville should have said, “It’s about screwing up the economy, stupid!” Because that’s exactly what that the Clinton administration did in the long run when they undermined the American working classes by passing NAFTA and granting China Most Favored Nation trading status.

Now it’s a fight to get those jobs back here and most think those jobs will never return.

Copyright © William Thien 2012

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

June 2018
« May    
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: