Albanese’s Nation Building Fund: An Empty Lie to Posterity
How global policy trends shows he means to take us for fools.
Taking Albanese seriously when he says he wants to create a nation building fund is a mistake and here’s my rant why. It should make you angry.
Foremost, it flies in the face of what has been government policy for many decades now- and indeed, flies in the face of what has been global western policy for even longer. Western economic policy is dominated by a series of axioms which are considered inviolable by the glutton ‘expert’ economists, their main axiom relevant to the question of local manufacturing being the good of macroeconomic specialisation.
Economic specialisation is argued to give an economy a comparative advantage because by neglecting other sectors, it enables the economy to improve its particular efficiency in just one sector, thus reducing the economy’s cost of goods sold and enabling it to sell its products on the global market at a rate that undercuts competing economies who have not specialised within their sector.
It then supports the rest of the economy’s needs by trading its competitive product with other nations who too have specialised in supplying the global market in one particular way, this symbiotic global relationship between nations resulting in cheaper prices and better products.
Coinciding with the rise of globalisation, macroeconomic specialisation has been the economist’s crowning jewel on how globalisation will prosper everybody in the world. Consequently, it has become an inviolable axiom, and is explicitly promoted policy by international organisations such as the IMF, UN, World Bank, and WEF. Its global promotion has resulted in its universal adoption in every western economy, macroeconomic specialisation being formally organised between national governments through the many various intranational trade organisations, treaties, and agreements.
By intentional government policy, manufacturing in western economies has been and continues to be purposefully dismantled, ruled by the belief that faster disassembly will bring in the future greater comparative advantage. The longer an economy is believed to “needlessly” expend its productive labour within sectors that the economy cannot be competitive within on the global market, the more the economy is thought to be delayed from achieving its maximum economic potential.
So while everyone acts dumb scratching their heads, while politicians bleat their rotten-mouthed rhetoric about revitalising the economy, supporting jobs, and how much they also share the public’s concern regarding the longevity of certain economic sectors, they are simultaneously expressly complicit in supporting and implementing intentional economic policy designed to cause the very thing they proclaim to be working ever so hard to prevent.
The reason we enter into all of these self-evidently stupid and inequitable trade agreements with the likes of India and China is because government economic policy is ruled by this axiom of macroeconomic specialisation. Our industries are exposed intentionally to competition it cannot hope to beat with the express purpose of having it destroyed, thereby “freeing up” the labour and capital tied up within those “unwanted” industries for use in the “wanted” industries.
The reality is that the government is not stupid, it doesn’t commit itself to what appears to be paradoxical policy simply because those who produce the policy are idiots, the ritualistic suicide of the economy being performed by our governments is a very intentional act.
Macroeconomic specialisation has been pursued regardless of whether it be the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, and it is one of the many dogmatic policies held in silent consensus between the two major parties, these being given no attention by media so to conceal just how little these two parties actually differ and to obscure that democracy is a complete illusion.
“The whole work is to enslave the peoples of the second and third worlds, to utilise their overbearing and imposing governments … to grind and exploit their masses into the cheap servitude that capitalism can no longer implement within western economies, all for the end of maximising global profits.”
Specialisation merely sounds fresh on paper, ticking neatly the theoretical boxes of mechanical soundness, but its whole premise begins with the maximisation of profit and the efficient utilisation of capital. The prosperity of the populations within these economies are paid no mind, any gesture towards this notion is always secondary.
And why, you might ask, have our benevolent global executives decided that there shall be no manufacturing in western economies? Should it not be clear by now? The whole work is to enslave the peoples of the second and third worlds, to utilise their overbearing and imposing governments, like that of China, to grind and exploit their masses into the cheap servitude that capitalism can no longer implement within western economies, all for the end of maximising global profits.
All this is so not because we cannot manufacture in our own economies, but because there is much more money in not doing so. We can support ourselves and have a healthy, independent, and holistic economy, but by want for money the good we once enjoyed is to be wiped out and replaced with a globalised world of stratified nations; a decadent and self-indulging upper class of western nations at the top, and an exploited and downtrodden lower class of non-western nations at the bottom.