YouTube | February 04 2010
Sir James Michael “Jimmy” Goldsmith (26 February 1933 18 July 1997) was an Anglo-French financier. Towards the end of his life, he became a magazine publisher and a politician. In 1994, he was elected to represent France as a Member of the European Parliament and he subsequently founded the short-lived eurosceptic Referendum Party in Britain.
In this interview, Sir Goldsmith discusses the ramifications of free-trade agreements that were about to take place in 1994 (GATT), as you can retrospectively see, he correctly predicted many of the things that happened after that.
OMG… Sir James Goldsmith was a British establishment member who was exposed to the establishment’s long term plans and had the guts and the soul to tell the public the truth, even testifying at the US Senate in attempt to stop the passage of Clinton’s GATT treaty in 1995. This is critical folks. This is when the cabal secured their Globalization plans, and it is still buried today by people like Peter Schiff and other so-called financial guru’s who somehow fail to leave the most critical part of recent economic history out of any discussion.
Folks, this is how they did it. This is how they moved the USA’s economic engine offshore. NAFTA was a minuscule test run. GATT was the grand daddy of them all!
No one tells the full story of how the USA has found itself in this financial peril. Well, the truth of the matter is that all the wealth that we have built through our hard labor has been allowed to freely move offshore. In fact, in some cases the US Taxpayer made guarantees to reduce the risk of industry’s costs of this move and ramp-up operating expenses.
It’s the great heist ever, and to listen to Peter Schiff tell the story of our economic history, it sounds as if fat dumb Americans are trying to live high on the hog while industrious Asians do all the work. Well, the fact of the matter is that the Americans gave the Asians all of our know how, all of our tooling, an established market place, all the financing, and even guaranteed operating expenses. All the Asians had to do was supply cheap labor and their elite would be granted huge profits and the global market place. We’ve been lied to by everyone, even those who pretend to have our backs. And to add insult to injury, they insult us and blame us for this predicament. It’s like we’re the rape victim and the rapist is telling the world that it is our fault for wearing short skirts, being healthy and pretty, and walking down the sidewalk.
It’s an outrage! Please listen to Goldsmith’s Senate testimony. This audio file was recorded by an individual at the time using very poor equipment, so the audio quality, while it has been digitally improved, is still a challenge to hear. But this simply confirms the efforts to squander Goldsmith’s words, as to my knowledge no other recording of his testimony is available (a transcript of the recording has also been created by other interested individuals).
Audio of Goldsmith’s US Senate Testimony
http://www.filefreak.com/files/30222_njnlb/Sir James_Goldsmith_US_Senate_Speech_GATT.mp3
Transcript of Testimony
http://www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu/english/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_Sir_James_Goldsmith_US_Senate_Speech_Oct192007.html
@Perma, the reference you most likely recently saw to Goldsmith and this video was from me in “The Missing Money” article comments:
http://markinthepark.net/blog/?p=3208#comments
@Catherine: Sir James Goldsmith in his book called “the Trap” discussed how Globalization would lead to the total destruction of society. Goldsmith disagreed with this approach to create global disarray and chaos, remaking society into a totally new system.
The Book: The Trap
Sir James Goldsmith
http://www.amazon.com/Trap-James-Goldsmith/dp/0786701854
Book review of “The Trap”
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0504/article_480.shtml
Discussion of Goldsmith & The Trap
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16830077/Sir-James-Goldsmith-Argues-That-Free-Trade-and-Modern-Agriculture-Are-Destroying-Society
‘The Trap’ is Sir James Goldsmith’s book. Plenty of copies available for one federal reserve note at http://www.ABEbooks.com
He hit many nails on the head! Thanks for the post Katherine. He died in 1997 but his money is working to combat GMO foods today.
Global trade accelerated global economic collapse which will lead to a global currency and total control. It seems likely that the global currency will be ‘digital gold’, as touted on CFR’s own website. The banksters/governments will own the gold.
Katherine, why don’t you promote Ellen Brown’s ideas about money expresses so eloquently in her book ‘Web of Debt’? Here is a link to a brief and well written banking proposal: http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/state_bank_option.php
Thanks, Ramsay
‘The Trap’ is Sir James Goldsmith’s book. Plenty of copies available for one federal reserve note at http://www.ABEbooks.com
He hit many nails on the head! Thanks for the post Katherine. He died in 1997 but his money is working to combat GMO foods today.
Global trade accelerated global economic collapse which will lead to a global currency and total control. It seems likely that the global currency will be ‘digital gold’, as touted on CFR’s own website. The banksters/governments will own the gold.
