Senator Blather fights for new $100 billion Blather International Fish Trade Bailout Program

Uploaded By: neptunesmermaid
Created at: Saturday April 04, 2:47 AM
Data Source: none provided
Description: A transcript of Senator Billy Jo Blather's speech on promoting the International Fish Trade
Tags: senator us billy jo blather international fish trade speech

Internashunal trade in fish has been declinin', losin' out t'th' competishun of th' domestic fish trade, in which th' traded fish does not crost internashunal bo'ders an' so tharfo'e fails t'promote wo'ld economic growth through th' great ingine of economic growth thet is internashunal trade.

Tharfo'e we muss subsidize internashunal trade in fish. We will raise th' 100 billion dollars in funds fo' th' noo Blather Internashunal Fish Trade Bailout Pro'am through a tax on trade thet shamefully an' proteckshunistically does not crost internashunal bo'ders.

Thus, fo' example, we will pay companies thet impo't fish into their nashun fum t'other nashun, one dollar fo' ev'ry poun' of fish thet they impo't into their nashun; an' we will also pay companies thet expo't fish fum their nashun t't'other nashun, a dollar fo' ev'ry poun' of fish thet they expo't.

Varmints say thet th' free market has a natural wisdom t'it, but we does not agree.

Th' free market, has shown itse'f unwillin' t'ack t'stimulate th' economah through internashunal trade, by loanin' th' internashunal fish traders th' money they need in o'der t'operate; th' free market, refleckin' th' low deman' fo' impo'ted fish, th' high prices at which impo'ted fish is sellin', th' pressure of th' competishun of th' shameful proteckshunist tradin' in fish involvin' fish not crostin' nashunal boun'aries, has decided thet it be hankerin' t'stick wif domestically prodooced fish instead.

We muss address th' huge sho'tfall in finance fo' th' internashunal fish trade. We will resist proteckshunist measures, we will make it postible fo' varmints who be hankerin' t'internashunally trade fish, be hankerin' t'export fish, be hankerin' t'import fish, be hankerin' fo' lines of credit fo' internashunal tradin' in fish t'acshully haf th' resources thet is sadly lackin' at th' moment.

This hyar injeckshun of $100 billion t'keep th' internashunal fish trade rollin' fo'ward, credit lines thet is needed fo' companies in th' internashunal fish trade in diffrunt parts of th' wo'ld is a substantial boost t'wo'ld trade an' pow'ful shows thet we is anxious t'do ev'rythin' we kin t'resist shameful proteckshunist tendencies.

We hafta reckify thin's through noo taxes on domestic sales of fish, so thet eff'n fo' example Winston shamefully buys a poun' of proteckshunist fish thet was not internashunally traded fum Nigel, Winston an' Nigel will hafta pay a dollar tax on th' domestic transackshun, which will be used in o'der t'assist th' internashunal trade in fish, through mechanisms sech as increased availability of credit fo' internashunal fish traders.

We is sure we will be able t'pass th' domestic fish transackshuns tax hyar in our nashun; we pray an' hope thet our tradin' partners will be also push through similar legislashun taxin' domestic fish transackshuns in their nashuns, but whether our great tradin' partners is able t'pass sech laws o' not, we ourselves will does our part by taxin' domestic fish transackshuns in our nashun.

We will definitely award fo'eign companies involved in importin' fish into our nashun, th' one dollar per poun' imported. We hope thet th' fo'eign nashuns will reciprocut by awardin' Amerikin companies thet import fish into their nashuns a dollar per poun' of fish imported into their nashuns.

But we is not a-gonna aller our decishun t'stimulate trade by rewardin' foreign companies thet import fish into our nashun,to be corntingint on whether fo'eign nashuns reciprocatw by rewardin' US fish prodoocers fo' importin' fish into their nashun.

We hafta lead by example. We does not be hankerin' t'start trade wars. We're hankerin' t'promote th' destruckshun of th' shameful proteckshunism, dawgone it. We is all in this hyar togither.

Thus we will be able t'phase out th' shameful proteckshunist way of life, involvin' varmints buyin' fish produced in their own nashun, an' replace it wif varmints buyin' fish thet is imported fum t'other nashun.

Ah knows lotsa varmints these days hold their noses, they say thin's like: "I cannot stand the taste of the imported fish, it smells rotten, I'd rather buy the fish that is produced near my home-town". This hyar is an example of proteckshunist sentiment thet muss be named an' shamed.

These steps we is takin' t'promote th' internashunal fish trade will he'p t'save th' world economah.

Americanofishies Compenny, prodooces its fish in th' US an' sells it t'US cestomers. They haf failed t'politically corntribute t'mah campaigns. They haf shown themselves t'be unenthusiastic wif regards t'th' promoshun of th' internashunal trade which is crucial fo' th' health of th' solar system's economah.