Katherine, why don’t you promote Ellen Brown’s ideas about money expresses so eloquently in her book ‘Web of Debt’? Here is a link to a brief and well written banking proposal: http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/state_bank_option.php
Thanks, Ramsay
Quotes from Sir James Goldsmith in this interview:
“What is the good of having an economy which grows by 80% if your unemployment – people excluded from active economic life – goes from 420,000 to 5.1 million?”
“You go and you create a corporation in China. And you build a factory in China. And what do you want to sell, mugs? You sell mugs in China. And you conquer part of the Chinese market by competing fair and square in China. That’s life. That’s adding to the activity of China. You’re a corporate citizen over there, you’re working over there.”
“But if you move a factory from the States and take that to China, not so as to conquer the Chinese market but so as to re-import the goods into the States, so as to get cheap labor, what are you doing? What you are doing is you are saying to your employees here, ‘You’re too expensive, folks. You want money. You want protection. You want unions. You want holidays. Forget it! We can employ 47 people over there (for each one of you) who want nothing.’”
“So, don’t confuse 2 issues. One is going out to participate in their growing economies by building there and conquering part of the market. The other is merely killing off employment in your own country, getting rid of your own labor force – transferring it over there and importing it back – purely so as to increase your profit margins.”
“Now, the average company has about 25% of it’s costs in labor costs, including the social costs, the welfare costs around it, 25%. When you move – 25% of volume, that is – you, all of a sudden, can save over 25%, so your profits go leaping up. But you’re destroying – totally destroying – not only the number of people who’ve got jobs but also their salaries.”
“Now, you realize that salaries in the States – earnings, weekly earnings, hourly earnings over the last 20 years – have already dropped about 19% in real dollars. It’s already been a massive decline and that is why the so called recovery – which is a recovery of economic indexes – hasn’t got the feel good factor because people’s salaries have gone down. They’re gonna go down much more. It’s only beginning and the reason is very straightforward.”
“When you manufacture something, anything – this table – you have a value added. The value added is when you take the raw materials and you manufacture a product. Value you add is known as value added. And that is shared between capital and labor. And the whole division – the sharing of that – has been the subject of massive debates for generations. How much should go to capital? How much should go to labor? You’ve had strikes, you’ve had lockouts, you’ve had political debates.”
“All of a sudden, by creating a global marketplace for labor, by creating circumstances where people are making the same product with the same technology for the same capital and the only variant is cost of labor, you are shattering that – shattering the way you share the value added and that means that you are destroying the basis on which we’ve been able to create an equilibrium and have a stable society.”
“I am entirely for free enterprise. I am for free markets. I’m not for the destruction of one’s society.”
“The economy is there to serve the fundamental needs of society, which are prosperity, which are stability, and which are contentment. That is the basis of my thinking. And what I’m saying at this stage is that if, purely for an economic doctrine, you have a situation whereby the economy grows but you create poverty, unemployment, and you destabilize the society, you’re in trouble.”
“Look what’s happened in the last 50 years. You see, people are not willing to look at fundamentals. When I was a boy we were taught that irreversibly we were moving towards progress. That material wealth, material prosperity would solve our problems, would improve our way of life, and improve our civilization. We were taught that. And we achieved the creation of material prosperity in a way which we would never have dreamt of. We made the economy grow 400%. Incredible! And what have we done? We destabilized our society. We’ve increased unemployment massively. We’ve totally destabilized our cities. We’ve uprooted our countryside. We’ve increased crime. Every single viable criteria for a stable society has become negative. Therefore, something must be wrong. And what has become wrong is that instead of the economy being there to serve us, we are there adoring, serving economic indexes.”
“The facts are that people who benefit are big major corporations. There is a divorce between the interests of major corporations and of society. When one used to say and believe – and probably rightly – what is good for General Motors is good for the United States. That is no longer true. Today the transnational corporations have annual sales of $4.8trillion. They account for 1/3 of all – the top alone account for 1/3 of – direct investment. Now how do they operate? They’re no longer linked to the United States, the American ones, or to France or to Britain. They operate by farming out their production to whatever company produces the cheapest labor, wherever they can get the biggest return on capital, and pay the lowest part to labor.”
“Firstly, it started with the textile industries, and the shoes, and those industries were decimated. We lost millions of employment, of people employed. Secondly, it was followed by the high tech industries. And as I say in the last few months we’ve had those. Thirdly, the service industries – these are facts – the service industries, they’ve been moving offshore. There are satellites up there. If you take Swiss Air. Swiss Air has moved part of its back office into Bombay. Why? Because they can communicate through the satellites and reduce their costs by 95%.”
Quotes from Sir James Goldsmith in this interview:
“What is the good of having an economy which grows by 80% if your unemployment – people excluded from active economic life – goes from 420,000 to 5.1 million?”
“You go and you create a corporation in China. And you build a factory in China. And what do you want to sell, mugs? You sell mugs in China. And you conquer part of the Chinese market by competing fair and square in China. That’s life. That’s adding to the activity of China. You’re a corporate citizen over there, you’re working over there.”
“But if you move a factory from the States and take that to China, not so as to conquer the Chinese market but so as to re-import the goods into the States, so as to get cheap labor, what are you doing? What you are doing is you are saying to your employees here, ‘You’re too expensive, folks. You want money. You want protection. You want unions. You want holidays. Forget it! We can employ 47 people over there (for each one of you) who want nothing.’”
“So, don’t confuse 2 issues. One is going out to participate in their growing economies by building there and conquering part of the market. The other is merely killing off employment in your own country, getting rid of your own labor force – transferring it over there and importing it back – purely so as to increase your profit margins.”
“Now, the average company has about 25% of it’s costs in labor costs, including the social costs, the welfare costs around it, 25%. When you move – 25% of volume, that is – you, all of a sudden, can save over 25%, so your profits go leaping up. But you’re destroying – totally destroying – not only the number of people who’ve got jobs but also their salaries.”
“Now, you realize that salaries in the States – earnings, weekly earnings, hourly earnings over the last 20 years – have already dropped about 19% in real dollars. It’s already been a massive decline and that is why the so called recovery – which is a recovery of economic indexes – hasn’t got the feel good factor because people’s salaries have gone down. They’re gonna go down much more. It’s only beginning and the reason is very straightforward.”
“When you manufacture something, anything – this table – you have a value added. The value added is when you take the raw materials and you manufacture a product. Value you add is known as value added. And that is shared between capital and labor. And the whole division – the sharing of that – has been the subject of massive debates for generations. How much should go to capital? How much should go to labor? You’ve had strikes, you’ve had lockouts, you’ve had political debates.”
“All of a sudden, by creating a global marketplace for labor, by creating circumstances where people are making the same product with the same technology for the same capital and the only variant is cost of labor, you are shattering that – shattering the way you share the value added and that means that you are destroying the basis on which we’ve been able to create an equilibrium and have a stable society.”
“I am entirely for free enterprise. I am for free markets. I’m not for the destruction of one’s society.”
“The economy is there to serve the fundamental needs of society, which are prosperity, which are stability, and which are contentment. That is the basis of my thinking. And what I’m saying at this stage is that if, purely for an economic doctrine, you have a situation whereby the economy grows but you create poverty, unemployment, and you destabilize the society, you’re in trouble.”
“Look what’s happened in the last 50 years. You see, people are not willing to look at fundamentals. When I was a boy we were taught that irreversibly we were moving towards progress. That material wealth, material prosperity would solve our problems, would improve our way of life, and improve our civilization. We were taught that. And we achieved the creation of material prosperity in a way which we would never have dreamt of. We made the economy grow 400%. Incredible! And what have we done? We destabilized our society. We’ve increased unemployment massively. We’ve totally destabilized our cities. We’ve uprooted our countryside. We’ve increased crime. Every single viable criteria for a stable society has become negative. Therefore, something must be wrong. And what has become wrong is that instead of the economy being there to serve us, we are there adoring, serving economic indexes.”
“The facts are that people who benefit are big major corporations. There is a divorce between the interests of major corporations and of society. When one used to say and believe – and probably rightly – what is good for General Motors is good for the United States. That is no longer true. Today the transnational corporations have annual sales of $4.8trillion. They account for 1/3 of all – the top alone account for 1/3 of – direct investment. Now how do they operate? They’re no longer linked to the United States, the American ones, or to France or to Britain. They operate by farming out their production to whatever company produces the cheapest labor, wherever they can get the biggest return on capital, and pay the lowest part to labor.”
“Firstly, it started with the textile industries, and the shoes, and those industries were decimated. We lost millions of employment, of people employed. Secondly, it was followed by the high tech industries. And as I say in the last few months we’ve had those. Thirdly, the service industries – these are facts – the service industries, they’ve been moving offshore. There are satellites up there. If you take Swiss Air. Swiss Air has moved part of its back office into Bombay. Why? Because they can communicate through the satellites and reduce their costs by 95%.”
More quotes from Sir James Goldsmith in the interview
The idea is to create what is known today as efficient agriculture and to impose it worldwide. Let me just give you one [impact] of GATT on the third world. The idea of GATT is that the efficiency of agriculture throughout the world should …produce the most amount of food for the least cost. But what does that really mean? …What is cost? When you produce the intensified agriculture and you reduce the number of people on the land, what happens to those people?…They are chased into the towns. They lose their jobs on the land. If they go into the towns, there are no jobs, there is no infrastructure. The social costs of those people, the financial costs of the infrastructure has to be added to the cost of producing food.