By way of corntrast, Xport-Import-Ports Compenny, is exclusively involved in ketchin' fish in one nashun an' sellin' it in t'other. They haf stood behind me an' junerously suppo'ted mah campaigns. Wifout companies sech as them, we become unable t'succeed in promotin' global economic prosperity through our struggles aginst th' shameful proteckshunism thet is destroyin' th' wo'ld economah.

Transwo'ld Fishippin' Co'po'ashun, is involved in transpo'tin' fish caught in one nashun t'be cornsoomd in t'other nashun. They haf made noble corntribushuns t'th' cuz of wo'ld economic growth through internashunal trade by corntributin' t'mah campaigns; an' they stan' t'gain through our program wharin we will tax domestic fish transackshuns an' use th' money t'subsidize internashunal fish transackshuns.

Thar will be positive side-effecks t'th' Internashunal Fish Trade bailout program, dawgone it. Blather investments invested heavily in th' internashunal fish trade; Blather's stock in th' internashunal fish trade become highly valued, acco'din' t'th' tax 'n spend liberals mighty on over-valued; as th' internashunal fish trade declined, th' value of Blather Investments Compenny's investment in th' internashunal fish trade declined, th' result bein' thet 140 billion dollars of th' wo'ld's wealth disappeared, t'other result bein' a credit sho'tage as Blather Investments was no longer able provide credit t'bo'rowers.

We doesn't care eff'n th' money we spend on this hyar program, results in increased trade deficits; th' concern regardin' trade deficits is old-fashioned, shameful, proteckshunist. We hafta lead by example, into th' brave noo wo'ld of wo'ld prosperity through internashunal trade. This hyar is no time fo' us t'set on our han's, waitin' t'see eff'n other nashuns reciprocut, waitin' t'look at trade balance sheets. Th' urjunt problem of th' decline of th' internashunal fish trade, requires a quick decisive solushun.

Varmints say, "Senator Blather, what if the 100 billion spent on the International Fish Traders Bailout Program, ends up contributing only a billion to our nation, but 99 billion to the foreign nations?"

To sech shameful proteckshunists Ah say, thet even eff'n 15 billion of benefit came t'our nashun an' 95 billion of benefit t'th' fo'eign nashuns, th' resultin' 110 billion benefit'd outweigh th' origeenal 100 billion investment, an' we'd still be able t'proudly declare, thet th' investment had succeeded in expan'in' not jest our economah, by ten billion dollars, but most impo'tantly th' global internashunal economah as a whole.

Th' globe's prosperity is indivisible. Global problems is solved through global solushuns. Th' engine of internashunal trade muss be used t'promote wo'ld prosperity.

We muss kickstart th' internashunal fish trade, on account o' internashunal trade is th' engine of growth; trade thet crosses nashunal boun'aries has special properties thet most min who does not haf Phd's in Maritime Economics fail t'unnerstan'. Thar is no quick fixes. We is enterin' a noo an' progressive era of internashunal cooperashun.

This hyar is th' wo'ld wawkin' togither as one, internashunal insteetooshuns makin' a difference t'th' prospecks fo' recovery of th' internashunal fish trade. Varmints be hankerin' th' internashunal insteetooshuns t'instill cornfidence thet thar will be no mo'e internashunal fish trade failures in th' future.

Isnt it remarkable thet we now haf countries thet a few years ago'd not even set down at th' same table t'talk, a-comin' t'an agreement t'promote th' internashunal fish trade? Ah believe varmints will be incouraged by th' fack thet so menny great nashuns of th' wo'ld, haf all been able t'come togither in a way we c'd nevah haf done even a year o' two ago, t'promote th' internashunal fish trade, an' decide quite detailed proposals thet will reshape th' future of this hyar global trade.

It's not true whut th' tax n spend liberals say, thet we haf cowardly intered into agreements thet transfer wealth fum our nashun t'terrifyin' fo'eign nashuns. We haf persuaded other countries t'join wif us in an internashunal programme, a global plan fo' recovery an' refo'm of th' internashunal fish trade.

@2009 David Virgil Hobbs

Are the Europeans crazy to be enraged by Obama's steel industry americanism?

I read with interest the article 'Barack Obama to dilute 'Buy American' plan after Europe threatens US with trade war' ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4414202/Barack-Obama-to-dilute-Buy-American-plan-after-Europe-threatens-US-with-trade-war.html ).