On top of that, you are breaking families, you are uprooting them, you are throwing them into the slums. Do you realize that in Brazil, the favelas (slums) did not exist before the Green Revolution of intensifying agriculture.
In the world today there are 3.1 billion people still living in rural communities. If GATT succeeds and we are able to impose modern methods of agriculture worldwide, so as to bring them to the level of Canada or Australia, what will happen? 2.1 billion people will be uprooted from the land and chased into the towns throughout the world. It is the single greatest disaster [in our history] greater than any war.
We have to change priorities. Let’s take agriculture. Instead of just trying to produce the maximum amount for the cheapest direct costs, let us try to take into account the other costs. Our purpose should not be just the one dimensional cost of food. We want the right amount of food, for the right quality for health and the right quality for the environment and employing enough people so as to maintain social stability in the rural areas.
If not, and we chase 2.1 billion people into the slums of the towns, we will create on a scale unheard of mass migration – what we saw in Rwanda with 2 million people will be nothing — so as to satisfy an economic doctrine. … We would be creating 2 billion refuges. We would be creating mass waves of migration which none of us could control. We would be destroying the towns which are already largely destroyed. Look at Mexico, Rio, look at our own towns.
And we are doing this for economic dogma?…What is this nonsense? Everything is based in our modern society on improving an economic index…The result is that we are destroying the stability of our societies, because we are worshiping the wrong god… Economic index.
The economy, like everything else, is a tool which should be submitted to, should be subject to, the true and fundamental requirements of society.
This is the establishment against the rest of society… I am for business, so long as it does not devour society…[But] we have a conflict of interest. Big business loves having access to an unlimited supply of give away labor.
In every developing nation, you have the same problem. You have a handful of people who control everything, the oligarchs. The poor in the rich countries are going to be subsidizing the rich in the poor countries.
You cannot enrich a country by destroying the health of its population. The health of a society cannot be measured by corporate profitability.
We have allowed the instruments that are supposed to serve us to become our masters.
More quotes from Sir James Goldsmith in the interview
The idea is to create what is known today as efficient agriculture and to impose it worldwide. Let me just give you one [impact] of GATT on the third world. The idea of GATT is that the efficiency of agriculture throughout the world should …produce the most amount of food for the least cost. But what does that really mean? …What is cost? When you produce the intensified agriculture and you reduce the number of people on the land, what happens to those people?…They are chased into the towns. They lose their jobs on the land. If they go into the towns, there are no jobs, there is no infrastructure. The social costs of those people, the financial costs of the infrastructure has to be added to the cost of producing food.
On top of that, you are breaking families, you are uprooting them, you are throwing them into the slums. Do you realize that in Brazil, the favelas (slums) did not exist before the Green Revolution of intensifying agriculture.
In the world today there are 3.1 billion people still living in rural communities. If GATT succeeds and we are able to impose modern methods of agriculture worldwide, so as to bring them to the level of Canada or Australia, what will happen? 2.1 billion people will be uprooted from the land and chased into the towns throughout the world. It is the single greatest disaster [in our history] greater than any war.
We have to change priorities. Let’s take agriculture. Instead of just trying to produce the maximum amount for the cheapest direct costs, let us try to take into account the other costs. Our purpose should not be just the one dimensional cost of food. We want the right amount of food, for the right quality for health and the right quality for the environment and employing enough people so as to maintain social stability in the rural areas.
If not, and we chase 2.1 billion people into the slums of the towns, we will create on a scale unheard of mass migration – what we saw in Rwanda with 2 million people will be nothing — so as to satisfy an economic doctrine. … We would be creating 2 billion refuges. We would be creating mass waves of migration which none of us could control. We would be destroying the towns which are already largely destroyed. Look at Mexico, Rio, look at our own towns.
And we are doing this for economic dogma?…What is this nonsense? Everything is based in our modern society on improving an economic index…The result is that we are destroying the stability of our societies, because we are worshiping the wrong god… Economic index.
The economy, like everything else, is a tool which should be submitted to, should be subject to, the true and fundamental requirements of society.
This is the establishment against the rest of society… I am for business, so long as it does not devour society…[But] we have a conflict of interest. Big business loves having access to an unlimited supply of give away labor.
In every developing nation, you have the same problem. You have a handful of people who control everything, the oligarchs. The poor in the rich countries are going to be subsidizing the rich in the poor countries.
You cannot enrich a country by destroying the health of its population. The health of a society cannot be measured by corporate profitability.
We have allowed the instruments that are supposed to serve us to become our masters.