I find it hard to understand, how it is that these european nations, are apparently not able to seriously consider the possibility, that the US reducing its 'Net international investment position' (NIIP) deficit might serve the national self-interest of these European nations despite the result being some reduction of US imports of EU products. National self-interest should be seen as not just economic but as having psychological, cultural, emotional, social, and psychological components. If the US takes steps to strengthen itself economically this could eventually lead to increased long term US demand for EU products, more US tourists visiting the EU. The US and the EU have alot in common, genetically, and culturally; yet you have the EU acting as if the best thing for the EU situation in the world would be the US disappearing from the face of the earth.

Then again maybe the EU is just pretending to be offended by US attempts to normalize its trade outlook.

Foolish indeed it is, IMHO, that ivory-tower academic-theorists should contradict reality by religiously (blind faith) adhering to a free-trade economic doctrine that basically demands that: nations that are weak in terms of per capita possession of natural resources that are in demand world-wide, should commit economic suicide worshipping the false deity named Freetrade.

It all comes down to 'Net international investment position' (NIIP):

"A country's international investment position (IIP) is a financial statement setting out the value and composition of that country's external financial assets and liabilities. The IIP is one component of the capital account of a country's balance of payments, containing for example stock of companies, real estate, financial instruments, and so on. By comparison, imports and exports of goods and services are part of the current account. ...The difference between a country's external financial assets and liabilities is the net international investment position (NIIP)."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position

It is surprising that the revered 'Nationmaster'
( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pub_deb-economy-public-debt ) website would provide 'public debt' data for the world's nations, defining this as 'the cumulative total of all government borrowings less repayments that are denominated in a country's home currency'-- this definition is too hard to understand, why would repayments denominated in the home currency be ignored as debt?. 'Total public and private debt owed to non-residents repayable in foreign currency, goods, or services' is provided by the venerable Nationmaster site ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext_pergdp-economy-debt-external-per-gdp ) which obtained the data from the 'CIA World Factbook' site; problem is that this external debt is meaningless without taking into account the reverse, what one could call 'external credit', how much foreign nations have borrowed from the nation in question. In general it appears that the world suffers from a foolish inability to understand the importance of net international investment position. I using Google could not even find what Germany's NIIP is now. The world is obviously tripping over its delusion that persons who are hard to understand are especially clever. Actually clever people are adept at making themselves easy to understand.

A couple of the best sites of the sites I visited today are described in the notes below.

Notes

Current Account Fact and Fiction (2006)
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~dbackus/CA/BHLT%20latest.pdf
html version http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2kB5H68btZMJ:pages.stern.nyu.edu/~dbackus/CA/BHLT%2520latest.pdf+germany+france+uk+eu+%22net+international+investment%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us

'Figure 3 US Net International Investment Position' is of interest here, it shows how from 1980 to 2000 the US NIIP changed from +1.0 trillion to -2.0 trillion. Continued decline at this rate is IMHO disastrous.

Key para here: "The US (NIIP) deficit is matched, of course, by surpluses elsewhere, but the numbers vary substantially across countries; see Table 1. The largest surpluses are Japan ($172b, 3.7% of GDP), Germany ($104b, 3.8%), China ($69b, 4.2%), Russia ($60b, 10.3%), Saudi Arabia ($52b, 20.5%), Switzerland ($43b, 12.0%), and Norway ($$34b, 13.5%). The de¯cit
countries include Spain ($55b, 5.3%), the UK ($42b, 2.0%), and Australia ($40b, 6.4%). Panel (c) shows us that advanced economies, in aggregate, accounted for a little more than half the US deficit. Emerging economies accounted for about a third, split evenly between the Middle East and Asia. What's left (the \world de¯cit" of $86b) remains a mystery;
our measures of current account balances do not balance worldwide, as they should. The major oil producing countries (the Middle East, Russia, and Norway) collectively account for about a third of the US deficit."

----------

A tale of Two 'Globalizations': Capital FLows from Rich to Poor in Two Eras of Global Finance (2006)
http://www.jfki.fu-berlin.de/faculty/economics/persons/schularick/schularick_tale_of_two.pdf
html version
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:b8QFZb-JHdMJ:www.jfki.fu-berlin.de/faculty/economics/persons/schularick/schularick_tale_of_two.pdf+germany+france+uk+eu+%22net+international+investment%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us

'Table 6 Foreign Capital Stocks of Individual Countries in % of GDP' is interesting here, it shows how much the world had invested into various nations, in 1913 and in 2000; by 'foreign capital stocks' what is meant is how much the world invested in a given nation, NOT how much the given nation invested in the world.

'Table 9 Net International Investment Positions 1914 vs 2000 % of GDP' is also interesting--even though the accompanying text and the column headings in the table are too difficult to understand, the table displays properly in the pdf version not in the Google cache. This table shows that in the year 2000, if you look at the US UK Germany France Switzerland Netherlands Italy and Canada as a group, the Net International Investment Position of all these nations combined, was negative, negative 1% of their GDP.


@2009 David Virgil Hobbs